it has been difficult to get some of these proposals approved through the congress. it is not dead yet, but it has been a difficult road. it also appears that we will not be provided with the authority to do another round of base closures. basically, the message that we keep taking to congress at every stage is that we can as

obviously it's congress's constitutional prior if to rearrange priorities but in so doing please to not carve money out of our readiness account. readiness is key, and ready to get those goals up. please lift sequestration. fees choices were troublesome, all on your hands. it will get worse and more difficult. this is a message that i wanted to repeat today. we need to get full spectrum readiness up. now that i talk about today's readiness, let me shift to the future i also told, i think we will have greater reliance because obviously you know our numbers have been coming down. right to leverage their reserve more.

we have to maintain a technological edge. we have to be remaining ready with top-notch people. we need to become more agile. so what does all that means? it means a lot of things. we need to keep working diligently of our top three programs. the new fighter, the new tanker, the new bomber. in the general would give you some updates on the street. these and other technical investments as well. going to need to invest more in my opinion in space and cyber. you guys have heard me say it again, we need to continue and invest more in the number one mission, the nuclear enterprise. obviously we need to keep the focus on readiness. now, all of this is tricky business because we're back to the story of the budget which is likely to remain flat.

i am focused on getting the absolute best value for the taxpayer. the musket ability at the least cost. south us achieve this goal we have to do a number of things. keeper programs on track and delivering and on schedule and not over running to the best of our ability to read we have to build affordability from the beginning. and that is what we did. combat rescue helicopter. we have to attack headquarters spending. we just announced that we are going to reduce 20% in 1 year, not five. we are aggressively going after contract spending as well. spending on contractors. this has already been happening. the need to take a fresh look at

that. and we're bubbling up ideas from the field. what they see in their work environment. the campaign. gun thousands of ideas. not every idea is implemented will, but we are reviewing them in implementing some. savings from the ideas that we already approved, but this is our way of giving everyone involved. just a few more words about the air force of the future. today we're rolling out a new combustor cheese it framework. this represents a road map to help guide our long-range planning efforts.

smart money and policy choices going forward. very important not only have a strategy but he follow through with money sources. as i was going to my confirmation process on capitol hill, a courtesy calls with senators, they felt that the air force seems to lack consistency in our policy choices star resources. one year we would say this, another year that. that was the perception i heard. well, this kind of framework of three follow through should certainly help us obtain better results in that consistency department. a document is a third and what you might call trilogy. the first is our vision document that kind of tells us who we are. the second one, a global vigilance toward power, reached, a document that talks about our five core missions tells a while

we do story, and the third one that we are rolling up to date talks about where we're going. you, what, where. as you go through you will see, it is not a war fighting document, not a new national security strategy. does not replace current doctrine. rather it is a framework intended to help guide us in our tettleton responsibilities for our air force which is organizing and training and equipping going forward. the basic premise is that we never ever seen to accurately predict the future. never get it right. therefore we have to continue to be able to step up to the plate into a range of missions and also that we need to get ahead of the curve when it comes to these enormous, rapid changes we're seeing, changes in technology, changes in nations and groups acquiring weapons, changes in how we communicate.

facebook and twitter ten years ago, enormous changes. geopolitical s ability changes. so these are the hallmarks of the strategic environment. therefore, instead of focusing on a specific term we're trying to focus and recognize this quick pace of change and we have to recognize the imperative that we be able to change. strategic agility is what we are going for. this phrase should allow us to rapidly adjust to revolving threat environments faster than our potential adversaries and help us counter some of this great uncertainty. now, this whole concept is going to take time to instill into a big institution like the air force because i don't know that we are known for being enormously agile. and so this is where we will get started. we just reorganized our

headquarters air force staff in order to take these points and ultimately, over time, make those resources and policy decisions to make that strategy real. as we move forward our prediction you will see us in bed this concept of strategic agility into a lot of key areas that we will be working on. when it comes to people and training, tettleton responsibility, embedded to policies the concepts of more empowerment for air force, herrmann members. pau active reserve. the verge or constructive training so that we can train in different ways in which trade today. diversity of thought, critical thinking of the things you can expect to see his work on. in acquisitions, designed, agility, requirements.

opportunities, pieces are technologies within programs and be able to harness rapid prototyping to bring in his idea in the service more quickly. continue to elevate affordability as well as export ability. think through in the beginning. we want allies to manage our probability. what type of things we can export. when we come to investment, you can continue to see as dr. ross on the you are aware of the may be some less so. we have to invest more in our nuclear deterrence. i said that repeatedly. isr will continue to be extremely important and we will continue to invest. standoff and long-range weapons. i mentioned the importance of space and cyberspace. key technologies could be game

changes. we don't know yet, but they could be. and the last point i will give you about the strategic framework as we talk about a multi domain approach. so this is the idea that we have three domains of we operate in. we operate in the air coming in space, and in cyberspace. and for any knew challenge that we might encounter, it may be not the correct answer that requires a new crime or a new mission to go on a plane. maybe there are ways to leverage and always to leverage cyber in order to address that. we don't know but we have to open up our minds much more to what we're calling the multi the man approached. so as i conclude, the bottom line that i would give you after my first seven months on the job , our forces in good shape today but we are feeling strains. the future depends in large part

on how well we plan and execute some of the things we've talked about today and how well we do that consistently over the years we certainly hope and expect and we will continue to work with congress to help us in this regard, to support us in this regard. we're going to continue to talk of lifting sequestration and protecting readiness. again, i want to thank you for your time today. let me yelled back. his. >> good afternoon. thank you for taking the time to be here. our air force supports military operations all over the world of play every day whether ongoing operations in afghanistan, counter-terrorism activities to my training with and assuring friends during exercises in eastern europe, a nuclear alert in the american midwest, conducting partnerships,

standing and watching or sitting here at home. our job is to provide combat commanders. we are pretty good and our job. we will continue doing all of this. the ready to do the job today and being able to do it ten years from now. that is not an easy task, but these days under sequestration and is getting increasingly difficult. we prioritize three acquisition programs because we believe they are operational imperatives to the joint force of 2025 and beyond. if we expect to remain the world's leading air power nation which gives us an undeniable asymmetric advantage we must recapitalize our aging legacy fleet. let me start with our fighter fleet. the f35 is the answer, the only

answer. and there is good news to report. we are reaching important milestones. the air force base just a delivery of the 26f358. the fighter squadron now has its full complement of aircraft. that is a major milestone on the flight path for the air force. test and training programs are moving forward steadily. the recent engine fire has gotten a lot of attention slowing flight activity to completely understand the root cause implementing a restrictive flight of a low which will remain in effect until we understand the root cause completely. i do think it is important to remember that engine fires happen when you fly high-performance aircraft. this is not the first and it will be the last.

14,000 flight hours. i'm confident the program will remain on track and reach imc by december 2013. they casey for six pegasuses another top operational imperative for the joint force. the 179 aircraft will feel between 2016 and 2020 will bring more refueling capacity, improved efficiency, increased cargo and air medical to both our forests and fighting team. the first test aircraft is scheduled to fly this fall. it continues.

they have led every contractual requirement to date. the recent announcement of a change -- a charge against the program to correct a deficiency. the contractor will cover those costs. there is no additional cost. the long-range strike bomber is the third of our major programs giving our country the ability to hold any target on earth. also gives us the ability to conduct air campaign and operational flexibility across our ride right to file a wide range of operations. all long-range air refillable highly survivable aircraft with significant nuclear and conventional standoff and direct attack weapons payloads.

initial operational ability. it will be an adaptable and highly capable system based upon mature technology. as i think you know we have established achievable requirements. we recently released a request for proposals. expected in the spring of next year. well these acquisition programs are critical to our success if there is nothing more critical to our success than the air men in power this great air force. this is a tough time. chair asking great men and women have done everything asked of them in pretty tough places to and voluntarily leave our force. there is nothing good or easy about it. the secretary and i have a responsibility to balance are forced to a size we can afford to train and operate, and many to do it before we return to sequestered levels of funding if the existing law continues to

take us there. we submitted a budget to reduce the number of active duty air and from 330,000 to 307,000. our forest management actions have already approved about 13,400 airmen for voluntary separation and over 6,004 and voluntary. these will leave are forced by the spring of next year. air force budget proposals are being debated by congress. so we're not sure whether or not we will be allowed. those force structure decisions have personnel implications. final decisions can be made until those are made. is difficult to tell where we will end up. as we promised chairman, we have done and are doing everything we can to maximize voluntary separation programs prior implementing a voluntary measures. that will make it any easier.

we will do everything in our power to ease the transition back into civilian life. we thank them for their service. i would like to finish by saying our men will meet the challenges we face head-on and overcome them. >> must choose it for more. where are discuss this deterrent to nuclear weapons in the structure must be recapitalized were necessary to be modernized when needed. it strikes me as a non-committal statement. >> all start.

maybe japan. i think we do need to modernize it. it's a question of when. we're doing that ourselves within the budget card through the next, cycle. we are also in discussions with zero sp, the secretary and deputy secretary. a point that i continue to make them believe there is agreement on, this is a national asset and then for an issue for all of us. so i think as we work through this process obviously we will have more to share, but i would suspect you will see more money put in. >> the national mission, are you saying that the air force should have a bigger piece of the pie as a result? >> so we're doing is trying to explain the total picture

wherefores. so this will of configured out in the next several months we do feel that additional moneys to will be in order because this is such an important national asset >> the documents we are releasing today, three documents the will form our overall strategy. the call of the future peace pulling us in a direction of those principles and conduct and behavior that we think we have to half. the next piece is the air force master plan. we will take the 12 existing core function master plans, consolidate them into a single master plan which should have the de chair looking for which we driven by the words i just read to revert right to have this as a mission when it to make sure the infrastructure is

capable of doing the job. that should shore up the master plan. we can create consistency across mission areas. a call to the future. the master plan is resource pound ended at ten year balanced budgets. we hope it will provide consistency in message, funding, and build trust with the people we have to have trust with to get consistent, dependable investment in those programs that have to be maintained and recapitalized. >> 100 percent.

staffers or harder%. >> so my answer to that as we can to everything. therefore we have to have some clear priorities. nuclear is number one, and we need to understand that. that is precisely why we are shifting resources and personnel the personnel are not all there. they are coming. there are eight critical specialties within the career field. they've got to be staffed at one of the%. that is the decision. i will tell you, a hundred percent level overseas forces. that is also critical. again, nuclear is considered to of the spear. >> this test of the are hard

look in the mirror at how we do business because if the requirement can be reduced by getting smarter about how we do the job that is part of the process. >> i know you have a breakthrough that technology. >> kind of the big picture for me. the real speed really compresses and reduces immunization time. that's an important concept. anything we can do to speed up the effect is a good thing. i don't think hypersonic in the near term will impact the icbm.

>> i was going to say i think it's too early to tell. >> thank you very much. are would like to ask you about compression. as a result of the situation in russia there has been a system wide reaction to some of the decisions that have been made that lead up to the situation. some people in the national security framework solution of employment and some of the contingencies of the round table . now this far into development or reared doing very well, affleck developments how you reconcile the lessons from rd180 with the challenges that could be faced with having one engine for an entire allied air force?

>> say your last sentence again. >> probably not verbatim. how you rectify the lessons from the experience. that is not a performance issue but a supply issue. essentially you could be cut off the situation here now face. whether it's a performance issue were supply issue. you're facing a performance issue. ten or 11 allied nations. >> i think of it and the standard of little bit better. >> first of all, big picture. bear with me. the big picture on russia obviously we are standing firm,

working with our allies. was just over there. this was an extremely important topic. people are monitoring the situation with russia receiving attention of the highest levels, diplomatic overtures and sanctions. you are all aware of that. everyone is aware that we have proposed as we call the european reinsurance initiative additional monies for additional rotational forces in exercises and different engagement activities so that the presence of our nato allies is very much out there. with respect to the rd180 we are heavily reliant on a for our space launch program. and our desire is to get off of that reliance as soon as we can. right now there's been no interruption in the supply

despite tweaks to the contrary, and we do have a two years type of. we're working through options and i will get off of reliance. we have near-term and long-term things of we are looking at depending on how the world conditions go. for example, speeding up the purchase. that is an additional engine. giving the new entrants were working diligently putting our resources, money, people against the certification process. were trying to figure out how we would do a new engine. or working through all that and would expect to have more respect. with respect to the engine in the f35 the entire fleet is not

grounded. the have limitations. your specs and a gradually be used up. it is not unusual to have something like this happen. we are all optimistic that we will be working through it. so i do not believe this is in any way showstopper. it was unfortunate, but they're going through and trying to narrow down the root cause to really will work through. i don't see the two as particularly similar. >> it would be a little alarmist to assume we have a problem. making pretty darn good engines for long time. i think what we found in the program so for, almost 9,000,

this engine works pretty well. today it did and would need to figure out why. >> to you feel that the decision was premature? >> i would like to have 17 onion 63 f 35 shoot the engine that were sure there will. >> so about a paragraph dedicated to unmans systems arm to drones around the world, very few countries. in thinking about the air force

over investing in expensive manned systems when he talking above being in bed hospice, we haven't figured out, replicate. the situational awareness it gives you is unlike anything else we've been able to bring the other. have we are a root able to replicate that the game changes. until we are you have to put on the man systems in the areas where it makes sense. i don't think at this point in time their better at every job. arista of less than 10 percent of our total.

it's not like they're taking over at the moment we will continue to expand. we have to take it all little bit slower. by the way, one of the ways to make sure we don't do that, in a 2014 chairman of the year. just wanted to point him out to you. he's a great chairman. is a c-17 engine guy. maybe you can build a launch platform for somebody. >> yes, sir. strategic agility. in a dark railroad taking advantage. it seems to be don't change the requirements. how do you reconcile the two?

more frequent overall? >> there are what they are. we have to do the best of which have with the architecture is to read when it comes to the new program, to the extent we build and modularity, open architecture and the like, ways that we can plug in different types of capability, technology. that's the idea. inform future programs. do the best that we can with strategies. >> it is also within existing programs. we were talking about propulsion if the advanced engine technology demonstrator program

proves that you can create systems as if you anywhere between 30 and 45% on fuel costs and we should be building into every fleeted we have decision plans for implementing new technology and competition is to replace existing engines because it will pay for itself quickly. i think we have to be will to take advantage of things. it may not be a major change overnight but we should look for it in every level. >> what's coming up the you can work your, the programs of our coming a. >> of j. starr replacement, and a trainer with the next few years. >> the recent influence in africa.

and raising red flags to both of the above security for your aircraft. catherine their readiness. >> for everyone involved. command-and-control responsibility for that aircraft . the latest effort about the incident and sulfur is that u.s. european has told us that the young man died of asphyxiation. unknown know how he would phrase it i don't know if he was from there are not.

it's an airplane land to mike as gas, turns. the crew chief would go out and check. he was not in a position to be seen from there. they had to remove an ounce of usual as panel. so how he got him they're is a huge question mark. there will conduct an investigation where they have facts as they find them. >> the readiness issue, there might be shortfalls. >> i would sing the full spectrum security. as the chief said, a question of what was the security, the standard protocols. obviously something fell through the cracks. there were able to gain access to the aircraft. >> i wanted to pick up on her question. the pivot points.

i guess there's no point in asking about water of the bridge . the you think it was a mistake, so much fit into a program like the f35, three very complex challenges, and to what extent are you able to go forward and create opportunities, sustainment and potentially a new engine. all of those things as they go along. so this is like looking back looking forward. >> i think what is important at the end of any you start to feel the program. you should learn everything they can. at the equivalent of awful lot. some good lessons and things we might consider doing differently the important thing is not to

look back and be critical but figure what it means about the way forward. this idea of strategic agility is one of the lessons. the problem of the acquisition side, the process has to become more agile. all of us would agree with that. how you get there from here is the problem. this is not quite a change overnight. in everything we do in our master plan looking at how we move forward, we should consider this idea of how to become more agile consistently and confidently over time, and it has to include all the partners. >> early on, the ability of an ability of some of the key players to get access and to build a start the process

quicker, what are you doing about that to prevent that from happening again? >> i have a different view. the problem with an accident scene is someone has to be is in the accountable for making sure you control evidence. that is the first response ability. the interim safety board president. the tape off the area and begin isolating evidence. so the evidence will appear determine the problem. it takes about a day and a half to get the full time board president to beat have experts start to show up. that is actually very fast.

before the safety board arrived. because until that is available trying to piece together what happened is virtually impossible and so that was actually removed from the airplane and sent to the contractor the second day which is way ahead of the normal time one. the confusion got to be what we had not come to an agreement with representatives to be part of the process of every one of texas' quickly. certification decisions of the engine company can have the data the star work and root cause analysis and have the information to know exactly how it affected their test program. but they're all the time, and they were actually there with the interim safety board but no

one knew who was officially the connection. so we have to put together and mou on services and in the department so that next time this happens there is a quick response and everyone know exactly who is authorized. >> go ahead. >> we were being told in a combat force was not ready to fly. now congress is potentially trying to take money out of europe's readiness account to pay for the a per rams so what

kind of measures the ticking now >> of course congress has not completed its work. the message where putting forth, and there are people who are very interested in this. as congress chefs priorities and decides that this will happen or that won't happen, they are working with the same topline members of the budget control act of we have to budget against what we're saying is please don't carve money out of readiness. is too important and would need to recapture some of that. i would also say something that i have learned that have a much greater appreciation for. take flying. there is flying in flying. it's not quite like riding a

bicycle. you can't stand down for three months and totally get back and be able to do all of the same capabilities. you might be able to get back into the cockpit and fly the plane, but there are very, very difficult maneuvers, high-technology equipment which is why we put an emphasis on the full spectrum. the eye and difficult type of flying, simulated tests that we could face. it is particularly that type of flying that we feel like we have to have more of. these of the masses we're putting forward. >> have we going to have another crisis? that unless you get the money from congress?

>> of course the law of the land right now will return in athaliah 16. we know what that means for defense. we are in discussions and it is quite possible that the president's budget request that goes to capitol hill could be higher. and so in the most recent years we have done is created several versions of budget. as you recall, the president's budget level and at a lower level. so i would predict it will go through something like that again, putting forth will be feel we need and then put forth if we had to live with that here is that we would manage. >> in your answer in sounded

like you had a solution developer replacement engine. is that correct? i you ready to do that? why not do it now? in year framework documents when you think about agility your mind, is it more important for future friends to build and design them more quickly or design platforms that can evolve over time and last 60 years? what is the future in your mind? >> so there is no solution your peers trying to paint the picture with options on the table. also trying to paint the picture that the situation with russia is serious. we are quite reliant but not exclusively so some time to

think through the way forward. affair is one underpinning were going to want have is this kind of reliance to develop the results and it is. >> two things. both are true. it depends on what your building. for example, platforms have proven. we should design for a longer life. whether the stinkers, bombers, buyers, whenever it might be. other things that we should look at, rapid acquisition programs the we know will change. it's a combination in the two. until the the same process for

everything. >> any update? >> no. congress has the influence. doing their work. >> it's a great platform. >> you think terrorism will go way? coor's no. it's about balancing the forced to provide spectrum emissions. if i ask the combatant commanders today, if you had $4 billion to spend would you prefer to keep the kayten or would you prefer to buy more is or or other things? and novelist of 15 things that would prefer us to spend money on. we don't make up our requirements. the combatant commanders create the requirements to. >> the vital platform.

we will probably be in these areas. we are not calling for. and you know it the next time? if you look, mayors of going to be in these battles. >> so my answer to that would be , it is possible we will after we wind and the combat operations. we can't predict. it is possible we could get into something else were we would need higher levels of close air support. if that is the case we've got it. we have the f-16, the f-15 e. and there are other platforms as well. additionally this was designed to be a five-year gradual retirement plan. it is not as though we suggested that the 18 go away overnight.

the close air support mission is a sacred one. >> we have one more question. the question is, what do you want to give a instead? sequestration is the issue. we have to come up with a plan that is 20 billion less than we had three years ago. 20 billion the year. if anyone else has a solution that balances air force capabilities we would love to hear it. >> in queue. can you elaborate on the strategic framework? the capabilities our technologies your liking of you might like to acquire over the next months and years. the corollary, request for

papers, moving toward a defense what that says a lawyer goals in cyberspace. >> i don't know anything about it. i don't know what it means for our goals. other than i know we put out a white paper asking for information. that did not come to my office we can find out more about that. o.c. a fracking do you a better answer. as far as this document goes to what it really calls were his first to get our act together. we are making a big change in cyber from airports perspective, from a group of technologies that grew up supporting very focused, narrowly focused technical support to u.n.

operations. that is where siren began. the air force and air component commanders are worried about paying affects on big battlefields. how do we reshape our thinking to think about executing the five core missions, how would we get to doing more of those jobs and the multiple domains? how do we do more high as core, more command-and-control, more strikes of different types, the targets that open up and the effects that we can produce. that is the chains of the year forced knees to make. making it mainstream to the core missions over her forces opposed to hand its capability with talented people. that is what this is calling is to figure out. >> fighting hard to preserve the funding?

>> i think the funding we have now is pretty stable. there is no intent to pull it out. we have to become experts. >> if you remember, one of the things i said, this is a framework that is designed to inform us and get as we are making of money in policy choices. as we go forward, if there are suggestions of think we have a good reason not to. [inaudible conversations] >> on our party line vote the house of representatives has approved our roving -- resolution allowing the leaders to pursue a lawsuit against president obama.

the resolution says the speaker is authorized to initiate or intervene in one or more civil actions on behalf of the house representatives to seek any appropriate relief regarding the failure of the president's act in a manner consistent with official duties. under the constitution and laws of the united states with respect to implementation of the affordable care act. president obama talked about the lawsuit during a speech in kansas city. >> they're is a bunch of stuff that needs to get down. unfortunately, i think the main foe that the schedule for today is whether or not they decide to sue me for doing my job. i don't know. first of all, here's the thing i always say.

don't do. vote. but think about this. they have an ounce of they're going to sue me for taking executive actions. so, you know, they're mad because in doing my job and by the way, i have told them i would be happy to do with you. the only reason i'm doing it on my own is because you don't do anything. but if you want, let's work together. [applause] i mean, everybody recognizes the political stump. but it is worse than that every vote they're taking like that

means a vote they're not taking to actually help you. when they're taking 50 votes that was done that could have been spent working constructively. >> you know his pain having, you . your paying for it. and it's estimated that by the time the thing was done i would have already left office. so it's not a productive thing to do. >> you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. >> in responding to that

question, it is not always the money. the government is working as the framers intended. the battles of power have been going on since the country was founded. this is the beauty and genius of the u.s. constitution. in a few moments a senate hearing on ways to reduce gun violence. the public hearing on the epa proposal to cut carbon emissions from fossil fuel power plants. and then we will we hear the pentagon briefing on air force operations. >> our guest on this week's queue when a. >> she was so beautiful and so smart and also so we she was just always irresistible. in old age, her 18th but the

party. the washington columnist was at this party. they sat together after been having coffee. she began the stroked his beard. heavens, i too have this product of quality. >> the life and career and sharing about the personal relationship send a nine and 8:00 eastern and pacific. >> during a dressing gown violence. representatives of law enforcement, the courts, and academia. this is a little more than tumors.

>> good morning, everyone. the hearing will come to order. i am delighted to see you will hear and welcome the witnesses. i thank them for coming and welcome my ranking member, the distinguished senator from iowa. and i have one procedural announcement. we evidently have vote scheduled for 1045. toward the end of that vote. nice to see. i plan to adjourn the hearing recessed the hearing briefly to allow us to go catch the end of one vote and the beginning of the next and then reconvene. no problem with take of 15 minutes total. on june 18th 1999, and was watching television with her 8-year-old son when her exports

from broke into your apartment and calmly walked toward her carrying apollo. when he was just a few feet away he pulled a gun from the pillow, point to an her, and pulled the trigger. travis was his mother collapsed fell by a bullish up his own fatah. she spent hours in surgery will doctors removed a bullet from her abdomen to be hospitalized three weeks of war cost the back for almost two years. today she is a passionate advocate in rhode island domestic violence community. her scars serve as a constant reminder that as a survivor shoes or of the lucky ones. american women are 11 times more likely to be killed with guns than women in any other industrialized country.

the red line which you may not be able to see extends far beyond any other industrialized. put another way, women in the united states account for 84% of all female firearm victims in the developed world. let me repeat that, women in the united states account for 84 percent of all female foreign victims in the development. of all the women murdered in this country more than half for killed by family members or intimate partners. in fact, when the gun is present in a domestic violence situation it increases the risk of homicide for women by 500%. protecting women from gun violence by domestic abusers should not be and has not been a partisan issue. .. 80%.

congress passed important laws prohibiting the possession of firearms by individuals convicted of misdemeanor violence or protective orders. this compliments the prohibition on convicted felons and passed congress with broad bipartisan support. these laws have saved lives. in states with rigorous background check, 38% fewer women are shot to death by inti mate partners. current lie prohibits them from posesing guns oy but they are not enough. current law prohibits domestic abusers from possessing guns only if they are or were married to the victim if they have lived with the victim or they have a child in common with the victim.

dating partners who have been convicted of the plastic violence offenses are not covered even though the most recent shows more domestic abuse is committed by partners and spouses. would save lives plain and simple. there are other steps we can take as well. these include requiring universal background checks and helping states collect and share the data necessary to ensure that those who we are already agree should be prohibited under existing law are in actual practice in fact prohibited when they try to purchase firearms. along these lines i'm willing to work with anyone who wants to strengthen the national instant criminal background check system or an ics to ensure that it operates as congress intended it to. nobody on this committee has been working harder than senators blumenthal and klobuchar to shine light on the role of guns and domestic violence and to address the loopholes that allow abusers to

use guns to kill and injury and threatened their victims. i know we will hear more about their initiatives and i want to thank them both at the outset for their commitment and their efforts. i also would like to thank chairman leahy for his leadership and reauthorizing the violence against women act last year. and for his long-standing recognition of the role of guns in domestic violence. finally it bears mentioning that this is not a hearing about the 2nd amendment. or the right of law-abiding americans to own firearms. nobody on this committee wants to deprive individuals women or men from legally owning guns and none of the solutions we are here to discuss involve doing that. we are here to consider how guns in domestic violence situations threaten american women and how best to ensure that those who should not possess guns do not possess guns. i understand that there are a

number of domestic violence survivors and advocates here with us today. i would be honored to recognize them right now if they wouldn't mind standing up. [applause] >> thank you. i would also like to submit the statements of our chairman senator patrick leahy of christie salters martin bonnie campbell laura palms katie ray jones, every town for gun safety and the national center for victims of crime into the reco record. without objection they will be added to the record. thank you all for your support of this effort and for your courage. i would like to welcome all of our witnesses and thank them for parts of baiting the hearing and

turn the microphone to my distinguished ranking member senator grassley. >> bonnie campbell you just mentioned is a former attorney general of the state of iowa. mr. chairman we are here to discuss it important subject. thanks for experts who have agreed to the palace for us. all of us want to see the federal government take appropriate action to assist in fighting domestic violence and especially domestic, sides. i have met with many victims of domestic violence over the years. i feel compassion for the physical mental and emotional injuries they have suffered and you particularly feel that when you talk to people that have experienced that. they have told me of the fear that they confront and i want to take effective action against perpetrators of violence against women. a group of bipartisan senators have come together on a bill to

address sexual assault on our nation's college campuses but to me all domestic homicides are a tragedy. it does not matter how the victim dies. 45% of domestic homicides now did not involve guns. the figure is considerably higher than in the 1980s. in 1996 i had the pleasure voting for the lautenberg amendment. those convicted of domestic violence or misdemeanors were prohibited from owning firearms. so were those against whom permanent restraining orders were aired because of domestic violence. for these prohibitions to be effective obviously convictions and restraining orders must be entered into the record -- national instant background check system and the chairman just spoke about his interest in that for that to be an effective system. so it distresses me that even

now all these years later according to the center for american progress quote only 36 states have submitted in a domestic violence convictions to the index end of these 21 states submitted 20 or fewer of those records and an even smaller number of states have submitted records regarding restraining orders. 19 states have submitted domestic violence restraining order records to the index and that these nine states have submitted 10 or fewer end of quote. i know that rhode island has submitted exactly zero misdemeanor domestic violence records to date and exactly zero domestic violence restraining orders to the records. the corresponding numbers for delaware r. zero, hawaii three and zero, illinois one and zero, minnesota 16 and two, new york zero and 10, vermont two and

zero. the states are failing to do their job. iowa ranks near the top of the states in this regard but i can confess to you we still have to do a better job in my state. 79% of the records submitted come from three small states. as the report says quote of all states submitted records of misdemeanor trusted violence to victims at the average rate of these three states we could object -- in this category more than 40 times the number currently submitted end quote. this means large numbers of privative persons under the law today can purchase a firearm through legal channels because the background check system fails to identify them as such. our next system is full of holes with respect to the current gun prohibitions reducing the effectiveness of background. last year senator cruz and i

offered an amendment to legislation before the senate that would have helped fix the system. our amendment would have improved state compliance with reporting for mental health records or privative persons. he received the most bipartisan support of any similar legislation but it didn't move because it didn't receive the 60 required votes. we should do the same with respect to persons who have been convicted of domestic violent crimes and subject to preliminary restraining orders. we should able to enact legislation of this type but that is not the majority's approach. there are two bills before the committee on domestic -- one of them from senator klobuchar expands the definition of prohibited person to include dating violence beyond the call habitation relationships in current law as well as convicted stalkers to the list of prohibited persons and another

by senator blumenthal also expands the relationship and those subject to temporary retraining -- restraining order entered without notice to the abusers of prohibited persons. a significant problem exists with the completeness of background checks under the law. it is hard to believe that expanding the universe of prohibited persons records will not show up when a background check is performed will reduce gun homicides. i fear that false hopes are again being raised. in many states few persons are convicted of misdemeanor stalking. maryland for example zero were convicted of that crime last year. one in arkansas five in new mexico making these offenders prohibited persons will not accomplish very much even if their records made it to the next which is a questionable assumption. these bills would expand retroactively the definition of prohibited persons but they will

also make individuals who are allowed to own guns criminals retroactively not by virtue of their crime but by the passing of the legislation. who is going to spend the time with personnel to go over every domestic violence conviction record and examine the relationship between the parties to determine whether they fit the definition of these bills? who is going to input those records? suppose someone's determines that a prior conviction was for conduct against a dating partner. what recourse will be individuals have to demonstrate that he is not a prohibited person? how will guns be taken from that person? elscint would an officer be diverted from a law enforcement activity removing those guns. it could pose problems and in a large percentage of cases temporary restraining orders issued to a defendant did not

lead to permanent borders at the constitutional rights of the abuse could be taken without due process. that person will not know that he or she is a prohibited person if during the brief period the order is in effect more enforcement should show up to take away gun. we should also be skeptical that this temporary order will be entered in time to stop someone from passing a background check. making existing records more complete is far more likely to make the difference in domestic violence homicides especially gun homicides than the bills the committee is considering. i understand domestic violence advocates asked a majority to hold a hearing on domestic violence homicides many months ago but were repeatedly put off. for instance the klobuchar bill was introduced more than a year ago but only as we are about to head out of town where there are few legislative days remaining as this hearing taken place

responding to the request of advocates. only as the number of days until the election grew short to the committee scheduled a hearing. the committee has now held a markup, has not held a markup for bills for two weeks now. had the majority been serious about reducing domestic violence we have the time to work together to come up with a bipartisan solution. there was a real opportunity in this congress with a bipartisan effort to combat homicides of all kinds. that opportunity i believe has been squandered. the bill before us in the committee today deals with a problem keeping a prohibited person from owning firearms. i hope that going forward we will work together to find bipartisan well thought out to the ways to protect women and men from violence at all kinds. thank you mr. chairman. >> i'm sure we will senator grassley and i think this hearing will help address that

cause. because senator klobuchar and senator blumenthal have both shown leadership in this area and have bills in this area they have requested making an opening statement so i will recognize the two of them for opening statements. for senator klobuchar and we will proceed with witnesses. >> thank you very much senator whitehouse and thank you senator grassley into chairman leahy for holding this hearing and thank you to senator blumenthal for his work in this area. tragically we have had a number of major shootings that have killed multiple people over the last few years in our country. from newtown to nevada we have seen there are still more to be done in terms of closing loopholes in the background check system and looking at mental health issues. i would point out that some of the issues raised by senator grassley which are good ones about the record-keeping. some of that would have helped by the manchin tomiko which contain penalties for states in grants to make it easier for

them to enter in this data. it saves it to require background checks for private hand ground -- handgun sales 30% fewer women are shot to death by their intimate partners. as a former prosecutor i have seen first-hand how domestic violence and sexual assault can destroy lives and her apart families. for eight years iran off the support of people. i was charged with protecting domestic violence victims and enforcing the gun laws we have on the books, enforcing the laws involving felons in possession of a gun was one of my major priorities for those eight years. one of the things i've learned as a prosecutor is that there are still more work to be done. i was reminded of this over the christmas holidays and 2011 when i went to one of the saddest funerals i have ever attended for officer sean schneider. he was a young city police

officer with three children. his department had received a domestic violence call from a 17-year-old victim, someone she had dated. officer schneider just doing his job showed up at the door that day. he was wearing a bulletproof vest but note this could have protected him when the perpetrator shot in the head and killed him. at the funeral in that church for his three children. only a week ago the officer had been there with the family at the church not to the play. that day he was in the front in a coffin in his three little children walk down the aisle of the church. the one thing i will never forget was the little girl in a blue dress covered with stars. that is what this is about. last year the women of the senate stood together to reauthorize the violence against women act. the bill that was signed into law included a provision that i worked on the former republican

senator kay bailey hutchison that strengthens and updates anti-stalking laws to address new technology that predators are using to rest their victims. passing that bill is a critical step in protecting women but there is more to be done. a recent report found that 57% of recent mass shootings involve domestic violence. that is why last july i introduced along with senator hirono the domestic violence and stalking victims protection act. our bill does two things. a commonsense bill would protect stalking victims and keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people that stopped. it would make sure that stalkers can get guns. many states are already starting to do this on a bipartisan basis with democratic and republican support including my own state. one in six women have been stocks during their lifetime. stalking is often the first step in an escalating pattern of

criminal david accommodates and physical violence. the department of justice reports that 76% of women who were murdered by intimate partners were first thoughts by their partner. second our bill would make an important change to expand the definition of victims. right now people who aren't married and haven't either live together had a child together aren't covered under the current definition of intimate partner. they are vulnerable because they're stalkers and abusers are legally able to obtain firearms despite having committed a domestic violence crimes are being subject to a permanent restraining order. our bill fixes this problem by expanding the definition of partners to include dating partners. many states have argued on this. we are simply bringing the federal law in line with what many states have already done. i have been proud to stand up for this bill with former representative gaughey giffords and her husband asked her not captain mark kelly in support of this bill.

like gabby embarked in my home state of minnesota we value hunting and the outdoors. if it's not the season or pheasant season in minnesota it's deer season and when i looked at doing this bill i always thought of my uncle and would this do anything to hurt him in the deer stamp. the answer is clearly no. this bill is about preventing a person with a documented history of domestic violence or stalking or mental illness from having a firearm. that's it. i know senator blumenthal has been working on these issues as well especially for dating partners in temporary restraining orders and i want to thank him for his leadership. one of the things that justice mccaffery said in his testimony was that our bills quote look to strengthen current federal domestic violence laws to bring them more in line with the current was that many states have dealing with crimes of violence toward women in same-sex partners.

these bills are simple. these bills are defined to focus on an area where we know we have seen rampant violence. i want to thank all of our witnesses for being here and i hope our colleagues will join us in supporting these bills. one of the reasons senator grassley that we waited to do this hearing was that i've been trying to get a republican co-sponsor this bill. i've been very close several times. i'm not going to get it done but that's a recently waited to have this hearing. thank you senator grassley. senator whitehouse. >> senator blumenthal. thank you very much senator whitehouse for convening this hearing and for yourself spearheading and advocating measures to stop domestic violence. i want to join you in thanking our chairman senator leahy for permitting this hearing to go forward. i also want to particularly salute and thank my colleague senator klobuchar who has been so steadfast and strong in

advancing this cause and i am proud to be working with her and to be supporting her bill is a co-sponsor and i think our measures are very much complementary. i want to thank also the other members of this committee including senator durbin and senator hirono, senator feinstein and the late senator lautenberg for their leadership, and comparable leadership in this cause and of course the many advocates around the country who are championing common sense sensible measures to stop the violence and domestic violence. the two together are a toxic, deadly combination. women are five times as likely, more likely to die from domestic violence when there are guns in their households. i especially want to thank the

survivors, the loved ones of the victims who are here today. i know how much courage and strength it takes for you to be with us. but your presence is so powerful and meaningful, far more eloquent than anything i could say here or anywhere else. i want to say a particular thanks to a connecticut family who are here. mallory and doug jackson. their daughter, laurie, was a victim of domestic violence. but she chose not to accept it. she displayed the courage that her parents taught her and she decided to break with it. as many of you know that decision takes such a norma's

bravery and resoluteness. she broke with her husband. she went to live with her parents. she took with her her 18-month-old twins. she left her abusive husband and she decided to begin a new life. glorious act of courage should have liberated her, should have freed her but instead she became a victim, again, and this time daily. her estranged husband tracked her down in her mother's house and he used the gun that he was still legally allowed to possess to gun her down and to seriously injure her mother, firing bullets at her and almost killed mary jackson. barry and doug jackson are with us today and i am so deeply

grateful to you for joining us. laurie jackson sought successfully at temporary restraining order. which should have protected her. the law failed laurie jackson. the judge granted that restraining order after determining that her husband posed a clear threat to her safety and the safety of her children but even after that determination lorries husband was still able to keep the gun that killed her. even if he hadn't possess that god he could have legally purchased a new one. even at the moment of heightened rage, when he learned that she had left and was seeking that restraining order. in most states somebody subject

to a temporary restraining order can lose access to his house, to his children, to his car but under federal law he can still keep his guns. somebody might be considered too dangerous to see their son but not too dangerous to buy a handgun. because of that loophole in our law abuse victims are the least protected by the laws of our nation at the moment they are in the most danger, at the moment when they are most likely to be physically harmed because of their rage and the wrath of their strange spouse or intimate partner. they are less protected than at any other time.

i have offered legislation to close this loophole and require a period after the domestic abuser becomes subject to a temporary restraining order. during a period when the judge has found that someone possess possesses, someone poses a threat, and issues a temporary restraining order the subject of that order should be barred from purchasing or possessing a gun and the justice system should be helping the potential victim. unfortunately and tragically and unacceptably most victims are still at the mercy of their abusers rage, despite the courage like laurie jackson demonstrated in breaking with an abusive spouse. i've also introduced a measure, the gun homicide prevention act to make sure that there are

incentives and resources and grants available to states so that they will enforce these laws. these states are provided with grants under this legislation that encourages them to get illegal guns out of the hands of dangerous people and away from dangerous situations and gives them the resources to do so effectively. enforcement as i know from my own background as attorney general of the state of connecticut for a couple of decades and is a federal law enforcement officer as united states attorney is the key to making the law real in people's lives. right now federal law is a shadow of what it should be in protecting against gun violence and domestic abuse. i want to recognize again that thousands of men and women who have become victims as a result of this gaping unforgivable

loophole in federal law. their strength and courage will inspire me and i hope inspired this body just as laurie jackson's parents being here today should give us the resoluteness and the strength to make this law real. i want to thank again them, the advocates who are before us today on this panel and mr. chairman thank you very much. >> senator durbin to understand you wish to make a statement also? >> in mr. chairman i know we want to hear from the panel and i especially want to recognize in attendance mr. elvin daniel. mr. dana makes a declaration early in his statement that he is a conservative constitutionalist member of the nra and he comes to us today still asking for protection for

women like his sister and others who might have a chance if we pass the mansion -- manchin to me at -- toomey to protect women who are victims of domestic violence and stalking. thank you mr. dana for being here. >> will the witnesses please stand to be sworn. do you affirm the testimony you will get here today will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you god? thank you. i will introduce the whole panel and then we will go to their testimony. i will first introduce jacqueline campbell who is the anna d both chair of the johns hopkins university school of nursing and the national program director of the robert wood johnson foundation nurse faculty scholars program.

in 2012 she was wrecked and i said the centers for disease control and prevention is one of 20 national leaders in injury and violence prevention for her work related to domestic violence. dr. campbell is on the board of directors of futures without violence and served on the board of five domestic violence shelters and was a member of the congressional department of defense task force on domestic violence. she has published more than 225 articles and seven books and has extensive policy related service nationally and internationally related to women of violence and she has cut a vacation short to be with us so we are particularly honored that she is here. joyce lim outcome will testify after dr. campbell. she is the patrick henry professor of constitutional law of the second amendment at george mason university school of love. she has a ph.d. in history and specializes in constitutional law of legal history and law and

war. malcolm is the author of his several books and articles and historical journals for the popular press. her book to keep and bear arms the origins of a -- cited by the supreme court in the case of district of columbia versus heller. we will hear from christopher schmaling peer share of schmaling was elected sheriff of racine wisconsin two dozen tendons have is the first-ever domestic violence specialist position in the state. he resides with his family in mt. pleasant. i understand it is his son 16 for day-to-day so we are particularly grateful for his participation in this hearing creates a pleasure to have you with the sheriff. i know your son must be very proud. next we will hear from justice mccaffery who was born in belfast northern ireland belfast northern ireland but belfast

northern ireland that is called is philadelphia's home since the age of five. he has made a career of public service serving this country as a united states marine. his city as a police officer for 20 years and now an appellate judge. justice mccaffery's liaison for courts across pennsylvania as well as the special court judges of pennsylvania. he has been in the forefront of creating veterans courts across pennsylvania. finally introduced by senator durbin elvin daniel joins us reza salesman for blackhawk industrial. he is here to share the story of his sister xena who was killed by her estranged husband just days after she obtained a restraining order against him. unfortunately the story highlights only too well the urgent need for universal background checks read we are grateful that mr. daniel is here and we thank him them for coming and for his courage.

we begin now with dr. campbell. we have a terrific panel to lead us off. >> senators i'm grateful for the opportunity to testify in these very important hearings today. i will present data from my own research on domestic violence homicides of women as well as other important research and national databases on the topic. i testify today as a citizen, as a nurse and with the endorsement of the american academy of nursing. the united states has been -- as has been sent as a higher homicide rate of women than all the other westernized countries and amongst the highest rated of the world. this disparity is particularly pronounced for homicides of women committed by guns in which the country as was said to rate exceeds 11 times the average rate in other industrialized countries. much of this failed violence against women is committed by

intimate partners although neither entirely complete them or without coding errors the fbi supplemental homicide for ports the most complete national database of the homicide with information on the relationship of the perpetrator to the victim. the most recent data available from 2011 at least 45% of the murders of women were committed by her current husband or boyfriend or ex-husband. it will makes him a homicides were the perpetrator relationship to the victim was identified more than half, 54% of the homicides of women are committed by a husband, boyfriend or former husband. there were 10 times as many women killed by a current husband or boyfriend or ex-husband as by a male stranger in that database. the majority of this violence is perpetrated by firearms. in the violence policy center analysis of those 2011 murders of women there were 1707 females

murdered by males and single victim single offender incidents. of those incidents of homicide in which the weapon could be determined more of those homicides were committed with firearms, 51% than with any other weapon. women are also killed by a partner or ex-partners when they are pregnant but an important study of maternal mortality in the state of maryland from 1993 to 2008 dr. diana chang and dr. isabelle warren examined medical records of women who died during pregnancy in the first postpartum year. homicides were the leading cause of death to those pregnant women and immediately postpartum. firearms were the most common method of death, 61.8%. current or former intimate partner was the perpetrator in

more than half of those murders in nearly two-thirds of intimate partner homicide victims in the study were killed with guns. in a national study of pregnancy associated homicide firearms accounted for the majority of homicides and the majority of those perpetrators were not married to their victims. research my peers in a conductor provides provides further insight into how firearm access and domestic abuse elevate the risk of homicide for american women and explain why existing federal laws restrict certain convicted domestic abusers from buying or possessing guns. surveyed research about women indicates when a firearm is present in majority of abusers will use a gun to threaten our injured victim. in a study by susan sorensen conducted with over 400 women in domestic violence shelters in california, two-thirds of those abused women reported a firearm in their homes and said their

intimate parties to gun against them and 71.4% threatening to shoot or kill her in 5.1% actually shooting at her. among the most rigorous research available on factors that influence a woman's likelihood of homicide is the national 12 city case control study of intimate partner homicide by a husband boyfriend ex-husband or ex-boyfriend conducted by myself and my colleagues. in the study compared a group of abused women who were murdered by their partner or ex-partner to another group of abuse women who are not. controlling for other factors we found that gun access in a relationship increase the risk of homicide over and above where domestic violence by 5.4 times. a nexus with the strongest risk factor for an abuse woman to be killed by her partner or x. partner. when the perpetrator committed suicide after killing his partner increase that gun

ownership increased the chances of this homicide's or suicide by an adjusted odds ratio of 13. neither of the studies found evidence of women frequently use firearms to defend themselves against abuse or access to a firearm reduces the risk of homicide for the woman victim. in leaving out the piece of dating partners prohibitions ignores the perpetrators of a larger and growing share of intimate partner homicides. because department of justice data shows the share of domestic violence homicides committed by dating partners has been rising for three decades and boyfriends now commit more homicides than do spouses. the supplemental homicide report does not accurately code or ex-boyfriends and this is a category that is growing. estimating from our study we find approximately 300 to 500 female intimate partner homicides each year should be

added to the approximately 1000 are accounted in their supplemental homicide reports. bill 1290 to protecting domestic violence and stalking victims act would expand our national domestic violence laws to include former current dating partners who together represent a 48% of those male domestic violence perpetrators in our study and therefore is extremely important way to keep women safe and to save lives. there's also evidence the state lost to strengthen firearm prohibitions against domestic abusers reduced intimate partner homicides. two separate important studies one of the 46 and a large estate someone at the state level -- level data from the state statutes restricting those under domestic violence restraining orders from accessing or possessing firearms are associated with reductions in intimate partner homicide driven by a reduction in those

committed by firearms. the study also found the state laws to prohibit firearm possession by people under domestic violence are straining orders along with entering state domestic violence restraining orders into that federal database, reduced intimate firearm by 13% and decreased partner homicide by 10%. in conclusion women who suffer abuse are among the most important for society to protect. congress has an opportunity to do so by strengthening the laws to keep domestic abusers from getting guns trade ample scientific evidence also shows that in doing so you will save lives. and i want to end with a quote for my woman that i interviewed who was the mother of one of the women who was killed in our study. she said, please let her story be told. don't let her death be for nothing.

thank you. >> thank you dr. campbell. dr. malcolm. >> first-ever like to thank the committee for inviting me. it's a real honor to be present at this important hearing. i think that we can all agree that we have the same goals he here, that we want to protect victims of domestic violence and we are interested in public safety. the current laws on the books are not perfect but they have great virtue with long-standing traditions of american law by protecting the rights of everyone concerned. the supreme court defines the history and tradition fundamental to our scheme of order and liberty and with due respect to chairman whitehouse these bills that are behind this hearing to -- to the right of the 2nd amendment for the grand

amendment against unreasonable search and seizure and most importantly to due process, providing due process in the normal way. i would like to first start some statistics to put this whole debate in context. a fact that is very seldom advertises that homicides in this country have been down sharply for the last 20 years as well as other violent crimes. the last time serious crime murder rape robbery was the slow gasoline is 29 cents a gallon and the average american working person was earning $5807. it's hard for us to remember gas at 29 cents a gallon. the rate of family violence which is much more the focus of this hearing has also fallen between 1993 in 2002 and

continues to fall. one in 10 violent victimization's involve family violence and most family violence is simple assault. less than 1/2 of 1% of the victims are killed. the proportion of female homicides during this time period of people who are women who are killed by guns is also down but women killed by other means has gone up. the blumenthal and klobuchar bills present various problems for the right of individuals to keep and bear arms for their protection against unreasonable search and seizure and due process. there is this new focus on stalking expanding to noncohabitating individuals and involving not only serious incidents of actual violence but

bullying and a wide range of other acts under the definition of harassment which can be verbal and very vague and seems often to -- depending on what you regard as harassment. large numbers of people who are likely to be convicted or might be convicted of simply verbally harassing somebody might have a firearm. the most concerning thing i think is that the change in the temporary restraining order, the temporary restraining order would mean that the person who is alleging that they are endangered, after they file for this and after their marriage allegation can send the police to the person that they are citing's home searching for guns or any other weapon that they find without any kind of the hearing. in other words as the red queen in "alice in wonderland" said

its sentence first in verdict afterwards and that is a true violation of the right of everyone to be heard. in fact in temporary restraining order hearings in the past half of those who have been cited as being potentially dangerous have been found not guilty but all of these people would in the future have their weapons taken away from them first and sometime later they would be a hearing at which they would be allowed to produce some kind of evidence to the contrary. the other aspect that is troubling that is making this retroactive so anyone who has ever convicted of harassment or had a temporary restraining order against them would lose their right to be armed indefinitely. many people who have accepted plea bargains on the assumption that they knew what that entailed would find that they now are no longer have a right

to be armed for the rest of their lives. i think the intention is there to do good and to protect women but i think both of these bills have the wrong approach. it's wrong to deprive people of their basic rights. it's wrong to deprive people of the right of due process an opportunity to present evidence before they are actually treated as if they were guilty and afterwards things are sorted out. i would like to just include with the majority opinion written by justice scalia and howler where he ends by saying that constitutional rights necessarily take certain policy choices off the table. i think there are other and better ways of women can be protected without having to violate their rights are the rights of anyone in the process. thank you.

>> we now turn to sheriff schmaling. thank you for being here. >> thank you chairman whitehouse senator grassley and members of the committee. it's an honor to be here before you today. i'm the sheriff in racing county wisconsin. i've been a law enforcement officer for 20 years. i'm a conservative republican and i'm here today to ask you to pass to common sense lazo affect our sisters are daughters and their mothers for keeping guns out of the hands of domestic abusers. as a top law enforcement officer with two decades upon person experience i've seen first-hand the tragic events first-hand. i want to talk to about one such domestic violence incident, a tragedy that changed my career. after three years of violently, violently abusive marriage kerry had the courage to divorce her

husband. she taken a multiple restraining orders. on that horrible day of very cold january day in 2004 he beat her with a baseball hat -- baseball bat and when she tried to fight back he threatened her with a handgun. he bound and gagged her fill the garbage can full of snow pushed her into the garbage can in placer and unheated storage locker for 26 hours. my partner and i was the lead investigator on this case and threw some great breaks and great luck and a blessing from above we were able to rescue terry before she died. as a result of the ordeal terry had a miscarriage and lost all 10 of her toes on both be due to frostbite. terry is one of the most wonderful people i've known and has been an advocate for victims of abuse over decades and she was nearly killed at gunpoint. my eyes a bit wide open to the realities of gun violence and domestic abuse as they seem to go hand-in-hand.

i have been moved by his sisters story. i'm proud to say in racing county we were the first in the state of full-time domestic violence specialist. we work closely with domestic violence victims to see how we can best protect them. it any cop will tell you that domestic violence calls are the most dangerous calls law enforcement officers respond to. the last thing the victim needs in the last thing my deputies need is a dangerous abuser armed with illegal weapons. abusers routinely threatened to shoot my deputies prior to our arrival at domestic violence calls and in fact according to fbi statistics 150 law enforcement officers have been killed in action corresponding to domestic disturbances. i -- i work on a bill in wisconsin earlier this year called the safe adventures guns are kept out of the hands of domestic abusers. this bill is passed with bipartisan majority and signed

by our republican governor scott walker. this first bill i am asking you to pass as protecting domestic violence and stalking at by senator klobuchar. this will close a loophole and it would also block people from stalking convictions from having guns guns. dangerous boyfriends can be just as scary and dangerous as dangerous husbands. they hit just as hard and they fire their weapons with the same deadly force. in fact according to fbi data more women are killed in america by abusive boyfriends than abusive spouses. this past march a couple hours in racing county cheryl gilbert was killed by her ex-boyfriend and divisive dispute. the killer apparently shot her with her own gun. according to news reports have been seeking a restraining order at the time the killing but cases like sherrills or restraining orders not good enough. if you've been married -- if you have never been married to an

abusive federal law will likely not stop him from buying or purchasing a gun. the second bill i'm asking to pass would require criminal background checks for gun buyers to shop with unlicensed sellers. current law prohibits many abusers from buying guns but only requires them to pass background check if they shop at the dealer. this gaping hole in the law simply means a convicted wife beater can slip through the cracks and get it done by finding a seller who does not own a gun store. this is exactly what happened in our state. dade county wisconsin taiwan was a domestic abuser convicted by a battery not once but twice. he was legally prohibited from possessing a gun because every restraining order. instead of shopping at a gun dealer he found an ad for a 9-mm glock and a newspaper. he reached out to the seller and agreed to meet at a hardware store. there is no background check. the seller did ask this question i quote you are not going to go out and kill someone argue?

tyrone use the gun on a horrific murder spree. he killed both of his children ages one and two at the time and both of their mothers. we see the terror that abusers create on their arm. we see the impact on their wives or girlfriends and their children. we are major proponents of -- with the committee -- community of 10,000 people in my officers are working with the citizens and want to know our laws are doing everything we can to keep guns out of abusive hands. i am here today to speak for victims of abuse and to speak for my deputies. i made it a priority setauket victims. i've seen escalation of the year skilling battery and unfortunately homicide. when abuser has a gun victims will tell me sheriff is not a question of if you uses the weapon against me, it's a matter of when. i'm asking you to stand up against abuse by fixing our eyes a loss in passing clear commonsense legislation or a

thank you for your time. >> thank you very much sheriff schmaling and happy birthday to your son. we will go ahead and hear from judge mccaffery and we will see how that vote is going and we may break after that to get the two boats in. i wait -- want to wait until the end of love because we have to catch the end of one but in the beginning of another. judge mccaffery. your microphone, please. >> it says talks. i should've known that. thank you for the opportunity to address the committee about the pending legislation dealing with the growing epidemic of domestic violence and the klobuchar blumenthal pills. it appears to me the above bills will strengthen current federal domestic violence laws to bring a more in line with current one of the many states have dealing with crimes of violence towards

women in same-sex partners and clearly laudable goal expected the strengthening such laws would seem to be a more laudable goal. i spend most of my adult life in law enforcement. those years included 20 years as a philadelphia detective 10 years as a trial judge for in the appellate courts and which supreme court in philadelphia. i can say with certainty more than experienced federal law enforcement unit defines itself as a reactive not a proactive posture. and operates in a reactive defense force and by that i mean more often than not senators are law enforcement community shows up after-the-fact. i was one of those. i would show up after-the-fact. i saw the blood. i went to court. so much of the time i saw crime in the streets and people getting victimized in the streets of our cities, being victimized in our courtrooms.

that was the impetus for me to go to law school in the film and jurists because i really felt people needed somebody they are an experienced about what goes on in our streets. senator i absolutely agree that we should have boyfriends, dating partners. it's important and as the sheriff said they can shoot just like anybody else but as dr. malcolm point sound as a jurist i went from being a cop where i cared about the victims to a jurist where he cared about the accused. we have to keep focused on the fact that we have two parties here. we have the accused and we have the accuser, the victim. my goal is always to have a level playing field. you know one of the things that are as felt was so necessary and so wanted was law enforcement's ability to be there before the abuser got to the victim.

when i was a cop in my day we didn't have that opportunity. it was not there. but let me tell you something we can enact all the laws we want. the bad guys on the streets and i'm out there as a cop as i said -- that judge, i created the first-ever domestic violence court court program in pennsylvania because i saw it to be so important. the frustration was as follows. the victims are terrified. senators, when they get to court oftentimes -- prosecutors don't want to move forward. they are scared and they are intimidated. they don't have the support. in philadelphia we are lucky we do. philadelphia is one of the more progressive cities around but as an example only 35% of our preliminary psa's become permanent, 35%. why? people are not showing up. they are afraid.

but the psa's temporary ones 25% included possession of a firearm. only 25%. what's going on here? again the frustration comes in that we have to put protect their victims. how do we do that? once upon a time unless you had a crystal ball you couldn't but today senators we have the technology to give law enforcement the capabilities and by that which i mean? i gaur probation parole officers around this country have gps that's available to them so they can track people under their supervision. let's just say for discussion purpose right now and keep in mind domestic violence is in just about firearms. the overall majority of domestic violence cases that i saw both on the streets and in the courts were done with this, with knives, with blunt objects. i like to think of it is as a real major epidemic in this country.

they have legislation out there that curtails more and more people's ability to have a gun to get domestic violence is still out there. people don't want to get it done are going to do it. they're going to make it happen despite lavage upon the books. to me but i think is important is being proactive. and by that i mean right now through technology we can give our officers gps assisted support so the actual patrol officer in the neighborhood moments away from the victim can know if a stalker who is wearing a gps device on her ankle, on their wrist is now approaching in proximity of the victim. it comes up on the victims smartphone that someone has crossed the threshold for there to miler blog. the same officer in the neighborhood is notified. the officer responds and the officer gets there and they prevent violence. it's about prevention to me. because if we don't have prevention once again what are

we going to do? show up after-the-fact? pick up the pieces? transport the body to a more? personally i can't believe we don't have bipartisan legislation. who on earth can stand up and say they are really not opposed to domestic violence? every one of us has a mother. some wives, some daughters, some granddaughters. none of us want to see anything like this happened but we need to step up to the plate. legislation is great and this is a beautiful place here. it really is. this is my first time here but somewhere in north philly some moments going to be battered. that same woman has probably been battered for years and she looks at her three, four, five children she can't escape. if we take it down to court what do we get? a hug and a kiss, emotions are down someone talks to the victim and the case disappears. we ever frustrated prosecutor in

even more frustrated court. my point is we need to do things that really make things happen. if you want to send a message out there but that bracelet on that abuser. if you come within a mile of that victim not only do you be locked up but it will be strict, it will be swift and it will be really painful. if you want to talk about deterrence that can happen. so again my point to you is there are ways we can address domestic violence well beyond the violence dealing with guns. some of our states have some of the strictest gun laws and we still have a growing epidemic of domestic violence. with that being said my position is quite honestly i strongly support the concept of bringing an the partners, the boyfriends. it's important for law enforcement. again our state has it and i can't speak for others obviously but with that being said that was -. >> thank you mr. mccaffery.

we should probably take a run for the vote so if mr. daniel will be patient with us we will be recessed for probably 10 to 15 minutes. as soon as i am back we will come back into session. [inaudible conversations] >> no rush. we can take a moment to get back into our places. thank you for the interuption. let me turn to mr. daniel wit