at no cost to the victim at that point? >> it's usually at no cost. it's really accessing the service. >> i just want to put this into context. 45% of people who have been previously sexually assaulted are revictimized. his is a number. a huge percentage. we don't know how these people should be identified. some will self-identify and come forward, but maybe they are ways of encouraging other people to do that so we ask the secretary and c.d.c. and others that are knowledgeable about that is how to encourage people to come forward or maybe it would be at some point mandatory.

i don't know. we haven't taken any position about that. i'm not sure entirely that people really understand the whole -- this phenomenon scientifically. and what the treatments are. that is also part of this. to encourage the scientific community, the medical community and the military to focus on this problem. if you can deal with the 45% who are likely to be revictimized, you would be reducing the incidents in the military in a big way. we didn't know quite enough to make a totally free recommendation on that point but this problem has to be addressed. the c.d.c. is the gold standard on public health issues and to develop an approach. >> the only change i would like on the recommendation is to change one word.

to consult, to expand services. this way they have got the option and maybe they will report some place else. >> not only to expand, but to develop ssts too. this has been ignored and it is just a way of -- what are we going to do about this? if we can reduce this number, it would have a major impact. >> just a comment that the education and training that is already happening that is of value to all members of the service will be of value to members of the service that are critical to the units they are working within. trying to -- i just want to be careful that we don't -- to focus on revictimizeation to an extent that actually makes it more difficult. i think the rising tied of

education and understanding over-- tide of education and understanding -- people coming forward to get services may not entail economic costs but other costs they have to bear. it is a mistake to push too far in the direction towards targeting this subgroup as needing something different than what the rest of us, the force needs overall. >> so are you objecting to the notion that there might be strategies developed? >> i have no objection to the recommendation. >> you don't? fair enough. any other comment? all right then. 3 is accepted. the next few recommendations go to culture and so i want to say that your going to hear to the

extent not already going on in the military, these are things that we heard in testimony that we wanted to highlight in our findings and recommendations that there may be some of this already going on but it was important to us to bring it up and highlight it for purposes of the report. the first is retaliation and harassment training. we have heard many times that harassment by your peers is often why folks don't come forward and report. so what we're asking here to the extent that it is not already occurring to develop training for all members of the military including new recruits response to an allegation of sexual assault violate good order and discipline. >> no comment.

i guess my only thought here is i think it is occurring but maybe we don't know that for sure so i guess there is no harm. >> that's what we thought too. we thought it was occurring but we wanted to make sure because that was the testimony we have heard over and over again. it was the peers that were creating the problem. for not coming forward. >> any other comments? >> yes. judge jones, the wording of this one and the next one, we could adopt a convention of the secretary continue to develop and implement training which serves the purpose to have ubcommittee's goal rather than

the contingent phrase. >> i would agree with that. so it should say should continue. in each of those two. can we accept recommendation? it seems everyone is in agreement. it will read the secretary of defense should continue to and now may we hear from you on 15? >> absolutely. this is similar. again, you're going to have to minus the contingent phrase. this is again making explicit that superiors cannot sexually harass and obviously not sexual -- sexually assault, yet there is still the perception that if it comes, we heard the testimony from victims, if it is a superior that is harassing them, a lot of times they fear reporting or they don't even know that they should report. so what we have here to the extent not already occurring, the secretary of defense implement training for all members of the military including new recruits explaining that implicit or explicit demands for

sex from commanders or superiors are not lawful orders. should not be obeyed and they violate the code of military onduct and will be punished. >> all right. that's accepted then the secretary of defense should continue to develop language. all right. 16? >> the next recommendation again is similar. this goes to reporting is not a bad thing. you are not a bad person. you are not a snitch if you report. it is important for unit cohesion. so this one reads to the extent it is not already occurring, the secretary of defense develop and implement training for all members of the military including new recruits is essential for good order and discipline. and protects rather than

undermines morale. any comments? >> the only comment that i would offer is i agree to include it. it should be a come opponent of the training. make sure as -- it should be not singled out as the only point. you should report it. you should let the process work and trust the justice system. let it get investigated. let them determine what happened. don't preconceive that the person accused is guilty. there is still the presumption f innocence. let the process work and include as part of a process of education. this is a justice system. we want to make sure we have a good climate within the command. >> colonel, are you proposing ome additional language? i understand it as a comment that certainly makes sense in this context. >> back to the same language

just suggested. the secretary of defense continue to develop and implement training for all military members including new recruits. it is also essential for good order and discipline that we allow the investigative process and the military justice system to work. i want it reported but not singled out that they should just automatically believe or ostracize against a person whom allegations have been made. >> any reaction to that? all right. >> recommendation 17. >> we'll work on that one then. >> thank you. >> otherwise accepted. >> it goes to the fact that we had testimony regarding male

victims that said oftentimes because the victimization of males takes part as a hazing ritual people are not identifying it as a sexual assault and a true victimization. we really felt there needed to be additional training for men bout what it meant to be a victim and to recognize it and then to report. what we have here is to the extent it is not already occurring, the secretary of defense develop and implement training with examples of male on male sexual assault including hazing by groups of men. the training should emphasize the psychological damage done by sexual assault against male victims. any comments? all right.

17 is accepted. > 18 we did yesterday. i believe that ends our victims' services section of our report. 19, sorry. did i skip 19? k. this is the career repercussions. pardon me. this is our recommendation dealing with career repercussion and we may want to insert the mental health recommendation in this one. so the secretary of defense implement policies that protects victims of military sexual assault from suffering damage to

their military careers including but not limiting to weakened performance evaluation, lost promotions, security clearances or personnel reliabilities or certification based on having been a victim of sexual assault, having reported sexual assault or having sought treatment for sexual assault. we also then wanted to make sure that the victims knew they could go to their s.b.c.'s and the s.b.c.'s could advocate to ensure their careers were not damaged. we wanted to lengthen the s.b.c.'s to where it could be a problem in their career. >> i have no problem but i think hat last sentence -- should be doing in terms of their -- i just don't see it as

necessary. >> could we say something more long the lines as s.b.c.'s should advocate on behalf of their clients? >> maybe that s.b.c.'s have the appropriate training. >> to advocate on behalf of their clients. i think that would be fine. i think that would be fine. >> i think you have to be careful because many of these people that have been assaulted are of the lower rank and i think that is one of the reasons we stated it as we did. that they would not really understand and you make sure that the s.b.c. does make them aware. >> i just see the lawyer's responsibility to counsel on all aspects of this as their ethical responsibility to their client.

>> i think you're right. maybe somewhere in our recommendations on the s.b.c.'s, we should mention that not just the trial advocacy, but -- >> i think there may be a better place for this. career implications. >> i think we could add it on as a recommendation on our section on s.b.c.'s. >> we did hear testimony. from individuals and they had their s.b.c.'s present. i don't know if you remember that and the s.b.c.'s were sitting behind the victims and the victims were talking about implications. the s.b.c.'s were not up on that. we talked to them on -- i talked to them after -- on the break and so i think, ma'am, you're right. if the s.b.c.'s have training regarding career implications or we pick a that part of their responsibility, then that would trigger any training. >> i think we -- i think the

sentence should be taken out, the second one and we should see where we can fold it into the s.b. c-section. is that agreeable to everybody? >> yes. >> yes, but it shouldn't be in terms of advising their client. >> no, it shouldn't. >> or alternatively. overall, it is the responsibility to manage that process. >> is there any doubt that a special victim counsel may go the next step if you want to call it that after the process is done and then continue to counsel with respect to these various incidents that might occur? i'm under the impression they are permitted to stay with the victim that they have begun to counsel for quite sometime.

after any court-martial or sentence. >> yes and no. i think right now -- >> do we just not know yet? >> i don't think we know yet. i also think that is an additional responsibility that needs to be -- you train for it and you have an expectation that they will go beyond any kind of trial work or appeal work that we need to explicitly state it in our report because it is going to be a question of are there sufficient resources for somebody to stay and advocate on those issues? past any kind of criminal ustice proceeding? >> but it may also be just ensuring clients are getting the assistance with that particular issue in a legal system. >> there are lawyers who would see these clients and assist

with that process. got into some kind of issue. attorneys do that all the time. i agree that is an issue that we need to keep under the umbrella of victim assistance. >> i think at a minimum we have to highlight it is something that the s.b.c.'s have to keep in mind. we have talked about this on our subcommittee that people need to know what their rights are. and it is not an explicit right. what we're saying here is if you're sexually assaulted, that shouldn't -- you're a victim, that shouldn't have any detrimental effect on your career. somebody needs to know, the s.b.c. needs to be able to ask the question. even if it is -- has anybody demoted you? have you had any problems with your command? have you had any problems getting the assignments that you want? at least for that type of questioning to be in their

mind-set when they are talking to victims, because it is beyond the treatment and beyond the trial. this is -- they are in the military. folks want to stay in. it is also about readiness and making that individual wanting to stay in the military. >> i absolutely agree. we have to highlight that. that the s.b.c. should coordinate it. have their finger on it. i agree. >> just asking the question i think is important. i think that does go to training. general, i think you mentioned it. i think it could just be in the form of training for the .b.c.'s. what could possibly be the career implications here and make sure you ask these questions. >> we should look for a section where it is more appropriately placed. >> ok.

>> the next section is on the special victims council. we start with the most obvious. money. we have heard a lot of really credible testimony about how the special victims council is working and the kind of help that it is providing for victims. we also know that this is a program that has really just begun. the air force has been doing it for a little a year and the rest of the services have been doing it since january. there needs to be more money dedicated to the this so that we can really evaluate it and see how well it is working. it is very important recommendation. congress appropriates sufficient funds to ensure that services are able to sustain robust .b.c. program. >> the question i have is the

same question i asked yesterday during the other panel. this recommendation and the one that talked about military -- the investigative training said we want congress to do this. some of the other ones that stressed the importance of training for the community providers, they all talked about having secretaries do it. i agree. all of these things that we're looking at this terms of trying to prevent, produce, berth respond to the sexual assault allegations are important. does the panel want to single out one or two items and say ok, the funding at the congressional level from the s.b.c. program, the funding for the investigative trains is what we want to do, or at the end, do we somehow make a recommendation and say that the secretary of defense or congress has got to appropriate or recommend the request be for congress to appropriate money for continued resources for a robust sexual assault program and then the secretary of defense has the latitude to determine in any given year

where do they need the most help? maybe we have gotten enough training in terms of we have built enough of a bench for the investigators or the council. we don't need the put the emphasis there. we need to put it in the services and the healthcare going to victims. maybe we need to put it some place else. o you want to single out individual items of congressional level funding over other things that may be equally important or just as important? >> these are hard questions, but i think parts of our contribution is to -- part of our contribution is to focus on he pieces that we see most at-risk and most conscious quenrble. the responses are so crucial. likewise, the special victims

council have such potential for proving -- guidance through this difficult process. so i'm comfortable with single out some aspects of what -- you're right. there is this set of interconnected training challenges that have to be funded one way or another. i'm comfortable single out the ones that have been highlighted by the subcommittees for a little more congressional muscle and the money. >> what about the healthcare piece? the person providing that support to a victim. the process is one thing. but taking care of the individuals themselves. i'm concerned if we single some out, that at the end you take a look holistically which ones have we singled out? so that it becomes a more who do we want to get that funding? is it congress having the iscussion or the secretary having that scregs?

>> could i add, i agree with her on this one because i absolutely agree there should be a designated funding stream for sexual assault and that the congress has its finger on and can look at. but within that, given the way the funding process works in the military and that it then gives the secretary of defense the option to have that flexability, a little more for training for lawyers there. the program has really established in these areas. somebody has a great idea. we will move funding in that direction. money is still spent for sexual assault, period.

we can even enumerate within that. some specifics if we wanted to. the investigator training. the s.b.c. funding. the h.q.e.'s for the prosecution side. we can roll that in. >> it seems to me that we are dealing with the situation as it tands now and a lot of these programs are so very new that we don't really know where they are going. but we do know that the s.b.c.'s do need some help. > and i agree. the methodology for ensuring -- the language underneath that congress appropriates specifically for sexual assault and then examples underneath. >> just a question on that. right now there is not a

recommendation before us to sort of make an appropriation for support of training funding related to all of these sexual assault cases, which are funded in so many different ways right now so i wonder about our capacity to actually recommend an appropriation that would do all of that in terms of how that might work. that said, i -- i'm open to different solutions of how we might to this and recognize the discretion that you're talking about would be the good thing. pushing the buttons that we can see rather than creating a new sort of funding stream that would then be allocated according to priorities at the time. it just seems -- that also seems a tough recommendation to crack.

>> right now everybody's focus is on this and we do have to ensure that the money is sustained by enumerating specific programs or -- discussing a larger sexual assault appropriation. maybe you can help. >> i think that it is important, you know, congress sometimes doesn't always have the longest attention span. i have to give them enormous credit, on the other hand, for their efforts, which have made the secretary of defense and the pentagon respond to this issue. i think the special victims council -- i agree with you. this is my baby. it is very -- it is at still a toddler stage. we need to make sure that it is

going to get to be a healthy baby and grow up. that's why i think it is a good idea just to tell congress to focus on this and make sure that it is going to be -- that it will grow up in a strong way. we can also add to that. i think if you give congress a whole list of things, they are not always likely to do that. this one, everybody -- i think everyone is taking credit for this. so i think it is a good idea to say let's have the money for it. that doesn't mean we can't ask for money on part of the other programs. i'm not sure i would give the secretary of defense discretion. we just want to see this program get to the point where it is flourishing, working really well and that is my view of that. or what it is worth. >> well, i actually believe it is a good idea to showcase it, if you will.

give it the promise that everyone seems to be giving it and whether it is the right way or the wrong way to actually ask for the money for it. i think we will have served a good purpose by highlighting it. >> there is no wrong way to ask for the money. >> there is no wrong way to ask for the money. one more thing. we can't just say money. you have to say and authorizations. >> so there is a wrong way to ask for money? >> if we just give them the money, they will pull lawyers from other places instead of and authorizations which means an increase the number of lawyers available across the board. >> in the military the only way to guarantee a person is assigned to a position is if it is an authorized position, which means, you know, you have one less trigger puller or some

other -- there is a cap on the number of military personnel in each of the services. if you're going o say you need special victim prosecutors it may be at expense of another trial counsel or infantry soldier. if the authorizations are allocated to each people. you need the personnel and the money. if they mandate the program. >> authorization has a specific meaning in congressional terms. t means you're authorizing as well as appropriating so it is in two bills. personnel. >> personnel authorizations. >> is there any way of just

making that, it is two different -- i was thinking about authorization the way you were talking about it. is there a way to say and dollars and it is efficient personnel authorizations. >> all right, with this -- >> ok. not to prolong this one. the ndaa is an authorization. i mean, it is an appropriation, correct? >> the national defense authorization act. it has to go to -- > recommendation 21. now that we have our baby, we want to make sure it is a brilliant baby. so we want to evaluate it. so the secretaries of the military department develop a standard evaluation for an

appropriate metrics to measure the effectiveness in each service on an annual basis. >> what were you thinking of along those lines? because these are lawyers who work -- >> the army has it that way. they will get to a recommendation, i believe. all the lawyers have their -- >> have their own stove pipe, as you would call it. >> they have a separate s.b.c. > the army is different. they can reacquisition on that too. >> it is just a -- do we need to say ms. fernandez with appropriate metrics? when appropriate? can't we just li out when appropriate? >> we can leave out when appropriate. >> are you talking about just

client -- >> i think it is process and impact. i think it would be both and we can add those words in there. the process one will tell you we serve x amount of vick emperatures. it will only tell you we served x amount of victims. we -- here is a survey. >> i think it has to be impact evaluation also. >> and you had said yesterday or today, you also said one of your goals is that the special victim council be as responsive as quickly as possible, so it might be how long it took before that contact. >> that might be a measure of process. i'm not sure it is an individual thing to bring up. i just want to make sure, is this having an impact on how how often victim rights are being brought forward. ow often are they litigated? i think it has to be on process and impact. >> you measure the

effectiveness. important the most thing. is it encouraging victims to come forward. do they feel empowered enough by this program so they are coming forward? how are they satisfied with it? that would also be part of it. >> the air force tracks the number of reports that went from restricted to unrestricted after visiting the s.b.c. and they put an article together about the success of that program already and so i think the other services could draw from some of those things. both are process-related as well as effectiveness. you're right. clients announce this in addition to lawyer-based analysis. did you sit there? did you actually go to court? id you do motions?

>> if you want to include something like victims surveys to make it more specific? effectiveness is enough? all right. any other questions? then 21 is accepted. >> recommendation number 22. this is a recommendation that formalizes what the services are currently doing so that the collaboration and sharing process continues after the current leaders have left their positions. our understanding is certain people are leaving the s.b.c. programs but once they leave we

want to make sure these inter service working groups continue in order to be able to share the best practices. some of the cases currently being developed, more of the s. b.c.'s can come together and share their best practice. the secretary of defense establish a mandatory interservice working group to establish the practice of the s.b.c. program. it should discuss, deliberate and decide upon the best practices being used by all military services. the working group should then ensure each military service implement the best practices of the s.b.c. program and s.b.c. receive adequate training on these practices. the working group should consist s.b.c. imum -- is program has from each military service. the working group should meet at least annually.

>> yes. >> this looks totally well founded. i just wonder if we should drop the training part of it there because you have another recommendation that runs through training and i don't think you want to put training responsibilities and implementations under joint service working groups. hile i'm making friendly recommendations maybe strike mandatory from that line. you want participation in that. it ought to include -- opting out shouldn't be a provision. if you fear there is resistance out there and you need the word mandatory, then i defer. >> no, i don't think so. think you're right. >> i agree.

>> and we're going to move the training section. is that something that everybody believes to be a good idea? >> the next recommendation. >> fine. >> should we go on to 23? >> 23rks yeah. this goes to the sharing of information on a regular basis. case law is currently being made on this. there could be information practices on case law on how to deal with a sticky issue. what we're asking for is basically an interservice website be created. the secretaries of military establish collaborative methods

to disseminate information and training of s.v.c. between the services, including an inter-service website where suggestion friendly of that language. when you say disseminate information and training, shouldn't it be information including information about training? how do we disseminate training? there is something wrong with hat. >> the websites might have courses on them actually. that is not uncommon with the service. >> they have all of these training modules. >> i have a recommended -- we

could change it to establish and disseminate collaborative efforts in training. that doesn't really help there does it? more about the methods. and training materials. >> and then i would make it for s.v.c.'s instead of training materials for. >> mr. bryant? >> yes, thank you. ms. fernandez, are you just formalizing on what you're was? g on what 22.2 they are already communicatinging by email and telephone and they are communicating month accomplishment >> this is more of a clearinghouse? >> this would make a more formal

institution other than a website. >> it is more than just between an email between you and me, you can have chatrooms and all sortsor technology helping you. what we see is not a whole lot of people out there if this whole world know what these lawyers are doing so they are going to have to rely enormously on each other to learn about what to do in special circumstances. so we're trying to provide as much infrastructure for them to be able to access information and access each other. >> they have this capability easily. my guess would be actually -- they are probably already doing this. but it is certainly easy for them to do. they have got the technology. >> the finding was -- within services. within the services, the programs, the chief of the

s.v.c. program was disseminating and getting information, but, you know, it is getting the army to get with the air force. the army has got within the air force and they initiated the program, but it is the ongoing litigation that you want them to stay on top of so they can understand those legal thust issues. there are so many legal issues, especially in the courtroom. >> just so that you understand how new this is, there really isn't a place for the s.v.c. to stand in the courtroom. so, you know, there is defense. there is prosecution and the s.v.c. is sort of, i don't know, the ballet dancer in the middle because there is no place for them to stand. at that level, we need to start growing the processes and the case law so that this really becomes a position that people understand and can be best operationalized. >> i understand what you're

saying. because our site visit to the naval base revealed that that was an issue with them. the s.v.c. that we heard from goes in and sits in the courtroom with the whole question of when he or she had a motion do they go to counsel table or just stand up and raise their hand? how does that work? she/she was -- the s.v.c., i'm sorry, was very quick to point out she had only been on the job four months at that particular thing. >> seems to me that the comparative systems would have looked at this as well. because in the civil side of things, they do have victim advocates that do speak in the courtroom. thatey do, but we found -- there were very few as formalized what the military services are doing now in terms of an actual lawyer. we found many, many

jurisdictions already had victim advocates in the courtroom. they were not the thing as an attorney there on the behalf of the victim. that was the main difference we saw. >> i guess as a policy decision, that is interesting. i hasn't thought about -- by the same token it is also determining how far does the council go? they are a resource for the victim. the party to a court-martial and to a trial, the government, the accused, the military judge, i would think they are there to educate the vick testimony throughout the process and many of their rights are being discussed. > we're getting there. the victim rights session -- section will address all of that. you're headed in the right direction. as these things evolve, you

ealize, it is when you go, oh! some of the people that came and they were o us, even not quite sure. it is interesting to see how it will develop and grow up to become from a baby to a portion of the court. >> on an aside, the supreme court just heard its first case where victim's counsel was present and where that person ould sit was an issue. >> there are nine of them so they probably had to discuss it. >> one judge could probably figure it out pretty fast. are we good to move on to recommendation 24? do we need any further discussion on 23? e're good with that?

what we were just talking about. these attorneys are paving new ground and therefore they can't be straight out of law school. they need to have had some courtroom experience and that is not clear in the job description of responsibility. 're asking that one of the skill-sets is that they have courtroom experience. the secretary of defense direct the military service to implement selection of criteria to require that counsel have appropriate trial experience prior to being selected as special victim council. the criteria should include special emphasis on selection of the s.v.c. and require actual courtroom experience rather than just requiring services in the military for a certain period of ime.

>> do we know what the criteria are now? >> it isest listed. we don't -- it is listed. we don't have it in the recommendation. i don't have that with me. it didn't specify courtroom experience. >> one of the challenges within the military -- you're saying somebody right out of law school. we bring officers right out of law school to all the military services. they go out to some installation. i know having deployed to baghdad with the combat division, i had people six months out of law school doing legal assistance and trail trial counsel. you don't come into a position at different levels. you come in at the bottom level and work you way up.

the largest numbers we have are at the junior level. some of them come in at with trial experience when they are civilian jobs. some of them don't but they are still really talented. shoot and don't shoot situations. it is rare that it happens. it is not an absolute that we don't have them in the trial defense position upfront. it depends on the circumstances. usually trial defense circumstances when you're sitting next to an accused is not the place we do our best on the job training. we'll do it if we have to. it is not usually their first assignment. it is hard to say they have to have had an adequate or clearly defined amount of experience when we have to fill trial counsel, special defense counsel, legal assistance, claims, there are not many claims, a lot of legal assistance in the united states

is civilianized. these are military officers and there are only so many criminal positions out there. i am not sure that you can say -- i do say you have to have the right training. you have to be completely understanding of the system that you're working with. you can't have somebody who is not competent to advise a victim of what is going to happen and then have the mistake of them being wrong. you have to have them supervised with somebody who can provide them with greater depth of knowledge. if you tie their hands, they will not be able to resource other things that are just as compelling. you have to leave them some scregs to put people where they need to be because of the way people enter the military. >> i think this has to be more aspirational because we have a finite number of lawyers as colonel cook has gone through. we don't know how fast

additional authorizations are going to get out there to make enough experienced trial lawyers available for this new program. so maybe just saying professor hillman's suggests is whenever possible. and that makes it -- i agree with -- we cannot tie their hands. i think we all know from the testimony the current situation in terms of availability with people with trial experience. >> i just wanted to draw your attention to this wonderful chart in back of the report that -- many of these charts are in the back comparing the services. at appendix i is the chart for all the services regarding a special victim's counsel. they did a tremendous job laying everything out for us. >> that is definitely not to say

-- the required training, that has to be there. even if there is a checklist there, you have to have graduated from a specific training program. you have to be properly supervised and mentors and evaluated. it is a question of that training base. you would be amazed at what some of the judge advocates do incredibly well even if they have never done it before. >> whenever possible, have we satisfied that? is that enough? >> it should be a consideration. i agree. >> all right. i think that is essentially the panel. that is accepted? > yes. >> i'm sorry, it is adding whenever possible both to that first seantsd the second

sentence that says you have the additional selection criteria that they have appropriate trial experience whenever possible. and it requires actual courtroom experience rather than simply -- i think that is -- that second sentence goes too far. maybe wwe take it out. should have special emphasis on unique selection of s.v.c. if you want to do that. i don't think the second entence is needed. >> so the second sentence, the criteria should include special emphasis on the yike selection of s.v.c. >> that's fine. it is the second part that i find concerning.

>> i think i would favor just ending it at the first sentence and deleting the second. ny disagreement on that? all right then then, with that amendment, it remains accepted that we're going to delete the second sentence. >> 25? >> 25 deals with extending the service of the s.v.c. to the victim. mostly what we're looking at is extending it through appeal. right now, so -- right now the relationship continues until final disposition of the matter or when the attorneys reassigned or leave active duty. we want an s.v.c. to be available to the victim through appeals.

so we said the secretary of defense direct the military service to extend the opportunity for s.v.c. reputation to a victim. this includes any time following final action by the convening authority and during appellate review. while it may not be feasible due to requirements for the victim to maintain the same s.v.c. throughout the vegas of the ocess, >> as a former appellate judge, what role might -- i understand the victim with this liaison program, even after the notification is done, still after the case has gone through appeal, coming up on appeal this

happens. that notification ans. -- happens. what new information might a vick temperature have to present during the appellate process or what roles do you see a special victim counsel playing during that piece? >> i think it is probably a limited role. he accused on appeal may -- writes a statement that indicates something about adverse about the victim so -- issues are brought into the case. matters unsport condition, just written by the accused and then the appellate counsel can rewrite those and use it on a an appellate issue. if the court were ordering -- and then the vick testimony .ould be recalled

those types of issues raised. i do believe it is a limited, very, very limited amount, but the concern was that they would be out there. these things would occur. it is a posttrial hearing where the appellate bench gets the case and if the case doesn't have this issue resolved, the client was sleeping with the counsel, those type of issues that are not resolved, the appellate court has the ability to order it in that scenario to have the trial court sort it out and take testimony. that would be one scenario that could occur. >> it seems to me that as long as it is not directed how the services do this and as long as we recognize that it is not going to be that same s.v.c. >> i also want to point out the limiting line that says assert any right or interest still at issue. that means if there is one then there will be an s.v.c.

you see what i mean? >> the case is sent back for reassessment. there are things that can happen that would be relevant to the victim. it seems to me as long as we recognize very clearly that it is not going to be the same s.v.c. because s.v.c.'s transfer and move to different jobs and the vick testimony might move to alaska and the s.v.c. might move to bosnia. there is somehow a? place that maintains that contract with the victims and it might really be part of the appellate -- somewhere. with one person managing that. >> right, because what happens is the appellate attorneys will get this issue and they will call down. sometimes it is not sensitivity to the people on the ground. they will call on the former prosecutor a year before and say what happened? was it collusion?

they interview those folks. they are going to do that with the victim as well. that is something everybody needs to be sensitive to at the appellate level. also, remember, at this point, with the catsenberg caze there is only two rules of evidence that the counsel can voice their opinion -- you know, voice their reputation on. we don't know how that is going to get expanded in the process. those two issues, one is the rape shield and the other is the confidentiality between the advocate and the accused -- those two issues can still come up on appeal. right? so -- >> there has to be some system to hand off that -- much like the accused gets handed off. there has got to be a way to hand off the victim. somewhere he or she knows they

monitors where that the case and continues -- >> there is going to have to be some tracking. >> get contacts. >> i think that is what the chief of the special victims counsel office would do is encourage the appellate counsel to reach out to the chief and say we're going to reach out to this victim and so random calls won't occur. hopefully enough. you know what will happen. the records are up there years later. the defense appellate division is going to look at the record and say she was a victim's council two years ago. they may call the special victim counsel that was and they will say not me anymore. called the chief. just to avoid any kind of issues. i think it is -- maya has a different view on this.

i think she believes this is for the victims so they know it is not just going to end at the court-martial. they are going to tell the victims from the jag perspective this may never be required because there might not be a .riter interest if there is -- >> that is a good point. did you talk about special victims in all of your interviews and everything else. you got a briefing i'm assuming on this liaison program. it use to be within that even after a trial was finished, there used to be -- to tell the victim here is what is going to happen in the appellate process. that told them if an appeal was coming up to keep them posted as long as the victim kept contact and how you contact them. again, when the trial was over, the victim wasn't left hanging. all i would say is have i no problem with this in terms of

clarifying language to make sure the victim is also not -- it has got to be communicated. what is that right? the appellate judge asks for additional information. that witness program if they war date -- appellate argument, they're more than welcome. >> coming up in a moment, we heard from the house armed services committee chairman buck mckeon as the chair at its foundation. the heritage foundation. you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. that is live at seven :00 eastern. the houses in that 10:00 for morning hours speeches. at noon, a contempt of congress resolution against former iressa employee low was learner. -- irs. >> c-span's newest book sunday at 8:00 am a collection of

interviews with the top storytellers. >> part of the reason i did this book was martha. when she arrived, she was in love with what she referred to as the naughty revolution. she was enthralled by the nazis, which struck me as a surprising thing, which is surprising given what we all know. c-span sunday at 8:00 published by public affairs books now available at your favorite bookstores. >> everyone is coming to the new york there. -- coming from four corners of the earth and idaho.

they come down from maine and athens streets and tokyo and kokomo and rome. down from frisco introit, from hamburg, aurora, illinois. mrs. abbott and mrs. todd. and the wilson's got here at last. there is the symbol of the fair, the great units there. that safelymachine demonstrates the law of averages. by chance, the wilson's and the chandress me -- meet.

>> this weekend on american history stevie, to the fair follows a variety of people as they experience in 1950 four new york world fair sunday at 4:00 eastern on c-span three. armed services committee chairman buck mckeon critical of the obama administration's foreign-policy strategy. he spoke yesterday at the heritage foundation. a reminder, the armed services committee will begin work on the defense programs built this morning. this is 55 minutes. >> welcome. this is protect america month.

we do a lot of work on it all year round. we have a rare treat this morning. we have an opportunity in the fightof the markup and that has already begun to have the chairman of the house armed services committee come and speak to us. advocate foris an sensible defense reform. i have heard him speak on it. he has written on it. an enemy for irresponsible decisions that sometimes proliferate in this town. i described him as a true reagan republican when it comes to defense issues and comes by that very honestly since he represents his district where the reagan library resides. i would ask you, i would introduce him completely and

just a second but we will go directly when he gets them speaking to take a few questions. will give you my admonition first. if we did not hear a? at the end of the second sentence, we will ask you to sit down. the idea is to have the chairman speak and have him answer the questions for as many as possible not to have speeches from the floor. if you would like to give a speech here, see me directly after the event and i would be happy to try to book you. it this morning. with that, i ask you to join me in welcoming howard took the mckeon, -- howard buck chairman of the house armed services committee. >> thank you. thank you for the very warm introduction. i am sure like all of us feel

much safer having a special forces in- specials the room. thank you for hosting me at the heritage foundation and the protect america month. the program has been a great success, and i hope heritage --icates the month of may the month of may 2 national security for many months to come. here is the state of national security six years after the president took office. put plainly, our foreign policy is a mess. we have no coherent strategy. i am not sure if we are supposed to be pivoting to asia, middle east war back to europe. -- polls have shown deep sysops -- dissatisfaction. the attitude seems to be if america will not be influential, then why don't we just come about thent to talk

whole we're in and what it means for the united states and what it means for the larger international community. need to start by asking what is the central foreign-policy goal? and what role does the u.s. military play in achieving its? should we be working to maintain our special role in the world, or should we limit that ambition to territorial defense? it is a fair question to ask. many in the party are working through the question as we speak. we answer it by trying to define what americans want from the military. most want to live their lives in peace and security. they want the opportunity to advance. they want the freedom to make their own decisions and do not want to worry about their personal security or the affairs of state in faraway lands.

so how does the government secure that to their citizen? lincoln said, the legitimate object of government is to do for a community of people whatever they need to have done but cannot do for themselves". an individual can go out and find health insurance without the government. they can save for retirement without the government. they can start a business without the government, but they aggressionst foreign without a strong standing military. i think the heritage track this code a long time ago, small government, strong military. a strong government opens the door for a strong economy. a strong economy powers a strong military, and a strong military protects the government and the economy.

america's strength alone for decades has encouraged good behavior from bad actors. there is an elegant wisdom and that simplicity. it is no accident the expansion of russia and china has come at the exact moment would we're dismantling our military and retreating from the world. with russia invading ukraine, china provoking allies, al qaeda regrouping, north korea banging the drum and ongoing turmoil in the middle east, i think the president has lost sight of his purpose. at his core, diplomacy and military power are services that are government provides it citizens. the point of the service is what i said earlier, to allow us to lead free, secure and happy lives where we are unaffected by troubles around the world and free to focus on our communities and freedoms here on.

under president obama, government is not holding up its end of the bargain. using the military to deter terrorists and aggressors are brought, this administration uses regulations and bureaucrat innovators and entrepreneurs at home. instead of striking a balance where government is discrete at home while project and great strength abroad, government is intrusive at home and weak overseas. that balance is out of whack. america weekend internally and externally. members of our own party have contributed to one element of decline. in 2011 the house forced him to cut spending, so what did he do you go out of the entire federal

government, with countless bureaus and agencies and a civilian workforce that exploded in his first term, what did he offer? half the cuts we had to federal of the huge juggernauts would come from a single agency, the military. during the course of his presidency he has directed a trillion dollars in cuts to the armed forces. we played his games and fell into the trap. mandatory spending and entitlements, which are the main source of our debt, and we made massive cuts to the military that reagan built. this hurt our country inside and outside and hurt republicans in a very real way. the partya rip in between isolationists and reagan riftsicans and wrists -- a single conservative issue,

strong national security and defense. i have warned about for three years now. too many members of congress took my warnings as just numbers on paper that we could live with. now they are coming to me to saves mysaves my base, armory or factory or production line. the numbers have finally come home to roost. i would like to help them, but i can't. there just is not enough money. i want to thank the ferret -- heritage foundation for standing strong on national security. for you forl holding the line. .ow we have made our choices now bills are coming due and it is time to pay the piper. tomorrow i will introduce the chairman's mark for the national

defense authorization act. through smart planning prearrangement of capital and andurces, targeted cuts bureaucracy, we have been able to shield the military from crippling blow. we havethe last year will be able to triage the pain. or, unless something happens, it is really going to hurt. is 45ear's defense bill thousand dollars less than the 2014 request. that is what the white house asked for, and that is the limit set by earlier budget deals. we are funding 521 billion dollars for the base defense and 79 billion for the war in afghanistan. a placeholder, because frankly the president still has not decided on the final mission.

given the failing security situation abroad, it is the height of stupidity that we even have to make the choices in the first place. we have done a lot of robbing peter to pay paul. we have had to nickel and dime combat some that need. we look for savings and programs like the littoral combat ship. this frees up coins for higher priorities. for example, savings allow us to refuel the uss george washington, which has served as the front line carrier in asia. the savings gets us breathing room to purchase more tomahawk missiles and ease a navy shortage of electronic warfare aircraft. foot thosed a five of this year's mark. most importantly, the savings

let us i hear that keeps the troops safe. we will see more money go to body armor and improved ejection seats and military aircraft. some of it goes to the gray eagle yuav. were painful, and frankly i would like to see a defense budget that meets the resurgentof her russia, ballooning chinese military, iran, north korea, expansion of al qaeda. warthog, the finest support plane ever built. it has saved lives of countless american men and women in combat . it still has over a decade of service life left in it, and it is to be replaced by a plane f-35ng the us-35 -- the

that is better to do other jobs and will not be mission ready for a few years. for the sake of every american who has been in a firefight, i want to say that lane. but i just cannot do it. not that these budget levels. the money simply isn't there. i am directing that any retired be placed into special storage. off-line butaken will be kept in a recoverable, flyaway condition. it is my hope the 2014 elections will bring sanity back to our and we cancurity bring it back into service. if we find ourselves with a budget that matches strategic reality, we will need to restore the warthog.rnize

much has been written about russia. only to mr.known putin, they want to start the gray gave up again. reality.flects this it will prohibit u.s. military contacts and cooperation for the foreseeable future. also bars the department of energy from transferring missile defense with russia, restoring those programs will be conditions-based. leave mr. putin must ukraine. second, he must comply with the nuclear force in conventional armed forces in europe treaty. we are also restoring the reports,ilitary power an annual account of russian forces with no determination date. finally, calling for immediate nato membership for montenegro

and the membership action plan for georgia. weould go down the regions -- where we are experiencing similar challenges. north korea and africa. we would be here all day. though i will speak briefly to one. in 2001 we understood we had to get afghanistan right. it is 2014 and we still need to get afghanistan right. and irecently on a visit can tell you troops have done amazing work. they have put the taliban on its not muchdone it with encouragement from the commander-in-chief. this has been two years since the president visited the troops there. i think he is overdue to go back. the troops need to hear from him he needs to hear from them.

he must give our forces everything they need to get the in afghanistan done, and we also must be careful stewards of the tax money he spends out there. i received troubling reports of the karzai government are unfairly taxing americans were doing reconstruction work in the country. that is unacceptable. i will not allow president karzai to tax the hand that feeds him. for every dollar afghanistan taxes on reconstruction, i will withhold one point five dollars on american aid to afghanistan. spending money wisely is just as important as the money we spend. that catches on the key point. -- touches on the key point.

smarter about get the way the pentagon spends. haschair of the committee started an ambitious program to overhaul the way we buy things and the defense department. i am grateful to him for his work. is no small hill to climb. it has been attempted many times before. we have included reforms in this year's mark and we will continue his effort for years to come. just as we have two overall the way we do business, we have to get smarter about the business that we do. we can start by using restrictions on sales of military equipment to our allies. this bolsters our friends and makes weapons cheaper or us here at home. strategic reform is in my opinion long overdue. the office of

secretary defense handed us a review that was a piece of junk. it did not comply with the law. i told them to go back and get it right. the law says it's a tool to do -- identify national security shortfalls. should not be a tool to endorse the obama administration or any administration's foreign-policy. until i receive the updated qdr, i will restrict the office of the secretary of defense budget by 25%. aswill reform the qdr well to make it easier for the dod to give congress the information we need. we are doing this because military power is the fundamental, a replaceable component of diplomacy. in next year's bill we will have to whittle the stick down to a

twig in diplomacy will suffer .or it frankly, i think the world role suffer for it. will suffer for it. i think some are favoring withdrawal from the world stage. i understand the reason that isolationism has grown or popular. the idea we can leave the world alone and focus on problems at home is attractive. we have lots we should be working on. that is why president obama campaigned on it. it is also appealing to repeal government spending on the tax burden by cutting a giant agency like the pentagon. freeral is to create a america with more money in your pocket him the but the execution has opposite effect. presents assume afford and smaller military would be better to the economy and

personal freedoms. americans soprano see in military power and diplomacy has given us three things, and evolution in diplomacy, and evolution in economics, and evolution in security. were made possible by the military that reagan built. they paved the way for the evolution and economics fund. as the uncontested superpower, america has guided the world with a steady hand, sometimes visible, sometimes invisible. we have made the global commons safe for trade and prosperity. and we have read a tremendous windfall for our efforts. with a strong american military and presence of broad because it is an our interest to do so.

-- in our interest to do so. is one of the few federal programs were we realize a return on the investment. where ourways have military should be. that debate is both welcome and healthy. this is my final defense bill and final year in congress. if i can sum up all that i have worked for the past four years i doirman, it is this 00-- not want america to be a product of the world that i want the world their product of america. thank you for having me. i am happy to take a few questions. [applause] >> we ask you when the german recognizes you to please identify yourself and please speak into the microphone.

>> you talk about efficiency. you talk about reducing waste overhead. , mr. smith just dropped language this morning proposing to put it in with -- withcabby thought various caveats. odds of getting any back in and when you are desperately trying to find money, why is that not a priority? >> every time this comes up, we always ask the dod to give us information on savings from previous bracts. the information we have ever received is sketchy at best and we have not even finished the

last and yet we are talking as aanother broack money-saving venture and everyone knows it and the costing money before you reach potential savings. concern, andnd the i applaud the courage but it will not be in the defense bill this year for sure. have really tried to do is hold onto as much of our defense as we can in the event that one of these countries that i mentioned something explodes or happens so instances like the warthog, we could get it back. i think if we were to find ourselves in a major , and it could happen easily at a moments notice and a lot of places around the world, we would want to have everything we could bring to bear immediately and i

think we would change priorities overnight. we hold ontoe sure as many things as we can to get back in the fight should we find ourselves in that position and hopefully there will be rationale. we canhe next election sit down and tried to see what we can do about fixing sequestration and getting us back on a more sound footing to defend the national interest. you had mentioned that the government is entering diplomacy. attack. sound like an --ond question

>> what was the first question? >> you said the government [inaudible] it did not sound like an attack the attitude of the government. >> is the president intentionally leaking the united weakening.

>> i cannot get in someone else's mind to know what intentions are. i am just looking at fax and result and policies. i am not condemning someone for intentions. what i am saying is we have weakened ourselves militarily and defense posture has been weakened. i get leaders into my office almost every day from around the world asking me, where is madeca? we have commitments around the world that we would be there to help them. i did not even mention taiwan. china is pushing us harder and harder from our ability to carry out commitments we have made their.

question. second >> let's just do the one question for now to get as many people as possible. >> on the top of acquisition reform, a lot of the procurement you added in was funded through service contract reductions. with it being so early on in the acquisition reform process, are you confident they can be trained without causing too much i actually have a written response to that one, because somebody already asked that question. we saveice contracts $800 million. of theke up 50% acquisition budget that have not received anything near the

oversight. we have not had the time or ability to give them proper oversight. we have asked them to do and infertility of the program since 2008 and have not received that information. it has been piecemeal. saving over $800 million. if we cannot find five recep savings out of that, shame on us. inave given lots of speeches one of the biggest concern with the cuts is we are taking away from readiness. that means lives. carefully andhis we will do our best to make sure we get every bit of readiness that we can out of the budget. one of the things i have looked make sureu can everyone is trained to the

havest, but if they do not what it needs to fight, it is a quandary. them tools toive fight with but if they are not trained, that is a problem. every dollare sure is spent wisely is what we are attempting in the bill. voice of america, persian tv. how significant is the comprehensive nuclear deal with iran to you and your colleagues? and doesn't affect only the the >> you arebudget? iran. abouti

wish i could do when i think congress is to get something to my ears so i can near better. it is one of the problems. we have been trying to negotiate and work with them. in the meantime, they can continue moving forward on whatever the long-term plan is with nuclear energy or weapons or whatever they are doing. i think it is something we have to be constantly vigilant in watching what they do. i know what i meant with the centcom director and he got the job, he said there are three things that keep me up at night iran, iran, iran. his areat and toured of responsibility and came back

and said the same thing again. when he retired we came and had a meeting and said the same thing. it is something we need to be aware of and watch. and as we cut back our ability to defend and all the spots around the world we weaken ourselves. ii, we are cap the sea lanes open. 95% of commerce travels on the ceiling. there are seven choke points that if you cut one of them off, it would have immediate impact on the economy. that is taken for granted. i was talking to the secretary of see a few weeks ago before the hearing. i asked the question because the secretary said we are building a

fleet. the question was, how many ships do we have now? 283. drawer -- i said how is that drawing the fleet? something we need to be constantly looking at. we are cutting the navy back smaller than world war i. the ships are much more powerful and can do a whole lot more than a battleship but we still have not figured out how to be two places at one time. numbers count also in that regard. >> in light of the fact that we are reducing the armed forces now, do you think it would be to tellate for congress

it illegal aliens that they can apply to the military and get amnesty that way? mean as a way to fill the numbers in the military? >> we clearly did not need the military numbers. >> got it. no, we are cutting the army. this will take the army down to unless sequestration comes back. -- 450,000. it comes back in 16. is 420,000.umber dash down tonot to

100 25,000. what asking the general does the plan call for if the north invades the south echo he said the 175,000 gives us 21 combat the graves and the plan calls for 20. that would leave us one marine brigade to take care of the rest of the world. so i think it is absurd to be cutting the forces this much. smaller than at any time since before world war ii. we saw what happened. with pearl harbor. he'll are going through africa, europe. we had an army of a few million. -- hitler going through africa

to meet europe. at that point i think we were taking everybody we could find. your question was specific about do i think we should put on the defense bill and amnesty provision for those that serve in the military? the answer is no. i wondered about the general pricing for an aircraft or ship compared to inflation. do you think isis today are beyond inflation or about at the current rate of inflation? our profits to great? how to look into this and not ruffle too many feathers? great?profits too >> i think there was a period in

were we were really building up the defense budget. but what we're seeing right now is the most drastic cutback we have seen since the end of world war ii. into aink we could get debate should we have a certain percentage of the gdp go, depending without regard to inflation, should we have that much spending on defense? what i would rather see us do is have a that looks out 20 years and says what are the threats? and then say what we need to meet the threats, instead of coming up with we only have this much money to spend, this is how we will spend it and hopefully be able to

defend against potential problems. i just think it is a backwards way of coming to the problem. >> austin right from politico. what are you doing to convince leaders they need to negotiate budget caps and what compromises should the republican party be willing to make in order to get to that? this is a neat town. a few months ago i announced i would not run for office anymore. as a consequence, not a lot of people are listening to anything i have to say about anything past the sheer. i am comfortable with that.

i think we will have good leadership in will work to solve problems. when concern is getting the defense authorization act done. we will move that process -- tomorrowomorrow with the markup of the bill and hoping they will move it very quickly in the senate and get it done before we leave town in october for others to campaign. one and then the other. >> david, npr. the pentagon wants to retire the u2. you have calls for restricting funds that would be put towards retiring it, basically wanting to keep it flying. why not have an unmanned aerial vehicle? >> there are certain

capabilities the u2 has that the global hawk does not and vice versa. in town ae general few weeks ago for his posture but he also gave us a , and i willriefing not get into anything else other than to say in my opinion, it is very important we keep the u2 flying. >> thank you. unaffiliated. regarding potential for military , --sty provision wait a minute. the response was no, it is not going to be in the bill. >> the potential for it still to

, i am wondering because the illegals lack proper documentation, how can we do background checks and verify identity? >> you want to have a debate on that? >> i tried to frame it as a question. be in the mark. our committee does not have jurisdiction for that. that would fall under the the judiciary committee if they wanted to bring forward that or if they wanted to waive that and offer an amendment on the floor, then i guess we would work the process. that would be out of my hands.

that will come under. we have checked with the and havetarian informed us that would come under the judiciary committee. it will not be an hour mark or bill tomorrow. tomorrow.mark or bill currently have a placeholder for funding, and i was wondering what have you been hearing in terms of what the administration might do in terms for funding?number nothing. that is why we put it in as a placeholder. we think we know enough about what has been talked about in the mission and afghanistan that way have left enough in their hopefully to cover that but we have not heard anything. .here has been no decision made

when i was in afghanistan last year, i came back thinking the most important things we had to do was get that i lateral security agreement signed immediately. that did not happen. this year when i was there and talking to the general he indicated we have time that we can still work this out. the election had a very good turnout and seems to be moving along well. both of them have said they would sign the bilateral agreement, which gives troops protection that we will leave behind for continuing force to stabilize and help the afghan forces to become -- we avert he turned up fighting over to them but to where they can they arendle things

not yet able to do for themselves. this comes under logistics and those kinds of things that at this point they are not able to do yet. i am confident they will hold the elections. they will sign an agreement that the president will make a decision for how many troops are to remain behind. nato troops have agreed to continue the mission of training and stabilization and that should all be done obviously before september or october. i thinkhat point sometime along in between there they will come up with the number to submit for us and just put that number in.

>> is somebody watching the time? >> my question is about asia. can you tell us about the u.s. allies, especially as a matter of the fence. right the japanese government is getting hard. what do you think about that? the right of corrective self-defense. that they are trying to have the right of corrective self-defense. >> they want the ability to have a stronger defense. yes. member of the japanese parliament that did hold the same job i held,

chairman of the foreign affairs committee and has come to america. meeting -- over the past year and a half we have met four times. i support them being able to increase and enhance the defense. each time he is come he has told me how the chinese have encroached closer and closer to the airspace and have had to scramble jets and last time he showed me a chart of the past couple of years and started out maybe 18 times per year. it is now over 400. as has been really escalating. -- it has been really escalating.

ability tohe increase defense capability and i am totally supportive of that. the same thing i mentioned with the sale of materials. i think if they are willing to fund andnd help provide stronger defense, that helps us is the ability to defend themselves, which they would have less need to depend on us. would also help us on keeping the work force at work while we cut the procurement dollars here at home. so i am fully in support of that. we are going to take a congressional trip this summer. japan and china and taiwan and korea and looking overl of those situations

there. very important. >> thank you. american legion. the active component members have a right to a physical after retirement. but the reserve component does not have the right to that. given that they are not making recruiting goals and they deny at a much higher rate than active service members, why is the corrective legislation not in the bill? sure i quite -- >> there is a bill in the committee supported by 11 members to change the legislation to support mandatory exams.

i was wondering why that was not in there. i am not sure but i will know before tomorrow at 10:00. this is a process. tomorrow there will be a chance for members who don not have members to amend the subcommittee reports and then we will get to the full committee and then there will be opportunity to amend the full bill. then there will be an opportunity to further amend on the floor. then there will be a senate bill. then hopefully the senate will get a bill passed. , wee get a regular order will have a conference and work

out the differences and have a final bill that goes back to the house and senate for final bill. that is what i hoped it started before they leave to campaign in october. i am going to take the moderator's prerogative fight answering a final question instead. i will give you another two minutes. you can wrap this up as you see fit and make any final comments you want to make. we can have you back as a private citizen. >> thank you. i usually tell my wife i get the last word. been married now for 61

-- 51 years. august will be 52. we have been so blessed. . saw an advertisement he has written the book falling in love with america again. there was an advertisement out there for it. i thought it is a great thing. i have never fallen out of love with america. i think about this great country that we live in, and the opportunities it gives us, we have 30 grandchildren and we .ave a new great-grandchild she resides right now at ft. drum. her dad is in the 10th mountain the vision of their.

-- up there. and we have been so blessed in so many ways that could not have happened anywhere else. i have now been in congress almost 22 years. it was something as a young boy going to school never would have thought about. i lived in california. this was another world in washington. they got along fine, i got along fine. we really are blessed in this nation, but we cannot take anything for granted. enjoy are note free, and the people who have fought over the years for those friends for us and for

-- we're going to visit normandy for the 70th anniversary of d-day. of all the men and women that have lost their lives for us, so we can sit here and argue, fight, discuss, debate, and at the end of the day coming out with something we do not all hate or love but something we can all live with and enjoy and appreciate. i was thinking when we were in town last week, maine man and, a great young three little kids and was coming out to get in the car and take his boy to a little league ace ballgame. girl is going here.

that is america. they just hope that we get it right back here. hands fullheir keeping food on the table and just seeing things they need to keep their children to have the same america that old people like me have seen. i have seen real concern from some of these things and need to pull back from some of the abilities. reading books about a trilogy of world war ii and the fight in europe and what we went through and i remember some of that because i was a little boy did notmember my mom

have nylons. we did not have rubber. we have fake rubber because it all went to the war effort. we saved cooking fat. we had a jar on the stove and ported into that and it all went to the war effort. with 20 old used to pick -- toothpaste tube they could wire and we collected hundreds of thousands of the toothpaste tubes. i can remember my mom sending me a dime to school to buy a savings bond and when i got all the stamps in my book i was able to turn it in and get a bond. it was a more innocent time, a everyone wase, but

involved. my dad lost his best friend going across the bridge in europe. so when he came home, my next brother was named after david ward, because he was -- everybody lost somebody and we all were in it together. now we have people in the military and their families are sacrificing. we're not really committed to the degree that we should be to those that are willing to lay everything on the line or us, and we need to be more committed and make sure they have the things they need to carry out missions. i am going to leave congress, but i am not going to leave the because it is too important. thank you very much. thank you. house armed services committee, chaired by buck

mckeon will work on the 2015 defense programs bill this morning. members will debate a vote on amendment. live coverage of the markup starts at 10:00 eastern on c-span three. this afternoon i met republicans in the house will hold a vote on contempt of congress resolution. live house coverage here on c-span. >> different perspective on the climate change report. vna.ing to charles dre he will also weigh in on the proposal.il pipeline then henry waxman, the energy and commerce committee. , our spotlight on magazine

series on the magazine series on food security around the world. and the role that crime it plays. you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. ♪ good morning, everyone, this wednesday, may seventh, 2014. the house could vote as early as today to find former irs official, lois lerner, in contempt. eric holder is being asked to prosecute her for refusing to testify before congress. live coverage on c-span. also, janet yellen will be before the joint economic committee today. look for coverage on c-span.org. we begin this morning with climate change. in the release yesterday, the third nation c