for rhiannon's which -- 6 billion. since we established this latest program the numbers in a voluntary disclosure are going up significantly. real looking for to that number going of. it will be opposed you that will tell us how much. >> i understand that. think you'd need some kind of estimate. 50 percent effective? do you think maybe that liability would be 12 billion? 1%, even higher? >> i will let ms. kathryn keneally talk about it. we don't know how many people really put that in there. we knew we would be more federal we know it is a sizable number. >> senator, all i can say on that is the set this prominent place in late august. 106 swiss financial institutions can forward. you had asked me in august or september i would not an anticipated 106 to come forward.

i have to agree with the deputy general, i don't know what i don't know which 106 out of how many? >> someone over 300. >> the third, i would hope that it is true that not every swiss bank engaged in this kind of conduct. so i think about one-third was a remarkable response to the program. >> yours in the department of justice has made no explanation whatsoever? we really don't measure? ..

were at the atc been finalized i believe that narrative glosses over the years of widespread misconduct across the bank. they asserted that they would have turned over the name of account holders but they were prevented from doing so by swiss bank. secrecy laws. however it appears that fa tc loopholes in the 2009 protocol won't permit u.s. authorities to give names for accounts close before 2009. this means it's highly unlikely the united states will be able to collect much of the loss tax revenues from aliens hidden overseas. i don't buy their narrative.

the american people shouldn't darsha the department of justice mr. cole. i ask you to keep in mind in use already available legal tools at your disposal rather than relying upon the treaty process. so i guess my first question mr. cole is niche or even if the senate ratifies the 2009 protocol to amend the convention between our two countries for the avoidance of double taxation the justice department will be no closer to obtaining information from noncompliant bank accounts close prior to 2009? >> senator that's true. the 2009 treaty only applies to matters and situations after the september 2009 time that it was put into place. >> so basically never certainly in the way we are urging

information about noncompliant tank accounts that were close prior to 2009. >> i don't think that's necessarily the case. >> how do you do that then? >> the program we have is going to require that hanks even prior to 2009 go back into 2008 and provide us with the information about accounts that will enable us to make much more effective effective --. >> back in 2008? one year. >> it's an additional year, that's correct in many of those accounts were there in 2008 and had been there for quite a bit of time. it wasn't until frankly later in 2008 that the accounts really started to move. at. >> so you are saying you won't be able to obtain information for noncomplinoncompli ant bank accounts close prior to 2009? >> that is the goal we have with this program, yes. we think any of those accounts

will have been in place for longer than just 2008. >> you think that. the fact is you won't be all to go back to for that so let's move on here a second. the justice department's boat voluntary disclosure program allows banks to enter into nonprosecution agreements avoiding a conviction of going to trial. doesn't this change the risk reward equation for complying with u.s. tax laws? >> i don't think it does senator. and couple of things that need to be kept in mind about this program. it's only applying to banks that we really didn't have any information about. these banks were not on our radar screen. the vast majority of them have no presence here in the united states at the united states and also there are not any tools that we could really use. the 14 banks are covered.

individuals are covered. we are going to get number one a lot of information from these banks that help us ross acute their employees and their officers. secondly we are going to get a lot penalties and a lot of money which is what this is all about. third we are going to get information that will help us to treaty request in a better way because there is the proverbial law that this was keep putting up and all this is in fact going to lead us to a lot of different beneficiabeneficia l avenues. the final one is they are contacting their bank account holders or u.s. citizen and telling them that they are going to be providing this information and it's causing increases in the voluntary disclosure to the irs and the u.s. people coming in paying their taxes, their penalty and their interests. the only thing we are not getting and this is the thing we have always had a problem with is the name of the account holders. we are trying to get another set of tools to help us right

through that law. >> in the last nearly five years your department has achieved a plea of guilty from one out of 14 banks under investigation. to? >> that's correct. >> none of the 14. we achieved a not guilty from one bank and we had an agreement with the luxembourg bank and we have an additional 14 swiss banks and that's not counting others that may be there as well. >> 14 banks that you have gotten a plea of guilty from? >> no that we are in the process of investigating. >> over five years. >> i wouldn't say it's necessarily over five years. >> over five years europe but in one guilty plea, right? >> if you go back five years you would include ubs which was a deferred bank. >> let's not quibble here mr.'s

cole. >> you had one plea of guilty. >> that's correct. >> so over the next five years we can count on to? the fact is you have been incredibly slow over a five-year period cinch ubs, getting one guilty plea and my understanding is a 14 banks under investigation. if you think that's progress, fine. i don't. ms. keneally do you think that's progress over five years, one plea of guilty out of 14 and of course since the 05 period we can't discuss quote ongoing investigations, right? we can't discuss any of these other 13 because they are ongoing investigations that have been going on for five years. i have seen that movie before. go ahead. >> senator just to clarify

wetlands is not one of the 14 so they're 14 banks under investigation and wetland is not one of those 14. and to specifically answer your question, yes i do think it's process -- progress. >> you think it's progress? >> another -- a number of the banks have come under investigation recently. the majority of those banks do not have a u.s. presence. it takes time to find out what is going on. >> it takes five years? >> it takes time to find out what's going on. >> i disagree. i disagree and so would any objective observer. that is not progress. nearly five years and you have one bank. >> senator if i may? you also have 73 account holders who have been charged. >> 73 out of 23,000 i think it is.

>> 35 professionals who are bankers and financial advisers so it's not just one bank. there have been many charges. we are talking about people who are taking great gains to hide what they are doing. it takes time to disclose that. >> there are 22,000 accounts in quite it -- credit suisse alumni you have how many? >> i'm just saying they are not all from credit suisse. >> so there are many thousands more? >> we are trying to find out who they are senator. >> frankly it has not shown any progress. that's the point mr. cole and if you want to sit there as a witness and say that one bank has been guilty for nearly five years and the 22,000 accounts just with credit suisse and you say you have gotten how many?

300? is that what you said? mr. cole the taxpayers dollars are not well spent by the way that you and your organization and you ms. keneally have been pursuing these individuals and i still don't get it. somebody comes forward and then just agrees to pay their taxes even though they have been violating law then all is forgiven. that isn't my idea of incentive for people to do the right thing. so you have seen 106 swiss banks filed a letter of the tent ms. keneally and the voluntary disclosure program which will allow these banks. as for the banks that profited considerably from their wrongdoing how do you justify that? the banks, they made a lot of

money off of these depositors. >> senator the program is designed to have those banks pay penalties that will be higher than the money that they made. the program has very steep tumulty's that are based on the amount of u.s. assets that were under management and not disclosed to the united states. the program is designed to have those banks provide us with information that will lead to other wrongdoing and further our investigations. the program is motivating taxpayers into voluntary compliance and we may disagree on this but 43,000 people coming forward and becoming compliant taxpayers voluntarily to me is a very meaningful thing. the program is motivating more people. those 43,000 people have paid not just back-taxes but penalties and interest.

it's now well over $6 million -- $6 billion so i see all of those tools coming to that result in again senator the 106 banks are bank so we didn't know about. >> maybe you should have. maybe we should should've known about them. thank you mr. chairman. >> let's just go through a few more numbers here. since 2009 you there one bank or of the 14 under criminal investigation have been in indicted depending what you call weigand. you said weigand was not one of the 1414 but weather was or not it did not have a presence here in the united states. nonetheless it was indicted and pled guilty so your point mr. cole about we have to have a presence in the united states using our tools against you one example we have is not the case

because weigand did not have a presence in the united states. you said also 38 bankers have been indicted, is that correct? >> think its 35. >> how many convicted? >> i will give that to ms. keneally as to the exact number. >> how about for? >> four is the number in our testimony than the number is five as of today. >> okay so five of the 30? >> one more pled guilty today. >> out of how many? >> 35. >> okay most of those would acquire extradition. is that correct? >> that's correct. >> have you sought extradition? >> we have not filed an extradition request because

through our experience in our international office of affairs the swiss will not extradite their citizens so we have been focusing on things we thought would be more productive. >> there is no prohibition on requesting extradition. >> there is not. >> let me make it clear point about our determination also about the swiss being unhelpful by violating requests for extradition. a criminal case, people of operating united states, the swiss reject that. it's just something about their willingness to cooperate in the failure to even seek extradition says something about our willpower. we have not sought extradition for any of them. in terms of 73 account holders, think that was number you used being found guilty or pleading guilty, that is out of my numbers. there is 74,000 that we had from ubs and credit suisse together.

52,000 ubs, 22,000 credit suisse so out of 74,000 possibilities that we didn't get so this is all about names. i want to go back to the ubs issue. we got names about ubs and this is what started this. it was the threat that the names would be disclosed following ubs that began the flood. with ubs, one of you said we got the names through treaty process. that is very inaccurate technically because as a matter of fact the treaty process was not working. the testimony that i read before was testimony about the failure of the treaty process in that matter and it was only because there was criminal evidence in the united states and an

indictment was going to be issued against ubs. it was the fear of that indictment that led to a deferred prosecution agreement. the treaty process wasn't working so now you have a deferred restitution agreement with ubs and then a john doe summons another one of the tools in the toolkit as requested as the treaty process wasn't working and then and only then this was a read to release the names quote under the treaty process because it believes that the results either if we had followed a deferred prosecution agreement or a john doe summons would have been worse. so it really is inaccurate for you to say that it was the treaty process at ubs that worked. it was the failure of the treaty process of ubs to work that led us to use the tools, the threat

of indictment in the john doe summons requests that led then to the ubs outcome. it was that outcome again that was acknowledged by credit suisse this morning. it was the ubs outcome and the subcommittee frankly going after ubs that led to that outcome. it was that outcome not driven by the treaty process but by the failure of the treaty process and the willingness then by the department of justice to use the strong tools that are available to you. now, speak and i answer that? >> if i didn't convey that clearly senator what i was trying to say was that ubs was in fact model that it was the threat of building a strong case that produce those records and it wasn't a grand jury subpoena that got them. >> was the treaty process? >> well it ended up as i believe i testified technically it was the treaty process but it was the threat of the criminal process that god it which is why

i'm focusing and the department of justice is focusing its efforts on trying to build the criminal cases against the war team because we think that's what's going to work. >> but you issued indictments against the credit suisse in 2011 and it's not 2014. >> the indictment was against individuals. >> in 2011. it's 2014. what's going on with credit suisse? >> senator there is a lot that i cannot talk about about what it is we are investigating and as you and i discussed yesterday when we met we explain explained that we can't talk about the cases that we have pending and what we are doing with those in public forums. we can't do that. that's not allowed. >> let's talk about this new treaty again. is it not true that the swiss parliament after this new treaty

was entered into passed a law which put up a barrier to the usefulness of this new treaty. is that correct? >> that's my understanding and i think the treaty is help all but it's not going to solve every problem. >> well the swiss go ahead and pass laws unilaterally which create a barrier to the use of that treaty saying that the effort to collect names must show a significant contribution by the bank to a pattern of conduct. it's got to be a pattern by the very unnamed people who don't -- who we don't know the names of. what protest do we make if we did when the swiss passed a law which nullifies some of the value to the extent there is value in the treaty. do we tell the swiss hey that is inconsistent with the law and

the treaty you agree to. how do you expect to get a treaty ratified in the senate and i'm all for it or whatever value it's got. how do you expect to get that ratified if the other party, the party to that treaty unilaterally passes a law which nullifies part of the value of the treaty lacks. >> did i personally? no. >> did the government? >> i don't know. >> shouldn't we know? do you know ms. sub pour? >> i know in designing the program -- [inaudible] >> i don't know if we formerly formerly. >> what about informally? whether the government is. >> i took into account how we design the program so that we will be able to get the

information through treaty request based on the information at the banks need to give us under the swiss bank program. >> you took into account. he took it into account that you that? >> senator we thought through what information we needed to make effective treaty request and we are requiring that of the banks. we did not do that in a vacuum. we were aware of what positions this had taken in terms of how the treaty system would work. >> is that unilaterally created created -- create a hurdle for creative problem for us? >> again senator. >> is that a problem? you objected to it i assume informally. is that because it was improper

for them to try to unilaterally change a treaty lacks the senator i would defer to those in the government who are responsible for the treaty process and in this case i believe that would be treasury. i did what i felt we needed to do for law enforcement which was to build into the program the ability to get the information we need to make the treaty --. >> okay. [inaudible conversations]

>> we have shown a chart this morning that i guess you may not have been for -- year four. exhibit one 1a and above. it shows since 2011 credit suisse has turned over to the united states 238 accounts with u.s. client names out of the 22,000 u.s. customers with swiss accounts which is less than 1% of the relevant accounts. the department of justice never apparently tried to enforce a subpoena against credit suisse although the history of subpoenas that weren't complied with and they never worked with the irs to issue a john doe summons to credit suisse in switzerland. looking more broadly all 14 banks under investigation for facilitating u.s. tax evasion, we have seen no john doe summons

issued to get the bankrupt records and less than 250 accounts from the swiss with u.s. client names during that period. would you call that experiment a success? >> senator i have said it a couple of times here, i haven't seen bank up nova scotia subpoenas frankly are john doe summons is on their own. >> they have been helpful, haven't they? >> they set up a situation where if you have, frankly you look at the ubs model again. if you have sufficient leverage from the criminal prosecution then maybe you can use those vehicles as the formality with which to get this. but without that i haven't seen them reduce swiss account records and that's been the frustration is that they don't. so we try and build their cases against the individual

institutions to hope that will in fact try to blast out some of the account records. that seems to be. >> is difficult for me to accept that if you don't try to enforce a subpoena, the don't go to court when you have a subpoena to be issued to enforce this to help put the pressure on a bank they are not going to want to lose for instance their accreditation here in the united states. if they are in violation of the order of the court to produce records. >> i'm not sure. that's not part of the justice department's rulings to lose their accreditation but i'm not sure that if they are not complying with the subpoena because they received a blocking order from their own country that that's going to cause them to lose their accreditation. >> well i'm not sure either. at least i think it might. what do you think? do you think it might? couldn't? >> my experience senator is what

happens is they get a fine per day that they are not in compliance with the court and that goes on for an appreciable period of time and doesn't resulting getting their records. >> have we sought to have their registration revoked, any bank for fill you -- failure to follow a court order to produce its? >> i'm not aware of that. >> have you tried. these banks operate in the united states. they come here and big get clients here. they have to operate according to our laws and if they don't operate according to our laws and disclose client information that seems to me our liza been been -- our laws been violated. we are entitled to them against every american bank so now you were telling me well you know a court will enforce the subpoena. you know that but you don't know what the implications are in terms of losing your license to operate in the united states.

you ought to know what it is. frankly you ought to know what it is only up to argue. we have to raise the fear of god that if you're going to aid and abet violations to american like you will not be allowed to operate in america and i don't see that kind of a passion. i just don't see it. >> these are the issues that come out of the treasury department and the fed who control the banks abilities to operate. >> i know but would you ask them whether they would consider revoked and license to operate in the united states if the order of a federal court is ignored? >> senator again there are a lot of things we can't talk about that we are involved in our investigation. >> you can tell me whether or not you last the dead to revoke the license of a bank in violation of u.s. court order. you can tell me that without identifying the bank. >> we are constrained from talking about the procedures we

use, the tax we use and things of that nature. >> you are not constrained about talking about whether or not it's a policy you go to the fed if there is a violation of a court order and urged the fed to withdraw a license. there's no possible constraint. you are not identifying somebody in a bank. you are talking about a policy here. that's the problem. we just don't sense the urgency here. we collected $6 billion. americans who have been avoiding and evading taxes. their obligations to the people of the united states in their own country. they run overseas and put this money in banks and they hide it. they been allowed to get away with it and those 43,000 that came forward because they were afraid after ubs that their names might get out there that is what it is. it's that simple so nothing has

happened since 2011 when the indictments were issued. there is a lack in the feeling on the part of these tax evaders that something's going to happen and they're going to pay a price. they are going to fear that and they should. >> they do senator and the numbers are going up right now. see how much are they going up? >> substantially. we are getting four or 500 a month. >> great and is it because there is fear? >> yes. >> can you add to the fear? >> we are trying to. by trying to bring cases that investigate things. >> you can talk about cases. >> cases. >> one may finally bring cases they will be talked about senator. i'll tell you the 6 billion that was produced was the result of tough enforcement action that worked and the threat of an indictment and going to ubs.

didn't credit suisse acknowledge that this morning? they were very clear about it. it was the ubs model. using our enforcement techniques. let me go on to the next question. >> senator can i comment on what scares taxpayers? before i was in this position i represented taxpayers who came in through the voluntary disclosure program and without question the concern that names would be turned over by upn -- ubs scare taxpayers but they are scared today because they know that we are getting names through treaty request and getting names through cooperators. we are getting a lot of information. we are getting information through john doe summons is that we are serving on u.s. banks to score about -- correspond with offshore banks. that's an easy tool that we are

using now because those records are in the united states and those banks cooperate almost immediately. >> of course they do. we are talking about names of accounts outside of the united states. some americans who don't want to be full americans and instead if a bear operations. those are the easy ones, i agree with you on that one. >> these are records of transactions in foreign banks and they are not u.s. account records. >> corresponding accounts you set in the u.s.. >> corresponding accounts in the u.s.. it's a very powerful tool. also senator we gave an incentive to the banks to drive the remaining account holders into the voluntary disclosure program. >> mr. cole reference that before. >> senator there are a lot of things that motivate taxpayers into the voluntary disclosure

program and we are doing those things. >> now the finance minister of switzerland and the president of the swiss federation and 2012 said it's important for us, for them to be able to let the past be the past. are we going to take that attitude toward people that owe uncle sam money? >> it's not her attitude and we said that's not the case here. >> i'm glad you brought it to their attention. in february of 20 love and the department justice indicted for credit suisse bankers for participation in ongoing conspiracy to defraud the government of tax revenue. in july that year a superseding

indictment charged three more credit suisse bankers as well as the corporate service provider who is a former credit suisse employee. according to the indictment the bankers were coming here to the united states facilitating tax evasion violating our securities laws and at the same time credit suisse announced that it had received a target letter from the department of justice. the u.s. attorneys indicates a target letter is a very serious matter. states that his target letter is only sent to quote a person as to whom the prosecutor and the grand jury has substantial evidence to the commission of a crime and who in the judgment of the prosecutor is a punitive defendant. so a target letter was sent to credit suisse they say and i don't know whether you can confirm that or not.

>> i can't confirm that. >> they said it was wasn't acknowledge it again today. if it was sent with that have presumably met the standards for a target letter if it was sent? do you presume it met the standard that i just read? >> when the justice department sent a target letters it doesn't necessarily mean that we have sufficient evidence to going to court and win the case. and fully expose the complete breadth and scope of the misconduct that any particular defendant may have engaged in. >> that substantial evidence is enough to bleed to summons and indictments, it could. >> it can but you want to make sure that if you pull the trigger and indict someone that you are ready to go to trial and you're ready to describe the full wrath and scope of their conduct.

>> there's also a fear of indictment is there not particularly a bank that is a widely known name around the world that wants to maintain its reputation. that also exist too doesn't? >> as a general matter financial institutions are afraid of being indicted. >> now, take a look if you would have exhibit 32 in your book. >> yes, senator. >> what is this? >> this is a draft of a position that the department of justice was taking in the course of our discussions with the swiss.

it's not what was actually. >> do we have copies? i want to show you what we think is the final document. we didn't have it until last night. we will show it to you now. what is that document that i showed you? >> this is a final copy that was communicated to the swiss with regard to negotiations they were having with the irs. >> is this the one that led to the test case in november of 2011? >> i'm not sure. i don't believe so because i don't think this was sent until

december of 2009. >> all right, but in any event is this an agreement? >> no, it was not an agreement. >> is this something, is that our statement or their statement? >> it's our statement. >> is says in the middle or do need that identify account holders. >> at this point what we were trying to do is the swiss were not even allowing the banks to reduce to us their own corporate records. forget about account records. we were trying to get corporate records so we could build a criminal cases against the banks and this was another block the swiss were throwing up against us and at that point we were chine to work to get some freedom from them to give those records over. this really focuses on that aspect of it so we could build a criminal cases in the investigation. >> this is not an agreement. >> it is not.

there was a treaty request in september 2011 seeking credit suisse account records. is that correct? >> i believe, well i would refer that to ms. keneally. >> is that correct? >> my understanding is under sections 6105 and they are the internal revenue code we cannot address specific responses. >> okay. do we at some point have they test of the swiss government's ability to provide u.s. client names in a test case for them? >> senator i would have to problems responding to that. one would be timing and it would

be brought by 6105. that's my understanding, yes senator. >> okayed go back and look at the document if you would and take a look at paragraph 3 of that dot emit. to assess the feasibility of such agreements the department of justice reasonably expects to produce safe february 14, 2012 complete account records for 100 to 150 accounts covered by 1026, 2011 treaty request. do you see that?

>> it that is directed to me, i see it, yes senator. >> so that is our.ment, right? >> that's my understanding. >> we made reference to a treaty request. does this violate the law? >> i don't know, sir and i don't have personal knowledge of the document or the treaty request. >> let me ask you mr. cole. you are familiar with this document? there is a reference here to assess the feasibility of such agreements. the department of justice and swiss government reasonably expects to produce even though this is their document by february 14, 2012 account records for 150 accounts covered by september 26, 2011 treaty request so there was a treaty request. >> it's not public that there

was a treaty request and this is not a public document and what the swiss were saying was let us show you that we can produce some account records to you. >> but it's a public document now. >> not that we made public. >> no but it's a public document now. >> yes. >> according to this document we were seeking account records for 100 to 150 accounts covered by the treaty request. am i reading it correctly? >> that is what was so senator. >> but you can't confirm the -- >> i can confirm that we are talking with the swiss at that time to see if they could produce account information as a test to see if what they were saying was in fact valid. >> okay.

take a look at exhibit 33 if you would. >> can you tell us what this document is? >> i don't know what it is senator. >> it's the department of justice tax division stationery. >> that's correct.

do you know john? >> yes, he used to be the assistant attorney general for the tax division. i saw this yesterday for the first time. >> in march of 2012 the united states indicted the weigand bank which is a small swiss taste bank and the president of switzerland i believe is quoted in the press is saying the swiss government was quote very surprised by the indictment because we understood there to be an implicit remit that there

would, that they would not do something like that during the negotiations. >> that was not our understanding implicit or explicit. >> so there was no such agreement. >> no there was not. did you let this was know that? >> by indicting them they need that pretty clearly. >> did you tell them you never made such a. >> yes. >> do you know where they got an idea that the u.s. made an implicit agreement? >> i do not. you would have to ask them. >> okay. are you familiar with the fact that there were tax division attorneys that were sent off to u.s. attorneys offices to help out with work, to work in those offices from the tax division? are you familiar with that? >> yes i am, senator. >> we have all these actions we need to enforce our tax laws.

how many have been frozen for two years waiting for treaty request to be resolved and now apparently these are down to the point that the tax division attorneys are sent to another office to work on other important business. the letter to the subcommittee says the department and the attorneys continue to work on tax matters. isn't it the case that those focused on something else other than tax matters? >> first evolved our work was not frozen during that entire period of time even if there were treaty quests -- request that weren't being honored. we were doing a lot of work doing many other things so that is not accurate. the tax attorneys, i think most of them on these cases on offshore cases even while they were detailed. lots of u.s. attorneys offices are involved in these cases as

well. >> is that the major mission? >> i would have to go back on each one. most of them i think were very involved. >> is the major mission of most of them tax evasion? >> senator i want to try to understand the question. we are talking about the lawyers who were detailed? the details began -- >> my question is is the main mission of those that were detailed tax invasion? >> a significant portion. >> no, no. was the major mission, not significant portion, the major mission of those detailed attorneys tax enforcemeenforceme nt? >> senator i'm not sure i consider and quantify it. i know what i do but i joined the tax division because the details were already in place. i spoke to each of u.s. attorneys who had art detailed attorneys and confirmed they were working on tax or other

financial matters. >> as their main mission? >> as their main mission tax or financial matters. some of them were civil attorneys and some of them are prosecutors and when they were prosecutors they work prosecuting tax crimes and a number, there was only a small number that were handling any offshore matters before the details and a number of them continue to handle the same offshore matters on their details and again the debt to the attorney general is right we worked with a very significant portion of the work in this area and offshore tax enforcement has taken place in u.s. attorneys offices. >> that is not why you detailed people. the main mission is to do the same thing they were doing here. >> actually senator the main reason we were detailing them

was we were in a position where they were running out of money as your callback then. the federal government had very strict constraints on our money. the u.s. attorneys budget had more money so this was the way to alleviate some of the pressure on the tax division's budget by sending them there. >> let's talk about that wegelin plea. they pled guilty to aiding and abetting tax evasion and gave $74 million in fines forfeitures in restitution. in the indictment the government charged wegelin helps tax cheats hide $1.2 billion from 2002 to 2010 and as i understand it however is part of that agreement we did not require wegelin to turnover client names. >> they pled to the indictment so it wasn't a negotiated plea in that regard.

>> will people can plead guilty whenever they want. i think there may have been some understandings that were reached about the fine because there was only so much money available. >> was there an understanding that they would turn over the names? >> there was not. >> so instead the irs ends up issuing a john doe summons to a ubs ranch in the last obtained the records of the wegelin correspondent account here. isn't that awfully convoluted? do you know whether there was an effort in the sense of following that lead to have wegelin provide names? do you know of that effort was made? >> i don't know what the discussions were with wegelin at the time but the swiss government was not allowing them to give and over. there was no ability to try to enforce that it this point because the swiss government was

blocking and so all they would have ended up having was the same thing we have now which is wegelin went out with his nose, paid us the money that they had and made a big point in switzerland about how we will take this seriously and variable to try and pursue whatever leads we could do the corresponding accounts to try to find the names so people using the wegelin account. >> as far as you know there were no names provided as part of the sentencing agreement or sentencing negotiation? were there any names that were provided? >> as far as i know that's correct senator. >> the swiss government was not allowing that. >> i know the swiss government does not allow things that the plea was here. >> we had very little leverage to do that. >> was a criminal case. >> it was and they pled guilty to the full indictment. >> senator mansoor?

>> no, i want to go to another matter. in january of 2014 a swiss court rejected a u.s. treaty request filed around april 2013 for client name and information. about accounts in the name of offshore corporations that round by the u.s. taxpayers. this is what this morning ahead of the credit suisse bank said was egregious. and this is really egregious by the way. i can't think of anything much more egregious in this area than a bank telling a customer, helping a customer to open up an account a shell corporation account and some -- the purpose of which is to transfer that same money to a swiss bank in this case credit suisse but now in the name of the shell corporation and that

was aided and abetted. i can't think of anything much more egregious and as a matter fact that constitutes it fraud. now -- the department of justice apparently did not get any client names from that treaty request almost a year of effort. is that true? >> we can't talk about that. under 6105. >> senator i need to give some information on that. >> is in response to my question? >> i believe it is in response to your question. senator when we make treaty request the swiss government

publishes the treaty request. the swiss government gives notice of the treaty request and this is something i wanted to put out earlier. while we can't speak there is something out there that may indicate whether there had been treaty request and we cannot comment on responses we get to the treaty request but what happens is if an account holder seeks to block the treaty request they are required by u.s. law to notify the attorney general that they have made that effort in a foreign country so what we usually see happen with the treaty request is they have the account holders don't try to block it and they see the treaty request and come into the voluntary disclosure program so a particular account holder actually attempted to block it and litigate it should not be interpreted as we got enough from the treaty request. >> we have gotten people coming into the office and they don't

know -- let me just finish. the point is you were denied access to those names after making a treaty request by a swiss court. >> senator we were denied access for the account holder who brought that case. we can draw the inference from that that other names did not come. i can't say that they didn't. >> i'm not drawing an inference. we could get the name of that account holder from that court. is that correct? >> one account holder. >> get the name of one account holder for the treaty request so we have engaged in something that the swiss have said constitutes fraud under the old treaty. and we can't get that name from a swiss court. >> senator my understanding is the court said that the treaty request was too broad, the

treaty request had to be redrawn and the treaty request can be resubmitted and the point is it doesn't mean we got nothing under that treaty request. >> the fact that making this request may encourage other people to enter into a voluntary request. >> no senator i'm saying the fact that one account holder did not have that account holders information turned over it doesn't mean that we got nothing under that treaty request. we just have a can't comment on that reticular treaty request. >> as i understand the client got information from bank julius baer. is that correct? >> i can't comment on the specific treaty request. >> the decision by the court that denied that request? i'm just asking you whether or not you were denied and he said you can't comment on the treaty request.

the denial was the public opinion of the swiss court. was it not? you can't confirm it? >> i can't confirm that the decision exists. >> just about every time here the reason is provided for a problem in trying to get names it comes back to a refusal or a rollup dents or some active instruction by the swiss government or the swiss court over and over. this is what we come back to. that is why i think we have all spoken on the subject now. we have got to rely on her tools and this is one of the reasons why you think it is premature mr. cole but we also have a pretty good with the ups model that worked and we don't have evidence that model, evidence of that model being used.

these folks in 2011 indicted letters with targeted notices going out since 2011. you can say things are happening but you can't comment on them. what we don't see is what we saw with ups which was two things that were threatening involving tools in our toolbox that worth threatens that were then used in successfully used to cry out the solution in ups which was then helping to create and i think most observers will agree a flood of people coming forward with voluntary, so-called voluntary paying of their taxes. it seems like everything we come back to is what the problem is, the problem goes back to switzerland and now we have another deal with switzerland and under this deal again discussed in another room this

morning with the foreign relations, under this deal we have got the swiss adopting a law which vitiates part of the value unilaterally and that what we get is -- we don't know whether or not we made a formal protest. that is a weakness on our part. the swiss roadblocks seem to be forever, just one after the other. they will pass a law officiating part of the deal. our response? we don't even know that we have a formal protest. that is what we see. it's important that we see what we see and what we don't see because you know it's a very important effort for all the reasons that we gave this morning. when people try to evade paying uncle sam the taxes they owe that we go after them

vigorously. that is the lack of figure that we feel and you might as well be aware of it. he talked about the swiss parliament. i don't like what they did but but -- i think there was a little confusion about dates here this afternoon. ..

>> using the tools that are at your command. would you also urge to greet one dash degree targets of

treaty requests have the right to challenge those in the swiss courts? >> that is my understanding. >> [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations]

>> we talked about the subpoena issued 2011 about credit suisse. the parliament issued a grand jury subpoena to credits least 2011 and we reiterated that today. it asked for client names in that subpoena account information going back to your 2000. i wonder why the department of justice. >> first of all, i don't think i did talk about those i cannot talk about the grand jury subpoena but generally our view on the effectiveness i have talked about that i try to express

mine that has not proven to be an effective method to get the records. senate feted as a and its mission to enforce it. >> with another country that day in force. >> i would say bound by the law spinet they are subject to our robot as well as their home country. i share your frustration. >> this goes to the heart of the matter. if they want to matter it seems for me for us to say to give away the power of subpoena enforcement because that could get them in trouble back home. if there ordered by a court

in the united states to do something then they do it, i don't think we have any alternative. if they don't abide by our laws it is our responsibility to say sorry, you cannot operate here. if you don't know whether or not that has been said for the people that issue the license, if we do that i can almost guarantee those banks will have to comply. they will want to stay in the united states. it is an unacceptable explanation. it should not be your explanation. that you will aggressively

go after the enforcement if they don't abide by the subpoena you will aggressively seek their ability to do business in a country where they will lot of buying by the law. that is what i would like to hear. >> we will use every tool we can't to be effective we think the ups model proved effective to a degree that is where we focus to build good solid cases against the banks to use that to get the information we want and to all the other thing this to ferret out through voluntary disclosures and ways to encourage taxpayers to come forward to enable us to make

whenever inroads we can. it is hard, a frustrating going at it from every angle that will work. >> we focused on two main issues today how major bank got into said dirty business to actively facilitating u.s. tax evasion also the response of the department of justice from my perspective turned away from the ups model choosing to rely on the swiss court santry request which has basically given up the full value of the whole quarter advantage. of the swiss bank sought out to clients that traveled here and sold secrecy to taxpayers and a heck of a lot of money doing it dan

should be subject to transparency in not shielded by the swiss secrecy part of the government has said it is willing to turn over a new leaf. with some of the terms of the new treaty i am skeptical but it has clearly indicated time and time again with keeping on the books the law that makes it a crime it will not of lot of faults of promises about with the bits and pieces

most tax evasion is probably but we hope it is in the past but it will not be in the future we have to go off after the tax evasion in to not to allow swiss interpretation or regulation or commentary to thwart our efforts. it is important for our government to use every power and authority that we have to reclaim this money and hold accountable those rather than allowing itself

to run through a convoluted and unproductive process by a swiss government that has shown over and over would resist that the department of justice had good intentions and dedicated people but you'd have to be far more aggressive than the ubs casey and if not we will not get the taxes owed and hold accountable those institutions that aided and abetted this massive fraud dawn on for decades. but at some point you will have to play your cards. nobody believes you have a strong hand. bottom line with threat of prosecution and the incentive for tax cheats to go into the voluntary

program but that threat will lose force. if people believe our government is not serious about pursuing them. only those convicted so far with names they had on their accounts were the folks from the ubs bank they were involved with. that is what we will urge you to do. but we simply cannot spent years negotiating treaties to watch the partner paul kohl's and allow the courts to interpret their value away or minimize value to watch

people we go after provided the immunity that we have provided to them without an exchange insisting we get the names from the banks we are providing amnesty to. it is all about the names. not about the treasure hunt. it is what belongs to the u.s. government. one way is what we can do to be diverted but in some sense it is a treasure hunt if we win the treasure owed to uncle sam we will need a very aggressive department of justice and i are as. thank you for your service service, your work for our government. we urge you on with much greater strength to keep us

informed in the ways we request. >> think euphoria thoughts we share your goals and your frustration retry to build a pretty good hand that hopefully will show. >> thank you. [inaudible conversations]

>> i come to you this morning with the heavy heart and great sadness because of the events taking place in the ukraine. what happens is directly related to what happens in the middle east and obviously we know what happened in the middle east is vital to aid the existence of the state of israel. i will not go through the history of the ukraine with you but crimea is a sovereign nation of ukraine and the people of ukraine by the hundreds of thousands went to a square in sub freezing weather saying they did not want to be part of putin russia. that is what it was all about. now that the olympics are over immediately afterwards reseed the occupation of crimea. in case you missed it one

reason there is a majority of population is because dahlin exported and over half were killed as he deported them from crimea. this is a blatant act on five amir putin and one that must be unacceptable. it cannot stand. [applause] i have to be honest -- answered that the biggest and strongest nation in the world ranging from identifying the people that order this they died for them that we could experience a and identify to be the last trip to las vegas. [applause]

we can have economic sanctions with a broad array of options. why do we care? this is the ultimate results where nobody believes anybody any more. [applause] the president believes the cold war is over. it is the putin does not believe it is over he does not believe this is the zero sum game. lookout moldova, georgia, the baltic nations, look at what they do to assist the slaughter of tens of thousands of innocent people in cities and towns all over syria. it is an outrage. vladimir putin while he is

cooperating to remove chemical weapons as a planeload of regular weapons of artillery are landing at the airport in damascus slaughtering innocent people. i will tell you it is hard for a mother to differentiate if their child has been killed by a chemical weapon or a barrel fob dropped on innocent civilians all over syria we have sat by and watch it happen. if a side prevails it will directly endanger the security of the state of israel and this has now turned into a regional conflict. lebanon is destabilized would you think as hezbollah fighters will be like when they return? led you think will happen if this side continues to prevail as far as the other

nations are concerned? jordan should be our best friend is destabilized. though whole situation cries out for american leadership and i am sorry to tell you it is am i a. [applause] >> a couple of my favorites that i would be more flexible when i reelected? tel vladimir i will be more flexible when i reelected? [applause] i want to talk about iran there is significant difference of opinion as to whether sanctions should be passed by the congress of the united states if the talks fail. my argument to you is do you

believe in light of recent events they were serious? i don't think so. i believe the iranian people can have access to peaceful civilian energy but that doesn't require the industrial uranium rich program foray porter reactor or centrifuge and it certainly doesn't require nuclear facilities that deep in the mountains. [applause]

>> the biggest item is the president is going to propose a remake of the military that will make the republicans anxious and it'll ready has. it is proposing to reduce the army to a smaller sizes not seen since world war tear to killed the venerable playing in the military arsenal with the defense community with the defense

industrial lobbying complex subset also proposing a big increase in transportation spending surface transportation from mass transit with the overhaul of the corporate tax code. those are the two most interesting things he will be proposing in a year with his budget it will be relatively quiet budget years. >> host: you write in your most recent column it is late when does it get released? >> the budget law requires the president to put out the budget by the first monday in february. that is why it is one month late. there is no penalty for missing this deadline and he

has a couple of times before and last year when every says it was even later but this year it is late to was not going to have much of in the fact because of the resolution of last winter budget debate there have been so many fiscal clefs that have been difficult to keep them straight but the budget debate ended in december this so-called paul bryan murray budget the democrat who is the senate democrat to ease the impact of across-the-board cuts known as the sequestered for this year and next year that has taken the steam out of

the big budget fight so much so that senator murray announced she sees no reason to do what is the normal process to take the president's budget to modify to turn into a congressional budget resolution parker she says no need politically to do that because the big topic is how much money is there to spend on discretionary programs that congress has power already has been decided. that was set last winter for their current fiscal year in the fiscal year that starts with what this digit -- budget is all about. >> host: trying to put together own plan what else is in the proposal? >> guest: today mr. ryan issued an extensive 200

pages of a report of his assessment of the sari stage with the war on poverty 50 years later. he says with a broad brush that it is a failure and it has indoctrinated the belief that fighting a war on poverty is based on how much money you spend not the efficacy of the program involved. he did not say specifically with the observations about failings would be the basis of the budget but they would influence the budget plan. talking about the federal welfare system. that is the theme of the house republicans.

but if mr. ryan sticks to the revamp of social programs that he and ms. marie settled on last fall it would be difficult for the most conservative republicans to vote for that spending even with the remake of the social safety net. how the republicans so often find that sweet spot to attract all of them with very conservative members because no democrats will join that effort. >> the us senior editor also offering his column thank you for taking time to be with us today. litary chain of c.

this hearing will examine the relationship between military sexual assault, post traumatic stress disorder and suicide.

-- to receive testimony about the relationship between military sexual assault, post traumatic stress disorder, and suicide, and the dod minute span of victims ofanag sexual trauma.doub zero doubt sexual violence is occurring within thee wi except zero -- an acceptable rate too often they find themselves in the fight of their lives in their ownmong ranks with their own brothers ancestors. while congress is not in full agreement on the extent of the reforms required to solve this

crisis, last year's national defense authorization act took positive steps forward, including 36 separate provisions to address sexual assault to the military, which were supported unanimously, and additional important legislation is still under consideration, including my bill, the military justice improvement act. no matter where any one person falls in this debate we can all agree that we must fully understand the long-term psychological toll on the survivors of sexual trauma in the military, and the best practices for effective treatment. sexual assaults are obviously very traumatic events for victims. traumatic events that have long-lasting, frequently lifelong consequences, including post traumatic stress disorder and suicide. keith phillips, a constituent of mine, shared his experience with me recently. heath grew up in a family that was devoted to the military. he joined the navy shortly after he turned 17, and was excited to

be part of the navy family. when he reported to his duty station after boot camp there was no one there to register him, so they told him he'd have to come back. he met a couple of other sailors from the ship and went in to new york city with them. they went out drinking, and he blacked out, and when he came to, the other sailors were sexually assaulting him. they threatened him, and told him, no one would believe him. he went back to the ship, where he reported the assault. only to be told that it was his own fault because he had been drinking, and that he was lucky to not be in trouble for underage drinking. the sexual assaults continued aboard the ship, and when his commanders allowed these assaults by his shipmates to continue without any repercussions, heath went awol. ultimately, he accepted a dishonorable discharge to end his torture. not only was his suffering from ptsd which led him to flee the ship, but now he's not eligible

for va benefits. it's stories like these that motivated me to have this hearing. i want to make sure this doesn't happen to anyone else, and that people like heath aren't forced to choose between their mental health and the benefits they've earned from the united states government. this is not just an issue of anecdotal evidence. one study of iraq and afghanistan veterans found that, quote, female veterans with a history of military sexual assault or harassment were five to eight times more likely to have current ptsd. three times more likely to be diagnosed with depressive disorders. and two times more likely to be diagnosed with alcohol use disorders compared to female veterans without military sexual trauma. another study of iraq and afghanistan veterans seen at the va found that both for women and men, who reported a history of military sexual trauma, were

significantly more likely than those who did not to receive a mental health diagnosis, including post traumatic stress disorder, other anxiety disorders, depression and substance usage disorders. i also want to address today how the department of defense and the va handling sexual assault reports impact survivors' mental health. the va's own website says that how the military handles military sexual assault has actually made ptsd worse. quote, many victims are reluctant to report sexual trauma and many victims say that there were no available methods for reporting their experiences to those in authority. many indicate that if they did report the harassment, they were not believed, or encouraged to keep silent about the experience. they may have had their reports ignored. or even worse, have been themselves blamed for the experience.

having this type of invalidating experience following a sex seoul trauma is likely to have significant, negative impact on the victim's post-trauma adjustment. end of quote. i'm alarmed by the following statistic, as should every person in this room. on average, 22 veterans commit suicide every single day. 22 brave men and women commit suicide every single day. it's critical that we look at the links between sexual assaults and harassment and related ptsd, and its role in intolerable number of suicides. today the subcommittee meets to discuss these links, their consequences and how they're addressed. on our first panel we have two survivors of sexual assault. lance corporal jeremiah arbogast, who is medically retired from the marine carp, and jessica kenyon, who served as a private first class in the u.s. army. we have invited them to tell us

about their experience as survivors of sexual assault that occurred while they served in the military. did they suffer from ptsd? did they consider suicide? if so, what kind of help did they receive to address these conditions? we hope to learn what worked as well as what didn't work and what we in the u.s. senate can do to improve the care of survivors when sex seoul assaults unfortunately occur. on the second panel we have dod and ba officials who will testify about the programs, department of defense and va have in place to address the needs of sexual assault survivors, including medical therapies for ptsd and suicide prevention efforts of these departments. we understand that the dod and the va maintain an evidence-based joint clinical practice -- joint clinical practice guideline on the management of ptsd. we would like to learn more about how this works in practice, and how dod and va ensure continuity of care when victims transition from active duty to veteran status.

from dod we have dr. karen guice -- excuse me dr. karen gooust the principal deputy secretary for health affair. ms. jacqueline garrick, suicide prevention and response office and dr. nathan galbreath, senior executive adviser department of defense sexual assault prevention response office. from the department of the va, we have dr. susan mccutcheon, national mental health director family services. women's mental health and military sex trauma. and dr. margaret bell director of education and training, national military sexual assault trauma support team. i'd like to thank all of you in advance for your testimony and for your dedication on behalf of our service members. these are not easy issues to deal with but there are real consequences of these horrific crimes that are far too common in our military. there's no better -- there's no greater responsibility for congress and the military leaders than to care and provide for our service members and their families. the nation entrusts their sons and daughters to our military,

and we must ensure that their service is safe from sexual assault and if they are assaulted that they receive the best care and treatment possible while at the same time holding perpetrators accountable for their criminal actions. i look forward to the testimony of our witnesses on the first panel. i encourage you to express your views candidly, and to tell us what's working, and what's not working. help us to understand what we can do to address this unacceptable problem of sexual assaults in the military. i want to thank senator graham, it's been a privilege to work with him as ranking member of this subcommittee. i have great admiration for senator graham's passion. on behalf of our military service members and families, when he joins us he can deliver his opening remarks. mr. arbogast would you like to read your testimony? >> madam chairman, distinguished members of this committee, i am

saddened to be here but thankful for the opportunity to share my testimony. i wouldn't be here without the love and support of my amazing wife and caregiver tiffany arbogast. before i begin, i want to acknowledge the mst survivors who struggle day-to-day with losing their will to live while fighting for much-needed benefits, stability and validations for the crimes committed against them, along with the mst victims who are no longer with us due to suicide. i am medically retired lance corporal who served in the united states marine corps. i am compelled by my oath to speak out about the injustices that have been done to survivors. the oath that i took as no expiration date. i urge each of you to stand with survive evers of military sexual assault and to take a pro-active steps to fix the broken system of justice and survivor

response. i am a male survivor of military sexual trauma. i was drugged -- and sexually assaulted by my farmer staff sergeant from a previous command. a fellow marine. while on active duty. after this heinous crime i was humiliated at the thought of my helplessness, while a man and a fellow marine took advantage of me sexually. after two months of nightmares, anxiety, depression, and confusion, my world as i knew it was falling apart. i feared being blamed and retaliated against, and i was embarrassed. with the last shred of dignity i turned to a base social worker who felt it was her obligation to report the sexual assault to ncis. when ncis started the investigation, they informed me i needed to provide proof of the assault.

i felt humiliated because other individuals were now aware of what happened. at a point during the investigation, i was forced to provide proof by confronting my rapist. to try to get a confession. i was asked to make repeated recorded phone calls, and then go to his home while wearing a body wire. i asked him to tell me what happened. i got a full confession, which i accomplished. my perpetrator was arrested, and charged with several counts, including sexual assault and sodomy. the trial lasted a week. even with overwhelming evidence, the court found him guilty of lesser charges, the court decided he would receive a bad conduct discharge, no jail time, and they took his 23 years of service as kudos. he was ordered to ncis headquarters, fingerprinting, where they determined he gnawed

the skin from the fingertips on both hands so he could not be fingerprinted. he refused to register on the sex offenders data base by simply saying, no, i don't have to. nothing was done, and to this day, i don't know where my perpetrator is. not knowing his location leaves my looking over my shoulder for the rest of my life. i was not afforded the same rights as rape victims in the civilian world, where are my choices? while my perpetrator walked away with minimal consequences, i was formally retired from the u.s. marine corps due to military sexual trauma and post-traumatic stress disorder. i joined the marines in order to serve my country as an honorable man. instead, i was thrown away like a piece of garbage. according to the american psychiatric association, 90% of all rapists and serial rapists will commit an average of 300 to

600 rapes in a lifetime. this is not just a military problem -- this is not just a problem within the military, it becomes a societal and national security risk to us all. while i try to survive and hope that my life would get better, even years later, the constant stigmatization, personal attacks, ostracism and ptsd was never ending. choosing death was my way of taking responsibility for my circumstances. i simply haven't found the resources to cope. i sit here before you in this wheelchair due to a spinal cord injury that resulted in paraplegia from a self-inflicted gunshot wound from a nine millimeter handgun. i felt my death would spare my wife, daughter and myself the dishonor the rape brought upon us. this should send a clear statement of just how bad things can get in the lives of sexual assault survivors when they feel

no hope, and are not being offered the appropriate clinical support needed for them and their families. the armed forces were severely remiss and still are today in the treatment of mst survivors. the va health care system is overloaded, and fails to keep up with the sheer number of growing -- sheer growing numbers of mst victims. the va mental health system lags in offering male mst survivors male-specific support groups which is badly and urgently needed for millions of males, veterans, suffering from mst. 22 veterans are taking their lives every day. only 12 of which are combat related. the american psychiatric association estimates that men who do not -- who are denied proper counseling after rape are likely to attempt suicide at least twice in their lifetime. therefore, dod, and va

providers, and all military leaders, need specific training in the nuances of troupea related sexual assault, human sexuality and the different effects of rape on both men and women. the belief system about rape must change within the armed forces. and it will only change when the perpetrators are consistently prosecuted, and no longer given leniency and their sentencing by their commanders. in a recent article in the military times, a sapro official was quoted as saying we need to tell perpetrators, don't rape. this approach will not stop rape in the military. you can't train rapists not to commit rape. but you can stop them from harming anyone else. haven't we heard enough stories of broken lives and lives lost that have been told in front of these committees? this is an epidemic, and 2012 approximately 14,000 men and

12,000 women were sexually assaulted in the armed forces, according to d od's own sexual assault prevention and response report. dod has been claiming to try to fix this problem for over 20 years and to no avail, sorry to say we cannot take the attitude of wait and see, not even for one more year, which was the recommendation from our commander in chief. half measures do not work and neither do false promises. we need congress to move past ego and political stalemates. these perpetrators must be stopped from continuing their planned acts of terrorism against their fellow service members. we need a justice system that ensures these criminals are held accountable for their crimes and prevented from victimizing any other service members. the first step to fixing this problem and ensuring the health and welfare of our service members must be creating a

professional impartial justice system because sexual assault is not an occupation hazard. i, and countless others, have lost so much in this battle. these losses are -- these losses are nothing unless the dod and va leadership hear our pleas for more accountability, an end to victim blaming, and retaliation, and access to humane care for survivors. our service members deserve the same duty, honor and courage from you, in solving this epidemic. and its consequences that they have shown through their self-less sacrifices for this country. we expect nothing less from congress when it comes to accountability and providing adequate care to our nation's warriors. your help is needed so our military can continue to be the finest fighting force this world has known. before i close, i would like to leave you with some words from

zbaundy. you must be the change that you wish to see in this world. thank you. distinguished members of the committee, i want to thank you for having me and affording me the opportunity to speak today. i feel it is my duty as someone who is able and willing to speak on behalf of myself and those who are unable. i want to thank my loving husband, brendan brinkman for his continued efforts in supporting me through this extremely difficult struggle, being there throughout unconditionally. i also want to thank the rest of my family who has been there for me, and those families who do all they can for other survivors with very little support for themselves. i joined the military as an apache crew chief in 2005, a year after the implementation of the new sexual assault regulations. during the initial training, none of us received any training in what to do regarding -- in a

real sexual assault situation. the truth was, at that point, i had to google what to do when it happened to me. i immediately experienced the flaws and repercussions. from there it was instance after instance of a failed system in which i became ostracized, singled out, publicly shamed, disciplined for getting treatment, and treated as though i was the one who did something wrong. from my experience i can speak clearly to the loopholes in the current system that allows commanders, perpetrators, investigators, and anyone with outside influences and conflicts of interest to distort justice and degrade the military discipline and readiness. these loopholes perpetuate a current state of affairs, that when a case is handled or mishandled, i, like many others to this day, can be made an example of and held up as what will happen if you report

anything. this shows other victims, as well as perpetrators, how their crimes will be handled. this prompted me to leave the military and inspired me to expose the injustices they allow. i did not want anyone else to be put through what i was put through, but i also saw the potential for much worse situations. and i could not stand for it, whether i was ready to leave the military or not. given the situation i was put in, i felt no other option than regretfully leaving the military. my -- my work to help other survivors and families, and fix this broken system, is my way to continue to serve our country. since my honorable medical discharge, i have worked with thousands of veterans, active duty, and their families. i currently suffer from severe depression, bouts of insomnia,

debilitating memories, thoughts, triggers of all sort, anger, chattering in my head, constant anxiety to the point that i am forced to use all of my focus to appear normal. which hinders my abilities to read, write, have a conversation, remember much of anything in the short-term. this level of keeping my head above water is where i have found what passes for a level of peace. while i do hope to improve it, it is very hard road and some days i am not able to maintain my composure and my husband and loved ones bear the brunt of it. i have to live with that guilt every day. i am just praying my son doesn't ever know me like this, or worse, what i was like before i gained some balance. most of my scars are invisible. so my needs are treated as less than important. the current command environment makes it hard to keep outside

influences away from all criminal cases in a command regardless of the commander's view or the unit's view of them as commanders. removing all judicial punishment decisions from the command will keep them clear of all repercussions, including to their command, their career, and their general morale of the unit. loafing judicial punishment with commanders is not just a problem in the mishandling of sexual assault cases with the victim blaming. i have experienced, as well as others, a command environment is simply not a top -- not a top-down environment. my new -- a new commander may take command in an established structure, and the disruption of the structure regardless of how honorable their intentions can lead challenges to that command. this removal of the judicial

punishments from the command would remove conflicts both to and from the commanders. this also prevents a commander from lessening the charges to whatever keeps it in the command, or at its lowest levels, either out of concern that the accused talents would be lost, or the command would look bad. as of right now, there is no accountability for those who mishandle cases. but even if the commander wants to do the right thing, there is often pressure from the top to make it go away, or downplay the severity. discipline problems within a command will usually be reflected on the service record and cost them promotions. this environment is -- this is not environment for justice for victims, for perpetrators, or commanders. as it currently stands, the v.a. handles sexual assault in the military similar to civilian

cases. but it is critical to note psychologically they are very different. i have found that it is much closer psychologically to the results of incest. and should be treated as such. as a civilian sexual assault does not address the inherent trust victims give their command, nor the betrayal of that trust when a sexual assault occurs. and the subsequent case is mishandled. this continues to be true even if the case is handled properly. survivors of sexual assault, like many others, suffer from ptsd, are rarely in a state emotionally, financially or otherwise to navigate the complex and detailed paperwork and procedures that the v.a. requires for rating. this paperwork barrier receives -- receiving assistance often exacerbates the survivor's issues and all too often driving them to the point of poverty,

homelessness, alcohol and drug abuse, and much, much more. rather than proper counseling, it is often the case that medications are prescribed, many times pills are almost immediately prescribed by various v.a. caregivers with no experience of what they might actually do to the mental health of the individual, other than the list of warnings, which are often not taken seriously. these mountains of drugs are also being mixed and matched constantly, and most of which were never supposed to be mixed with anything other, let alone the numbers in which the v.a. doles them out. it is not uncommon to hear of veterans being prescribed dozens of medications at a time. in more than a few cases caregivers will refuse treatment if an individual refused to take the prescribed drugs, despite their helping or making things worse. the survivors have little to no recourse if things were to go wrong.

for those of us who do not wish to be drowned in psycho active drugs, many of our cases are left to wither, and our wellness opportunities are hard to come by, or are too expensive or unavailable. there is no right way to have ptsd. and therefore no cookie cutter treatment. is not what most need. offering the support -- offering and supporting programs and caregivers outside of the v.a. would go a long way to lifting their burden. i also want to point out that servicewomen are more than twice as likely to have ptsd, but only half as often to get diagnosed with it. they are more likely to be diagnosed with a personality disorder, or an adjustment disorder. thank you. >> thank you for your testimony. your full statements will be submitted for the record. i'd now like to turn it over to

the ranking member, senator graham. >> thank you, madam chairman. appreciate both of you testifying before the committee. i think there is almost unanimous support, i would hope, in the senate for finding a way to provide treatment to people who have been victims of sexual assault. i know it has got to be one of the most traumatic experiences one could go through. and i do appreciate you sharing with us what you see as flaws in the current system, the v.a., counseling, and i really look forward to listen -- hearing from the second panel. i think there's been some major monumental changes in the military about how we deal with this problem in terms of reporting, treatment, and just awareness. the one thing i would say, with all due respect to our witnesses, and to my fellow colleagues, from my point of view that this is a problem that will never be solved if you tell the commander this is no longer your problem. been in the military for 31 years. i do believe that the role of

the commander when it comes to dispensing military justice is essential and there is accountability in the reforms we've made. that when sexual assault cases are brought to a commander, and they refuse to prosecute, after a lawyer says we should go forward, that decision goes all the way up to the secretary of the service. when the lawyer and the local commander say, no to moving forward, in an allegation of sexual assault, it goes up to the next level of the command, which i think is a very good signal to take this seriously. but i would just say to both witnesses from a military point of view, to tell the commander this is no longer your problem would be an absolute disaster for fixing the problem. and i think a road, what the military is all about, it is the commander's problem, it is their responsibility, and we expect them to do their job. thank you both and thank you madam chairman. i look forward to hearing from the next panel. >> thank you very much for your testimony.

so i want to talk a little bit about the type of mental health services you did receive. mr. arbogast could you talk a little bit about what type of mental health treatment you received through the dod after your assault, and whether you thought it was adequate care. if there are any improvements specifically to that? and then after separating from the military, what was the mental health treatment like at the v.a.? were there any challenges, any inadequacies there, and what recommendations would you make to this committee for the dod or v.a. to approve -- improve the type of mental health services you receive after a sexual trauma. >> thank you. after my assault i was pretty much tossed to a back room, i would say, and you know, just left floating around at command after i was transferred. as for care. i didn't receive the adequate

care from the dod at all. for the simple fact is, in my time of my rape, you know, this -- you felt like a dirty little secret that they just wanted to just do away with, and the psychologists at walter reed, bethesda, you know, didn't -- they wanted to either put you in groups that were either combat related, or other mental illnesses, and then, you know, when you're in these groups and you're talking about this, you just don't feel comfortable talking about it. so then they move you to an outpatient care, which, you know, is the same thing, they throw drugs at you. and it could be, you know, four or five different prescription drugs, and the thing is, is they don't want you to commit suicide, but what's the side effects of these medications? a lot of these medications, is suicide. so, you know, as for the dod, they did absolutely nothing for me but just pretty much, you know, gave me a 30% discharge of

the dod for ptsd, and sent me on my way. as for the v.a., i only seen a counselor, one counselor through my whole therapy, who was not trained in military sexual trauma. he mostly trained at vietnam vets, you know, i looked for different treatment facilities, and different programs at my v.a. they were you know, women oriented. which was fine, but then when, you know, i asked about, you know, what can they do for men, and she says, you know, well we don't have a men's group yet. we're still in the process of putting that together. and this is just last year. and so, you know, her recommendation was to go through cognitive therapy. you know. and that's traveling down, you know, every day for six weeks. and that's 90 miles from my home, you know. >> after you