may be able to come to some sort of agreement between themselves. whether that would sell more broadly as the opening question. >> if they do another extension, how long is it for? for imagine they do it another year. i cannot imagine they do it longer than that. hopefully it will not get to that point. >> you have said everything stays in place if they do not pass a farm bill. is something that they know about. payments to not really go to corporations because corporations do not produce basic commodities. they are the ones that the public find offensive. they were just continued for another year. there were no changes made to the food stamp program.

>> food stamps makes it the majority of the farm bill. >> close to 80% was including some other nutrition program. brought up wasc brok smithville. does this rise to the level of something the average american is going to hear about? doesn't make headlines? this process is for foreign acquisitions of u.s. companies. viewers may remember that this to purchase a u.s. port operator. this is something that everyone in a while comes up and steals the headlines for a few. if that happens, it becomes something where there are these concerns raised more broadly

about the possibility of something that was raised during the interview about what it might have for an effect on the u.s. food supply. this is the kind of thing that may get that attention. >> your take? wasf the dubai court issue important to the average american, this is more important because it of x what most people affectscause of this what people buy in the supermarket. thechairwoman of agricultural committee is asking those questions. they are questions that have not been asked so far in the media or industry. >> thank you for being on "newsmakers." [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] , military leaders testify about sexual assault in the military. in the oversight committee hearing on spending by the irs.

then eric holder testifies on the 2014 budget request. >> when you put on a uniform for a job that is a maintenance job, and this is true if you are a building janitor or a sanitation worker. by the roll tod the point where it is almost like you're just a part of the background like a machine. you are a human being wearing that uniform. the general world gets to overlook you. really not see you. it is like a romulan cloaking star trek geeks will recognize that reference. it is frustrating and an interesting privilege.

a sanitationring worker uniform i can observe people in ways they do not realize i am observing them. >> tonight at 8:00 on the show. >> next the senate armed theices committee hear from senate armed services committee. this portion is one hour and 50 minutes. >> commander of the 202nd military police group. .aptain stephen coughlin

thank you. comment or destroyer squadron number two. colonel tracy king, u.s. marine corps, commander of combat logistics regiment 15. u.s. aireannie leavitt force commander of the fourth fighter wing. we welcome you all. we thank you for your service. i will call you in the order guess we stated. colonel martin, welcome. please limit your testimony to five minutes. distinguished members of the committee, inky for the

opportunity to testify. name is colonel donna martin. for the fast two years i commanded the 202nd military division. it provides world last protective services the european command, africa command, and central command. our mission is to protect and safeguard personnel and resources. i leave 13 installations. i have commanded military police units at the brigade levels. hasxperience and authority grown at each stage of command. as a company commander, i attended a first sergeant pre- command course.

between the advocate in the commander. this relationship is critical. it is built on mutual trust and respect. i have received instruction on military justice and i have relied upon my advocate as i have considered military justice actions. military justice becomes more complex. attended a senior officer legal orientation course at the army general school. armyquaint senior officers with the legal responsibility and issues commonly faced by installation commanders and by those assuming special court-martial convening authority.

i relied heavily on my past along with my judge advocate. i currently serve as the commander of the premier investigative unit in europe. if not only gives me the it doherty of commands but also exposes me to the crime trends throughout the unit. part of my mission is to educate and inform leaders of all levels of possible causes for crime trends and assist in the development of strategies to prevent further crimes. we have conducted over 100 briefings in europe, specifically oriented to a request. i have had the unique opportunity to build a special victims unit consisting of those sexual assault investigators in this echelon victims prosecutor who received additional specialized training.

the builds a report with victim and advises the commander so he or she can make an informed decision regarding education. attracts every allegation of sexual assault. arrow ande a professional investigation. contact withstant the commanders we support. my criminal investigators offer additional resources to combat sexual assault. including targeted crime analysis briefings. aimed at solidifying our commitment to providing the best possible investigative support so they can execute their authority. i have been educated in military justice at each stage of command. i have worked closely with

judge advocate at every step. it is of paramount importance that commanders are about to be the center of every formation. and disciplining those who do not. the commanders are responsible for all that happened. they set the standards. we enforce them. this provides me with all the tools i need to deal with misconduct in my unit from low- level offenses to the most serious including murder and rape. i should not relegate my responsibility to maintain discipline to a staff officer or someone else outside the chain of command. thank you for the opportunity to speak. i look for to answering your questions. good afternoon. thank you for allowing me to

provide information that may be useful about how we are responding to the crime of sexual assault. i'm serving on my third command assignments. . my squadron is comprised of eight destroyers consisting of just 2500 personnel. they deployed across the globe independently as components of a carrier group does. i have been a leader in a mixed gender environment throughout my career. we are all taught to recognize the individual of a sexual ,ssault prevention and response equal opportunity and other aspects of military law. training on the subjects.

particularly in sexual assault. by ahad legal counsel judge advocate. to seek advicee from any case i have handled. the use of the authorities enable me to set the tone and establish good order and discipline by quickly and visibly taking action in holding those accountable for misconduct and protecting those i am responsible to. i make sure all my commanding officers are trained in the use it as a tool for maintaining a squadron wide environment. this is a vital component to establish the conditions with a result of team cohesion and

trust up and down the chain of command. since the commander is responsible in every respect for the welfare of all personnel, there must be authorities in a place to take appropriate action for every disturbance that negatively affects his or her people. this will erode the ability to command by re-juicing his or her effectiveness. this could have directs or .dverse effects this is essential for fighting a ship. does result in the immediate removal of that commander. ththe process for victim reporting in the many avenues

available for sexual assault has encouraged more victims to come forward and receive the care and support they need. there are also new fleetwide areas. our current training efforts are not the typical death by powerpoint or block checking exercise of a meaningful engagement that is building trust. thank you for this opportunity to discuss the very important issue in our military. i look forward to your questions. i am honored and humbled this opportunity to address you you today on this critical issue. preventing sexual assault is my personal responsibility that i do not take lightly.

i had the honor of leading 3000 men and women. i have commanded marines and sailors as a regimental commander. my experience includes the middle and far east. received legal training on numerous occasions to andude a senior officer most recently the commander of last year. accountability begins and ends with me. this precludes adjudication of any misconduct. please allow me to be blunt. my job is to ensure that the regiment is ready to be played today. i cannot afford an environment

absent of that trust. thank you for the the hearing. i look forward to the opportunity. >> thank you for the invitation to join you today. for the past year it has been my .rivilege .ur mission is to eliminate within a matter of hours we can deploy precision combat air power anywhere in the world. i have been in the united states air force for more than 21 years.

i have been in more than 300 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 came 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. i am responsible to ensure our men are properly 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. i address airmen and reiterate 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 ensure any guilty people are 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. and 100% eradication of this 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. to be able to effect discipline

in my unit, i must have the tools to do that. it also sends 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. first of all, what impact would that have on the commanders authority and control over those under his or her command? let's start at the other end. >> yes, 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. >> 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 evidence supports the event 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. >> in my mind, it 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. you must build trust with those 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. that gives me credibility. >> thank you. >> i would agree with my colleague on the panel. having the ability to refer the court-martial is crucial. not only to the commanders 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 troops, and sending a message, that, for instance, the conduct at issue, sexual misconduct, what, will not be tolerated. would you be concerned that professional prosecutors without the responsibility of the commander, might actually be less likely to pursue court- martials in close cases?

>> yes, i think the commander is so in tune to discipline and setting standards inside their unit, that they would fiercely pursue 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. if we had a separate and 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. even if i 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. besides specific, i am really impressed with that. with all of your commands you have had, 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. one of the things, as i think 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. what happened was the officer was having an inappropriate relationship with a junior

member of the command. so, while it was not a sexual 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 to send a message to the victim, the junior enlisted member of that offense, 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. it affected 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. and the ability to act quickly by the commander, who will set the tone and establish those conditions. some of this information, to deal with it quickly is essential. >> senator, a resident sitting 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. it is not always precise but it works. they know. the deterrent value, the prevention of misconduct, is actually where i than most of my time.

i do not want it to occur so i set the conditions where it cannot flourish. that is most important and we need to be very cautious about changing that. creswell said. >> 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 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 responses 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. i referred people to general court-martials and saw some of my soldiers sent -- it is not a good day for either one of us. there is two or three issues i would like to explore. i say this, not rhetorically. how do you separate the chain of command from 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. the reality is that if something 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. just in practical 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. do you separate the individuals? do you transfer an individual outside of the company? will that be perceived as discriminatory or a retribution?

this is the reflection of someone who had to do this but not in the same context today. your comments about this issue? >> thank you. the answer i gave suits this 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 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 past years that show reporting 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. it is a 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 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 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 there to not dismiss that, and 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 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 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. i have no doubt, colonel, even without your knowledge, if you let an intoxicated pilot, he will be released. colonel, if an intoxicated supply sergeant drove a truck,

you would be relieved. you would let someone at the 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 commander's responsibility to 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. it is also in coordination with 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. the interview techniques we develop in the army, a technique where we use a lot of different questioning techniques, i think the word has spread. 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. >> they represent the special victims counsel. i would like to understand if you could give me more information about that. we have a bill that extends with 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 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 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 the case, who may want the

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. my vision of 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 prosecution, that is different than someone representing just their interest. i want to ask about the situation 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 conduct, or criminal rape types 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? 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. if there is contact between the person they are reporting to go is training them, there is 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? does that not create a potential 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? >> any form of contact that was 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. which is, obviously, messed up in that one case. i can only speak from my 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. 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. 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. >> no, ma'am, i have not. >> yes, ma'am. >> yes. >> has any of you referred a sexual assault case for a court martial when you're officer did not recommend it? >> yes, i have. >> colonel king? no. have you instead taken in article 15 and done a nonjudicial punishment? colonel martin?

>> no, senator. >> for sexual assault, ma'am? no, ma'am. >> the reason i ask this is there is a difference between discipline and punishment. i see article 15 and nonjudicial punishment. i appreciate the point senator reid was making with you on this regard. one of the issues here is removing the problem, versus punishing the felon. do you think any of you think there may be a tendency for commanders to see, i got enough over here, to go to a court- martial, 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? >> absolutely not. if i have a case of sexual 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 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. >> have any of you talked to 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 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 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. since january 2012, it has had six unrestricted cases. the only one that did not go to 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? i like it, when i was a 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 twice, 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. general franklin, when he felt 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 whether or not he crawled in bed with her and tried to have sex with her?

that was the 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. so, if you 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 step forward and admit that 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. i just want to make sure you all 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. >> 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. of the 3300 reported cases from last year alone, only one goes to trial. once it goes, we have a good conviction rate. why is it only one in 100 cases resulting in conviction? it is a serious issue with a victim's willingness to report. so, colonel, i recently learned of a disturbing case of jessica hynes. she reported she was raped by a coworker who broke into her room at 3:00 a.m. she said, the 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 is left in the chain of command. >> i am familiar with the case. it happened a few years ago. i have a little bit of summary information. i was not there and 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. when our new chief took command,

he quickly made this a huge emphasis item. it was clear. early november, i called and 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 assault or rape believe they have not been retaliated against, how will you instill the trust? >> you have to build the trust and that is what i have been working on. >> how long will that take? 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 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. in 2006, not a mile and a half from where we sit today, a lieutenant was attacked and raped by a superior officer. she immediately appealed to her supervisor. she has reported he said, "you are tough and you need to pick yourself up and dust yourself off. i cannot babysit you all the time." in this instance, not only was she attacked and not prosecuted, she was ultimately forced to leave the marine corps. her accused rapist remains in good standing. given these types of stories, from your commander, saying 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 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 have a positive command climate. my unit is unique in the marine corp. i have less than 3000 marines and 16% women. that is a lot, especially in the marine corp. 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. you said you looked at what was 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. i guess one of the reasons why a 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 with you, 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 act 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 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 -- >> 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, and i have asked, just how 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 result, not just in a -- >> i think that would go back to my role in the process, and, 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, though, and you do, that there is a lack of reporting. does that not reflect a lack of trust and credibility? >> 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 have even worse 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 attention to these victim recordings, which reflect, perhaps, a lower rate of reporting than other institutions. the fact of 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. i think you would agree, would you not, that deterrence is a very powerful thing, the fear of punishment? >> without question, senator. >> my time has expired. thank you for your service and dedication in dealing with the problem. thank you. >> thank you. senator donnelly. >> thank you for your service.

chairman and thank you all for your service. to follow 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. i don't think -- 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 make -- it reflects that a 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? >> i have had command schools. every time you go to a ship at a different level of leadership, you get through a pipeline. it all includes legal training. you actually do case studies and you have a handbook of resources available to you. >> how does that make you less of a commander to not have full responsibility for this? >> because that's my job, to be accountable for everything in this command. all forms of welfare for my crew. whether it is safe navigation, proper health care or pay problems or surviving crimes, et al. falls within the commanding officers ability.

>> what training do you give your sailors in regards to sexual assault? how do you get the message across that this is serious? >> we've instituted a new method of rolling out training. the fleet wide. these are targeted at small groups. it is video driven, there are case studies, there is participation. it is very interactive. it is facilitated by fleet 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 effective training was the 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 victimized. 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

or try to make the victim tell us specifically what happened all the time. we try to build the report with the and so it establishes a trust. to make them feel comfortable. >> are there classes given -- do they have a class on this 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 that you use. here is the way the army does it, here a step 1, 2, 3, 4?

you know, you tell them this is serious then they watched the movie been there done. is there anything more formal? >> we have taken dan training. it is about 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. i always been my chaplain with me. that is where we get another week of training. we have all teams training. he heard the comment -- during phase 1, he upped the ante. all were boxed to quantico.

i'd never heard about before. there was one subject. than making 60,000 nco's take a stand. >> so you feel ever confident that every marine from here to there has been a fully immersed in a culture. >> above 95% >> 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 proposal and ask you to be problem solvers would've to not talk

about what is being done. you are dealing with folks on the frontline 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 the dod survey showed that is 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 record, 65@say they have experienced -- 65% say they have experienced some form of based

on your experience in dealing with the people, what's the reason for the lack of reporting? what do you think can be done that will create a culture 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 leveraged in victims never 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? >> you must 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. she is get a visible in our wing. on ever markey on our base -- marquee on our base is do you need to talk to the sarc with

her number? we will take care of victims and they will hold them accountable. but the special victims counsel project may be one of the fears of reporting for the theater you could be ostracized from folks 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 rapid transfer of, that maybe i 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. if somebody comes in and makes a restricted complaint and then the victim who describes what happened gets more comfortable with what process will be, they 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. around 60% 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. i can only speak for my own experience. i've never stated chain of command retaliate and i have not

done anything else my entire adult life. >> the report is not just fear retaliation from any command. >> 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 there -- is the peer pressure against sexual assault or reporting? >> tell me what you are hearing and seeing.

there is a lot of peer pressure out there. these are young, strong images and men and women -- driven men and women. the bonding they go through to do that stuff -- the sense of belonging is very powerful. that character --it can have 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 misconduct.

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 conduct, -- this is unexeptional conduct and reporting is okay. it has to happen in and amongst the truths. >> 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.

we looked at a clip from the invisible war and talked about the climate and the culture. 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. >> i went from the trailer we 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's what really changed that culture. should retaliation be in the fence -- be a punishable

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.

>> i cannot -- there have been many cases were two sailors get 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 against, that should be in some way punishable. >> and other method -- the bystander intervention that is day focused on. and reward that. you're kind of attacking problem from the other end. more. what a great deal of discussion 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 your jag officer and if they 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] >> then he can taken to to the next higher commander. >> should it be an automatic composition. >> if they are in agreement. >> i would not have a problem with that at all. i thought that we did what you're describing. i 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 train so i'm a pretty weak. my experience with jag officers are they are not -- they see themselves as advocates for the values of the united states military and proper enforcement of the law.

do you think there's a lack of aggressiveness in that regard? >> my experience is that they are very aggressive, very plugged in. >> we have an african-american that had not cleared the course. we complained to the jag officer. he trilled -- grilled that colonel. they are independent and not afraid to take on difficult cases. are our captains, colonels, majors talking with their leadership team about this

problem and isn't being emphasized in any way. is it being discussed with them?

>> yes, sir. >> has that been emphasized more in recent months? >> since 2011, we have been aggressively addressing the problem and attacking it. the neighbors will have a stand down. we have rolled out fleet ride training. i can't think of many more things that are more focus on this now. >> you've already done that? >> yes, sir. >> mr.

chairman, i would add a letter of document your given to me. a picture here of a newsstand, there was sexual explicit magazines being sold. we live in the culture awash in

that committee. if not. based, it is right off a security have videos and it re- create some problems, i think. let me just say this --let's say you had a female soldier who felt she was assaulted by an 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- seniors 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. that has to be investigated. >> and they make a report to? >> it would come back to one of us. and he would take -- then you would convene a court-martial proceeding 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 investigate. and the person can be removed from the military, placed in jail or given others kind of discipline. >> 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 comes back with a verdict of not 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 certainly o problems. i do believe they are focused 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. >> thank you.

colonel, 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. these 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 -- against. i know general welch was 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.

he said it really gives the victim a voice. it empowers them and helps understand the process. it is been able to allow people who initially filed a restrictive the port, then they're willing to go to unrestricted report. >> how many current victims get access to special victims counsel? >> is that true in the other branches? >> 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. >> for 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 phases 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 victims, domestic shelters, all 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 it 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. >> icy the invisible war. i'm pleased some of you have actually witnessed it and using it.

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 military 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] at the 06 level of command? >> 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 to 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 tendency not to [indiscernible] but i think it will take continuous pressure and time. but it's a complex one. it's going to take some time. >> i think it's going to be a continuous process. in order to improve the

environment and ensure victims to fill couple. there's a big increase need for 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. >> we appreciate the service you 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 followed by a senate debate between democratic president. payday remarks from either cultural -- agricultural secretary fondle sack. an assistant secretary with the defense department will talk about u.s. policy in the middle east, africa, and europe. any reporter with modern healthcare looks at the impact on the toll's under the age of

26. our guest is michael with the rand corporation. collects in a famous passage in one of william faulkner's novels and he says for every southern 14 years old or older, it is still 1:00 in the afternoon on july 3, 1863. it is all on the line. in their imaginations they can victory time independence. in the minds of both northerner thesoutherners, this became mythic moments of victory and defeat. >> the 150th anniversary of the

battle of gettysburg live all day on sunday, june 30 on american history television on c-span3. >> now the house oversight committee examines irs spending after an inspector general's report that found they spent spent almost $50 million on 285 conferences. witnesses include irs official in charge of the small business division and j russell george, it the inspector general for tax administration. this portion is about one hour.

>> the committee will come to order. the oversight committee's mission statement is that we exist to secure two fundamental principles. first, americans have a right to know the money washington takes from them through the irs is well spent. second, americans deserve an efficient government that works for them. our duty on the oversight and government reform committee is to protect these rights. our solemn responsibility is to

hold government accountable to taxpayers because taxpayers have a right to know what they get from their government. it is our job to work tirelessly in partnership with citizen watchdogs to deliver the facts to the american people and bring genuine reform to the federal bureaucracy. today more than any other hearing, we revisit the kind of waste and the kind of failure to secure taxpayers hard on money hard earned money than i can remember in history. i was shocked when the gsa, the body that was supposed to be concerned about the entire federal bureaucracy having reasonable for dm's and spending

within limits, doing things improperly, determining what would be on a schedule and what it would cost. i was shocked when i found out they threw themselves parties. but to find out that not only does the irs take your money, not give you proper answers and then when it comes to tens of millions of dollars, use it in a way that is at best maliciously self indulgence, to spend more than you would have spent by normal negotiations for rooms is unthinkable for any agency but when it is the irs and they give to their own employees benefits such as local employees in anaheim then failed to file w- 2's for that income, the irs effectively was guilty of tax evasion. saying you don't know does not help you, does not give you an out as a taxpayer. it certainly should not give the irs and out when they are using taxpayers money. professional education is critical and the irs, more than any other organization needs to

be well trained, needs to understand not just the fundamental laws of the long history of rulemaking in federal cases that determine what you do or don't pay, but you are allowed to do or not to do. they need to be trained to treat the taxpayer as a customer and i better -- and not a debtor. that justifies when appropriate travel and business to the very companies and individuals from whom they receive the revenue that we in government spent. i want to say here and hopefully my ranking member will share this. we want the federal workforce to

feel that when they have justified travel, reasons to go and have meetings. reasons to use hotel rooms or conferences, that they do so. we don't want washington think to be no training, no travel, no interaction. just the opposite. we want to get this right. many will say $50 million over these many conferences is inherently wrong. i will say for the tens of

thousands of workers who could have received great training, whose tropical -- whose travel could have been meaningful but less expensive, they were forced out of meaningful training from the waist. the days when any of us could determine whether $50 million or $90 million was the right amount to spend but with the help of the inspector general, we know that much of it was misspent. that means the american people cannot not get a well-trained federal workforce. it means many federal workers who will look at this hearing aghast and say i don't get those perks. as a matter of fact, i would get fired if i took one of those perks. that the federal workers around the country should be appalled that there were two standards, one for some, and one for the rest. as taxpayers, we should be appalled that there are two standards, one for us, and a different one for people that work for the irs in some cases. i think it's important we understand that the reason we are holding this hearing, thanks to the inspector general's office, we have the facts just

now on a study be had for a long time. but it concerns 2010-2012, so it's not a new occurrence. many of these things may not be happening today. certainly the it ministration and congress have acted to reduce the budgets for some of these -- for some of this kind of effort but i think that's the most important reason to have a hearing. we want the culture to be spend it and spend it wisely. we want the culture to be, how can we get better training and better trained workforce and in many cases, the best way is good for the lowest price for what you need, don't kick back perks. those are not what the rank and file once. they want to be well-trained. i believe we are going to see a short video. these are once again for a reason. training videos are important. training material isn't worn. if you do training material, not only do you show it to your employees at conferences but you put it on the web. make sure they know about it. use it again and again. if what you have is entertainment, training through art, it's not reusable. it does not have that staying power. i want to make sure the loudest behavior you are to hear today does not happen again.

i think every federal worker wants to know there is a single standard. they live up to it and expect those they don't know about to live up to it. we often read that opening statement preamble about waste and whistleblowers. one of the problems we have in government is there aren't enough whistleblowers. this hearing is about specifically bending at these conferences and the waste. on everyone's mind is what the irs did out of cincinnati and dallas offices to taxpayers and organizations that want to comply and made application. those people should of been better trained to give answers quickly.

i think women look at over $3.2 million taking of a fund to hire people and instead was used for these lavish parties, it's pretty easy to see don't talk about budget tightness until until you tighten the budget were you can. there's no question you will see outrage on both sides. this is outrage that needs to be tempered. but the fact that on the second panel, we will have a new acting commissioner. this committee and other committees of congress need to work with the new commissioner so that he has the opportunity to straighten this organization out. yesterday he called me and we had a conversation. i don't normally share conversations with the conversation was important because it was the kind of a

first step that i think is about the transparency of utility what you are doing, most of them will never be spoken, it does not need to be spoken in public. for mr. cummings and myself from need to know know that the work is going the right way. that a culture that is gone wrong has been changed. in the culture that would see organizations accused for years without a whistleblower afford or that would see some of these conferences and not be as

outraged as we were is a culture that needs to change. for those who were outraged and those who are outraged today, i want everyone to understand for the vast majority of federal workers, this is not the norm. and for the rest of the federal workforce if it's a norm, it's time to blow the whistle and get it changed. i recognize the wrecking member for his opening statement. click thank you very much. i'm glad we are holding this hearing this morning. it is a very important hearing. i think we must pause and give credit where credit is due. to you, mr. chairman, and this entire committee, to mr. mica. i also serve on the test patient committee and he is chairman of that committee. he calls hearings and we all work together because back when the gsa kindle came up, we worked in a bipartisan manner -- gsa scandal came up, we worked in a bipartisan manner.

we have been able to straighten out gsa. but we did more than that. i think we sent a powerful message throughout the federal government that you cannot take the money of american workers and waste it. i paused this morning to applaud what we have already done. but as i always say, we can do better. and we will. today we are going to hold this hearing to examine excessive spending by the irs at a conference held in anaheim, california in 2010. i understand this conference occurred three years ago. i know many examples we will discuss today like the

ridiculous tartaric video. --ridiculous star trek video. i swear, i do not see the redeeming value. i was about 3:00 this morning watching it. i was trying to get to the redeeming value. could not get there. however, these factor not lessen my frustration and anger. of this utterly wasteful spending. take the star trek video. perhaps you can help us understand what it was. a parody of a television show

and what many people unfairly think about federal workers. let me pause here and thank the chairman for what you said about our federal workers. i'm a big defender of the workers. i think a lot of times they are criticized when they should not be and they get a raw deal. so i want to make sure that they understand and we understand this is not what we think of federal workers. every time i would watch these videos, i said to myself i'm a myself, this is appalling. but you know what really got me when i walked out the door to come to washington and to see my constituents who get the early

bus the ones that go down to the sheraton hotel in downtown baltimore and clean the floors, then. i thought about the man who came to me the other day because he just got a letter from the irs about an audit. and i believe he did not mind being audited him he was scared but he wanted to know he is in treated fairly and was to know the other day concentrated on truth and trust. today, i'm going to add to that take in the waste. what happens here and that when we have episodes like this, it has an impact on the average

person. i live in a blog where most people do not make $50,000 a year yet we can produce a video that has no redeeming value and spend tax payers hard earned dollars for that. then there was that line dance. i say we can do better. guess what question mark -- guess what? the money that was fed on that, that's my money. that's the lady who got that early bus this morning, that's her money. the one who $35,000, her. the gentleman up the street from me that makes 45 hauling trash.

so it was wasted. that $50,000 is a huge amount for families struggling to get by. that's more than many households making this country. this is only part of a broader problem. the inspector general's report finds that the irs spent approximately $48 million on conferences over the past re- fiscal year's. but the irs spent far more than that from 2007 2 2009. the irs at an astonishing $72 million on conferences. i know the scope of your inquiry was limited but it would be legislative malpractice if we do not bring mr. shulman and here to ask them to explain to us why from 2007 to 2008, the congress but it was

$39 and that it is more than doubled when we are going into a recession -- was $13 milion and that it is more than double the me are going into a recession. it would be malpractice if we don't figure out what happened there. if we are truly going to get the cause this, we have to understand what happened to cause something to double. i'm almost finished.

according to the irs spending data, the single largest increase in conference spending occur between 2007, 2008 by more than $15 million in a single year. this is simply unacceptable and unnecessary. it may be difficult to find any good news today but at least there are an indication that things are beginning to change. in 2011 after news broke about another wasteful conference held other general services and ministration in las vegas, the president issued an executive order that reduce travel and other expenditures across all federal agencies. i give you credit. a lot of the things have to do with what we did in this committee. in 2012, the office of management and budget directed agencies to reduce their travel expenditures by 30% below 2010 levels. it prohibited conferences over $550,000 without a waiver personally signed by the agency head. as a result, the inspector general's report explains the

irs has now cut spending on conferences by 87% since 2010. we did that. we should take credit for. i'm also very encouraged by the actions of the new head of the irs who was here would've today. mr. chairman, i agree with you. he is a breath of fresh air. he called me within hours of getting appointed and said one thing i will never forget. he said i will figure out what's going on among i will hold those responsible who are bad actors in the agency and he said i will restore trust in the irs.

he is already taken significant action to begin restoring the integrity and the irs and holding people accountable. he has a critical job ahead of him, one of the most damaging aspects of incidents like the irs conference in anaheim or the gsa conference and las vegas is that they hurt the reputation of all government workers who commit their lives to public service. it is a close, mr. chairman, i hope you will me in offering our committees the port committee's support. as a said at our last meeting on

the irs, we must dedicate ourselves to truth and trust. both goals rt three based on his actions today, mr. warfel is working to achieve them. -- both goals are key and based on his actions today, mr. warfel is working to achieve them. >> we now welcome our first township -- panel of witnesses, the honorable j russell george, the inspector general for tax ministration. mr. gregory kutz, assistant inspector general for exempt organizations. welcome back. we know you had a big part in this investigation. we also welcome mr. fink, commissioner of the small is this and self employed division at the irs. pursuant to the rules of the committee, but all three witnesses rise, raise your right hand to take the oath. do you solemnly swear or affirm the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the

truth? >> i do. like but the record reflect all witnesses -- >> let the record reflect all witnesses answered in the affirmative. there is one opening between the two of you, mr. george. thank you again for being here. i know we will rely on you for a number of questions. we appreciate that. i also appreciate the fact that you created a relationship with the acting commissioner that i believe is going to provide a great deal of transparency without redundancy by committees. i like to recognize -- george, do you want to make any comments first? >> yes. today's testimony highlights the

results of our audit, a virus confident running for 2010 through 2012 --our audit of the irs from 2010-2012. we received a specific allegation is excessive spending. overall, we found the irs spent an estimated $49 million for 225 conferences during this three- year period of our review. a conference in california was held at the marriott, hilton, sheraton hotels in anaheim in august of 2010 the cost of $4 million. the small business self employed division of the irs conducted this conference for an estimated 2600 executives and managers. is required at the time, the conference was a cute -- the conference was approved by the deputy commissioners of the irs.

we cannot validate the accuracy of the 44 $.1 million conference cost because the irs did not have effective controls to track and report those costs. the $.2 million of the conference costs were paid from unused funding originally intended for hiring enforcement employees. as that of using the required irs personnel whose job it is to search for the most cost effective location for the conference, the irs used to commercial plan is to identify a site for the conference. these planners were not on the contract -- with the irs and had no incentive to negotiate a favorable room rate. they were paid an estimated total of $133,000 in commissions based on the cost of the rooms paid by the rs. rather than negotiate a lower room rates, the planners requested 25 or more vip suite

upgrades with amenities and the hotel along with the reception, consummate drinks and daily breakfast and other refreshments. the agreement with the hotels indicated that a total of 132 suite upgrades were provided each night by the three hotels. for example, the commissioner and deputy commissioner for the small business division stated multiple mites -- state multiple nights and presidential suites at the hotels. other examples of questionable spending for the conference include planning trips costing $35,000, to video productions shown at the conference, local employees were authorized to stay at the hotel at an expense of $30,000. $44,000 in travel costs were incurred for employees. gifts and trinkets were given to irs employees costing $64,000.

$135,000 were expended for out hot -- outside speakers. one of them was paid $17,000. this speaker created 6 paintings at session. 2 were given away, 3 were auctioned off by charity and one was reported as lost. of the reviews were conducted of individuals related to the conference was focused on potential misconduct.

although the details of our actions are confidential pursuant to title 26 of the internal revenue code, we did refer an issue to the irs for consideration of the administrative action. overall, a review of this conference do not uncover any criminal violations. in conclusion, it is worth noting the irs conference sending -- spending dropped over the three-year period from $38 million to $59 -- to $5 million. due in large part to increased oversight and control instituted. we did make for the recommendation to tighten controls and the irises agreed to all of our recommendations. chairman issa, ranking members, thank you for the invitation to appear. >> thank you. mr. fink. >> i am the commissioner of the

small business self employed division at the irs. i appreciate the opportunity to appear here today. i worked for the irs for 32 years, starting as a grade seven worker in ohio. i became commissioner of this division inmate 2011. i'm proud to be a irs employee. my division has 24,000 employees and accounts for the majority of the 50 million dollars that the irs -- $50 billion the irs collects it enforcement each year. we train 26 hundred managers from across the country. we need to ensure they have the tools to lead employees and adapt a major changes occurring. at the time, this meeting, almost 30% of the managers were new or only have been managers

within a two-year period. another focus was employee safety. there have been an increase increase in the number security threats against employees. it is important to point out that we follow irs and government procedures that were in place at the time. the treasury inspector general's office --we are now in a different environment and there are new procedures in place. in hindsight, many of the expenses occurred should have been more closely scrutinized or not incurred at all. ever not the best use of taxpayer dollars. given the new procedures, we would not hold this same type of meeting today. mr. chairman i would be happy to answer any questions.

pre-k's any to announce for both the witnesses and folks that we expect both moan -- momentarily >> i want to announce to both the witnesses and folks that we expect to come back immediately after the last vote. as soon as myself or anyone gets to the chair, we will recommence so we can get the day underway. these may be the only votes of the day. i would also advise that you please return if at all possible if you don't have travel plans. but that i will recognize myself for first-round. >> as i show those, i want everyone to understand that these are suites that were upgrades. these are not uncommon for large conventions.

but we want to make clear is the allocation and how we pay for them is a big part of what the ig is aware of. i've been honored it when i was chairman of associations to stay in one of those. it was comped by the hotel after a large bidding on taking that had taken virtually every room in the hotel. the room rates were below what the irs paid in that hotel. to be good to the video question mark for some who have not seen it, i want to get into the record. this is a short clip.

it sets a tone. [laughter] [video clip] infusion. uninformed taxpayers. no strategic vision. anarchy is cutting across the planet like a virus. shall i cover my ears, captain? watchure many more will that and some will last. i will start with mr. think.

what were you thinking? this but never be seen -- and that this would be seen or how will it look when it is seen? asked mr. chairman, those videos at the time they were made were an attempt to use humor to open the conference. the dance video was used to close the conference. basedill not occur today upon all the guidelines that exist. there were not appropriate at that time either. theirct is, it's in thing.

i apologize. there is not a clear delineation of the cost of both the videos but they are in a nursing -- they are embarrassing regret the fact that they were made. lex it appears as though both in this and other cases, we cannot count on proper accounting of what money is bent on what. -- is spent on. if they simply bill it as travel and conference travel, then it will not be seen as conference travel. how are we to know and without receipts, how are we to know

these kinds of changes have occurred to where there is and auditable chain of where money was spent? >> mr. chairman, it is already been spoken that there have been many changes of the irs. one of the changes is around the tracking of expenses. for the particular conference in anaheim, we were only able to track 90% of the cost. there is a variety of reasons the other 10% were not tracked. because people do not use the tracking code in place. folks were on other travel, doing things of that nature. to not use the conference tracking code -- did not use the conference tracking code.

>> if i did it as a business and could not account for receipts, wouldn't your inspectors say disallowed? >> we take very seriously the role that we occupy and ensuring people have the appropriate business records. wes year, exactly provided, only have 90% of the information as far as the expenditures. life -- >> if i have local folks get hotel rooms and meals and so on and not issue a w-2, i made a fairly serious allegation. i could characterize it as tax evasion.

fei company did not do it in the employees, the law did not do it. essentially no accountability for this revenue to be taxed. what would you do in that case question mark -- in that case? >> you have to look at each situation case-by-case. in that particular situation, we would look at the individual fax that existed -- facts that existed. we now have issued the b-2's -- w-2's to local travelers. we had not appropriately accounted for all the local travelers. >> i guess i will characterize it to you. it was not in the tax year in which it was earned so that employees do not voluntarily file as far as we know. knowledgeable people about taxes do not take out to say i have to pay taxes on this. the employer did not issue the

required tax statements to itself. taxaracterized it as evasion because they cannot just be swept under the rug. these were knowledgeable parties on both sides. >> we found 7 people they did not identify that were local that actually travelled. >> for with event planners -- i have worked with event planners. there seems to be fed of hand -- a sleight-of-hand. the received a commission. more they spend, the more they receive. they got free rooms for familiarization trips and irs employees paid for rooms.

what i understand, that increase their commission. >> mostly upgrade rooms they paid the per diem rate for >> have you looked at comparables for other associations? i cannot find that there. i want to not cast any blame on various hotels. if somebody says this is what i want, it is not your job to make the dumb smart. like they couldn't potentiate -- negotiate the room rate down $135 -- >> they could have negotiated the runway down $135. -- the room rate down $135.

>> there was a mention of various food provided. irs employees received full per diem. you have a substantial amount of per diem returned as a result of their getting meals? you're not entitled to keep the per diem if you do not have to use it? rex -- >> all the employees and versatile cupful per game of $71 per day even though they received the continental breakfast. -- all the employees received the per diem of $71 per day even though they received continental breakfast. >> it treated a situation in which they got overpaid, basically? >> not technically. but from a taxpayer

perspective, the government pay them for breakfast and they got paid for breakfast at the same time. >> to report to identify any legal --the report raises concerns was how the irish shows anaheim as location for the conference. it questions the use of nongovernment event letters. --e vent planners. the report states the use of the planners in the process increased the possibility that the site selection do not result in the lowest cost to the government. is that right? if that is correct. >> mr.

you, i'm pleased that apologize. that is a major step. it's important to the american people, that they know somebody feels about this. but let me turn to this. the committee obtained documents from the hotel that hosted a conference in anaheim. one e-mail is between two marriott hotel employees. i want to read it to you and get your response. it says --" orlando him a status -- orland and las vegas are out. this is fantastic news! orlando was $1 million less. the funding is there and they have been instructed to move forward."

this email sounds like the hotel employees were mocking you and maybe taking advantage of the irs. it says he could have saved $1 million by holding this conference in orlando. i have no idea if these hotel employees knew what they were talking about or just theorizing. let me ask you since you were the man in charge, how did you choose anaheim for this conference? did you look at other locations? were any of those locations less expensive? >> first off, i am not familiar with e-mail. i will tell you what i know was done at the time. we use a travel estimator. it was used by them and planning the meetings. we looked at over 20 different locations.

we came up with three locations that could handle this size of conference, that would be able to be logistically noncurrent additional costs, so we looked at those types of things that were in addition to travel estimator. it was over 20 different locations. we had to look at and make sure that we were not going to occur -- incur more expenses. it was a matter of logistics we came up with the final city. >> you said during this hearing that this were to take place today, it will be different. how would it be different? >> it would be different because represented cummings -- it would not occur under the restrictions. >> there were 150 two

conferences. and 87% decrease thanks to the committee. do you think that was a good thing? >> absolutely. >> by d.c. they? >> the reason i feel was a good thing is to show we had increased our scrutiny. that we were paying more attention to how we were using a taxpayer money, and that we were taking a harder look as to what was the necessary training individuals were receiving. >> did event planners give you a cost-benefit comparison of the various locations for the irs chose which to use? >> i have had no interaction with event planners. i do not know if they gave an assessment. we chose the cities as far as looking in which cities would be appropriate, and we may the

final decision about where to hold the conference. >> i would like to ask you about the room upgrades. as i understand, 142 hotels were rented that week. that is right. thatreport is not saying the irs paid $1500 a night for these rooms. i guess they would normally go for. your poor is saying that instead of accepting these room upgrades, the irs should've negotiated a lower prices for all the rooms, or for the whole conference. >> that is correct. >> my final question, why did you do that? >> i was not aware that we had the ability to do that. as of today, i'm not sure that we could have done that. i do believe that we did pay the $135 per diem rate.

in paying that, there were additional items that were included by the hotels to use during the conference. >> thank you. >> i wheeled myself or questions. we do have the vote going on. we probably have 4-5 minutes left. let me start out with mr. georgia. your report indicated that hundred 35 housing dollars -- $135,000 was spent on speakers for the event. was there any similar experience in spending the amount of money for a conference that you are aware of? >> i'm in the course of conducting this, we did not conduct previous conferences to

this one. >> mr. cummings talked about efforts to rein in gsa. we had conducted reviews of operations and found that they spent, not even a million dollars on a conference. outrageous spending was the determine. thise you familiar with guy? this is the gsa official in the hot tub. have you ever seen that picture? >> i have seen a picture. >> i wondered if that was any motivation for the dramatic change in your spending. congress held these hearings come a which we participated in. but they -- the famous guy and the hot tub gave more egregious spending under control. this effect to it all? >> the new guidelines that were

put into place, the new restrictions on travel, and on spending for training and things of that nature, that was handled primarily by the operations support side. lex did you approve expenditures of four -- did you approve expenditures approved for the $4 million conference in anaheim? >> yes or. >> afterwards, i understand you were promoted. >> i became a commission at the conference. >> i understand they got bonuses. is that correct? >> they were six bodices -- there were six bonuses that were paid. >> for performance, yes sir. theid you -- are you where

money they spent on this particular enterprise that paid $17,000, with his individual that is some sort of art expert, and produced drawings, paintings. >> i saw the in the report, i attended that session. >> you did. do you think that was a proper expenditure of taxpayer dollars? >> for what we're trying to do at that time, and based upon his expertise, the way he communicates, and the message he delivers through his presentation, i was surprised -- >> i surprise they got less than $500 for charity. one is missing. maybe we should offer a reward. you do not know where the missing painting is, do you? >> absolutely not. >> these are the famous $20,000 drumsticks that were used in the las vegas conference.

taken to a new level, now i see in your report, you have sporting fish as part of $64,000. did you see anyone with a sporting fish? >> no, i did not. >> maybe i can offer a reward. i'm sure that some of the taxpayers, the people who went to work out of baltimore or my district in central florida would love to know that the federal government has spent $64,000 on sporting fish for federal employees. is that an them -- is an appropriate use of funds question >> there were expenses

that were incurred at the conference for that conference that were absolutely inappropriate. that would be one of those. wastefuls has taken spending to an absolutely incredible level. it has to be dismayed. the people who are spending hard earned dollars to give the irs every week, quarterly, to find out their money is spent. i think all of the $135,000 was spent on speakers. is that correct question request that is my understanding. >> our goal is to hold people accountable. i understand some people have been suspended.

we understand some people have got bonuses like yourself. we understand that the system has been corrected to a degree because of congress bringing these items to the attention of the congress of the american people. with that, we will have to reassess. -- recess. we will return. the committee is in recess. >> thank you. >> tomorrow the alliance on health reform will hold a forum. tomorrow, a discussion and the house.

from the new america foundation, that is live at of 3:00 p.m. eastern on our current -- companion network, c-span 3 asi realize it is not dramatic as the pursuit of war. theuently, the laws of pursuers fall on deaf ears. we have no more urgent task. some say that it is useless to speak of peace or world laws for world disarmament. and that it will be useless until the leaders of the soviet union adopt a more enlightened attitude. i believe we can help them do it. ownust treat them our attitudes as individuals and as a nation. as attitude is as essential the years. as a graduate of the school, of

the thoughtful citizen who despairs of war and wishes to bring peace should begin by looking inward. >> tom brokaw and nick clooney reflect on the kennedy presidency and his peace speech on american history t v on c- span 3. holderrney general eric to find on the justice department's 2014 budget request. also discussed the seizure of associated press phone records and the ira's targeting conservative groups. this is one hour and 10 minutes.

>> the commerce and justice subcommittee will now come to order. we will take the testimony of the attorney general of the united states. the committee wishes to welcome the attorney general, and we know he will be testifying on the department of justice's budgets, its priorities for fiscal year 2014, and also the impact of sequester this year and next year in terms of the impact of the department of justice, its mission, because of its impact on its employees. we will be listening to the doj inspector general testifying for the first time about oversight in terms of management issues. we are doing this -- every one

of our hearings -- we invite the inspector general to come so we have a better sense of not only how this department spends money, but how we can be a more efficient and get value for our dollar. today we will discuss how the department of justice's 2014 budget strengthens national security and counterterrorism, protects the safety and security of the rights of citizens, and how the department ensures it uses taxpayer money wisely. justicertment of enforces and defends the interests of the united states, our safety against threats,

foreign and domestic, and providing leadership in controlling crimes and assuring fair administration of the justice of all americans. that is a lot that we ask a lot of the department of justice, employing more than 115,000 employees. 26,000 of them are federal agents, the fbi, dea, u.s. marshals, atf. they have roughly over 20,000 prison guards and nearly 10,000 prosecutors, investigators, and legal experts. we get a lot for what we do. the u.s. marshals have arrested over 12,000 sex offenders, sex predators being taken off the streets because of the aggressive work of our marshals. dea put 3000 drug trafficking organizations out of business. the fbi dismantled 409 criminal enterprises. the u.s. attorneys collected $13 billion in criminal and civil penalties after the bad guys. they are the guardians of our justice system, and we want to make sure we let them know we value them. mr. attorney general, when we

get ready to turn to you, for all those people that work at justice, administering justice, we want to say thank you. in maryland we have many agencies with many wonderful accomplishments, and i will put those into the record. we ask a lot of the department of justice, and as we look at this year's budget, we know that the department of justice has got a request from the president of $27.6 billion. we also know that in fiscal 2013, we enacted $26.8 billion, but then we faced the sequester, we took the entire funding down by almost $1.5 billion. those are numbers that must have had a tremendous impact, are going to look

forward. we look for community security, national security, oversight, and accountability. we know your highlights we know there have been limited and targeted increases in gun violence, requesting $1.4 billion, $379 million over the 2013 request to keep home schools and community safe. i like that we want to help states improve the quality of criminal records and also mental health records. allow schools to hire school safety personnel and train local police on how to respond to these threatening incidents. while we are looking out -- [indiscernible] is our threat to

cybersecurity. in the last month doj has charged cyber criminals. why rob a bank when you can do an atm heist? there is a growing nexus between organized crime and nation- states. our nation faces a digital pearl harbor. we know the justice department is requesting $668 million for fbi agents, computer scientists, federal prosecutors for the issue of cybersecurity, and we look forward to working with you about that. there are many issues facing the budget. on of the biggest stresses the budget is federal prisons. the bureau of prisons request is close to $7 billion. we have added 32 new inmates for a total of 224,000 people in federal prisons. 224,000 people are in our federal prisons. that is a stunning number, and it requires a lot of protection. we are concerned about keeping the bad guys off the street.

we need to deal with the present situation and also look out for the safety of our prison guards. we want to strengthen national security, and we will be talking about that as we move along, but we also know that for state and local law enforcement this is an area of great concern because we know the department of justice, the fbi [indiscernible] the way our u.s. attorneys work, it is through state and local. there is a request of $2.3 billion in grants. we look forward to hearing more about that. we look forward to hearing from you in terms of how we can achieve both savings and we want to have a safer country, we

need to have a smarter government in terms of how we use our resources, and yet at the same time, we want to protect all american people. i would like to turn now to senator shelby. >> thank you, madam chairman. today we will hear from the attorney general of the united states, attorney general holder, about the department of justice and its 2014 budget request. we will also hear from the inspector general michael horowitz, who has taken a very active oversight role within the department, as he should. momenti want to take a to recognize the men and women of the department of justice who protect this country from crime and terrorism. they work hard to keep us safe in this country, and for that i think we all owe them a debt of gratitude. the 2014 budget request for the department of justice totals $28.4 billion. that increase comes largely in

the form of funding for new gun control measures, while the majority of law enforcement accounts basically remain flat. the budget also proposes a number of gimmicks to find additional so-called savings within the department. i believe this approach is misguided and look forward to working with chairman mikulski to put the department boss is on the right track in the 2014 process. the budget also proposes to remove language that prohibits the transfer of gitmo detainees to u.s. soil. ais provision received broad partisan support last year come, and i am troubled by the administration's recommendation it be removed.

the proposal is particularly disconcerting in light of the president's renewed declaration on guantanamo bay. the president has made no specific proposal for dealing with the current detainees. the president has not even attempted to remove those detainees his own administration has determined to their owned home country. the proposal leads me to believe that the president is planning to move the gitmo detainees here to the united states. why else would the budget delete the transfer language? either this is a real proposal or it is a political posturing. in my view political posturing is unnecessary and detrimental to any real discussion about terrorist detainees. i am also adamantly opposed to moving any terrorist detainees to the u.s., and i believe many of my colleagues would agree with me.

such a move would necessarily place americans in harm's way. they are dangerous individuals and need to be isolated. gitmo revived this isolation. having been chairman, i would be remiss if i did not mention the controversy that has engulfed the department and the attorney general in recent weeks. these issues have cast a shadow of doubt upon the attorney general. he is the chief law enforcement officer of the federal government. as head of the department of justice, it is his responsibility to ensure that the laws are enforced and the interests of the united states are defended. the controversy that has embroiled the department has called into question its ability to fairly administer law and justice. further, the questionable actions of the attorney general

have diminished the integrity, impartiality, and efficacy of the position of attorney general. i believe it is the responsibility of this committee to provide the resources necessary to ensure that the department of justice can efficiently and effectively enforce the laws, protect our citizens, and administer justice. similarly, it is the responsibility of the department of justice, headed by the attorney general, to ensure it carries out its duties and that it is responsible and responsive to the citizens of the united states and that it operates with and tolerates no less than the highest degree of honesty and integrity. unfortunately, i believe until these issues are resolved and the controversy surrounding the justice department and the attorney general's office is laid to rest, a hue of distrust will hover over the department. it is my hope that you will move swiftly to address these issues that have been raised by me and others to put this

controversy to rest in a full and open manner so that the department which is so important and get back to focusing on issues central to its mission. thank you, madam chairman. >> mr. attorney general? >> i appreciate the opportunity to discuss this and provide an overview. colleagues, employees serving in offices around the world, the department has made tremendous progress in protecting the safety and rights of the american people. nowhere is this clearer than in our work with regard to ensuring america's national security. since 2009, we have brought cases of security breaches and obtained sentences against scores of dangerous people are relying on our tested federal

article 3 civilian court systems. we have identified, investigated, and disrupted plots of terrorist organizations as well as by homegrown terrorists. we will continue to remain vigilant to emerging threats newtake these efforts to a level, with the president's budget request for vital national security programs and to respond to events like the horrific terrorist attacks on the boston marathon. investigateue to this matter, i want to assure you and the american people are my colleagues and i determined to hold accountable to the full extent of the law those who bore responsibility for this heinous act and all who threaten our people or who

attempt to terrorize our cities. while the department of justice must not waiver in its determination, we must be just as physical in our protection of the sacred rights we are equally obligated to protect, including the freedom of the press. in order to ensure the appropriate balance, i have launched a review of existing justice department guidelines governing investigations that involve reporters. last week i convened the first of meetings with representatives of news organizations, agencies, and groups to discuss the need to strike this important balance, to ensure robust first amendment protections, and to foster a constructive dialogue. i appreciate the opportunity to engage members of the media and national security professionals in this effort to improve our guidelines, policies, and processes, and will renew the important conversations that

are as old as the republic itself about how to balance our security and our dearest civil liberties. as part of the conversation, let me make at least two things clear. first, the department's goal in investigating leak cases is to identify and prosecute government officials who jeopardize national security by violating their oaths, not to target members of the press or to discourage them from carrying out their vital work. second, the department has not prosecuted in as long as i have had the privilege of serving as attorney general and will not prosecute any reporter for doing his or her job. with these guiding principles in mind, we are updating our in general guidelines to ensure that in every case the department's actions are clear and consistent with their most sacred values, and to the extent there's a problem, i think it is with our guidelines and with our regulations and not with the people of the justice department who have been involved in these matters. this conversation is not static, and it seldom results in

easy consensus, and it is often difficult and emotionally charged, and it requires all parties to approach these delicate issues in good faith so that today's leaders and concerned citizens from all walks of life can come together as our predecessors have done to secure freedoms, ensure the safety of our citizens, and to update and refine key protections in a way that is commensurate with the challenges and technologies of a new century and consistent with our most treasured values. my colleagues and i remain committed to working with congress for preventing and reducing gun violence. the president's budget requests supports these efforts and

allows us to keep our promise to the families and communities of those senselessly murdered at sandy hook elementary school and in countless other acts of gun violence throughout the nation. we will continue to advocate for comprehensive immigration reform and strive to improve our broken immigration system in a way that is fair, that will guarantee all are playing by the same rules, and requires responsibility from everyone, including those who are here in an undocumented status and employers who would attempt to exploit them. i am encouraged by these principles that are reflected in proposals that are currently under consideration by the senate. i look forward to working with leaders of both chambers of congress to strengthen, pass, and implement as possible reform legislation. the justice department will continue to move aggressively and appropriately to enforce existing immigration law to safeguard the most vulnerable members of our society, to ensure the fairness and integrity of our financial markets, protect the

environment, and to invest in strategies for becoming both smarter and tougher on crime. i think we can be proud of the progress that the department has made in each of these areas in recent years, and i am encouraged to note the budget request includes the resources that we will need to continue this important work, including an additional $25 million for the office for immigration to augment staffing and to improve the efficiency of our immigration courts, $2.3 billion for state and local and tribal assistance grants with a focus on funding evidence-based programs to combat fraud, and toadditional $92 million address cyber security needs and to expand on the historic achievements of the civil rights division in addressing bias, intimidation, and discrimination. our ability to continue this progress has been negatively impacted by sequestration which cut over $1.6 billion from the budget from the current fiscal year. earlier this year, the help of this subcommittee, i provided $150 million to the department

of prisons to mitigate the effects of the untenable reductions and avoid furloughs of correctional staff each day from federal prisons around the country. in april, with your support and using similar authorities, i provided necessary funding to the fbi, u.s. marshal service, atf, and u.s. attorneys and other components to prevent furloughs and maintain adequate operations. i want to thank the subcommittee for your full and immediate support of these actions. it could not have occurred without your assistance. i must stress these and similar solutions will no longer be available to alleviate fiscal year 2014 shortfalls due to joint committee reductions if they persist. i will work with the subcommittee and the congress to

prevent this from occurring and to secure the timeliness of the budget request, which provides a total of $27.6 billion for the justice department. that level of support will be essential in ensuring my colleagues and i have the resources we need to fulfill our critical duties. i want to thank you again for the chance to discuss this work for you today, and i will be glad to answer any questions you might have. thank you. >> thank you. we will go to the 5-minute rule, and i will stick to it as well, and we will do it, senator shelby, with the arrival of everybody. there are many questions to be asked because justice has such scope and incredible mission. i want to ask my first question related to what i consider an explosive situation. that is the federal prisons.

i am concerned about the rising population, the fact that prison overcrowding, the fact that right now literally the federal prison budget is making up 25% of the entire department of justice budget, and that it keeps increasing year after year. the competency of the u.s. attorneys' offices, we are getting convictions of bad people. that is the good part. the other part is we have 224,000 people in prison. i worry about the safety of the guards and i know you do, too, mr. attorney general. we are in some ways a fiscally unsustainable path here, and i want to ask first of all, do you feel your request of $6.9 billion, which is again 25% of your budget request, adequate to meet the needs of meeting the ethical standards in the care of prisoners and at the same time protecting our guards, and then do you have thoughts on how we can reduce the prison population without increasing risk to our american people?

we worry about gitmo, and it is a big issue, but i have worried about what is going on in our federal prisons here. i have a top-notch one in maryland, in cumberland, as you know, which i visited. can we hear your thoughts, sir? >> i share your concerns. willoney we requested support and allow us to run the system in an appropriate way. it includes finalizing the activation of two new facilities, one in new hampshire, one in alabama, and bringing on the activation for three other institutions which will increase our capacity. it also adds 2087 new including 956 correctional officers. there we have a life-and-death issue.

sufficienthave numbers of correctional officers to ensure that we have adequate numbers of people who can be deployed, not only to maintain order, but to protect their fellow officers. i'm confident at this level that we have a sufficient amount of money to bring on that additional capacity and the additional officers. >> that is heartening to hear because we have legal and ethical standards in the care of prisoners. of the population of 224,000 prisoners, how many of those are repeat offenders and the recidivism rate? >> the recidivism rates runs at about between 25% and 40%, slightly lower in the federal system than in the state system. one of the things we need to do

is focus resources on reentry programs and rehabilitation programs while we have people in prisons so we make more effective our efforts at reducing that recidivism rate. >> you have a lot on your plate, and now we are going to have the immigration bill, and we will have to implement. i want to come back to this because i want to keep america's streets safe. at the same time, the administration of justice is now going to be ever increasing. we cannot build our way out of prisons. lawn, i am for vigorous enforcement and tough prosecution, but what i am asking you is, do you have within your establishment, within your justice department, a management mechanism to look

at how we can reduce recidivism? what are the other tools and techniques where we can begin looking at stabilizing or reducing the population without increasing risk to our american people on the streets? because it could go 25%, to 30%. we have other things to do with the justice department. >> the point you make is good. we not only have to focus on how we manage the existing system we have and those who are incarcerated, but need to focus on prevention activities as well so we reduce the number of people who are coming into the system. in that regard our office of juvenile justice and dealing with the office of justice programs, we have a variety of things we do -- >> i want a plan, and let's look at the prisoner as a prisoner, that they have done bad things and so bad that they are in a federal prison. and i look at this continuum, which is really a vicious circle. what then do we need to be

funding for the prevention programs, and then once they leave -- and what happens when they are in our care and custody and that begins to change them there for when they hit the streets again so they are not hitting up our people against back in the same prisons? what are those programs so when we do have funding, we are not only funding the prisons, but we are funding continuum of services to prevent people from becoming at this dead end and then what are some of the other programs you need to do? we need to look at this. the scope of the committee is such that we need your advice on what it should become a what those levels should be, so we begin to tackle this. it is both a humanitarian concern, a public safety concern on our streets.

a mutual dear friend of ours has spoken of not the cradle-to- grave, but the cradle-to-prison cycle. this committee wants to be a partner with you on a bipartisan basis to begin to break that, and you know you are in the neighborhoods like me, where we are now spending more to keep a person in prison than we are sending them to school or to higher education. let's look at that continuum and work together on it. >> i think the way in which you have stated it is right. we want to work on prevention, rehabilitation while people are in prison, and we want to deal with reentry. we also need to ask ourselves tough questions about the enforcement priorities that we have in the department and the way in which we have enforced our laws and the collateral consequences of some of those enforcement activities. i will make proposals later in the year about rethinking the ways in which we are conducting our criminal justice system prosecutorial efforts. >> thank you, madam chairman. mr. attorney general, the department as we all know has been mired in a controversy of

late. it began with reports of an overbroad collection of telephone collections of 20 a.p. reporters and editors, was followed by revelations of the department-led espionage investigation of a fox news reporter, and culminated with your testimony before the judiciary committee. these issues have led some members of congress and the public to question the department's adherence to the rule of law and your ability as the attorney general to lead. these controversies have become i believe a significant distraction for this department and have led to calls for an investigation into your actions and the actions of your department. others have called for your resignation.

i hope you would agree that leading the department of justice is a full-time job. i think you would also agree that these controversies have become a distraction for the department and for you as a leader. i hope you would agree that the american people deserve an attorney general who is completely focused on the fair and impartial administration of the justice and not distracted by controversies of his own making. i have observed over the years that effective leaders from time to time subject themselves to staff evaluation processes in hopes of improving their performance. how would you evaluate your performance to date and is there any room for improvement? have you or will you take actions to remove the beyond this controversy and ensure that similar missteps in the cloud there?t continue >> i want to assure you and the american people that in spite of the recent controversies

that you mentioned the department is fully engaged in the work of protecting the american people and all the ways that are unique to the department. i want to ensure the american people that i am engaged in that regard. i go through a self-evaluation process on a daily basis. i have not done a perfect job. i have done a good job, but i am trying to do better. some of the criticism that has been labeled or thrown at me and the department has caused us to rethink the way in which we will deal with these media inquiries, and we will make changes, and that is why we are engaged in a process with groups so we can formulate new policies, regulations, and hopefully that is behind us. >> i believe and i hope you would agree with me that the american people need to know that the administration of justice, headed by the attorney

general, is in the hands of a dispassionate and capable leader, and whether you will continue to be the chief law- enforcement officer of the federal government, the attorney general, is either a decision for you or the president to make. i understand that. i am interested to know what criteria you will use to determine whether you can continue to lead the department. what is the tipping point here? thisou going to clear up controversy, or is it going to hover over us in the justice department, which is very important to the american people? >> the tipping point might be fatigue. beyond that, the tipping point -- there are certain goals i set for myself and for this department when i started back in 2009. when i get to a point when i think i have accomplished all the goals that i have set, i will sit down with the president and we will talk about attorneyion to a new

general. change is frequently a good thing for an organization, a new perspective. i am not a person -- this has been the honor of my professional life as attorney general, but i also have such respect for the department of justice and i want to make sure that it operates at peak efficiency and that new ideas are constantly being explored. i am proud of the work that i've done, the men and women of this department have done under leadership, and when the time comes for me to step aside i will do so. integrity belief in of the attorney general and the justice department is central to the well-being of this country, is it not? >> it certainly is. >> thank you. >> senator feinstein? >> thank you very much, madam chairman. i would like to sue police say that i believe in your

integrity. i believe that you are a good attorney general. i think you have had undue problems that are hard to anticipate. you have responded the best way you possibly could, and i want to say that, because candidly i do not like to see this hearing used to berate you. let me ask you this question. i chair the senate caucus on international drug control, and we issue a series of reports, and we have just issued one on money laundering. and what has come to my attention is that there is substantial failure of some united states banks to comply with anti-money-laundering laws, which fueled drug-related violence in mexico. millionowed over $670 in wire transfers, and over $9.4 billion in fiscal money to enter the united states from mexico unmonitored.

of that money we know at least $881 million in mexican drug proceeds answered the united states illegally. on december 11, 2012, hsbc entered into an agreement with the justice department and paid $1.92 billion in fines. similarly in 2010, wachovia agreed to pay money which, after enabling at least $110 million in mexican drug money to enter the united states. $1.9 billion in fines is a huge fine. the question i have of you is, do you believe these fines are going to change what has been current practice and, i suspect, that there are other banks doing this same thing? this is an enormous gap in our infrastructure.

could you comment on that? >> the concern you raise is a good one. ourre being aggressive in efforts. we have come up with robust financial penalties, but we can never get to a situation or this is seen as the cost of business, where a bank can simply pay a huge amount of money, and think that is the fromt can absolve itself wrongdoing. we have put in place as part of these agreements compliance measures, ensuring remediation, effect reform, imposing minor trades to make sure these kinds of things should not happen again. these sanctions we put in place go well beyond what a judge would be able to do if this were decided in a courtroom in your traditional setting. it is not to say he should not hold corporations criminally libel and i think wherever we possibly can old individuals liable for this kind of activity. >> this is the recommendation of our drug caucus, that individuals begin to be held responsible for money-

laundering, when it is overt. i thank you for that response. >> this is the recommendation of our drug caucus, that individuals begin to be held responsible for money- laundering, when it is overt. i thank you for that response. there was an oig report on atf's gun dealer inspection program that mr. horowitz is going to