wrong doing. >> you testified i said i have at love question. >> keep going. keep going. >> you testified there was neglective duty. you said it earlier. it dow believe. >> yes. i do. there was wrong doing and neglective duty but no intentional -- >> there's no evidence yet of intentional wrong doing. i'm not going reach a conclusion until all the evidence is obtained. >> okay. do you believe targeting of individuals organizations for political purposes is illegal? request political bias? >> yeah i think there's potential legality. >> do you believe there's wrong doing. >> yes. >> neglective duty. >> yes. >> did the irs seek removal of mrs. lerner. >> i can't answer the question in this setting. i can answer it in a different setting.

>> you can't ask why she was asked to resign or be fired. not in this but in a separate i can. >> what is mrs. lerner doing right now? >> i can't answer that question in this setting. >> do you believe the irs flees who deemed have targeted someone from political purposes should be fired? >> if it was based on political an mouse or that type of intent, yes. if a seriousness of the management know glengt was to the appropriate level of seriousness. yes. i'm afraid i'm aware. you have to tell me the section. >> it creates a list ten deadly sins. >> yes. >> are you aware political targeting is on it or not on it? >> i don't have the list

memorized. but i can look in to it. i think it's applied through more general criteria. specifically not mentioned. can you think of any reason why we should not add a targeting of an individual for purposes by the irs agent? >> in these events i think it's a reasonable discussion. >> okay i agree. i'll be introducing language to do it. i hope your agency will support that. mr. griffin is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you mr. werfel for being here. i have heard great thing about your reputation, and i hope that you will get to the bottom of this. i want to raise some specific questions of this report a path forward at the irs is a public report. in this town, as you know, you have been here awhile, and i've

spend some time in the town. a republican report, whether it's intended to be or not is a political report. people are going to seize upon what is in that report, and there are going to statement like the one that you made, we have not found evidence of intentional wrong doing on behalf of our irs personnel. they are going to seize all statements like that. and they are going to hold it up and say, yeah, see that? no evidence. i was a staff investigator in the house. i have been a prosecutor. did you not know that by putting that in the statement you were communicating to the world, even though this is a -- this is a simply an update, you were communicating to the world from a political perspective that there is no evidence of

wrong doing. i understand factually what you mean, but the reason it's gotten so much attention is because what a responsible investigator would say is either nothing where that line exist, or the investigation continues. the idea you would say there's no evidence of intentional wrong doing at this point is -- at the political affair, you worked at the white house. i worked the up here. that's a political statement. whether you intended it to be or not. that's a political statement that whether you mean it to or not, gives cover to people politically at the time when lowest lerner plead the fifth amendment, where anybody is gone youtube and seen the testimony

of high level irs officials in front of the committee based on what we know now. it's clear that they were noted being forthright. whether it institutes what you call evidence or not. if i knew one of my top lieutenant plead the fifth and my other lieutenant had given less than the whole truth to the committee, and i saw a staff person did you write that or a staff member write that sentence? there was a group of people. i was one of the authors. we coauthored it among a group of people. i'll take ownership over every sentence. if you allow me the opportunity i can respond to some of your point. i don't want to use your time. >> yeah. i know, i would love to have more time than i do.

but did the white house at any time -- the white house, as i used to say it's not a person. did anyone at the white house review this statement? anyone at treasury? >> yes. >> yes. well, -- and let my say i briefed the president a few hours before the report went out on the morning the report was issued on monday. i mentioned this conclusion. so i want to make sure it was clear. >> i appreciate you pointing that out. i think the bottom line is here we have an ongoing investigation here in the committee, we have an ongoing investigation in the senate, we have an ongoing investigation another committee. we have a criminal investigation, we have a top lieutenant who plead the fifth amendment. we have --

in my view, high level officials giving less than the whole truth to the committee, which is a potentially criminal act. i just think that whether you believe that statement or not, putting it in here with your background in washington is irresponsible. let me go to the next point here. these individuals that you personally did not interview, josh grant, steven miller, doug shulman, low lou wees lerner. is someone interviewing them. the inspector general and justice department are putting together witness list. i would assume it's evolving based on the fact they are gathering and the professional investigators are conduct the interview and appropriate time will share the result with me. i would assume you in order make sure that we have a collective understanding of the facts. >> all right. >> thank you. time is expired.

thank you for your testimony. with that the hearing is adjourned. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] at another hearing own the irs last month, the irs official in charge of the tax exempt division refused to testify. invoking the fifth amendment rights. this is after making an opening

statement. she insisted she did nothing wrong and broke no laws. here is her statement from the hearing. be good morning, mr. chairman and member of the committee. my name is lois lerner. i have been a government employee for over 3 4 years. i initially practiced law. in 2001, i became -- i moved to the irs to work in the exempt organization's office. in 2006, i was promoted to be the director of that office. exempt organizations oversees about 1.6 million tax exempt organizations, and processes over 60,000 applications for tax exemghts every year. as director, i'm responsible for about 900 employees nationwide, and administrate a budget of almost $100 million. my professional career has been

devoted to fulfilling responsibilities of the agency for which i have worked and very proud of the work i've done in government. on may 14th, the treasury inspector general released a report finding that the exempt organizations field office in cincinnati, ohio used inappropriate criteria to identify for further review applications from organizations that plan to engage in political activity, which may mean they did not qualify for tax exemption. on that same day, the cannot of justice launched an investigation in to the matters described in the inspector general's report. in addition, members of this committee have accused me of providing false information when i responded to questions about the irs processes and applications. i have not done anything wrong. i have not broken any laws, i have not violated any irs rules

or regulations, and i have not provided false information to this or any other congressional committee. while i would very much like to answer the question's questions today. i have been advised my download assert my constitutional right not to testify or answer questions related to the subject matter of this hearing. after very careful consideration, i have decided to follow my counsel's advice and not testify or answer any of the questions today. because i'm asserting my right not to testify i know that some people will assume i have done something wrong. i have not. one of the basic functions of the fifth amendment is to protect innocent individuals. and that is the protection i'm invoking today. thank you. >> thank you for your testimony. mrs. lerner, earlier the ranking member may be aware of a response we have that has

proported to come from you in regards to questions that the ig asked during the investigations. can we have you authenticate simply the questions answers previously given to the inspector general? >> i don't know what it is. i have to look at it. >> would you please make it available to the witness?

[silence] this appears to be my response. >> it's your testimony that as far as your recollection that's your response it. >> that's correct. >> mrs. lerner, the topic of today's hear is improper targeting of certain groups for additional scrutiny regarding their application for tax exempt tax-exempt status. as directer of exempt organizations of tax exempt and government entity division of the irs, you are uniquely positioned to provide testimony to help this committee better understand how and why the irs target these groups. to that end, i must ask you to reconsider particularly in light of the fact that you have given not once but twice testimony

before the committee under oath this morning. you have made an statement in which you made assertion of the innocence, assertion you did nothing wrong, assertion you broke no laws or rules. additionally you have authenticated earlier answers to the ig. at this point, i believe you have not asserted your right, but in fact effectively waved your rights. would you please seek counsel for further guidance of the matter while we wait? [silence] >>ly not answer any questions or testify about the subject matter at this committee's meeting. >> we will take your refusal as a refusal to testify. the witness and counsel are dismissed.

the gentle mab, please wait. >> mr. issa, mr. cummings said we should run it like a courtroom. i agree with him. she just received. she waived her fifth amendment right to privilege. you don't goat tell your side of the story and not be subjected to cross-examine. that's not the way it works. she waived her right by issuing an opening statement. she ought to stand here and answer our questions. [applause] .. >> mr. chairman. >> mr. cummings. >> first of all, with all respect for my good friend, i would like to see it run like a federal court, unfortunately this is not a federal court and she does have a right and i think and we have to adhere to

that. >> thank you. >> we'll pause for a moment. >> ms. sobel and i will ask you a couple of additional questions. is it possible that we could narrow the scope of questions and there are some areas that you would be able to answer any questions on your today? >> i will not answer any questions or testify today. ms. lerner would you be willing to answer questions specifically related to the earlier statements made under oath before this committee? >> i decline to answer that question for the reasons i have already given. >> for this reason i have no choice but to excuse the witness

subject to recall after we seek specific counsel on the questions of whether or not the constitutional right of the fifth amendment has been improperly waived. notwithstanding that in consultation with the department of justice as to whether not limited immunity could be negotiated. the witness and counselor dismissed. the clerk will rearrange the seating. [inaudible conversations]

it is criminal to me that i had to authorize my budget people, my financial people to write a check for $451 million a little bit more than a month ago to extend their contract with the russians to continue to carry our crews to site used for 2016 and 2017 because we have not yet brought about the american capability coming with our commercial crew. the presence budget called for $821 million for commercial crew we are not halfway there. the congress has just, my job is to try to persuade the congress that the plan is good and we are going to be efficient users of the taxpayers money and i've not been successful in that yet but i'm working on it. we are up to 5.5 but as i have

told every member of congress with whom i've talked to $821 million in the 2014 budget is vital if we are to make the 2017th date. what newt gingrich said is true americans are transported again on american spacecraft. >> the 42nd new york theater became best known as the tammany regiment. the statue of the indian chief represents chief tammany, a chieftain of the delaware tribe. he was well-known for being both a warrior and a diplomat and became the symbol of the tammany hall democratic faction in new york city. the 42nd new york on the third day of july would participate in the dash charge.

in the process they lost at least 15 of their men killed. as one observer at the dedication to this monument said, this monument was american from head to toe in its proportions and its themes and its gallantry. it represented the best the nation had to offer.

the defense departments independent review department's independent review board investigating the military's response to sexual assault meant for the first time today. they are reviewing how sexual assaults are investigated and prosecuted under the uniform code of military justice. this if this part of the hearing is an hour and a half. [inaudible conversations] i would like to open up the public segment of the meeting this morning and introduce the response systems panel staff or colonel hamm. >> good morning and welcome to the first public meeting of the response systems to adult sexual

assault crimes panel. established by section 576 of the national defense authorization act of 2013. i'm colonel patricia hamm the staff director for the panel. the panel chairs the honorable barbara jones. i just want to let you know that c-span is here recording today's public meeting that it is not being broadcast live. the agenda for today's public meeting is divided into three sessions. first the panel dr. lynn patton associate professor department justice law and society. american university. and ms. delilah rumburg the chief officer for the pennsylvania coalition against rape. second the panel will hear from major general gary patton the director of the sexual assault prevention and response office with the department of defense and dr. nate galbreath the executive advisor assessment and accountability of that same office and finally today the panel will hear from colonel

retired fred borch the regiment a historian and archivist for the armies judge advocate the general core and robert crow of the joint service committee. we have not received any written request for public comment and as an administrative manner i request to refrain from photographing during the presentation sessions. madam chair are you ready to proceed? >> yes, thanks. good morning. on behalf of myself and my colleagues i would like to welcome everyone to the first hearing of the response panel to adult sexual assault in the military and i also want to thank chief judge -- who has graciously made this courtroom and this courthouse available to us. a courthouse is a fitting place to consider the grave problem of sexual violence in our military an issue of national importance. it is in courthouse is that important matters are considered daily with the objectivity of fairness and independence.

this panel is committed to investigate to hear all sides and to find the facts necessary to report thoughtful and sensible recommendations to congress and the secretary of defense. the panel as you know was created by the national defense authorization act of 2013 on a broad mandate to review and assess the investigation and prosecution and adjudication of sexual assaults in the middle. -- military and in doing so to study civilian systems, compare results and look for effective strategies and best practices. we will do that. but in addition and central to that work to specific tasks loom large. one is to consider how our military may better protect and support the women as well as the significant number of men who are victims of sexual assault and of course to identify

effective strategies to prevent sexual assaults from occurring. the second is to examine the role of our commanders, not just as the decision-makers or convening authorities for the prosecution of sexual assault assaults under the uniform code of military justice that also as those responsible for ensuring the operational readiness of our military and essential to that critical mission responsible for creating a command climate with zero tolerance for sexual assault. as our study proceeds, we remain acutely aware that congress has also asked for our assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of the legislative proposals currently being debated in both houses. and we are committed to working efficiently to provide timely and thoroughly considered recommendations. for today's hearing our goals are modest. we know that before we can

address the problem of sexual assaults in the military we must understand it. to that and as colonel hamm told you we have three sets of presenters. for faster patton will focus on the civilian sexual assault statistics providing us with the demographics if you will the who what when and where of sexual assault victimization and american society. where possible she will identify parallels similarities and dissimilarities between the civilian and military survey results. and although we will be looking at numbers we recognize there is no number of sexual assaults that is acceptable but the surveys and statistics can help us to identify the issues. ms. rumberg will describe the unique problems of sexual assault present for the victim

and the types of support and services that victims need the civilian and military world. she is uniquely qualified to discuss these issues as she has not only been the chief executive officer as colonel hamm mentioned of the pennsylvania coalition against rape for over 18 years but she was also a member of at least two prior studies into sexual assaults in the military one of them being the 2009 department of defense task force on sexual assault. and that particular task force studied many of the issues before us. for our next panel as you have heard general gary patton and dr. nate sub four will present an general patton as the head of the sexual assault and prevention office which is the office within the department of defense that is accountable for the prevention of sexual assault and for the creation of policies and programs to assist victims.

he will discuss what is currently being done in each of those areas across the services and with dr. galbraith will offer data relating specifically to sexual assaults assault in the military. lastly we will hear from u.s. army colonel retired fred borch who currently serves as regimental historian and u.s. army judge advocates general core and also from captain robert crook who is a representative of the joint services committee. mr. borch will discuss the horse -- historical context surrounding today's uniform code of military justice and the role of the commander within that code. captain crow will take us through a hypothetical sexual assault case, walk us through its progress within the military justice system from the victims reported the crime to its

adjudication. these presentations are broad. we will undoubtedly generate more questions than answers but they will provide a necessary foundation for the panel's work. thank you very much for your attention. professor addington. speedo is like to thank the judge and also the panel for inviting me to present before you today. my goal and my hope is that i'm able to provide context for victimization and reporting issues to assist you in your charge. my focus as judge jones mentioned this on civilian crime data. that is my area of expertise where i combined research and my work but i also had ms. jones for a question asked me to do comparisons with the military data and make comments about the workplace gender relations survey that was done and possible suggestions and future work that can be done so i will be doing that as well.

may we have the next slide please. i'll start with a general overview of our sources of crime data. for the civilian crime data we have two main sources of national crime data and these include the uniformed crime reporting program which basically reports to police and the crime incident was reported to police or someone else known to police. these are local and state crime data collected by the fbi. and then we also have a complementary data source to the ucr and thus a national crime victimization survey. i will be focusing my comments on that. those are survey data and they really get it one of the weaknesses of the police data which is under reporting a crime what we call the dark figure of crime to get a better understanding of the crime picture and i will talk more about that in a second. these complement the military sources that you will hear more about and i won't mention too much about these because you will hear from the folks.

basically it's the department of defense sexual assault database on understood your reports in the filter is that someone is come forward to get that information and then there are two surveys that are done. one is by the department of defense, the workplace gender relations survey. also the centers of disease control has done the national and partner sexual violence survey. they have done the military sample and some of that information was provided in the most recent report. those are two surveys that get back again be under reporting of sexual assault issues and also crime issues more broadly. as i mention i'm going to focus on victim and civilian data and i was asked to do some comparisons and i guess what i will say is they are rather crude-based comparisons and that is because there is a challenge

with two different data systems. there are different ways data are collected that can affect the results obtained and so the issues to be mindful of and if i could get the next slide, this is one of the wonky slides and i apologize for that. basically as the issue of the survey designed and there are certain differences between the and cbs civilian data and the military data that the pgr a data and probably the largest one is the scope of what is included. in the civilian data we are looking at sexual violence which completed threatened and attempted rape and sexual assault but the military date also includes in addition to that the nonconsensual sexual touching. those types of incidents can be included but what did w. feed -- survey does is it the explicitly screens for that say you might

get more counts of that. that is reflected in the data where you have about one third of the incidents reported are the nonconsensual touching and a quarter are attempts for sexual and then another one third are completed sexual. again there are differences in mode. that is how the survey is conducted and yes it's an in-person telephone survey. again it's not -- the one that is better or worse but they are just differences in what can affect the data obtained. the web site is the reason there is a lower response rate, akin to mail-in surveys. they tend to have a lower response in telephone surveys. the military survey is more of that would say workplace oriented. the title of the survey and the

first 30 questions i was able to obtain a copy of the survey earlier this week. the first two questions are about workplace so it might be more for her workplace type of response. the national crime victimization survey is a crime survey. again pros and cons with that, people may think of crime in a particular way and may think of someone they know and that sort of thing in a crime survey versus a workplace where they might be more prone to someone in the workplace was just a so it's just a different context there. and with regard to the identification and classification of these incidents they do a screener questioner and asks for a lot of cues suthers bonded to get them to remember different things and ask them about what incident happened and occurred by someone that you know, different locations and different specific behaviors and a very extensive incident report that gathers data.

the military survey does military survey does that all-in-one staffware describes the type of behavior. did you experience it from the past 12 months yes or no and then asks about the one event with the greatest effect and that appears to be a respond defined as they viewed as the greatest of x. on the most recent incident or on the outside may seem serious to someone but the most affected to that particular responded. if i could have the next slide please. i talked a bit about the end cts already so i will briefly sum up. it's an omnibus crime survey so it's not just about sexual assault. there are surveys that are just about rape and sexual assault but it's an omnibus survey that covers many violent crimes. it's a household be survey that's a represented. they ask each household member age 12 and above about their victimization experience in the

past six months and it gives a lot of details. a lot of details about unreported crimes and the incident itself. if i could have the next slide please. in addition to the design issues i mentioned a few points i wanted to mention about that might affect comparisons. the date i'm presenting with and tbs data it's 12 an above. the date is not aged just did. there would be a little bit of slippage there also the rape assault data it is relatively rare. it is a relatively rare crime especially when you look at a six-month reference. macs of the details i will provide are based on female victims of rape and sexual assault and a couple of years of data so that's just a limitation there. most of the findings are present are from the report. female victims of sexual violence 1994th 2000 the

military data from the most recent report. with that league up i will get you some data here. the next slide, i've like this introductory slide because he gives a context of the issues, but both the trends over time serious nonfatal violent crime reported to sub 10. this is all ages and both sexes so just by the context and you will see the serious violent crime everything is dropping over time. that is pretty consistent. also the most serious violent crimes are those aggravated assaults so it's about four per 1000 individuals over age 12. rape and sexual assault is .942011, .94 over age 12 and just to provide some context into 2011 for property theft, 104, the rate was 104 per

thousand over age 12 so it gives you the difference. again we don't want it any any serious violent crime to occur but relatively speaking its occurrence. if i could have the next slide please. i'm putting the state on the same slide but the caveat is that they are not really comparable and so we have got civilian and trying to get a little bit of information for each group so civilian data. the total rate of sexual violence has dropped over time so it's gone from five per thousand females over age 12 to 1.8 per thousand over age 12. in 2010 we had about slightly over a quarter of a million of rape sexual assault so that's 270,000, 100,000 i'm sorry. again with the military data

again it's based on percentages so it's slightly different and we have the different ages accounted for so ncvs 12 and above and the military is all adult active-duty females. then with the scope we also have the largest scope of unwanted sexual contact include it in the military data is supposed to the sexual violence in the ncvs and also with the military we are looking at more of a prevalence rate. the details are based on the event with the most, the greatest effect on the victim so it is just one per person so it's a prevalence as opposed to an incident data point there. i also with regard to trends we have three points for the military so it's difficult to discern a particular trend when you have data points as opposed to several years of data within ncvs.

a couple of slides about victim demographics. again one slide that will show you the shows male versus female victims. as i mentioned about 9% of all rape and sexual assaults from the years 2005 tuesday thousand 10 and falls male victims and because it's a fairly small rate it's hard to do any further disaggregation of a particular characteristic so it's an overall picture of the male versus female victims of sexual violence. and so the victim offender demographic characteristics and again these are female victims of all ages over age 12, we find that rape sexual assault is a crime of younger women under age 34. it involves people from lower income households, living in rural areas versus suburban and urban areas. not many differences in race and ethnicity found in the rapes or

sexual violence and the offenders tended to be older and tended to be white based on the ncvs data for 2005 to 2010. some comparisons here and again this is kind of an illustration of the differences due to design features of the surveys are actual differences of the underlying populations or some of the. so here we have got civilian data that tend to be one offender, 90% one offender and with the military be found at quarter of the military were multi-offenders. a question whether there is a difference in underlying population or because the person was responding to the incident with the greatest effect. multiple offenders may have a greater effect on a person than an incident involving one. it baked them offend her relationship with the civilian data we find one third involve a

partner and that can be a spouse, boyfriend or girlfriend and 7% involved an intimate partner with the military data. again it's not clear based on just these numbers whether there is a difference in design and certainly ncvs does intimate partner type of victimization experiences, what they're there is a difference in the population, with there is a difference because of the workplace oriented nature of the military survey. but again both types of sexual assault areas involve some kind of use of alcohol and that seemed to be common in both of those. next slide please. with regard to the location of activity, here it's challenging to compare the data because they are different questions that are asked and so with the civilian data home locations particularly the victims home is a very common occurrence.

a place where rape sexual assault occurs and activities not surprisinsurprisin gly because you are at home, activities around the home pair well that location. what might be the most comparable to the military data is that 12% said they were sexually assaulted at work in the civilian data. again these are not age-adjusted so you would want to age adjust them to make the mark operable to the military but there likely is differences between the military and civilian world and work/home leisure activities depending on where the person is living and working especially in the military so that is something that would be worth exploring. also with regard to the military, the activity, 41% having worked duty hours. the question is what is it mean when you are in combat and deployed in that sort of thing? how long does that work they expand? it's not clear from the day that would be a worthwhile issue to

pursue to better understand the risk and the exposure that the individuals have. so this gives us, the next slide gives us a context for understanding rape sexual assault reporting to police in connection with other violent crimes and i think the the big take away messages message cures for other violent crimes, serious violent crimes robbery aggravateaggravated assaultassaults, the majority of those are reported and that was the rape sexual assault it is the opposite so the majority are not reported so you have 65% of those not being reported. the next slide i have a little bit of comparison between the two groups, the military and civilian. i caution drawing strong comparisons based on the age adjustment issue with the sub 10 females 12 and above and with the military it would be

important disaggregate by type of unwanted sexual contact with a difference between reporting unwanted touching verses of attempted sexual, completed sexual and that sort of thing and i will talk more about the disaggregation i recommend exploring in a minute but i think this would be important to look at. when we look at recent reported to police ncvs asks all the reasons why they reported to the police and then they follow up saying what was the most important. the military data is all of the reasons and that is why the percentages are a little different here. i think you see some similar patterns with regard to what is the most important for why people, why female victims are reporting. the idea of wanting the offender to stop hurting them and not wanting to hurt others, duty to report it and that sort of thing. again i think this is a place where it would be important to disaggregate based on the type

of unwanted sexual contact in the military data to better understand who is reporting it and why the motivation for reporting. the next slide gives us information about not reporting to the police or military authorities. it's a little difficult to compare the state of because the response categories are different so they are two different data sources. and so actually probably the one response that is common to both datasets is the fear of reprisal and so that is the most important reason and civilian data why it's not reported to police and the military survey there is 47% said that they fear reprisal from the offender. again those were all response categories and answered more than one for those answers. and then finally i want to just make some concluding remarks and i know i've gone through a lot

of information quickly here but i want to just -- civilian data that i provided to you which is rape sexual assault is a serious crime but when you look at it in comparison with other serious violent crimes they rates are lower and it has been declining over time. it tends to be a crime if younger women and low income women. it also tends to be a crime that involves known offenders and incidents that occurred in and around the victims home. it's a crime where there's not a lot of reporting. as i said about 65% are not reported to the police. when victims to report because they want to prevent the current crime from continuing or to prevent future atomization and not reporting is often due to fear of reprisal. that is one of the concerns for not reporting. one of the things that judge jones asked me to do was to give us some comments about the

current military survey that i received on monday. i guess i have two thoughts on that. one is that i think there is a lot that can be done with the current data collected and as a researcher you have to understand i want to squeeze as much out of the data sources you can i and i think there's a lot that can be doubt the current data given the caveats of limitations and back and informed the panel on this charge. i would divide this into three areas. one is that i think you can break out a lot of the data by the type of unwanted sexual contact and i think that would be very helpful to understand the patterns of what is going on. are there certain areas where maybe the military is doing a better job with the unwanted sexual touching as they completed sexual assault?

what is going on? is there different sources similar all over and i think aggregating it i those types of behaviors would be really useful with regard to the example what installation and what is going on there? when the respondent says there were negative reactions and they wanted to believe the military transfer, we would definitely say and more serious versus unwanted sexual touching. those are definitely doable analyses and could really inform their reporting. as i mentioned before where they reported on a military installation, fair reporting to military and civilian that is telling versus reporting only to the military and following up by telling the civilians because i don't know if the military sources are going to help me out here. i think that's an important thing to look at. whether they're making a restricted unrestricted or converted report based on debt

to the date they experience. the reasons for reporting it and then reasons they didn't report in the reasons for not reporting, satisfaction for services. female victims are also male victims are more likely to be satisfied with services as they experience a completed sexual versus unwanted touching. it would be useful to know that and understand what the military has been doing a better job with additional questions or is it similar across all types of behaviors? the other thing that i think would be useful to do is look at race. there are certain areas where it seems to me from the data you had certain percentages of that to be occurring as seen below. for basic training it's a fairly small percentage but the question is who is at risk? how many women are in basic training that would be at risk wax it might be a small percentage of victims reported

that there are a lot of -- that is just me as a civilian. it would be important to know the risk of exposure in different areas of training. of combat so those areas where it occurred to better understand what's going on there. and then another area that i think would be as a researcher to analyze these kinds of data, the survey asked women were fake dems if you are dissatisfied with what happened so were you dissatisfied with certain services and why and you are supposed to write out why. that is juicy information as a researcher. if we want to know why and what's going on and what the problems are to hear from the victims, i was dissatisfied and this is the reason why. sometimes the data, sometimes we

don't fill them in. working on the national crime victimization survey. looking at that other gives you a good context for understanding it and providing follow up information is quite useful. again let's ask the question, would you do the same thing all over so if you reported it would have been understood report? that information, that would be very interesting to explore and to better understand what is there and then that allows, if you are looking at improving an instrument or additional questions that give shoot data points to start building on bad information. it's all there presumably. i have not seen the data but the survey would indicate that those are possibilities to be

explored. then with the survey itself global changes if you wanted to change again going back to the design features of the scope how they are screened and the mode focusing on whether specific rape sexual assault survey versus the more omnibus workplace gender relationship as well as the questions and i know i am going off for a little while and i would be happy to talk about those details if you're interested in that kind of work. i don't want to take up too much time. >> any questions or comments? >> i have got a question. pertaining to the police data. i'm assuming municipal police, state police, county police? and then campus police. i was thinking of the demographics we are working with here.

and given a lot of that demographic resides on college campuses. the reporting and jurisdictional threshold of some campuses by police when it is reported to campus police. they sometimes retain it there and they are not reporting it possibly through the through the municipal so that is why was wondering when you got police reports, where did that come from? >> that is a good question. with a lot of these data sources we do have kind of overlapping jurisdictions is what we might call that. for the f. he had the uniform data and those were not the data of% but if you're interested i could certainly help you out in getting those data. they do have from local police and campus police included in those data. there are state police and

county police so they are all different police organizations that are include it in those data. depending on where the victim or whoever's making that report to the police, and make a bad known to police, could be through the campus police and also depends on the relationship with municipal police. there might be certain things reported to the campus police but the municipal police take over an investigation but those data are definitely included in the ncvs data. >> thank you very much for your presentation. just a couple of questions. first of all, if someone were to massage the data as you suggested be done what kind of task would that be? how long would it take for the narratives that you mentioned exist to be analyzed and

reported on? are we talking about a tenured job? are we talking about two months? are we talking about just pushing a computer button and you get it in a second? what are we talking about? >> actually it depends on in some ways the number of people that you have. it's certainly not going to take 10 years. it depends on the number and again i don't -- out the frequency for the number of dissatisfied that might be in there that i don't know the actual numbers. it's depending on the number of narratives and how long they are and how complex. i could see it taking maybe a few months with a team of researchers that are doing coding. it certainly would not be something that would take 10 years or five years of that sort of thing. unfortunately because that's what we call qualitative data is not necessarily pushing a button

so much as se of the other comparisons i was mentioning where you are looking at what we call contingency tables are putting a couple of variables together. that is not quite as easy as pushing a button but we have a consistent program that we can utilize. >> but this would be very helpful, do you think, to the military and in terms of understanding how to improve dealing with victims. is that correct? >> i completely agree with that and again the one caveat with narrative data is it depends on what you have got and what the person decides to write, whether they do or not. we all know i am sure from our own experiences of taking surveys for filling out forms we can be more are less detailed depending on our interests or time in that sort of thing. it certainly would be worth exploring to see what

information is there. it might be a complete bust but i have been impressed as my work with the ncvs data and looking at some of those other categories where they are putting in some additional information to get patterns to understand a little bit better what's going on in the victim's mind are the paradigms of the responses that we thought somebody might give to a particular question and realizing there's there is a whole other area out there that we got out about about why someone is dissatisfied or responses to a question. >> the breakdown of the information you also recommended by the nature of the sexual misconduct, describing it that way, could that be done with existing data collection and? >> yeah. >> how long would that take to do?

>> of course i'm speaking of -- but i would think that would not take long to do. my understanding of the data and i haven't seen the actual data. i've seen the survey instrument and have worked with other surveys and done analyses of other survey instruments. i am extrapolating on that basically the survey asked the person, did this happen to you, yes or no? how many times and then they say based on the incident but have the greatest effect on you what was the behavior that was involved in that? so you can get the behavior and then from that question, and then do the analyses with the other contingency table analyses. >> i don't want to take up too much more time but i want to ask you can you make some recommendations about how you would change this form and why?

>> yeah, do you want me to give the sea right now? >> if you have some thoughts right now, that would be great. .. look to go be best practices study. i would recommend the screening and classifying in two different steps so the screening of the

particular behaviors right now, basically incidents assigned for the victim. these are the behaviors where you could not consent. a lot of kind of sophisticated, not to say people get the survey -- lay people, about consent and those kinds of things. so, asking -- this happened to you, yes or no? one issue with the consent is later on in the survey, people asked, well, were you drugged? were you threatened with ruining your reputation? somebody might not have thought about as being against their consent or a way of forcing sexual activity. but then you have to make it through that initial identification that you were experiencing unwanted sexual activity. so break that out more and put

that up front so the person knows we're talking about somebody threatening to ruin your reputation, being a lack of consent. somebody drugging you. so everybody has a clear definition and is thinking about the same thing. and then classifying those later, the behaviors first and then classifying them as unwanted sexual activity or touching or sexual intercourse or that sort of thing, so that there's more uniform understanding. also, i would say, really changing the incident that has the greatest effect on you. i'm not certain what that means. i think it has different meanings to different people. there's some benefits to that if this the most serious but it's not clear, not clear how frequently -- at least in the data i got, the frequencies weren't clear. so if everybody is reporting

one, doesn't matter. but if people are reporting five or six or seven, what does that mean? and specific things with questions and that sort of thing. starting to get into the -- be happy to make further recommendations, something that is better -- in a memo or something like that to the panel. i'd be happy to work with you further on that. that would be great. >> professor? >> thank you. if i could just follow up on the surveying issue. one of our struggles here is that this is an iceberg we don't know the shape of, and if we don't have a baseline, we have trouble comparing data across time as well as across different institutions and systems and investigation and prosecutions. how often has the ncvs change the surveying questions methods? >> that's a great question. that's always the kicker. you want to change it because you realize, i should have asked

this question. but basically had one major redesign i have heard, and that was implemented in 1992. and right now actually i'm part of the current redesign. we're looking at redesigning it again. actually one of the interesting things in 18992 -- 199 2 that was added, a screening and an incident report. one of the things that changed in 1992 was a screener specifically asking about unwanted sexual activity, because before that it was, the federal government shouldn't be asking about rape sexual assault. so it was change. so when the survey was implemented in 1970s, those were questions -- rapes and sexual assaults were reported to the survey but not reported

because victims were responding to general questions about assaultive behavior, and so the 1992 redesign, those questions were specifically asked. so that's often why you see details start in 1992 or 1993, and implemented a lot of other changes. basically the questions have remain pretty stable since 18992. >> thank you. performed aington thank you very much. we're going to take you up on your offer to help us. one of the questions will be whether computer -- an online survey is the best approach, and i understand this survey had a very low percentage of return rate, if that is the right way to put it and, some surveys weren't even complete. in any event, we'll be talking to you. thanks very much.

>> is a mentioned, i'm more than happy. this is an incredibly important issue and i'm interested in helping wherever i can. >> good morning. it's a pleasure to be here today with the panel. my name is delilah runberg i have been with pete carr for 18 years, and prior to that starting in 1981 i was the director of a battered women's shelter. so i have that experience. pink car is the oldest coalition in the country. we were organized in 1975 and our primary mission is working for the elimination of sexual violence. we provide funding and we manage contracts at crisis centers that serve victims of all ages in 67 counties, and provide resources and training on sexual assault

related issues, and promote public policy to provide legal protections for victims to enhance public safety. we also operate the national sexual violence resource center. i did serve on two previous task forces and then in 2009, the second task force, if visited iraq, kuwait, south korea, italy, and bases in south carolina and other continental u.s. installations to assess the response to sexual assault. the task force did present a report to congress and made recommendations how the military can improve services to victims of sexual assault in the armed services. i was asked to talk to you in regards to my experience about the issue of sexual violence and for my 30 years of experience, including that time on the task force, and based on my experience, there are five important things that victims need. it's simple and could serve to

inform us for everything we do. number one, they want to be believed. secondly, they want to know they have the right to privacy and it would be upheld. thirdly to have access to safe and confidential services, and they want to be treated with care and respect. and also, the last thinges to know that the offender will be held accountable. if we let those five things direct what we do it will make everything easier. sexual violence can seem overwhelming but we can take task prevent it. sexism, attitudes and belief about gender and sex roles allows them to be valued more than others. sexual violence is learned and supported in a larger culture that accepts violence as a norm, male dominance and power over others and object fix indication of women and children. these cultural norms, sexual

violence in all forms, and sexual harassment to unwanted touch, to rape and to death, most people who perpetrate sexual violence are people that are survivors. 80% of survivors know their perpetrator, and that number goes up to 90% on college campuses. i think it is important to know that this isn't just a woman's issue, and we've talked about so it much recently in that vein. but the majority of service members who are sexually assaulted each year are men. the pentagon estimated that 26,000 service members experienced unwanted sexual contact in 2012, up from 19,000 in 2010. the pentagon said that 53% involved attacks on men, mostly by other men. also have to remember sexual assault is never the survivor's fault sexual assault is not ever the survivor's fault.

the self-plame that survivors feel that what happened to them is a direct result of internalizing society's misbeliefs survivors should have done more to prevent their own victimization. we have to remember the fault lies solely with the perpetrator. an individual perpetrates violence whenever they attempts an act against a person without they're consent. perpetrators of sexual violence target individuals with vulnerabilities. less power, less voice, isolated, and they're unlikely to tell, or when they do they're unlikely to be believed. sexual violence can occur once or repeatedly over time. the methods perpetrators use can be verbal, physical, emotional, or psychological. in 2013,cdc released the report

regarding the intimate partner violence. according to the military partner, sexual violence survey, the prevalence of sexual violence was similar among women in the u.s. population active duty women and wifes of active duty men. report also stated that with respect to deployment history, active duty women who were deployed three years prior to the survey were significantly more likely to have experienced contact sexual violence during that time period, compared to active duty women who were not deployed. according to this report, sexual violence is a major public health problem. many survivors experience physical injury, mental health consequences such as depression, anxiety, low self-esteem, suicide attempts and other health consequences. prevention efforts have to start early by promoting healthy,

respectful relationships in families. by fostering healthy parent-child relationships and developing positive family dynamics and emotionally supportive environments. further research would improve our understanding of the factors that increase the risk for sexual violence against women and men, including factors that may be shared between the military and the general population. additional research would be important to improve our understanding how military, specific factors, such as deployment, might increase the risk. funding this research should be a priority for congress. survivors -- the healthcare system response bust he strengthened and better coordinated to navigate the system and access to counseling and needed resources in the short and long-term. military nurses can receive

sexual assault training but they're not required to be certified sexual assault nurse examiners. the same certification has been shown to promote psychological recovery of rape survivors, provide medical care and facilitate prosecutions of rape cases. our nurses should be certified. survivors may be reluctant to disclose their victimization for a variety of reasons, including shame and embarrassment, fear of retribution or the believe they may not receive the support of law enforcement. it is important to enhance the training efforts within the criminal justice system -- military justice system to better engage and support survivors and hold the perpetrators accountable. an article published in 2003, american journal of industrial medicine, focused on factors so-evident with women's risk of

assault in military. 3-4 of the women would were rape eddied not report the incident to a ranking officer. a third of those were uncertain how to. some thought rape was to be expected in the military. a fourth of victims indicated the rapist was a ranking officer. one said the rape is was a friend of the ranking officer. these men thought nothing would be done, would make the situation worse or their careers would be adversely affect it. we heard that consistently, if they report, it was a disaster for their future career. ranking officer, middle supervisor behavior were strongly associated with -- officers allowing or initiating sexually demeaning comments or gesture toward female soldiers was associated with three to four-fold increase in the likelihood of rape.

the results demonstrate had significantly bigger odds of rape when they are living or working in environments that are sexualized. it suggesting a continuum of violence in the most severe form. a report in 2009 found a sexual harassment while serving is experienced by 70 top 90% of soldiers. and they demonstrated the role of leadership or supervicery behavior that toll rates or encourages behavior, that eventually resultness sexual violence toward military women. conversely, officer or supervisory conduct can promote healthy work environments, and interventions with training and supervision of those officers are clearly indicated in the

findings. at the 2003 sadler findings mirrored the 2009 defense task force of sexual assault in the military. we divided our assessment into four topics. the task force repeatedly observed that sexual assault fremont funding was for sporadic and inconsistency. commanders said it was an ununfunded program mandate and they had to resource it locally and we found that to be a big problem. the visible and distinct finding is essential for the program. the task force recommended the department of defense provide the structure of the office to reflect the expertise necessary to oversee its primary mission

of prevention response, training, and accountability. sapro must establish standards to assess, manage, and evaluate the program and ensure that the services comply with these standards. sapro has to be actively engamed in prevention policy development or legislation. we support the senate authorization language that calls for sap roe to more clearly define the def next of up wanted sexual contact. and the task force concluded that permitting the services to adopt their own policies for sexual assault prevention and response has adversely affected the quality of the system. accordingly it was recommended the secretary of defense establish uniform sexual assault prevention response terminology, and core structures at the execution level assure consistency among the services.

the task force recommended the sapro develop a comprehensive strategy that encompasses strategic direction, prevention, response, and accountability. this strategy must include training and implement addition. any service-specific policies must also align with any of dods strategy. we recommend that sap roe work with the military services and the national service on sexual violence protection. the task force found that sapro had no means for assessing the overall effectiveness of the training efforts. we recommend they develop plan to eval wait the efficacy and effectiveness of its prevention strategy based on intended outcomes at the department of defense at military service levels. we recommend they collaborate with civilian experts and assign a systemic evaluation plan. we roamed sapro develop training policies and exercise oversight

over the training programs. sexual assault prevention and response training must strengthen individual knowledge, skills and capacity to prevent and respond to sexual assault, and you'll find each service has their own plan and their own language for the sexual assault prevention office and there are ways to do a better job of that. i also noted the house version of the act requires the secretary of defense to develop a uniformed curriculum for training members of armed forces and civilian employees on sexual assault. the department of defense has made demonstrable progress in providing assistance to victims of sexual assault. restricted reporting was key, and permits the victim to obtain middle care and counseling without engaging law enforcement and command authority. it's an important first step in the help of sexual assault

victims and there's a lot of be accomplished. detectives and agents are taking a regular two week interviewing and investigation course. a really -- i hope the doctor will tell you more about that when he is here because that's groundbreaking information. if i were a victim of the past i would want my assaulter to be tried by the -- constitutionally required evidence much more broadly than any civilian court, including the supreme court. the balances of the victim's privacy versus the accused rights to cross examine is done as long as the court finds available. i strongly support policies that protect survivor's privacy and i believe that the alleged perpetrator's character as it

relates to military actions should not play a role in deciding whether to prosecute. communications between sexual assault survivors and victim advocates are not currently afforded absolute privacy under military law. 35 states in our nation provide a privilege for communications between a victim and an advocate. the absence of privilege limits the effectiveness of victim advocates in the military. military survivors of sexual assault deserve comparable services services and i noted the certification of victim advocates is now being required as recommend it. one thing that the civilian world is doing now, we're thankfully evaluating the outcomes of our counseling services, including client satisfaction surveys and the analysis of direct service outcomes. i recommend this be implemented by the department of defense. i recommend we ask survivors to

evaluate the military justice process. they're reviewing protocols and policies, reporting results of investigations that victims impact and feedback is critical. i recommend that members of the armed forces who report sexual assault have access to quality civilians because the victim's right is a highly sophisticated area of law and that's would enhance the quality of service. the counsel's recommended to the secretary of defense establish a sexual assault advisory board. this board should include outside experts on criminal law, sexual assault prevention response and training, as well as coordination with federal agencies. it's my understanding there has been a sexual assault prevention and response working product

team, and i don't think that's exactly what the study recommends. and a product team is not one -- empowering sapro are essential as it's the need to develop a credible data and reporting system and to establish consistency and sapro services around the services, creating department of defense sexual spans coordinators and victim advocates are critical for success. i urge the department of defense and services to reinvigorate and develop strategic prevention strategies supported by a clear plan for continuous evaluation. sexual assault does occur in our culture, but the conditions in which it occurs and the responses to it differ, depending on the values and the norms of that culture. the military culture has its own

values, rules, and customs. beyond the physical wound of sexual assault, victims' psychological reaction could be long and del tierous, including ptsd. difficult sleeping, lack of concentration, depression, withdrawal -- military victims of sexual assault would be unable to perform their assigned duties due to medical treatment or counseling or if they're relocated from the unit to ensure they're safety. victims who continue to serve in the same unit where they're assailant are likely to have diminished ability to perform their duty due to concerns over personal safety and potential revictimmization. whether the victim is a service member or civilian, sexual assault violates military cultural values of self-discipline, trust, selflessness and honorable conduct. the dod, sapro and military

services must implement strategies and training, the right to receive fair treatment, and appropriate legal process in the military culture. sexual violence creates short and long are term needs for survivors and every survivor responsibles differently to the attack. in addition, services should be available on an ongoing basis to each survivor, so they'll be ready for a particular service at a different time. they should not -- they do not feel is right for them. for example, survivors should have access to mental health services even if they're not inside pursuing a court-martial or other legal responses. finally, all members of the armedes forces, families and associated personnel should have access to these purposes regardless of active duty status. the military should require commanding officers to inform the investigative division immediately after receiving a report of sexual assault. the commanding office should

also enter the report into a database within 48 hours, data on the outcome of these reports should be collected and analyzed on a regular basis in order to ensure continued functioning of the system, which should be uniform across the department of services. hough however i want to discussion that victims need not be reinterviewed for things additional information. they can can he completed with information from the investigation. reinterviewing often times retraumatizes the victim. the decision to prosecute should be taken out of the chain of command for the survivor and the say -- assailant. prosecutors and investigators should be trained and certified according to standards established by a committee of national experts. the training should address victim interviewing, biology,

trauma, making sure the victims have the support to enable them to deal and also to participate in the military justice jim. you should have revved a copy of the national alliance policy statement i sent earlier and really encourage you to read that. i know how crucial the issue of confidentiality is to those whom our civilian network provide services, and they're only two promises we as civilian service providers make to survivors. their information will be kept confidential and they will be believed. these promises forge a bond a that allows a survive or to know they're -- advocates stand by the survivor as they navigate through the labyrinth of the criminal justice system. we owe our service members the same rights and commitment of privacy advocacy that exist in our local communities.

most important, we need an enforceable victims rights statue. preeing sexual vie -- preventing sexual violence -- mutual respect are key to service members' performance and well-being. sexual violence is a pervasive problem in the military and general populations. preventing all forms of sexual violence and stopping further harm to victim by providing support services, legal assistance, and protection orders, and holding perpetrators accountable, and the most important concern that's necessary to address these personality public health problems. -- this important public health problems. >> thank you very much. miss rumberg. questions? >> thank you, madam chair. thank you for your comments. i have two particular questions. you mentioned the good military character that is admitted into

the findings phase of the court-martial. can you talk about the impact that has on a victim's perception of the trial and also on the outcome of the trial? >> well, again, the victim wants to be believed, and they don't want their character put before the court and we all know there's a case recently where an officer's good conduct actually was overturned a conviction. so it's about believing the victim that the perpetrator actually did commit a crime, and that they were believed, and let just prevail. -- let justice prevail. so shouldn't have the ability to overturn a case just because the perpetrator is a good citizen. most of the perpetrators of sexual assault are -- they don't walk around with a sign on their

chest. >> one other question related to the services you just mentioned, that victims ought to be able to access regardless of whether a court-martial or investigation ensues. the restrictive reporting option in the military has come under some fire. what's your opinion of having that restricted reporting option for active duty service members? >> i think it's critical. when we were interviewing we heard how on ships and in some deprime minister -- deployment situations, commanding officers needed to know what was going on in that deployment, but victims shouldn't have to dispel should have -- shouldn't have to tell and should have access to resources. if there are 20 for people in the field and they have to have been thrown out of a helicopter, couldn't -- i think any way we can preserve that restrictive

reporting option is critical. because if you don't have that and you try to force a victim, your you're not going to have a good case. so it's really clear that is still an important option for survivors. >> madam chairman, i have a question. thank you for your comments. it's true, in order to hold people better accountable in a criminal sense, depends on the evidence and a lot of that depends on the options of the victim at the time of the act, especially in rape and violence and sexual assault. i'm wondering if you have some recommendations or maybe we'll hear that this is a place that female members are told if that's happens, they need to report immediately, and save

their clothes, their bedding, all those things. do you have insight on that? >> i think, it's critical that -- what happens is that restrictive reporting, -- they should still have access to good medical care and counseling right and then there, and that's why it's critical. sometimes with good support, victims can come out. we saw a lot that became unrestrict. so the first critical moment of when it happens and somebody reports and access restricted, it's critical they are believed and get good care. one thing we heard consistently from page who testified before the task force is they were treated with lack of respect. if the system had believed them and treated them respectfully, we wouldn't have had a lot of angry soldiers. not that anybody ever wanted to be raped, but once it happened if they were treated with care

and respect they would have been in a much better place in going with their healing. >> i agree they should be treated in with care and respect. but in terms of being believed, if the advocate commits i will believe you but investigators and prosecutors are necessarily and ethically inclined and directed to keep an objective view of the event. don't necessarily believe or accept as completely true the statements of robbery victims or malicious -- or even victims of theft. i'm sure you would agree that the prosecutor needs to take an objective view, as do investigators, in assessing any case, because frankly, at least -- unethical -- that we don't believe them and don't feel like we have sufficient admissible evidence. >> i will send you an article

that -- it's excellent. a study i'm hoping -- when i was talking in two weeks of training with prosecutors and investigators. they said at police officers they couldn't figure out why some women would giggle or have no affect at all when they've just been raped and they couldn't understand why they didn't present like other crime victims. well, what this study does now, this training does, is teaches those investigators and the prosecutors how to ask the questions. and once they started asking in a certain way, then they got to the truth. if they started talking about the -- what do you remember? the trauma of a sexual assault, you may not remember the facts right away or you've contradict yourself as they come back. so that's why the training for prosecutors and investigators is

so critical. so the rape time is very different and everybody that experienced something that traumatic, the trauma is very different than at the time somebody is stealing your purse. so that's why that understanding of how that trauma can impact is so critical. the other thing -- i would like to make a statement on i saw time after time was that you take your -- sometimes there are prosecutors and sometimes they're defense attorney. i understand how that happens and did experience both sides, and from some of the other attorneys i've talked to in jag, think it would be really critical if we could make sure that they did the prosecution before they were the defense, because what the anecdotal information is when they come in after being a defense attorney first, as a prosecutor, they're almost jaded. they come in thinking, oh, this is a lie, because they've worked

with the defense and many times they'll lie about their innocence. so i heard that pretty consistently in some of the jags and military folks i have stayed in contact with. that may help, abuse, again, the training and maybe flip that around so that before anybody is a prosecutor -- that they're prosecutors first rather than defense. i don't mean to say i don't believe in justice. i'm saying we learn from that and how can we more effectively try these cases. >> one more question. the two-week training you're talking about, is that something military investigators and prosecutors are going through? >> yes. >> is that taught by this mr. strand? >> i don't think wes strand is doing that. >> they're shaking their heads back here. that's something we want to talk about. i understand that this person, les strand, is giving all the training, has a contract to do

all the training for all the prosecutors on he military investigators and there are some very, very good training programmed outside the military. and i'm not suggesting he does not do a great job about new national district attorneys association repeat lid has training in this area, as do most state prosecutor associations. >> well -- >> which are open to military members. >> yes. one of the programs we found, our partner, they train prosecutors as well so i'm quite familiar with les. and i respect him. one of the guys that really gets it. i think the other thing i said here consistently, it still feels like the military is not working with civilians and we don't walk around riff ph.ds and years of experience as researcheres. what we know -- we have learned from the victims. you have to let the victims inform what we know and what we do and that's why the civilanses

have that bigger, better perspective because we have lived in it, many of us. from ten years to 30 years, and that's where you really learn what victims need and want and will help them heal and become whole again. so i realen courage you, some how or another to find a way -- we tried to encourage the task force -- for example, military installations in 2009 were having miu with local rape centuries. that is not happening consistently. so if you're contacting with the local centers, victim self-s centers in their communities, they're going to have that access to the on the ground knowledge that will help them vetter serve the -- better serve the victims on their installations. >> thank you, ms. rumberg for your work. i wonder if you could elaborate for just a couple of minutes on

your observations of the role of alcohol in this. i think that the data shows -- may not be precisely right -- but somewhere between 40 to 50% of the incidents in the military involve alcohol. do you have thoughts on this, on what the military might do defendantly with regard to alcohol? >> well, number one, focus on the perpetrators that use alcohol as an excuse to perpetrate the sex crime, and we know also that the education around -- we talk about risk reduction. that needs to be part of it. but they -- the thing that -- i've even told my husband, if you go out and get drunk, you don't go rob a bank if you don't have a propensity to rob a bank. and this is what people forget. these perpetrators say i was drunk and she was drunk, no. you just don't become a rapist

because you're a drink. it doesn't change who you are it's critical look at it two ways and say, alcohol isn't an excuse, and it is no -- you should -- just because the female or the male victim was drunk is not excuse to rape them. we just have to focus on the perpetrator who uses alcohol as an excuse. >> i think -- >> can i follow up on that? i would say, with the data -- this is important point on two levels. one is that the questions in the work place survey, it's together. it's like, did you, the victim, or the offender -- were you using alcohol? so it's now separate out. it does put those together. andles i think this is an

important point to go through the aggregating the types of sexual offenses. to see what is the touching, what is the attempt, what's the completed to better new understand -- better understand the relationship of alcohol and unwanted contact. >> i realize my question is open-ending, not suggesting for a minute that alcohol use is an excuse. i'm focused really more on the issue of overall prevention because we have seen many situations where alcohol -- to your point it's difficult to know sometimes exactly what we're talking about, and i think that -- one of my interesting concerns going forward is how we -- what prevention methods for alcohol use are going to be help inflame trying -- helpful

in trying to diminish these events. >> we need more research dollars to figure that out. the navy had a really good program four years ago. i think the services are trying to find ways to educate and discourage. the doctor is the expect on people or -- that use alcohol to perpetrate and he has more knowledge about prevention. it certainly is a struggle but we need more money for research to drill down for primary prevention of alcohol abuse and sexual violence. >> that plug for more dollars for research. >> i also think that it's important -- we're talking about the incidence with the greatest assaults assaults and would be interesting to see ones -- it could be more or less so somebody might say, it had the greatest effect because the

offender was drunk, or less because, the offender was drunk and maybe they kind of didn't realize it. so that would be very interesting, another research question. we just know that the one incident that victims had the greatest affect on them. so that does skew these a little bit. understanding what is the true issue, and i think another way of aggregating the data by saying, these are the incidents where alcohol was involved. this is the type of behavior, touching, attempted cometed sexual intercourse, and then reporting how is that reporting, is the victim reporting because they're like, i was drink or he was drinking or was it really a -- so it would be interesting to see. that goes to your point of pinpointing policy or pinpoints where to direct efforts. if people are not report because of the alcohol issue, that's a complete live different issue

than i'm reporting reporting anr alcohol is involved or not. there's different ways of framing that point. but these are all knowable things based on the information we have. >> thank you. >> i want to go back to the issue of the rape shield law and your concern about how it's being utilized in the military. could you elaborate on that a little bit snore -- a little bit more? particular through military court of appeals. >> when if was doing my research, one of the case -- i don't have it in my folder but in my bag -- a woman had had an affair, and she was sexually -- then her husband -- her husband found out about it, beat up the perpetrator, and then later she was raped, and the fact that she had had an affair, committed

adultery, was entered into the case, and that impacted the outcome of the case. that's an example of what -- you're saying that this is different in the military from the way it is in civilian courts. >> yes. we have rape shield laws that your prior history -- that's why at least in pennsylvania your history cannot be brought into court. >> i wrote the federal rape shield law so i'm very concerned about this problem and will final out more. >> as we said, the fact that this is -- the perpetrator is an outstanding officer and has a clean slate, the reverse of that, too. so people's prior experience should not impact the decision. >> ms. rumburg, since you were on the task force in 2009, have you seen any changes, positive changes since then? >> i think --

>> a lot of your recommendation is noted were about improving training, for instance. >> training is critical. i don't think it's where it ought to be. they're always doing -- working on it, but i still don't think it's where it should be. we still talk to victims and survivors and hear anecdotal information about the things we hoped would be change did some haven't. i did read the sapro's strategic plan. i guess night before last, and in there it says, follow all the recommendations from the 2009 report, and i also talked with a member that served on that task force, and she also recommended that would be a really good place to start, all those recommendations really being implemented, because there's -- replicate that work, it was intense and we had a lot of good experts like dr. addington that

presented and helped make the recommendations, so i think going bag through the report and trying to determine how much has been implemented. i think we're trying to make progress but we're nowhere where we need to be yet. >> i notice that your task force did interviews and had focus groups and did your own surveys back in 2009. and we are in the process of trying to get all the data, which is a mountain, even beyond what your survey did. what would you say would be the utility of that for our panel? >> you know, maybe lynn can answer that. i think it can't hurt. but i think the main thing is what i said earlier, is the victim' input. that input is going to drive more about what needs to be done than anything. those surveys with the people, the boots on the ground, the

people who have been through the system, the people who have accessioned the military medical care, that's where you get what is going to make a difference, is just really surveying the people impacted, that served and listen to what they tell you. that has informed everything we have done, they'll policies and the relationship with the centers for disease control, it informs our work. it also informs what we're dying around primary revenge, -- primary prevention and that's where i haven't seen the connect between the military and the cdc. the work we have done over as rape advocates, we used to be crisis response, hotlines, accompaniment to court and the hospital. cdc is really pushing us, making us into primary prevention so instead of going out -- we used do brag, we provided 600,000 students in pennsylvania received a program from a rape

crisis center. cdc said, it doesn't work anymore. so we're changing the way we work as civilians now. when we're talking prevention, we're saying go to the community, meet with 12 parents at the pto and talk about healthy sexuality. talk to your children about bull using. so, we have many, many experts right now that are really focusing on primary prevention, and it's not anything that the military is doing i can see you have to go drill down into the grassroots piece and start -- i mentioned that. start with families. because the people that are in the military come from our communities. so that's why the military needs to be working in the communities. what are we learning there? congress needs to support the research on primary training. the training does not prevent sexual assault. but they need to be in small groups where we're thankfully having an interaction, talking

about your core ethics, you're belief, because once you talk about those kinds of things, then you'll find out do you respect women or other men? those kinds of things. those big classroom trainings are good for learning facts but they're not going to prevent sexual violence. we have to find other ways to do it. >> all right. thank you very much. we're going to take our lunch break now. see everybody in an hour. and i really appreciate both of you coming in today and making your presentations. >> thank you so much. >> coming up, we discuss diplomatic immunity with

reporter matthew lee, and a house hearing on the irs targeting of conservative groups, and the congressional commission analyzes the threat from chinese computer hacking. >> the main figure on this monument, the statue of the indian chief, represents chief tameny, a chieftan of the delware tribe, warrior and diplomat and became a symbol of the democratic faction in new york city. the 42nd new york on the third day of july will participate in the charge. in the process they lost at least 15 of their men killed. as one observer at the dedication of this monument said, this monument was american

from head to toe. in its proportions and gallant tri. it represented the best the nation had to offer. >> the 150th anniversary of the battle of gettysburg.

>> now a look at diplomatic immunity. the legal principle that exempts the actions of foreign diplomat patrols prosecution. matthew lee was on washington journal to talk about who gets diplomatic immunity, and how it works. >> now we want to introduce you to matt lee, statement department correspondent for the "associated press," and he is here to discuss the issue of diplomatic immunity and we're going to tie that into the edward snowden case. mr. lee, if we can start with that basic question, what is diplomatic immunity? >> guest: well, diplomatic immunity is a privilege or a --

it's something that dates back many, many, many years, back to the medieval and before items, basically is a privilege that allows representatives of states to do their business in other states without fear of prosecution. and it's reciprocal so that if a country acts in country y and country -- both people are going to be protected and not allowed to be prosecuted to be subpoenaed. it was an informal arrangement for thousand office years and was codified in the 1800s and again by the vienna conventions. diplomatic and consular

immunity. >> host: what if somebody is with that ambassador? are they protected by diplomatic immunity? >> guest: , they are not. unless it's an middle family member, is almost always covered, but random stranger or spun who you pick up and have in your car, would not be covered by the immunity itself. not sure that would be an issue in -- >> would your car be protected? >> guest: if it is a diplomatic car, the property of the embassy or the consulate in general, the car would be protected. unless, of course -- i mean, diplomatic immunity doesn't mean the diplomats have a license to break the law. i can't be an ambassador from here, kill someone, and expect that i'm going to necessarily get away with it because what would happen in a case like that is that the jurisdiction where

the crime committed or was allegedly commit, would probably arrest you, you would claim diplomatic immunes and the united states federal government would most likely ask the country where you are from to waive your diplomatic imcommunity this has neaped a number of cases in the united states and many, many more around the world. >> host: what is asigh -- asylum >> guest: when citizen of country x presents himself to either the physical territory of a country y or an embassy, which is technically an embassy of country y overseas someplace, which is technically sovereign territory of that country, and asks for asylum. that -- you have to be on that country's soil to ask for asylum. so, in the snowden case right now, if we were talking about ecuador, ecuador just said this morning that it hasn't yet

processed the claim because snowden is not on ecuadorian territory. neither on ecuador proper or at their embassy, as least at we know in because he is in the transit lounge. >> host: in moscow. >> guest: correct. >> host: ecuador hints snowden may need to wait a while. then the foreign ministry here talking be the julian assange case, and julian assange is still at the ecuadorian embassy in london, saying it took two months to process that and he thinks it will take a while to process the snowden case if they do. so, julian assange. he is in the ecuador embassy and is protected by? >> guest: protected by the diplomatic convention. he presented himself to the ecuadorian embassy, and they allowed him in, and once he is there, he is in inviable territory.

the uk authorities cannot go in and pull him out. that is, ecuadorian territory. the difference between these two cases is asack made tote ecuadorian territory in the form of their embassy in london, whereas snowden is just in this limbo. >> host: if mr. snowden is in the departure lounge in the moscow airport, what is his political status? >> guest: right now his president -- passport has been revoked bid the state department. he is essentially man without a country. he is still a u.s. citizen. that has not changed. the canceling of the passport mains it an invalid travel document doesn't mean he lost his citizenship. but right now he doesn't seem to have -- unless the ecuadorians have given him some sort of temporary travel document, he is

a man in limbo truly. >> host: is he being protected by the russian government? >> guest: well, it certainly -- this is a question that is a very good question and we don't really know the answer. the russians haven't done anything to turn him over to the united states. so in that sense, ate least at the moment where we are right now, no, -- sorry, yes, they are kind of protecting him. but they also haven't made it clear what, if anything, they're going to do with him. so really, it's a really high-stakes diplomatic game that is going on. >> host: are the russians obligated by any treaties to turn him over to the u.s.? >> guest: no. there is no extradition treaty between russia and the united states. but there has been years and years of cooperation on law enforcement matters between the two countries. and in many cases it has

happened in the past where one country has -- the united states has turned over russian fugitives to russia, and russia has in the past turned over american fugitives to the united states. so, while there isn't the formal treaty, it is clear that when in the past there has been cooperation on such, and so a wanted criminal in one -- or an alleged wanted criminal in one driven has been -- there is precedent...

therefore hong kong use that as a technicality to let them go to russia. do we have treaties with hong kong? how would you describe the situation between hong kong and the u.s.? with regard to this? >> guest: the administration is not happy at all with the hong kong affiliate. there is an extrusion treaty between united states and hong kong. it was negotiated with hong kong shortly before the handover from the u.k., hong kong's handover from the u.k. to china. it has been used in the past although it is not applicable and political pieces -- -- cases. the problem for the united states is that the hong kong authorities are relying on this technicality, that it was the middle name that they say was

incorrect on the extradition paper. but it's clear that neither the hong kong authorities nor the chinese really want to get involved in this. they don't want it on their hands and i believe that is why they allowed him to go. you know, does anyone really want to get into this kind of a fight with the united states? it's much easier to wash her hands of it and say well he is not here and the issue is done for them for the moment. now there will be some lasting i think damage to u.s. hong kong relations because of this especially because of this excuse that they have given that the name is wrong. that said, governments operate and they have to be accurate. if you search warrant in the united states if it's filled out incorrectly can result in evidence being tossed from a trial so the details are important. >> host: mr. lee what is the

scuttlebutt in the gossip that the state department regarding edward snowden? is it a big deal? >> guest: yes and no. i mean we have heard president obama this morning in africa playing it down saying i'm not going to send jets out there to catch some 29-year-old computer hacker but it is a big deal. this guy is wanted. whatever the merits of that case are he has been charged with crimes in the united states and the u.s. the end justice department want to prosecute him so it is a big deal. >> host: 202 is the area code and if you're a republican and want to talk about diplomatic immunity and the map bestowed in case 583581 and 58538804 democrats and 58538824 independence. another twist in this game. this is from this morning. venezuela says they would almost

certainly shelter snowden so let's say venezuela says yes, come on down. they see free to fly from moscow to venezuela with a revoked u.s. passport on international airline? >> guest: well, the issue of the travel documents is an important one but it is possible to travel internationally without papers provided, without any papers at all, provided that the airline you're flying on an immigration authorities in the country that you are leaving and arriving don't care. that can be done. now that would only happen obviously its senior officials with the airline and with the two governments involved would allow it. so the issue of the passport, the revoked passport is not necessarily huge hindrance. the other option he has would be to get a temporary travel

document from either venezuela or ecuador or wherever he might be able to go and he could travel on that without any kind of problem. but issuing that kind of the temporary travel document is also going to require the intervention of some senior officials in the countries involved. so venezuela and ecuador clearly want to needle the united states with this kind of thing and i think the administration is really hoping president putin and the russian authorities might step up and fulfill what they think, what the u.s. thinks is their obligation to deport this guy backed united states. >> host: unfortunately i called him matthew snowden. my guest is matley and we matt lee and we are talking about edward snowden so i apologize. let's begin with a call from camberley in prattville alabama,

republican line. >> caller: heidt, thanks for taking my call. i have a question as far as the situation with the diplomatic immunity. if they come over here and they have committed a crime in another country as far as gun trading or drugs or anything else, are the safest cars from our laws, because it seems like a lot of times they get a lot away with a lot of crimes that they commit over here because we have a lot of problems with drugs, the dealers and stuff coming over from other countries. >> guest: yes if the diplomats, first of all the understanding with diplomatic immunity is that it's only going to be used in extreme cases. diplomats have an obligation to try to respect and to obey the laws of the country where they are hosted. if however they break the law they are immune from prosecution

unless their country decides to wave the immunity. there have been many high-profile cases of this happening but i will tell you diplomatic immunity is most often i think if you asked the city of new york, a problem with unpaid parking tickets, traffic violations with diplomats accredited to the u.n.. there are millions and millions of dollars in parking fines that diplomats of the u.n. rack up and then make claim diplomatic immunity and the city of new york can't collect. so most often immunity is used in quite banal or not very exciting newsworthy, particularly newsworthy basis. it's rare when there is something like a murder or a-rod bury or something like that that is quite serious. >> host: does hp have somebody at the moscow airport? >> guest: yes we do.

>> host: did ap have someone on that flight from moscow to havana? >> guest: yes we did. >> host: do we have any treaties with cuba? >> guest: no and in fact there are numerous u.s. american fugitives living in cuba right now as we speak. >> host: with no extradition. >> guest: know but it's my understanding that there is a school of thought in washington right now that the reason, one reason why snowden was not on the flight because cubans are not quite sure that they -- the u.s. and cuba are dealing with another american who has been imprisoned in havana, allen gross and this would just add another complication to it. so whoever takes him, whatever country takes him, is going to be in for a rough ride from the united states. >> host: is there thought that he still has some more nsa

confidential files that he could supply to these countries? >> guest: i think president obama said the morning after that there is concern about things that he still has and has not yet come out. as long as he has gotten these laptops and these four computers with him when he went to hong kong, then i think there is a serious potential for additional classified information to come out. >> host: so no extradition from cuba, extradition with ecuador? >> guest: i do not know if there is a formal extradition treaty with ecuador. i would think no, but if the ecuadorians are going to grant him asylum and clearly they are not going to, they wouldn't extradite him even if there was a treaty. >> host: venezuela? >> guest: venezuela do not believe as the next edition

treaty with united states but the united states but again a country that comes out up front like both ecuadorians and the venezuelans to say you are welcome to come mr. snowden, please apply for asylum in our country. they wouldn't honor the treaty even if it existed. >> host: iceland was mentioned in this. >> guest: correct. iceland has been a big supporter of mr. assange and wikileaks. their government and their parliament have been very protective of whistleblowers if that is the right term and are very interested in transparency. but it's not clear to me that iceland is going to be a factor here. >> host: natalie and columbia nathalie and columbia maryland, democrat. hi. >> caller: heidt. our ecuadorian friend has said that there are some ecuadorians

in florida i think, to believe he said that they were bankers and that they have been injured is to ecuadorian economy and i don't know's the specifics more than that but ecuador would like those people extradited back to ecuador and i'm wondering if you know anything about that and perhaps that's the reason that ecuador has gotten involved in the current situation with snowden? >> guest: i do not know that specific why. it is true there are numerous latin american countries that have complaints that criminals or alleged criminals from their country have been hiding or hanging out in the united states and they are welcome here and it very well may be the case that is the reason that they want to stick this in the idea of the

americans. you know the cubans in particular have complaints about the united states and about people that they accuse of terrorism being harbored just as the united states has complaints about cuba harboring american fugitives. >> host: nathalie with cuba there is a special law in the u.s., right? if they reach the shore -- >> guest: that's right very but for cuban citizens who try to come here. >> host: franky montgomery village maryland, independent line, good morning. hi. >> caller: hi. my question is about two callers back. it's their immunity for foreign diplomat after they have been accredited in the united states? i will give you a classical case. i am from a country in central africa and the ambassador before

he was appointed here, he was named and is still named in the report, the investigative report by the senate judiciary committee as the money launder, a trafficker of all kinds and yet the administration approved it. is there a process to invoke it? >> guest: the only way diplomatic immunity can be revoked is if the country from which the diplomats is from agrees to waive and that would usually only happen following a request by the united states and the host country where that diplomat is so it would be unusual unless of course the diplomat from a country where the government changed and the new government did not like the diplomat who was accredited to

the other country. that might happen but i would think that if the ambassador for whoever the diplomat is is in favor, is in good standing in his home country then it's highly unlikely that government is going to wave him. >> host: from the department of homeland security office of immigration statistics, refugees and asylees in 2012. the u.s. provides refuge to persons who have been prosecuted , persecuted or have a well-founded fear ers occasion into programs, refugee program for persons outside the u.s. and their immediate relatives and an asylum program for persons in the u.s. and their immediate relatives. it says a total of 58,000 persons were admitted to the u.s. as refugees in 2012 period lee, do you know who makes up that 58,000? >> guest: will specifically know. there are plenty of people

fleeing wars in africa and people fleeing the wars in iraq. there are many, they come from all over the world and many of them are political, seeking political asylum. in the snowden case the united states is arguing this is not a political case and whatever the merits of the charges that have been filed, it's basically a theft case in many ways. this is a case of theft, government documents and government secrets as well as a case of someone admitting clearly to having released classifieclassified information and i think the united states would make the case to any country that was considering taking him that this is not in fact a political case. this is just a clear case of theft. >> host: laura tweets in, to shame the snowden's

globetrotting antics are distracting from the real debate over nsa and government overreach. and then another tweet from dr. dr.. hastert's been harmed by a illegal the illegal wiretapping of ap reporters by this justice department? and a chilling effect on sources? >> guest: harm personally? i cannot believe that my phone lines were among those that were being tracked but in terms of damage, yes it has had an impact. it's very difficult to get people -- though it's not just me or my colleagues at the ap you're having this problem. it's pretty much off reporters in town. the case with the "fox news" reporter, that is also had a chilling effect on people being willing to take the risk and come forward but we are not even talking about people leaking classified, giving me or some other report classified information.

calling it official in the state department building at some point. oh no, is this line being monitored a something like that? it has definitely had an effect. >> host: matthew lee has been a correspondent since 2007 and prior to that he worked for afp in nairobi and back at the state department with afp as well and served in cambodia for several years. mary and meet oklahoma, republican line. good morning. >> caller: good morning, how are you? i would just like to say that i believe that mr.'s note and should have immunity and i just heard you mention that there are a lot of people that have shot up because they are afraid. i am 65 years old and i never thought that i would see a country where we were so afraid to speak out for what we believe

and and i am so glad to know the 30 little secrets now but should not have been given and i think it's a shame that we have to run away. i absolutely believe in my heart that the administration is afraid of what is going to be told once he has caught and god forbid the department of justice get ahold of him and write up some charge against him because he won't stand a chance. put the american people into, the red necktie people from oklahoma like i am. we have a whole different version of what's going on in washington. we did not elect these kinds of people. i think the press should speak up. i am an old woman and i sure am going to speak up against the wrongs that i think are going on. >> guest: well, the caller

makes a good point and one hopes that she does speak of. there is a little bit of an irony here and something you said about immunity. in fact at one point in his career he did have diplomatic immunity. >> host: when he was a contractor. >> guest: when he was working for the cia under state department cover in geneva switzerland so he would have enjoyed but that immunity and this is another important point to be made, that immunity that the diplomat hasn't brought, and american diplomat has overseas does not apply to u.s. law and crimes that he might commit and jurisdiction. so in other words, if i am me and i'm a diplomat, the diplomat, u.s. diplomats serving overseas than i do something back here that is illegal, i have no immunity for that. it only applies when you are

outside of your own country. >> host: matt lee when you travel with the secretary do you have immunity as a reporter? >> guest: no. >> host: do you know how many foreign officials there are in the u.s. that have immunity right now? >> guest: it's in the thousands. remember it's not just people in washington. every country in the world including our biggest rogue states like iran and north korea, have diplomats in new york at the u.n. and so washington and new york are the biggest concentrations of people who have diplomatic immunity but there are also consulates around the country and big cities like chicago, houston, miami, los angeles where there are diplomats, foreign diplomats as well who enjoy something similar to immunity but it has a different name called consular immunity which of and not every case. it applies to actions that are done while working.

so in other words if you are driving a car and you get into a car accident at your on your way to conduct business on behalf of your country then it would apply but if you are out at dinner or something like that, it's not an official function, it most likely would not apply. >> host: patricia, lakewood florida, democrats line period lee of the ap is our guest. >> caller: i just wanted to say everybody who believes that i do that snowden is a patriot and he has given his life for his country for the integrity of his country should go on line and look how to donate to his defense fund. i feel that our country is in desperate need of transparency and accountability and it's really lacking and i just think regular people have to put their money where their mouth is. >> host: patricia, is there a site that is taking legal donations for edward snowden?

>> caller: there was enough to donate and i think it was progressive and it might've been at loop but i did find it. i found it on common dreams.org. there was a link on common dreams.org on how to donate to his case and i think he needs help. his life is shot. i don't believe you will get a fair trial. like the republican caller though i am democratic i'm older and my kids are grown and yes i am afraid of blowback from our government and that is why i think the people who are working and in debt can afford -- though and i used to work in government. i don't think they can speak of. i think people are afraid in our country to speak of. >> host: thank you patricia period lee? >> guest: well i think there is a big split.

there is no consensus at least among the american population at large that people feel very strongly that he is a criminal and should be prosecuted or he is a whistleblower and he should be protected. in washington to, there's a pretty solid majority in the opinion on the idea that he is a criminal who should be prosecuted as let's remember as much as you might disagree with the program that mr. snowden exposed, they were technically according to him this legal. there is an argument to be made about whether he is a whistleblower who needs protection or whether he is just a disgruntled employee, and i don't think, not taking any position on that and it's something for the courts to decide.

>> host: mr. lee had few enough coverage of the state department seen anything similar to this current case? >> guest: no, i mean the closest that we have seen to this i think would be the bradley manning case, the wikileaks case where an american citizen, a member of the military, allegedly turned over hundreds of thousands of sensitive documents to wikileaks so i think that is the closest that we have seen to this. >> host: bradley manning's shows why snowden has to run to foreign countries. is there an indication and i'm not sure how to assess correctly but do you think russia is going to the give snowden up to the u.s.? >> guest: i think the russians will look at this from their own perspective and will do and act with whatever they see is in their best interest.

president putin is an old kgb hand and he certainly enjoys tweaking the united states in making life difficult or american presidents all of the american presidents, bush certainly and obama but in the end i think the russians will look at it. if in fact mr. snowden has these laptop computers and these documents, the russians clearly would like to get a look at what , the information that is in those computers. i don't know if that is happened and i have no idea but my suspicion is that if the russians to get access to the information that is on them they don't have any real reason -- there and just in mr. snowden has been over. they got the information that a 29 or 30-year-old young man he probably doesn't have a lot of value to them other than what is in his position -- possession

with his computers. i don't know if the russians will decide in the end if it's in their best interest to make this a big bone of contention between them and the united states and i think we are beginning to see a little bit of a reduction in the temperature here with president obama saying here this morning that he is not going to scramble its jets and not going to talk to president putin about this because frankly should be dealt with at a lower level and if you get heads of state involved in things it makes it a big issue in the united states would like to see this as a simple criminal issue, not an issue of whistleblowing or political malfeasance. vista the administration is a crime and a crime that should be dealt with like other crimes. this is a fugitive now who has been charged in the united states and like other fugitives for other crimes he should be returned. that is is their argument and

they're lying and i'm not sure the russians will decide in the end if it's worth keeping this guy especially if they have gotten the information that he has. >> host: mpeg tweets in will snowden have to give russians his laptop or information to leave their country? do you think they have already taken at? >> guest: i don't now. if i were the russians, if i were in it fsb and accessor to the kgb, i surely would. >> host: they won't need is a passport or knitting to access this? >> guest: no. >> host: this was the "new york post" cover from yesterday. star wars. vladimir putin a clueless president a traitor on the run and evil russian who won't give up. we have been talking to matthew lee about diplomatic community and the edward snowden case. mr. lee how would you describe the status of the state department today?

>> guest: in terms of where it sits in the administration? >> host: yeah. >> guest: in this case? >> host: know, overall. when it comes to the state department is it still an a-list bureau? >> guest: the state department is always going to be an a-list bureau because of the oldest cabinet office and its feel the stage and she -- agency in the government. it's the most senior, the secretary of state is that the top of list among cabinet members when you get into the presidential succession after the people in congress. so it is always going to have influence. it is always going to be respected but you know in some administrations it depends on who the president is in it depends on what the priorities are. you saw the state department have quite an amazing lack of -- during the first term of the george w. bush of administration

the people in the state department, diplomats, were arguing against the iraq war, kind of the lone voices in washington and you have the pentagon and others who were pushing for it. that changed in the second term of the bush presidency when condoleezza rice became secretary of state and the state department had wielded, above its weight but i think it's always going to be by virtue of being the oldest and the most senior cabinet, it's always going to have some. >> host: even with the growth of bureaucracy within the white house itself? >> guest: i think so. i shouldn't say always but there's usually a tension between the national security folks at the white house and the people at the state department. the nsc people are all political and they come and go with the administration and the state department is populated largely by career diplomats who served through administrations on both sides and they consider

themselves the experts, or the more experts they consider themselves with more expertise than those political people who just come in and serve for four years or six years. >> host: matt lee is with the associated press. thank you for your time this morning. .. a

it. >> with nine have recovered much of the empire. i don't think there was a union general who couldn't take him into at the cost that we took it a very small cost compared to what was going on in bet and no anybody could have done that matthew ridgway. may be on the uncouple what david petraeus did. >> it is criminal to me i had to authorize my veggie

people my fetish of people to write a check for registered to 4 million to extend our contract with the russians to carry the cruz to the international space station 2016 and 2017 because we don't have the capability but the president's budget calls 821 million for commercial career we are not half way there. congress, and my job is to persuade congress the plan is good we will be efficient users of the taxpayers' money and have not been successful yet by a working on it. we're about 5-foot to 25 but they had to 21 million if they were to make it that americans are transported to space again on an american spacecraft.

-- retired spacecraft and. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

no taxpayer regardless of affiliation and should be targeted it is wrong if freer working to ensure it will never happen again. the committee has welcomed all groups that feel they have been targeted for extra scrutiny to come forward. so far the evidence of the shows conservatives being systematically targeted by the irs. not just flag but targeted. these americans consistently have their application delayed for nearly three years and past intrusive and inappropriate questions, had the donor information leaked grievance trend by the irs with additional taxes.

the we are in the early stages of this investigation and as to gather the facts will follow those trevor they lead to. is there any additional groups of any political affiliation feel they were mistreated, i urge them to come forward to share their story. for what we have learned it is clear is a broken agency that needs to answer to the american people. mr. werfel at the discretion of treasury secretary new you spearheaded a 30 day practice against conservative groups. unfortunately it fails to deliver the accountability to the american people and this report does not answer the most base and an on negative basic and significant questions why it is allowed to continue, how widespread and this report suggest you have not even ask people those questions. additionally the report fails to address the

egregious offenses by the irs and specifically talking of the intentional leaking of taxpayer information and the ira's threatening conservative donors with additional taxes. to review notes it is supported the inspector general continue to identify inappropriate actions where its oversight where are the checks to prevent this in the first place? how will the irs learned to provide the american taxpayer with real proof and evidence it will not happen again? it will be necessary to provide concrete reform and assurances to read begin the trust. a clear recommendation that they still sub budget request in frankly in in this not fair after we find out they're targeting for their beliefs but the russians they spent taxpayer

dollars on the conference's and produced under vehicles and and tell the irs can prove it can manage its funds and will not sequin were dying. we need real reform and must be implemented to have a restored faith that government works for them and not against them. that begins with instituting long-term changes to how the agency operates and the tax code that the agency tries to enforce. and we often hear from constituents about their fear to be audited by the irs. that used to stem from the fact the tax code was so complicated nobody knew what was it better if they had filed directly. even when people pay someone else they sign the return not really knowing what was it hoping they qadarites.

that is something this committee must and will fix but today americans fear in on it not because it is too complex but an agency out of control with managers in washington said the nine cases for years and directing interests of the inappropriate questions and after a month-long internal review will you tell this committee a few people have been removed from their old jobs but cannot assure us they had been removed from the agency is my distending they continue to be paid or receiving full retirement benefits. on top of that they have received over a quarter of a million dollars of bonuses and and you have not identified any structural changes within the irs to prevent these from happening again. if there is anything this shows just how much more work should be done and congress will continue the investigation to ensure no

american is targeted again now a yield to the senator for his statement. >> i will go for my opening statement in in just a moment. i want to urge you, you heard the opening statement of the chairman. i know you mostly have been a technician in all your years of both the bush of ministration and this administration. i hope if i might suggest, respond very vigorously when statements are made. i hope you will actively report on what you have done during your first 30 days. where mistakes have been made by the ira's come on the democratic side, we have been very, very clear with

it inappropriate criteria were used we were among the first to say to those who were in charge come with the irs should be relieved of their duties. i hope you will respond actively and vigorously to all the questions. i think we need to get the facts and not innuendoes. we're here today to learn about the corrective action the irs has taken to address and mismanagement and processing of tax-exempt applications. mr. werfel come a welcome to the ways it means committee per crinoid sure how warm it is for fryer wed to see your 30 report you have instituted management changes that spee and the entire chain. it is needed and i see from

your report these changes reach into the exempt organization division and the team responsible for determinations and applications for a tax-exempt status and be interested in the recommendations for obtaining greater effectiveness within the irs with respect to better early warning systems and risk-management. we look forward to hearing your testimony on your new program which i and the stand would improve virus accountability and responsiveness to stakeholders including this congress. as your report makes clear, there was clear mismanagement on the part of the ira's exempt organization division to process these applications. the additional assessment and plan of action appeared

to be a solid roadmap to addressing the problems and we encourage you, as acidic the beginning to actively and vigorously and complete the pursues this plan before our committee which launched its investigation on a bipartisan basis the backdrop for today's hearing is a troubling information that has come to light from the inspector general. in this screening list to have progressive said they were among the 298 applications that we reviewed in there are a and to receive high in discriminate and number three, the inspector general did not research how the

term progressive was added to the screening mr. how they were handled by a different group in the ira's. the failure of the i ag audit to it knowledge these facts is a fundamental flaw in the foundation of the investigation and the public's perception of the issue. i wrote to the ig to ask him to explain these submissions and of committee to aircraft have asked you, mr. chairman today cover that you ask mr. george to return to the committee to provide the appropriate context of his report to the answer questions under oath regarding these matters. our committee with its oversight role has the obligation to fully interesting and the manner in which the ig conducted the audit what direction. deeply troubling when asked

asked, the treasury office initially said'' that the audit report entered questions it was asked to address''. a aaron to chairman eisa specifically requested that investigators merely focus on tea party organizations. we passed about this in a letter and he responded in cretaceous 70 press reports are not accurate. of the source of the reports are accurate been the initial explanation of the scope of the audit is inconsistent with the description of the of the audit work of the 2013 audit plan and the stated objective of the first page of the may 14th comment on the report with the stated objective is'' to determine

if the allegations were found that they were targeted to specific groups groups, and the virtue cover delayed processing and number three car matt and necessary information from targeted groups. the aig failure to be forthcoming and in congressional hearings when asked in africa since it, or included among the 298 applications but contributing including use of innuendo and unsubstantiated assertions of white house involvement. democrats have condemned this thing going on out of the tea party by a neighbor carhop there were colleagues on the republican side will now jordan is to condemn the use of the term progressives

on the screening list and the failure of the ig to be forthcoming with this and other congressional committees. we have been supportive to let the facts lead where they may. none of us including the irs commissioner can but i john updike in collisions hot with him in that is sealed the way we can get back on the course. that i hope is the mutual goal, the fixing all for us to restore the trust of the american people. >> we would like to introduce a the of principal deputy commissioner of the areas we have received a report and it will be made part of a formal hearing record you have five minutes

for your remarks. >> chairman and ranking member and members of the committee, but the key for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the progress we have made to chart a path forward for the harrison will help to accomplish in the future. the report be released on monday describes findings, aggressive actions and next ups for the irs. the problem with a five delancey for application process and comfort by the treasury tax is creating a significant concerns it is incumbent to take swift action to insure accountability, a fix problems that occurred, and examine other aspects of irs operations. over the last month an ongoing review of the events described has shed further light on the management failures occurred within the irs and the causes of those failures. there was insufficient

action to identify or prevent or disclose the problems that the merged with the review of applications for tax-exempt status. and outlines management deficiencies in the steps taken to correct them. the report does not have a complete and final set of actions are answers begins action steps along with the explanation of the additional review and investigation under way. while fact gathering is still ongoing we have not found intentionally wrongdoing with involvement by anyone outside. for the mark, there is no current evidence of inappropriate screeners are other criteria in other operations beyond those discussed in the ag report. we recognize there is public concern regarding the criteria for tax-exempt

status and more needs to be done to evaluate the procedures. we would therefore establish a review process by which screening criteria across the irs will be periodic to safeguard against any risk of inappropriate criteria. in addition i also want to briefly mentions some of the actions we have taken and will take to address the problems we have found. first, we installed a new leadership at all five levels of the senior executive managerial chain to have responsibility of those identified in the ig report and have the accountability review board to provide recommendations within 60 days with additional personnel action that should be taken. next, immediately upon learning that the be on the lookout or bolo list we

suspended that for the tax-exempt status is reestablished turf taxpayers have been more in our backlog and to give progress in this falsification that allows them a pass to tax-exempt status if they agreed they would operate with him political and social welfare activity. next, we will establish enterprise risk manager program to provide a framework to capturing and addressing risk it is intended to see that such information is brought to the attention of the commissioner and leaders and external stakeholders in a timely manner. next, we will initiate internal extra education and not reach about the rule of the national taxpayer

advocate to assist to solve problems with the irs. also want 2.0 with our pursuit of broad based reforms does not mean we believe the specific challenges and concerns identified are necessarily present in other parts of reorganization. in fact, and a comprehensive review must recognize that but they have had to carry out its mission of the last several years it is committed to its mistakes holding individuals accountable and establishing control elements to help us mitigate the risks we face. the employees of the irs are committed to our mission to operating with integrity and fairness to all. it serves a vital purpose and we need to earn and to maintain the trust in order to accomplish our mission.

and we will continue to report on our progress on a regular basis. chairman, ranking member and will be happy to answer your questions. >> for the purposes of repairing your report to do spee to the former commissioner? >> i did not. >> do speeto former acting commissioner? >> i did not. >> due to talk with the former deputy commissioner? >> no i did on. >> chief counsel? >> yes. what was the basic summaries of those conversations? >> as a first matter there were three things that were in the report to understand where the wrongdoing was to hold accountable and understand where the management failures are so

we can't fix them and third i eight spoke to many people within the i.r.a. sam manhole leadership team engaged discussions and he had sarah hall ingram? >> yes. >> for the purposes of preparing the report did you speak to her? >> i am not sure how to answer was part of my overall understanding so yes they connect. >> did you speak with low was lerner? >> i did not. >> i would say your initial conclusion the irs has note intentional of wrongdoing that considering the key players you did not speak to is in complete provide a know how you can reach that but we know in the summer of

2011 law was lerner directed at the cincinnati office to change the word tea party label to advocacy groups to think it was intentional to cover of targeting? >> i don't know the answer. war work needs to be done to evaluate the circumstances. >> i find it difficult to make the conclusion that no evidence of potential wrongdoing was done. >> there is no evidence in the record to suggest there was a cover-up. >> i control the time, a mr. werfel after she directed this change pomace cincinnati intentionally targeted the tea party groups. do you know, who is responsible for this? after the change was made to advocacy groups they went back to targeting to party groups.

do you know, who was responsible beginning again? >> we're looking into facts and circumstances. there are a lot of questions that have not been master answered i will not reach a definitive conclusion before the investigation is complete. >> did it is you don't know that is okay. who directed the lawyers technical office to hold up the tea party applications? >> i do not know the answers. >> is the irs interviewing employees that were directly involved at this point*? >> zero right now we are relying on the justice department and inspector general in working closely with them but it is critical because of the ongoing criminal investigation region not stepped in front of the justice department at this time. >> is there any internal document review outside of complying with a request?

mimicry are conducting but with other iras business unit operations are you requesting your permission or? >> the major divisions involved in these activities to do with taxpayer issues are small business section and the subject of a audit report and i met with the leaders of those operating divisions and we have talked about the issues. i have passed them to look within a specific evidence they may have for challenges and they have determined prided is important to play it out and his area within

the irs the nature of political activity is relevant to any determination made could make with the view. via other areas do not involve themselves and like all of view i am hearing from taxpayers they are concerned that is why at the abundance of caution to review all criteria across the u.s. it -- the irs and report back to with findings >> this leaseback that the irs is digging deeper into the evidence to determinisms says of wrongdoing beyond mismanagement. >> absolutely. that is beyond the exempt organization division are you reviewing documents or

is there another internal review in addition? >> there is a lot of overlap and you have passed for the enormous for a print of documents would is justifiable and it has produced documents for this committee and others but as our efforts we have got into a similar footprint to make sure real understand the causes of these circumstances to take proper accountability steps and actions. >> we're just beginning to get e-mail so it is not as if we have them that our defense. your report it acknowledges the irs targeted tea party groups and since then there are questions raised if they are inappropriately a target being progressive groups a double byte to read the answer to the question the

minority was kind enough to share with me. we reviewed all cases and did not limit our audit to allegations related to do the two-party. it did not limited to just the tea party in to read in another excerpt from our work we did that find evidence that progressives were used by the irs for a potential cases during the 2010 time frame and we found no indication of its material that progressives with the terror refuse -- for scrutineer political campaign intervention. . .