>> i was thinking about a conversation we had during your confirmation. i was a law clerk, or when he was judge, and one of the things he used to say is that the attorney general is the lawyer for the united states, not just for the president. think, is that the attorney general is the lawyer for the united states, not just a lawyer for the president. following on senator gramm's comment on recess appointments, i want to address to a question. as the lawyer for the united states, if the president called you up and said, general, i noticed that the senate has gone into recess for lunch and i have a supreme court nominee i want to a point, would -- can we put them on without your device? >> to lunch? that would not be a sufficient

recess. >> what if it was lunch, dinner, and not back until tomorrow? >> i think what we are getting at is, if you look at the opinion -- >> i am asking your opinion. >> i associate myself with the opinion. >> you agree with that? >> yes. >> meaning that the president and not the senate can make the decision over revised consent? >> one has to look at the totality of the circumstances in determining whether or not the senate is actually in session as that term has historically been used. >> well, if we look at that, was your deputy solicitor wrong when he told the supreme court in a letter two years ago that the senate may act on foreclose recess appointments by declining for more than two or three days at a time?

was senator reid wrong in 2007 when he devised the plan because he said that he heard that president bush was about to make recess appointments? november 16, 2007, with sank -- thanksgiving closing in, they wanted to make several recess appointments until they got back on track and the next year he said we did not need to vote on recess and we would tell the house to do the same thing. president bush did not like it, but he respected it. are you saying that the president, not the senate, can decide when it is in session? >> what we have to do, and will we have done in this opinion, is look at history, precedent, look a lot and use common sense when it comes to the approach. >> was senator reid wrong? >> the determination that we

made here was that with regards to those 20 days, those were in fact -- >> the senate said it was in a three day session. was he wrong about that? >> i would have to look at what occurred during that time. given the facts that were presented in this instance, the determination that they made was correct. >> i do not see why the president could not look at the senate and say -- i will send up a supreme court justice and i will skip advice and consent. i am astonished by this, really, and i would think that democratic and republican senators would honor the formula that president bush honored. he made four appointments when during that time he should not have, constitutionally. >> the determination was not

made by the president. the determination was made by the office of legal counsel, who then shared the opinion with the president. >> team made the decision not to respect the senate decision about when it is in session or when it is not, which to me is a blatant lack of regard for the constitutional checks and balances, something we should avoid. may i quickly ask a question -- last year, the department found money to support work against methamphetamine. i complement to the department for that. i know that it is getting increasingly harder. we have the highest number of seizures in the nation in our state. will the department again be able to help the state's that are working on this, as you were able to do last year? >> as best we can. when it came to the cleanup of

those sites, there had been a number of container activities and, i think that this is right, tennessee is actually a leader in that effort and that a number of states have come up with things where it comes down to 20 or $30 and the experience we have seen there is something that we have to extrapolate and use in other parts of the country as well. >> thank you, general holder. >> sorry. wait. rocking and rolling here today. first of all, senator leahy? >> could have you here, attorney general. if i could follow up a little bit on what my good friend from tennessee said on the recess appointments.

there is an easy way out of all of this requiring the cooperation from both sides. i suggest a -- suggested this in the judiciary committee. that the president submit again the nominations and the republicans agree to have up or down votes within a week or two weeks. the president did this even though because he had -- he knew that there were more than 50 votes, what it normally takes to confirm someone as available, my friends on the other side of the aisle for blocking having a vote. in the stand the president's frustration, and the easy way out of this is simply the republican leadership agreeing to an up or down vote within a few weeks. resubmitting them and having an up or down vote. i would suggest that as an easy

way out. it is not as much fun on the talk shows, but it helps the government. mr. attorney-general, your department administers grant programs for law enforcement. i have been very heavily involved in the violence against women act. the senator and i have a reauthorization bill there. the government accounting office has said that there is evidence of duplications and inefficiencies in some of the programs. will your department work to make sure that if there are duplications, that they be removed and that we go forward? these are good programs, but

there is only so much money to go around. >> there is a limited amount of money to go around. from the office of violence against women, they regularly meet to coordinate their programs and activities. i would think that the one thing that you should not assume is because you see the word victim in a number of things that we see in the department, it does not necessarily mean that we are duplicating efforts. they have very distinct responsibilities. we are making -- working to make sure that the money is being used in an efficient inappropriate way. >> one of the things i am very proud of in my time in the senate is a bill that i wrote with senator campbell on bulletproof vests. i have walked down the street in denver, colorado, where a police officer came out and asked if i

was what was and he tapped his chest and he said thank you. we have been told by the gao that some of the funds have not been obligated on the bulletproof vests partnership grant program. law enforcement, especially in the smaller communities, where they do not have the budget to buy these. can you check to make sure that these funds are obligated as quickly as possible? >> to the extent that there were not drawn down, we are taking steps to allow jurisdictions to use those unused fundings to have the time that they could draw down extended so that we can get these out to these

officers. >> i would reiterate what i told you earlier this week, when i was in vermont, about your speech earlier this week. about the drones and targeting of u.s. citizens. i still want to see the office of legal counsel memorandum. i would urge you to keep working on that. i realize that that is a matter of some debate within the administration. >> that is true. >> but do keep my staff and me occur -- updated in the progress of that. >> we will. >> lastly, i wrote to you and janet napolitano to encourage you to hold petitions for same spec -- same-sex houses, in light of the administration's

this -- administration's decision to no longer defend the constant -- constitutionality of the defense against marriage act, i heard it might be granted in individual cases. i hope that you would reconsider some of the cases i have written to you about, like francis herbert, married in vermont -- lawfully, we have a number of states where same-sex marriages of legal, but then they run up against immigration problems. so, please review that. >> i will take a look of the case. >> thank you. thank you very much. >> senator lautenberg? >> thank you, madam chairman. welcome, general, attorney general holder. the job does not seem to be

getting easier, and i am not blaming you, i am just sympathizing. >> good observation. >> not so much that i will not ask for more, because we're dealing with less. we see it in the state of new jersey. 246 gun murders in 2010, more than the previous year. we have had layoffs galore and cities that cannot afford to maintain their police force structure. so, when i look at things that we're doing, i worry about credit is the weekend due, from your department, from others. what can we do to help these communities? newark, camden, other cities in new jersey have cut their police force at alarming rates.

the police force in camden, over 100 terminations of police officers in newark, new jersey. this december i wrote to find out if you would provide federal resources, a federal resources could be provided to assist our ailing cities. i am pleased to see an increase in the budget there. the department of justice, claiming other steps that we can use to help protect people of new jersey from violent crime. >> we are certainly making sure that in terms of grants, we're doing the best we can. we have a substantial amount of money in the budget. i spoke to the mayor of camden at a recession. certainly, with 2011, with what we made available, there was money to hire 19 officers with

$4.2 million. we will be looking at the unique situation again this year. we have put together task forces at various places, helping to the extent that we can as well. there are a variety of ways in which the federal government can help deal with an economic situation that many cities around the country are facing and we want to be good partners that way, but camden is a place that deserves special consideration, given the unique problems we see there. >> cast your view as to whether or not you think we are doing enough between your department, npi, our state and local police people, what are we doing enough, based of what we see with these statistics?

?o you think we're doing enough >> crime is at historic lows, and we're still troubled by a number of police officers who have been killed in a line of duty in the last few weeks. i think that is something we have to work on. i am concerned that the number of murders are down, the number of using firearms has gone up, which is an issue that we have to deal with. to many of the wrong people have access to guns and are using them in the wrong way. we have to do everything that we can to try to protect them. >> the man who shot congress throwing gifford?

-- congresswoman gifford, it was only when he fired all 31 rounds from his clip that people were able to subdue him. these high-capacity magazines were banned by congress until 2004. he said he thought the reinstating this ban should be examined. what is the result of your examination? >> we are in the process of working our way through that. we need to understand that there is a second amendment right with regard to firearms, but dissent in the case was that reasonable restrictions could be placed on the use of weapons and what this administration has tried to do is come up with ways to be respecters of the second amendment, while coming up with appropriate firearms laws that will ultimately protect the american people.

>> madam chairman, your indulgence for one more question. over the past several years, the new york police department has been engaged in the surveillance of new jersey communities. for those might be accused of terror, governor christie, the mayor of newark, new jersey, they both each apparently unaware of this large-scale investigation, how can a law enforcement agency spy on another state's residents without notifying the authorities, the government and the mayor, they do not even know about it. >> i do not know. we are in the process of reviewing the letters coming in over the concerns in those matters. in the justice department we are actively looking at these matters. i saw governor christie a couple of days ago and he expressed to

me the concerns that he had now publicly expressed, in a way that only he can. what i have read publicly, what i have read in the newspapers is disturbing. these things are under review at the justice department. >> thank you, general, madam chairman. i assume the record will be kept open? >> the record will be kept open at four questions. we have asked the department to respond within 30 days. senators may submit additional questions, but we ask the department to respond within 30 days. before i recess, i will complete the hearing the way that i began. if i have looked at the questions, answers, and the budget in the short time the we have had to review, i will thank the men and women who work at

the justice department. i have been on this subcommittee for a long time. when i think about the way that the scope and complexity of what our citizens and our country face, and what our justice department faces, we have done an amazing -- you have done an amazing job. in the last decade, the expansion in national security has gone way up. the transformation of agencies. the fbi is not j. edgar hoover's fbi anymore. everyone is out on the street, everyone is tracking sexual predators'. everyone is doing their job. and all of the wonderful support staff, secretarial staff, administrative staff, etc., we just want to say thank you. we think our country is safer

because of your work. we need an independent judiciary. we need a justice department of functions with absolute integrity. if we can fund the appropriations, we know that if you are going to have a crackerjack secret service, says -- self-service, we have to support that civil service. thank you, god bless you, god bless america. the subcommittee stand in recess until march 13, next thursday, where we will take the testimony of the director of the fbi in an open and classified hearing. the committee is in recess. >> thank you, madam chair. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> thank you.

see you. may the force be with you. >> coming up, a lawsuit by victims of sexual assault in the military, followed up by a look at the federal budget request commission. followed by the commissioner against the budget plan. then the former shell oil president on gas prices and why they're on the rise. on "newsmakers," carl levin, chairman of the armed services committee, talks about policy toward iran, the nuclear enrichment programs, policy regarding syria and afghanistan, and the defense budget. today, 6:00 p.m. eastern, on c- span.

>> i do not think the president could have got away with it. >> tim weiner, details on "the history of the fbi." including the j. edgar hoover fight against spies and terrorists. >> he is like the washington monument. he stands alone like a statue in case i am prime -- in and grime -- in grime as one of the most powerful men working in washington. 11 presidents. 48 years. there is no one like him. a great deal of what we know or think that we know about him is a myth and legend. >> "a history of the fbi," tonight at 8:00 on q&a. >> a number of sexual assault

victims are suing the military for their treatment of those complaints. the case involves eight current and former members of the military who said that they were raped, salted, or harassed during their service. they say that the military protect creditors and discourages victims from coming forward. this is about 55 minutes. >> when she comes in, we will just have her on the end. >> good morning, everyone. my name is susan burke. i appreciate your interest and your being here. today we have filed a lawsuit in federal district court in the district of washington, d.c.. civil action 12-0350.

the lawsuit is on behalf of eight survivors of rape, sexual assault, and severe sexual- harassment. retaliation is commonplace in the military. despite giving lip service to having zero tolerance for sexual predators, the facts show that the military has zero tolerance for those brave enough to support being victimized by sexual predators. this lawsuit, as well as the one that we filed one year ago in eastern virginia, are aimed at reform. there are no circumstances under which women who are brave enough and patriotic enough to stand up and defend this nation should have to be subjective -- subjected to being called slots and whores, walking mattresses. this is 2012 and this kind of conduct is not acceptable. as many of you know, this

military assessment -- successfully obtained a dismissal of the case on the grounds that rape is an occupational hazard. we disagree and will continue to fight this issue relentlessly, without stop, until we eradicate this notion that you somehow have to agree to be raped to serve this nation. i want to call out and think some people at the outset. there are some very talented filmmakers who have done a remarkable film called "the invisible war." a wonderful explanation of the wrongdoing. we encourage all of you to go and see that. it is a very moving and powerful film that led to understand that we are joined by

a chorus of survivors. i also wanted to thank two lawyers who have been a tremendous help in helping me through all of this. congresswoman spier has done a remarkable job and we applaud the efforts of the other congress members. she will be available to answer questions afterwards. i will introduce everyone briefly and i will start by thanking two organizations that have given us grants that we have given all of you a copy of. linda holtzman this year from

the american university -- from american university. >> good morning. protect our defenders was founded to support and give a voice to service members who have been harassed, raped, or sexually assaulted while serving our country. we aim to fix the broken military justice system, a system that often blames the victim and fails to punish the perpetrators. we provide support services in network and we documents and share survivors' stories. through these voices, we are building a grass-roots movement to change the system. we are currently over 25,000 voices strong, building to 100,000 voices this year. to all the plaintiffs, we hear you and we commend your bravery. the steps to your taking today

are important and courageous and will help to make a difference. sexual violence will not disappear. but we demand a military justice system that works. a functioning system with proper enforcement to greatly reduce the occurrences. it is difficult to come forward in the public and talk about rape. blaming the victim and retaliation are too common. recently a commentator with fox news this -- said that women who joined the military should expect to be raped. the military's own sexual assault prevention program is so antiquated that it implies that if you go out alone and are raped, it is your fault. this thinking is dangerous. it adversely affects unit cohesion and harm national security. it must not be tolerated. it is time for the country to hear the unvarnished truth. the young women who signed up to

serve in the armed forces are more likely to be raped or sexually assaulted, or killed, by enemy fire. 40% of homeless female veterans were raped or sexually assaulted. predators in the military are unafraid. because they know that an unwritten code shields them. our military fails to protect its most important resource, our sons and daughters who served. i urge all americans to hear these plaintiffs's of voices. go to our site, protect our defenders, and listen to others, like terry, explaining that her rapist told her that she was not the first and would not be the last and when she reported her rape and torture, she was threatened with arrest and said that she would been told that should be discharged.

darchelle's rapist was found not guilty and was allowed to reenlist. there are 500,000 others out there as well. as voices matter. there is strength in numbers. when the country fully understands the extent and abuse of power and the cover-up that protect the guilty, they will join this effort and demand change. thank you. >> thank you, nancy. we are pleased to have with us, linda holman. she is the executive director of the association of women. that order -- that organization has been a phenomenal support. we're very appreciative that linda is able to be here today. >> good morning, everyone.

my at nine years of service in the united states army were positive and enriching. they provided me with many wonderful experiences, memories, and friendships. unfortunately, that is not always the case for service members. service members find themselves in a position where it is almost impossible to stand up to injustice and to do so comes with great personal cost. it is a case of a double victimization -- catch-22. if you leave, you are punished. if you stay, you suffer in silence. all of this is piled on top of the original violence. aauw makes it our mission to advance equality for women and girls. one of the ways we do this is supporting courageous women and men who seek their treatment through the justice system. we believe women deserve legal protection, no matter what industry they were in.

we believe it so strongly that in 1981, we provided financial support through our legal advocacy fund with potentially- precedent-setting cases involving mr. regan. the case you're hearing about today has our proud of support. we know it takes courage to speak out and aauw will continue to be a platform for those voices. the victims of sexual assault are not able to tell the entire story since there is some of its stake when someone speaks out, especially in the military. the number of reported cases in the military is kept low by a culture of shame and retaliation. if someone speaks up, she is labeled as disloyal or unpatriotic and often isolated, ostracized, and harassed. the military culture victimizes

people by demanding silence. this is hard for civilians to understand because the military has a different set of rules. the uniform code of military justice. the legal protections given to civilians are different. service members do not have the right to independent counsel like civilian victims do. we recognize that when someone goes public about her victimization, it is extraordinary. and to continue speaking out in the face of retaliation reflects the courage of these plaintiffs. what is so tragic is that the blow that is not always just professional. it can be personal as well. often, people's families and friends do not support the choice to speak out which to make service members feel like traders -- traitors. pressure may be brought on family members to dissuade a victim from going public. the bottom line, these people

are not lacking patriotism. that is not what this is about. it is about people who have been sexually assaulted and victimized. thank you. >> thank you, linda. on that note of a family members, i want to recognize a man here in the audience. ben is her husband. a talented young man who went to yale and then decided to join the marine corps as an officer. he patriotically served this nation defending it in iraq. as a result of being close to his wife and sing the agreed is harassment he endured, seeing the rate and the aftermath of retaliation, ben decided he would better serve this nation by leaving military service in order to join with his wife and all of us here to fight for reform in the military. i just want to applaud him and thank you for all of your

support. [applause] i would now like to introduce ed hummer. -- ed helmer. >> good morning. my name is elle helmer. i am speaking to you as a rape survivor and an advocate for reform of justice. before i begin, i would like to thank susan for giving us the ability to change. forgiving reform a chance as well. amy, where the producers behind the invisible war.

jonathan, my fiancee. i would also like to thank the service members who are on active duty and protecting us right now. in no way do i dare any bitterness towards the military as a whole. what we do is very noble. but there are some very disturbing things happening within the ranks that need to be addressed and need to be changed. it has to happen now. as i mentioned, i was the official marine corps spokesperson from the years 2005 to 2006. during that time, i was also a victim advocate. which, just to show you the unpreparedness and lack of approach, i received a letter appointing me as the uniform victim advocate, meaning for the command, i'll be the person responsible to handle and a delegate resources for anyone else would been a victim of sexual assaults or rape.

the training i received was zero. anything passed appointing me as the officer was never heard of. it was put in a filing cabinet and gone. that is how seriously that command handles sexual assault and rape. i also like to speak on behalf of everyone else who has been violated, rate, brushed under the carpet, the fed to the wolves, because we are still strong. we still have the opportunity to change and have the inner courage to move past this. we cannot do it without support. particularly, this being an election year, and the marines at guard the president. this might be noteworthy for any sort of political candidates to notice that reform is to take place from the top and the commander -- and the commander- in-chief should also be responsible.

before i joined the marine corps, i went to the university of colorado. in europe with a very normal -- i grew up with a very normal, patriotic life. i chose the marine corps because some of my family, dating back to the revolutionary war, for every generation has served this country. my father was a lieutenant colonel in the air force. he did warn me of the statistic. in a statistic, but i am not powerless. my choice to join the marine corps was simple. marines, in theory, do the right thing, even when no one is watching. they follow a life of honor, courage, and commitment. the never leave the man behind. or so i thought. unfortunately, i found that not to be the case. after i reported -- after i immediately reported my rape by my commanding officer, i immediately found that i was no

longer in the good old boys club. as long as you walk the walk, talk the talk, you are protected. the mini go out the barracks walls, but many question -- the minute you go out the barracks walls, the minute you question the commander, you are no longer one of them. they leave behind. that needs to stop. i'm not saying "the" as a general term, because there are good marines and officers as a general -- out there. but for those or not, not doing the right thing is doing the wrong thing. and you need to stop. again, i would like to say i still support the marine corps. my choice to participate in this lawsuit is so that no one else, hopefully, will have to go through six years of suffering and silence. this is the first time i have had a voice in six years. pardon it if it is a little wobbly. however, since 2006, march 16,

specifically, it has been a dead end after a dead end. i went to 18 different members of general officers. senators, congressmen. each time, i was met with just an overall lack of manor as a less, "i am so sorry," that type of attitude. nothing ever happened. unfortunately, i would like to say it got better, but considering auriana was at the same command as meet two years later, it got worse. i would also like to continue to support the military, but also to support reform and change. if there's any possibility to move forward, we need to start now. i would like to thank everyone for their time as well as support and attention to this matter. it is very serious. it is not going away. would you focus on what makes

america strong. right now, this is weakening us. i hope the marine corps motto, and this is my closing, always faithful, it rings true. that we will always be faithful to those who serve and always be faithful to ourselves. there are others -- to other survivors other, i wish to the courage and strength to move forward. your physical wounds me he'll, your emotional wounds may heal in a little longer, but you are still strong. you are still valued. you did the right thing. you are a good person. just always know that. with that said, i would like to thank you again. [applause] >> now i would like to have the other survivor come forward.

auriana clay. i have to take a moment to applaud the courage. i thank them so much. without them, more men and women in the future would be victims. with their courageous acts, hopefully we'll be able to reduce that. >> my name is already on a clay. i'm a former marine officer. i was a first generation of law student. i chose to attend the naval academy because i want to dedicate my life to service. as a marine officer, i deployed into iraq in 2008 and 2009. a unit of greifeld respected. a commander who chose to respect human dignity even when harmful to himself. many followed his example. as a reward, i was recommended to go to a showcase for the marine corps.

a home for the top generals and court. it was founded in the 19th century. unfortunately, that is where attitudes on women have largely remained. the leadership was successful at enforcing the meticulous uniform and standards. yet they failed to miss a egregious moral failures. after six months of routinely being called a slut and whore, and you cannot have a working there. i saw it. i apply to afghanistan. i was denied this opportunity because i was considered "too critical" to the command. the command gave me their solution -- to deal with it. in august of 2010 the harassment culminated and a horrific act by a senior officer and his friends, in an effort, as he said, to emulate -- to humiliate me. might sexual-harassment

complaints suddenly changed. during the investigation, he was the lead rapist in the marine corps calendar. the investigation included dozens of pages of signed testimonies describing how it was repeatedly called a slut and a whore, but the commander decided this was not sexual harassment. he also said that my makeup and regulation skirt was the problem. as the officer who raped me use them to attack my credibility in his defense. i got out of the marine corps and started graduate school. i started a wonderful job and my life improved immeasurably. by then, i had talked to others who stores were eerily similar to mine. i was living a pattern of cover- up that played itself out in the military thousands of times. trials came and went -- a farce. the marine corps gave one

greatest immunity so he would testify. i endured another 12 hours of degrading interrogation the comet with a rapist and two lawyers acting out the event in front of me. after all that, it was adultery and indecent language. 2.5 years and assaults and my dignity put me into constant questioning. i tried to make sense of everything. i try to understand how i had exhausted every check in the military system only to discover that is not only failed, but attacked me. that is what i've bald -- filed this lawsuit. the military justice system is unchecked. the desired outcomes of commanders in charge of the. . am here to help this lawsuit

to help a wherries -- to help raise awareness that congress needs to fix this a broken system and prevent this from happening to anyone ever again. thank you. [applause] >> thank you, ariana klay. thank you to both of you for your courage. we have attended to our complaint an exhibit that really displays the attitude, the hostility towards any type of reporting. i would encourage you all to take a look at it. it is something that was posted by a marine officer on her facebook. it simply marks those who come forward to report harassment -- mocks those who come forward to report harassment. i would like to introduce a friend of mine, the director of

swan. >> thank you. good morning. in the executive director of services action network, also known as swann. a nonpartisan, non-profit organization founded to end sex discrimination and violence in the military. as former marine company commander, i am intimately familiar to the legs that senior commanders will go to cover up sexual assault and harassment in their units. in fact, i and many of my peers left the marine corps precisely because of command negligence on this issue. today i will be sharing a bit about legislative efforts to bring more justice. for several years, swann has been advocating for reform, culminating in president obama, signing historic victims'

protection rights in last december. the product was a bipartisan effort. it included such basic protection as a guarantee of privileged communication between sexual assault victim and his or her victim advocate and the requirement that commanders must authorize an expedite transfers of sexual assault victims who request them. these common-sense reforms were a long-time coming. line hasswan's received calls from survivors whose unit -- who strasser only possible because of this new law. part of it lies on the insistence that the military already has the tools to effectively prosecute offenders. and yet, the sexual assault prevention and response office has been the pentagon's primary answer to stopping sexual assault in the ranks. to be clear, they have no law

enforcement authority. no authority to prosecute or punished. its messaging is questionable. it is ripe with mythology and a victim-blaming. including the infamous poster who says, ask her when she is sober. in other words, they do not provide justice to anyone. a centralized database for the collection of information regarding sexual assault, required by law in 2009, has yet to appear. military and congressional bidders need to stop expecting solutions and start working together so victims get access to real justice. enormous challenges to sexual assault survivors remain. solutions are available. swan is working with military and congressional peter ship to enact some of the following reforms. first, rule 306 requires that

most junior commanders in the chain of command be the officer who determines case this position. in other words, company commanders, a junior officers with little experience and no legal training are in doubt with the legal authority to determine whether or not a sexual assault case in his or of -- in his or her own unique goes to trial. this archaic system often fails victims of sexual assault. they're not a trained lawyer. sexual assault victims are far more complex and most cases. the commander can never be impartial because they often supervise the victim and his or her perpetrator. the value of the accused service member is often higher than the victim, especially if the victim is of lesser rank. to better serve the victim, to remove this conflict of interest, we have been pushing hard for overhaul of rule 306 so that all sexual assault cases go straight to the general court-

martial convenient authority. some with far more skills, experience, maturity, and in per-share of the -- and impartiality and a junior commanders. the crime is defined as sexual assault. currently, article 120 is a forest-based law which includes sex plus some level of force. if in order to prosecute rate cases, military must move towards a consensus based raped law. a sex with a lack of consent. it has been judged that unlike force-based trade laws, they do not focus on the behavior the victim, but rather on the elements of the crime. 24 states have already adopted some version of a consent-based statute and the military should follow suit. the final frontier in reform lies in giving access to the course for civil redress. currently, several members --

service marriage cannot bring a claim to court. to include medical malpractice and workplace discrimination, this is critical in the event that service members to not receive justice in the military court. thank you. [applause] of blacks thank you. just following -- >> thank you. just following up on her comment, a survey done by the navy itself. over 13% of newly enlisted naval recruits admit on these surveys that they had raped someone. of that, 71% admit to being serial rapists. interestingly, use of drugs and alcohol are the primary weapon in order to accomplish the

rapes. the problem is widespread. i would like to invite to the podium and write and ask her to give us some wisdom. -- anne wright and ask her to give us some wisdom. >> thank you. thank you for you and your team to bringing for another lawsuit towards the department of defense for criminal and a egregious behavior by members of its forces and by its senior leadership. when you have to sue the secretary of defense and not just one of them, but two, three, four, you can go back how long? i was in the military -- i started 45 years ago. i am a retired colonel. i was in the military for years. i joined in 1967. we're going to have to add

another two pages just for their names on it. this is a culture within our military that has been long- standing. we are just find out from the veterans administration how many women of my age group -- i am 65. i joined during vietnam. a lot of women my age are just coming forward and it turns out that a lot of them were raped back with your in the military, but they never told anyone. never told anyone at all. the courage we have of elle and ariana klay to come forward shortly after their rate, to make sure that we know these horrible things the military is doing to our people. just to reemphasize, i read in this lawsuit that we had 13% of the guys who came into the navy saying that the already raked somebody. 71% of them say they have reaped

a couple of people. our military does not say -- raped a couple of people. our military does not say, sorry, we do not need you. if you do not think that does not have some sort of impact on the marine barracks for god sakes, the premier place of the marine corps and all of this is going on against women there, it is a part of the culture. it is a part of the recruiting culture. it is a part of the day-to-day culture. it is a part of the culture if a woman comes ford and says, i have been raped, there is a rape kit and it gets lost. i want to tell someone about it and he or she, 10% of the people reported were men. men in our military being raped. they may go to a chaplain and get counseling. someone who could confide in.

and the chaplain says to a woman, if you're drinking, that was it. 96% of the women who get rich, the chaplain -- the statistics are made up, of course. 96% of the women who were raped or drinking. that is your fault. that must've been what god intended for you. it was within our culture. the chaplains that we have are not being sensitized to what is going on, or if they are, they are throwing it out the window. so much of what is happening to women should be precluded by the military's own code of military justice. there are strong regulations in their. as has been pointed out so graphically, there are holes in this thing. the actual application of military justice that should be,

our military lawyers do not know how to do this. they do not take the time to do it. or within the criminal investigative division of the military services, that there is a culture that maybe we just do not have to investigate. even when we have a woman who was a part of the criminal investigating services herself who herself was try to help other women who read and sexually assaulted and raped, and then she was sexually assaulted and raped, and then her own criminal investigative services through her under the bus. they said, we do not even believe you. it is a culture within our military. a military i was involved in for over 30 years, that has not changed. how many years do we have to keep having these panels? how many lawsuits to we have to bring. that will kind of put a dent in

our military. right now, rather than the 1% of the women when i joined in the 1960's, women are a critical part of our military. in the air force, i believe it is 18% -- 18% of people in the air force are women. in the army, at 15%. the navy, i believe is 12%. the marine corps, 8%. it will make a dent if the women say, i am not going into that unless you can tell me that there is a culture that says if anything happens, there will be hell to pay for it. criminal acts committed on women and men. it is time we put an end to this culture, calling for this institution to change. to change from the top leadership that says zero tolerance -- that is a lie. they tolerate everything.

in contrast to 40% in civilian life. of the 8% that go to trial, less than 2% and up having sentences given against them. found guilty, and the sentences are really slaps on the hand. but it is kind of the culture of you can do it -- even if they catch you, which they probably won't. even if you go to the court martial, and not much is going to happen to you. it is an entire structure that needs to change. we need to be holding accountable all those people in the chain of command. if you put the lieutenants, the captains, the generals, and say, it is going on your athens to report any of this stuff happens in your unit. it will start changing. until we can get senior leadership doing this, we will be back here next year talking

about the same thing. i call for a rising up of the women in our military and the men of our military to say to the military we will not put up with this anymore. i have a t-shirt that says "we will not be silent. " these ladies have not been silent. we call on all the women of the world to say that we will not be silent. stop rape everywhere. stop rape in the military. [applause] >> the problem spills out of the military. the sexual predators that are not convicted leave the military and come into the community ies around the nation. later in civilian life, someone is caught. it turns out they were given adultery, indecent language as a substitute for real justice that

the military has been peddling. i would like to invite as our final speaker another long-term reform advocate, eleanor smeal. >> thank you. i am proud to be here to support these brave and courageous women standing up to their own rights and the rights of others to make sure this horrible treatment of women stops. it is interesting to me the fbi has just recognized and has changed the definition of rape for the uniform crime reports. it has dropped the word "forcible" and recognized to recognize the

pe.ments of current ra about 2/3 of it is accompanied by alcohol and drugs to seduce and render helpless the victim. we must go to a consent model. there is no question about that. if the fbi recognizes the old definition with the use of the word "force" should be eliminated for the counting of rapes, the military's should adjust to the modern reality -- the military should adjust to the modern reality. we want to be clear. we're not saying this about most men. most rape is committed by serial predators, rapists. to cover up for these people who

are recently criminals is an outrage. it is an insult to men and women. in this case, women are the victims, but we have stood year before when men are the victims. it is based on in the ecology of -- it is based on a mythology of what rape is. 95% is committed by serial rapists. the cover-up is part of the problem that has to be stopped. the irony is a woman is fighting a talk-show host, rush limbaugh, who has called a georgetown law student who stood up for her rights a prostitute and a slut. this language is being used by officers in the marines.

we just heard the pentagon is keeping rush limbaugh on the airwaves of the military network. other advertisers and stations are canceling because they understand what respect for women is all about. we are not just a small percentage of the military. women are contributors to this society and must be recognized as full citizens. we're not playthings brought into the military for the use of a few predators. we are absolutely necessary. unlike to call attention in the brief to the number of moral waivers -- i would like to call attention in the brief to the number of more waivers, -- moral

waivers because the numbers of women are being kept low by for assistance. talented women are being turned down. people with criminal records are being admitted. then we wonder why we have the persistent problem. i am here to tell you that the women's movement will stay active until there is serious reform and change for the good of our nation and for the good of women. we're going to fight it on all levels. jackie's. -- jackie spear has introduced legislation for reporting rapes. we have the military checking on themselves. we know it did not work in the civilian government.

we now have special units handling sexual assault. we need special units out of the chain of command to end this once and for all. the women in congress are determined to end this once and for all. our numbers are rising in congress. we already have 120 sponsors for the legislation. young women, old women, all of us together are determined that more respect be shown to the could have everyone -- be shown for the good of everyone. this will not just be one press conference after another. this is going to stop. i salute the courage of these brave women. i will tell you, you give us all courage and strength. we're all going to fight together until this is cleaned up. thank you very much. [applause]

>> that concludes our press conference. i want to ask all of you in applauding their courage in coming forward. thank you. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> i am sorry. we will now take questions. i neglected to say that now we're open for questions. we're going to hand you a microphone. >> [unintelligible] could you explain the distinction between this

lawsuit and the one that failed in the eastern district of virginia? >> the lawsuit we filed in the eastern district has not failed. it is before the court of appeals. in that lawsuit, we brought forward the claims of 28 and listed service members in different services. the military filed a brief seeking dismissal on the argument that rape and sexual assaults is an occupational hazard. that argument persuaded the district judge. we are hopeful it will not persuade the court of appeals. we are bringing this lawsuit in a different jurisdiction. we are suing different defendants. we're suing the secretaries and former secretaries, the marine commandants in the navy. it is focused on navy and marines specifically. the legal theory is the same.

it is the constitutional theory that women and men should not have to tolerate harassment, sexual harassment, and rape to serve. we expect to prevail in the district of columbia. >> could you talk about why you have decided to bring this against the navy specifically? do you believe their culture is more egregious than the air force or the army? do you plan to bring lawsuits against them as well? >> yes, we have more lawsuits in the works aimed at the other services. sadly, the attitude of sexual harassment and toleration for assault spans all the services. >> you decided to start with the

marines and navy? >> we proceed as people come to us. they came to us. we brought their claims for work. we are all committed to staying with this, to bring forward as many lawsuits as needed until the situation changes. >> can you point to any successful president -- precedent? >> right now, there are teed of supreme court decisions that have stood in the way of justice they are both dated. in one, a soldier was given lsd without his consent. it was held he was not permitted

to sue. the reason these lawsuits should succeed and the reason they are different is because as egregious as the lsd without consent was, it was done for a military purpose. there was an underlying military mission. hear, the rape and sexual assault have no military purpose or goal. the subsequent retaliation from of displacement -- the subsequent retaliation and displacement of soldiers' does not serve in military purpose. it is the opposite. it causes harm to military readiness. case, the military lost two talented officers. we believe the outcome in the judicial system should and will be different. >> vietnam veterans of america

is suing the cia for the kinds of things you are just talking about with lsd and other biologics. >> we wish them success. mr. doyle? >> could you speak to your hopes to rewrite article 120? as i understand it, congress rewrote it for five years ago and botched the job. they reverted with little debate -- they loaded again with little debate as part of the defense reauthorization bill. >> i will turn that over to anu. >> i cannot speak on behalf of congressional members. there was a lot of action to push reform toward a consent- based statute. the article was revised, not

nearly enough, not to the fbi definition. we're hitting it hard again this year. i can talk about details offline if that would help. >> the fbi changing the definition came after a long campaign from the women's movement, especially in the last year of the fight. there is going to be another campaign for the definition changes. congress does respond. the woman congress has been leading on the subject. they understand the forcible standard puts the blame on the victim rather than where it deserves to be. it does not comply with what we know about rape and how it is executed in our country today.

, theomen's movement numbers of groups are here. the numbers of groups of women's groups that are dealing with violence is very significant. they work day in and out. the coalition of women's groups works tirelessly to adjust our protect women in the military in civilian life from this epidemic of violence against women. it must stop. we are determined to adjust to what is now, not old standards for another day. >> we have a few more minutes, five more minutes. >> are there any cases where reported cases soar more desirable outcomes -- saw more

desirable outcomes than the stories we have heard? >> if you work through the statistics, you find of 2000 identified suspects, almost half are diverted away from the judicial process completely by the commanders unilaterally. that is one problem at the get go. of those that remain and are put through the investigative process and system, only a small fraction, less than 10% end up in formal court-martials. when you sort through the numbers and charts, you realize even the abysmal conviction rate includes convictions of rapists

for things like adultery. rapist was convicted of adultery. that would be considered a successful prosecution by the military. there may be a rare person that had their rapist properly prosecuted and imprisoned, but not very many. >> i wanted to ask about the treatment after their service as veterans. as you claim benefits from the military, having suffered any retaliation in that sense? do you feel supported by new legislation that offers counseling for women who have suffered sexual assault? >> in terms of the va, i just got out in august. the court-martial was in december. i am too new to the process to

say. >> i received a 30% disability for posttraumatic stress disorder stemming from a military sexual trauma. that was in october of 2007. despite having a disability rating, i asked what my counseling options were. i was living in north carolina. i was told the only option was to go on wednesday night to face a bill at 7:00. -- to fayetteville at 7:00. it was very hard. i cannot say there were zero opportunities available, but i think driving two hours one way off on a wednesday made it cumbersome and almost impossible from a resource standpoint. i did recently start counseling

through the va. ago.was two friday's that was the first appointment they had available. it has been almost six years. they did not have a counselor specifically for women's issues. i was transferred from the jacksonville to the wilmington the a -- va after four years of waiting. i was finally able to see them. at the first appointment, they said there was not a sexual response coordinator but i could go to fayetteville. i made something of the scene and said they needed to get someone in there now. they did and i had my first appointment. i was pretty forceful when saying you need someone here

-- someone here, it is not fair. i had my first appointment to the fridays ago -- two fridays ago. >> thank you all for coming. we appreciate your interest in the issue. >> a u.s. service members is in custody after a shooting incident on sunday. a spokesman for the pentagon joins us by phone in washington. what happened? >> we have investigators on the ground in canada are -- kandahar investigating the scene

of what appears to be a mass murder perpetuated reportedly by an american soldier on sunday. details are still coming in. there is much we do not know. it does appear to be more than 10 afghans shot by this one gunman. several of them are being treated by u.s. doctors. we're watching this closely. investigators are on the scene. the alleged gunman is in u.s. custody at this time. >> where did the shootings take place? quickly to place in a village outside one of our bases -- >> they took place in a village outside one of our bases in

kandahar province. >> what do you know about the service member who allegedly committed the shootings? >> we certainly have a suspect in custody. i am not going to be able to go into personal details about the individual, but he is being questioned as we speak. >> afghan officials say 16 people were killed. you have a slightly different account. >> we are not putting out account. we're still at the scene. we still have some afghans being treated in the medical facility. i do not want to get into specific numbers. i can tell you is certainly more than 10. >> what steps will the security force in afghanistan and the pentagon take? what does it mean for everything going on in afghanistan? >> this is a tragic incident. we will treat this very

appropriately. we will work with afghan authorities to investigate rapidly and thoroughly. we will hold anyone accountable for the crimes, these murders. we will hold them accountable to the american military judicial process. that i can assure you, the viewers, and the afghan people. we should not let this impugned or diminish the greater work being done by thousands of u.s. coalition forces with our afghan partners every day. we have 9000 americans on the ground in afghanistan. they are working every day with more than 330,000 afghan security forces conducting thousands of operations every month. that work continues and will continue. we have had terrific success working with our afghan partners as we have tried to

stem any possibility of a major offensive by the taliban. we believe we are making great progress. it will not affect the mission. it will not change our focus. it will not affect the trust and confidence we have in our afghan partners or that they have in us. >> we appreciate your time. >> president obama released a statement offering condolences to the families and loved ones of those who lost their lives and to the people of afghanistan saying the incident did not represent exceptional character of our military. secretary of defense leon panetta issued a statement. he said he had spoken to the afghan president, that a full investigation is underway, and that the u.s. will continue to work with afghan partners on the mission there. coming up, a look at the 2013 budget request. the ftc chairman that supports

the budget will be testifying. then, the former shell oil president on why gas prices are on the rise. that is followed by "newsmakers" with senator carl levin. >> i do not think the president could have gotten away with it. 100- details the fbi's year hidden history. >> hoover stands alone. he is like the washington monument. he stands alone like that monument in taste enc --ased in grime as one of the most powerful man in american history. from woodrow wilson to richard nixon, there is no one like him. agreed deal of what we know -- a

great deal of all know about j. edgar hoover is myth and legend. >> tim weiner on the history of the fbi tonight at 8:00. >> the house appropriations subcommittee on financial services hearing on the president's 2013 federal trade commission budget request. it is more than $11 million less than this year. the chairman summarized the plan and the commissioner voting against it. he is at the hearing to explain why. rep emerson of missouri chairs the hearing. >> this is the first hearing for financial-services subcommittee this year. thank you for being our first witnesses. last year, we faced many challenges but had significant

accomplishes. we funded the federal government for fiscal years 2011 and 2012. while no one was have become including me, with all of the outcomes of the bills, we did accomplish our constitutional duty. we reduced spending and enacted bipartisan bills. between fiscal years 2010 and 2012, our subcommittee allocation has been reduced by 11%. all of our financial problems are not resolved. in many ways, some appear to be getting worse. secretary geithner is projecting the federal government will reach its $$16 trillion debt limit before the end of the year. we have to scrutinize every dollar appropriated. i would like to welcome back our subcommittee members. i am interested in your input.

i hope we will have good attendance at all of our hearings. we will follow the five-minute rule for questions except for the ranking member who can take as much time as he likes. i imagine we would be getting into more discussion of the cardinals and yanking -- yankees as the baseball season progresses. that coincides with our hearings. for the rest of this, i want us to keep our questions and comments to 5 minutes. and what you all to no -- i want you to know that i will not cut anybody off in the middle of the sentence. for recognized members and seniority based on who is present at the beginning of that hearing and for latecomers, we will recognize them in the order they arrive. while i am sure we will not agree on all issues, all members will be heard and respected. i would like to introduce our

witnesses. the ftc is responsible for protecting consumers from unfair and deceptive practices as well as regulating business behavior. the jurisdiction affects american consumers and touches wide ranging sectors of the economy. i am interested to hear how the ftc is reining costs and how they will coordinate with the new consumer financial protection bureau to make sure our resources are not being used on duplicated efforts. i am looking forward to hearing from both of you. welcome and thank you for being here today. let me recognize my good friend and colleague, ranking member jose serrano for any comments he

would like to make. >> let me keep up with tradition by congratulating you on the cardinals' world series win. >> thank you very much. i am hoping we will do it two years in a row. >> the yankees have pitching this year. we are in good shape. i would like to join you in welcoming the chairman and commissioner from the federal trade commission. your agency plays an important role in our daily lives and those of our constituents by maintaining a competitive marketplace for goods and services and by ensuring that businesses do not engage in unfair practices towards consumers. during the hearing, i am particularly interested in learning more about how you set priorities in your areas of responsibility. propofol leo -- your portfolio

covers a wide range of issues. the budget request for the coming fiscal year is $300 million. that is a decrease from the current year. i look forward to hearing about whether this funding level allows for adequate staffing to cover your many responsibilities. i would also like to hear about how your priorities will change as we emerge from from this ecoc downturn. as your economy and technology continue to improve, we can expect -- expect even more people to have regular access to the internet through computers and mobile devices. more people are likely to confront issues of online privacy and i am interested in hearing about your efforts in this area and how the interact with the efforts of other government agencies. finally, one of my particular interests has always been making sure that all people in the united states, or all people under the american flag, as i would say, are treated equally.

i am pleased to see that you're working toward this goal by providing materials in a variety of languages whenever appropriate. i am also interested in making sure the people live as they are treated. i will be interested to find out what steps you take to make sure that the people of the territories have a fair market in goods and services, just like the people of the 50 states. i look forward to discussing your plan for the upcoming year in more detail and i would like to thank you both for your hard working service. thank you. >> thank you, joe. i would like to recognize chairman leibowitz for your opening statement and would appreciate it if you and commissioner rushed keep your statements to 5 minutes, here or there. >> i might be here or there, but not much more, i promise. it is a pleasure to be here with

my friend and colleague today. thank you for inviting us to testify and for the kind words. the mission for the federal trade commission is as broad as it is critical, to protect american consumers and make sure the competition shapes the economy. we try to be practical, bipartisan, and we believe that we punch above our way. for fiscal year 2013, the commission is seeking $300 million. as we require less money overall to address the expiring lease, we are seeking honest -- modest additional operating funds for additional technology and staff. of course, we would need considerable more funding if we are to move out of our longtime headquarters. one more point about our budget, last year in the fiscal year cloudier -- -- fiscal year 2011,

we returned $50 million to the federal government in fines and fees, which appears to be an effective return for taxpayers, without including our anti-trust mission, which saved consumers money. the agency will continue to tighten its belt, but congress has tasked us with a responsibility to enforce an ever expanding number of laws, including the childrens' on-line protection act, giving us the authority to create the do not call registry. we are concerned that the quality of work may become strained by the quantity of work placed upon us, especially if we undergo sequestration. priorities include competition in the health-care industry and technology markets. all of these are discussed in our written testimony, so i will just touch upon the now. on consumer protection, the commission has continued rigid

commission has continued to protect -- protect americans from fraud. since 2009 we have worked more than 90 cases against scanner -- stammers making false promises on work at home opportunities. in coordination with other of -- other fate and several partners, we have participated in sweeps involving another 400 law enforcement actions. of course, we do not just take of course, we do not just take on the small bottom