this is a responsibility i do not take lightly. i have the honor of leading approximately three thousand men and women. i have commanded marines and soldiers. i have served in all three forces and with all elements of the task force. like all commandments of my -- and most recently just last year. accountability in my regimen begins and ends with me. this includes a prevention engine vacation of any form of misconduct, especially all incidents of sexual assault. my job is to ensure my regimen is ready to fight today's fight today. this kind of readiness demands a level of cohesion that can only stem from strong bonds between marines. cannott afford and

allow an environment of that trust. this you again for holding hearing. i look forward to the opportunity of answering questions. >> thank you. >> good afternoon. , andman, ranking member distinguished members of the committee. thank you for the invitation to join you today. my name is colonel jeannie leavitt. it is been my privilege to command the men and women of the wing located at the airport base in north carolina. within a matter of hours, we can deploy to provide decision combat air power anywhere in the world. i have been in the united states air force for more than 21 years. than 300en in more combat hours in iraq and afghanistan.

i have deployed the locations in saudi arabia, kuwait, turkey, and afghanistan. my experience with the military justice system the -- became well before i was a commander. education and leadership briefings. these experiences instilled in me a deep sense of the vital role of military justice in maintaining a disciplinary force. i take my duties and responsibilities very seriously today. am responsible to ensure our men are properly chained and equipped -- trained and equipped. our nation has entrusted the lives of america's sons and daughters to our military. it is the commander who shoulders the responsibility. an absolutely indispensable attribute of a combat-ready force is discipline. commanders must have the ability to hold them accountable for

their behavior. this proves the safety of their airmen. discipline is not punishment. it is a state of readiness that allows flawless execution of a mission. a disciplined airmen follows orders. commanders are given the ability to enforce the high standards they set. and reiterateen my expectations of them. i expect them to abide by the core values and excellence in all we do. i expect them to be fashionable and disciplined disciplined and always have respect for others. when i talk about respect, i emphasize there is absolutely no tolerance for sexual assault. if sexual assault happens, we will ensure the victim is taken care of and insure any guilty people are taken -- held accountable. it arose trust and damages the unit and weakens our military. it gives the commanders the ability to prosecute the guilty and hold them accountable for

their actions. as we continue our efforts to eradicate sexual assault, we must strive to set a climate where prevention is the norm, where duty and desire to protect one another, we must aggressively combat sexual assault to remain the world's greatest military. i will not set a goal of anything below 100% for my fighter wings. this00% eradication of problem. thank you again for the chance to testify. i look forward to answering your questions. >> thank you. we will have a six minute round. when a commander offers a nontraditional punishment, the accused has the right to decline the punishment and insist upon a trial by a court- martial instead.

if the accused does that, he or she risks more serious punishment. is that correct? >> that is correct. let me ask each of you, is the availability of nonjudicial punishment under article 15 to quickly and efficiently punish servicemembers for some serious offenses, let's say larceny for instance, is that an important tool for the commander? the availability of nonjudicial punishment under article 15, is that an important tool for the commander? >> thank you. it is an important tool. disciplineto effect in my unit, i must have the tools to do that. a message in my

unit of what the standard is. if i as the commander do not have a tolerance in this case, then i have the tool to punish that offender under the article. >> that is the number one tool of the commander. >> without question, it is quick, effective, so yes. >> colonel leavitt? >> yes, sir. the article 15 is a critical tool. >> the question is whether we take away -- one of the questions that has been raised is whether we should remove from the commander the authority to refer cases to trial by court- martial. what impact would

that have on the commanders over thosend control under his or her command? let's start at the other end. , sir, i think it is critical the commander has the ability to prosecute offenses. they say actions speak louder than words. when i say there is no tolerance for sexual assault, i need to have the ability to back that up. i need to be able to take action against any perpetrators and hold people accountable. that is part of my responsibility as a commander. >> when you say to hold someone accountable, do you mean by referring a case for trial by court-martial? >> yes. by stroking echo >> i will give you a straightforward answer. if you remove my authority to convene a court-martial, my suspicion is the overwhelming majority of marines will refuse.

they will not accept it. they will not do it. they will take their chances with the person they have never met, a convening authority that is not there with them every day. especially for the high order cases where i can referred charges. the eventce supports has occurred, but i'm not sure i can get beyond a reasonable doubt, they will never accept article 15. >> nonjudicial punishment. >> yes. >> your ability to successfully use the tool of nonjudicial punishment, in your judgment, is dependent upon having the power to refer a matter to a court- martial. >> that is correct. >> ok. -- itmy mind, it debt comes down to a simple matter of trust. i want to refer back to what was

mentioned in the testimony about the charge of command we use in the navy. a passage in that refers to trust. i would like to read it. with thoseild trust officers under your command. you build trust for your character and your actions, which demonstrate professional competence, judgment, and good sense and respect. every person who takes command of the vessel reads this and it knowledges it and signs it. that is credibility and trust. i have to be viewed as being trusted i my chain of command. .hat gives me credibility >> thank you. >> i would agree with my colleague on the panel. to refer theility court-martial is crucial. commanders the credibility. we often speak of trust in this matter. it is a crucial element. i believe what the colonel said

that soldiers understanding that you do not have the authority as a commander to refer a case of the court- martial, they will never expect article 15. >> the commander has a broader goal. when considering whether to refer a case to a court-martial, such as protecting his or her , and sending a message, that, for instance, the conduct at issue, sexual misconduct, what, will not be tolerated. that you be concerned professional prosecutors without the responsibility of the commander, might actually be less likely to pursue court- martials in close cases? the commander is

so in tune to discipline and setting standards inside their unit, that they would fiercely a nonjudicial punishment. i do not think someone outside of chain of command, or a staff officer, would have the same passion for discipline inside their unit. >> my question is, might a commander be more likely to pursue a court-martial of van and outside independent officer because of the desire of a commander to send a message to his unit? yes, i do believe so. >> i think it goes to the severity of the crime. some crimes clearly need to go to a higher level. most commanders have a sense of judgment of when to elevate it. when questioned, that is where they seek the advice of the

staff here at >> my comments on that would be commanders at our level did not consider judicial economy. ande had a separate distinct panel of civilian prosecutors, the judicial economy is always factored in. i do not consider that. what i consider is protecting the victim and achieving justice for whatever crimes committed. also, the message i send to thousands of marines watching what is going on. fail to achieve a conviction, i can send a powerful message that this kind of conduct, even not reuven, is completely unacceptable. >> yes, i could see a scenario where a prosecutor may not choose to prosecute a case because of the likelihood of conviction.

the commander, i want to prosecute the case because of the message it sends. they understand they will be held accountable. then we will let the jury decide what happens. that message is so important where an independent prosecutor may not see the need to take it to trial if the proof is not necessarily going to lead to a conviction. >> thank you. >> i do not think i have ever heard four opening statements. specific, i am really impressed with that. with all of your commands you and you, captain, of course, colonel leavitt, you are a flight instructor. i know what you feel about discipline. colonel, i was listening to you and i can tell you are well educated.

where did you get that education? >> oklahoma. >> oklahoma? there you go. [laughter] i would not expect you folks have had time because you just came out to have read and digested the report. i know you will. and certainly, appropriate to what our discussion is today, i would like to quote one thing and ask for your opinions. the quote is the notion that commanders have the ability to deal swiftly, fairly, and visibly, with all misconduct, in and out of the environment, and is necessary to achieve effective deterrent, discipline, executing fair military reinforces, command responsibility and accountability. i would like to ask you, in your view, would creating a centralized, initial this

position authority with oversight by a judge advocate, combined with a centralized authority to detail judges and members of the court martial impact the quality of agility of the military justice system? -- getting back to the quality, how would this impact your ability to deal with this? can i get your thoughts on that? >> thank you. , as i thinkhings about this, i think about the case in question i had, maybe anecdote lee, about the times when i had to relieve a senior noncommissioned officer in my command. the officerd was

was having an inappropriate relationship with a junior member of the command. not a sexualwas relationship am a it was inappropriate because of the rank differential. my ability to deal with that was swift and it gave me the ability ,o send a message to the victim the junior enlisted at -- member that i took her complaint very seriously, and just because he was a very senior member, she knew i would act on that, on the issue. that spread across my unit. it was transparent. very positively the morale in the unit.

just having the ability to affect is very positive. >> my first thought on that is the logistics behind providing that kind of support. act quicklyity to by the commander, who will set the tone and establish those conditions. some of this information, to deal with it quickly is essential. sittingor, a resident right here today is a nexus i think is important. we tell our marines, it comes from our mouths, this is the standard we want to hold you to. we tell them why we have that standard. and we hold them to that standard. that is the same person. right now, we have the tools to do what i described. but itot always precise works. they know. the deterrent value, the

prevention of misconduct, is actually where i than most of my time. ido not want it to occur so set the conditions where it cannot flourish. that is most important and we need to be very cautious about changing that. >> i believe the commander's ability to issue swift and fair justice is critical. when we are able to enforce those standards, that is when we are able to build discipline and trust and combat capability. that is when we have combat effectiveness and that is how we were -- maintain our state as the best military in the world. this is critical that you allow a commander to command by enforcing the standards they set. >> thank you. you know, i think this has been a good panel to get people on the ground, doing on a day-to- day basis, as opposed to looking all the theories and all of that.

i appreciate your response is very not -- very much. thank you. >> thank you. thank you, ladies and gentlemen, for your services and your individual services. but my put my desk let me put my two questions there, not rhetorical. i am searching for your guidance for answers. i commanded a company a long time ago. it was not transgender. the issue of sexual assault was not central as it is today. to generalpeople court-martials and saw some of -- it is not at good day for either one of us. there is two or three issues i would like to explore. not rhetorically. how do you separate the chain of a legal process

and the fact that, and i think there is a presumption, if we have an independent process outside the chain of command, it will encourage reporting and be much more effective. if somethings that bad happens, most people know. if the company commander knows about it last, that is the worst thing for the company and the company commander. --t in practical detailer, detail, if a serious offenses reported very quickly, agents will show up in the company, the company mates will be -- i use the term generically, and it applies to squadrons and ships -- you will have individual soldiers who have to be interviewed. then, you will have to take some action as a company commander. separate the individuals? do you chances are -- transfer an individual outside of the company echo will that be

perceived as discriminatory or a retribution? the reflection of someone with -- who had to do this but not in the same context today. your comments about this issue? >> thank you. suits thisi gave question very well with my sergeant major and a very junior victim in my command. we moved the victim, in this case. i suspended the sergeant major of his duties. she moved by her request to go to another installation and i suspended him of his duties. i think the responsibility has to lie with the commander. the commander has to make difficult choices. we always have to do what is asked for our organization.

that is in the forefront of our minds at all time. the discipline we have all talked about in setting the tone, those are actions the commander has to take. separating the process of the command from the legal authority, i think, would set us back in discipline. -- accountability is a broad turn -- term. to separate that from my responsibilities as a commanding officer, that would be confusing. i do not think the people under my command could make a definite list of what art i own. you add confusion to the chain of command, and a crew of a ship, and ships will eventually wonder who is doing the commanding. the question about investigation, and outside group comes in, i do that. they are thorough. we are trained on doing that. it

is not uncommon. >> senator, i do not think you can separate it. it is my opinion if we do separate these two things you are talking about, you will have a significant decrease in reporting. that is my opinion. i cannot prove a negative but that is my opinion. i would be hesitant to do this. i have read some studies in the reporting that show within a community is even worse. -- i am attempting to rationalize that in my mind right now. i think the commander's involvement and how we have really taken this issue will get after the reporting issue. reporting is the bridge to everything. bridge to victim services and justice. it is about reporting. you pull those two apart, reporting will go down. >> let me follow up, your

comments on this question, and i have another i want you to address. >> i think the command and the legal aspect have to be hand-in- hand. to enforce the standards i set, i have to be able to take action when people do not follow the guidance. i have to be able to hold people accountable. the command team works in conjunction with the legal. i have an advice -- i have advice from my commanders. >> let me go back to your comment. this is part of the complex nature of the issue. there are compelling statistics that there are norm -- numerous cases of improper sexual conduct between members of the military. there are also compelling statistics that they are allowed to go unreported. when you asked the young soldier or airman why, it is, i do not trust the commander. i do not trust the whole system. and i think there is enough

, and to not dismiss that the intention of many proposals is to provide that kind of trust, so how do you respond to the issue more specifically at those anyone else has a quick comment, how do you respond to the issue? it is all about trust. >> i can only speak from my own experience. my experience working through sexual assaults is limited. in my earrings, this is such a personal crime. it is so embarrassing. that is what, in my experience, causes the lack of reporting. that is the number one reason. it is embarrassing. you have an 18-year-old kid who wants to do well who is embarrassed by it. that is what causes it. in my experience, i have never met a commander who would not stop time when they hear that somebody this is occurring -- something like this is occurring.

i read the newspapers and i see what is going on. but i do not see it where i work. >> anyone else? >> i want to add to that. my experience is that people under my charge trust the leadership. i know that from reading command crime surveys, speaking to sailors face to my ships. they are not confident with the process. they are not as familiar with it as we are. they know these things take a long time. the thought of going through the process, even if it is slickly -- swiftly acted upon, is a huge concern. >> and when else have a common? i have one final question. i apologize. it is ultimately about leadership and accountability and responsibility. evene no doubt, colonel, without your knowledge, if you pilot, heoxicated

will be released. colonel, if an intoxicated ,upply sergeant drove a truck you would be relieved. thewould let someone at helm intoxicated, etc.? same thing, colonel. one of yours drove 30 miles an hour under the influence. do you feel that is the same responsibility extracted if there were an incidence of a serious sexual assault in your unit? i.e., you would be relieved without question? >> i believe it is the tomander's responsibility let people know there is zero tolerance for sexual assault and if anything happens, it is everyone's responsibility to report that and take care the victim. >> it is everyone's responsibility, but if it happens, you would be gone. i have no doubt.

. my point is if the chain of command will be the chain of command, commanders have to understand very quickly there are some things that, if it happens, even if they had no ability to deter it, they would be responsible for it and accept it and say, yes sir, i understand. >> a proven sexual assaults occurs in my command and i do not report it, i am gone. there is no question in my mind. >> same here. also, if it is come known through an investigation i have tolerated a crime that accepts any kind of behavior like that, i should be accountable. >> i presume you concur? >> absolutely. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank the witnesses for being here and in service of our country. i wanted to ask the kernel

whether you have had any x arians with the special victims counsel in the air force, the pilot program. >> yes. i have spoken with one of my prosecutors, and spoken in broad terms. he said it has been very well received and it gives victims a voice and an understanding of how the process works. it makes them feel someone is on their side, helping them through the process of they can understand the options available. >> one of the issues we are struggling with, if you look at the recent report, one of the fundamental issues is that some people are not coming forward because they expressed they heard other victims talk about a negative experience they went through. i wanted to get the impression from the other branches, if you have got any understanding what the air force program is and what your thought is of their program of having a special victims counsel represent

victims within the system. >> thank you. in the army, we have a special victims unit. that is made up of a sexual assault investigator and a sexual victims prosecutor. with also in coordination a victim liaison. all of these resources are available to the victim to help them through the process, establish a rapport, the foundation of our investigation, and it works very well. we interview techniques , a techniquee army where we use a lot of different questioning techniques, i think the word has read. -- has spread. iwatch the invisible war -- i

watched the invisible war, where we were talking to the victim. you disprove that something did not happen. now, we do not do that and we do not take that approach. we spend so much time with the victim, establishing a rapport, that spreads. we have more reporting. we see an uptick in victims who initially did a restricted report and now came forward and wanted to do an unrestricted report. >> one thing i will say is what the air force has is the individuals who would be the advocates in the army, are they trained lawyers? meaning, their pilot has trained lawyers helping victims. do you have the same thing happening in other armies and branches? >> yes. a prosecutor who is trained. the specialesent victims counsel. i would like to understand if you could give me more

information about that. extends withl that the air force is doing to every branch as three cosponsors in the united states senate. it was our understanding the air force had a pilot. if there are similar programs in other branches, i would like to get more information because our understanding is that the air force high -- pilot had a unique standing in the services. >> i would certainly provide that to you. >> thank you. >> something to add, the special victims counsel is separate from the prosecution chain. they are not part of the prosecution for the sexual assault. they are there purely for support for the victim. >> that is a huge difference. of course. absolutely. if you are in the prosecution -- prostitution chain, you have a different purpose than to solely advocate for the victim.

they may have a different opinion on the plea results for want the who may council to express that opinion to the prosecutor, so the victims having their own voice is important as something that has happened in the civilian sector. i appreciate your clarifying that for me. it, as i did not understand it, is much more what happens in the air force. victims can have very different feelings about a disposition and also if they feel they are part, just treated within the past -- prosecution, that is different than someone representing just their interest. i want to ask about the .ituation at the air force base can you help me understand what that tells us about some of the issues we have in basic training, the culture during basic training, and the fact

there were certainly, basically victims there that work, either through inappropriate sexual typest, or criminal rape of situations, what is your view on this issue with regards to a sick training and how much of a problem do you think this is an do you all think we should be prohibiting sexual contact between military instructors and trainees during a sick training echo i see this as a situation where, you are in basic training and you are new. most of them are young. they want to succeed. between thecontact person they are reporting to go is training them, there is real -- a real coercion issue there. could you give me some insight on that?

i am familiar from reading the papers. my view that anytime a situation that allows sexual assault or rape to happen is completely unacceptable unacceptable and people should be held accountable. that climate, there should be zero tolerance. >> what about sexual conduct in general? potentialnot create a for coercion when someone is in basic training between someone who is a trainee and the person they are reporting to? what kind of culture would that create within the unit within the trainees, as well? that wasrm of contact not part of the curriculum is contrary to good ordered discipline. i will tell you i have no problem with what you are proposing. i think it will help. i will also say we do that now. , messed upbviously in that one case. from myly speak

personal experience. my personal experience is that the level of institutional control, boot camp, when it is higher, marines are acting safer. that is what i have seen with my own eyes. that is a little bit contrary to the point you are making but that is what i am seeing. >> at a basic training environment, there should be a huge level of control and there is also a chain of command like anyplace else. mirror ships and divisions and partners on ships, there is a clear chain of command. anything inappropriate is opposite, a violation. >> i would concur. i have no issue with what you are proposing, either. it -- i do not think there should be a sexual relation. that is not the place and that is not why they are there. >> thank you all, i appreciate it. >> thank you, senator.

>> thank you for being here. i am a little taken aback. it sounds like you all are very bullish on the status quo -- status quo. with this senator and others, the status quo is not acceptable. i will start with that. let me ask all four of you, as any of you deferred a sexual assault case for a word marshall? >> yes, i have. , ma'am, i have not. >> yes, ma'am. >> yes. a has any of you referred sexual assault case for a court martial when you're officer did not recommend it? >> yes, i have. >> croaking? no. -- colonel king? no.

instead taken in article 15 and done a nonjudicial punishment? colonel martin? >> no, senator. >> for sexual assault, ma'am? no, ma'am. ask this isn i there is a difference between discipline and punishment. 15 and nonjudicial punishment. i appreciate the point senator reid was making with you on this regard. is of the issues here removing the problem, versus punishing the felon. do you think any of you think fore may be a tendency commanders to see, i got enough over here, to go to a court- , and maybe the court- martial is not a slamdunk and i want to remove the problem. let's reverse, get him out of

here, and then i ever move to the problem and we do not have the problem in existence anymore? >> yes -- absolutely not. sexualve a case of assault, i want to prosecute it. i wanted to be biblical and i want the unit to understand there is absolutely zero tolerance. if i make the problem go away, i have a road at the trust and confidence that unit has in the leadership. i do not see that. >> i am not a lawyer. i have had legal training and have done a couple of court- martials. what i have learned is sexual assault, these are hard to approve. >> it is about believability. >> it is. that's the finders of fact being able to use the testimony in the court room and deciding to tell the truth. >> i do not like that, but it is true. in many cases, i can get to above the 51%.

i can never get above 90%. i cannot ear there is not enough evidence. >> what are you referring to? >> normally, i would decide if i could referred charges if one of three things happen. it investigation comes back and says, this occurred. the conviction of a criminal court out in town, or the findings of a civil is out in town. or, when all the evidence as i put it in got me to believe, it is more likely this occurred than it didn't. when i reached that level, i am comfortable. >> ok. you are saying you have never disagreed with your professional lawyers who have made recommendations on these cases. when you decide a do an article 15 -- to do an article 15, have

any of you had an opportunity to talk to the victim about that before you did it? >> ma'am, depending on the crime, we have a process on the -- >> we are just talking about sexual assault. >> no, ma'am, i have not. tohave any of you talked the victim before doing an article 15 in lieu of the court- martial? don't you think you should? don't you think that victim -- this is a huge victim -- decision you are making. one of the things we are struggling is how many go to trial versus how many are reported. all we know is how many are reported because the only thing you collect is unwanted sexual contact. that can be a far cry from rape. if we know there have only been 3300 or so reported, and if we know there have been several hundred of them going to trial, the huge difference there, a lot of that is article 15. but i do not sense the victim

is being consulted about this momentum -- momentous decision to avoid criminal provision that will mean prison versus a demotion or 60 days without pay or an administrative separation from the military. >> i can only speak for us specifically. it has hadry 2012, six unrestricted cases. did not go tohat court-martial is when the victim recanted. under oath, the individual swore it was consensual in all instances. jp was never considered. >> anybody have a 15 where it might have been appropriate to talk to the victim before you did it? do you see the point i am making? was a it, when i prosecutor, there were cases that fell apart for reasons that were not within the control of the victim and i would have

liked to have had a backup of something i could do to get on the record, because very rarely does anyone do this once or i want to ask you this. do you all feel like you have had enough training for the difference between sexual harassment and sexual assault? >> yes, senator. >> i do. >> i want to tell you this, and i know i am out of time. i want to say this on record. when he feltlin, compelled to justify what he had done, have you already his letter he wrote? i recommend you read it. because it was astoundingly ignorant. he opened that she did not get a ride home when she had a chance. are you freaking kidding me? that that is somehow relevant to bedher or not he crawled in

with her and tried to have sex with her? first thing he started recounting? and what a great husband he was and how their marriage was picture-perfect. all of this is completely irrelevant to whether or not he committed a crime. are making these decisions, which you are, and you have the ability to look at these cases, i recommend his letter to you as a poster case of a lack of training and understanding the nature of sexual assault. you could have a perfect marriage and be a predator. believe me. there are not many wives who thatforward and admit their husbands -- and there are not many husbands who would step forward and admit their wives were accused of them being. it is not unusual for them to come forward and try to justify that they were innocent.

you allant to make sure are here and you are on the front lines. i want to make sure you read the letter and i am sure you can get it through your command. if you need it, my office would be happy to provide it to you. thank you. class the number of times the acronym has been used, we all know what it means and you all know what it means. for the record, that is nonjudicial punishment. senator? >> thank you for being here today and thank you for your service. i have been disturbed by some of the testimony in this panel. there seems to be a lack of awareness of incidents where a victim does not feel he or she has even justice and does not feel they can go to their command because they feel they will be marginalized, retaliated against, or blamed. there are so many instances of this it is astounding to me you do not know them personally or have not seen them. i do not know what to diligence

you have done, but there is a real problem. you have 26,000 cases of on wanted sexual contact, sexual assault, rape. we do not know how many of each. --the 3300 or porting case reported cases from last year alone, only one goes to trial. once it goes, we have a good conviction rate. 100 casesonly one in resulting in conviction? it is a serious issue with a victim's willingness to report. i recently learned of a disturbing case of jessica hynes. by aeported she was raped coworker who broke into her room , the00 a.m. she said commander called me in a conference and he said he did not believe the offender acted like a gentleman but there was not a reason to prosecute.

i was speechless. we have the court date set for several months and two day before, his commander stopped it and later found out the commander had no legal education or background and had only been in command four days. she was transferred to another base and he was given an award. please expand to me how this incident would provide any victim of sexual assault in the military comfort, that if they were willing to come forward and have the courage to tell their story, that they have any chance of receiving partial justice when the decision across -- when the decision is left in the chain of command. >> i am familiar with the case. it happened a few years ago. summary little bit of information. i was not there and i do not want -- i do not know why the commander shows what he did.

i feel it is important to set a climate so people feel comfortable coming forward. took command,hief he quickly made this a huge emphasis item. it was clear. andy november, i called all my commanders and together, we watched "the invisible war." and we talked in detail about how we could set an environment where people feel they can step forward. i was clear with them, i am judging you by what you do if there is a sexual assault. you need to set the climate so everyone knows it is not acceptable and if it happens, we will take care of the victim and we will bring justice to the perpetrator. >> if the two percent of the victims who have actually come forward to report a sexual course -- a sexual assault or rape believe they have not been retaliated against, how will you instill the trust? build the trust and that is what i have been working on.

>> how long will that take? how many more victim -- how many more victims have to suffer through a rape? why would you not let someone who has the experience make that with the prosecutor, when you have an objective person that cannot be bison anyway, why would you not allow that to happen to instill better discipline in order? if you do not have trust, you have nothing. >> yes, i truly believe i need to be able to backup my my words so when i tell my commanders there is zero tolerance, if i cannot back it up, if i have to now turn to a separate entity and say, now i really want to prosecute, there could be cases where my legal advice given to me is we should not prosecute because we do not have evidence, but i need to send the message because people in the unit know what happened. even though we may not get a conviction, it is important to send the message there is no

tolerance. i need to be able to do that, even if i am not advised to do so. >> colonel king, you have said you have never seen an instance of a commander not moving forward. not a mile and a half from where we sit today, a lieutenant was attacked and raped by a severe -- superior officer. she immediately appealed to her supervisor. youhas reported he said, are tough and you need to pick yourself up and dust is -- dust yourself off, and i cannot babysit you all the time. in this instance, not only was she attacked for not -- and not was ultimately forced to leave the marine corps. her accused rapist remains in good standing. given these types of stories, , sayingr commander

sexual assault victims do not report because they do not trust us and they do not trust the command and leadership, even the comet on in the marine corps says the trust in him -- in the chain of command is not exists now. do you not agree this has a chilling effect on reporting? >> i cannot speak to those circumstances. what i know is there was collateral misconduct on the part of some of members and that was adjudicated. i cannot speak to the charge of sexual assault. what i can tell you is what we are doing in my unit. we are -- we have a positive command climate. my unit is unique in the graincorp. i have less than 3000 marines and 16% women. that is a lot, especially in the graincorp. the marine corps has about seven percent women. a significant amount of women

are in my unit and i have two cases right now. two. i know reading the literature out there i have a reporting issue. i am going after that. those are the numbers i work with right now. >> thank you. >> thank you. senator blumenthal? >> colonel, in one of your answers, you describe the way you make a decision, about whether to pursue charges. i know you are not a lawyer. and, by the way, lawyers are sometimes confused about the standards, as well. what wasyou looked at more likely that happened or not, or whether there was a preponderance of evidence, or

whether you are 90% sure. 90% sure is guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. those are three separate, different standards. why as one of the reasons lot of folks feel it makes sense to have a trained prosecutors make these decisions, rather than the commanding officer, is that the standards are easily confused, difficult to discern, and i have heard the charge given to the jury about reasonable doubt, and i must tell you i wonder sometimes whether the jury understands it, not to mention sometimes the judges in the way that they describe it. i wonder whether you can tell us, and this is a question for all the panel, to pursue the senator's line of questioning,

weather, maybe, somebody who does this for a living, so to speak, who, day in and day out, thinks about what the standards mean, sees a lot of different cases and makes the decisions every day, and maybe consults but, at the end of the day, says, this is how we can win the case, we can win it and pursue it, even if we are not sure, after consulting with a commanding officer of the unit, this will serve the good order and discipline of the unit. >> thank you for the question. i will start off. what i meant to say was, when i am considering an alleged acts of misconduct of any kind, it has got to get above the evidence in order for me to

make a recommendation to the court-martial. there are three ways i can get there and those are the ways i laid out. that is a long way between preponderance of the evidence and beyond reasonable doubt, which is a hari -- a high bar. a lot of cases of misconduct, a lot of cases of alleged sexual assault, fall into the gray area. that is the problem we have with our cases. to get specifically to your question, with respect, i do not agree. i do not agree. i think having the authority inside of the commander responsible for the discipline of that unit is what is rick ireton are >> let me ask you this. suppose there were a restitution fund to compensate victims and encourage them to come forward. right now, as i said earlier, someone's car is hit by a truck. in some cases. would it not make sense, it to

have a victim or survivor be entitled to some kind of compensation? i will open it to anyone. i think you are asking about incentivizing the reporting through monetary gain. my intuition tells me because of the severity of the crime, , just how asked severe is the crime. it is greater than any other kind of crime you could commit to somebody. i do not think any kind of compensation would encourage people much more to come forward. >> do you think they are entitled to it because of the harm they suffered? >> they may be entitled to something. they would have to come forward and we would have to investigate and go through the process in order for them to have the entitlement. >> i am not talking about rewarding them for reporting.

i am talking about, if there is a court-martial and conviction, or even if there is discipline, in other words, and adjudicated esult, not just in a -- >> i think that would go back and, role in the process, again, i am not an expert on this, either. as long as the commander is central to the process and held accountable for solving the problem, that is what it comes back to. how about some kind of hill of rights for victims or survivors so if their credibility is challenged, they have some ability to be represented and to have a right to regress. >> i think they deserve all the rights we can afford them.

they have rights now. there is a process now of victim advocacy in the system, and no matter what you call it, they have got to believe it in order to come forward. >> they have to believe their rights will be vindicated. >> yes, sir. >> would you not agree right now, there is a lack of credibility and trust? >> it depends on the unit. i can only speak to my command. i do not think -- i cannot prove it, i cannot prove something going on right now that is not being reported. >> it is being reported. >> we know from the numbers no -- though, and you do, that there is a lack of reporting. does that not reflect a lack of trust and credibility echo >> yes, sir. >> anybody who disagrees? >> i do not disagree but i will make the point it does not only reflect just that.

it could also reflect the nature of the crime. this crime is so personal. >> embarrassment, shame, what you mentioned earlier. >> i have done a cursory look at universities, for example. they has even worst number of reporting. cities, they have the same. what is that a lack of trust in? you may be absolutely right. the senator has just pointed my to these victim recordings, which reflect, perhaps, a lower rate of reporting than other institutions. effect of the the matter is, the rate is low. the commandant of the marine corps pointed the fact that it has increased 31%, which he cited as progress, and i agree. he said, and i also agree, that eventually, the numbers of

reporting and numbers of crime will meet each other and hopefully the numbers of criminal incidents will come down in the numbers of her ordering will rise, which will eventually produce better reporting and more deterrence. you cannot have reporting, you cannot have restitution without reporting, you cannot have deterrence without prosecution. , would you would agree you not, that deterrence is a thing, the fear of punishment? >> without question, senator. >> my time has it spot -- has expired. thank you for your service and dedication in dealing with the problem. thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman and thank you all for your service or he to follow-up, -- to folow up, is easy for command

to tell someone else about sexual assault rather than their commander who they live with and see every day that they might be more embarrassed to tell you been to tell a victim's assistance person? >> there are a lot of ways of reporting. you can make a 911 call. there is a helpline. we're getting the training out there and those resources available. it depends on-- the level of trust again whether in remember will go right to the chain of command. there are many other ways to report. >> do you feel that it would that a it reflects commander is less of a commander because you don't have full responsibility for this process? yes, i think any full

responsibility for any form of welfare for somebody in my command. >> this is not to give you a hard time but the legal training you have. what legal training do you have? schools. had command every time you go to a ship at a different level of leadership, you get through a pipeline. it all includes legal training. andactually do case studies you have a handbook of resources available to you. >> how does that make you less not have full to responsibility for this? , to beuse that's my job accountable for everything in this command. all forms of welfare for my crew. ,hether it is safe navigation proper health care or pay

problems or surviving crimes, et al. falls within the commanding officers ability. givehat training do you sailors in regards to sexual assault? how do you get the message serious?at this is >> we've instituted a new method of rolling out training. the fleet wide. these are targeted at small groups. , there are driven case studies, there is participation. it is very interactive. fleetfacilitated by concentration area. i feel like it very affected.

they understand the severity of the crime and how they can get help if they needed. >> i think one of the most was thee training viewing of the invisible war. as an investigative unit watching that. it was amazing to me how many of my special agents still questions the victims response. i think what was very important as we watched that movie was to talk about the lack of trust the victims had for their chain of command. to talk about how they felt .ictimized so what was important to us and what we spent a great deal of time on is the interview technique and how we treat victims and how we believe every victim should be treated with

respect during the investigative process. very powerful. .> so they watch the movie are there any documents that they sign off on that says i understand the serious nature of this. even after mentioning -- watching the movie, you mentioned some question the validity of some of the claims. how more than just watching that movie is the point driven home? rex it is not just watching the movie. it is a discussion i goes on while the movie and then at the movies being played. that discussion about how we treat the dems and in our case how we [indiscernible] was very powerful. we have changed significantly in the criminal investigation role. we have gone from a system where

we put the blame on the victim telly to make the victim us specifically what happened all the time. we try to build the report with the and so it establishes a .rust to make them feel comfortable. --are there classes given thisey have a class on is serious, this is critical, a sacred obligation, to have one another's backs? and we will not stand for that being violated. is there any formal process you use? >> that message comes from me. >> is there any formal process

.hat you use here is the way the army does it, here a step 1, 2, 3, 4? tell mthem this is serious then they watched the movie been there done. is there anything more formal? >> we have taken dan training. 60,000 guys who go to 40 hours of training a week. that is a significant training equipment. i could name a handful of other things that are that significant. we also have command train -- team training. been my chaplain with me. that is where we get another week of training. we have all teams training. duringd the comment --

ante.1, he upped the were boxed to quantico. i'd never heard about before. there was one subject. takeaking 60,000 nco's a stand. >> so you feel ever confident that every marine from here to there has been a fully immersed in a culture. >> thank you very much. >> i think this is when a helpful panel but i feel a little good has gone into the tug-of-war over your reaction to the proposals we might make this side of the aisle.

i want to set aside any and ask you to be problem solvers would've to not .alk about what is being done you are dealing with folks on the frontline all all the time. colonel king said reporting is key. the key to this thing is reporting. i think a number of the other senators have said the same thing. but the stats we were given from that issurvey showed reporting is the key, we clearly have a lot of problems. seven out of eight people do not report. 90% of them report is because of retaliation or the negative experience of other victims they have seen. of the one of eight who do 65@say they have

experienced -- 65% say they have experienced some form of ined on your experience dealing with the people, what's the reason for the lack of reporting? what do you think can be done a culturecreate where reporting is easier for folks to do? like a couple thoughts about the retaliation, i don't think we have enough time to the effect of the expedited transfer option by the victim. once that starts being neverged in victims looks going to happen, i think it will reduce some retaliation.

another option is military protective orders. really use them. really and forced them to keep people retaliating away from the victim. >> other thoughts? set condition in your command where others know that retaliation will never be tolerated. >> i agree that there has to be a climate where victims feel they can come forward. ms needs to understand at all levels that they will be held accountable if they do not identify sexual assault i. is get a visible in our wing. on ever markey on our base --

youuee on our base is do need to talk to the sarc with her number? of victimse care and they will hold them accountable. but the special victims counsel project may be one of the fears for the theater you from folkstracized with in your unit if you report. is there structure of the special victims counsel set up the victim knows i have an ally, and advocate, i am not going to be completely isolated? >> yes, senator. the special victims counsel does exactly that. it helps them understand the that maybe ir of,

should go on restricted because they're offering the special victims council whether it is restricted or unrestricted. the number of restricted cases that shift into unrestricted has increased when they are able to talk to discuss (counsel and understand the options they have available and how the process works. >> this is new terminology to me. and makes acomes in and thend complaint the victim who describes what happened gets more comfortable theywhat process will be, become more willing to make an unrestricted complaint that would be known within the chain of command. >> yes my senator. other than make a restricted or unrestricted case, they are offered special victims counsel.

once they understand it, they have been willing to make it unrestricted and then we are able to prosecute. >> colonel, how about your thoughts on how to fix this? what -- >> you should have seen me when i was 18. i knew everything. i do for those guys right now. are young men and women might high school who are bulletproof. when i hear terms like chain of command is retaliating, what i think that mostly means is clear pressure. i have two teenagers that is front and foremost in their world. they don't want to be

differenrt. for my ownspeak experience. i've never stated chain of and i havealiate not done anything else my entire adult life. report is not just fear .etaliation from any command >> senator king. >> colonel, you use the words for my first question -- peer pressure. i'm not asking for policy prescriptions but for your analysis of what's going on in the field right now. -- is the peer pressure against sexual assault or ?eporting?tel

tummy what you are hearing and seeing. me what you are hearing and seeing. there is a lot of peer pressure out there. these are young, strong images driven men women -- and women. the bonding they go through to ofthat stuff -- the sense belonging is very powerful. can haveacter --it negative connotations. so yes, i would honestly tell you sometimes it is peer pressure that causes them not

to report. sometimes they would just tell a friend. in experience, i learned about .isconduct when it does get to my level, i know myself. we immediately act. but the real question before us all is how do we reverse that impulse of the grassroots level in terms of this is on except to unexeptionalhis is conduct and reporting is okay. it has to happen in and amongst truths. >> that is credible.

-- that is critical. we have to create an environment where the peer pressure -- that's something we are trying to get to. late november, he had a global -- unprecedented. all wing commanders were brought to one location with one goal -- how to address the problem of sexual assault. we all watched the invisible work together and talked in great depth. she said you are the ones to make the change, the wing commanders. you need to make that change. following that, i had a series of commanders called. from the at a clip invisible war and talked about the climate and the culture. we had -- we hit the reset button. what is acceptable?

of a class that comes in of new airmen, i'd read them in detail. i make sure it is crystal clear and their mind what the standard is. we are going to create a culture where we hold ourselves to higher standards. we i went from the trailer went to drinking and driving from being how did you get home last night to that's not acceptable. it came from your peers. that what really changed that culture. be in thealiation punishable a offense? yes, that should be a

punishable offense. collectively which would affect? >> i have all the tools i need to take care of that. >> do you recall an occasion where someone has been disciplined for retaliation in a case like this. -- there have been sailors getere two into a fight. that is punishable. that is not to teamwork. >> i would suggest this might be an area to get the word out. if the word gets back to somebody being retaliated , that should be in some way punishable.

>> and other method -- the intervention that is day focused on. and reward that. you're kind of attacking problem from the other end. so hopefully people will come forward more. of discussioneal here this morning has been about taking these decisions out of the chain of command. what about alternative whereby if you decide not to prosecute, that has to be signed off by theyjag officer and if disagree, he gets bumped up a level. i'm kind of find something that does not violate the timid command but at the same time provides a check and balance. to give people the confidence

they will get a fair hearing. [inaudible] [indiscernible] can taken to to the next higher commander. should it be an automatic .omposition agreement.hey are in >> i would not have a problem with that at all. -- ie so class with our you're that we did what describing. . never went against

>> take you all for your service. >> thank you very much. senator sessions. >> thank you very much. i am sorry i missed much of the morning. we had a budget committee hearing. this is an important subject. and we are proud you're here to testify about it. i never was charlottesville .rain so i'm a pretty weak my experience with jag officers -- they see not

themselves as advocates for the values of the united states military and proper enforcement of the law. think there's a lack of aggressiveness in that regard? >> my experience is that they are very aggressive, blac very plugged in. we have an african-american that had not cleared the course. we complained to the jag

officer,. . he trilled -- grilled that .olonel they are independent and not afraid to take on difficult cases. are our captains, colonels, majors talking with their oabout thiseam problem and isn't being emphasized in any way. is it being discussed with them?

>> yes, sir. >> has that been emphasized more ?n recent months 2011, we have been aggressively addressing the problem and attacking it. the neighbors will have a stand down. we have rolled out sleep why training -- fleet ride training. i can't think of many more mores that are focus on this now. >> liveperson a person made you'veank, no this is -- already done that? >> yes, sir. , i would add an letter of document your given to

-- given to me. a picture here of a newsstand, there was sexual explicit magazines being sold. inlive in the culture awash that committee. if not. based, it is right off a security have videos and it re- create some problems, i think. --let's saysay this you had a female soldier who ant she was assaulted by nco, higher rank. will this happen?

>> now because this is his -- is this it duration i had to my commander had a young female sexually harassed via non- officer. she was transferred and he was believed to duties. if it were criminal assault, who is notified first? who would investigate the facts of the case. and you did that? >> that's correct. >> we are not allowed to investigate allegations into sexual assault.

our commands are not. .hat has to be investigated they make a report to? rex it would come back to one of us. -- then you take would convene a court-martial --ceeding question mark proceeding? what happens in the real world is that a complaint is not ignored first. would you all agree with that? then there are mechanisms to .nvestigate removedperson can be

from the military, placed in jail or given others kind of .iscipline >> in a recent change, and he substantiated of sexual assault results in automatic processing for discharge. we hope that -- we hold that if there is still a legal proceeding going on. if he perceives forwarding and of notack with a verdict guilty, the making process and. most of them from 18-30. if you had a city of 2 million with a lot of young men and some

women, we know there will be problems.o y are focusedhe on reversing these bad reports we're seeing that are on acceptable. it is important that each of you to the lowest level are aggressive and ensure we have a safe workplace. i thank you for what you've done and your service for your country. >> thank you. senator hatre >> thank you. , congratulations for

being the first female wing commander in the history of the air force. i know about the conversation has been centered around making the commanding environment where victims are comparable reporting crimes of sexual assault. victims in this process need to feel they are going to be listened to, that they will be protected, cared for. and their case will be taken at the appropriate level of investigation and hopefully they will not be retaliated and -- as thicgainst. welch waseral talking about high the program -- the pilot program for the special victims doubtful. had he been directly involved in one of these customer -- have you been directly involved in one of these units?

>> i asked him about the program and how it been working. theaid it really gives victim a voice. it empowers them and helps understand the process. it is been able to allow people who initially filed a thenictive the port, they're willing to go to unrestricted report. >>, and a current victims get access special victims counsel? -- how many current victims get access to special victims counsel? true in the other brances? >> you do not have a special victims unit. it is about training our people to properly try the cases.

part that is not available to the victim from day one? >> why don't you give me a run through us to what happened. the support mechanisms they have? in every unit, we have a response or nader who handled the process. we also have a uniform the dramatic it. that person is trained to not only be there and those initial but to open up all the things available to help a victim. that advocate will walk through without victim through every step of whatever counseling or medical help they need. over the last 20 years, states are gotten involved in

special victims counsel. they have been involved as advocates for sexual assault , allms, domestic shelters sorts of issues. i want to be sure these resources available at state levels, that the military makes use of them or his following what's going on. from the market, in your case, tell me if i'm correct. you were talking about the invisible war. and that some investigators find .t hard to believe the victim >> the discussion was centered around where we come from, where we start investigations to the additional training we have given them to where they are now and how we treat victims. they all believe all victims should be treated with dignity and respect.

the invisible war. i'm pleased some of you have actually witnessed it and using .t but it was not put together as a training mechanism. i want to be sure the training that goes into the people that help the victim on the present at a hospital stand by their side. this is a traumatic situation. so much as been done on the civilian side of the last 20 years that i want to be sure the at good examples the best actresses. a special victims counsel is certainly an area that all the branches due the to be moving into. do you feel it is appropriate to do [indiscernible] f command? level oc

>> i think the commander has to be able to enforce the standards they expect. there is no acceptable level of sexual assault. i need to be in the back of that. >> i am concerned about how the victims are being treated. and why are they not reporting it to larger number than they are right now? what pacific steps are going to change that reporting behavior?

>> have we not been doing that for the last couple years? rex yes ma'am. but i think we have to continue. have to agree to meet our concern for victims -- we have agree to meet our victims concerns. >> the stigma associated with this is a tough thing to get through. we have to break down those barriers little by little and hopefully those who would have a [indiscernible] but i think it will take continuous pressure and time. but it's a complex one. it's going to take some time. think it's going to be a

continuous process. in order to improve the environment and ensure victims to fill couple. need for big increase our airmen. >> hopefully the victim to start coming forward and higher numbers. this is a crime and is unacceptable in the military and the civilian world. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> the very much appreciate it cannot. youppreciate the service and the men and women with whom you serve, your families. thank you for coming forward today and giving us your own testimony from their own perspectives. it's extremely important that we hear from you. it's helpful to this committee and i hope helpful to the final outcome of our deliberations.

we are now all excused. we will move immediately to the third panel. >> next, the conversation on u.s. foreign-policy challenges. targeted by groups the internal revenue service testified on capitol hill tuesday, coming up in 45 minutes. on our next washington journal, we will talk to former florida republican congressman allen west. ohio punishment tim ryan also joins us to talk about u.s. manufacturing. that flies at 7:00 eastern. eastern.ive at 7:00 $85 billionional for overseas contingency

operations. five coverage is underway at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span three. later, the funeral for new jersey senator frank lautenberg who died this week. vice president joe biden and hillary clinton and members of the family will live her remarks. from the park avenue synagogue in new york city starts at 11:30 eastern. >> book tv is live all weekend, saturday starting at 11:00 a.m. .astern paul reid on winston churchill, the pentagon papers and activists medea benjamin. by this week and am book tv on

c-span two. book tv onis week on c-span two. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] customerss rangel smith is our guest. he is chairman of the subcommittee on global human rights. thank you for being here. president obama meets with the president of china later this week. meeting on friday. but your expectations? what are the top priorities? >> the announced agenda at the focus on security and economic issues. thus be part of the agenda. yesterday, i chaired the hearing on the 24th anniversary of the tiananmen square massacre. the repression has only gotten worse over the years. my hope is the president will be robust in its efforts to get

political prisoners released including the noble -- the nobel peace prize winner, like the president received the coveted prize, languishing in prison even today. all of these unbelievably brave, courageous, the best and brightest of china, the day sitting in prisons, being tortured, abuse, it is unspeakable. the president needs to raise those specific cases in a polite and diplomatic way, demanding their release. these are universal human rights that china has conceded to. all of these important covenants that they are refuting. part of a asked yesterday in the hearing is how can we trust a country with an unelected dictatorship? how can we trust them on security and economic issues if they so flagrantly violates fundamental human rights as they do every day of the week?

host: we are seeing the papers reflecting on the anniversary of tenements where. tiananmen square. guest: we all remember the flag in the square, the people speaking out so boldly, unfortunately hunted down after the bayonet and the tanks rolled in. it was a tipping point in the wrong direction toward more repression, more human rights abuse, more torture.

what we saw in the eastern bloc countries, the warsaw pact nations, it could have been a movement towards democracy, but it became a profound u-turn for even more repressive government by the current administration. host: what is the muscle behind the president's message? how is capitalism influence in china today? guest: when bill clinton administered trade, and no one applauded the democratic president more than i do, because of the way president bush was handling the issue, he himself linked human rights on a friday afternoon -- go to c-span

archives, you can see my press conference with nancy pelosi. we were utterly shocked that serious and substantial progress in a number of categories where there was progression, the president took his executive order and went like this, ripped it right in half. that was a game changer in my opinion. when the chinese dictatorship took the measure and said the office trump's human-rights. i believe that we need strong and serious engagement, but at the core we have to say -- how you treat or mystery or citizens matters to us. we stand with the oppressed, not the oppressors. frank wolf and i had a face-to-

face in china. we raise human-rights issues. many of them are still there. he was incensed that these congressmen, walter smith, had the audacity to raise human- rights. we need to do that every time, everywhere. the president has a bully pulpit unlike anyone else to raise these issues and look the chinese president in the eye and say -- let [indiscernible] go and be free. if he does not, it will be missed opportunity. host: why should americans care about this? guest: a great question.

we are, our brothers and sisters are a lot of nation -- are a nation of laws and immigrants. we support religious freedom and other fundamental human rights. we are the ones who pushed so aggressively on human rights. we have done it for many years. even though we had our own problems with human rights abuses towards africa meet -- african-americans, we rectified it. especially as a nation of immigrants, we care about all nations. it all races, colors, and creeds, i believe we are frankly in a unique position to speak with a consistent and even predictable voice to dictatorships to treat your people with respect. frankly, for me much of what i do is animated by a my faith. i am a catholic. i believe we are our brother and sister's keeper. because of that, whether one has faith or not, a human-rights are for everyone or for no one.

unfortunately in places like china, human rights and not respected. the rule of law is a sham. host: what is our relationship with china? how do you define it? guest: i think they are competing global giant, a colossus, if you will. the chinese president was just in latin america providing loans. they have become an economic powerhouse.

a couple of years ago i fired a complaint as a trade representative that china was committing unfair trading practices against the american workers because they were paying their people 10 cents to 50 cents per hour. there were no regulations. there was a piece in "the wall street journal" about how many accidents there were because the safeguards were not there. they have huge numbers of people who die, whose legs and hands are maimed because they do not have those kinds of protections. you do whatever the employer tells you to do and, believe it or not, i am one of the most egregious violations of women's rights, the enforcement of the one child per couple policy, making brothers and sisters illegal, it is actually carried out at the factory level. the monitor women's menstrual cycles to make sure that woman does not have a pregnancy without explicit government authorization.

talk about a violation of women's rights and freedoms. there is no comparison anywhere in the world to what is going on in china. so, we are friends with the chinese people. the government, frankly, is a dictatorship. people like myself to not believe in an engagement? i have applied for a visa to go to china. i have applied and i have been denied. i want to talk to the leadership about issues of importance but i have been precluded that opportunity because they do not want to hear it. if you would like to join the conversation, here are the numbers to call. republicans (202) 737-0002 democrats (202) 737-0001 independent (202) 628-0205 guest: he spent a number of years in the gulags. an intellectual.

he made the case that everything now by the common dictatorship and that governments are pushing economic growth. they push a culture of corruption in order to achieve those things. they exploit the labor force in every way possible to undercut any competitors worldwide in order to keep themselves afloat. in the 90's they thought if you traded more it would matriculate into a democracy. that has proven to be unmitigated nonsense. it has not happened. one of our witnesses said yesterday that others may this

on time. the increased production. they did at the expense of human rights and freedom. the government has learned that horrible lesson. if we do not speak out, who will? it is contrary to conventional wisdom. the more we trade, the stronger the communist dictatorship becomes. there is also another consequential damage, collateral. we're seeing increased influence of the chinese government throughout latin america and in africa, especially in the bad export model. they are fleecing africa of its oil.

maybe they provide a bridge. it is a very disproportionate equation. the africans lose but they are very desperate. we ought to be doing more. there also best friends with bashir. he is directly responsible for genocide in darfur for and south sudan. they are close to dictatorships in africa. we are pushing human rights throughout africa. it is a bipartisan effort. we are pushing the whole idea of good governance and transparency. it is all a goal. you never get there. the chinese government is coming in with a counter strategy which

is completely contrary or those principles. it is not just within the confines of china. their influence is having a profoundly negative affect. host: he is in his 17 term. he represents the fourth district. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i am a retired arena engineer. prior i worked in the construction engineer. from the problem of building seven or nine in freefall that exposes we bring it out.

i would like to know what you are not listening to the thousands of architects. building seven 911. guest: the question has been asked many times. i do believe there have been a number of efforts to investigate on the commission. i looked at the terrible aspects of 9/11. in number my constituents were killed or had family members that were killed. that was a prime mover behind that legislation. they look at virtually every aspect of it. your question needs further answer.

host: how do you get that? guest: maybe more questions from the part of think tanks. the 9/11 investigation was one oneof the most comprehensive that i have ever seen. governor cain and lee hamilton put together a series of

hearings. they had a very good staff. that report, which was several inches thick, and i have read it, we are safer. we were not safe. we are safer but not safe. much more needs to be done to mitigate the threats from al qaeda and others who wish us ill. the other aspects of it, i am not sure how much we really need to know. the building capabilities, the architecture. there were probably corners that were cut. host: in the construction? guest: in the construction. people were shocked how quickly it imploded. host: do you have any doubt that the cause? guest: without a doubt. i was in bethlehem. i spoke to a group of students who actually blamed it on the israelis which is the theatre of the absurd. they said no jews died. i said there were people of every faith. i know widows whose husbands

died. it was an act of terrorism. it was the likes we have not seen since pearl harbor in terms of magnitude. there is no doubt who the culprits were. there will always be conspiracy theories about everything including that. we have done a good job. host: chris smith is from new jersey's fourth the district. his constituents were killed in the world trade center attack. his region include some of the jersey shore as well, hamilton, 17 term, first elected back in 1980. turning to syria, the united nation investigators are seeing increased fertility on both sides of the conflict. what do we do with this information? guest: secretary kerry made a very candid and frank statement

when he said we were late to the peace efforts in syria. this has been going on for over two years. this is not just burst onto the scene within the last couple of months. it has been exacerbated.

.

>> the iris agent who handled your case is ms. richards? >> that is correct. >> does she have a first name? >> she never gave her first name. did you correspond with other agents? >> i did not, but our attorney did. >> could you provide the names of who she corresponded with to this committee? >> yes. >> did ms. richards ever indicate she was seeking guidance from anybody else in the irs? >> she did. , she put me on hold and then said i must check with my supervisors. >> you do not know the names?

>> she never gave me a name. >> were they in cincinnati or somewhere else? >> i do not know that. >> ms. belsom, you are contacted ?y mr. joseph her >> yes. >> did you correspond with other agents? >> no. did he ever indicate he was talking to somebody else within the agency? >> i did not speak to him on the phone. we just had the initial letter and then i contacted -- >> you do not know if it came from washington or cincinnati? >> the address he gave on the letter he signed said cincinnati. >> ok. mr. chairman, in light of today's testimony i think we should bring these, at least mr. steele, ms. richards, who does not have a first name -- we should try to figure out who those people are and bring them

before the committee or at least conduct interviews with these folks. i am also remaining concerned about mrs. lerner, who pleaded the fifth and shed -- said she did not do anything wrong. we should try to get her before the committee. josephr colleague, mr. grant, who was promoted weeks before. and then resigned immediately. i think they could shed some light on who violated the constitutional rights of these witnesses, and many rights of many americans. i will yield back. >> mr. neale is recognized. >> thanks for calling today's hearings. what we have heard today and in previous hearings is certainly very troubling. ,he irs touches every american and it is critical americans should trust the irs and not be intimidated or afraid of the irs.

, includingts today's testimony of targeting by the irs of organizations ,ased on political views religion, or opposition to administration policies is certainly unacceptable. we are also troubled by the mismanagement of the irs in the screening process. acting commissioner miller last week, based on a question i offered, highlighted a case of one of my constituents who followed the advice of the iressa only to be penalized a few years later. americans certainly should be able to rely on the advice of the irs without punishment. the inconsistencies of information and failure by the irs to provide congress with information in its oversight role certainly is unacceptable as well. it is unbelievable to me that lois lerner testified before this committee just a few days before her apology at a conference without informing the committee as to what she was going to say at the conference.

that demonstrated a lack of regard for our law. i appreciate very much, mr. chairman, you're hearing and calling it today. we can get to the bottom of these problems and work together to identify a solution that i hope will be on a bipartisan basis. but we cannot forget something here that is even more egregious than some of the actions of the irs. that is the underlying problem. engaged in political activity. after citizens united the irs was flooded with applications for 501c4 status. why was that? in large part, super pack's must disclose their donors, and 501c4's do not. let's not make this a political statement. both political and conservative groups have taken advantage of the lack of transparency of 501

c4 status, and it is troubling in both cases. there were democratic groups that were targeted. previous testimony indicated that. that should be noted as well. so i hope, mr. chairman, you will include a thorough review of 501c4 status as we seek to address the issue. ms. kenney, i appreciate very much your work with veterans, including the fact that there .re 1.7 million new veterans of that number will probably reach 2 million, as you know. opening testimony, you indicated that you have an invitation you extend to a wide range of groups and candidates. but you also indicated democrats did not attend based upon the invitation you have extended. why do you think that would be? >> i have no idea. >> that is the end of my questioning.

thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman, for providing the hearing today, and the outstanding witnesses. the testimony has been breathtaking. i would like to remind all the members of the committee that c4 status.r beyond 501 you may recall the gentleman i introduced in the last hearing, justin bennett thomas, question number 26. i would like to work with you to submit some information on that particular case. congresswoman schmidt was his congressmen in a suburban cincinnati and submitted to the irs questions regarding why mr. thomas was questioned 26 on a for a suburbanon cincinnati organization. to this day, they have not received their status. american doeshis not know why he was questioned number 26. i would like to work with you,

mr. chairman, on trying to get answers to both of those organizations. i was shocked to find out on friday with a question from the lawyer in my district on another matter dealing with the irs. this lawyer represents an organization that is a taxable nonprofit. a taxable nonprofit. they filed their first tax return with the irs in february of this year, mr. chairman. the organization's name is we the people convention inc. in ohio. they received a letter from the irs on april 30. it says, dear taxpayer, on february 21 we received your form 11-20. the tax period shown above. we are sorry we cannot process your return is filed. indicate the above name account, we the people, is

a political corporation and thus as a political corporation you are required to file the form and file for tax exempt status. the irs had no information other than the named, we the people, for an organization that wanted to pay taxes. their return was rejected in april of this year, mr. chairman. the lawyer wrote back to the irs, by the way, not the tax exempt a vision, in other division of the irs, input corrections operation within the irs. says,tter from the lawyer this organization was formed as a nonprofit corporation in ohio, every 2011. the stated purpose is a coming together of ohio citizens for the purpose of sharing knowledge, information, and ideas about the governance of our date and any lawful purposes. they are focused on planning and holding an annual meeting

to discuss civic and social welfare. the organization is not involved in activities designed it to rectally or indirectly -- designed to directly or indirectly alter the outcome of a election. and it is not attempting to claim such status. mr. chairman, we are only scratching the surface of where this goes. is a taxabletion nonprofit. so for the members of this committee who think this is about just tax-exempt status, which by the way is legal, this shows we are only scratching the surface. i appreciate your leadership on this. the testimony is fabulous. ,y mom and dad came to america crossed the atlantic, and i have to tell you, ladies and gentlemen, this is shocking to me. i yield back. >> mr. docket. >> thank you for your testimony

today. the last hearing we had on the subject featured as the lead witness the inspector general of the internal revenue service. who had republican worked for two republican senators and was appointed by president george w. bush and had broad investigative powers. he identified wrongdoing at the irs. , agree with his findings agree that whether it is one of these organizations, any of the 298 applications mr. levin identified from his report that were set aside, 96 of them appearing to be of a perhaps political orientation, like the groups that are here today, and perhaps one like progress texas in my hometown, which received a similar letter and has very dissimilar political beliefs from those expressed here today. whatever the political beliefs, the inspector general is right.

folks should never have to worry about whether the tax collector is looking at their political beliefs or activities in making a decision. the inspector general had more to say, however, after the very strong opening statement of our chairman about what the report signified. i asked him specifically if he had found any evidence of the corruption of the irs as charged. he said no, he had not. i asked, since there was a charge opening our hearing, whether our tax system is rotten at the core. he indicated no, definitely not. i asked him whether there was any evidence to support from his thorough investigation the charge of the chairman that the irs picks who wins and who loses in america. he responded, i do not believe that is the case. i agree with him on those findings as well. question and is a

a serious problem at the irs with regard to the basic issue of which groups in our country the taxpayers should subsidize. we do not subsidize the democratic or the republican or the libertarian party, and we should not. we should not subsidize groups that act in a similar way to promote political activity. this congress was very clear on that point. clear on it in 1913, and in repeated re-codification's of what is now 501c4. it said they must be operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare. aly at a later time, through regulation, a rule that seems to conflict directly with the clear wording of the statute, did the irs acts to give itself discretion to explore

organizations like those before us today. it did soe irs -- during the administration of dwight eisenhower in 1959. in more recent years, particularly after the decision in citizens united suggested we would have tens of millions, indeed hundreds of millions of tax subsidized money poured in with secret, undisclosed contributors into the election process to dilute our democracy, an organization before the last election, citizens for responsibility and ethics in washington, petitioned the iressa act about this. ,o go back to the original clear, unequivocal wording of the statute that had existed since 1913. the irs did not respond except with a, we will think about a type of letter. these citizens for

responsibility and ethics in washington has petitioned again, this year, for the treasury department to act on this matter. i have asked them, as have other members of this congress, to do the same. the not believe that internal revenue service, the treasury department, should be providing tax subsidies to organizations that are not engaged exclusively in social welfare, whether their name is progress texas or the nine/12 patriots or any other self- styled name they want to apply to themselves. this is the second hearing on this subject in a very short time. we have now had 37 votes on whether to repeal the affordable health care act. i am sure this is not the last hearing on this topic. the two are closely related. the internal revenue service has an important public -- function

to play in carrying out the traditions of the affordable care act. it is to assess working and middle class families who are entitled to receive premium assistance in acquiring insurance. the irs needs to carry out that job effectively and fully. the two are directly related. irsgoal of ensuring the cannot fulfill its responsibilities. i yield back. >> i will note for the record that the inspector general report was an audit. the inspector general indicated he will be completing a full investigation of this matter in the future. i will recognize mr. recker for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. the supreme court has already decided this issue. some of our friends may disagree with the supreme court's decision, just like some of us on this side of the aisle might disagree with the supreme court decision on forcing americans to

buy health insurance. but it is the law of the land. so let's see where we are. last week -- or two weeks ago -- we had a hearing where mr. george and mr. miller appeared. themiller accepted dig's -- g's report, but said i do not agree with the use of the word targeted in the report. agreeller would not even that certain organizations and/or individuals were treated differently in this process. he did, however, say, as the we provided poor customer service. poor customer service. i did not have a lot of time to ask mr. miller additional questions, but i'm trying to figure this out.

resign miller asked to by the president of the united states because he provided poor customer service? if mr. miller provided poor customer service and was asked to resign by the president, who else provided poor customer service that should be asked to resign? ?nder mr. miller under ms. lerner? under the other names that were brought up -- would be my question. we know it was more than poor customer service. because mr. miller goes on to poorwell, it was just customer service. i want to apologize. then he came up with excuses. then he said there was really no attempt here to treat anybody differently or wrong way. -- this was an effort by good employees to be efficient.

to be efficient? by asking you hundreds of questions about your personal lives? that is efficiency? i do not think so. the word inadvertent was used as we talked about dr. eastman's release of information, tax information. it is not inadvertent. there is more investigation to do. i have said many times in this know i am apeople retired police officer. 33 years as a cop. there is a lot of questions to ask here. when i asked mr. miller who he spoke about -- spoke with to find out who came up with the criteria all of you had to ,espond to, he did not remember first, but finally gave me the title of a person he spoke to. i finally said, what is the name? he said it was nancy marks.

did any of you speak with nancy marks or receive any communication at all from her? mr. chairman, i was suggest that we think about having nancy marks appear in front of this panel to find out what she did. mr. miller could not remember at all what the conversation was about. that haveother names been brought up here today. i would just ask, if there are any other names from any other panelists -- do you have any other names of people you contacted that you spoke with, that you received e-mails, could you provide those? i will start with -- say your name one more time. >> mr. kookogey. >> could you please provide me with any names you can think of you had communication with? >> the first agent was sheila mae robinson.

switched to was the desk of mr. romney bell. he was the -- mr. ron bell. he was the one who advised me he was waiting for guidance from his superiors. then it was passed to mr. mitch steele. then the most recent letter, which came as recent as may 6, was from a woman whose name i cannot pronounce. >> we will get it from you later. >ms. belsom. one.seph herr was the only >> dr. eastman? >> we had a couple inspectors we do with. i will provide those names to you. >> ms. kenney? >> mr. steele. .> ms. martinek >> i will provide that. .obert cho i have an id number for the

workers. i do not have his name. ronald bell. stephen steele. lois lerner. and holly paz. in the last page of my testimony is my timeline. all the names are in there, as well as the id number. >> thank you. >> mr. thompson is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank all the witnesses for taking your time to be here. it is important we figure this out. ms. kenney, i want to particularly thank you with your work -- for your work with veterans. being one myself, i appreciate that very much. i want to stay for the record what i said last time we had a hearing on this. i believe it is outrageous and inappropriate and wrong, and we must do everything we can do to fix it, to make sure it never happens again. ms. belsom, i probably will not get it exactly correct, you said

something along the lines of that this needs to be investigated. those responsible need to be held accountable for any targeting of conservative groups. i agree. but i also believe that any targeting of any group, anybody that does that needs to be held accountable. it is important that we hear about these abuses. however, we all know that it is bad, it is wrong, and we all know it must never happen again. we know we need to fix it. mr. chairman, it is time that we stipulate that this is wrong, abusive, and it needs to -- it never should have happened, and we need to know what we need to do to get it fixed. we need to make sure that it never happens to conservative groups. we need to make sure it never happens to liberal groups. we need to make sure it never happens to any group. report said the cincinnati staff of the irs had questions about the law and how

it was to be applied. and that they were not given adequate guidance, nor supervision. even after they asked for it. that is bad management at its best -- at its best, it is bad management. i think the subsequent stories we have seen about staff retrieves the irs has been taking, i think that bolsters that fact that there is huge bad management into that organization. but the truth is that we share a little bit of that responsibility. we have oversight over that operation. we need to be bearing down to figure out how in the world can you even do that stuff without somebody knowing about it, without somebody recognizing it. the idea you just take your staff and go off someplace and make not even be rated films, to

try and build some sort of better staff arrangement -- not one of us could do that in our office. this committee could not do that. why is it that a bureaucracy can do that? we have a responsibility in this committee, and i think we ought to get to doing our work and making sure that we fix this problem. we do not need to hear any more witnesses. we know it was bad. it was terrible with you and everybody else had to go through. it is terrible when any government entity does not do their job and puts taxpayers through the ringer. let's get it fixed. i yield back the balance of my time. >> i want to thank all of you for being here today and providing your testimony. mr. eastman, how did you find out that your donor list had been leaked to the irs? website byred on a the human rights campaign, which principal political

opponent. >> somebody in your organization happened to be looking at it? >> somebody called it to our attention. we saw there was reductions. it was march 30, 2012. within a few days our commuter -- computer forensic people could on layer the reductions the irs.me from >> i have on the screen some documents, side-by-side. they were taken from the huffington post. one of them has the redaction. could you explain what is going on there? >> these are the schedule b forms attached to our 990 tax attorney. i call nonprofits, we have to make public our 990 forms. the schedule b, the list of our donors, is as private as the private tax reform. the document with the redaction appeared on the website of the human rights campaign. the document on the right is the same pdf file but with the redaction layer removed. you see across the center

diagonally the internal irs document number that is affixed by the irs computers. at the top of the page, you see the language -- this is a live tax return from the internal irs system for official use only. >> this was the first time you became aware of this on the huffington post. it was taken from your -- an adversarial group's website? >> the human rights campaign, our chief adversary, posted it on their website. the huffington post and a number of other meteor -- media outlets linked to the illegally disclosed return. >> at that point you went on to try to determine what force of action the irs or department of treasury was going to take. is that correct? >> correct. request for investigation. because there are felony violations at issue, we filed request with the department

of justice as well. >> and you were stonewalled? >> i have the full list of the agents that were involved. they wanted to close off the possibility that this had been leaked by somebody internal to our own organization. i think the evidence of the documents these for itself that it came from the irs, but i suppose it is possible somebody might have asked her a copy of our own tax return back and went to the trouble of leaking it. they wanted to close that door. once the door was closed, that was the last we heard of the investigation. that was the summer of 2012, almost a year ago. >> that document with the number on there, the irs number, indicates that this came from the irs? >> the irs's own internal manual says that is put on every tax return automatically for any return that gets electronically filed with the irs. it is not a document we have in our records because we of course felt the clean version. once it is filed, that is the

document that gets placed for internal official use only. >> you have not been notified, despite a request and other means of action, you have not been notified as to what records or actions are being taken as of this state? >> no. in fact, federal law requires we be notified if anybody is in charge -- charged with illegal disclosure of our returns. we have received no such notification. our specific request, tied directly to us, authorized to be disclosed to the taxpayer whose returns were illegally disclosed. the status of the investigation, whether it remains open or closed, whether complaints were substantiated or not substantiated. this is the language from the regulation itself. we ask for that specific organization and were told we could not have it because any results of the investigation was protected taxpayer information.

>> i have to say, ranking member 11 mentioned avoiding speculation in his opening statement. i can say we have seen an egregious abuse, intimidation, certainly mismanagement. this cannot be tolerated. it cannot be tolerated in our system of government. we have to get to the bottom of this. we have to get some facts. what happened. those responsible will be held to account under the full law. the other thing we have to do, we have to restore checks and thences which provide opportunity for congress to do legitimate oversight. i have to tell you, mr. eastman, this is egregious. we are going to get to the bottom of it. the irs can no longer withhold this information. we will get it. thank you. , mr. chairman. the question before us today is, who decides who gets to participate in the public square? is it bureaucrats?

or is it the american people? i am heartened today, and i know there is an ominous feeling about what is going on, but i am heartened by the example of you six who have come forward. you know what you did? you kept faith in america. you kept faith. and no matter how big the swells were, no matter how big the storm cloud was, no matter how overwhelming the feeling was, you were faithful. god bless you for being faithful. we are here in a country where some of us who are trying to reach now -- reach out now, we are all in it together and trying to say, look, this is a great country that we have and it is worth celebrating, it is worth defending, it is worth articulating these founding values. and i'm so deeply appreciative of your willingness to keep faith when it was overwhelming. history is filled with this

story. it always works out well when those who are entrusted with responsibility, that is asked, listen to the complaints of the , sort out fact from fiction, and do our work. yourelling you, based on faithfulness, i think this comes to a very good end. that me tell you a very quick story. ,n unrelated federal agency the federal election commission, intervened unfairly in a 1996 election for the united states senate in the state of illinois. a friend of mine, former law partner, was the republican nominee. he was falsely accused of breaking federal law. the federal election commission sued him. the case was dismissed. the federal election commission tried to manipulate him into paying an outrageous fine. the federal election commission kept losing and losing and losing. finally he says, i would like to speak to the person with

authority in this case. surely if they understood the facts they would dismiss this case. the person that the other end of the phone in charge of and sportsmen -- enforcement at the time said, we will dismiss this case if you pledge to never run for office again. the person that the other end of the phone was lois lerner. in the words of my son, steve, i'm just saying. [laughter] , as we arek firsting and here the amendment rights of yours that have timidly been trampled, there is something -- that have cumulatively been trampled, there is something egregious about the first of our first freedoms, our freedom to worship, our freedom to avoid government compulsion as it relates to matters of faith. what you have described is the

long arm of the federal , comingnt coming in into your organization and essentially telling you, we will tell you what to think. we will tell you how to pray. heaven help us. heaven help us. this congress opens on a daily basis in prayer. moments ago, this place opened in prayer. we have prayer groups that are honeycombed throughout the capital. praying for god's mercy for this country. praying for wisdom. praying for strength. praying for clarity. and we have a federal agency that comes in and tries to get into your business. it is an outrage. so what you are sensing today, for those of us on this committee, is a sense of real clarity about what is going on. this is not about ambiguity and the law. this is not about any such thing. this is about abuse of power. what you have done -- and i

thank you for doing this -- would you have done is you have lit a lamp and you have clanged a bell and you have rallied people around you to make this right. i know i speak for many on this committee. we will get this right. i yield back. >> thank you. mr. blumenauer is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i do appreciate the patience of the witnesses coming today and telling their stories. i think we are all united in denouncing the treatment you are accorded. especially the disclosure of confidential tax information. i am looking forward to the committee moving forward, as i think everybody has expressed, to get to the bottom of it. , mr.reciate our colleague thompson, talking about the committee doing its job. figuring out what we do going forward. but part of what is coming clear to me is that there is a

fundamental flaw in the way that we have allowed a clear statute to the modified by regulation that invites abuse. it puts bureaucrats in positions where they can legitimately start probing around these questions. and i think that is an appropriate. .- inappropriate part of the problem i see is illustrated by part of dr. eastman's testimony. he talks about his chief adversary in their political struggles. the human rights campaign. , at least in sound my mind, the queer dealing primarily with -- that we are dealing primarily with being engaged in promoting the

general good and public welfare when we are dealing with political adversaries. the national organization in marriage was established in 2007 citizens inpping california from marrying the people they love. emoting social welfare. nationalnal organization of marriage documents last year said the organization seeks "to drive a wedge between gays and blacks" by promoting "african-american spokespeople for marriage, thus promoting same-sex supporters into denouncing the spokesman and women as they gets." -- bigots." and to interrupt the assumption of latinos in "dominant anglo none of this has been denied by the national association of marriage.

it has called for portray president obama as a "social radical" and seeking to cast same-sex marriage in a negative light, connecting it to issues like pornography. social welfare? i think not. tois everybody's right participate in politics. and you should. but i think having organizations are rating as -- parading as being social welfare organizations and then being involved in political combat harkens back to why the statute 100 years ago said they .ould prohibit whol i wholeheartedly agree with my colleague mr. docket. we ought to stop this regulation interpretation from 1959 that invites people to raise vast sums of money and keep it secret and engage in political activity -- some of

it, not necessarily promoting the social welfare of our country. everybody ought to play by the same rules. we ought to go back to the original intent. we ought to eliminate inortunities for bureaucrats the internal revenue service, making these judgments about whether it is primarily social welfare or not. it should not be involved in politics at all. until we do our job as a committee to reinstate the original intent that we overrule that regulation, we will not be doing our job completely. root out the problems. find out who leaked confidential information. make sure this is administered crop early. down in the ranks of the irs. of let's stop this charade pretending these are social welfare organizations. ,nd admit that their political

treat them as such, and play by the same rules that everybody on the committee plays for when we are involved in politics. thank you, and i yield back. >> dr. price. >> i want to thank you very much for continuing this evaluation of what has been described during this hearing today as ,hilling, shocking, fearful felt betrayed, unconscionable, unbelievable, frightening, intimidating. using the government as a weapon against citizens. sometimes when we walk out of the capital in the evening we have some significant emotion about something that has just occurred during the course of that day. i am going to walk out today saddened that we have found ourselves in a situation where in activitynt is

with its citizens that results in those adjectives and those descriptions. 'swant to echo mr. roskam condiments to you all. thank you, thank you, thank you for your trust and your faith in our government and our system. it is that trust that is being eroded. our system of government only works if that trust exists. our job is to restore that trust. , yournvolvement today participation today, your participation over the past number of years will help greatly restore that trust. one way to do that, by the way, is to institute fundamental tax reform. have an irs that is not powerful.

how about an iressa just processes a form? -- irs that just processes a form? and i are rested identify what you make, -- an iressa that -- an irs that identifies this is what you make, this is what you owe, and it is that simple. at thetman, i am stunned magnitude of the disclosure you bring before us today. i am sorry i was not aware of it. the significance of it, before today. people have asked you very specific questions. to inform the american people and this committee, i will ask you about your donors. donors being listed publicly. you mentioned they were harassed. put some flesh on that. what does that mean? how have donors been harassed? >> i can begin with a story of

proposition 8 in california. before i get to that, i really have to respond to the scurrilous things that were set on the other side. representative blumenauer, it is your kind of statements that agents toered irs make determinations about which organizations all five for the public good and which do not. [applause] that defending traditional marriage does not qualify as a defense of the public good is beyond preposterous. how sad it is, how sad it is that efforts to educate about our constitution and become a part is -- have become a partisan political issue that you think people ought not to get tax-exempt status for. beginning with proposition 8, people's names were disclosed, dona serves -- donors, businesses were boycotted. they were harassed, they were assaulted on the streets, they were vandalized on their property. this has pervaded across the

nation. every time our donor list is disclosed, to the point that our donors tell us we are fearful of giving money to you, to help support because we believe in, because our businesses and our families are at risk. it is the very reason i pointed , that naacpewis versus alabama held the constitutional right to keep people's names and identities confidential when the risk of intimidation rises to the level that it has. >> dr. eastman, i would appreciate if you provide some of the specifics. it is absolutely chilling. a couple other quick questions. ms. martinek, in what year did you receive the questions about your prayer gatherings? >> in 2009. >> ms. belsom, we are told the irs ended their interrogations in mid-2012. but that is not your experience, is it? >> we turned in everything on

march 5, 2013. we have heard nothing since then. >> i make that point because the inspector general said the challenges occurred between march of 2010 and ended in mid- 2012. clearly that is not the case. >> mr. buchanan. >> thank you, mr. chairman, for this important hearing. i want to thank all our witnesses. i applaud your leadership in terms of the effort. all of us have a different background. i was in business in 30 years and came here in 2007. one of the things i try to do a sense nobody was listening in washington. as much as anybody here -- i know a lot of colleagues do it on both sides -- i do a lot of town halls and meetings. i started in 2007. i can tell you one thing with a lot of conservative groups. i went to tea party groups. many of the groups did not want politicians there. the bottom line, they were scared to death for what was

going on in this country. i heard a lot of those conversations in terms of the debt, the deficit, the stimulus, the tarp. they felt and i felt we were going broke as a country. that is why i applaud what you are doing here today, your leadership, from that standpoint. in my mindset, it is very real. the year i came in we had a $130 billion deficit. $1.3deficit went up to trillion for 4 years. it brought a lot of energy. a lot of -- the core of a lot of these conservative groups -- when you go quickly to $20 trillion, i heard a lot about that. as a business guy, balancing budgets, 49 out of 50 governors had to do it. concerned not only about themselves, but their children

and grandchildren. a lot of people have done well in my district and were concerned about the next two generations. that being said, my question is -- there is no question you were targeted, harassed, humiliated, to some extent. how did that in key the growth of your organizations in full potential? i want to start out, mr. kookogey, you mentioned one thing that affected your organization in terms of a donor that could have contributed but you could not get your paperwork in time. what impact did it have on all of you in terms of realizing your full potential as organizations? could you comment on that, please? >> as you noted, we were promised a $30,000 grant en route -- on achieving status.

-- in his 25status years of being executive -- it did not get dealt with in two or three months. as to the impact, a lot of is all about- it establishing trust. if one incredible foundation puts money into the organization, i can use that to go to organizations and say, this organization has trusted the organization. will you now contribute? because i could not get status, everything especially -- effectively stopped. also out of abject fear the government had a target on my back. >> could you comment what impact kept you or your

organization from full potential? >> i want to make a couple comments really quick before i answer that. there could be some c4conceptions about what a organization is. i am totally outraged by the accusation that we are somehow subsidized by the taxpayers. thele making donations to organizations, that is not a tax-deductible amount. we are not getting any money from the taxpayers. what we are saying, if we want to have a group and people pay dues or make a donation, and the end of the year or whatever, we are not subject to them -- a .axes again this is a real outrage to imply we are taking money from starving children to fund our group. that being the case, i cannot say that this investigation being ongoing for the past three years has really impeded us. the donations are not tax- deductible. donated as they saw

fit. we have operated as if we were pending.e it has been >> mr. eastman question my >> let me put this in context. in the proposition 8 fight in california, the opposing sides raised roughly equivalent amounts of money. but with the gestalt test disclosure and the intimidation list andhe disclosure the intimidation, the last round of ballot initiatives last november, the pro-traditional marriage side was outspent by nearly $20 million. i think the chilling effect that has come from the intimidation of donors to the cause of traditional marriage is pervasive and having real consequences on the outcomes of elections on that key policy issue before the american people. >> mr. kind is recognized. >> thank you. i want to thank our witnesses here today. we do appreciate it. we have a problem on our hands.

hopefully this committee will be able to move forward in a bipartisan fashion to fix it and fix it as soon as possible. true rot at the core of our democracy, it is a pervasive feeling you are being treated unfairly, singled out, discriminated in some fashion. i was not the biggest fan of referees on the field as a former athlete. but i knew they played an important role on the game. you may not always agree with the call they make, but they are a essential part. i would hope the answer as taxle as reforming the code that has become too antiquated and complex, so it processing unit and little else. but even president reagan wanted trust and verify -- trust but verify. there are some terminology here that the irs is wrestling with. there is an important role of this congress and committee to help clarify and ensure this never happens again.

there is a clear difference between an organization that is primarily engaged in political activity and one that is engaged in social welfare. i think that is what the irs is struggling with. the inspector general in his report was very clear. he has done his interviews in the preliminary investigation. there was no partisan or political motivation behind what was going on. there are reports there were progressive groups singled out as well. we are hoping to call a witness on our side to be a part of this panel. and ask them to testify. ourould call someone from breast taxes, clean elections texas, or we have called someone from -- emerge america or if i affiliates who had their status denied or revoked. the reason the article looks through the 170 six aire approved advocacy organizations approved through may of 2013, took a look at those approved. 122 were conservative

organizations. 48 were non-conservative organizations. for six, there was not sufficient organization to determine between the two. nevertheless, each of you have a legitimate cause of concern and complaint before us today. it will be our obligation to do a better job of working with the irs, who i also believe is overburdened with the game leadership tax-exempt applications over the last couple years. the cincinnati office is a very small office, roughly nine people. trying to process all these applications. i think the criteria they use was clearly wrong. and we need to look into that. but why it was used the way it as -- i think there is also question of insufficient resources and insufficient staff to deal with the daily news -- deluge of applications. ms. kenney, let me ask you whether it would be appropriate for an organization primarily involved in political activity to qualify as a 501c4

organization. you think that would be appropriate? your question is hypothetical. i can only speak for my own experience. >> it is not hypothetical to the irs. >> you are asking me? >> right. let me ask you as a witness today. do you, in your mind, have a clear definition of what is engagement in social welfare or what is engagement in political activity? do you have a clear definition in your mind? >> i can only answer for my own experience, since i am not a lawyer. my experience is we were obeying the law and our personal group is about education. >> i believe you believe that in all your heart. ms. belsom, let me ask you the same question. you have a clear definition of what is political activity or social welfare activity?

>> i did a google search on other 501c4 organizations. there were groups such as america votes, brady campaign, california league of conservation voters, citizens for tax justice, democratic leadership council, environment california, gender rights maryland, georgia rights alliance, health care for america now, national transgender -- >> do you have a clear definition in your mind of what constitutes political activity or social welfare? works can you please define political? >> i'm not doing this to single you out. >> i know. >> but it highlights the point. the definition is very subjective. when you have a subjective definition -- asking a federal agency to apply their judgment -- you will get subjective judgments from that. as we move forward, we need clear, bright line rules of these activities, what is allowed and what is not allowed. when you do not have that, you

will have businesses like this on both sides -- instances like this on both sides of groups being singled out for additional scrutiny. the feeling of unfairness that sin. >> -- sets in. >> i do want to note the minority was given the opportunity to call a witness, but did not present a witness that had been affected by taxpayer activity -- by irs activities. that is why there is no minority witness at the table today. they were given that opportunity. i wanted to make sure the gentleman understood that. mr. shock is recognized. .> thank you to the witnesses the american people are being led to believe you guys are big muscles of political strength, and are being subsidized by taxpayers and have some unfair advantage over perhaps those who share a different beliefs than you. thesee record, perhaps tea party groups might share, , youelsom, ms. kenney

could tell us roughly what your annual budget is? >> let's see. .n 2010, our budget was $2453 >> for the entire year? >> yes. $3371.t was from12, we had a grant the tea party patriots that enabled us to promote our organization. we did have approximately $9,000. >> ok. ms. kenney? works forgive me for laughing. our annual budget is in the negatives. >> oh. are you a democratic organization? [laughter] >> the first year, we had a minus $1300. the second year, i do not

remember. these were from legal fees to begin the process of filing for 501c4. -- >> so the harassment and illegal questions you were asked cost your organization to deficit spend to try to defend its constitutional right? >> yes. toalso dried up our ability have people participate in a structure where they could donate. >> thank you. how about your budget, ms. gerritson? >> i do not have the exact numbers, but we have less than $5,000 at the end of each month, roughly. one year, when we took a big bus trip to washington we had $18,000 at one time in the bank. but as soon as we paid off the bus, that all went down. we usually run under 5000 dollars. >> so it has never been over $50,000? >> goodness no. >> you can understand the

outrage by members of this committee for the apparent double standard that members on this committee usually -- seem to have for their frustration, outrage, opposition to groups c3o seek 501c4 and 501 status who may be on the opposite side of your issues and who we know have organized and raised far more sums than all of you collectively. one group in particular we know about is organizing for action. a group organized by the president's own man, political advisors, which to date we know has raised in excess of billions of dollars. i will read on their website what they say their mission is. "organizing for action is a nonprofit organization established to support president obama in achieving enactment of his national agenda. ou"

i would humbly ask your colleagues on the other side of the aisle, is that political? organization -- >> will be gentleman yield? >> why would a organization called -- >> would be gentleman yield? why did you ask the question? >> go ahead. >> are the names disclosed? >> are what names disclose? >> the names of the presidents committee? are the contributors disclose? >> i am not aware. >> let me be on record saying the names should be disclosed. >> ok. but we are not having a debate about whether or not we agree with citizens united. we are not having a debate about whether we we want to change 33.(c) i would submit that if that is your goal, perhaps introduce legislation to do so. irsproblem is that this agency has discriminated. people based on their political view. [applause] for anyone --

for anyone to defend -- >> regular order. i will have to ask our guests in the committee to refrain from applause and other displays of emotion or attention. we need to keep decorum in the committee. we respectfully ask that our members refrain from clapping and cheering. you may proceed. >> for anyone to suggest that these individuals' rights should be limited more so than others simply because of their political beliefs is nothing more than discrimination. there would , jews vs. christians but since his conservative versus liberals, there seems to be some question, some cloud, some lack of clarity and rather than work united in a bipartisan way to root out the very cancer that my