so it was easy to, you know, to go. he's a real gentleman. but one thing he did figure out which i thought was really interesting, his accomplishments when he was secretary of defense, i've never seen anybody who's been fired put that out, a list of his accomplishments. so it's not a good -- it doesn't do him or i think the country or obama any good. you know, the other people turned it down, because how much are you going to get done? okay? the '16 budget's already up there. you're going to work on the '17 budget, who's going to be president? okay? yeah? >> it's not often i agree with the executive intelligence review. but i've got to at this time. i like many of the things you said. but i think one of your initial statements that isil cannot be destroyed is a misnomer. the ideology behind it can't be

destroyed because that's much wider than isil. that is a segment of islamism which is very broad. isil, the territorial entity can be destroyed. and i hope will. right now it's being destroyed on a several-year plan at best. i believe the gentleman is right, it could be destroyed by having a policy. that requires making choices. either we choose assad or we choose turkey. we don't sit on the fence. if we choose turkey, we get a major ground military force on our side. if we choose assad, we get a real military force on the side, not as big as turkey. either way, isil can be destroyed in a matter of years. sitting on the fence, and refusing to engage our own forces on the ground, which probably is going to continue, that is true, we cannot destroy isil even as a territorial entity at least for several years, and possibly never. what if they use the several years to gain weapons of mass

destruction, which is quite possible. >> you raise a lot of good points here. again, i think as long as people are -- accept this ideology and are willing to use terrorist tactics, it's not going to go away, because they can get, you know, car bombs or whatever it might be. and that's the point i was trying to make. you raise the question of turkey, assad. don't forget, you've got the russians who you're working with through the iranian negotiations. i mean, which is a bigger threat, isil or nuclear armed iran? you'll have to make that judgment. and to a certain extent in the cold war, it was easy. if you help the soviets, it's against us, and vice versa. and remember, that we prevailed against the soviet union, not militarily. they collapsed economically. okay? they collapsed because they were trying to maintain a very large

military establishment, and the economy was going down. and the key event -- and it's coming back now -- the saudis dropped the price of oil to $10 a barrel by 1985. and that -- you know john mccain, how he describes russia? as a country -- a gas station masquerading as a country. that was the key thing. you didn't beat them. you contain them. we had the forces, and all of that type of thing. i'll give you an analogy, and no analogy is perfect, where in vietnam we diverted our attention. we said communism was the enemy. no, communism was not the enemy, soviet communistic was. i don't believe that you're ever

going to get people who do not accept that extremist etiology, unfortunately. to the extent we'll have to live with that, we can get to the sunni, shia divide, and all of that type of thing. but no, i think that's an important point, you know, to consider. that's the point i'm trying to make, that somehow or another you're going to go home and say, isil surrendered. no, that's not going to happen, okay? >> okay. >> thank you. [ applause ] >> we're ready to move on. and our next speaker, final speaker, dr. abdalaziz. doctor, they make you earn this, the university of helsinki. as a diplomat, of course, you

can bring to this discussion your own personal experience of egypt. when dr. korb was talking about terrorism, it's the perception of the nature of the threat. and with the egyptian experience, obviously we can learn what worked and what did not work. but also, your experience in damascus for two years, until very recently, that you can also share some of your observations about the threat of terrorism. >> thank you. let me start by extending my appreciation to the institute for inviting me to this seminar.

and a special thanks to the professor who initiated the idea of this important event. looking at the distinguished panelists here, i feel like a stranger in the room. because i'm not a military candidate. i'm not a university professor. i'm not american. so please bear with me if i'm going to share with you some naive ideas. unfortunately these naive ideas represent only my own ideas, not necessarily my country's. as you know, the revolution in syria started almost four years ago in march 2011. and there are really a lot of stories that deserve to be told about this revolution from a military perspective, from a political perspective, from a humanitarian perspective, from a

socioeconomic perspective, and maybe from a religious sectarian perspective as well. unfortunately this is not the right forum to tell this interesting stories, because we are expected to focus on the role of military in combating terrorism. so i'll try just to give a syrian flavor of this topic. i lived in syria for more than two years. and i had a good habit during this time, every morning i would look at the map of syria and ask myself, what has changed. why. and where are we going from here. last august 2014, i traveled from damascus to washington, d.c., with a fortune of maps and photos. i thought it might be a good idea to share with you ten out of them today. this is the first one.

this reflects the situation in syria in summer 2013. we are talking about july/august, 2013. the red color refers to the areas controlled by the regime, and his militia supporting him, like hezbollah in syria, and so on and so forth. the green area referred to the areas controlled by the rebels. and then the black spots refers to the areas controlled by isis at that time. so this map tells us two things actually. first of all, that the balance of power on the ground 15 months ago was almost 50/50. this is not the situation right now. this is an important thing to come back to.

second, that at that time isis was very weak. very scattered. not controlling a lot of areas. the areas are not geographically connected, which is very important from a military point of view. and they were not in control of any major city in syria. this raised the question of not whether to use the military in combating terrorism, but when to use it. had we started combating isis like 15, 16 months ago, it would have been much easier. unfortunately we are talking now about a war that is going to last with us for years and years. i think it was relatively easier at that time. if we look -- take a closer look at the two major cities in sy a

syria, one of which is the capital of damascus, this is the economic capital of syria. at the same time, july/august, 2013. it's also 50/50, and you can even say almost 60% were the rebels, 40% was the regime. and there isn't a single spot in black. this is completely different today. this is damascus. the southern front, which is the most important one from a military point of view. almost 50/50, and there isn't a single black spot. no isis at all. so the main point -- the first point i'm trying to make here is that timing is very important in

using military in combating terrorism. the second point i'd like to make here is how to use the military in combating terrorism. when the rebels in syria were controlling more than 50% of the country, and they started to lose it bit by bit, they went to the international community and they said, we are losing because of one reason. the regime has something that we don't have, and we don't know how to face. which is called an air force. so please help us to neutralize this syrian air force in order to be able to continue fighting. they proposed something called a no-fly zone. and the answer they got from the international community, from the defense of syria, from what's called the london 11

group, is that we cannot do this. first of all, it requires a resolution from the u.n. security council and we are not ready to face a confrontation with russia and disregard them. at the end of the day, the russians would not allow that in any case. and if we are going to do it unilaterally, it requires a lot of military investment. you need to destroy all the syrian air defense, so many things that the western allies are not ready to invest. so the answer of the rebels were, fine, let's forget about the no-fly zone. just provide us with manpower to defend ourselves against the syrian air defense. once more the answer was no, we cannot. because some of these manpowers can be smuggled to hamas, and be

used against israel maybe. and some of it can be also smuggled to the terrorists, and be used against civilization. so it's very dangerous. and we are not ready to provide it. so we left them alone. at that time, the small scattered black spots of isis started to grow. first in iraq, not in syria. because of the sectarian policies adopted by former iraqi foreign minister maliki, the sunnis tribes in the western part of iraq, they were desperate, looking for any partner to fight side by side with them against the iraqi army. because they used to call it al maliki army. because they don't think that it belongs to them, and they belong

to it. it's the dominantly shaped army. so they wanted a partner. they found isis ready to do the job. and this gave isis an access to the area in western iraq, where they were able to recruit a lot of fighters from the sunni tribes. and they were also able to control oil and small refineries. bit by bit, they were able to be self-financed. they also controlled this border between the two countries. and were able to get a lot of money from the crossings along this border. they managed to create a network of smuggling this oil to turkey, and to sell it there on the

black market and gain millions of dollars. these millions of dollars enabled them to come back to syria, and talk to the desperate fighters of the free syrian army and tell them, well, the international community is not helping you anymore. how much are you gaining a month? $2,000? 250? we're going to offer you six. so for a fighter in the free syria army, they started to think about it. and to ask isis, what's your ultimate goal? they never mentioned the caliphate or the islamic state all over the world, the target they are using now. they said the ultimate goal was

double the salary in a month. many, many thousands of them accepted to move to fight side by side with isis. so my point here is, it's not only about ideology, yes, ideology does matter. it's very important when it comes to explaining why an american or a german or a french travel all the way from california to iraq to fight side by side with them. but for syria and turkey, it has to do with sectarianism and money in syria. still, ideology is very important. that's not the only factor in this case. so they were able to recruit more and more people, gain more and more money, and control more and more lands. this is the recent map now.

the small black spots grow to this black and gray area, which is controlled by the islamic state, which is the new version of isis. then came the international coalition air campaign against isis, first in iraq, and later on in syria. and the question here is, who is eligible, who has what it takes to control the areas that this international campaign is going to liberate from isis? definitely it is the assad regime. because as we said, for 15 or 16 months, the moderate rebels who are desperate, and doesn't enjoy any kind of support, either

we're talking about weapons or training or financial support. so unfortunately, the people in syria now are not optimistic when they think about this war against terrorism in their country, and in iraq, because they think at the end of the day, it will help the regime. my last point is, is it a lost case? or is there still hope? this is what gives me hope, actually, when i think about syria. people are still going to the streets, chanting against the regime. they started to chant against the regime like four years ago. and now they are saying, on every single occasion, down with

the regime and down with isis as well. they think they deserve a better choice. they don't have to choose between bashar al assad and his regime and another taliban in syria. this is where they are caught. more than 200,000 died. more than 7 million are now refugees in neighboring countries. and more than 3 million internally displaced. and half a million besieged in their towns. this is how they portray the relationship. i think it tells a lot. still, there is a way out by

reinforcing the moderate rebels in syria, in order to exert more pressure over assad, to get him to the negotiating table, and make sure there will be an orderly transition in syria, that will not turn it into another libya or another iraq, but will make sure that there will be an orderly transition into a more democratic society in this country. my final note is that, that's also a good one from one of the demonstrations. this is not the way out. thank you very much. [ applause ] >> do you want to take three questions? >> yeah. >> okay. any questions? no speeches now, just questions. >> can i ask you a question?

>> please. >> as we know from the lessons of history, no country can deal with the challenge of terrorism alone unilaterally. and i think in your talk, you spoke about the need to support those forces who actually demonstrated before for freedom. now, we do have a coalition, and we spoke about the role of the military. what specifically on the basis of your experience in syria, and obviously in egypt, has to be

done by the coalition in terms of trying to inject some hope for the future? and you mentioned that the struggle is for many years. i suppose decades, if not the next century. so what specifically will you recommend that the coalition, who want to protect democracy and human rights and minority rights, what should they do? >> okay. fortunately, we do have two things. first of all, an offer from four countries in the region. saudi arabia, qatar and kuturke

a. fortunately we have the president of the united states giving $500 million for training, and sending weapons to the moderate rebels in syria. and to draft a plan, to train like 15,000, 20,000 soldiers in these four countries, in a time frame that doesn't exceed a year. from february 2015. by the end of the year, we will have enough soldiers to replace isis in eastern syria and in northern syria, and to exert some pressure on assad in order to bring him into the negotiating table. and then try to find a way to

strike a deal that will move syria into a transitional period. yes, sir? >> one more. go ahead. >> sir, excellent presentation. >> thank you. >> the former command of the special operations command, the new chancellor at the university of texas, one of his favorite phrases was, you can surge forces, but you can't surge trust. problems it would seem with the way we treated the shah of iran, with your -- how do we resolve that? >> would you explain more how this -- >> in other words, the confidence, the leadership of the countries in the area, whether it's saudi arabia, the leadership in egypt, promises that we're making, drawing red lines, the confidence that we can make all sorts of promises,

but can they trust us on backing up those promises? >> well, obviously there is a problem here. but i think, still, there is enough confidence in the region, in the u.s., in order to bring the change into this area. yeah, there is a problem here. but i always think about the public opinion in the region, not only about the regimes. and i've dealt with the syrians for more than two yerks and they were really disappointed back in august 2013 when the u.s. administration promised to conduct some strikes when assad used the chemical weapons against his own people. so from time to time, you hear them saying that the americans promise and never deliver. but i think it's not yet a lost

case. and the war against isis is a wakeup call. it brought the international coalition into the area again. they are already conducting air strikes in syria. the only thing is to make sure that assad is not making use of this air campaign, and to enable the moderate rebels to control more and more lands, at least the one that they have controlled last year. the gentleman in the back. >> no speeches. >> no speeches. i want to applaud your use of maps in your presentations. and i ask, one of the reasons we were able to successfully negotiate in bosnia was ambassador holbrook was not -- not only knew more about the facts on the ground, we knew

more about the facts on the ground than milosevic did. your newest map was six months old. how would we draw those kinds of maps if we wanted to do it in near realtime, 24, 48 hours old? >> the newest one was october 5th this year. >> oh, it was? i didn't see that. because it's on facebook doesn't mean it's true. >> well, some of them are not from facebook actually. some of them i got from the syrian intelligence community itself. some of them were drawn by independent institutions in europe. and i used to verify this information with the military advisers of the united nations special envoys to syria, who has a very capable military officers there. thank you very much. >> well, thank you. and again, on behalf of the institute, we want to thank all

of our distinguished panelists and speakers. i hope that you will go away with the idea that whether you're talking about a military type of strategy in action, war, a civilian type of strategy in action, or national security, or really all of the above, because they're interconnected, i hope that you would help us send the message out to the world that this is a complicated type of operation. and we have to have very clear war or conflict aims before we start. and we certainly have to give some thought to how we want it to look when we're done. and this is not just from the political standpoint, the military standpoint, the economic standpoint, or the cultural standpoint, but all of those views and others as well. and we have to have mechanisms that can translate these plans into actions. and we don't have that very well

today in this country. and we need to do better. we also need to understand clearly that we have to be adaptive along the way. because plans and considerations change as we all know. but this is about whether we're liked or not, really, it's a crucial one in many ways. and we also have an awful lot of lawyers involved in operations. and that bothers me, too. fundamentally, you want to understand that the military goes somewhere, there's a couple of basic rules in this kind of environment. we ought to remember, one, don't ever do anything that hurts the people you're trying to help. soldiers, the lower the rank, the better they are, and they understand that. and that really doesn't need too much in the way of legal advice

or anything like that, that's common sense. during the eisenhower administration a guy named lederer wrote a book, talking about the way the americans acted and the way we were looked at by other peoples around the world in laos and places like that. eisenhower put the word out to the military, he said, start learning about cultures and languages and people and how they live, and start looking at the world through their eyes instead of yours. and we did that pretty well for a while. but i sense we've kind of drifted away from that a little bit, too. so i think that's very, very important. but anyway, i could wax on. but we're really already over time. are there any sandwiches left for those who might still be hungry? okay. thank you all very much. [ applause ]

jonathan gruber is an economist at m.i.t. who served as an adviser for the massachusetts and the national health care bills. he testified earlier today in front of the house oversight committee. and he apologized to for his recent criticism of the obama administration's rollout of the affordable care act, and remarks that the bill was only passed because voters didn't know any better. here's more now. >> i'd like to begin by apologizing sincerely for the

offending comments that i've made. in some cases i made uninformed and glib comments about the political process behind health care reform. i'm not an expert on politics. in other cases i simply made insulting comments uncalled for in any context. i sincerely apologize for conjecturing with the tone of expertise and doing so in such a disparaging fashion. it's never appropriate to make onesself to be more important than others. i know better, and i'm embarrassed and i'm sorry. in addition to apologizing for my unacceptable remarks, i'd like to clarify some misconceptions about the content and context of my comments. let me be very clear. i do not think that the affordable care act was passed in a nontransparent fashion. the issues i raised in my comments, such as redistribution of risks through insurance market reform, and the structure of the cadillac tax, were roundly debated before the law

was passed. reasonable people can disagree about the merits of these policies, but it is completely clear that these issues were debated thoroughly during the drafting and passage of the aca. i would also like to clarify to misperceptions about my january 2012 remarks concerning the availability of tax credits in states that did not set up their own health insurance exchanges. the portion of these remarks that has received so much attention lately oh mitts a critical comment. the point i was making was about the possibility that the federal government, for whatever reason, might not create a federal exchange. if that were to occur, and only in that context, then the only way that states could guarantee that their citizens would receive tax credits would be to set up their own exchange. i have a long-standing and well-documented belief that health reform legislation in general and the aca in particular must include

mechanisms for residents in all states to obtain tax credits. my model for the aca expressly modeled the citizens of all states to be eligible for tax credits, whether served directly by state exchange or federal exchange. >> those were just some of the comments made earlier today in front of the house oversight committee. you can see the entire hearing tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span2. or anytime online at c-span.org. tomorrow, a house select committee holds a hearing on the 2012 benghazi attack in libya. we'll hear testimony from state department inspector general steve lynnknock, and assistant secretary of state greg starr. see that hearing live wednesday at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span3. this week on q&a, political reporters share stories about being on the campaign trail with senator mitch mcconnell.

>> he had planned for four years this campaign. this started in 2010, right after he saw what happened in the republican primary for rand paul, the kentucky republican senator. rand paul beat mcconnell's hand-picked guy in that primary. at that point, mcconnell realized, i have to recalibrate everything i know about republican primary politics in my home state. he started to make changes, he hired key staff, and he started to build this very sophisticated, very structure knowing this would be the most difficult race in his campaign. >> so they knew they were going to spend a lot of money on technology. they had watched the obama campaign in 2008, and 2012, they had watched harry reid's reelection in 2010. they knew that they needed to go from his 2008 race where he beat democrat bruce lundsford by about six points, it was a tough race, he was going to have the latest technology. we did an interview with him in 2013 and he said he was going to build the most thorough senate

campaign ever. he was going to build the best in american history. and he probably got there. >> sunday night at 8:00 eastern and pacific, on c-span's q&a. to mark ten years of q&a, we're airing one program from each year from december 22nd at 7:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. earlier today tom coburn held a briefing on u.s. tax policy. and the federal tax code. he also spoke about federal government spending. which is set to expire this thursday, december 11th. it's 20 minutes. >> welcome. i wanted to share with you all a report we've been working on for over a year. and one of the things that's in front of the congresses that will follow this one is the tax code. and you hear all sorts of

members of congress say, we need to change the tax code. but you never hear them say what specifically we need to change in it. what we tried to do was to go through the entire tax code, almost the entire tax code, and lay out for the american public what each one of these provisions does, who it benefits, and what the effect of it is. one of the underlying principles that i used and had my staff use as we prepared this is to try to not -- try to recognize when government's trying to influence behavior through the tax code. and whether or not that's appropriate. also, whether or not we're trying to do social engineering through the tax code and whether or not that's appropriate. not in terms of whether we think it's appropriate, but whether or not the u.s. constitution says it's appropriate. which should be our guide.

you're going to see some of the areas, as you read through this, where we have made recommendations, and those are my recommendations, that's what i would be voting for -- they're not necessarily the right recommendation, but what we've tried to do is to present a full-fledged development of all the aspects of the tax code. where the money's spent, who benefits, and raise the question that if you benefit a certain group, somebody else is less benefited, and therefore, must make up for it. and so on balance, we wanted people to be able to go to every section of the tax code and see, this is how much it costs, here who's getting the benefit of it, here's the effectiveness of it, and here's what it's trying to do, and what we also tried to do is contrast if you really want to make decisions to change behavior, you're much better off doing it with a full-blown federal government program than using the tax code to do it.

because you have very little control when you use the tax code. so if you want to really influence behavior, and you really want to change things, the best way to do it is have a government program, not a tax credit or tax incentive to do it. because there's very little control when it comes to tax. there's a whole lot of fraud. and utilization of tactics that were not ever intended in secondary causes. so with that, let me stop and take questions. we're hopeful people will use this in the years forward to say, here's where it is, here's what can be done. and basically, as a guide, so that people can actually know. and the american people can know. we're going to spend $250 billion this year paying our taxes. and another $250 billion inside corporate america figuring out ways to get around taxes. so something's obviously -- that's half a trillion dollars.

something's obviously wrong, and people know it's wrong. the question is, how do you get members of congress in political dynamic to make hard choices that go against the will of some of their backers, but in the long run, will have capital formation reign supreme and growth reign supreme. that's the real key. if we really want our country to grow, we've got to change this tax code. with that, i'll stop and answer any questions. yes, ma'am? >> sorry, not related to this. >> let's stay on this first. let's stay on this, and if we have questions other than the tax code, i'd be happy to answer them afterwards. >> so, your stated objective is to change the tax process, and the two gentlemen in the senate and in the house will be probably taking the lead on that process next year, starting next year. mr. ryan and mr. hatch. have you spoken to them at all? >> they knew i was doing this.

but i haven't given them a copy. the whole goal is, i want to put it -- what we tried to do is take a look at what we saw from an individual standpoint as an individual american looking at this, and say, does this seem right, does this seem fair? i think it's really kind of stupid that we give the nfl main office a tax-exempt charity. i mean, i don't know how many americans agree with me. then we pay the guy millions and millions of dollars. but it's through a tax-exempt organization. the same thing with the pga. you know, we've got all these 501-cs, i think it's up to 150 or something, you know, and they're so abused, it's unbelievable, in terms of celebrities creating tax-exempt charities, and then using them for their own benefit, not to help anybody else, but themselves. there's just a lot of things we want to change. so the whole purpose was to say, let's look at this as a

common-sense -- you can read this in english and understand this. and the average american can understand it. and it's just to say, what are the issues that are out there? >> just following up on that very briefly. how do you hope and expect that this document, which i understood took two years to put together, to influence the tax reform process? >> my hope would be that people like you would put it out to the american people, portions of it, so that the american people can actually see that when you advantage one group of people, like the people who buy very fancy high-efficiency appliances, and one manufacturer gets $300 million worth of tax credit which is most of their profit the whole year out of that out of the federal government, and only the very rich can buy those, that the people that are down on the bottom end of the income ladder, are actually paying for that, by paying more taxes than what they would otherwise. why not let markets decide whether or not you're going to buy a high-efficiency

refrigerator, rather than the government decide. and then when the government does decide, it's only the very wealthy that can do that? how is that fair to somebody earning $35,000 or $40,000 a year? so what i want to see is the contrast made, where when we want to try to do social policy, what we do is we do it by really helping the high end the most. because they're the ones that can take advantage of it. and they're the ones that need it the least. so all i'd say is, we would like to see those contrasts put out there, so that people -- you know, the real problem is, we need a very simple tax code. we either need a national sales tax or flat tax. we treat everybody the same and let markets and capital decide where we'll expand. and if we do that, we'll grow at about 2% more per year. the way we're doing it now, we're never going to do that. >> specifically, what would you say is the most surprising revelations you and your staff found during this report? >> just the amount of fraud

throughout all the intended -- the inability of the irs to do their job. that's what i take away. i don't think my staff would say the same thing. >> anything specific that you found? >> look at all the things that they don't look at, and see if it's being done right. i mean, the way the irs works, we'd have to have 250,000 irs employees. and it's not their fault. you have this completely -- you can't find a tax accountant that will give you the same return on your taxes in this town. you can't. so that should tell us something. and what our tax code should be fair to everybody. and shouldn't advantage anybody. and everybody should participate. >> you point out some celebrity charities. can you talk about those, and the problems with them? >> you know, when -- i can't

remember which -- yeah, 5,000 bucks is all she's done through a charity? i mean, why -- you know, that's a tip to her driver going to a concert. the whole point is, i'm not against charitable contributions. i think they're great. and i'm not against having them as a portion of the tax code. but we've so expanded it, and this is not the irs's fault, this is members of congress doing things parochially like you'll see in this tax extender's package, doing things that benefit either individual members or individual states or individual industries, to the benefit of the members of congress, not necessarily to the benefit of the country as a whole. so you tell me why race car drivers get a super-fast depreciation. what i'm for is, let's expense everything all at once, right now. let's don't discriminate.

let's don't pick and choose winners. if you're in a business and you have expenses, get them expensed against your revenue. we're playing this game right now on average taxes, well, i have an accounting degree. the whole idea is to match cost with revenues. but we don't do that. we pick certain industries and don't do that. so if we're not -- let's just let them expense it all. here's what your expenses were, here's what your revenue was and here is what your tax is. they could get rid of about two-thirds of the cpas, and we wouldn't have people running across the pond to invert. we could lower the tax code tremendously. >> one follow-up. the report also takes aim at health savings accounts and the mortgage deduction, two popular tax breaks for middle class families. >> that's not true. the mortgage tax deduction isn't for the middle income tax families.

if you look at the people who actually get it, it's not middle class in this country. it's the upper middle class and the lower upper class that gets 70% of the benefits of the mortgage deduction. so we hear that said all the time, and when you get a chart from finance, they'll show that chart so it looks that way. but when you break it out, that's not true. and so all i'm saying is, let's make it fair to everybody. and let's make the benefit of the mortgage tax deduction equal to everybody. so that if you have a small home in the middle of oklahoma, let's make your mortgage deduction, as far as a benefit to your tax right, the same as if somebody who has the average home here in virginia, a benefit to their tax right. all i'm saying is, we're raising the questions, and the assumption, just like the assumption you just made, that it's the middle class tax cut. it's not. it is for upper middle income

and lower upper income. the vast majority of people do not get a great benefit from the mortgage deduction. but the brokers do. and the real estate agents do. because they think they won't sell unless they've got that subsidy there to be able to claim that deduction. >> senator, i'm from baron's magazine. i read the executive summary, and in it you said the note of clinical detachment in that you criticize conservative republicans for their opposition to tax preferences. can you give us some ideas of the tax preferences that they are opposing that you think are not logical opposition? in light of the condition of the tax code? >> you mean specifically? i don't want to name one specifically. what i would say is, if you

really want to clean up the tax code, and you really want to make a fair tax system, and you really want us to grow, and i'm not talking about the government growing, i'm talking about the economy growing, then you will -- the best thing to do in the world is to p update the tax code as of july of this year and say it goes away, and then start with a fresh look with transition policies with that fresh look. and then make everybody that's scam perring around town lobbying to keep their interests in, the well connected and the well heeled, make them justify why that's a better deal than free market capitalism and let capital flow where it will get the best return. remember, right now with our tax code, what happens is capital doesn't get invested based on the best return. which means jobs don't get created to the greatest amount. wealth doesn't get created to the greatest amount. capital gets invested on what

the net tax effect is on the investment, not on what the net wealth creation is for america. that's crazy. we're shooting ourselves in the foot. so what we ought to do is well i don't think it's capital gains at all. but that's me. when i started this, these are my opinions, let the congress decide. but the fact is it's pretty hard, i would love to get in a

debate with anybody on that. if they had real capital at risk, let it be capital. . if they don't have their own capital at risk then it's capital gain. >> what's golly molly something, how do you spell that? >> it's probably not a word. yes, sir. let me finish about the taxes. >> you mentioned the extender package, can you preview your voting plans? >> yeah, my voting plans are to vote against it. >> are they going to -- >> anything they k. >> apparently there's a package in front of the senators that they want to make permanent and they're going to try to -- >> i'll give you an answer when i've looked at it. all right, isles your turn.

>> thanks, so much. i'm looking forward to the next congress and wochbtderring what advise you might have if you were doing an orientation for the freshman senators coming in, based on your own experience, your own class through here, what advice you might give them for coming into this the congress? >> you're kind of stepping on my closing speech a little bit. >> i'm giving you a piece of it. >> i would say the thing that ought to reign is the constitution. not what party leaders want. not even what your elected wants. the reason i think our country's in trouble, and i really think it's in trouble, much more trouble than when i came here, is because we have abandoned the very tenants that made us

successful. and i believe the enumerated powers are so routinely ignored in this body. and they were pretty well destroyed under the roosevelt opportuni tutelage. i think paying attention to the constitution and really studying what the founders, and what they had to say about the enumerated powers. and why it's important. the reason we have all this raw, the reason there's $100 billion worth of fraud in medicare, it's because it's run from here. you know, the reason we have $400 billion worth of fraud in the federal government a year, it's not that people aren't trying to manage it. it's too big to be managed. you can't do it. so moving government closer to people makes the government more effective, more responsive and

the thing you're seeing now, gives people more confidence in their government because there's a real process of confidence going on right now. we see it across all ethnic groups. we see it associated with the justice department, we see it with all sorts of things. so my advice is, i think the constitution ought to reign supreme. i think you ought to support the long held traditions of the senate which i think has not been done. which allows everybody to have a voice, but they're big boys and girls and when you lose you ruse, and you move on down the road. but to not vote and to not offer amendments and not be able to speak in fever or against things and represent what you think to be accurate, goes against the very idea of the creation and formation of a bicameral body and specifically the senate. >> in the next 48 hours or so,

we're going to get this interim spending bill, presumably from the house, what do you expect to do with respect to the immigration portion of it and are you going to fight on the floor? >> i haven't thought about the immigration portion of it. i have been looking -- we spent, carl levin and i spent a year looking at the parks. we did a study, we looked at it, and i ended up putting out a report called parks. we look at how congress continues to violate the rules of establishing parks. we looked at the $20 million backlog just to maintain the

public parks. i mean they're falling apart. and we're going to put 650,000 something acres more, take individual property rights away from americans in the ndda, you kfblt touch it. it's your property, but we're going to limit your ability to do things with it, in terms of some of the land designations. so my deal is, you want to put a lands bill on the floor, put a lands bill on the floor, let's have a debate on the lands bill. but for the senate authorization, there's some good things in it, i'm not opposed to all of it. but the fact is, it's a hog going to hog bill going to the trough with everybody getting something. it's going to pass. but i'm going to make the point it shouldn't. >> with that said, go back to the spending bill here, i mean

that's, you know, there is a drop dead date on this, 11:59 thursday night. and if there is going to be those -- >> there's not drop deads. if they need to do two days, three days. >> i don't object to that. i mean still. >> i haven't been -- like i told you, i haven't spent my time looking at the spending bill yet. and i will. but right now, the first thing coming up my way is the ndaa. and what i'm told in that --. i don't know that the spending bill has come out on the house yet. >> that's what they told me less than an hour ago. >> i'll comment on it when i'm prepared to make an sbhel negligent intel jechblt comment. good night, happy holidays.

this week on q and a, political reporters share stories about being on the campaign trail with senator mitch mcconnell. >> he had planned for four years this campaign, this started in 120, right after he saw what happened in the republican primary for rand paul, the kentucky republican senator. rand paul beat mcconnell's hand picked guy, tray grayson in that primary. at that poifnt mcconnell realized -- he started to make changes, he hired key staff, he started to build this very sophisticated infrastructure knowing this was going to be the most difficult race in his

campaign. >> they had watched the obama campaign in 2008 and 2012. they needed to go from the 2008 race where he beat democrat bruce lundsford by six points, he was going to have the latest technology. and we had done an interview in 2013 and he said he was going to build the most thorough senate campaign ever, in american history and he probably got there. >> sunday night at 8:00 eastern and pacific on cspan's q & a and to mark ten years of q & a, we're airing one program from every year starting december 22 and on c spachb. >> a smart hearing on sexual assaults on college campuses, congressman david price on proposals to extechbd funding for the federal government. senator tom coburn discusses the federal tax code and the world

bank president on international efforts to prevent climate change. at a senate hearing loog into sexual assaults on college campuses, committee members heard from officials in charge of on campus security and advocates for sexual assault victims. >> the hearing will please come to order, let me welcome senator

schumer and senator grassley and senator mccaskell. we will be joininged shortly by senator jill brand as well to make some brief remarks and senator graham is expected to join us, he's the ranking member on this committee. senators mccaskell and gill brand have worked tirelessly to -- and in our military. senator mccaskell and senator helder are the lead co-sponsors and worked very, very hard to develop with the senators that makes comprehensive changes in the area of campus sexual assault. i would like to note as well of

commander leahy, through this committee and into law. as you know, it requires colleges to be more transparent about sexual assaults and other offices committed on campus. in my home state, attorney general peter kill martin, and rhode island's universities are working with me on developing best practices and advising me in these legislative efforts and i want to express my appreciation to my very robust -- finally i would like to thank all of our witnesses today for joining us. i know that you workday in and day out to help survivors who are seeking profiles and justice. campus assault is not a new phenomenon, but the last few

years has shed light on just how pervasive it has become. oil has rightly become a pry i don't recall for university board rooms, for police departments, even the white house, for its dedicated task force. innovations in the private sector include products to prevent sir repetitious.

law enforcement done right makes sure forensic evidence is properly collected and preserved. it empowers the victim, it informs her of her continuing power through the stages of investigation and prosecution. it brings professionalism in the

place of amateur university investigations. it eludes the built in conflict of interest in a university that wants the sexual assault problem minimized or hushed and it sends an important societal signal when after a rape, the crime scene has police tape up and evidence vans and officers taking statements, a signal that what happened was serious. at its best, law enforcement response is victim centered and well coordinated with both medical, mental health and advocacy professionals. when a rape victim is steered away from law enforcement, based on uninformed choices about proceeding, or because the relationship between the university and law enforcement is so weak that contacting law enforcement is a step into a dark unknown, and the victim later loses the chance for justice, she has been victimized all over again. the student has the right to know that delays in opening an

investigation and collecting evidence could mean the disappearance of evidence all together and could open up devastating questioning by a future defense attorney. until we're willing to put more information and control right away in the hands of victims, they simply won't trust the victim enough to report sexual assaults in the first place, we know this sadly from experience. until we find a -- uninformed fear and uncertainty will remain a krip mg barrier. when there's no law enforcement response at all, that silence is deafening, and sechbds the message that -- add in the new evidence that most college sexual assaults are committed by

men who are serial offenders and thus a threat to public safety. that should make it an even higher priority for us as raw makers, law enforcers and school administrators to create systems that will increase reporting, root out those who will commit such acts and see that they are brought to justice. if we don't increase and improve the role of the criminal justice system in these cases, victims l pay the price. i say improve because equal to early law enforcement in this crime is the quality of the law enforcement response. as i said, anything can be done badly, but there are best practices out there, and i look forward to hearing from today's witnesses about some of those best practices. and about how we as federal legislators might be able to

advance the goals of public safety and dignity and justice for survivors. as we begin this hearing, let me thank my ranking member for his courtesy during our time when i have been chairman and i look forward to continuing the bipartisan spirit when chairman graham takes over in the next congress. senator grassley do you have any opening remarks? >> i have an interest in this issue as i'm a co-sponsor of the bill, i don't understand the sense sixths that universities have about a crime of rape off campus or a crime of rape on campus ought to be treated the same way.

i hope that there's a real effort in the next congress to work on this bill very seriously. and move it along. and i appreciate the remarks of the chairman, they would be things that i would associate myself with at this point, but i think that it's high time to make sure that a crime is a crime wherever it's committed and treated the same way. and when it's treated universally the same way, we'll have les rape on campuses. >> i think it's significant that the incoming chairman make that statement. i turn now to senator schumer.

i'll be brief, u i want to thank you mr. chairman for holding this hearing, my colleagues for being here, i want to thank two of my dear friends on the senate for making the charge here. i want to wish senator gillibrand a happy birthday. i want to thank senator graham and all the others for bringing this whole issue to light. this has been a sort of dirty little secret for a long time on college campuses that women were abused and then afraid to come forward. and because of the efforts of the two senators that we're going to hear testifying and so many others, that's not happening anymore. and all you have to do is talk to people, relatives, children of friends, women who were on college campuses and ask them how serious is this? most of them say it's far more serious than you know. and so to get to the bottom of

this and do something about it is something we can do in a bipartisan way, we can show that government works and works well when we put our minds together and come up with careful, rational but strong solutions and i look forward to hearing the testimony and working with the sponsors of legislation to make that happen. >> senator franken, anything? >> no, i'm just looking forward to hearing from my colleagues and then from the witnesses.

>> when we are united, we are -- i think, an objective evaluation would say that we are a force to be reconed with, and we are united on this effort, along with senator hellor r and senator grassley who have worked tirelessly to put together what truly is a bipartisan bill. there's a lot of give and take that's already gone into the development of this election and i know all of us look forward to introducing it for its passage next year. in that vein, it's porvet that we hear from your committee how we can make that even better. i want to say that this is complicated first, because we're dealing with two systems, we're dealing with a title 9 system and we're dealing with a criminal justice m system. and the two systems have

different goals. the title 9 system, while it is there for the address of victims, it is there primarily to force college campuses to provide a safe and crime free and discrimination free campus. that is the purpose behind title 9 and when you combine those two systems it is confusing and complicated. so what we do has to strengthen title 9 and hopefully provide more victims with to the reassurance that they need, the survivors, the reassurance they need that they can in fact avail themselves of the justice that is there in the criminal justice system. right now, because the criminal justice system has been very bad, in fact much worse than the military, and much worse than college campuses, in terms of

addressing victims and supporting victims and pursuing prosecutions, there's almost a false position that victims have taken through advocacy groups that they might be better off doing the title 9 process. so what we really have to do in in this k06 indicate ed indicat get support and good information about the options that are available to them. we have taken reporting in the military from one in 12 to one in h -- so it's in that frame

work that we have tried the to work out a bill that will strength the support services for victims, provide them more information and as i said to college campuses all over my state when i did my tour, it does the college campuses no good to have a great system in place if the students don't know about it.

>> i must comment before i leave it to this committee's work to finding even better ways we can do this, that i am saddened and angry about the bad journali ii in the rolling stoeng about an alleged gang rape at the university of virginia. i am saddened and angry because it is a set back for survivors in this country. this is not a crime where you have ram parent false reporting or embellishment, this is a crime that is the most underreported crime in america and will remain so. and our problem is not victims coming forward and embellishing, our problem is victims are too

frightened to come forward. so this bad piece of journalism, i think, has set us back and i want to make sure that we overcome it and don't allow it to slow us in our determination to make sure that victims have the support they need at the moment they need it. and thank you mr. chairman for giving me a chance to say a few words this emergenmorning and ik with you and the other members of the committee and with our co-sponsors on the bill to make it better and stronger and get it passed next year so that we can beginning to have a list of reforms on college campuses that we have been able to accomplish in the military. >> thank you, senator mccaskell, i don't think you and senator gillibrand have to be working together to be forces to be reconed with. let me turn to senator

gillibrand. >> thank you senator mccaskell. i really appreciate this committee for holding this hearing. the fact that according to one study nearly one in five women in college will be victims of sexual assault or attempted assault during their under graduate careers should shake the conscience of all of us -- too many young women's lives are being changed forever for us to accept the status quo. earlier this congress along with a bipartisan coalition of ten senators introduced the campus accountability and safety act. a bill that will finally hold colleges and universities accountable for facing this head on aggressively with the goal of making cam -- empty promise that it is today. the bill was the result of

exhaustive efforts listening to survivors and the short -- i want to thanning both chairman white house and ranking member graham for their leadership and their support of that bill. clearly we in congress must look at how law enforcement must improve to be part of the solution, first in our comprehensive bill, we require every college and university in the country to have a memorandum of understanding with local law enforcement. it's shocking that this requirement doesn't yet exist. in these types of crimes, where physical evidence is crucial, time is precious and we can't tolerate the hours or days or weeks of delays while just dictional arguments are being made. it's where -- serve to flip the current incentive for colleges and universities that would rather sweep these cases under the rug. 100% of survivors of campus assault feel comfortable and

confident reporting to law enforcement so alleged assailants are legally held accountable through due process. but time and again i have heard from far too many survivors of campus sexual assault that they have felt revictimed because of the crime -- the police should be the first responders when a crime this serious occurs, but in the vast majority of police departments, have responded to reports with victim blaming and belittlement and as a result survivors have lost trust in law enforcement. today i would like to provide some survivor experiencings when they tried to report the -- i want to address the university of virginia story in rolling stone that some may hold up as a reason not to believe survivors when they come forward. clearly, we don't know the facts of what happened or what didn't happen in this case. but these facts have not changed. uva has admitted that they have

allowed students who have confessed to sexual assaulting another student to remaining on campus. that is and remains shocking. more importantly, it has never been about this one school and it is painfully clear that colleges across the country have a real problem in how they're handling or not handling cases of sexual assault on their campuses. i hope this story will not ultimately outshine the story of thousands of young women and men telling their stories and holding colleges and universities across the country accountable. and i hope it will not discourage other countries from -- who are demafbding reform and their voices are vital to the debate. i refuse to let this one story become an excuse for congress not to fix a broken system. because i have met with these students and seen them bravely tell their personal stories so that other young men and women on campus will not have their own story to tell tomorrow.

young women who was raped by a fellow student in columbia university reported her rape to the police. she described to a police detective how her assailant had pitched her arms down her -- choked her and hit her across the face despite her shouting and telling him no. the detective responded by telling emma that the encounter was consensual because she had previous consensual sex with the individual. the officer repeatedly stated that the perpetrator just got a little weird that night, right. anna was raped, at age 18, just two weeks into her freshman year at hobart williams smith college when she filed formal criminal charges, the police sent the prosecutor a report filled with errors which included in particular failing to identify major discrepancies given my three alleged perpetrators. anna had experienced blunt force

trauma. but the police never acquired dna samples from the alleged perpetrators, the direct attorney never interviewed anna and he declined to bring charges just one day after -- drawn out court proski -- four out of every five rapes that are reported to the police are never prosecuted. simply unacceptable. we must provide survivors of campus sexual assault with options that are beneficial to both law enforcement and survivors. >> better information to send to -- to the ash land police department, ash land oregon has developed a model for investigating reports of sexual assault that sfrooifrs to achieve these goals, called the

you have options program reporting. the department found that by using trauma informed investigative techniques in allowing victims to provide as much or little information about the assault as they choose in a time frame that they feel comfortable, the department can actually increase reporting and collect better evidence. in fact when i sat down with a woman who developed the program, she said she was able to convince her police department to do this because there were the tools that were necessary to catch multiple rapes by the same perpetrator. so if they could convict these types of serial rapists, they were willing to try a different system. they found this system worked and that it was extremely effective. by using the you have options reporting program, the ash lapd police department saw an increase in reporting by 106%. there's a critical role for law enforcement to play in comb combatting sexual assault on campuses, by increasing an

environment that enkurjs reporting of sexual assaults, police departments can bring these cases out of the shadows and hold more of the offenders accountable. i look forward to today's testimony, and to identify areas that we can improve our criminal justice system. i look forward to correspondenting to push the reform of the way that scam puss handle sexual assault by passing our big. obviously it's time to end the scourge of rape and sexual assault on college campuses and provide the resources they need tory cover and hold these people accountable. i look forward to working with all my colleagues on this committee to help improve the situation. thank you. >> thank you, senator, for your reeder ship on this issue, we are delighted also that your constituent chief kathy zoner from cornell will be one of our withins and you mentioned andrea

flesh man from the university. let's bring up the next panel. while the next panel is coming up, let me have a logistic's moment. we have a vote that is beginning at 10:30. so i think what i will do at some point during the testimony i will have a brief hiatus, so anyone who eeg here can go and vote. i will wait until the end of the vote, the first vote and then come back and restart the hearing. so don't be surprised if we have to go through that little constitutional fire. let me ask the witnesses please stand this morning. you confirm the testimony you're about to give before this committee will be to the truth,

the whole truth and nothing but the truth? please be seated. all right, we are really delighted to have this panel here. i think what i'll do is i'll make all three introductions, and then we'll go from witness to witness. we begin with andrea fleischer who is the director of student support and intervention at southern university and administrator of campus choice. and in the forensic ex -- prior to her work at the university, she worked as a community based a voe cat and program developer in the field of sexual assault and domestic violence. ms. fleischer was a contribute for to the development of the you have which has become a model of best practice around the country. we are delighted that you are

here. her testimony reasonal followed by kathy zoner. in 2009, she was sworn in the as the chief of police and she was the first woman to serve in that capacity at cornell serving a community of approximately 21,900 students and 2,700 faculty and staff. she served on the board of directors of the center for crime victims and sexual assault for survivors, for over ten years, spending much of that time as president of their board. she also serves on cornell's council on sexual violence prevention. the president's counsel on alcohol and other drugs and the council on hazing prevention. chief zoner con screens the public advisory committee.

a graduate of ohio state university and to the fbi national academy, she continues her education at cornell. we are honored to have her. and peg land diagnos-- day one, more than 25 years, a foufbding member of the attorney general's task force on the sexual and violent physical abuse of children, she was instrumental in the establishment of the rhode island children's advocacy center. ms. langhammer acted as chairperson of the rhode island children youth and family advisory committee. she is also a former member of the rhode island board of review for sexually violent predatory behavior and a member of rhode island jugs oversight committee. we are thrilled to welcome her to this committee.

>> senator white house and distinguished committee members. ash land police departments you have options programs and southern oregon's campus choice-. this is a vastly under reported crime. the barriers that keep survivors from coming forward are many but are often surmountable. when we increase at least initial reporting, the resulting benefits to individual victims and to our community are profound. by utilizing specially trained individuals in the response to reports of sexual assault, survivors are given access to accurate, complete information and options and communities become safer as we learn to identify the offenders within, most of whom will continue to commit sexual offenses if left unidentified. the need for programs like this is undeniable.

or to accept help by engaging in the campused a minute straif process. the victim is never provided a clear explanation of the law enforcement response possibilities, or if police response is considered the investigation is often hingedered by campus actions already taken. if the administrative process moves forward and the -- eck pelled often to move on to another school, where because academic records are protected they are free to offend again. the survivor may drop out of school feeling unsupported by the administration and as though his or her case was unresolved. throughout it all, what is missing the what could best mitt tate -- an informed person who can provide options, ensure that

the process proceeds at the -- who can accompany the victim through the administrative and criminal justice processes, a professional that is trained in interviewing, the criminal justice system and the title # process. it's important for us to acknowledge that part of improving the campus response to swaumt is improving law enforcement response so it can be a viable option. traditional policing has left much to be desired in regards to its treatment of victims, investigative techniques and it's collaboration with the university and college administrations. because of this, victims can be discouraged from coming forward to report crimes. rapists are allowed to continue committing assaults and the safety of campuses remains tenuous, by creating a system that links both campus administration and law

enforcement you have options and campus choice have each more than doubled the reporting in their jurisdictions. encouraging victims to come forward and report in whatever manner they are most comfortable, including anonymously, in person or through a website. victims choose the level of reporting they want and dictate the time frame and scope of their investigation and are assured of their right to suspend the investigation at any time. providing these options to the victims yields valuable information about offenders in the community that police would not otherwise have regardless of the ultimate legal outcome. campus choice provides students with the opportunity to seek information and options through confidenceal advicing. students can receive information and help without triggering a machkdory investigation. it is imperative that the

college administrator serve -- deep understanding of both the criminal justice system and the titleal 89 process. municipal police can also interact with a confidential advisor without triggering a mandatory campus invests n partnership law enforcement and campus stake holders meet monthly to review campus sexual assault cases and the confidential advisor atechbds the county's monthly -- before serving as a confidential advisor at -- i was part of the development of the you have options program and brought to the school my knowledge, understanding and experience in responding to sexual assault in a system that prioritized offering choice to victims. i am trained in trauma informed interviewing. when the police department and the university are working together on a case, i'm able to accompany a victim through the entire criminal justice process.

i have seen first hand the improvements through victim care our programs bring. before you have options and campus choice there was very little coordination between law enforcement and our university. but now, at sou, 76% of the cases coming through confidential advising that involve a crime have interaction with law enforcement. there are a number of reasons for this increase in our model ---a victim may enter either system and expect to get reliable information about both the criminal justice and administrative processes and neither will report to the other without the permission of the victim. however, either entity might contact the other to relay information or ask hypothetical questions that could benefit the understanding and choices of a victim. most importantly, both campus choice and you have options require that anyone interviewing victim is trained in trauma informed interviewing

techniques. trauma informed interviewing, or fedi process was developed to recognize and spochkd to how trauma affects victim's ability to access mem rises of their assault and how it affects their emotions and behavioral presentations. this greatly increases the action rasity of the information provided and profoundly improves -- during any interview and investigation. the success we have seen it bring to our cases leads us to highlight its use as the most important first step any campus or law enforcement agency can take. for those seeking to -- this is where i urge you to start. i truly believe that law enforcement and colleges together can create safer campuses and communities. becoming fully educated by each other's processes, providing forensic experiential interviewing training, adopting the victim centered methods of

reporting found in the you have options and campus choice programs. emphasizing the identification of serial perpetration and committing fully to an awning going purposeful collaboration that focuses on the needs of the victim. i believe this because national oregon and in southern oregon university, i have seen the change begin, it is possible. thank you. >> thank you very much. >> i have just heard that the vote is about to conclude. so let me suspend the hearing briefly while senator franklin and i go and vote, wait for the new vote to start, vote again and come back, that probably should be five or ten minutes. i thank our witnesses and guests for their patience.

>> let me call the hearing back into order and apologize for my version of ten minutes. welcome to time in the united states senate. chief zoner, please proceed. >> thank you very much chairman whitehouse. senator graham and members of this committee. i've mitted a longer more detailed but still concise statement for the record and will try to summarize my remarks here u focusing on the best practices that we have engaged in and perhaps make some recommendations. as i begin, i want to stress that cornell university recognizes sexual violence is a serious campus and public health issue that affects every member of our community.

we commend the subcommittee for taking a closer look between law enforcement and cam pugs adjudication procedures. i particularly want to thank my senator for her willingness to work with campuses in new york state. i like everyone at cornell share your goals of preventing sexual assaults on our campuses. cornell has paid close attention to law making -- we appreciate the difficulty of designing policies that address all the complexities and nuances of preventing and responding to sexual violence. the school's code of conduct and internal policies. they're governed by a number of laws, like title 9, regulations and sub regulatory guidance. law enforcement investigations are conducted by the law enforcement agency in the jurisdiction where the sexual

assault took place. there are several key differences between a campus adjudication proceeding and a law enforcement investigation. standard of proof is one of them. because campus fact finders use a preponderance of evidence standard, and law enforcement proceedings use beyond a reasonable doubt, the highest standard, survivors and those supporting them become angry and confused when a da is unable to prosecute cases criminally where a reresponsiveness denlt has been found responsible on their campus. evidence, campus fact-finders are permitted to consider a broad range of evidence, including hearsay or unauthenticated evidence that would not be permissible in a

legal proceeding. it takes more than 60 days to process some evidence like dna and twlvr -- the vast administrative time frame may also taint admissible evidence and accelerate discovery that harms the complain nant in a criminal proceeding. there's no opportunity for cross-examination in a campus investigation or a judicial proceeding. cross-examination, however, is one of the corner stones of a criminal trial, guaranteed by the sixth amendment. campuses must investigate all reports of sexual violence made through responsible employees under title 9. additionally campus officials must -- have an obligation to guide students through the process if they desire. if a student chooses to file a criminal complaint, the campus is not permitted to delay it's title 9 investigation which must be concluded within 60 days while the criminal case is

proceeding. the source of -- this is a source of much tension between the two systems and my administrative colleagues have found that largely due to these conflicts, parties are less willing to cooperate and be candid while a criminal investigation is pending. in the face of these difficult issues, you asked me to talk about some best practices. first we suggest being a good neighbor with your other local law enforcement agencies. our main campus lies within several governmental jurisdictions, our cooperative efforts with local law enforcement begin long before a crime is reported. leaders and supervisors meet and talk on a regular basis so that we can share information nationally and not only on an ad hoc or emergency basis. establishing regular and open lines of communication increases our confidence and trust to share information on indications that cross jurisdictional lines. a memorandum of understanding or

mou with local law enforcement is often cited as a best practice and i agree that it can be helpful. but entering into one is not always possible and municipalities request large jurisdictions may finding themselves with very different mou's to content with. given the one sited nature of an mou, and the amount of time and resources it takes to secure and maintain one, lawmakers should consider carefully a sweeping mandate to enter into one. there are better les costly more balanced ways to achieve the same goals. in any case the penalty proposed for fame your to secure an m ou goes too far for something that's so out of the institution's control. although the letting sure -- wave the penalty of an institution demonstrates a good faith effort, it gives the police department too much discretion and d oe's resources

also could be more fruitfully engaged. we reiterate our colleague's emphasis on trauma informed investigations. we know that oochbl a small percentage of sexual assaults are reporteded to the police. victims believe they will not be treated fairly or retraumatized all throughout the process. trained and investigative techniques, i believe the perceptions of the way we handle sexual assault cases will improve. the you have options program pioneered in ash land, oregon is a good example of how this training works. community engagement to share resources. most municipal sis are stretched thin and not able to engage fully with their campus populations. for example, many databases and other investigative support tools are not available to campus law enforcement because we're not considered upon governmental agencies by the

state or municipal agencies. easier access to these resources will be a tremendous help to appropriate campus law enforcement agencies and ease the burden on the governmental agencies. we know you're concerned about the amount of enforcement of v title 9 and the cleary act. increased fines for noncompliance should be coupled for training, education, programming around prevention, law enforcement and administrative and research. as i noted previously. resources to support training and trauma informed investigations however -- i'm sorry. as i noted previously, resources to support training and trauma informed investigations will benefit campus adjudicate fors and law enforcement. i'm concerned however that the system proposed does not differentiate between willful, knowing and intentional conduct

and inadvertent conduct. thereby affecting the amount of resources available to do a better job. the bill allows the department to keep the fines it collects creating an incentive for overenforcement. i suggest that we revise these laws to differentiate between willful and inadvertent violences. i also strongly encourage you to target education and prevention programs at the middle and high school levels, to begin to address cull churm issues around sex, alcohol, controlled substance usage and consent before students arrive at college. attitudes and perceptions about sex, healthy relationships and general rules solidify long before young people reach college age. the earlier see we can -- meaningful and impactful time, the better chance we have of making the sweeping cultural changes necessary to get at the root of this problem.

in conclusion, cornell university does not tolerate any form of sexual violence by or against members of its community, we share the responsibility for creating safer more campus culture n which harassment and violence. >> now we will turn to ms. langhammer. >> and thank you for inviting me to testify today. day one has conserved as rhode island's sexual assault coalition for over 40 years. we provide treatment, intervention, education, advocacy and prevention services to rhode islanders of all ages and we operate the state's of course children's advocacy

center. our trained staff of 40 employees and 60 plus volunteers works closely with law enforcement, prosecution, area hospitals, schools and the community to address and prevent sexual assault and abuse with highly regarded trauma informed treatment and programs. rhode island's high concentration of colleges and universities make the issue of campus sexual assault a major focus or day one. we worked with victims of college sexual assault throughout our long history so we have been aware of the issue's prevalence. we know these cases are rarely reported to law enforcement and the ones that are hardly ever move on to successful prosecution. it's clear, the current system is not working. there has never been a comprehensive system that works in the best interests of victims, either in our state or around the country. day one is on the front lines and committed to changing that in rhode island. to start the process, we are organizing a specialized task

force to address adult sexual assault in rhode island that includes law enforcement, prosecution, day oned a voe kalts, medical professionals and higher education representatives. this team will be responsible for the oversight of adult sexual assault cases from the initial report to investigation and prosecution to trauma informed clinical treatment and support for the victim. we will ensure that the victim is in the driver's seat. campus based adjudication processes don't work. colleges alone are not competent to handle the investigation and prosecution of these cases nor should they be. any hearing process should be integrated with law enforcement. but it has to be a team approach. after the release of the white house not alone report last year, the issue of campus squall came frofblt and center in rhode island. stay one has been proactively meeting with nearly all of the

colleges and universities throughout the state to develop a best practices approach to these cases. and what we have found is that everyone at the table from universitieies committed to making major improvements in but we need a coordinated approach to get there. 90% of campus rates are committed by repeat offenders, averaging six victims each. the rapists overwhelmingly remain at large, escaping punishment. the climate is that lawmakers are scrambling to find a global fix, with misleading on what constitutes rape. we need to focus on bystander,

so they can intervine when they see someone being taken advantage of. and a system that holdings offenders accountable. we know we can't leave the cases to it criminal justice system, because victims are reluctant to report. the question is not should colleges be mandated to report crimes to police, the question s how do we create a system where the victim's choices are the priorities and the process is designed to work in the best interest of the victim. we have to make the option of reporting a viable one for victims, and we know that based on successful models in other states, a positive experience during initial reporting, where victims feel supported and believed. one example worth noting as we talked about today, is the you have optionings program out of

the arbland, oregon police department, recognizes the offender focused response to sexual violence lie law enforcement professionals, a few highlight that is impressed us in rhode island, a primary goal of the program is to increase sexual assault reporting, eliminating the barriers to reporting as possible. a key component is that victim has the option to make an information report only. meaning that victim can choose to remain anonymous, and provide details of the case to law enforcement for documentation. when making an initial report, there is no requirement to meet in person, with a law enforcement officer. a victim or other party may report using an online form, or the victim may choose to have an

advocate on their behalf. they maintain control over the time and location to where the initial report is made to law enforcement. in addition to advocacy provisions, the victim is not pressured to participate in a criminal investigation after making a report. what we are advocating for doesn't universally exist today. we have to create it. if we expect victims to report these crimes, we need a system that works for them. one in which they are believed, supported and can be confident in a just outcome. we owe it to our students to provide the best to all assaults, we are accepteding a message to not bother reporting the crime. thank you. >> thank you very much, let me thank senators for joining us. before they came here, let me

step out of order for a moment. i will close the hearing, i know that the senator is under the gun for another hearing, if i could yield immediately to him for questioning, that is probably the most. >> thank you. it seems that you have options program got unanimous raves from the panel here. and it says something. i was wondering, is there knowing the mchaskle gill brant legislation s there anying that you can take from your preliminary that would legislateively say, these are the best practices, you need to do a program like that any particular aspect of the program that you think that within the

legislation itself? >> i think it would be great if the legislation would include requirements of law enforcement as well. the bill does address colleges providing confident advising, and knowledgeable through the campus. that seems a bit complicated to abdullah akadi into a bill that is mostly directed at campuses. of course, you all know about that better than i do. offering choice and collaboration, and working with a campus administration, around reports would go a long way. at the direction of of the victim, as to whether or not that is what they want or not.

>> what about the trauma informed testimony? that seems to be, is there a way to describe that that that is an interviewing technique, to be used in the military, it is based on biological science is around how our braves for memory when we experience traum a it diverges from a rapid fire questioning experience, and really affects investigators to slow down, approach an interview while talking about all of the senses of memory. what did you hear, what you feel, what did it smell like, departs from linear investigation. where were you, what time was it, who were you with, those types of things, and starts

from, tell me what you can about -- a particular situation that happened. pressured to answer a question, and so, in order to do that, they may be give an answer that maybe isn't entire accurate, trying to be pleasing to those asking the questions. when you phrase things like, tell me what you can about, that allows a person to tell you what they k. >> this is for the panel. i had a bill that provides mental health -- allows schools to partner with to make sure

treatment, and if as they need it. we got about 55 million in new funding for these kinds of programs. i have seen this work well. college campuses. interested in exploring the same model with college campuses, for anyone in the panel, what would you include in legislation to expand students access to mental health care and to make sure that college students get the ment al health support that the need? >> i think it is great you are putting that forward. i think it is important to

students have access on campus and off campus, there may be times when it makes sense to seek services from private providers in the community, not for profit mental health centers, or organization that is provide services. on campus as well. i didn't know that all campuses have that level of professional to respond to what victims need in particular. i think that it is important to expand it, and have it be available in the training available to those that would like to access it, and become skilled in that area. >> one of the barrier that is we see is a lack of time. one is based on the school year. and generally disengaged for the summer period in tends to limit

the sessions that people can have with the therapist. ultimately, it am cans back to a resource issue, i think. when you are doing trauma work, it is often long and enveloped and over a long period of time. >> thank you very much, thank you for holding the hearing, and thank you to our witnesses. i was a prosecutor for eight years, manage an office of 400, and we worked extensively with the university of minnesota and the police chief. one of the things with the discussions of campus sexual assault, and sexual assault in the military that i have always put forward is that there is trust in the system is key. all of the victim survey, the gold standard is trying the case and getting a sentence, that doesn't always happen. sometimes you can't prove it. i have met with victim and their families and said, we