members of congress and the administration about u.s. debt and tax policy. congressional race in south carolina today, the first district in south carolina for the house seat vacated by tim scott who was appointed to the u.s. former governor is mark sanford a south carolina the republican candidate and the democratic candidate elisabeth colbert busch, sister to stephen colbert. we will keep you posted with results as they become available. >> the herald is leading the way, again, weapons of war in previous centuries. now symbols of sovereign authority. security and administrations in the house of the lord. the baron asset george young -- baroness and george young.

the duke of norfolk and the queen and duke of edinborough. >> members of the house of commons, my government pose a legislative program will focus on economic growth, justice, and constitutional reform. >> queen elizabeth the liver's her government's priorities during the state opening of british parliament. the bbc.mulcast with saying that sexual assault as one of the most serious challenges facing the military, defense secretary chuck hagel has ordered commanders to create a climate where assaults are prevented and victims are taken care of. sexualage, more than 70

assaults every day. this is 45 minutes. >> good afternoon. i'm going to make an announcement this afternoon. a couplet, i will take of questions. patton toed general get into the specifics of the briefing. last night, i spoke with the secretary of the air force about the allegations of misconduct involving the officers responsible for the air force of sexual assault prevention efforts. he has been removed pending the outcome of this investigation. we are outraged and disgusted.

it is one of the challenges facing this department, and a threat to the safety and the welfare of our people. that reality is underscored by the annual assault on sexual assault being released today. to recruit and maintain the people we need. it is unacceptable to me and the leaders of this institution. and everyone associated with the united states military. we need a cultural change where every service member is treated with dignity and respect.

where a victim's privacy is protected, bystanders are motivated to intervene. -- offenders now know they held accountable in the system of justice. responding to sexual assault and their ranks and under their command. i announced a set of measures. the code of military justice, the change will eliminate the ability of the convening authority to change findings except for certain minor offenses. these changes require the convening authority to explain in writing any changes made to

court martial sentences as well as any changes to findings involving minor offenses. series ofncing a new actions for sexual assault and prevention efforts. revised sexual assault prevention and response strategic plan. priorities,efining objectives, tasks, responsibilities. this plan and its effective implementation will help ensure that the dod's ongoing initiative to eliminate sexual assault is closely tracked and they are achieving their purpose. i am directing implementation for measures addressing accountability. command climate, and victim advocacy. these actions are as follows. i am directing service chiefs to

develop methods to hold all military commanders accountable for establishing command climates of dignity and respect and incorporating sexual assault prevention and victim care principles in their commands. i am directing methods to approve victim treatment by their peers and chains of command. direct victim input will be incorporated into these methods. i am directing that all commanders be provided the results of their subordinates climate surveys in order to enhance accountability and improved insights into command climate at every level. directing the department to improve the effectiveness of sexual assault prevention and response programs and recruiting organizations to ensure the awareness and safety of aspiring service members.

i am directing component heads to direct regular visual inspections of all dod workplaces to include military academies. that it promotes safety for all members and free from materials that create a degrading or offensive work environment. this will be completed by july 1. i am also directing the acting counsel to develop a method to incorporate the rights afforded crime victims' rights act into military justice practice. the general council will evaluate the special pilot program and other approaches to ensure victims of sexual assault are provided the council that they need. tois important for them better understand their rights and feel confident in the

military justice system. a particularly important point that they have the feel confident that if they come on our, they can rely system of justice and action will be taken in the responsibility at all levels of command. and commanders will be held responsible. last week, i named a set of experts to serve on a panel in the defense authorization act for fiscal year 2013. the panel will conduct an independent review and assessment used to investigate, prosecute, and adjudicate crimes involving adult sexual assault and related offenses. no later than july 1, i will ask the panel to accelerate its work and provide a final recommendation in 12 months.

everyone in this department at every level of command will work together to establish an environment of dignity and respect where sexual assault is not condoned or ignored. there is clear accountability placed on all leaders at every level. the leadership has no higher priority. includes insuring that they are free from the threat of sexual harassment and sexual assault. i will continue as secretary of defense to prioritize the department's efforts to turn this problem around. thank you. >> a quick follow up on your statement. you had the goal of eliminating the problem of sexual assault -- >> completely eliminating, yes. >> how possible to you think that is considering societal

problems? my question is on north korea. thishere is discussion on provocation. do you think the removal of the missiles constitutes calming or aggression of north korea? questionr first commack as i said in my comments, we are going to stay focused on every aspect of this problem and hopefully eliminating sexual harassment and assault. it should be our goal. is it going to be difficult to attain that? of course it is. if we don't have that as the goal, where we have measured or accepting a 80% is not good enough. ahead, ande what is this is a cultural issue.

it is a leadership and command issue. we are not unaware of the challenges. in theot just isolated military. it is a cultural issue. second, north korea. i will answer this way. we are prepared to always respond to any contingency. the premier of south korea is here today. meetingsone of those and i will see her later this afternoon and be with her tonight. about this lot issue. the united states is prepared with its allies to deal with any contingency. we hope that the leadership in north korea understands the

wiser course of action is to participate in a process towards peace. we hope and believe that can happen. >> the case involving the air force officer has gotten a lot of attention for obvious reasons. do you think it is anything larger about the pentagon's efforts for sexual assault? personal feelings i have expressed. secretary donnelly, chief welch, ed they expressed themselves clearly and directly this morning. no one in this building is happy about what happened. we are disappointed. it does not fix the problem.

you saw the reports and we will on this reports today issue. it is bigger than just the pentagon. we are particularly disappointed because this .lleged incident occurred here the heart and the main leadership of our institution, the men and women around the world give themselves and their moreies -- and they expect and deserve more. we all have to take some responsibility and i have said clearly in my statement that we will all be hold accountable -- and held accountable. i will take one more. >> he said people should feel

comfortable coming forward. senator gillibarand and others said as long as commanders have control over the sexual assault cases, whether it is the convening authority or moving court cases, they won't feel comfortable. are you ready to endorse some of those proposals coming out of congress?to put -- >> i took the initiative suggesting that we make some changes in article 60 for the ucmj. witheals directly fo that issuea. i believe with others on capitol hill that the ultimate authority has to remain within the command structure. there are things that we need to do and should do to make it more accountable. that is why i suggested the changes.

se are working with senator and congressmen. i think they have legitimate points. as i said in my comments, as i said one month ago, and as leaders have said, what is going on is not acceptable. we have to go back and review every aspect of that chain of command. things do need to be changed. taking awaythink the old and a responsibility -- ultimate response ability from the military is the way. we will weaken the system. it,ill continue to address it is not perfect. i think it does say something that we are seeing more people

come forward. , when youat means talk with some of these individuals, that there will be some more confidence starting to develop. that we will take those charges seriously. the victims will not be penalized. that we will do something about it, and we will get control of this. it's imperfect, it's a problem, but we have to address is. working with congress, what we are doing is the responsible way. goill ask general patton to into specifics about what i talked about and what we are announcing today. thank you. >> thank you, secretary hagel. director ofy patton

the sexual assault response office. i have a couple opening remarks and i will address the rest of your questions. let me reiterate that sexual assault is an affront to the values we defend. as today shows, we have work to do and it remains a persistent problem and the department. it is a challenge confronting the military. while we are moving ahead to combat this crime, it is clear we have work to do. we have to eliminate this threat for the safety and well-being of those in uniform. for report contains data military services and outcomes of sexual assault as well as results from a confidential surveys of active and reserve components of the force. the surveys are conducted every two years as was mandated in the national defense authorization act. this is the year we have survey

results incorporated into the annual report. it will be included every two years from here on out. provide prevalence estimates for estimated actualnce for unwanted contact among the forces. we also included survey findings from the national intimate partner survey, a joint effort between the centers for disease control and the national institute of justice with the department of defense. first i will go through some of the key findings of the annual report and i will talk to you briefly about the strategic plan that the secretary announced. he covered some of the eight initiatives and i will be prepared to take questions. havethe annual report, we

the principal findings. the prevalence of unwanted sexual contact increased for active duty women. offense ined as any the full range of offenses from crime to penetrating abusive sexual contact. prevalence fors unwanted sexual contact, the term that encompasses the full range of continuing harm. the prevalence of unwanted sexual contact that we derive from the survey remained unchanged for active duty men and for reserve components, national guard, men and women. men andge active duty unchanged men and women in the national guard. there were reports of sexual assault revolving -- involving

active service members. i switched from the survey results to the actual reports. these are the reports that come from the victims in the form of unrestricted reports, the and one that goes forward. it is investigated independently by the military criminal investigative office. restricted reports remain confidential but they still get medical care. 3374 total reports. a 6% increase from fiscal year 11. reports, 816 were restricted. 2000558 were unrestricted. unrestrickted. when you compare the survey results with the actual reports

were the victims make the tough step of filing a report to enough already, it shows sexual assault is a vastly underreported crime. prevalence remaining at a current level, we view an increase in reports with victims as meaning that we have more victims coming forward that are receiving medical care. and in unrestricted reports, coming forward with the cases are entered into the law enforcement system. ultimately, we have more cases that proceed to the military justice system and holding the appropriate offenders accountable. awareness and new programs i have seen since the time i have been director this past july, we have these in place across the department. but we have more work to do.

with this understanding, the department is publishing a revised sexual assault strategic plan. made references to this. it provides authoritative guidance for the department agencies and components. it operationalizes the key tasks for the strategic direction for the force on sexual assault prevention and response. thealigns and synchronize efforts across the department along the five lines of effort. prevention, investigation, accountability, victim advocacy, assessment. to usment is important this is not a static program. -- because this is not a static program. months ago in july, it will

not be the program that we see in the future. we are continually looking for ways to improve and make a difference. we announced new initiatives today that will make a difference and change the culture. driving the culture change to turn this around. strategic plan just described for you, and i have given you additional descriptions, there are the new initiatives that we feel are directly responsive to issues identified in the annual report and will contribute to making this enduring culture change. i am prepared to describe any or all of these right now in detail and i am happy to answer your questions. >> the secretary mentioned climate survey. the air force has a climate

survey every two years that they -- not used to rape leadrs. leaders. will they be focused specifically on sexual assault? >> all the services do some form of climate survey, command climate survey, the national defense authorization act stipulated that they be done at a certain frequency. there is one initially done at 120 days or earlier upon assumption of command. be onespecified there'll done annually thereafter. within the first 120 days is the initial and annually to the lifetime -- through the lifetime of the command. these surveys are important. we wrote a number of questions not just about sexual assault. it is about hazing and other elements of climate important to

an effective command. questions and to the ago.y last april, a year 50,000 of those surveys are conducted every month. we see the results. my office sees the results. what is different? thatinitiative will direct the survey results be given to the next higher commander in the chain of command. currently, the survey results are provided to the survey commander. the higher level commander can request them results but they are not given as a matter of policy. divisibility of the senior command. command andonel in i have a subordinate battalion i will be seeing the

annual reports and annual surveys of each of those battalion commanders as they are provided to me directly. we are increasing the level of visibility of the command climate. senior andore experienced commander into the mix in terms of assessing these results. is trouble if there and climate issues that are not corrected or addressed, they are able to hold the junior commander accountable. that is one set of templates. inputs. this is aimed at increasing accountability at the higher level of command. >> [inaudible] are currently conducted at multiple levels and

the services, and so the direction is that they will be provided to the next higher level of command. the problem ispt getting worse or do you think people are simply more comfortable reporting the problem and it might be a measure of success? >> i will break it into two pieces. when we looked at the actual reports, the victims make the difficult step of coming forward and filing a report. we view an increase in those reports that could be a sign of improving confidence. there are other things that we look at in terms of confidence as well. i will get to that. we want more reports because more reports, another victim is getting cared for. the unrestricted reports means more cases investigated by law

enforcement and ultimately taken to the justice system and holding offenders accountable. survey, it isthe confidential and goes out to a broad base of the individuals, both male and female, different ages. results are weighted. we have a team of statisticians that look at this every year from 2006 to 2010, and 2012 with the data points that we looked at. year, as i saw this mentioned for the active duty females, an increase in the prevalence indicated by their responses to that survey. we take that very seriously. it is one of the key ways that we measure whether a prevention

having is effective and the -- ultimately preventing the crimes from happening in the first place. what we want to see is the prevalence trend to come down. down to itrate comes intersects with the reporting rape, they both go down. as long as it remains at a high of victimis a sign confidence and coming forward. what else did we look at? the rate at which victims remain in the justice system. we look very closely. you can't prosecute a case when a victim withdraws from the process. we look at that rate. we also look at the rate at which victims come forward and

make a restricted report and convert from restricted to unrestricted. that is a sign of victim confidence, willingness to take their case to law enforcement. uptickar, we saw an there. a positive indicator that there are signs of improving confidence. this yearear to 17% for victims that converted to the unrestricted report. there are a number of things that we look at, the survey is a big part of it. get to will try to victim confidence. one of the things that secretary agel announced is the initiative to direct the service chiefs to develop methods where we are caring for victims and monitoring and improving how

they are being treated by their peers, co-workers, and leaders. why is that important? we were told victims were not satisfied by the way they were treated in the unit. they received retaliation, social retaliation, leadership retaliation. that is a huge barrier for reporting. we pay attention to that and so we get out there and develop methods by which we are getting better treatment. and not medical treatment, but etter peer and leader-led treatment to improve victim confidence. >> the survey numbers that you mentioned, is that the 19,000 no. why? 19,00as two years ago -- 0 number, right?

two years ago? >> for active duty women, the percentage we get is that -- this is an estimate derive from the survey methods -- 6.1% of active duty when men were victimized by unwanted sexual contact based on a 2012 survey. men, n, 1.2% active duty victims of unwanted sexual contact according to their survey. the number you are referring to in 2010, the calculation was made with an extrapolation when you take the percentages and apply them against the n strength of the force. it gives you a figure. it is an extrapolation of the percentage. this year, when you apply the

figure to the female n strength, you get 12,000. maleale percentage to the plus orth is 14,000, minus 1,000 in the survey results. that is the equivalent figure. 26,000,hem together is cooperative to the 19,000 that was derived in the 2010 survey. >> [inaudible] >> no, that is based on active duty survey. >> one more number. i apologize, but we did not get the report before the briefing. the total number eligible to be charged by the u.s. military, how many were court-martialed and convicted?

questionan say that and get you an answer when we dig into it. i can get that answer to you. goted to make sure that i the numerator and denominator correct. i will come back to you on that and take that question for you. >> of all the things you are worried about is the perceived legitimacy of the process. what is the argument for not taking it out side of the chain of command? >> i think the secretary addressed that question, so i'll say having been a commander for over five years, i'll say that moreed to have commanders involved in the solution, not less involved. we want the more involved because it is important to set the right climate. commanders lead by example lead

set standards. commanders have to hold people accountable to meeting those standards. ben people choose to undisciplined, they need have the tools and the authority to take care of that and address that. that is one side of it. that sectione is thewhich has been mandated, independent panel that the secretary mentioned. one of the charters for that panel is to look exactly at this issue, the role of commander as it pertains to the prosecution of sexual assault cases. we made the announcement of the panel members today. we are announcing that the members of the panel will commence work.

he has called upon the panel .oday to complete its work we want a quick return on that. it is probably one of the key issues that the panel is looking at. the role of the commander and the investigation. >> the panel will consider taking the investigations -- look at theave to exact language but it was told that the uniform commander is apprised of cases of sexual assault. >> the secretary talked about accountability at the president talked about accountability. can you point at cases where commanders have been held accountable for mishandling cases or for climate regarding sexual assault cases? >> i will point to the initiative that the secretary put in place today.

at greater command accountability. in addition to the climate survey peace, directly relating ,o command accountability directing the service members and the service chiefs to develop members -- methods to evaluate the performance of commanders in terms of their establishment of their respect and how they are adhering to the principles of sexual assault prevention response in their command. that is something reinforced from the secretary level across the field. it is that important. it is hugely important. this is something he is announcing as an initiative that will really improve that measure of accountability up and down the chain of command.

>> this is not a new problem. are you saying people have not been held accountable? can you point to any cases? is there substance to it? >> there are plenty of cases that have yielded convictions of offenders and held appro priately accountable. we are looking to improve that step of the process. nowinal investigators are taken every sexual assault case they investigate. those cases are provided to commanders and we have recently elevated the disposition and authority level. last year it was that the '05 level. '06 level, it to the

making disposition decisions about how assault cases will be handled. taken to nonjudicial punishment or administrative action. this isend there saying not a static program and all the lines of effort are subject to change. to the independent panel, we are looking at ways we can improve that. we are looking at the initiatives to focus on greater accountability. >> two more questions. andrew? >> the assessment tool that the service chiefs might develop, what will happen to the results of that tool? incorporated into the personnel file, a promotion process? what is the next step?

>> the task was to develop methods. prescriptive tasks. the answers your questions will lie in the methods that are developed. have suspenseiefs for that particular task. let me put my finger on that. thert your methods back to secretary by november 1. there is suspense there. methodsexpect that the developed will address the points that you made. how will this inc. valuations? what is the method of assessment? their vast experience and ownership of this problem to

develop solutions that will work for their servicemen. thank you. will you or anyone in your office here with a lieutenant to him, have you spoken o? explanation or an anything? >> i will refer you to the air force on that. he may have been in a meeting or two that i was part of. i don't recall a meeting. he works on the air force staff. he has been removed from his madend secretary hagel those comments to you. i would expect the air force to keep us posted on that, but that is where we are at. >> sure. you and the secretary have spoken about holding commanders

accountable. is there anything here that deals directly with stopping the attackers from committing the crimes in the first place or holding the people that commit the crimes more accountable? sometimes even the best of commands, there might be bad people. we areink something working on right now is the special victims capability. investigators and prosecutors, improving their training and methods, the way they collaborate and work together so we can get exactly what you are saying. very of these are difficult cases to prosecute. whether you are in the civilian or military sector. e are undergoing right now, a program development policy. this is something that was

mandated in the last defense authorization act. we're working on that and we report back to congress in september of this year. we are collaborating with services on it. we will develop standards and develop the very best training investigators and prosecutors. training them together like it will operate and putting them environmenta work from beginning to and where they are focused on solving these cases. and being able to take up ford and prosecuting. these services are doing a lot of this already so we are looking to standardize what they already have under way. out to the school where we teach, of course. that is whered,

we train the criminal investigative division and a military policeman. i have sat through elements of this course, i have talked to the agents out there, and people have been working on investigating sexual assault cases there military career. civilian lawcases, enforcement. it is a best practice out there and we are looking to standardize it as far as the special victims capability to make them better investigators and get at these very difficult and complex cases to prosecute. thank you. >> thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] >> members of congress also talked about sexual assault in the military. a new legislation to address the

problem, but first is democratic representative from california on the house floor. ve minutes. ms. speier: mr. speaker, thank you. next to me is a mug shot. it's a mug shot of someone who has been charged with sexual assault. this is a mug shot of jeffrey crizin i ask -- krinzinsky, he's a lieutenant colonel in the air force. his job is to work at the pentagon as the chief officer of the sexual assault and prevention office. within the air force. this man is charged with the responsibility of preventing and reporting sexual assaults in the

military. in the air force. just this last weekend he was charged with sexually assaulting a woman in a parking lot. the best and the brightest the air force has to offer to run this office, and he's a sexual predator? is that what we are talking about? this is an indictment of the office that is supposed to be the solution for military rape and assault? it's an indictment of our procedures. it's an indictment of everything we have done on this issue. and congress is as culpable as the military in not addressing it, because we have known about this issue for 25 years. and we are big on holding hearings and beating our chests, saying, this has got to stop.

the big brass mes up to the hill and they say all the right words. they say we have a zero tolerance. d then our chief prevention officer is charged with a sexual assault. but doesn't end there. the bad news doesn't end there. the military just released today its sexual assault and prevention office report on how many sexual assaults took place in the military last year. and guess what? the numbers have gone up. by 30%. from 19,000 sexual assaults and rapes in the military based on the last year's figures, to the most recent years' figures of 26,000 rapes and sexual assaults in the military. for all the money we have been throwing at this issue, for all the he prevention and all the

rehabilitation and of the training, the numbers keep going up. and now this most recent report 1/3 of ests that 1/3, the women serving in the military reported that they were sexually harassed last year. this is an institution of military good discipline, good order. it is time for us to roll up our sleeves and do something real about this. we have got to stop just kind of nibbling around the edges in an effort to try and fix a broken system. 121 members have joined me as co-authors of legislation that would take the reporting of sexual assault out of the chain

of command, keep it in the military, but place it in a separate office, staffed by persons who are experts in investigations, experts in prosecutinthese crimes. and until he we do something like this, the numbers of sexual assaults will continue to rise in the military. the number of unrestricte reports will not rise as fast as the number of restricted reports. why do we have restricted reports? why would we say to any member of the military, yes, report this but we will keep it quiet, we will sweep it under the rug? this, my friends, is time for to us do something. it is time for us to say that we are not going to tolerate another scandal. we are not going to tolerate a scandal at the air force base where there were 59 victims and

32 military training instructors who were implicated. we are not going to tolerate that in italy we have a major general who overturned the decision by five military members of a jury who court-martialed a lieutenant colonel and found him guilty, and yet the major general overturned the decision and decided to reinstate this individual. the time, my frie, senator ayot. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. murray: thank you. madam president, i come to the floor today because i believe the great strength of our military is in the character and dedication of our men and women who wear the uniform. it is the courage of these americans to volunteer to serve that is the pentagon's greatest asset. i know it's said a lot, but take a minute to really think about that. our service members volunteer to face danger, to put their lives on the line to protect our and all of its people.

when we think of those dangers, we think of i.e.d.'s, we think of battles with insurgents, many of whom are so cowardly and evil that they refuse to even wear a uniform themselves and they seek to kill innocent civilians. but there are, unfortunately, other dangers as well, dangers that cannot be accepted, and none of our courageous service members should ever have to face and that, what i'm speaking about, is sexual assault. and that continues to plague the ranks of our military services. it is absolutely unconscionable that a fellow service member, the person that you rely on to have your back and be there for you, would commit such a terrible crime. it is simply appalling that they could commit such a personal violation of their brother or sister in uniform. even worse is the prevalence of these crimes. just today we are hearing the alarming statistic that the

number of cases has increased by more than a third since 2010. more than a third. and for the estimated 26,000 cases of military sexual assault in 2012, less than 3,000 of them reported. out of 26,000, only 3,000 reported. what's even more startling is that of those who bravely come forward to report the abuse, an astounding 62% of them were retaliated against in one way or another. 62%. and according to the department of veterans affairs, about 1-5 female veterans treated by the v.a. has suffered from military sexual trauma. one in five. that is certainly not the act of a comrade, it is not in keeping with the ethics of any service and it can no longer be tolerated. we still have not done enough to put an end to these shameful acts. well, madam president, today i

am taking action to change that. today, senator ayotte and i join together to introduce the combating military sexual assault act of 2013. this is bipartisan legislation that we have worked on to make several vital improvements to protect our service members, to assist the victims, and to punish the criminals. our bill, the combating military sexual assault act, will create a new category of legal advocates called special victims counsels, who would be responsible for advocating on behalf of the interests of the victim. these s.v.c.'s, special victim counsels, would advice the victim on the range of legal issues that they might face. for example, when a young private first class is intimidated into not reporting a sexual assault by threatening her with unrelated legal charg charges, like underage drinking, this new advocate, the s.v.c.,

would be there to protect her and tell her the truth. this bill would also enhance the responsibilities and authority of the department of defense sexual assault prevention and response office known as the sapro, to provide better oversight of efforts to combat military sexual assault across our armed forces. sapro would also be required to regularly track and report on a range of m.s.a. statistics, including assault rates, number of cases brought to trial, and compliance within each of these individual services. now, some of this data collection and reporting is already being done so this requirement is not going to be burdensome but it would give that office statutory authority to track and report to us on the extent of the problem. the combating military sexual assault act would also require sexual assault cases to be referred to the next superior competent authority for

court-martial when there's a conflict of interest in the immediate chain of command. this is very important, madam president. this will help ensure that sexual assault allegations get a fair, impartial, and thorough investigation. and the president of military officers association of america agrees. they have said, "preventing sexual assault is a duty of everyone in the chain of comma command." this legislation will increase support for sexual assault victims and strengthen policies and procedures for such cases in our nation's armed forces. end of quote. madam president, this legislation would also prohibit sexual contact between military instructors and service members during basic training or its equivalent or within 30 days after the training. as we have seen with disturbing frequency at places like lackland air force base or the air force academy, new service members are too often taken advantage of and abused of.

madam president, in these settings, new service members have every aspect of their life controlled by their instructor. while this is appropriate for military training, in this type of setting, it is entirely inappropriate for senior service members to seek a sexual relationship with a junior subordinate. it's our view that it's impossible for a service nobody freely give consent in that setting. this bill will also ensure that sexual assault response coordinators are available to members of the national guard and reserve at all times. i was told a very disturbing story recently by a female service member from the national guard in my home state of washington. after being sexually assaulted during her monthly drill on a military base, she took all the necessary steps, including calling the sexual assault response coordinator. but when she called, she was told that because the assault happened during monthly drill, not on active duty, the sexual

assault response coordinator could not help her. that those services were only reserved for those on active duty. madam president, that is absolutely unacceptable. when one of our men and women in uniform is the victim of a sexual assault and they have the courage to come forward and ask for help, the answer never, ever should be, "sorry, there are regulations. nothing i can do for you." now, madam president, this bill is one step to address the crisis we have in our armed forces and it needs to be done now. and yesterday's news that the air force's chief of sexual assault prevention was arrested for sexual assault is another reminder that we've got to change the culture around this issue. but i want to be very clear. the military has taken some steps on its own. for instance, i am looking forward to seeing secretary hagel's proposal on how to reform article 60 of the uniform code of military justice, and as i think most of our colleagues know, under article 60, the

convening authority of a court-martial is empowered to dismiss the judgment of a court-martial and overturn their verdict. many of us, myself included, have had serious concerns about how that authority has been used in sexual assault cases. so, madam president, we are here today to introduce this bill and i want to thank the senator from new hampshire for her advocacy on this issue and for her help in putting this legislation together. and i also want to thank representative tim ryan for his leadership in championing our bill -- companion bill in the other chamber. you know, madam president, when i asked navy secretary ray maybus about the sexual assault epidemic, i was glad to hear he said concern wasn't a strong enough word to describe how he felt about the problem. he said he's angry about it. i know a lot of us here share this feeling. we want it to stop. so i am really hopeful that both chambers can work quickly to do right by our nation's heroes. you know, when our best and brightest put on a uniform and join the united states armed forces, they do so with the

understanding they'll sacrifice much in the name of defending our country and its people. but that supreme court nice should not have to come in the form of unwanted sexual contact from within the ranks. so, madam president, i'm very pleased to introduce this bill and i want to thank senator ayotte again for her hard work and advocacy on this, and it's a pleasure to work with you. and i yield the floor to her at this time. the presiding officer: the senator from new hampshire. ms. ayotte: madam president, thank you very much. and i would ask upfront for unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business for up to ten minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. ayotte: thank you, madam president. and let me just say upfront, i very much want to thank my colleague from washington, senator murray, for her leadership on this issue and for the opportunity to work together to address this very, very important issue of making sure that we eliminate sexual assau assaults that occur within our military and that the victims of

these crimes get the respect, the support and the justice that they deserve. and i'm -- i'm very honored to work with you on this and i thank you so much for giving me the opportunity to work with you on this important legislation to address a very serious problem in our military. and i approach this issue not as just someone who comes from a military family and has such great, deep respect for the military, as you know senator murray does, with the important position she has on the veterans' committee, but also someone who serves on the armed services committee and someone who worked in my prior career extensively with victims of sexual assault. during my time as a prosecutor in new hampshire and then later as a state's attorney general, i saw the devastating impact of these types of crime. and i also saw the real need to address what is too often a silent crime and the victims

often suffer in silence for fear of coming forward and not being supported when they are to come forward and report a sexual assault. and so that's very important and that's why i also supported efforts earlier this year that i know senator murray was a very strong leader on in reauthorizing the violence against women act. so i want to thank you for your leadership on that as well. currently, military sexual assault occurs at alarming levels throughout all branches of our military. and according to the department of defense's estimates, 19,000 service members were sexually assaulted in 2011, a rate of over 52 per day. and despite these shocking figures, fewer than 2,800 assault against service members were reported to the department of defense over this same period. the department of defense sexual assault prevention and response

office's annual report, which was actually just released tod today, at the same time that we are filing our legislation, concludes that the number of people who made an anonymous sexual assault claim but never reported the attack increased from 19,000 in 2011 to 26,000 in 2012, nearly a 37% increase. yet the number of reported sexual assaults against service members only increased -- in other words, those that they did report and come forward -- only by 8%. and so this is a dramatic difference of people that were victims but then feel that they can have the support to come forward and report the crimes that have been committed against -- against them. and astonishingly, as senator murray mentioned, just yesterday it was reported that the police arrested a lieutenant colonel in charge of the air force's sexual assault prevention and response

branch and charged him with sexual battery, bringing this issue very much to the forefront given the fact that this individual was charged with important responsibility over the sexual assault prevention program. it's important to understand why sexual assault is so destructive, especially when it occurs within our military. of course, when it occurs anywhere, but also in our military, sexual assault is a serious and unacceptable crime that can inflict lasting emotional and physical impact on the victims of these crimes that can last for years and throughout their lifetimes. but in the military, sexual assault can also damage unit morale, readiness, the preparedness of our troops and also military sexual assault can negatively impact the well-earned reputation of those who serve honorably, which is

obviously the overwhelming members of our military who serve our country with great courage and with great character.e so we must aggressively tackle this problem to compassionately help victims but also to protect the good order and discipline that ultimately is undermining and supports the readiness of our military units. we do our military and our service members little good if we ignore this problem. conversely, it's very important that we pass common sense legislation that will help solve the problem, but we should make no mistake, the vast majority again of our men and women in uniform serve with tremendous dignity and honor, and the united states continues to be the very best military in the world because of the character, quality and courage of our men and women in uniform. but when a service member fails to live up to our values and commits a sexual assault, we must ensure victims have the support they need and that the

perpetrators are held accountable and are brought to justice. that is why senator murray and i have introduced this legislation today, and our legislation titled the combating military sexual assault act would expand and improve military sexual assault prevention and response resources available to the victims of these crimes, building on the lessons we have learned from a pilot program that is already in place in the air force, our bill would provide trained special victims counsels to victims in all service branches to help them throughout the process, and these counsels can help comfort and advise victims after the crime has occurred. the special victims council can also provide victims the confidence that they need to come forward, report the crime and seek justice. the chief of staff of the air force general welch testified

this morning before the armed services committee that the evidence is clear that providing special victims council to those who suffer from this crime has been -- quote -- "immensely helpful in the air force," and so every victim of crime within our armed services deserve to have the support of the special victims council. our bill would also ensure that sexual assault response coordinators are available to members of the national guard and reserve at all times, and regardless of whether the service members operating under title 10 or title 32 authority, this is very important that we get this in the law now so that our guards men and women, they get the support that they deserve because we could not have fought the battles and the wars that we have fought without their courage and their bravery and the sacrifices that they have made. our bill would also make certain that sexual assault cases are referred to the general

court-martial level when sexual assault charges are filed or to the next superior competent authority when there is a conflict of interest in the immediate chain of command. and right now the way the system is set up, there isn't a set mechanism where there is a conflict of interest. this commonsense approach would recognize the uniquely devastating damage sexual assault crimes inflict on individuals and ensure that victims can have confidence in the military or justice system. in conclusion, allowing this problem to persist is simply unacceptable, both for the victims and for the morale and readiness of our forces that do so much to ensure the freedom of this country. we must continue to make clear that sexual assault in the military simply will not be tolerated, and we must match these words with actions, and our legislation does just that. i look forward to working with the department of defense,

continuing to work with senator murray and thank her again for her leadership on this, and my senate colleagues on both sides of the aisle to strengthen existing laws and policies so that all military sexual assault victims can come forward without fear of retribution and with confidence that they will receive the support, care and justice that they deserve from >> during his briefing with the president of south korea president obama was asked about the pentagon report on sexual assault and here is the a portion of the press conference and the president's response. >> let's start with the principle this sexual assault is an outrage, it is a crime. that's true for society at large and if it is happening inside our military then whoever carries it out is betraying the

uniform that they are wearing. they may consider themselves patriots but when you encombage in this kind of behavior, that is not patriotic, it is a crime. we have to do everything we can to root this out. -- new is not a knew phenomenon. p and down the chain, we are seeing a process, a system of accountability and transparency so we can root this out completely. this is a discussion i had with secretary panetta. he had begun the process of moving this forward but i have directly spoken to secretary hagel today and inkating to him that we're going to have to not

just step up our game, we have to exponentially to step up our game and go after this hard. for those who are in uniform, who experienced sexual assault, i want to hear from their commander in chief that i've got their backs and we're not going to tolerate this stuff. there will be accountability. if people engaged in this behavior they should be prosecuted. and anybody in the military who has knowledge of this stuff should understand this is not who we are, this is not what the u.s. military is about. it dishonors the vast majority of men and women in uniform who carry out their responsibilities and obligations with honor and dignity and incredible courage every single day. so bottom line is, i have no tolerance for this.

i have communicated this with the secretary of defense. e're going to communicate this again to folks up and down the authority.eas of i expect consequences. don't want more speeches or awareness programs or training but ultimately folks look the other way. we find out someone is engaging in this stuff, they have to be held accountable prosecuted, , ipped of their potions ourt-martials, fired, dishonor erably discharged, period. it is not acceptable. > in a few moments, the fiscal summit hears from members of

congress about the u.s. debt and tax policy. in less than two hours the discussion continues with former president bill clinton and microsoft's bill gates. after that defense secretary chuck hagel orders immediate steps to reduce the epidemic of sexual assaults. our live coverage tomorrow on the c-span network includes south corps rein president. ou can see that on c-span at 10:30 a.m. eastern. on c-span3 the house oversight committee hold hearsing on the attack on benghazi, libya that illed four mens. - americans.

>> south carolina governor, holds special elections in the house of the representatives. defeating the democratic candidate. before he was governor, mr. sanford represented the 3rd district for three terms. he replaces tim scott who was appointed to the u.s. senate. >> most people don't know that cigarettes are the main way we're exposed to radio active i sew tops. the average smoker will get the equivalent of hundreds of chest x-rays a year because of the fertilizerers that are put on tobacco. ferrous under to a the plant. so the poise than killed the

russian spy a few years ago that that igarette smoke and was discussed in the 1960's. what is responsible for 440,000 deaths in america every year and it is completely preventable. >> professor on tobacco's history and the dangers of smoking. hat is sunday night on c-span2 part of book tv. petersson fiscal a little y lasted ver two hours. ♪ [applause]

>> good morning. happy washington weather day. nothing like it. we have a powerhouse hour we're going to do. we're going to solve the budget crisis right now. there is going to be a deal. they are not up here together yet but by the end you watch. we'll have congressman paul ryan back there in a room and maybe they will announce it in 62 minutes. before then, we're going to talk to some of the key players the administration, in congress, and see where we're at. i'm sure a lot of you are like me and you're wondering when the budget talks going to begin? maybe they began yesterday on the golf course, who knows with the president and senators. the lead person for the democrats in the u.s. senate, chairman of the budget committee senator murrey from washington

state. [applause] >> i like when you said washington weather i thought you were talking about washington state weather. >> it's raining here what is happening in seattle? >> it is 80 there. >> we mixed up the weather. simple question, where are we? n this senate -- excuse me, in the budget negotiating process? >> as you know, i became chair of the senate democrats in january of this year of the budget committee and began to put together a budget, which has passed out of the senate. the house has passed their budget and in a regular order world, which they have been calling for a long time we would appoint in the senate and we would sit down in an open, transparent way and work towards

a compromise. unfortunately, at this point the republicans are objecting us going to conference. i find myself in a difficult potion unable to negligent a deal forward. >> no formal discussions have began with paul ryan? have you had informal conversations? >> paul has asked that he and i meet together and to discuss the issues out there. we've been in this world before. if you arey a closed room you're not going to get far. the country needs to see what the alternatives are. when -- the reason the budget is important, it outlines our path forward the country. it defines where we're going to be, who we are, what rur investments, are how we're going to manage our debt and deficit. it mansions not only today but tomorrow. we can't do that with two people in the room. we need people from both sides

coming together to compromise. that is what legislation is all about. >> even folks in this room may be confused about all the baugets out. you have a budget, republicans haval budget and the president hasal budget. what are the common grounds between all three? you probably have studied all three, what is the common ground where we can begin the negotiating process? >> that is a really good question. i think, obviously, the house budget and the senate budget and the president's budget are fairly far apart. i think the common thread is we all recognize that the debt and deficit is impacting our country's ability to make sure our economy is on track, that we have -- we know where we're going to go, businesses have certainty, and we need to find a path forward. i think the important part is we are looking for is a balance in solving this issue and making sure that everybody in america

participants in helping to solve this problem. that's is what i the word balance is so important us to there that is there is reductions and revenue. >> why doesn't your budget balance? >> in fact, our budget moves towards balance. if you go back and look at simpson bowles, every bipartisan recommendation that is that has been put on the table doesn't put out an artificial date to a zero balance. the reason is because our economy is fragile today. if we were to just immediately put out a date and cut trillions from our budget, we would really impact a lot. we're starting to see a small part of that with the bad policy with sequestration that is imposed upon us because we don't haval bucket. we're going to see more of that if it moves forward. it is extremely important that we get our economy strong again,

that we provide security to people, we get back on track as a country, and manage our finances in the long run. >> you say that your budget and the president's budget is similar but there is one glaring issue. the chain c.p.i., which would change the way cost of living is done. some republicans say it would change tax brackets and hit benefits. this is not popular, would you say? >> it is not popular and it has deep impacts on scorblee security when everyone agrees that scorblee security is not what caused the deficit. the president put that out there to say my door is open to find compromise here. i think what he is waiting for, what i'm waiting for, what democrats in general are waiting for is for the republicans to walk through the door and say you have compromised a bit,

we're willing to compromise on the revenue side. >> you -- do you think republicans are not interested in the revenue reform? >> the only thing to judge them on the ryan budget, which raises medicare, which is not going to happen. in this time, in this country, and the history of medicare we know that medicare is extremely important to provide stability, security, and medical care for s today and in the long -- run.rs today in the long we have as a party, we said we're willing to do. >> what idea -- is in the president's budget that you would be willing to compromise? >> i would disagree with you. in our senate passed budget we put in $275 billion reduction in

medicare over the next 10 years. that is a significant give. we recognize on our committee that we have a number of people -- >> where you getting this money, by the way? is this coming out of reimbursements from doctors from hospitals? >> people who pay -- >> go find the money. >> i can tell you having chaired the supercommittee numerous conversations that we went through line by line to say what are the changes that can be made that don't impact benefittishries that solve the problem in the long run. plus, president clinton was here earlier talking about the ways we need to look at health care in the future, not just for the medicare population but the entire country. it is consuming our country at this time in terms of expenses. we, as democrats are willing to

ook at those long term adjustments. we can't solve this problem just on the backs of medicare and senior citizens and hard-working families, everybody has to participant in this debt and deficit problem that we have. that is why revenue is so important. >> is there anything that is a non-starter? is it raising the age of medicare? >> the absolutely non-starter is the voacher for medicare proposal. it shifts the cost and creates a system that is not sustainable in the future. we're not going to undue medicare with changes but we certainly can look at ways to reduce the cost. >> could you accept what the president did on chained c.p.i., on social security if it is part of a larger deal? >> i don't think that is a good

solution. most people don't think it is a good solution within this. it is a starting point he put throughout as a discussion on -- >> politically, he put it out there you own it. >> actually, it is a republican proposal to start with but now they are saying they don't support it because it raises revenue. maybe it is a non-starter because everyone says they are not going to go there. there's other things we can look at to get our debt to a manageable place in this country. again, this is really important. by not having a budget deal today, this is washington, d.c. speak, what it means to businesses and families they have to live with very bad budget decisions. sequestration is a very bad policy. we're beginning to see the affects of that and it is going to roll out more in the coming months and the following years if we don't replace sequestration request a budget proposal on where we're going to

make our cuts and where the revenue is going to come from. >> is it going to take a crisis again? is the debt ceiling coming up is everything in this process everyone needs. the only time anything happens is when there is a proverble gun to washington. >> our country is tired of congress managing by crisis. it has brought us to the point where we're at today with bad policies, sequestration being the most visible right now. i believe we have a job as congress and we should get to work putting together a budget. that's why going to conference is so important to me and my caucus. to many republicans atalked as well they think it is important as well. managing by crisis puts us in a bad place when the economy is

fragile. compromise is not a bard word. word. art -- bad >> i came from a family with seven kids. you don't get what you want for dinner every night. >> you've been arguably -- you've already been a conference committee, you brought it up. >> sure. >> there were key republican -- this was six and six, if i'm not mistaken. six democrats, you were the chair there. what went wrong? if you could not solve it then when the sequestration gun was to your head, how is conference going to go any different between you and paul ryan? >> i think several things. first of all, what we ran into having worked many, many hours trying to come up with an agreement was a line in the sand from the republicans saying no revenue would be included. we could not solve this entire problem on the backs of the

working class public who was struggling so much from the economic disaster that occurred. that would not be fair, it ed, it was balance not what the public was asking for. we had an election where the public said yes, we want a balanced approach, we want compromise. >> you got revenue. you got $600 billion in revenue. >> i will remind everyone two things. every bipartisan group that put together a proposal recommended much higher revenue than just the $600 billion. we're asking for those kinds of balanced proposals moving forward. secondly, what we're talking about today in our senate budget is closing tax loopholes that even republicans speaker boehner and paul ryan have said wasteful spending. we spend so much time going to

cuts in discretionary spending and calling them earmarks. taxave the same earmarks in expenditure that need to be looked at. are they benefitting just one class of people? are they working for all of us? that is a discussion that speaker boehner has agreed that we need to do but they will not include them in their proposal. >> you segwayed into our facebook question. is tax reform the way to get a compromise without setting off a firestorm? can there be a lowering of rates that raises the revenue that you're looking for? can everything be accomplished that way? >> he's putting together that we need both revenue and spending cuts. that is legitimate.

now senate budget we have looked at tax reform as a way of bringing revenue to help solve the deficit problem. the difference right now is the proposal that the republicans are looking at does tax reform only to cut the rates for the wealthiest americans to give them a tax break. we're talking about tax reform, closing loopholes to help balance our budget, which benefits the entire country and sets us on a better path. >> there's been some -- is there enough individuals paying taxes into the government? you hear the argument on the republican side that everybody needs to pay more of their fair share on this front. do you think a tax reform deal in lower of has people income contributing some tax dollar? >> i think what the republicans are proposing is lowering the

rates on wealthy americans. what that does if they are saying it is revenue neutral it raises the taxes of everybody else. right now, being able to write-off your first mart is important for a to a lot of middle-class families, taking that away is a huge impact. >> when they want to lower the revenue nuchal they are raising the taxes on somebody and you have identified where it is coming from? >> anyone who looks at it to raise that it's going to require a lot of middle-class families, what they use out deductions. >> you were at a dinner with the president last week with the 16 women senators. the nature of the conversation,

how much of it was focused on the budget issue? did you walk out of their more or less convinced that a deal would happen this year? with thevery impressed conversation we had, the 20 women who had dinner. cut to the women of the senate have been getting together this way ever since barbara mikulski started this a long time ago. >> 20 years ago. it was a very good conversation and a lot of it was about the budget. what impressed me the most is democrats and republicans in the room, and we run the range, were very serious about the budget issue. they said they were willing to take a tough vote if everyone was. that gives me hope. a we can put 20 women in room, we can probably come out with a deal. >> ever heard that a number of times and i don't disagree.

question and it's kind of silly. but if there's no deal this year, is it fair to say there will not be won until the next presidential election? >> the american public, all of us, we are tired by management -- of management by crisis. it's hurting our businesses and their families. i said i wanted to find a solution to the deficit problem but i also wanted to show the american public that a democracy can work. if we are forced through another budget crisis, manufactured way of getting to a budget deal, that's going to reinforce that we cannot work. let's not get there. we need to start working out in full transparency. the president is reaching out to a number of republicans. he is looking for people more willing to work with us and i'm hearing from senate republicans that they are tired of management by crisis. let's show the country we can

work. my door is open. are ready to compromise. we are ready to work. >> i'm tempted to leave this seat and paul rand can come up here and you can talk it out. come up.yan cna thank you, senator patty murray. [applause] ryan is next. my apologies if i got our order wrong. there he is. public andre in negotiations can begin in green room. coming up, the senators at paulerpart in the house, ryan's from wisconsin. how are you? [applause] >> good morning. we have a little policy, a

process. it >> it sounds exciting. >> just what you like. >> linda the talks start? senator murray said that they oughtiting for you guys to sit at the negotiation table. you want to meet with her one- on-one, but the regular order, harry reid tried to get it started last night and senate republicans blocked him. when does the clock start? >> we want to go to conference, but we want to go when we have a good chance of actually getting something done. want to get a deal. i want an agreement. we do not want to go to conference just for the sake of a joint conference. we want an agreement. this is more of a house thing than a senate thing, but if we go to conference with a monthlong stalemate in conference, which ends up happening is people dig in their positions making it that much harder to get agreement. >> that is your lesson from the

supercommittee? >> it is. our motivation is action to get to an agreement in the decisions we're making right now is to maximize the likelihood of getting an agreement that the end of the day. what does that mean that you guys have to political budget? what do i want my budget to become law? i do. but they get that in a divided government, you do not get everything you want. we understand that. let me give you an example. the president should get credit for putting the changed cpi out there. the suit for the sake of argument that could be part of the final deal. -- let's say for the sake of argument that is part of the final deal. virtually no one votes for it and makes it harder for to be part of the final agreement. >> why? why would john boehner, eric

cantor, allow that to happen? >> this happen that you have surrendering in the majority after a conference. we should go the conference when we have a chance of getting a deal. if you have a month-long stalemate with two political parties just fighting each other, you make of that much harder to get an agreement. i'm not saying john boehner or eric cantor would allow that vote would happen. we want to make sure that when we go to conference we're going to get something done. this is where we are such worlds apart. patty was pretty clear about that. our budget balances, it takes 10 years to balance and i would argue from a keynesian standpoint we are not hurting by balancing in 10 years, but the senate's budget and the president's budget never balances ever. we should talk about whether the budget should even balance. both the senate and the

president's budget have tax increases on top of those a party occurred in law. >> where you get $1.60 trillion? cook the fiscal cliff and obamacare. >> the health and care -- the health care are in dispute. >> i am quoting the cbo. >> far enough. -- fair enough. >> agreed to raise taxes and then we will maybe talk about entitlement spending and spending cuts which, right now we will lot agree to in principle. that's hardly a smart way to negotiate. i'm not trying to get a squalor here, but the point is spending is the problem. for the last 60 years, we have andn about 20 cents of gdp by the time my kids are my age, we will be taking 60 cents. that is the problem. you need to reform entitlements. you need to get spending under

control. then when we see the other budget offered. taking the president's budget for example. taking the smoke and mirrors a way, it is a $1 trillion increase and cut. they do not even proposed have net spending decreases, so that is a very, very different world from the one we are operating out of and we're very far apart. what we're trying to do is have conversations to find common ground. you asked patty where it exists and there is really one thing i have seen in these budgets. >> of the three. >> means testing is the one string of, malady. -- of commonality. we propose means testing for medicare and that's about all you see with respect, and ground. the point is that there are spending cuts, very few, that unaffected by or

the massive spending increases. let's agree to get spending under control. but to agree on entitlement reforms prospectively to get the debt under control and we cannot even get an agreement in principle to begin talking about right now. >> there have been various studies to talk about the fiscal issue. all of them propose higher tax increases than what the president ended up with. up grudgingly coming to an agreement. clearly from their numbers out. where the president's number was, maybe it's another $400 or $600 million, but it did not seem in washington numbers like we were that far apart. >> two points. they're saying raise more taxes for more spending. we don't like that construction.

the second thing is we want growth. the one thing that seems to be missing in this conversation is what we're doing to grow the economy, get people back to work, have faster economic growth with more revenues, one of the best things we can do to get this under control in the short run and this is where we think tax reform is very important. tax reform will be moving to the ways and means committee and it is something we're very serious about and would like to see in the final agreement. >> needs to -- you think it needs to be a part of the grand bargain. >> that implies you're going to fix a problem, but we have the majority party and willing to embrace the types of reform to make medicare or social security ofvent, the biggest drivers debt in our future, i do not see a grand bargain happening. the question is, can we make a work?d government can we by the government time

and fiscal space? we're shooting for something that's realistic. we do not want to overpromise and under deliver. voucher-sal does not ize medicare. but it is how the drug plan works today. it's what the federal employees have. we think it's a smart way to save medicare in perpetuity. there's no way they will agree to it which means comprehensive entitlement reform which takes an unfunded liability off the books, get the debt under control in perpetuity cover those kinds of ideas. basically, weet, believe you're doing it at the time or not that you're essentially continued the demagogue in medicare when you're running out that the president is trying to cut $700 million out of medicare? do you regret that conversation? it hurts our credibility as you're trying to have a medicare reform conversation. >> we never thought you should

take money from medicare to spend on new entitlements. if you look at my discussions of this issue, and never thought it was a good idea. money're going to take from medicare, it should go to medicare solvency. you cannot take the money from medicare to spend on obamacare and counted in two places. >> you can make the argument that if you reform the health- care system -- >> that's not the argument being made. this money helps drive down the deficit and makes obamacare cost less and it defend the medicare solvency. the cbo and medicare actuary told us you cannot spend the same $1 twice. the fiscal sure raid, the double counting, that's what we have a problem with -- the fiscal charade. >> you do not regret the language that was used? >> i do not. times campaign of lot of

took a shortcut and said, there's the president's trying to slash the issue. i've seen both parties do this, demagogued health care for their own and. -- own end. >> i will not dispute that. we think there are problems with the medicare divider community. we think this will lead to them losing coverage. we need to look at where in the beneficiary network we will have an adequate coverage and go back and look at it. to the point patty was making $275 million dollars, that's on top of the $716 million which will effectively shut down the provider network. we see that as monopoly money. we're going to keep cost controlling, a repeat of 1997.

a bipartisan agreement between gingrich and clinton with price controls. what we learned quickly as medicare provider stop taking medicare patients. there would be two subsequent agreements and the savings did not materialize as the first envisioned. redo thatwant to mistake. is takingi'm making this entitlement, not reforming it, and then just that and price controls on providers does not work. we do not see that as real budget reform. we see that as a phony exercise where we know, as soon as they start dropping coverage, we put the money back in. we do not see it as a real, lasting, bankable reform. the point i'm trying to get at is we want entitlement reforms we know will stick, will work, will reduce the unfunded liability and get the debt under

control. back to my earlier point, we need economic growth which is why we're very serious about tax reform. >> do you think the sequester is hurting the government? >> i do not think taking to% off the top in a $14 trillion economy will be a big drag on growth. defense, there are issues. this is why pass legislation to have smarter spending cuts in other areas of government to make government more efficient to replace the sequester. say the sequester is not smart. it's bad policy. here are better spending cuts to replace the sequester and we stand by those cuts. we think they are smarter. the senate never followed suit. ae president just asked for tax increase instead. let me get back to my growth point. don't forget it. you need economic growth. if we keep having what we call

static revenue increases, and it's really hard to get tax reform. here is where we have differences house well. i like patty a lot. we have good, honest agreements with each other. they want tax reform as a means to grow and revenue for the government. towant tax reform as a means grow the economy and get people back to work. that means lowering tax rates, not keeping high tax rates. it is closing loopholes and alluring -- lowering -- >> if there is revenue that is brought out of it -- >> lets have ways and means and finance committees put those together and see what it looks like. that's something i think we should do. we should have that exercise. >> max baucus needs to get his committee and do that. >> ago get him. >> the likelihood of doing it? >> we are doing it in the house.

>> they're both genuine about it. max baucus is in his last term on ways and means. >> we're going to do it in the house whether the senate follows are not. here's the point i'm trying to make. the president wants to take the corporate rate down to 28%. good idea. a 80% of american businesses are not corporations and they file individuals, llc's and partnerships. their tax rate goes up and it makes a pretty hard for them to compete internationally when the tax rate on businesses is 25%. this is why we take it seriously. nine out of 10 businesses in wisconsin fall under that. >> you want to make it revenue neutral. "that's right. in order to get the rate down to where we can be internationally

competitive, you need to plug in the polls to get rates down. >> if you do that, somebody's taxes are going up. who is that? >> people on the high-end losing those tax loopholes. everything the table. we will not take anything off the table because we think once we start getting in the game of picking winners and losers in the tax code, which is what the tax code does today, we will not get there -- >> it's been that way for a long time. >> o'neill, ragan, bradley, they came together and got it done. that's what we want to see happening again. we would like to think there's an opportunity for a bipartisan agreement on tax reform. we would like to think there's a bipartisan agreement on entitlement reform and that's what we want to see at the end of the day. >> i had a facebook question for

you that was a one-off. it's about lifting the and come -- income cap on social security contribution. can you imagine creating a doughnut hole raising it on more wealthier people contributing more as a way to make social security solvent? >> there is a better way to do it without economic problems which is a means test in the benefit formula itself. >> it does not sound like you're totally ruling it out. >> when you lift the cap, you also pay out in benefits. the dollarcents on at that level of income. i've been on a number of commission to look at this. on he's going to pay his fica all of his earnings -- resolutiond givet a

passed. >> it turns into a welfare program, not a social insurance program. we do not want to be a welfare distribution program. what about the self-employed person? what about the dentist? the farmer? there and come tax rate goes up over 50%-- their income tax rate goes up. i think, areases, the wrong way to go because it produces bad economic output. we can get the same kind of savings without doing devastation to the self-employed community. at inm getting yelled my monitor. congressman paul ryan, chair of the house finance committee. [applause] i'm not kidding. i'm getting yelled at in the monitor. it's in all caps.

current ohiot senator robb portman, but he is ombone who's the head of during the bush administration, the office of management and budget. he is well versed in budget issues and we will see where he stands. he is now cit chatting and doing some green renegotiation with paul ryan's. let me introduce rob portman. [applause] you get introduction music. game, do a baseball you get to pick your own entrance music? >> i prefer flo rida. heaven" isy to another way to talk about the votes. >> there is. we thought paul ryan was the only heavy-metal fan.

fory the way, thank you having me on. here, he let me go ahead because they do have a vote. changing his schedule he said, i will do it, but you may regret it. so i will say it, there you go. thanks to gene. we have done this dog and pony show together so i wanted him to go first. it's easy to criticize what someone else as down come up with ideas. >> there you go. diamond star the same question i asked senator murray. no one seems to want to start negotiating. paul ryan made it clear they are not ready to start the conference process. they do not think there in a good place. you're probably on the senate floor last my doubts all the --

and saw the discussion between reid adn cruz. >> there is a formal resolution and a budget resolution. given the budget that was passed in the senate, the difference between the house and senate is so great. >> you think it would not be a useful exercise? >> not having the president's involvement in a more middle ground approach that the administration can bring to the table if they choose to would make it difficult to make progress on these two very different approaches to the budget. the real negotiation have to take place, in my view, between the president and those of us in congress who want to get something done and that is beginning. >> these dinners, president golfing with a few people we assume would be in this group of 16-20 republican and as-- republicans. >> saxby chambliss and got a

hole in one yesterday which means there will not be any tax increases. >> he asked me to golf with him which is a huge mistake. i am so bad. i am such a hacker. saxbyk udall and chambliss are the two best golfers in the senate. >> the course was lucky. 16-20have these republicans. this is how the process is going to go. patty murray and paul ryan have their budgets and they have done what they have had to do. this will be between a group of you now the president? >> everyone will be involved. nothing happens behind closed doors in this town, and that's ok. at the end of the day, this will affect the lives of millions of americans. for going to be a process everyone involved. patty will be involved.

paul will be involved. it requires presidential leadership. if you look about whether it is tax reform in 1986, social security reform in 1983, or the last two examples when we try to do something significant to improve the economy and deal with a huge debt and deficit problem, which seem small relative to what we have now, it always involves present -- presidential leadership. it must. the president must be supported in order for it to become enacted. the resources of the omb, a treasury department, and someone, they're critical. the president has to step up and show leadership. >> the you believe he did? >> he started in a small way. as you know, i have talked about the publicly and privately and the hearings we have had about the president's budget, talking about chain cpi on the table is a huge step

forward. talking about the savings that come from reducing the preferences in the corporate tax code ought to go back into lowering the rate rather than being used for deficit reduction generally is in the budget for the first time. you take small steps in the right direction and new build on that. the president has taken some heat from his side of the aisle. the house republicans and the campaign committee have said -- >> it's a more accurate measure of inflation. it the right thing to do in my view from a policy point of view. there are republicans to believe that we should wait. >> wait for what? >> we have another election. >> the last one was not good enough? >> perhaps getting a majority in the senate in 2014, and the president in 2016. we are in trouble in terms of our economy and if we wait until 2017, which is what that is in

essence saying, we are taking a huge risk. we have to engage. >> how many people share your view in the conference? majority, the honestly. >> you do? >> yes. there are some who are likely to be there no matter what, but others will take a hard look at those who might surprise you. there are a lot of members to understand this is a critical point in our nation's history. it's not just about the debt limit the dealing with what is otherwise going to be a huge impact on people we represent because their standard of living will go down and we are risking a financial crisis. it would make the one in 2008- 2009 relatively small. the stock market is looking pretty good, but wages are going down. it's an economic issue. there is a real squeeze. health-care costs up, wages down. people who are serious legislators on both sides of the

aisle recognize this is a point we have to attack. it didn't about it, in the past dealing with tax reform are entitlement, 1983 and 1986, it tends to come with a divided government. george bush tried this with social security and he did not get very far. in part because of the top politics, no question about it. the third rail of the new york subway system, you grab it and you are electrocuted. the opportunity that i see really in the next several months. we have to take advantage of it. senate democrat up here, but those who will be unnamed, it did not realize they would never have an easier negotiating partner on the other side of the aisle and president obama? some of that is out of fear. they think president obama will compromiser.

, and republicans believe that is true? -- how many believe? >> chuck, you and i may disagree, but he had the ability with his aunt is a commission to step up and he did not. >> he unequivocal endorsed bowles simpson and the only place to find that right now is on whitehouse.gov. believe there would have been bipartisan support for it? >> it would have been very difficult. you have senators including all the republicans who showed up on that commission, tom coburn be in one, it would have been very difficult. >> that commission could have had teeth on it. a bunch of senators backed out including some democrats. >> my point is this. if you look at the president's record in terms of his inability to show leadership on these issues, there is no wonder there

is skepticism. when paul ryan came out with his budget, there was a frontal attack in the front row. i ended and the skepticism. it's healthy and it's based on some of the previous actions of the administration, or their inaction. i think the democrats are making a point that we ought to listen to. >> meeting in dubai and to the idea that you may get a better deal than president obama then you would from harry reid. >> but to not even engage, i think it's a huge mistake. let's see whether he is serious or not. if he is sincere, i believe we can get something significant. unless we get started, both on the economic growth side of this, in my view tax reform, and also on dealing with this long- term problem, it will not be solved unless we get at the mandatory spending, which is now 65% of the budget and growing at

a faster rate than the rest of the budget. that they wills grow at 95% over the next 10 years. they will grow by almost double. they also told us, by the way, that if we do not do something on the spending side. from 22% of g.d.p. today to 39% in three decades. the historic averages nearly 20%. it simply not possible. when people talk about balance, you ought to ask them, are they talking about revenue is, now projected at 90%, spending at 19%?- spending at but that the balance? the one them doubling on your taxes? we cannot get there with 100% tax is on the wealthy so we would need a new tax reform based on the historical data on what it was like when we had a

70% tax rate and so on. when people like me say we up to deal with the spending, as bill clinton said famously at the democratic convention, its mouth. its arithmetic. -- it's math. >> i heard this from senator marie when it came to medicare age and i feel like i heard from paul ryan when it came to the issue of taxes and revenue. do you walk into this thing will not be a part of any deal that includes any more tax increases? >> i walked into it saying we have to solve the issue, which is spending. there is a sincere effort on spending and if we come up with some changes that are really structural changes to be able to bend the curve, if we do tax -- rm >> and if it is appraising a little revenue you could sign on? >> we'll see. >> we're making progress.

>> one of the factors we should look at our behavioral changes. what people call macroeconomics or dynamic scoring. i offered an amendment that would pass in the senate that said, yes, which have the benefit of looking at the dynamics corp. why did i want that docks of how you design tax reform and how you look at this issue in terms of revenue ought to include what the congressional budget office and the joint committee on taxation, what our internal analysis says about what the direct economic impact will be and will show with regards to the business tax reform, which you know i am very focused on, because i do not do this we will continue to lose jobs and businesses overseas. there will be revenue increases through growth. the president insists on status quo raises. those interested are going back to look at that in the context of what other aspects of tax reform are going to help the economy. this will be the discussion.

by the way, it is a discussion that has been taking place really for five or six years. -- was just going to say >> there are all these things on the shelf. it's a la carte. this quote from alice rivlin, is it that easy? >> there is a little thing called scoring. youo through the process, have the joint committee on taxation. you have to live by their score in order to legislate. it's a little more difficult now coming up with a recommendation in commission. having said that, there are a lot of good ideas. we are not lacking ideas. we are lacking political will. but we do not solve this problem, we will be in great jeopardy. >> i have a facebook question for you from louisville, ky.

what policies can be put in place to help train for the jobs of tomorrow? it goes into the issue of how government spends the money and there has been some joint agreement that the government should spend money on things like this. >> one of the hughes -- one of the huge issues we face is the skills gap. we have thousands of people in ohio looking for jobs in ohio but we have 100,000 jobs open. why is that? they do not have the skills to fill those 100,000 jobs. they say unemployment is going down, not really. ,he labour participation rate people looking for work, we are at 11.3% in comparison. >> a lot of it is demographics. >> it does not account for the lowest labor participation rate since 1979, when jimmy carter was president. there is a huge skills gap here. one thing the federal government could do is to take

the worker retraining programs that the federal level, because we have between $15-$18 billion we spend and have it work much better to close that gap. they are spread over nine agencies and they say there are all kinds of duplications, waste, inefficiency. on some legislation with this from a democrat from caught -- colorado. >> tests, ensure that the test people are getting -- the skills people are getting are needed in that region. this is one of four or five things this country to do right now to avoid us from continuing to fall behind. >> where should this be housed at docks -- be housed? >> apartment of labor with the work force investment pact and trade imports would assistant -- tade import assistance.

there are opportunities for us to get people to work right away. >> two out questions. the debt ceiling looks like september or october. will it be a crisis? if so, do you actually need that as the trigger to force those talks? >> yes. >> it will be a crisis and it needed? >> yes. "ever the president say we should take it out of the political equation and extend the debt limit and deal separately with it. over the last three decades, is the only thing that has worked. there is no one in this room old enough to remember it, but it came -- >> we want to perretend there's no one who remembers it. of?hat did that come out

a debt crisis. and the balanced budget agreement of 1997. the half-dozen proposals that have worked to reduce spending have come out of this same process. why it? the american people do not like to extend the debt limit. why? they get it. it's like a credit card. you overextending your credit card and now you're going back to congress asking them to extend it. what american people say it is to deal with the underlying problem like to do with your business or in your home when you're a teenager maxes' you out. it's a good leverage point because they do not want us to extend without dealing with the underlying problem. i think this will be a positive way for us to focus people's attention come september or october. >> this year. deal or bust. >> i think it is. it's hard to imagine in 2014 it will happen.

we have done things in an election year before, but it's difficult. aboutope we're talking implementation of something we have agreed to earlier this fall. i hope we're talking about the fact that we now have some bending of the curve that will otherwise bankrupt the country. there's no question about it. i hope we are talking about the economy starting to improve because people have more certainty because of pro-growth tax reform because we are dealing with the training we were talking about an america gets back on track. >> it to rob portman from ohio. -- senator rob portman. [applause] the joke and never gets old. ,very time he gets introduced the audience will live to regret the joke. anyway, with about i bring out gene sperling, chairman of the president's national economic council.

[applause] a man of many budget wars, a veteran. here, mr.e last word sperling. >> my privilege. house are on the white side of things meaning you are probably aware of where the level of conversation are. i will start with basically the same question. what is the status of the talks? have they truly begun between the president and senate republicans? that seems to be where this is headed. is it fair to say it's formally begun or not? >> i would say but you have seen the president do is doing everything he can to create the conditions for a bipartisan agreement. you see that by the fact that he was willing to keep his offer to speaker boehner on the table, even put it in his budget even after the speaker had pulled it back.

yet seen it in the out -- has done to senate republicans and really to anyone he thinks would be a part of this. >> it has come down to golfing games? >> if people ask that we are doing enough, the fact that we are arranging the republican senators to get holes in one -- >> that's an amazing show of power. >> i do not know what else you want us to do. >> one on one one. it was an extraordinary effort and it shows we're taking very seriously and doing everything we can to create those conditions. these dinners and the conversations have been important because the build trust. republican senators have seen the president is very serious and they see that he is willing to compromise. he is showing political courage in putting out things that he does not necessarily even want to happen, particularly in his budget, but he is showing

willingness to compromise. you have this conversation earlier. you have heard quite a lot before about the importance of returning to regular order. i'm often being interviewed on cable tv and i got, if only the senate would pass a budget. i've heard it so many times. here, you have that take place and even condition the debt limit extension on it. we have a chance to actually have a conference committee, like we teach our kids in their u.s. government class's, yet you do not even see a willingness to appoint conferees. we are calling for regular order, but the president is engaged in conversations to create the conditions for an agreement. the importance of what you saw in this budget is that is not just about having quiet conversations. he has shown that he's willing to go out of his comfort zone to

put forward a real compromise, to take he even from his own side understanding that in divided government, if we are going to get a balanced agreement, it requires both sides to get less than 100%, both sides be willing to tell their supporters we have to compromise to do something positive to move the country forward. one thing i think is important to recognize is how nonsensical the status quo is right now. everyone has said it, but it's true. you have a sequestered designed by both sides to be so stupid that it would not take place. speaker boehner said it would be devastating. people say they think republican leadership may be satisfied with the status quo, but only on substantive grounds, they have always argued for stronger defense budget and this has a harsh defense cut that last for 10 years. they argued for stronger border security and some of them

support more biomedical research. cutsis $1.50-$2 billion in to nih. this is one of the most important points i want to make. what you hear when you come to a peterson form is focusing on how we, as a country, are going to deal with the challenge of baby boomer retirement. what does the sequester do for the second decade of savings? it is the big zero. it's important for people to understand that. cuts the domestic part of hasbudget, the lowest it been since the 1950's. it cuts it severely even though that's where a lot of our investments in children, innovation, and research are. then it has a small cut in entitlement savings which -- and this is important -- ends exactly in the 10th year. it goes away.

summonses they are serious about long-term entitlement savings but they think the status quo is acceptable, they are for an approach that would have zero savings in the second tenure as compared to the president's approach which would have $1-$2 trillion in entitlement spending -- savings in the second decade. is when there is a political reward for both sides. is it fair to say when you see how republicans are not paying a political price, they do not believe that they are, does this tell you that the politics of spending has changed in such a way the republicans are just going to be in another place? understand what substantive: service for them. for them.serve it is done in an arbitrary way. you heard both paul ryan and rob portman talk about growth.

there is not a single independent forecaster out there, or not one i have seen, who does not think the sequester is costing us hundreds of thousands of jobs and economic growth. we are at a point where our economic recovery is showing strength in housing and we could be taking off. instead, we're putting a brake on the economy. why should people be satisfied with an approach that was designed to be so stupid no one could live with it, but that's hurting jobs, that's hurting economic growth? one can take that position, but i don't understand it. i do believe that there are military communities in many people's districts, people getting meals on wheels, head start programs. i'm not sure people are hearing it, but it's true. as much mcconnell once said, it takes two to tango and the president created conditions and he can do out reach for a

serious bipartisan, balanced agreement that can help alleviate and remove the sequestered have a more balanced approach with long-term entitlement savings with revenue from tax reform. again, it takes two to tango and the president has shown real political courage, leadership in what he's doing to put this out, but if we do not see some of the same leadership and encouragement from their side, it's going to be very hard to do anything about it and we understand that the reality we face. >> what the president mean when he said there needs to be a permission structure for the republicans to get on board? it was an interesting phrase that he used. he was asked about the dinners when it seemed we were kind of still in the stalemate when he said he was trying to create this idea where there is a permission structure for republicans to get on board. >> in a divided government when you have a budget agreement, i

was a negotiator in 1997, deficit reduction is never easy. it's never fun. it requires hard choices. when you have divided government, whether it is 1997 or now, it requires compromise. i think what you need is for both sides to be able to feel that they achieved enough of their objectives that the compromise in the areas they do not like is acceptable. what we care about, and many progressive democrats care about, is that you want a plan that's going to be good for jobs and growth and now, because we need this recovery to strengthen to help alleviate long term unemployment and help middle-class families. you need a budget agreement to allow us to invest in the future. you need something, while it will have long-term entitlement savings, it does not put all of

the burden on seniors and middle-class families that is balanced including revenue savings from the most high and individuals. individuals. then it is easier for a democrat to go along with things they wouldn't usually oppose. when you listen to senator portman and others, while they may prefer to not have any additional revenues through tax the agreement is serious about long-term entitlement savings, such as in the second decade, as have spoke them, becomesor acceptable even if they would not prefer to have revenues. hopefully, many of them on both sides recognize that everyone has to give a little. everyone has to compromise their position so we can have an honorable agreement good for growth, good for the middle- class, good for the confidence that shows we're dealing with

our long-term entitlement challenge. the ryanre part of budget, specifically with medicare, that the president could adopt? have a negotiation now openly. thought thisways negotiation would happen with you. [laughter] i've come running. >> i appreciate it. paul ryan, 3rd, speaker boehner, majority leader the president a letter saying, if we are accepting $800 billion in revenue, we would be willing if you took this deal that erskine bowles had suggested to the supercommittee basically calling for three things. it called for raising medicare and meanst age, cpi, testing medicare. i do think the president -- then

minority leader mcconnell called for those same three things twice in november and in his first appearance on "meet the press" in january. the president has put forward two of the explicit requests, means testing the premiums on medicare for couples over $170,000 and, also, accepting the request that we have chained cpi in the budget. obviously, that has been very tough and some of our own supporters have expressed opposition to that. the president has shown a willingness to go at least half way, but one thing people do not recognize is when the president puts out $400 billion in medicare savings and you look at how that compares to paul ryan's budget, i don't know how answer it because they do not have any details of how they get any

savings in the first 10 years -- none. you fora lot about, are structural reform? $400resident says here is billion, calling for new beneficiaries do have some better incentives in their structure. we have details on the table. there is now time for the republicans who are serious to come back and start saying what it is they want to -- >> it you believe they owe you a deal, a new piece of paper. if we are doing a ping-pong game, you have put out your is, you have done your shot. they owe you something in return. >> i think even some of them recognize to some degree the ball is in their court, even if it is a private communication. of course i have heard the speaker and others say the president got his revenues, but

let's be honest. the speaker was at $1 trillion in revenues in december. $1 trillion. it's true that $620 billion was raised by restoring rates to the clinton rates, but even by their last offer, they had nearly $400 billion in revenue on the table. it's not as much as the $580 billion the president has asked for, but there should not be this absolutist position from them that you cannot have any revenue because they have already expressed it. >> do you think they want to deal? givenhink i have kind of up on reading mind, motive, incentive. >> you will regret it. that i am atipulate very intimidating and threatening person. then we can go on. [laughter] i think i have conversations with republicans who i think are

sincere about being willing to compromise. i think they want to see a significant commitment to the type of the entitlement savings as part of a deal. i think they understand that to get an agreement in divided government, it means tax reform would have to raise some revenue to contribute. >> do you buy the idea that you can lower rates and raise revenue? difficult.it's you said what the president has done is he has put out explicitly how he would raise $580 billion through two reforms, the buffett role in having the 28% deduction limit. he has shown you have -- you can do it in a way that is reformed and spare the middle class, but he has always been clear that he does not claim to have all the good ideas in the world and if the congress wants to come back

in a bipartisan way with a tax reform to raise that amount of revenue and met his basic fairness bowles, that he's open to other ideas. now, can you raise that much revenue for deficit reduction and still raise enough to lower rates? it's very difficult, but the president has never put it off the table. when you look at what the house republicans are talking about going down to 25%, that has two problems. one, everything that chairman ryan said today, unfortunately they sit there cannot be a single penny in revenue which will not lead to a bipartisan agreement. i think as we saw from the report from the brookings urban institute over the summer, if you have to lower rates that much on the top 1%, you cannot cut their expenditures enough to pay for it. you have to actually raise taxes

on middle-class families. i think if they were to put forward a plan like that in detail, had scored some people understand it, i do not think it would do very well. saye referred rob portman there is no choice. the president said he will not use the debt ceiling as a negotiation tool. how is it not inevitable? president has been very clear. he is not negotiating on the debt limit. he believes the era of anyone threatening -- >> arguably he has done it twice. the year, thed of idea of negotiating, but there has been negotiation through it in some form, has there not? in 2011.was what we saw was how harmful that was, the idea that the united states to, in all that we have

done in 200 plus years since alexander hamilton to build up our credit rating, are full faith and credit, i think when the president saw what happened in 2011 and saw the hit to the confidence, the economy, are standing, heour made the right decision. he will not negotiate on the debt limit. no one should never threatened a default of the united states as a way of getting their budget through. thinking it will be used to trigger budget talks? >> no one for any reason should never use the default of the united states has a budget tactic or negotiating tool. thato want to make clear this very bad piece of legislation that may be coming through the house, called privatisation is

the fall by another name. t. is defaul it says, would you pay first when you are in default? it's the equivalent of telling a relative, if you pay your mortgage, it's ok if you default on your student loan, car loan, and a credit-card. when we talk about our full faith and credit, we mean the united states of america meets its obligations and the idea that it would be ok for us to meet their obligations to bondholders, but then default to veterans, medicare recipients, small business contractors, it's completely unacceptable and no one should think that is anything but default by another name. >> what is your level of confidence that a big deal gets done, that he signed a big deal on the budget? battle for 5-10 years. >> i would and i would get it so

right, but then there would be a little for a professional to do. [laughter] >> what is realistic? better down 50-50? >> i think all we can do every day in the wake up and do everything we can to create the conditions. >> this five months period is realistic in his last chance. two'm not going to make months or three. five-year projections. i think historically, as we saw in 1997, the first year of a president's second term is a good time for people to come together and make hard choices that are good for the country. this has not been abstract. you have seen the president out there willing to accept things they need for budget agreement that he does not necessarily agree with. you see him having the political courage doing things that many of his own supporters disagreed with.

understand is having private conversations. the door is to have private conversations. people know that whether we have reached that deal space or not, they understand the president is serious and is about getting something done. he is willing to compromise. period is doing, in a of dysfunction he is showing the country that there is another way forward. >> gene sperling. thank you. thanks to everybody. patty murray, paul ryan, rob portman, and gene sperling. thank you to the peterson foundation to let me do this. oh, i have one more. [laughter] this was new to me this morning.

we have one more democrat on board, a veteran of the budget wars. my apology. maryland congressman chris van hollen. democrat. [applause] the ranking member on the committee with paul ryan. >> how you doing? you thought you could get away? >> no, this morning you got an invitation to join the budget committee. there was a proposal a couple -- right before the last recess -- that said the committee between the two budgets was going to be paul ryan, a republican of his choice, you, patty murray, ron wyden, and jeff sessions. and the six of you would start getting together. that stand? is that even a plausible beginning scenario for how the house and senate begin this reconciliation process? >> we would like to do that.

meaning patty murray, who was asked to go to conference. democrats in the house, on the budget committee, we want to go to conference. that is the next. republicans justifiably complained that the senate did not have a budget for three years. now they have a budget. >> justifiably complained? >> in other words, i think it was a fair point to say that the senate should come up with a budget. that is a fair point. they said it everywhere in the country. that was their big talking point. now the big question we have got is whether they prefer that as a talking point are actually want to get a budget. they made a big deal about no budget, no pay. but the reality is we still do not have a budget. we are now past the april 15 deadline in that shoot for forress -- in a statute congress to complete committee action. they made a big point. we are now in violation of the

congressional deadline. >> do they lose their pay? >> we should go to conference. people expect them to take the next up in the process. we have been waiting. they keep saying they want these conversations, but i can tell you that that is really not happening right now. >> let me get your response to paul ryan. he said, i guess he was , heying that it would believed the president's change ai initiative, there would be massive bipartisan resolution voting it down because of the way the conference process works. that once you start the clock it could make the process harder. what do you say interest bonds? >> my responses that the clock is ticking now. there is no evidence that we are getting any closer to agreement. so going to conference in

beginning the clock ticking is a little bit of an action forcing mechanism. -- le will begin saying, ok >> why should republicans negotiate with you if the president you is a better deal deal is apresident's better deal? >> it will include what has been raised by the white house and others. not as if the white house is excluded entirely from the conference process. gene sperling just talked about the ideas the president put on the table. what is ironic, they talk about how the president has changed -- chain cbi, it was their idea and it is not in the republican budget. even though this was their request. look, this is why i think it is important to have a structure, to force the conversation. using theuld not be debt ceiling, for example, and playing around and negotiating

with our full faith and credit as gene sperling said. we should be using the budget process. >> if you have regular order what does that have to do with the president working with senate republicans? does it help your cause, hurt your cause, or a separate track? >> is a parallel track they can feed into that conversation. you have jeff sessions, other republicans on the budget committee in the senate. obviously working with paul ryan in the house. so it is a for him for that conversation take place. a bit of an action-forcing mechanism. number one, it happens in public. that does not mean people cannot continue to have conversations, at i think it would be useful way to finally get people's minds focused. >> but they are so far apart. how does it even begin? >> let's say we went to conference. you said there, to use the cliché, one budget is from mars

and one is from venus. are in not seem as if we the same universe. they are far apart, no doubt about it. beenr apart as they have before. >> how does the conference work? >> it would benefit the country and maybe force the parties to come closer together by having to put these arguments out in the light of day. after all, our republican colleagues set for a long time that they did not want these backdoor conversations. i heard rob portman talk about presidential leadership. let's are member that in december, after the speaker decided he could not bring back a package that would get a majority of his own party in the house, he said he did not want to meet with the president one- on-one anymore. i think that having that conversation in public, reinforced by whatever conversations people want to have, could be useful. look, one of the main

impediments to moving forward, obviously, has been the republican position on revenue. they have taken the position one tax cannot close loophole, eliminate one tax break, for the purpose of reducing the deficit. int every dollar you raise terms of eliminating tax breaks has to go dollar for dollar to reducing rates or some other -- it would be as if democrats said, we agreed this was not a high-priority spending program so so let's cut that spending program, but you know what, you have to back bill the spending dollar for dollar. why should tax expenditures, a form of spending through the tax code, get a totally different treatment in these negotiations? and yet that is obviously an impediment. >> as gene pointed out in december, the speaker said, number one, he would do one dollar trillion for revenue and that he had a plan to raise $800

billion by eliminating tax breaks. he said he had a plan. i would like to see that plan. that plan raises revenue not by raising the rates but by eliminating certain tax expenditures. you think that is possible? >> mr. speaker, if you had a do you thinkber, -- >> is it possible to lower rates and raise the amount? i think that is possible. the issue was how much you will lower rates by. a lot of, there is running room between $800 billion that they said they could raise and four dollars trillion, which -- four dollars trillion. they say they can reduce tax

expenditures by approximately $4 buy down the rate. so certainly you can generate $800 billion to tax reform. how much you can lower the rate by and still generate is another question. your ownwords, put plan that you had in secret on the table. >> can you support the president's chain cpi initiative and means testing on medicare? >> the issue with chain cpi is it is presented as a more adequate measure of inflation. to the extent that is true, it is a policy that makes sense. the problem is as it relates to seniors, there is a lot of evidence that suggests it is not true because seniors use a greater share of their income on health care. healthcare generally has been

rising rising faster in terms of price than other goods in the economy. therefore they end up paying a higher share of income. that is a factual question that relates to seniors. other parts of the chain cpi, which help reduce the deficit, make sense. in terms of medicare, medicare part b has already got a lot of means testing. the president is proposing additional modest means testing. that is certainly something that can be looked at. there are other proposals the president has made, but our fundamental difference in approach between -- on medicare , paul ryan has his voucher idea, which we believe does not help contain rising healthcare costs but just transfers rising healthcare costs on the backs of seniors. whose median income is $22,000. versus the approach in the

affordable care act which begins to move us away from a strictly onefor-service system into that rewards providers based on quality of care. and can help reduce healthcare costs. in fact, there was very good news recently that maybe healthcare costs per capita were actually rising more slowly now than at any time in the last 50 years. part of that is the slow economy. part of that may be changes in the way people practice medicine. >> why should republicans negotiate with you in patty murray? -- and patty murray? or is was ringing among democrats, who though exasperated by republicans are nervous and say it is amazing that they do not see they will get a better deal from the president then they will ever get from senate. is that fair? >> i think all the ideas should be in the mix. what comes out of the end of the day is part of negotiating

process. but i think the president recognizes -- let me first say that there is a lot more in common between the senate democratic budget and house democratic ajit and the president's budget that is different. including a major replacement to the sequester and a balanced approach to long-term deficit reduction. with the exception of the items you just mentioned. >> not small items. cpi, which is not in the republican's own button meant -- republicans' own budget. i think we could come to some agreement. >> basically, you can envision cpictantly supporting chain and some stuff on medicare if it is part of a larger deal. >> i did not say that, but i said we would look at the elements in the president's budget and elements in our budget. and obviously the republican

budget is on the table for discussion. up ind to take the next the process. go to conference. >> why doesn't the democratic budget balance? should it? should the federal budget be a balanced budget? >> absolute priority has to be economic growth. short-term and longer-term. that needs to remain our focus. if balance can be a byproduct of that, if you look at the house democratic budget it is significantly reducing our deficit as a percentage gdp in 10 years. actually, our budget, because of what we believe are lower per capita health care costs, actually did balance in the year 2040. by the way, everyone needs to recognize that the republican budget last year, when did it balance? 2040. this new notion that somehow 10 years from now is a magic

number is totally inconsistent with the budget they had on the table last year. the other point i would make on this super-is gimmick in the republican budget that allows it to get the balance in 10 years. that is they repeal all the keepits of obamacare but in the budget all the other components of obamacare that they railed against. taxes. $1 dollar trillion -- trillion in their budget comes from the affordable care act. $715 million is the medicare savings that they railed against in the last election. you take out the medicare savings and the trillion dollars of revenue and the budget is more than 500 billion dollars out of budget. we need to keep these in perspective. our focus needs to be getting the economy going right now.

adopte the sequester, the president's infrastructure proposal, and act now to reduce our long-term deficit in a steady, sustainable way through a balanced mix of targeted cuts, reforms, and revenue from tax reform. significant progress is our to been made and long- term deficit reduction. do you believe we are in a moment of crisis, or not? >> i do not think we are in a immediate deficit crisis today. the main crisis right now is a jobs deficit. we continue to have high employment rates. the congressional budget office has said if you look at next , 3/4 of nextt year's deficit is the result of high and employment. the economy is not a potential. lots of slack in the economy. so we need to do things to help the economy going. certainly do no harm, sore place the sequester, what should we act now to reduce the long-term

deficit? yes. if you look at out years, especially because the demographic shifts, it will become unsustainable if we do not take action. but the president's budget gets the deficit down and to 1.7% of gdp 10 years from now, stabilize better?, and can we do yes. but let me say this in closing. because of artificial budget rules we focus on 10 years. there is no magic in 10 years. somebody could have picked five years, 15 years. is to takesue actions now that phase in over a period of time in a steady, credible way. that would help us focus on the real issues. >> we do a budget every year. should it be every two years? first of of all -- >> all, we have not gotten a budget. >> we keep going. i could that sense --

support something like a biannual budget. i do not feel strongly one way or another. it would give the appropriations process a little more predictability. the more i look at the budget process, while some can help on the margin, it is no substitute for an agreement on big substantive issues. >> is it fair to say that if a deal does not happen this year, then it is not happen until 2017, we are on the hamster wheel for another four years? >> i think it is much harder. right now you would hope there is enough pressure on both sides to try and get an agreement. i am not sure that there is. but, i hope there is enough interest in coming together right now. the president is working hard.

we would like to go to conference. we should do that right away. the president continues to have this dialogue with members of the senate. >> chris van hollen, ranking member. thank you. so now i can thank everybody. patty murray, paul ryan, gene sperling, rob portman, and chris van hollen. they may disagree on the issues, but they are all pretty knowledgeable about this process. hopefully this time next year we are talking about the incredible deal that happened. one thing we learned is everybody seems to agree it is this year or bust. so thanks for letting me do this. thank you. [applause] [captioning performed bynational captioning institute] [captions copyright nationalcable satellite corp. 2013] peter g peterson annual fiscal summit also heard from former president bill clinton and microsoft's bill gates. this is a little less than an hour. ♪

♪applause] >> i imagine we are ready, gentlemen? we had a great conversation behind. i have to start off, i am a myan, i wanted to bring out tablet or my smartphone for obvious reasons to have my questions and the comments. but i was afraid my tablet would lock up in the presence of bill gates, and i do not think i could live with that. result, my notes, mr. gates and president clinton, look a little bit like a second-rate

art project. thent to start with conversation, picking up on the presentation. i was struck by comments that the fiscal debate is taking up up all the oxygen in the room. we are not able to look at trends ahead because we are being pulled down by this ongoing conversation that seems easily resolved with compromise. mr. president, you can take a first stab at that. >> well, it is self-evidently that the problem is nature of the debate goes to one the factual dispute and the core of the political differences between the two parties in washington today. , i tell you what i think first. i think everybody in this debate has an obligation to say what they believe. i think paul krugman is right

in the short run and peep eaters in an simpson-bowles, everybody peterson an simpson- bowles are right in the long run. if we do not pass a plan in advance, there is always the chance that the economy will start recovering and interest rates will go through the roof and it will make this sequester look like a sunday afternoon walk in the park. do not forget, if interest rates today were what they were when i was president we would -- which were pretty low, concerted -- considering we would have growth -- annual payments would go $650$300 billion to billion. so, we need to deal with this. secondly, because of the debate, it is taking stale up all the oxygen. but i think a lot of cuts have already been made and in the

short run, the president has offered a long-term plan that basically reflect the private understanding he had with john boehner when they were negotiating. and i think that the best thing to do -- simpson-bowles has done update, which i just read and i think is pretty good. they need to, the simpson-bowles putte says we should not any more real restrictions in until 2016 so the economy keeps growing well. it is obvious the defense cuts and general restrictions on public employment have in the near-term slowed the recovery. it is obvious that if you overdo austerity early you get europe, where the and implement rate exceeds 12% -- unemployment rate exceeds 12%. we need to get this off the plate. we are not debating about the future now. forou look at the fix

airline passengers, which since i have to trundle back and forth between here in new york all the time, i appreciate it -- it basically is a metaphor, a mini-metaphor for the choices , where 44% sequester of cuts were from domestic discretionary spending, which is 15% of the budget. , 4% fromfrom defense the healthcare and other entitlement programs, and it basically, within the budget of the faa, we are making it possible for all of us to fly with fewer delays and not invest in improving infrastructure of regional airports. the constantally choice we keep making if we just kick the can down the road.

that is what i think. so i agree. i think if we could get this agreement made it would lift a huge burden and would increase confidence. and they could actually go out and debate something that is worth debating. , which iu try to do support, tax reform and the whole thing, and have to relitigate the whole debate about whether there will be any more revenues, i do not see how you will ever get an agreement and we will just keep spinning our wheels. >> if we continue to spin the wheels we remain stifled. that brings us to innovation. mr. gates, when you see what is happening, you are not in the dc sausage making business but are certainly in technology. when it boils down to what we can afford and are so concerned on immediate concerns, from the faa to the small pieces of the equation, how do we think big and how do we invest big in america's future? the oxygenople say

is being taken up by the debate. -- the healthe care cost problem, which is really the long-term problem, he have some retirement obligations because of the aged structure change, but overwhelmingly the healthcare cost, which fortunately omb are honest that it is growing faster than the economy and all it needs is a little bit of time before that overwhelms your revenue rates and capability. it is interesting that the amount of deception about how you bend the curve on that is not there. it is not a partisan issue. the partisan issue is, given the costs, should the government or the individual bear the cost? that is fine, but it is definitely a zero-sum discussion of shipping it back and forth. the real question for our do we stay on a

trendline te everything else up? else up? everything i am very disappointed about the conversation about how you take innovation and measurement and use it to improve the system is not taking place. who is your favorite person in terms of this? efforts,budget deficit simpson-bowles and others, which are fantastic, they sort of hand wave. by the way, you have to get rid of that piece in there somewhere at some point. we were having that conversation. this is a place where innovation can either be your enemy, because it is inventing complex things like organ replacement and joint replacement, or it can be your friend, taking on things like chronic care cost, getting rid

of parkinson's or alzheimer's or diabetes, where you would have cost savings. so we need to bring in a we useion about how innovation and get the efficiencies driven by measurement of quality that is simply not in the system today. >> mr. president, how do we get policymakers -- i was at the final space shuttle launch and i was literally moved to tears and he about how this country thinks big. if innovation is not understood by policymakers, how do we look for america's next big thing, so the next generation can feel, 19 60s as you did in the and 1970s and as i did at the kennedy space center that day? >> i will give you a very short answer. i would like to amplify on something bill said. that is a whole debate. we are continuing to innovate.

there is a stunning amount of human genome research and application. in nanotechnology. lots of other things. we need to do more. one of the few areas that i have clearly disagreed with the simpson-bowles report, i think any tax reform should not get rid of the research and development tax credit because we are already less generous than 15 other countries, and we do not need to do that. we are continuing to innovate. we are not continuing to invest in the future. on the public side, as much as we should. here is the problem with what bill said. i think about this all the time. this whole debate, the healthcare debate, has been shoehorned into the budget debate, as bill described. , it is crazy for us to health caredp for

no other country does. the only rich countries that pay more than us are the netherlands and switzerland. that translates into $1 trillion a year. 43% of which comes from the public sector. people who say we have to privatize medicare or voucher ize, and ther people who say we have to project and keep in be sent on increases to account for both medical inflation and the delivery system as well as the baby boomers getting into the are excepting something that is unacceptable. on the other hand, this is the dilemma. if you can figure out how to solve this we can make a change. we really need about five years to see whether the drivers in the healthcare law, which

clearly are trying to give incentives for people to be healthier and incentives for the system to deliver health care where you pay for results, not by procedure, to see if that works. the problem is neither the office of management and budget or the congressional budget office -- they want us to score this and do all this health care stuff based on what is a realistic projection of increasing healthcare costs if you keep the insurance system, the delivery system, and our lifestyle exactly as they have been and project them out. we have to change all three of those things. and if you are not willing to do that we are not going to get anywhere. keep in mind, in 2009, when this economy was on his knees after the crash in 2008, health insurance moffett -- profits rose.

when everybody worried about holding onto their business and not losing their own, the engine ground on. and i just read last week that in, on average, if a person is readmitted to the hospital , these of a problem profit margin on that person for the hospital goes up 300%. why theould explain system in pennsylvania, where the provider needs all the cost when they have to do that, is so successful in holding down costs. -- why is thell government still getting medicated drugs cheaper than medicare drug? there are a thousand questions to be answered. but alternately the dilemma is that we are assuming we are not going to change the delivery him, the financing system, or

our personal behavior. if we do not change all three of those things we cannot get our numbers down to where other countries are. >> you have traveled extensively, mr. gates. you just a day trip to south korea. your focus with the gates foundation is vaccines, polio -- we talked a little about it behind-the-scenes. when you look at the domestic debate on health care and what you are seeing a broad in your abroad, -- a broad -- in your travels, what stands out to you? there seem to be legitimate solutions on the table. >> health care, there are big differences between rich countries, middle income countries, and low income countries. low income countries, which is where our foundation focuses , theof the efforts, that key missing thing is to have great primary health care where a mother before birth is ed, first 30 days, the

infant gets care and vaccinations get delivered. hiv drugs, tb drugs, malaria drugs get out. there is actually very good progress on that. with budget deficits in the u.s. and europe and japan, the traditional donors, there is a reflection on whether the aid budgets will even stay flat. countries have been cutting those. that really hurts low income countries. middle income countries like a lot ofey have got injustice because of what is not covered. yet in some ways because they are more open-minded they are trying different things. there will be good examples to come out of those countries, that even the rich countries should look at. what are the job

categories, how do you measure outcomes? there are a lot of vibrancy there. high income countries are facing the same rate of increase, although we managed to be at a starting point of about 1.5 times worse than everyone else. i got pulled into health not because it is a big foundation priority, but at the state budget level where you have to or at least pretend the balance aren'tarly basis there some projects having to do with pensions that if they were in the private sector would be considered out and out fraud. but because they have to attend that is ae at least, big domestic focus, the quality of education. ironically, in the last 15 years, a lot of additional

money went in and we did improve quality. now in the next 15 years we will look at flat and potentially even down. now we have to get the quality up and the affordability up. it is a pretty daunting problem. but it is one of these things where, what is the long-term plan? how do we step back? the states, by the way, do not control enough to really change the medical picture. the scale of their operations, what they are required to do, the reform on this one probably has to come from the federal level. >> one of the things we will have to deal with -- i agree -- is that the price of health insurance is normally approved by state regulators. and they very often are not even expert senate and they approve increases. now, the current law says that

, 80% of ar funds person's premium has to go in healthcare. only 20% of profit and promotions. for big insured groups it is 85%. that is supposed to be enforced at the national level. it has played a role in the fact that we had inflation at 4% now for two years for the first time in 50 years. but it is impossible to say what is going to happen when all these new people are insured. everyone assumes they will include -- they will all be in small funds, so they will be at 80%, not 85%, and a lot of them will be or sicker and therefore the premiums will start out higher. so there is a lot of talk about that now. but i am agreeing with bill. the national -- we are the only country in the world, the only advanced country in the world

with an expensive system that does not have a national healthcare budget. if we had a budget we could do with the republicans want want. we could privatize it all. in the netherlands, for example, 100% of people have private health insurance. there is no medicare, no medicaid, no veterans health system, nothing. everybody buys health insurance and then they get a subsidy according to their income. all individually owned. but they have a health budget, which is why they are at 12% and we are at 17.9%. every time anyone talks about that in the past, i have the scars to prove it, they were accused of rationing health care. which of course we do every day in america. you say the healthcare debate is being shoehorned into the budget debate. one might also say that is happening with immigration reform.

you recently said you expect it to pass, but also made the case that comprehensive immigration reform will help improve the u.s. economy. you might know there was a report just out yesterday, the heritage foundation said dick $.3 trillion in new spending and entitlements and social 6.3 trillion dollars in new spending entitlements and social programs will be sucked out of the budget if immigratione reform is passed. >> i disagree. it shows only the downside, the worst-case downside scenario, with none of the upside for immigrants. think of everybody who ever came started auntry that company or took a good job and built a family and became middle-class taxpayers and send kids to college. it is one side of the ledger. the worst-case scenario on one side of the ledger. i am for immigration reform be youngerneed to

than our competitors. we are younger than japan and europe. ireland is the only country in europe where the median ages younger than america. it continues to give us diversity and contacts with the rest of the world. i am for it. there is some dispute about something bill knows a lot more about, which is whether -- i have always favored increasing these visas and getting more skilled workers. everybody in the high-tech field tells me we need more. now there is a little debate. people claim they only want to hire people from overseas because they work for less money. i think it is clear that if you get more talented people in this country and make them feel welcome to stay and let them start businesses and do all these things, it will strengthen us. we can handle more people in america and we cannot afford to be in a world where you want to counter budget problems -- have more young people and taxpayers

relative to the number of people no longer working and spending your health care money. privately or publicly. >> mr. gates, a number of big names in silk on a valley are spending millions right now getting into the immigration debate. people who have been previously described as a political. your name has been listed as being involved. a lot of times we get it wrong, but there are millions coming in to participate in this debate on immigration reform. is it about recruiting the best and brightest from other countries for engineering and science jobs? back innovation. >> i am glad to hear i am viewed as apolitical . seriously. it is not a positive label these days to be viewed as political. i do think that thinking just about the technocrat extracts --

facts, how things are measured, is perhaps the best contribution. whether it is improving orlthcare or education foreign aid. i am one of the backers of activities surrounding immigration. immigration -- it is important to separate the pieces. one is the high scale piece. kill peace.l of people coming in, should some portion include those who have computer science skills? if i'm a graduate student at uc berkeley in computer science, i am going to get a job for $100,000 a year. the question is, should that job be in india and the jobs created around the person there, or in the united aids? that person is going to get hired, i guarantee you. we help provide a great education. , peace, there is

no doubt of the economic benefits if you are careful. the compromise proposal has all of that. then you have the broad immigration debate where again the economic benefits are very clear. i am less of the next bird on this piece, but the idea -- less of an expert on this piece, but the idea, we are the envy of the world because we have a growing population. when you get into what italy and russia and japan are in, shrinking population, that is very bad for investment. the number of working people to retired people is a very tough problem. so immigration has always been a huge sense of vibrancy and economic improvement. so i am hopeful that we get the whole thing pushed through. of all the issues it seems to be the most likely that something will happen. >> i would like to also point

beingat we need to stop so arrogant in some of our rhetoric like we are doing everybody a big favor. , thereead the other day was an article that said that every year we had demand for more or less 120,000 people with computer science degrees and in the aggregate on and under ride weit -- undergraduate level were only producing 40,000. if that is true, why in gods name would you not keep everybody here who wants to stay who has an undergraduate or graduate degree, and why would that wasa visa program not a bureaucratic nightmare to fill the gap? well we are trying to increase more young people in the stem fields, one of the things we did through the clinton global initiative, president obama said we needed another 100,000 m teachers. -- stan teachers -- stem

teachers. so we will fill the gap through a totally private commitment. the other thing, we need to be careful. one of the great new stories in the world in the last five years is mexico, which has followed brazil in reducing income inequality. the president who just left, too famous for drug wars on the borders and to little known for starting 140 tuition free universities that produced last year 113,000 engineering graduates. migrationd no net in for the last two years from mexico. the dream of nafta is going to pay off. they will be are equal trading partner and we will work together to build up the americas. they are getting all sorts of investment from asia moving back here, and in satellite

areas. people are coming to the caribbean now. all because we believed in the promise of a partnership with mexico. we should be wanting these people here, not acting like they are knocking down the doors to get here. a lot of those mexican people who went home have better economic opportunities at home than here now. this is good for us. we should do this because it is both morally right and smart economics. >> a facebook question. people submitted questions. the first one. how does our current budget reflects our values and priorities? where do we need to adjust? from washington dc >> we need a long-term plan to balance the budget that does not have so much restriction for the next two years. that it slows the economic growth more than austerity or he has. , i do not, i think have any idea whether in the current climate this is fixable, but what bill said about healthcare is true.

the loading people out of public system into the private system, which is already more expensive than publicly funded healthcare, is not the answer. if we can figure out some way to score for five years a number we were going to spend and give us the opportunity first, give us five years to try to reform the system and, failing that, go back to the old meat cleaver approach, i think that would be important. the fundamental problem for me is that the budget spends too much money on the present and too little on investment in the future. it is all the things bill has found out in the great work of the gates foundation on what works on education. it is all this investment stuff. i spent $3 billion of your they -- now they're saving at st. jude'sren hospital for $5,000.

it will soon be $500. we had bipartisan agreement. we spent $500 million of your money to do the first federally funded research into nanotechnology. now it is a whole new section of the economy. moneye to keep spending on the future, which includes things that are more expensive, like modernizing infrastructure. >> i want to talk about education and infrastructure. i want to follow-up up -- at the democratic national convention you famously said, the arithmetic. that resonated with a lot of people. $4 trillion in debt reduction one a decade, it raises dollar in new revenues -- if you talk about tightening controls on future spending, but here we are again going back short timeemarks a ago about the oxygen, if you will, abou being taken out of te room. we are back to the initial

start of the conversation. how do we move it forward? >> i do not know. and because i think all president can do is make his proposal and keep playing golf with republicans. [laughter] i am not making fun of them. i think it is a good thing. but the truth is that in the current climate it is not possible to make the kind of .ndividual agreements the white house cannot give things up the way it used to. these guys, the most important thing is to never raise taxes. so they say, we already raise taxes and we will never do that again. even in tax reform. so the only thing i think is maybe you should go back and start talking about the details of tax reform.

i also think that the white house should offer a corporate tax reform without getting all the individual things worked out. i know exactly what they are worried about. they are worried that if they repeal the extraterritorial tax that there will be even more parking of money overseas. , bill would say this, there is a great deal of difference. business operations that microsoft might have in china or indonesia or europe or anywhere, and some transaction that is made to look like it occurred in the cayman islands when we all know very well it did not except for tax purposes, i think there are ways to sort through that. expect they will find some pieces of the puzzle they can do, like the tax reform piece. >> the question about, does the budget reflect our values, it is

a very good question. as president clinton said, what we have done in the sequester is cuts non-defense discretionary spending disproportionately. what does that mean? it means we cut the nih budget. where others are spending more. in the face of the need for innovation that cuts medical expense increases, we cut basic research. we cut the aid budget, where over the last decade we have been exemplary in spending better and making sure things like hiv medicines, that the u.s. took the lead getting those things out there. unlike foreign aid 20 years ago that was more about our friends, now it is about real human value. , i donly, the sequester not think it reflects our values. there will have to be a discussion about funding the

thate, how big a priority is. even before the sequester, under the budget control act that the congress had said, ok, the non- discretionary will come down quite a bit. understanding what did that really mean, which programs and there, some of which i think are quite important, education, research, some of the foreign aid pieces, i think those to reflect who we are as a country. so until we can get into the long-term peace, the mandatory piece, we are going to be moving away from what i think our unique contribution is and what our values are. >> following up, both of you are in education. about the desires for this country moving ahead -- i always go back to this quote. when i was a teenager, i was

captivated by computers. 30 years ago, my colleagues and i envisioned a computer on every desktop. that is not happening. is that a reflection of our values? we have a passion and want these things accessible. i did a google hangout chat teenagers from the inner-city. . that would not have been available to us 10 years ago. at the technology you trumped up is not available, i believe and many believe, due to education still not being the priority it needs to be in this country. your foundation seems to mirror that thought. twover the next 10 years, things will be great in education. one is to get a personnel system that gives teacher feedback so we can improve average quality. that is only about 3% of the payroll that needs to be invested. we need to do that well. other countries do that. the second for education is the

use of technology. although we are at a fairly early stage, as you get rid of textbooks, get tablet pc type devices out there, get the best teachers online, get personalized learning, there is a lot of excitement that is shaping that the right way. we need to make sure that for low income middle income, all --ferent types of students, still a lot of research put into it. there is a hope that during the next 15 years education can improve the lot. -- a lot. the greatest source of equity in the country today. most people accept now that the budgets will not go up much because of health care costs. it is even a fight to sure that is the case. but even in a flat budget era, if we go after the personnel system, after the use of technology, we can be optimistic that we will get back to the equality of opportunity that we try and stand for.

>> mr. president, at the other end of the spectrum, higher education. you recently made a lot of comments about the cost of college and the alternatives that need to be seriously discussed, whether they be online classes -- the amount of debt people are leaving college with and how it affects the economy is stunning. , collegelivery system costs have not gone up as much as health care but they have gone up roughly twice the rate of inflation over the last 20 or 30 years. for example, at the end of my term we passed the biggest increase in financial aid since the g.i. bill. within five years it was all gone in terms of its net impact to beneficiaries. that is, price increases had caught up and swallowed it. now we have a new student loan law and it is going to be swallowed. collegether hand, a

degree is still a pretty good deal. yes, not all college graduates are getting higher-paying jobs as they were 20 years ago, and that will not happen again until the labor market tightens up. some of them do not get jobs. but the unemployment rate among college graduates is still way lower than it is in a population as a whole. it is still a good investment. i just think we need to both in k-12 and in the university, we need to consciously talk about this more. ir example, how do you -- personally think we have more technology and more access -- if we had more access, the dropout rate would go down. kids could learn in different ways and you could integrate different disciplines like these a+ schools in north carolina and oklahoma and

louisiana. a couple of them in my home state of arkansas. they integrate the arts into teaching english and social studies and history and math. without exception, the dropout rate goes down and the achievement level is equal or surpass in the state average the poor schools. all these things we know that i think will free teachers to do whole different functions in a way that will really help education. we have got to decide, how do you credit them in k-12? how do you credit these math and online open courses in college? how do you maintain the experience? college and university is not entirely for economics. you get something in how to think and be exposed to different people and all that stuff that makes you -- that

makes life more interesting. but i think that technology will be a big piece of this. but we have to think about how we are going to do it and how we are going to integrate it. bill knows 100 times more about this than i do. >> everybody is just learning. like you, i am very excited to see examples where it has shown possibility. in the current form it is mostly being used by students who are doing well already. the idea is, how do we make sure we get it to the inner city kids? it will not just all be online. but some online. equivalenthe math to lecture, you do that at home, then you are just doing problem- solving and grouping kids together according to where their personal level of knowledge is. that is very promising. education is another thing where the entanglement of what is the role of the states and

the role of the federal government makes it very complicated. the states of had budget problems and they raise tuition at their institutions. they withdraw support. the federal government through more loan money has had to make up that equation. now you talk about, ok, what are best practices, how do you measure the output? you have the same dilemma as an health care. if you really understood output then you would find some people to do some procedures. muchus universities are better at providing the right types of opportunities and education. we are finally getting some data out about outcomes as opposed to just saying, ok, do they take in a very good student body? technology has a lot of promise theake this part of

economy that we bring efficiency to. >> i want to get one more facebook question in, posed to both of you. a handful of seemingly theonable economists said market for manufacture will change from cheap labor to cheap energy. what do you think? what are other alternatives you see? mr. gates, you talked about raising the living standard of the world's poorest. some of the complexities, including cheaper energy or cheap energy. situation in the u.s. is a very positive story. everybody is excited about how low-cost natural gas means that our electricity prices and are energy independence looks very positive. that is in the medium to long term. that creates a huge problem in terms of co2 emissions. either to carbon caps or a carbon tax

so you solve the problem. manufacturing, there is a tiny it of a renaissance in the united states. people care more about energy costs and labor costs is a lot of it is very automated. it's not creating as many blue inlar jobs as it would have its previous incarnation. that's a fact and that's why we have to get more people with four-year degrees to match the demand in the economy but the positiveory's quite a thing. >> basically, every year, labor smaller percentage of overall manufacturing costs and materials, energy and transportation are larger percentages so it shouldn't be surprising that since the american work force is productive and basically now less expensive, for example, many european work forces

and with the chinese wages rising, we're getting a lot of companies bringing production back home and i think it's really important, it's i think r&don why is important, too, because people want to do manufacturing where they have their research facilities and the an important part of picture and i think we ought to keep working on it but i think if i get to say within thing energy thing, i think the natural gas boom is good. fuel.n important bridge the co-2 emissions for gas are for coal andy are the u.s. has made the biggest gains in greenhouse gas of any major economy in the last few years because shutting down coal plants and burning natural gas more efficient. on the other hand, as bill it's still emits a

lot of carbon into the atmosphere. i think we need a three-point industry. strategy. the gas.o use we still don't have a program that is comprehensive enough to suit me that recognizes the study that was done year before saying we could buy ourselves 20 more years in slowing down climate change if we got rid of the more rapidly gases ing greenhouse an aggressive way. inlary worked a lot on this black carbon trying to stop wood charcoaltoves and burning stoves. that's one thing. methane is a huge thing, basically urban garbage and agriculture and our foundation on that and best news i've seen is the chinese phase outrecently to hydroflooro carbons basically in conditioning units, according to the montreal

protocol and they can save a amount -- something like eight billion tons of co-2, the years oft of two europe's emission, over the next 17 years. concentrated on those and then didn't give up on solar and the price is dropping and used our aid programs to put is nownd wind where it economical with no subsidies, it make a big difference. i have been arguing that the u.s. should basically make the entire caribbean energy empty with clean energy because they electric ratest in the world so all clean energy technologies are economical there today without subsidy. it would be good for the economy, good for theirs and hugeand it would make a statement so that's what they wk think thisone but i gas thing has brought us some time and is bringing us some and we ought to make best

use of it but if we go to sleep is pretend climate change not happening, that's not the best use of it. >> we have about 25 more seconds to go. a wide range of things. there's an elephant in the room to address here just quickly so indulge me. a donkey. women are clamoring at the edge of our seats wondering what is next. dynamic --t she's is unmatched, her voice for women, the poor, families -- so i have to ask it. mr. gates, when is melinda politics?to >> i'm for her. to have both very lucky amazing wives who keep us on do amazing work in .heir own right

and i don't think melinda's going to run for president. mentioned it to me. >> i pivot to you, mr. president. she hasn't mentioned it to me, either. i don't know what's going to that'sbut i know this, the worst expenditure of our time. know, she's taking a role in the foundation, she's writing little funs having a being a private citizen for the first time in 20 years and that's- you know, fine -- but we need to be the work at hand, all of us do. iswhoever the next president an easier set of choices for him or her to build america's future and to build a peaceful, more prosperous world and it's frustrating when majoring in the minors either over the budget

toate or going right back politics as soon as the last election's over instead of getting into the grimy details the future of america will be written, how we resolve these details. i think i'll pander to bill gates a little bit since we work together and he has money and i gates foundation, i think, may be the best now, ever, not just and part of it is they worry clarityg things with but they also get into the grimy details. to work.f has matters in the end is whether what you do turns into realintentions changes and it obscures our capacity to do that and plays to national tendency to attention deficit disorder when it comes to politics and public off ons if we get politics too early and forget

about the details. stay ininly we hope we the future business and stay focused on innovation and the topic we discussed today will be followed throughout the day and the bright and bold ideas we know that are in this country upon. be shined thank you both for your time. [applause] [captions performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national 2013]satellite corp. deputy defense secretary waysn carter discussed the affects sequestration the defense department. trainingnumerous related actions, the army plans to cancel at least six remaining combat center training sessions for its brigade combat teams. the culminating training events and their

cancellations seriously arms readiness. by the end of the fiscal year, 2/3 ofng deployed units, army active combat teams and bet of the reserves will below acceptable readiness levels. for means we are less ready contingency operations and it may interfere with our ability to replace units in afghanistan year. the air force has or will soon 12 combatlying for coded squadrons which means that about 1/3 of its active squadrons will be markedly less contingencyt demands. the air force is also reducing or stopping training at numerous other squadrons. this is not only dangerous, it will also be expensive to repair the damage. you lose flying proficiency, it is very and time consuming to get it back. the navy and marine corps are also cutting back on flight and fleet operations.

the navy has imposed flying restrictions on nondeployed carrier air wings and as you've seen we're not sending ships to had planned. as the navy cuts back on maintenance, support and beaming days, there will fewer opportunities for the marines to train which will in turn degrade their readiness. finally, we may have to consider furloughing many of our civilian to hold downorder operating costs. secretary hagel has not made a on furloughs but if we have to impose them, they and harm morale productivity throughout most of our support functions and this will in turn further damage readiness. republican mark sanford, former governor of south carolina, has won the special u.s. house ofe representatives from the state's 1st district, defeating the democrat, elizabeth colbert busch. before he was governor, mr. sanford representing the 1st

district for three terms. replaces tim scott who resigned when appointed to the u.s. senate. candidates spoke with supporters for about 15 minutes. [applause] >> hi, everyone! thank you for being here tonight! you! thanks so much. oh, hi out there. nice to see you. thank you so much. hi, how are you? to see you. my family's still -- you can they came in from all over the country and here locally to so supportive and they're just wonderful and so are all of you. you're just wonderful. thank you for all your support.

i can't thank you enough. [applause] come on up. coming. they're still coming. one more. there you are. perfect. we have everyone. i would introduce them all to you but it would take a while. first of all, wow, we gave it a fight, didn't we? [cheers and applause] and we were all in it together so i'm just so proud to be with you tonight. jamie, thank you so much for everything. it's been a long time since the in columbia. mayor riley, your endorsement, walking down king street with a wonderfulat, what adventure with you. thank you so much. kaiserling who endorsed us, only candidacy he's endorsed his entire career. mayor sam murray from bluffton.

washington,inley reverend hodges, representative hoped to bei had his partner in congress, all the volunteers that have brought us here today, your time, your hard work, your dedication and your confidence take me to wherever my next journey is. much.you so [applause] my family, this is about them, oh, my gosh, started this we race we knew that it would be an we werelimb and determined to do it, so determined to do it. i remember my only pledge was to of south carolina's

1th congressional district. ie people have spoken and respect their decision. no, i respect their decision. this is the beauty of our country. i respect their decision. i can assure you i will continue all of you in south carolina. applause]d thank you so much. it's been a tremendous honor to represent you. most beautiful people in the most beautiful beautifuln the most nation and i cannot thank you enough for taking this journey with me. god bless all of you! thank you! thank you all! thank you! thank you! thank you! thank you! thank you!

[cheers and applause] >> ok, all right. y'all ready? me?o, can you hear can i have your attention for ?ne second

we're trying to get a p.a. system going here. on?t two, three, four -- oh, we here.omething i have a question for y'all. to changef you want washington, d.c.? applause]d suspicion that might be the case and given that is indeed the case, that's why before i get into any of the conversation on changing washington, d.c. and the important love it, let me i want to say .hank you y'all want me to -- i handed a pan that way. can i have the pan back? i need the pan back. i'm serious. the pan back for these

guys. where's the pan? back here? thank you. need it back. ok. crowded.ttle it's a little hot so i'll try to be battery and to the point i get into any that. all right, i won't be brief. you toant to say thank elizabeth. campaign and in the process of any contest, i think it's important to acknowledge the other team that was on the playing field and i compliments to a well run race, their entire team contest we've had over the last month-plus and wish them well on the road ahead. say, though, that this

campaign at the end of the day two very different ideas on what ought to come next d.c. and at the end of the day the prevailing viewpoint was driven by every of you all who worked so hard to bring ultimately the success of this campaign but something much, much more important and that is a to washington, d.c. and d.c.senger to washington, on the importance of changing fair city.hat you know, i said from the beginning in this campaign that are indeed at a tipping point in this civilization and if we didn't get things right there would be real consequences for the american dollar, our savings way of life son at the end of the day what this the american way of life and the dreams it has afforded. see the official from boeing

in the back. whether dreams come in the form of a dreamliner, produced in carolina, or whether dreams come in the form of two kids starting with a dream in a parent's basement, what this campaign is about is reconstructing those constitutional ideals and themes of limited government, so important to the construct of one of those ideas. i would also say the obvious some guy came up to me the other day, he said, lazarus andot like if it was because just about market based ideas thisimited governments, campaign would have been easily won a long time ago but i had deficiencies well chronicled as a candidate and at the end of theday i was carried across threshold by an incredible team

of volunteers represented in thisroom and well beyond room so i want to give thanks and praise to the many, many people, whether you were a corneron the side of holding up a banner and doing a you were, whether putting in a wooden stake in the ground with yet another plywood sign, whether you were calling friends, emailing friends, all the things that go into politics, i want to say thank did.or what you i also want to single out a of extraordinary volunteers. again, i hate doing this because there's so many people that hard but marie dupree harren and april durr, earlyow, they came to me on at this campaign start and said i still believe in you and want to give you a day, a

week, a month, the entire campaign and devote it to the ideas this campaign is based on and i single them out along with mostney who ran the extraordinary job with myunteers and of course volunteerrah, who is and barbara and lisa and i see marvin and frank folks worked awfully hard to bring this about and i want to say thank you. davis, whoddy, tom was the first person to start this ball rolling when he said do this. can he said you were talking about debt, deficit and government 15 and 20 years ago when folks weren't focused on it, they are now and here's a to take everything you learned in congress, the governorship, all of it and it to one of the great debates of our civilization, how to get our financial house in i want to single out

tom for his singlehanded focus front. i also want to single out an extraordinary professional staff. i can at times be a little bit tense, i guess would be the word. know, we all are in the game but john and jason and joel and sonny and carey and for whathank you all you did and i got to single out one person in particular, i or notnow if she's here but we drew straws and the worst job on the campaign trail is who the car with mark as we go to ump teen different more oftenhe day and than not that ended up martha who put up with me on a daily basis. she's probably the worst driver in this campaign. she gave me a number of near death experiences but she is extraordinary and did a great and i don't know where she

is but i want to single her out, as well. there was a pivot point in this campaign written a number of the were in theho primary stepped to the plate and remarkable difference whether it was ray nash or pinkston, i thank them for what they did and would you give them a round of applause, as well. [applause] it's getting hot in here so i better call it quits. frank's giving me that look, like qual it quits. i got it. i want to the single out two other people who made extraordinary trips to be here. i see our oldest son, marshall, car and drove 10 hours to be with us tonight and marshall, how much as the oldest son i really appreciate that. thank you very, very much. i also want to single out my fiancee. she also had a 10-hour trip, thank you for being here, love. appreciate it. thank you.

want to make one last and that is i've grace overt about the course of this campaign and until you've experienced human as a reflection of god's grace, i don't think you really get it and i didn't get it wayre and i get it in a that i never have before and i want to publicly acknowledge this, not in all of that he said, you're it, but what he said was, not that that you'll learn an he has sent me extraordinary number of angels over the course of this campaign that provided remarkable lessons that will last me the rest of my life. at the beach and ran into a woman by the name of fout and she works at the easy-go convenience store and we a conversation about life and she said i'm the

luckiest woman on earth. a health scare and had a chance to go back to work on the store where you look out into the ocean. she said i'm the luckiest woman get to look and i at the beach every day and bring a smile to customers as they storento the convenience each day and i'm incredibly blessed. i don't focus on what i don't i focus on what i do have in life and trying to bring runessing to each person i into and i think she was an angel. the number of people who god larger up with me this notion of god's grace have been angels. the number of people who have up and said a good part of life is about getting back up, how youyou stumble, not fall but how you get up in the wake of those situations and i to acknowledge a god not just of second chances but third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth chances because our is the reality of shared humanity.

this, i am to say one imperfect man saved by god's grace but one who has a conviction on the importance of doing something about spending it's myngton, d.c. and pledge to every one of you here from this day going forward that to try and be the best congressman that i could workingr been in towards -- thanks so much, i appreciate y'all's time. much.you [cheers and applause]

>> in a few moments defense secretary chuck hagel orders the take immediateto steps to reduce an epidemic of assaults. several members of congress comment on sexual assaults in the military. obama says personnel who engage in sexual assault are betraying their uniform. the peter g. peterson fiscal summit hears from members of congress and the about u.s. debt and tax policy. on the next "washington journal," we'll discuss the syria andelopments in the middle east with democratic

ted deutch.ve from a trip to israel. we'll also be joined by derrick the heritage foundation to discuss the report on the cost of immigration. onpart of our spotlight magazine series, a contributor to smithsonian magazine will discuss his article about big researching microbes. >> this home was a gift that 13 businessmen from galena purchased to give to the grant for hisn appreciation service during the war. julia mentions in her memoirs up the hill and being presented with this lovely villa withays was furnished everything good taste could offer. the room we're in now was the entertaining part of the home. we know that julia was an avid

entertainer, loved it. family spent quite a bit of time here in the parlor, also. and theirs. grant daughter, ellen, played the piano so imagine the general here listening to their sister and mother play songs for them. grant launched his presidential campaign from galena. his headquarters were located at the desoto hotel, down the galena. the day after his election, grant and julia opened up their and the parlor here for towns folk to file through and on hisulate both of them election and the next step of their lives. this is called the lap book. it has mrs. u.s. grant on it, julia's. she probably kept papers, pens, correspondence for when she was writing letters or receiving them. aer on the dresser we have bible given to mrs. grant by the inhodist episcopal church 1888. this is the dressing room, the

most personal space in the house grant wherejulia she would get ready in the mornings, get ready in the solitude maybe get from everybody in the house. we have a lot of personal things that belong to mrs. grant. sewing kit she probably would have used to mend socks for the kids or the sew a button on. we have a couple of pairs of her shoes she wore and purses she would have used going visiting on an sunday afternoon. this is where he came back after he was a military hero. started his political career here, his rise to the presidency and this is where he was living was elected and she became first lady and this was home to them right before that. conversation on julia grant is now available on our c-span.org/firstladies and tune in monday for our next on first lady lucy hayes.

that sexual assault is one of the most serious military, facing the chuck hagel has ordered commanders to create a climate assaults are prevented and victims taken care of. a pentagon report estimates that on average there are more than 70 sexual assaults involving military personnel every day. this is 45 minutes. >> good afternoon. i'm going to make an announcement this afternoon. after that, i will take a couple of questions. i have asked general patton to get into the specifics of the briefing. last night, i spoke with the secretary of the air force about the allegations of misconduct involving the

officers responsible for the air force of sexual assault prevention efforts. he has been removed pending the outcome of this investigation. we are outraged and disgusted. it is one of the challenges facing this department, and a threat to the safety and the welfare of our people. that reality is underscored by the annual assault on sexual assault being released today. -- annual report on assault released today. to recruit and maintain the people we need. our abilityines tyo recruit and maintain the

people we need. it is unacceptable to me and the leaders of this institution. and everyone associated with the united states military. we need a cultural change where every service member is treated with dignity and respect. allegations are treated with seriousness. where a victim's privacy is protected, bystanders are motivated to intervene. and defenders now -- offenders know they held accountable in the system of justice. responding to sexual assault will be held responsible to responding to sexual assault and their ranks and under their command. last month, i announced a set of measures.

to chapter changes 60 ofthe code of military justice, the change will eliminate the ability of the convening authority to change findings except for certain minor offenses. these changes require the convening authority to explain in writing any changes made to court martial sentences as well as any changes to findings involving minor offenses. i am announcing a new series of actions for sexual assault and prevention efforts. military services to align with a revised sexual assault prevention and response strategic plan. by clearly defining priorities, objectives, tasks, responsibilities. this plan and its effective implementation will help ensure that the dod's ongoing initiative to eliminate sexual assault is closely tracked and they are achieving their

purpose. i am directing implementation for measures addressing accountability. command climate, and victim advocacy. these actions are as follows. i am directing service chiefs to develop methods to hold all military commanders accountable for establishing command climates of dignity and respect and incorporating sexual assault prevention and victim care principles in their commands. i am directing methods to approve victim treatment by their peers and chains of command. direct victim input will be incorporated into these methods. i am directing that all commanders be provided the results of their subordinates climate surveys in order to enhance accountability and

improved insights into command climate at every level. i'm directing the department to improve the effectiveness of sexual assault prevention and response programs and recruiting organizations to ensure the awareness and safety of aspiring service members. i am directing component heads to direct regular visual inspections of all dod workplaces to include military academies. to ensure that it promotes safety for all members and free from materials that create a degrading or offensive work environment. this will be completed by july 1. i am also directing the acting counsel to develop a method to incorporate the rights afforded by the crime victims' rights act into military justice practice. the general council will evaluate the special pilot

program and other approaches to ensure victims of sexual assault are provided the council that they need. it is important for them to better understand their rights and feel confident in the military justice system. a particularly important point that they have the feel confident that if they come forward, they can rely on our system of justice and action will be taken in the responsibility at all levels of command. and commanders will be held responsible. oft week, i named a set experts to serve on a panel in the defense authorization act for fiscal year 2013. the panel will conduct an independent review and assessment used to investigate,

prosecute, and adjudicate crimes involving adult sexual assault and related offenses. no later than july 1, i will ask the panel to accelerate its finalnd provide a recommendation in 12 months. atryone in this department every level of command will work together to establish an environment of dignity and respect where sexual assault is not condoned or ignored. accountability placed on all leaders at every level. the leadership has no higher priority. that includes insuring that are free from the threat of sexual harassment and sexual

assault. i will continue as secretary of defense to prioritize the department's efforts to turn this problem around. thank you. >> a quick follow up on your statement. you had the goal of eliminating the problem of sexual assault -- >> completely eliminating, yes. >> how possible to you think that is considering societal problems? my question is on north korea. and there is discussion on this provocation. do you think the removal of the missiles constitutes calming or pausing the aggression of north korea? >> on your first question commack as i said in my-- on your first question, as i said in my comments, we are going to stay focused on every aspect of problem and hopefully

eliminating sexual harassment and assault. it should be our goal. is it going to be difficult to attain that? of course it is. if we don't have that as the goal, where we have measured or accepting a 80% is not good enough. we recognize what is ahead, and this is a cultural issue. it is a leadership and command issue. we are not unaware of the challenges. it is not just isolated in the military. it is a cultural issue. second, north korea. i will answer this way.

we are prepared to always respond to any contingency. as you know, the premier of south korea is here today. i was in one of those meetings and i will see her later this afternoon and be with her tonight. we talked a lot about this issue. the united states is prepared with its allies to deal with any contingency. we hope that the leadership in north korea understands the wiser course of action is to participate in a process towards peace. we hope and believe that can happen. >> the case involving the air force officer has gotten a lot of attention for obvious reasons. do you think it is anything larger about the pentagon's efforts for sexual assault? >> my personal feelings i have expressed.

secretary donnelly, chief welch, ed they expressed themselves clearly and directly this morning. no one in this building is happy about what happened. we are disappointed. it does not fix the problem. you saw the reports and we will see more reports today on this issue. it is bigger than just the pentagon. we are particularly disappointed because this alleged incident occurred here. the heart and the main leadership of our institution, the men and women around the world give themselves and their families -- and they expect more and deserve more.

we all have to take some responsibility and i have said clearly in my statement that we will all be hold accountable -- and held accountable. i will take one more. >> he said people should feel comfortable coming forward. senator gillibarand and others said as long as commanders have control over the sexual assault cases, whether it is the convening authority or moving court cases, they won't feel comfortable. are you ready to endorse some of those proposals coming out of progress to put -- congress? initiativehe suggesting that we make some changes in article 60 for the

ucmj. it deals directly with that issuea. i believe with others on capitol hill that the ultimate authority has to remain within the command structure. there are things that we need to do and should do to make it more accountable. the is why i suggested changes. we are working with senators and congressmen. i think they have legitimate points. as i said in my comments, as i said one month ago, and as leaders have said, what is going on is not acceptable. we have to go back and review

every aspect of that chain of command. things do need to be changed. away don't think taking the old and a responsibility -- ultimate response ability from the military is the way. we will weaken the system. we will continue to address it, it is not perfect. i think it does say something that we are seeing more people come forward. i think that means, when you talk with some of these individuals, that there will be some more confidence starting to develop. that we will take those charges seriously. the victims will not be penalized. that we will do something about it, and we will get control of this. it's imperfect, it's a problem, but we have to address is. working with congress, what we

are doing is the responsible way. i will ask general patton to go into specifics about what i talked about and what we are announcing today. thank you. >> thank you, secretary hagel. general gary patton director of the sexual assault response office. i have a couple opening remarks and i will address the rest of your questions. let me reiterate that sexual assault is an affront to the values we defend. as today shows, we have work to do and it remains a persistent problem and the department. confrontinglenge the military.

while we are moving ahead to combat this crime, it is clear we have work to do. we have to eliminate this threat for the safety and well- being of those in uniform. this report contains data for military services and outcomes of sexual assault as well as results from a confidential surveys of active and reserve components of the force. the surveys are conducted every two years as was mandated in the national defense act.rization

this is the year we have survey results incorporated into the annual report. it will be included every two years from here on out. the surveys provide prevalence estimates for estimated occurrence for unwanted actual contact among the forces. we also included survey findings from the national intimate partner survey, a joint between the centers for disease control and the national institute of justice with the department of defense. first i will go through some of the key findings of the annual report and i will talk to you briefly about the strategic plan that the secretary announced. he covered some of the eight initiatives and i will be prepared to take questions. from the annual report, we have the principal findings. the prevalence of unwanted

sexual contact increased for active duty women. it is defined as any offense in the full range of offenses from rape as a penetrating crime to abusive sexual contact. the survey gives prevalence for unwanted sexual contact, the term that encompasses the full range of continuing harm. there were reports of sexual assault revolving -- involving active service members. i switched from the survey results to the actual reports. these are the reports that come from the victims in the form of unrestricted reports, the and one that goes forward. it is investigated independently by the military criminal investigative office. restricted reports remain confidential but they still get medical care. 3374 total reports. a 6% increase from fiscal year 11.

of these 3374 reports, 816 were restricted. 2000558 were unrestricted. -- 2558 were unrestrickted. when you compare the survey results with the actual reports were the victims make the tough step of filing a report to enough already, it shows sexual assault is a vastly underreported crime. prevalence remaining at a current level, we view an increase in reports with coming forward as meaning that we have more victims coming forward that are receiving medical care. reports,restricted

coming forward with the cases are entered into the law enforcement system. ultimately, we have more cases that proceed to the military justice system and holding the appropriate offenders accountable. increased awareness and new programs i have seen since the time i have been director this past july, we have these in place across the department. but we have more work to do. the this understanding, department is publishing a revised sexual assault strategic plan. referencesagel made to this. it provides authoritative guidance for the department agencies and components. it operationalizes the key tasks for the strategic direction for the force on sexual assault prevention and response. it aligns and synchronize the efforts across the department along the five lines of effort. prevention, investigation, accountability, victim advocacy, assessment.

assessment is important to us this is not a static program. -- because this is not a static program. just months ago in july, it will not be the program that we see in the future. we are continually looking for ways to improve and make a difference. we announced new initiatives today that will make a difference and change the culture. driving the culture change to turn this around. along with the strategic plan just described for you, and i have given you additional descriptions, there are the new initiatives that we feel are directly responsive to issues

identified in the annual report and will contribute to making this enduring culture change. i am prepared to describe any or all of these right now in detail and i am happy to answer your questions. >> the secretary mentioned climate survey. the air force has a climate survey every two years that they are not used to rape leadrs. -- leaders. -- not used to rate leaders. will they be focused specifically on sexual assault? >> all the services do some form of climate survey, command climate survey, the national defense authorization act stipulated that they be done at a certain frequency. there is one initially done at 120 days or earlier upon assumption of command. and it specified there'll be one done annually thereafter. within the first 120 days is

the initial and annually to the lifetime -- through the lifetime of the command. these surveys are important. we wrote a number of questions not just about sexual assault. otherabout hazing and elements of climate important to an effective command. we wrote questions and to the survey last april, a year ago. 50,000 of those surveys are conducted every month. we see the results. my office sees the results. what is different? this initiative will direct that the survey results be given to the next higher commander in the chain of command. resultsy, the survey are provided to the survey commander. the higher level commander can

request them results but they are not given as a matter of policy. this affords divisibility of the senior command. if i may colonel in command and i have a subordinate battalion beneath me, i will be seeing the annual reports and annual surveys of each of those battalion commanders as they are provided to me directly. by this, we are increasing the level of visibility of the command climate. it adds a more senior and experienced commander into the mix in terms of assessing these results. ultimately, if there is trouble and climate issues that are not

corrected or addressed, they are able to hold the junior commander accountable. that is one set of templates. -- of inputs. this is aimed at increasing accountability at the higher level of command. >> [inaudible] >> the surveys are currently conducted at multiple levels and the services, and so the direction is that they will be provided to the next higher level of command. isdo you accept the problem getting worse or do you think people are simply more comfortable reporting the problem and it might be a measure of success? >> i will break it into two pieces. when we looked at the actual reports, the victims make the difficult step of coming forward and filing a report.

we view an increase in those reports that could be a sign of improving confidence. there are other things that we look at in terms of confidence as well. i will get to that. we want more reports because more reports, another victim is getting cared for. the unrestricted reports means more cases investigated by law enforcement and ultimately taken to the justice system and holding offenders accountable. isng back to the survey, it confidential and goes out to a broad base of the individuals, both male and female, different ages. results are weighted. statisticians of that look at this every year from 2006 to 2010, and 2012 with the data points that we

looked at. and what we saw this year, as i mentioned for the active duty females, an increase in the prevalence indicated by their responses to that survey. we take that very seriously. it is one of the key ways that we measure whether a prevention program is effective and having the -- ultimately preventing the crimes from happening in the first place. what we want to see is the prevalence trend to come down. until that rate comes down to it intersects with the reporting rape, they both go down. as long as it remains at a high level, it is a sign of victim confidence and coming forward. what else did we look at? the rate at which victims remain in the justice system.

we look very closely. you can't prosecute a case when a victim withdraws from the process. we look at that rate. we also look at the rate at which victims come forward and make a restricted report and convert from restricted to unrestricted. that is a sign of victim confidence, willingness to take their case to law enforcement. uptickar, we saw an there. a positive indicator that there are signs of improving confidence. 14% last year to 17% this year for victims that converted to the unrestricted report. there are a number of things that we look at, the survey is big part of it.

we also will try to get to victim confidence. one of the things that secretary hagel announced is the initiative to direct the service chiefs to develop methods where we are caring for victims and monitoring and improving how they are being treated by their peers, co- workers, and leaders. why is that important? notere told victims were satisfied by the way they were treated in the unit. they received retaliation, social retaliation, leadership retaliation. that is a huge barrier for reporting. we pay attention to that and so we get out there and develop methods by which we are getting better treatment. and not medical treatment, but

better peer and leader-led treatment to improve victim confidence. >> the survey numbers that you mentioned, is that the 19,000 no. why? that was two years ago -- 19,000 number, right? two years ago? >> for active duty women, the percentage we get is that -- this is an estimate derive from the survey methods -- 6.1% of active duty when men were victimized by unwanted sexual contact based on a 2012 survey. for men, 1.2% active duty men, victims of unwanted sexual contact according to their survey. to number you are referring in 2010, the calculation was made with an extrapolation when

you take the percentages and apply them against the n strength of the force. it gives you a figure. it is an extrapolation of the percentage. this year, when you apply the figure to the female n strength, you get 12,000. the male percentage to the male n strength is 14,000, plus or minus 1,000 in the survey results. that is the equivalent figure. adding them together is 26,000, cooperative to the 19,000 that was derived in the 2010 survey. >> [inaudible] and guard?ve >> no, that is based on active duty survey.

>> one more number. i apologize, but we did not get the report before the briefing. the total number eligible to be charged by the u.s. military, how many were court-martialed and convicted? >> if i can say that question and get you an answer when we dig into it. i can get that answer to you. i need to make sure that i got the numerator and denominator correct. i will come back to you on that and take that question for you. >> of all the things you are worried about is the perceived legitimacy of the process. what is the argument for not taking it out side of the chain of command? >> i think the secretary addressed that question, so i'll say having been a commander for over five years, i'll say

that we need to have commanders more involved in the solution, not less involved. we want the more involved because it is important to set the right climate. commanders lead by example lead set standards. commanders have to hold people accountable to meeting those standards. when people choose to be undisciplined, they need have the tools and the authority to take care of that and address that. that is one side of it. the other side is that section 576 which has been mandated, the independent panel that the secretary mentioned. one of the charters for that

panel is to look exactly at this issue, the role of commander as it pertains to the prosecution of sexual assault cases. we made the announcement of the panel members today. we are announcing that the members of the panel will commence work. he has called upon the panel today to complete its work. we want a quick return on that. it is probably one of the key issues that the panel is looking at. the role of the commander and the investigation. >> the panel will consider taking the investigations -- the would have to look at exact language but it was told that the uniform commander is apprised of cases of sexual assault. >> the secretary talked about accountability at the president

talked about accountability. can you point at cases where commanders have been held accountable for mishandling cases or for climate regarding sexual assault cases? >> i will point to the initiative that the secretary put in place today. aiming at greater command accountability. in addition to the climate survey peace, directly relating to command accountability, directing the service members and the service chiefs to develop members -- methods to evaluate the performance of commanders in terms of their establishment of their respect and how they are adhering to the principles of sexual assault prevention response in command.

that is something reinforced from the secretary level across the field. it is that important. it is hugely important. this is something he is announcing as an initiative that will really improve that measure of accountability up and down the chain of command. >> this is not a new problem. are you saying people have not been held accountable? can you point to any cases? is there substance to it? >> there are plenty of cases that have yielded convictions of offenders and held appropriately accountable. thate looking to improve step of the process. criminal investigators are now taken every sexual assault case they investigate. those cases are provided to commanders and we have recently

elevated the disposition and authority level. last year it was that the '05 level. we elevated it to the '06 level, making disposition decisions about how assault cases will be handled. taken to nonjudicial punishment or administrative action. i will end there saying this is not a static program and all the lines of effort are subject to change. independentto the panel, we are looking at ways we can improve that. we are looking at the initiatives to focus on greater accountability. >> two more questions. andrew? >> the assessment tool that the

service chiefs might develop, what will happen to the results of that tool? incorporated into the personnel file, a promotion process? what is the next step? >> the task was to develop methods. it is not a prescriptive tasks. the answers your questions will lie in the methods that are developed. the service chiefs have for that particular task. let me put my finger on that. report your methods back to the secretary by november 1. there is suspense there. i would expect that the methods developed will address the points that you made.

how will this inc. valuations? what is the method of assessment? their vast experience and ownership of this problem to develop solutions that will work for their servicemen. thank you. >> will you or anyone in your office here with a lieutenant colonel, have you spoken to him? has he offered an explanation or anything? >> i will refer you to the air force on that. he may have been in a meeting or two that i was part of. i don't recall a meeting. he works on the air force staff. he has been removed from his job and secretary hagel made those comments to you. i would expect the air force to

keep us posted on that, but that is where we are at. >> sure. you and the secretary have spoken about holding commanders accountable. is there anything here that deals directly with stopping the attackers from committing the crimes in the first place or holding the people that commit the crimes more accountable? sometimes even the best of commands, there might be bad people. >> i think something we are working on right now is the special victims capability. this gets at investigators and prosecutors, improving their training and methods, the way they collaborate and work together so we can get exactly what you are saying.

a lot of these are very difficult cases to prosecute. whether you are in the civilian or military sector. we are undergoing right now, a program development policy. this is something that was mandated in the last defense authorization act. were working on that and report back to congress in september of this year. we are collaborating with services on it. we will develop standards and develop the very best training practices for investigators and prosecutors. training them together like it will operate and putting them together in a work environment from beginning to and where they are focused on solving these cases.

and being able to take up ford and prosecuting. these services are doing a lot of this already so we are looking to standardize what they already have under way. i have been out to the school where we teach, of course. course. a for leonardwood, that is where we train the criminal investigative division and a military policeman. ofave sat through elements this course, i have talked to the agents out there, and people have been working on investigating sexual assault cases there military career. and in many cases, civilian law enforcement. it is a best practice out there and we are looking to standardize it as far as the special victims capability to make them better investigators

and get at these very difficult and complex cases to prosecute. thank you. >> thank you. c- [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] >> members of congress also talked about the problems of sexual assault and in the military. you will hear from senator patty murray and kelliy ayotte. on the housepeier floor. >> mr. speaker, thank you. to me is a mug shot. it's a mug shot of someone who has been charged with sexual assault. this is a mug shot of jeffrey crizin i ask -- krinzinsky, he's a lieutenant colonel in the air force. his job is to work at the

pentagon as the chief officer of the sexual assault and prevention office. within the air force. this man is charged with the responsibility of preventing and reporting sexual assaults in the military. in the air force. just this last weekend he was charged with sexually assaulting a woman in a parking lot. the best and the brightest the air force has to offer to run this office, and he's a sexual predator? is that what we are talking about? this is an indictment of the office that is supposed to be the solution for military rape and assault?

it's an indictment of our procedures. it's an indictment of everything we have done on this issue. and congress is as culpable as the military in not addressing it, because we have known about this issue for 25 years. and we are big on holding hearings and beating our chests, saying, this has got to stop. the big brass comes up to the hill and they say all the right words. they say we have a zero tolerance. and then our chief prevention officer is charged with a sexual assault. but it doesn't end there. the bad news doesn't end there. the military just released today its sexual assault and prevention office report on how many sexual assaults took place in the military last year. and guess what? the numbers have gone up.

by 30%. from 19,000 sexual assaults and rapes in the military based on the last year's figures, to the most recent years' figures of 26,000 rapes and sexual assaults in the military. for all the money we have been throwing at this issue, for all the he prevention and all the rehabilitation and of the training, the numbers keep going up. and now this most recent report 1/3 of ests that 1/3, the women serving in the military reported that they were sexually harassed last year. this is an institution of military good discipline, good order. it is time for us to roll up our

sleeves and do something real about this. we have got to stop just kind of nibbling around the edges in an effort to try and fix a broken system. 121 members have joined me as co-authors of legislation that would take the reporting of sexual assault out of the chain of command, keep it in the military, but place it in a separate office, staffed by persons who are experts in investigations, experts in prosecuting these crimes. and until he we do something like this, the numbers of sexual assaults will continue to rise in the military. the number of unrestricted reports will not rise as fast as the number of restricted reports. why do we have restricted reports? why would we say to any member

of the military, yes, report this but we will keep it quiet, we will sweep it under the rug? this, my friends, is time for to us do something. it is time for us to say that we are not going to tolerate another scandal. we are not going to tolerate a scandal at the air force base where there were 59 victims and 32 military training instructors who were implicated. we are not going to tolerate that in italy we have a major general who overturned the decision by five military members of a jury who court-martialed a lieutenant colonel and found him guilty, and yet the major general overturned the decision and decided to reinstate this individual. the time, my f the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. murray: thank you madam president, i come to the floor today because i believe the great strength of our military is in the character and dedication of our men and women

who wear the uniform. it is the courage of these americans to volunteer to serve that is the pentagon's greatest asset. i know it's said a lot, but take a minute to really think about that. our servi members volunteer to face danger, to put their lives on the line to protect our and all of its people. when we think of those dangers, we think of i.e.d.'s, we think of battles with insurgents, many of whom are so cowardly and evil that they refuse to even wear a uniform themselves and they seek to kill innocent civilians. but there are, unfortunately, other dangers as well, dangers that cannot be accepted, and none of our courageous service members should ever have to face and that, what i'm speaking about, is sexual assault. and that continues to plague the ranks of our military services. it is absolutely unconscionable that a fellow service member,

the person that you rely on to have your back and be there for you, would commit such a terrible crime. it is simply appalling that they could commit such a personal violation of their brother or sister in uniform. even worse is t prevalence of these crimes. just today we are hearing the alarming statistic that the number of cases has increased by more than a third since 2010. more than a third. and for the estimated 26,000 cases of military sexual assault in 2012, less than 3,000 of them reported. out of 26,000, only 3,000 reported. what's even more startling is that of those who bravely come forward to report the abuse, an astounding 62% of them were retaliated against in one way or another. 62%. and according to the department of veterans affairs, about 1-5

female veterans treated by the v.a. has suffered from military sexual trauma. one in five. that is certainly not the act of a comrade, it is not in keeping with the ethics of any service and it can no longer be tolerated. we still have not done enough to put an end to these shameful acts. well, madam president, today i am taking actn to change that. today, senator ayotte and i join together to introduce the combating military sexual assault act of 2013. this is bipartisan legislation that we have worked on to make several vital improvements to protect our service members, to assist the victims, and to punish the criminals. our bill, the combating military sexual assault act, will create a new category of legal advocates called special victims counsels, who would be responsible for advocating on half of the interests of the

victim. these s.v.c.'s, special victim counsels, would advice the victim on the range of legal issues that they might face. for example, when a young private first class is intimidated into not reporting a sexual assault by threatening her with unrelated legal charg charges, like underage drinking, this new advocate, the s.v.c., would be there to protect her and tell her the truth. this bill would also enhance the responsibilities and authority of the department of defense sexual assault prevention and response office known as the sapro, to provide better oversight of efforts to combat military sexual assault across our armed forces. sapro would also be required to regularly track and report on a range of m.s.a. statistics, including assault rates, number of cases brought to trial, and compliance within each of these individual services. now, some of this data

collection and reporting is already being done so this requirement is not going to be burdensome but it would give that office statutory authority to track and report to us on the extent of the problem. the combating military sexual assault act would also require sexual assault cases to be referred to the next superior competent authority for court-martial when there's a conflict of interest in the immediate chain of command. this is very important, madam president. this will help ensure that sexual assault allegations get a fair, impartial, and thorough investigation. and the president of military officers association of america agrees. they have said, "preventing sexual assault is a duty of everyone in the chain of comma command." this legislation will increase support for sexual assault victims and strengthen policies and procedures for such cases in our nation's armed forces. end of quote. madam president, this

legislation would also prohibit sexual contact between military instructors and service members during basic training or its equivalent or within 30 days after the training. as we have seen with disturbing frequency at places like lackland air force bas or the air force academy, new service members are too often taken advantage of and abused of. madam president, in these settings, newervice members have every aspect of their life controlled by their instructor. while this is appropriate for military training, in this type of setting, it is entirely inappropriate for senior service members to seek a sexual relationship with a junior subordinate. it's our view that it's impossible for a service nobody freely give consent in tt setting. this bill will also ensure that sexual assault response coordinators are available to members of the national guard and reserve at all times. i was told a very disturbing story recently by a female

service member from the national guard in my home state of washington. after being sexually assaulted during her monthly drill on a military base, she took all the necessary steps, including calling the sexual assault response coordinator. but when she called, she was told that because the assault haened during monthly drill, not on active duty, the sexual assault response crdinator could not hel her. that those services were only reserved for those on active duty. madam president, that is absolutely unacceptable. when one of our men and women in uniform is the victim of a sexual assault and they have the courage to come forward and ask for help, the answer never, ever should be, "sorry, there are regulations. nothing i can do for you." now, madam president, this bill is one step to address the crisis we have in our armed forces and it needs to be done now. and yesterday's news that the air force's chief of sexual assault prevention was arrested

for sexual assault is another reminder that we've got to change the culture around this issue. but i want to be very clear. the military has taken some steps on its own. for instance, i am looking forward to seeing secretary hagel's proposal on how to reform article 60 of the uniform code of military justice, and as i think most of our colleagues know, under article 60, the convening authority of a court-martial is empowered to dismiss the judgment of a court-martial and overturn their verdict. many of us, myself included, have had serious concerns about how that authority has been used in sexual assault cases. so, madam president, we are here today to introduce this bill and i want to thank the senator from new hampshire for her advocacy on this issue and for her help in putting this legislation together. and i also want to thank representative tim ryan for his leadership in championing our bill -- companion bill in the other chamber. you know, madam president, when i asked navy secretary ray

maybus about the sexual assault epidemic, i was glad to hear he said concern wasn't a strong enough word to describe how he felt about the problem. said he's angry about it. i know a lot of us here share this feeling. we want it to stop. so i am really hopeful that both chambers can work quickly to do right by our nation's heroes. you know, when our best and brightest put on a uniform and join the united states armed forces, they do so with the understanding they'll sacrifice much in the name of defending our country and its people. but that supreme court nice should not have to come in the form of unwanted sexual contact from within the ranks. so, madam president, i'm very pleased to introduce this bill and i want to thank senator ayotte again for her hard work and advocacy on this, and it's a pleasure to work with you. and i yield the floor to her at this time. the presiding officer: the senator fromew hampshire. ms. ayotte: madam president, thank you very much. and i would ask upfront for unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business for up to ten minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. ayotte: thank you,

madam president. and let me just say upfront, i very much want to thank my colleague from washington, senator murray, for her leadership on this issue and for the opportunity to work together to address this very, very important issue of making sure that we eliminate sexual assau assaults that occur within our military and that the victims of these crimes get the respect, the support and the justice that they deserve. and i'm -- i'm very honored to work with you on ts and i thank you so much for giving me the opportunity to work with you on this important legislation to address a very serious problem in our military. and i approh this issue not as just someone who comes from a military family and has such great, deep respect for the military,s you know senator murray does, with the important position she has on the veterans' committee, but also someone who serves on the armed services committee and someone

who worked in my prior career extensively with victims of sexual asslt. during my time as a prosecutor in new hampshire and then later as a state's attorney general, i saw the devastating impact of these types of crime. and i also saw the real need to address what is too often a silent crime and the victims often suffer in silence for fear of coming forward and not being supported when they are to come forward and report a sexual assault. and so that's very important and that's why i also supported efforts earlier this year that i know senator murray was a very strong leader on in reauthorizing the violence against women act. so i want to thank you for your leadership on that as well. currently, military sexual assault occurs at alarming levels throughout all bnches of our military. and according to the department of defense's estimates, 19,000 service members were sexually

assaulted in 2011, a rate of over 52 per day. and despite these scking figures, fewer than 2,800 assault against service members were reported to the department defense over this same period. the department of defense sexual assault prevention and response office's annual report, which was actually just released tod today, at the same time that we are filing ouregislation, concludes that the number of people who made an anonymous sexual assault claim but never reported the attack incased from 19,000n 2011 to 26,000 in 2012, nearly a 37% increase. yet the number of reported sexual assaults against service members only increased -- in other words, those that they did report and come forward -- only by 8%. and so this is a dramatic difference