we do not have a secured border, then this administration and this congress also is complicit sex lping lure people into horrible , into situations, even people trying to cross deserts who don't make it. that should not be. owe the ricans, we world the obligation to keep our oath to follow, to support the constitution of the united states and that requires us to follow the law. not pick and choose which federal laws we care to ignore, because we don't like them, as

our attorney general has advocated. at makes him a violator of his constitutional oath. we should be following in our oaths, not breaking them. when you hear about children being lured into this country by promises made by people in this town as to how good it's going to be, oh, we're going to get amnesty through and for any child that can get here before the border is secured, so we only allow legally approved people in, just come on however you can get here. we are luring people into horrible, horrible situations. it's time to start acting responsibly and that does not mean that we continue to send the message that is being

signaled by this administration that, gee, if you can just get to the united states as a child we'll take care of you. and if we can't find your parents who are illegally in the country, then we will find somebody to take care of you legally, we're going to allow you to overwhelm this country. and we have people saying, oh, if we just legalize everybody that's here, all of this new tax money will come flooding in. well, people that are working we already paying taxes and have an awful lot of people that are working who are not legally here, who are getting ast amounts of money for their child tax credit that allows them to get back more money than they put in. but there can be no debate that young children who are not working, even if they're

legalized, for those who make the argument, gee, look at all the tax money that the federal coughers will be getting if we -- coffers will be getting if we just legalize everybody here, that's a bogus argument. it is a strained argument by people who want more people coming in illegally. it's time we took our oath seriously, began enforcing our laws, not sealing the border, but securing the border. and once it's secured, as confirmed by border states, not by homeland security, they can't be trusted, but by border states unanimous littelling us, ok, federal government -- unanimous littelling us, ok, federal government -- unanimouslytelling us, ok, federal government, we can say

our state is secured, we can move forward for immigration reform. until that time we need to forget talking about it. anybody whose continued to talk about it needs to go down to the border and see a 3-year-old that got lured into this country because of that kind of talk. just get here. obviously a 3-year-old had someone convince them that they needed to try to get here and helped get them here. i wonder how many other 3-year-olds got talked into coming along for the ride and didn't make it. maybe their parents or some -- or some loved one paid money to human traffickers they thinking, gee, ific get -- if i can get my really young child into the united states then they get amnesty, then they can claim me as their parents so i

can come in and then i can take care of them even though i'm not an american citizen. and that will allow them to draw more people in so it's foreseeable that parents could nd children, tough to ever give up a child, moses' mother did it to try to secure a better life for him. but how many parents have let their child go with human traffickers hoping for a better life for their child only to find out later their child never made it to america? sending them from south america , from central america across the country, clear across the ngth of mexico has got to be a risky move. the story from "the new york

times" says mr. johnson said the young migrants became a more vivid issue for him after he persuaded his wife to spend mother's day with him at the station in mchallucinaten. he -- mcallen. he said he asked a 12-year-old girl where her mother was. she responded tearfully, she did not have a mother and was hoping to find her father who is living somewhere in the united states, mr. johnson said . mr. johnson said he had spoken on monday with the am bats doers from mexico -- ambassadors from mexico and the three central american countries to seek their cooperation and had begun a publicity campaign to dissuade youths from embarking for the united states. quote, we have to discourage -- or from sending seconding for their children across the southwest border because of the risks involved.

a south texas processing center is no place for a child, mr. johnson said. officials said, many youths are fleeing gang violence at home while some are seeking to unite with parents in the united states. a majority of unaccompanied minors are not eligible to remain legally in the united states and are eventually are returned home -- and are eventualed returned home -- eventually returned home. well, secretary johnson can say we need to dissuade more young people from trying to make the perilous trip across latin america or central america to try to get into the united states. but actions speak louder than words and when the actions are that if you can just get to the united states, mr. johnson's homeland security will take

care of you, will get you three , t meals, a bed to sleep in we can't find your parents illegally in the united states, then we'll find you some other parents, people are being draw in. they know if their child comes in and is given a legal place, a legal status then they'll be able to come in on the backs of their children's legal status. so they can take care of them. so it's time to stop the luring of young children across the border by the activities of this administration. it's time for congress to stop luring people across the border by talk of amnesty. it's time to stop.

and as if that wasn't bad there's an article from "today" that says the department of homeland security is only requested that the state department invoke visa sanctions against a country that refuses or delays accepting an immigrant facing deportation back to their own once over a decade ago. the article says a state department official confirmed monday that the only time the state department invoked visa sanctions at the request of d.h.s. was in 2001 against guyiana. last week the center for immigration studies reported immigration al

and customs enforcement document revealed that last year i.c.e. released 36,007 criminal immigrants awaiting the outcome of deportation proceedings. according to i.c.e. many of the releases were mandatory, some as required by court cases and it mentions one in which the supreme court held that the government cannot indefinitely detain an immigrant if there is, quote, no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future, unquote. over the weekend c.i.s. experts postlater that secretaries of state hillary clinton and -- postlater that secretaries of state hillary clinton and kerry hold partial blame for some of the immigrants released last year, estimating that 3,000 releases were mandatory due to the supreme court case because

of their apparent failure to invoke a statute requiring the d.h.s. secretary to request the secretary of state to stop issuing visas to those countries that do not take back or delay taking back their citizens. there is a total breakdown in the protection of this country and our borders. en it comes to enforcing the law. now, there are some areas where the law is being enforced. there are some areas where border patrol are doing absolutely everything they physically can to enforce the law. but because the president's ommitment is to having

navigators as being more important than having border trol, then we have a leaking sieve at our borders. because the federal government, this administration is more committed to having new i.r.s. ents to enforce obamacare, agents, navigators, bureaucrats that will never so much as put , this id on a hurt administration considers them more important for health care than doctors, nurses, people that actually do good. i've been hearing this last week in my district about doctors and nurses being laid f, bureaucrats being hired right and left by the federal

government, health care bureaucrats. they're not going to save a life. they're going to create more paperwork, they're going to create more burden for people that actually do the healing and treating, they're currently making their lives miserable with paperwork and with computer work. some doctors have already told me they were retired or retiring because they're just not going to be answering to bureaucrats that don't know about the treatment they provide. yet this administration thinks more bureaucrats, more i.r.s. agents, more navigators, who by the way we hear reports are getting registration reforms to people that they're signing up -- forms to people that they're signing up. so, gee, they might not be providing health care, they may

be providing misinformation about health care, they may be telling people to get on websites that don't work, but they are getting them ren registered to vote. how -- registered to vote. how about that? mr. speaker, look, it's time that the federal government, through the executive branch, started fulfilling their oaths to enforce the laws as they are . it's time that this congress, like in the case of the patriot act and the so-called u.s.a. freedom act that's going to leave a gaping hole in the manner in which the federal government can continue to get personal information that has nothing to do with terrorism, it's time for all of us to step up to the plate and do our jobs and follow our oaths and once that is accomplished there will be more jobs for people because

the economy will improve, there will be more health care for people because we get more doctors and nurses and fewer bureaucrats. it's time we started living up to our commitment to the american people. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: mr. speaker. >> for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition. mr. gohmert: i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the special order given tonight by . horsford as well as -- the speaker pro tempore: without objection.

so ordered. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition. mr. gohmert: i move that we do now adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly the house stands

>> attorney general eric holder announced the indictments of chinese military who hacked into the computer ervers of u.s. businesses and stole proprietary information. that's next on c-span, a of sexual discussion assaults on college campuses. later former treasury secretary talks about his new book on the 2008 financial crisis. >> on the next washington journal, we'll get an update on the justice department dietingment that it was five chinese military officers for computer hacking. we'll talk to ben fitzgerald for a center for a new american security. for the ichael bell centers for disease control and prevention of the threat of the

mers virus. and you can join the facebook and n twitter. washington journal live each morning at 7:00 eastern on c-span. filed justice department charges against five members of a chinese military unit for into the computer systems of five u.s. companies union in order to allegedly steal trade secrets. we'll hear from attorney general eric holder and officials from the fbi at this 30-minute news briefing. >> good morning, i'm joined by john carlin, the united states ttorney for the western

district of pennsylvania, dave pick ton. director of istant the fbi, and scott smith, the for the gent in charge fbi pittsburgh office. in the 2013 state of the union obama called dent the theft of corporate secrets y foreign companies and countries, i quote, a real threat to our security as well as to our economy, end quote. here this morning to discuss a matter that prove this by the t warned about president is all too real. today we're announcing an officers forr five the chinese people's liberation rmy for serious sign security breeches against six american victim companies. first ever ent the charges against known state united or infiltrating states commercial targets by cybermeans. federal grand jury in pittsburgh found the five conspired withrs

others to hack into the computers of western and elsewhere in the united states. the victim entities include electric, alcoa, allegheny technologies united states steal, steal workers union, and the solar world. is a case alleging economic espionage by members of the military. the range of trade secrets and business sensitive information tolen in this case is significant and demands an aggressive response. that the ment alleges pla officers maintained unauthorized access to steal the information from the entities hat would be useful to the competitors in china including state-owned enterprises. trade cases, they stole secrets that would have been beneficial to chinese companies at the time they were stolen. and others, the sensitive internal communications that

provide a competitor or adversary with litigation and nsight to the strategy and vulnerabilities of the american entity. n some, the alleged hacking appears to be conducted for no other reason than advantage and other companies interests in china at the expense of businesses here in the united states. that the united states government categorically denounces. obama has said on numerous occasions, we do not provide ntelligence to a competitive advantage to united states companies or to commercial tates sector. our economic security and our ability to compete fairly in the global marketplace are directly linked to our national security. success of the american companies since our nation's founding has been the result of work and of fair play by our citizens. to be how it ought across the globe. success in the international

arketplace should be based solely on the company's ability to innovate and compete, not on sponsor's government's ability to spy and steal secrets. hen a foreign nation uses military or intelligence resources and tools against an or ican executive corporation to obtain trade secrets or sensitive business information for the benefit for state-owned companies, we must say enough is enough. administration will not tolerate actions by any nation sabotages to illegally american companies and undermine the integrity of fair in the operation of the free market. this case should serve as a wakeup call to the seriousness of the ongoing cyberthreat. the criminal charges represent a ground breaking step forward in threat.ng that this indictment makes clear that state actors who engage in espionage even in the internet from far away places will beices in shanghai

exposed for the criminal conduct nd sought for apprehension and prosecution in an american court of law. but that is my pleasure now to assistant nover the attorney general for the ational security division john carlin. >> the national security divisions mission is to protect by using every legal tool available to confront nd defeat threats to our country. today that tool is an indictment back bid the independence and of the criminal justice system. the threat is members of unit 61398 of the chinese military who targeted the u.s. private advantage.commercial e allege that members of 61398 conspired to hack to the computers of six u.s. vick tinls that would ormation provide an economic advantage to he victims' competitors

including state-owned enterprises. in the past, when we brought as these to chinese government officials, hey responded by publicly challenging us to provide hard evidence of their hacking that court.tand up in well today we are. for the first time we're the faces and names behind the key boards in used to steal from american businesses. and thanks to the investigation the hard work of the western district of ennsylvania, this indictment describes with particularly the specific actions on specific actors to use c their computers to steal information from across our economy. it describes how they targeted nformation and information ranging from nuclear to steal to renewable energy. that while the men and women of our american businesses spent their business

innovating, creating, and developing strategies to compete in the global marketplace. these members of unit 61398 were days in their business shanghai stealing the fruits of our labor. shows that the business information that these individuals stole, including have been ts would beneficial to chinese companies. let me give you some examples of allegations in our indictment. right about the time that solar the was rapidly losing market share to chinese competitors that were pricing these well below costs, hackers were stealing cost, price, and strategy information world's computers. and while westinghouse was chinese ng with a state-owned enterprise over the destruction of nuclear power hackers stole trade secret designs for components of those plants. to be clear, this conduct is criminal and it is not conduct

responsible nations in the global economic community would tolerate. the department of justice and fbi, we have repeatedly holded we would do more to those accountable who engage in these actions and today we begin pledge.ll that and we will continue using all the tools at our disposal to teal those with the intellectual property no matter who they are or where they reside. turn it over to david heck ton, the u.s. western of in pennsylvania who's been a valuable partner in these efforts. >> thank you, good morning. you know, pittsburgh has long een pre-eminent in the metal industries and home to organized labor. now as a result, pittsburgh has the target of state encroachments.

united states steel, the largest in the u.s., westinghouse, one of the leading developers of nuclear technology. the largest aluminum company in the united states. llegheny technologies, a large integrated specialty metals company headquartered in pittsburgh. d steelworkers union, largest union in north america and solar world, a manufacturing company. these victims are tired of being raided. for their ant overnment to take a stand against criminals who infiltrate and exploit their computer networks. our domestic corporations struggle to compete with china on the pricing of steel and

goods. our competitive advantage has een to engineer superior, stronger, and more advanced country such as oil tubular goods and seamless standard line pipes. these initiatives costs billions of dollars in capital and costs.h and development and these computer intrusions this the theft of technology and blunt our ability to compete. computer e of these intrusions by the chinese steel y, u.s. steel, the workes, and ati and other companies were involved in trade disputes to redress dumping by owned steel tate companies through accepted dispute reck michls. the success of the entities and rade litigation also made them targets. the hackers stole internal trade

attorney-client communications, and cost and production analysis. by chinese cy hackers targeted each of these at critical times such as in the midst of negotiations a nuclear power plant were in the middle of a trade case. the effects of economic espionage are far reaching. victim companies lose their capital investments in research and technology. important message is that cybertheft impacts real real and painful ways. he life blood of any organization is the people who work, strive, and sweat for it. cyberintrusions occur, production slows, plants off, andrkers get laid lose their homes. towns in ns in steel western pennsylvania like port, and ckeyes

clarn tin, as well as other cities in the nd united states. this 21st century burglary has to stop. would not stand idly by if someone pulled a tractor trailer headquarters, te cracked the lock, and loaded up sensitive information. hacking, spying, and cybertheft for commercial advantage can and be prosecuted criminally even when the defendants are state actors. these victim organizations and ndeed every organization are entitled to a fair shot and a an l playing field in intensely competitive global market. we thank the fbi for the great work. t took world class investigators to follow a complicated trail of avenues building on one block in one city in china. ready to bring the

defendants to justice in federal court in pittsburgh, pennsylvania. thank you. we'll now hear from bob anderson, the executive assistant director of the fbi. >> thank you. >> good morning, everybody. as my colleagues have said, five s action is charging chinese military hackers who have been legally penetrating six omputer networks of u.s. victims demonstrates very clearly that we will not stand other countries steal our nation's intellectual property. no secret that the chinese government sought to use cyberespionage to obtain the economic advantage for the state owned industries. public ic efforts and exposure has failed to curtail these activities. taken it to the next step of securing an indictment the most prolific hackers of the three p.o.a.

these individuals are alleged to have used a variety of including e-mails that launched malicious software proprietary and sensitive information from our u.s. victims. the victims have suffered significant losses as a result of the tactics. being built every day by the innovation and effort of american workers. and companies.

this first indictment of chinese cyberactors clears the way for charges to be made. this is the new normal. you're going to see on a recurring basis, not just months, not just every year. it's very clear, if you're going americans, whether for criminal or national security are going to hold you accountable, no matter what country you live in. thank you. > okay, before we take any

questions, i would like to make this one further statement. confirm that over the past weekend, there were a law enforcement actions undertaken across the globe related to the separate working in case, close coordination with the international partners, we of arrests series and other actions targeting the of tors and purveyors malicious computer software known as black shades that can by imize ordinary americans stealing and ex-mroilting their personal information. there is an announcement at noon in this matter in new york city. would refer you to the southern district of new york for other questions related to the case. despite this case, we're stepping up the cyberenforcement globe, around the whether the perpetrators are oreign governments or civilian hackers, we will not tolerate these activities. i'll be glad to take on your

questions. >>. [ inaudible question ] fbi if anything is the trying to shore up a few sites in that cyberattack? >> well, i hope that the chinese our nment will respect criminal justice system unless as it should.eds let justice take its course. we expect, we hope the chinese would work with us in onnection with us to bring the indicted men to justice. we're going to remain vigilant to cyberthreats from china or other countries. holder, is it likely these defendants would stand trial in the u.s. courtroom? here?, what's the goal >> our intention is for the defendants to have due process in an american court of law. this is the intention of what we ave done today to hold accountable people who have engaged in activities that

law.te american criminal that is our intention. >> but it does seem unlikely, doesn't it? we have a preview with china. do we extradite the people with these offenses? never tell how things will play out. we have stated what our intention is. have brought a charging indictment. it is our hope to have these an american before jury and face -- face justice. the u mentioned this is first of its kind prosecution. what new tools were available to this happen in 2014? or what barriers or obstacles do you have? refer to the folks conducting the investigation? >> i'm reluctant to get to the or means of the investigation beyond the details what we shared with you in the complaint.iled but i think we're grateful for the leadership of the president who he attorney general gave us a green light to proceed. we have the willened a the manner and the means to achieve we've put before you in western pennsylvania.

>> since these are state actors, is it possible that you bring indictments against the state? >> i think we're not going to discuss what possible charges the future.ught in beyond to say these cases are the cases like the cases we today are hard. phenomenal work by the fbi that we were able to bring a case say by name what people did in the specific actions that they took. the conduct will stop by bringing criminal actions. doesn't, we'll use every tool at our disposal. the status quo can't stand businesses cannot continue to have their secrets stolen day in and day out. nsa spyingght of the controversy and the chinese government, you know, frustration with what happened there, is there any worry that

retaliate in a legal context and start filing charges who spieds. officials on china? or things like that? guys, theseme these chinese are now on interpol. they cannot travel outside of china. so could that happen? >> all nations are engaged in gathering.e what i think distinguishes this we have a state state ed entity, the advantage.ve >> do you put a dollar value on stolen,rmation that was either the components or in total? not possible to put a dollar value at this point. the indictment alleges threshold to charge. but i think surely all of you now that what it takes to do the research and development to develop these new projects to omplete in the increasingly

competitive global market, you know what the impact is when the so the dollar value will be substantial. >> a range? dollars of nformation or billions or dollars of information? >> not a range but it's substantial. >> you said that the were able to track these hackers to a building and did all ofed this. wasn't that an opportunity to pprehend them or work with the partners to actually bring them to justice? justice in the court of law. we've been able to charge specific individuals by name. where they worked that their department and not army, ople's liberation unit 61398. and we hope as the attorney

and anticipate that able to bring them to justice and have them face their charges in a court of law. were you ortunity -- able to point them -- find them in this building, or was this ust a building like another government building. they were not necessarily in there. the impression that i got from statements read that these individuals were tracked down to this particular building of this particular block. so why not take them in? >> the building we're referring to is in shanghai, china. hope, that -- we these individuals come to face court.charges in a u.s. but beyond that, i'm not going to comment further. >> can you speak a little bit in have of the u.s. jobs that

been lost as a result of these kinds of things? i think there's a lot more data on that that's in other forums. but i can speak directly from western pennsylvania. taken have -- we have everything that's been thrown at us in western pennsylvania and faced all of the challenges of marketplace. but if you look specifically of the example that i told you investmentsr in the nd seamless pipe and oil country tube, u.s. steel bought a plant in texas to compete. expanded at great cost and xpense over and above the research and development costs. when these intrusions hit and flooded with below cost pipe from china, these plants were padlocked and lost their jobs. so it has a real and direct the ive impact in jurisdiction where i practice and the same is true in

ohio.ine, that was another location for some of this investment to compete. around the country, there and demonstrable loss of jobs. you're saying that plant in texas was shut down as a result of the allegations you're making the cyberallegations you're making today. > the below-cost sales of competitive products and the the -- there was a very substantial trade case 2009 that you could look at. but yes, absolutely. 'm saying that this cyberhacking leads directly to the loss of jobs here in the united states. bit n you talk a little about why now? it's something you've been working on for a long time. to 2012.ct occurred up what made you decide this is now unscale these charges? >> these cases take time.

to bring. we bring cases when they are in where we can identify individuals and entities the conduct.or a missed opportunity. it's a legitimate question. one thing you have to keep in that the people who were charged in this case have never been in the united states. not a question of being able to our hands on it while in the united states. employed by the people's liberation army. they wouldn't have done this presumably the approval of the states, the chinese states. the doesn't happen without chinese state's approval. same nt to question the states to hand them over to u.s. justice. if they don't, what else can you justice?ing them to >> we hope we'll have cooperate from the chinese government. we'll see what happens. it is in the interests of china, it would seem to me, to be seen tors of the rule of law. as a pe will be that they

result cooperate with us to the extend we will not have that we'll use all of the means available to us to have all of the people who appear in here in the ourt united states at pittsburgh and give them due process of american law. that we canf things do. and we will employ all of them. holder, can i question of why now? we mentioned that the case take time. a lot of this activity has been time.on for a long, long that ere was some mention the leadership gave a green light to this case. to it a problem in the past get that green light? was it simply that -- that --ision to move ahead or >> it was really a function of the great investigation i think that was done by the people who standing behind me. it took a number of years to put it was e together and eally a function of getting to

a point where we felt comfortable bringing the charges we felt today. not as a result of the interaction problems we had within our own government. >>. [ inaudible question ] on awould say this focuses series of specific industries. you see other specific industries -- aboutould express concern other industries that are potentially at risk, not only but from other countries as well. and as we all indicated, this as a notice tove every nation around the world that would engage in these kinds activities that the united states takes it seriously that we will bring charges where that and we take all measures that we can to hold individuals responsible for their conduct. >> thank you. the imary voters go to

polls in six states tomorrow. in georgia, there's a crowded epublican field of candidates trying to replace u.s. senators chambliss who's retiring. this from real clear politics. georgia ref pubs may be easier ahead of senate s crowded u.s. primary. two gap prone house conservatives have sunk to the of the polls and three candidates considered more to the top ve risen chambliss. saxby but purdue, kingston, and former karen handel tate is now engaged in the own divisive battle. is problem for republicans this is only round one. the gop nominee almost certainly determined on tuesday as no candidate is likely to required 50% threshold to move on to the general election. instead, the top two candidates

it out for another nine weeks. it figures to be one long hot in georgia. that's from kaitlyn huey burns clear politics. live coverage tomorrow night live on our companion network, c-span 2. > in a moment, a conversation on combatting rain and sexual assaults on college campuses. victims r from formern and advocacy group ms. chaired by ble, senator claire mccaskell, is the first of several discussions on this topic. we'll also hear about the cleary ct and the campus sexual violence elimination act which went into effect in 2012. >> we're all here. convene our first of three round tables on the serious problem of sexual on college campuses.

they will occur every six weeks. today we're going to talk about you about d talk to the challenges that the rules and regulations present. we'll ks from today, cover title ix. our weeks from today, covering the administrative process that's spent a great deal of focus on the criminal law where ment process and we're failing to get these perpetrators into the criminal system and what we need to do to improve our abysmal in that regard. i thank all of you for being here. invited because you're experts in various ways on this issue. hearing.is not a this is a conversation. and i want to say and enator jill len brand senator blumenthal, they're sorry they're not here today. other participate in roundtables we will have. but we're working on drafting

legislation. to do is maybe simplify. know this is now a complex labyrinth of different rules cleary and and title ix and different standards of proof, different state statutes. we don't even agree on the definition of consent. so those are challenges that i know this area represents and we simplify, if we can clarify, augment, support, erhaps provide more mandatory training, but with the grants that go with that. access universities can grants to help train people on things for important like that initial forensic interview that we all know is there's that frankly if one thing i could do by waving the magic wand, that is making at the moment im of report is immediately seen to y someone who's trained that can do the type of interview that makes the difference

etween success and failure in terms of ultimately bringing something to justice for a serious felony. i have of you know, already sent letters requesting detailed information from the department of justice and the education of regarding their enforcement and oversight. of 450 aunched a survey college and universities regarding their policies and sexual es relating to violence. i'm holding these roundtables to ear from a variety of stake holders to hear how they think they can best address the ignificant problem on college campuses. today as i said focus on clary pieces us save act, two of legislation among other requirements mandate the schools information eport about sexual violence. these are a great start, but i'm oncerned they have not been adequately enforced. i believe we can do better to theess this problem through enforcement regiment.

'm a former prosecutor with years of prosecuting sexual assault crimes and that informs my approach to this problem. survivors now that are getting the services they need and that perpetrators of violence are being held criminally accountable. but i know that's not all that's required. want to make sure that whatever steps we take going orward are the right ones and that we respect the rule of law in this country which includes process. i know that commitment is shared gyllenbrand and senator blumenthal. toould like our participants introduce yourselves and give a brief introduction of the work you're from.ere keep your remarks limited at this point so we have plenty of time. lots can imagine, i have of questions. i want to make sure we have time to get to all of the questions nd i hear your concerns and comments that i know will help inform our decisions as to the legislation moving forward. let's start to my left.

richards. is tracy >> hit the button and there you go. richters and tracy i'm with safer -- students active for ending rape. by students at columbia university at 2000 and a er we were organized as national nonprofit organization that requires college student to reform their sexual hold their cies and accountable to processes and supporting survivors. holly ryder milkovich, the director of the sexual assault prevention and center at the university of michigan. in that role, i'm responsible overseeing the institution's prevention efforts, the response fforts as it relates to students who are survivors of partnerssault, intimate violence, sexual harassment and stalking and serve in leadership developing policies and processes at the institution and

campus save and other federal mandates. >> good afternoon, senator mccaskell. mahaffey. i work for the office of post the u.s. education at department of education. i'm responsible for the egulations that implement the violence against women act and other clear issues. >> and -- yes. >> hi, i'm alison. i'm alison, i'm the executive director for the leary center for security on campus. founded in 1987 by howard and cleary. e provide technical assistance consistent with cleary compliance and other preventions well. >> i'm caroline fulz carver, the university of south florida compliance the officer for that system. my chief responsibilities is to education on opportunity out to compliance, including cleary, campus save,

act, olence against women and where those laws interface with title ix. i'm the chief of police at george mason university but i'm here on behalf of the international association of campus law enforcement dministrators and government relations committee for that entire organization. >> thank you very much. >> thank you. dunn, i'm a campus sexual assault survivor, an from st over eight years now. i graduated from the university f maryland law school, so i guess i'm a lawyer now. >> that's the first time you've been able to say that? feels good. and serve justice, survivors, powers, activists in handling sexual violence. great. >> senator baldwin, welcome? we're glad you're here. you if turn it over to you have any comments you want to make before we begin. >> absolutely. along with hank you some of our other senate colleagues for convening this

in a series of roundtable discussions on sexual assault campus.lence on and i want to thank you for your critical work on the issue. i want to share some words of praise for the administration think very important steps to raise the student sexual violence, including the stablishment of a white house task force to look further into the issue. the hile i'm encouraged by advances that we're seeing on the issue, including strengthening of federal law that we're going be talking a today, i more about also think we can all agree to be much, much left done. so i just wanted to call ttention to two -- two quick issues. was proud in recent weeks to comlente the tyler

that would ent bill include cyberbullying and anti-harassment into our policies for t those of you who know about the clemente, he was and ictim of cyberbullying ended up after his freshman year of itting suicide because the -- because of the activities. inlso -- we can address this the discussion, but senator and your you colleagues on the armed services committee have just done such an incredible job of elevating the issue of the sexual violence see in our military. that i see sort of overlap between what we're today and that is acrosscs on our campuses

the country where many of our and come re trained through. heard anecdotal information that concerns me and thinks we elevate the or focus on that in terms of data collection and understanding happening.'s -- so it complements your that - your leader shship on committee with what we're doing here today. seeing u for coming and a fellow badger. thank you for being here. >> thank you. you're here. let's start with the cleary act. you can start off. all of these -- everyone should jump in. a free-flowing discussion. the worst thing that could

you leave this room and say i wish i would have told them this or about this. frustrates you, everything that you think is working, everything that you think is problematic. please don't hold back. the clary act. to, of the people i talked i think it was originally envisioned this would be data rely on and itld would be consumable by someone. the problem is now i don't think knows the data is even there. and i mean getting past the not problem that it's reliable. the second probable is that it appear to me to be out families even know where it exists. t's something that you ask for and find out if the data is on the campus. o, alison, who do you believe the da is intended to be for? >> sure, so i -- again, injust interfewed one of our founders

recently for something separate. we talked about the intention being for -- to be forewarned is something she talked so often about to let people know when they're going to a campus, what have been reported on that campus. or current students, perspective students, current employees, perspective employees. other side to that, air anything we want to air i will often it to heart is plays out if you have a campus hat reports 60 sex offenses versus a campus that reports zero, the perception of the the campus reporting 60 was unsafe. that.d disagree with that campus reporting 60. as a former prosecutor, you know, it's an underreported crime. students are coming forward, they're seeking help. go. know where to they're getting the education to know what happened to them to be able to call that sexual assault. that's one of the challenges i see with the numbers.

thatnnual security reports campuses produce that are to be ade public for families for imployees are wonderful documents that provide summaries of policies. one of the other i'm sure some of my colleagues could probably add to how i just started the conversation. >> so how do we get -- how do we do better on the problem if a college campus said they have zero, that should be a real red flag to parents that they are not reporting statistics and not taking the problem seriously opposed to one that reports 60 and they have a robust program where they are accurately collecting data and victims feel comfortable coming forward. does anybody have any ideas as

to how we could get past that bump? because that is going to be the problem. there is an incentive to not accurately report. >> i think the white house already actually started addressing that. they are talking about the victimizeation survey. we have an underreported problem and when we measured that and had that number at the top of the cleary chart and say there is 100 rapes here and only five are reported, that is how you contrast it. when colleges have to face those numbers then the incentive is to have 60 and close that gap. the white house is looking to implement that in 2016 but i think we start thinking about that now and how it works with cleary. the challenge with cleary is eographically based and bound. >> so the answer to the cleary problem is maybe mandating?

the white house is talking about voluntarily doing climate surveys? >> i'm for mandating. they make you give back your books before you get your diploma. it has to be the subtle method of have you had an experience that you didn't want this to happen. when you force people to identify legally, i didn't know what happened to me was rape for a long time. i just thought it was my fault or something bad that happened. it took me a long time to come to that realization. >> how it is conducted. there has been a history in the united states done by the department of justice. do you have thoughts and recommendations in terms of people sharing? >> one of the recommendations that i would encourage is that campuses who are doing surveys

use validated instruments for those surveys so that we are able to be able to compare from campus to campus the information that is coming out of these surveys in the ways that cleary i believe was intended to function. also that there would be able to be comparable data. that would be possible when we're using survey instruments that have been tested to actually measure that which we are hoping to measure. i would note that the university of new hampshire has had for 20 years a survey that they have used and that that has a validated instrument that could be the beginningings of an instrument that other campuses could adopt. >> so what you're saying is otentially, we -- education or d.o.j. would come up with a standard survey that everyone would see yulede use with standard language on the

questions? >> i would hope that we would come up with a core of standard information that would be able to be comparable from institution to institution, but also that institutions be able to adapt some portions of the survey so that they can actually measure some of the other kind of interventions that are happening from campus to campus that this serves not only as a tool for consumers to be able to use to compare data, but also as a learning instrument for the campus itself to be able to identify what packs are effective and it is my hope that those kind of measures will feed into the janning gap of research and evidence for practice as ell as pons on the college campus. >> state the painfully obvious. an confidentiality so we

can get at the heart of what's happening. if anyone has an inkling that their data is going to be revealed, they would pt answer honestly. >> a good model for that would be the college health association, an administered survey at many college campuses so looking at some of the things they use to administer. it is just a matter -- >> which is all private health data. it is anonymously. there is confidence that the people taking this survey realize it is. >> absolutely. and to speak to senator mccaskill's accessibility about the data on the o.p.'s website, currently depending on how you filter the data through o.p.e.'s website, if it pushes the information out sometimes the tabular data comes out incorrect and there are many typographical

errors. there are errors in spacing and there are errors in the columns. we found that to be a huge challenge. >> tell me what you're getting -- >> the office of post secondary -- >> the website? >> you try to download the cleary data from that, it comes out with significant typographical errors, spacing issues, the headings sometimes are not correct, there are periods and commas where they should not be so it really questions how valid the data is and if you're getting the most accurate data for the campus that you're looking at. >> obviously the government came notaloan.gov. they didn't mention the cleary act on that website. they listed the 55 schools under investigation. now have to request it. law enforcement can speak to it as a silent issue.

people don't know there is a complaint on campus and if they did, they would feel more comfortable coming forward, sharing information and the data gets flushed out and all of the other incidents come forward. i definitely think that is of concern. >> let me ask our police chief, one of the things they realized s that the cleary act uses definitions from both the u.c.r. and the national incident-based reporting and it is my understanding that if someone is taken by force into their car and driven across town and then they break in somebody else's apartment and then there is a rape, you are reporting a kidnapping, a rape and a breaking and entering as three separate incidents and nobody has any idea that it was the

same all in one crime. is that actually the way it works? >> yes, madam senator. one of the challenges for campus law enforcement, something this we have talked greatly about. making that information useful. that is one of the problems that we encounter in our business and law enforcement on campus is the challenges between the differences and over time the cleary act has expanded some definition s that arenot covered and it creates a lot of logistical challenges for them to address when other municipal agencies are counting those particular statistics, yet a college campus is required to come up and try and determine where specifically does meet that particular crime because state laws vary throughout this country. being able to capture that information. to answer the second portion of your question, how we account

those particular crimes. when we talk about making it accessible and useful. when the information comes out it is just aggregate data. it looks like all of these crimes are occurring and it may be just one incident or a recurring or separate pieces to that incident. >> somebody could go on a crime spree one night and could blow up the data over one continuing criminal behavior over one evening because it embraces so many different types of criminal behavior. >> a good example is hate crime. when you to designate, maybe it is a robbery based on where it occurred but also listed under hate crime. when that information comes out, it looks to the untrained eye as two different crimes. >> why is it that way? does anybody know how that came about? >> i can't eabs answer that

specific question, but i can say i know cleary already handles a incident such as that. rather that putting statistics in numbers, schools have the flexibility showing it is one event. my concern actually is we only count by victimizations. you could have a gang rape that is one rape even though there are 10 perpetrators. that to me is shocking. that is common force of sexual violence. >> so we're counting all the different crimes but we're not counting all the different perpetrators? >> yes. to the point where we forget where the problem is coming from. >> but just to add on it too, there is also the public crime log requirement under cleary. there is the opportunity there where you the ability to explain or detail in more plain

language, user-friendly language so to speak if it is accessible. you the ability to request the crime log and get a sense for what occurred or what happened so there would be a little more detail there. >> can i just add to that? that is true about the crime log, but i'm thinking as a parent here. the whole idea is to give parents and students informed information. the probability that they are going to even know that they can request the crime log much less read through it to figure out counted one event being as many or a gang rape counted as one? i think that is too much to ask. the third issue to accounting is it is reported as raw numbers. two rapes on a campus that is a small cosmetology school, 25

students versus a large institution, two rapes, 100,000 people. they are both two rapes. they are both horrible, but it is a very different safety situation, i think, in my mind, and with the raw numbers, there is no room for a parent to ompare apples to apples. >> do we need a whole new data schematic for this? anybody willing to sign up for that project? >> i think you can capitalize you can go on there, type in your zip code and see over crisis intervention service. why not type in a school, have the security data show up there. have the ability to contract a few colleges. my understanding is that it is physical and you have to be on campus and you can go see it. they can also be electronic. maybe that is something that schools can have a link to or a route to. >> it seems to me with technology today, we ought to be ble to do a rot of this more

simply with electronics. there aubt to be a way where you can have a user-friendly dynamic where you could go on and click on the university can get the data can't get the crime logs, get, -- get context. how many students and even allow the university to talk about you numbers are. eir are they up? are they down? allow them to do a narrative. have they put an emphasis on reporting? as a result victims, i don't know. would that -- should that all be done through cleary? probably. right? >> one of the things that i think would be very helpful and i would just reflect also that when we look at the numbers and

we know that reports don't equal a clear picture of what's happening on campus, i talked to a lot of parents and parents want to know how do i make determinations about what is a safer campus for me to send my child, and i think that looking at the prevention and response efforts that are happening on a campus are an excellent determination because that is something that campuses are able to effect and that is something that we have more evidence, makes an impact on campus. so i think as we're looking at finding ways to compare campuses, i think allowing for parents to have the data about those prevention efforts and have the data about those response efforts in addition to the reported incidents would be a very helpful matrix. >> it is context? >> absolutely. it is context. what is the campus doing to

address these matters proactively and in the event of a traumatic incident. >> one of the things the white house talked about and spent some time on and i don't think it has come to any conclusion and that is somehow should this school ncluded in rankings like the u.s. news and world report ranking? >> one of the challenges with that is that we're requiring schools to self-report that data. if you just look at the statistical numbers. if you're looking at things that holly mentioned like what are the prevention efforts happening on campus. they ny counselors do have? that may speak more strongly than the data itself. we recognize that we cannot necessarily trust every institution to report the data

accurately. if you look at new york state campus, for example, if you go into the cleary data and look at how many results are occurring per campus in new york state, it is less than half an assault occurring per campus. if you have one in five women who is a survivor of a completed sexual assault on her campus, we know that data is not correct. you have to rely on institutions to generate that data. i don't know if using those numbers is the best way. >> what about the climate survey? >> they would potentially be a more accurate picture. >> absolutely. i know the outreach foundation is doing 232 -- they are trying to figure out how to measure, not just compliance with the laws but true safety. having an objective third party coming in saying you're doing a great job but let's go through. do you have this policy? do you only have your own

security force? i think we need to look outside of schools to get a true picture of what's happening. >> can i just -- i think it is a very wise suggestion to look at the survey report. accuratef getting more igher quality cleary data, are there clear impediments we should be inking about, for example, interacting with one or more municipal police departments that are responding because there isn't a campus. definitions that may be being applied differently in different states and different campuses. are there a set of clear obstacles that we ought to be grappling with to make that campus-based data more accurate? >> i have something.

the f the things that is compliance -- clines is all about training, getting information out there, have everybody on the same page reporting the same things and the way that the law is written now, we are to train new students and employees on the definitions of these crimes and the local jurisdiction. i could be in a state that doesn't. , yes. dating violence, domestic violence, stalking, they may or may not have a definition of consent when i report for my school, i must report based on the cleary definitions and they are not always the same, obviously. to me there is a disconnect. to me, it needs to be very simple. everybody has the same

definition. we all report on the same things. apples to apples. >> i think to piggyback on that. the first thing i want to talk about, we have this document that talks about prevention. talks about statistics. institutions have to do that with the annual security report which essentially has these cliffsnotes of policies and the numbers. and in order to put that together well, it requires training. these policies have full policies that they support. and then a step further, the institutions are trained to implement them. what we have seen with a lot of the cases on college and university campuss is they are not implementing policies well and survivors are suffering vult. that is when you see -- as a result. that's when you see major changes made. title nine is a conversation for two weeks from now.

they are making changes because they have been called out on it. there has been public scrutiny. now they are inning resources and energy from leadership. they are talking about cleary when their board of trustees have never talked about it before or possibly have misspelled it for a number of years. a lot of -- a lot of what is there in the law, if you're trained on it. if it is being implemented, i think works well. the challenge that i see a lot day-to-day as a technical assistance provider for -- clery and as an organization that worked on compliance with clery get get some people who it. they are that lone soldier. they have no support. there is a difference too. i think if we have resources, it would be great. a lot of times we'll say just

the support. we ask them what they are doing and if you can help. even having the president's name attached can help. i don't have a solution. i wish i did. you can't have this conversation without ignoring the organizational dynamics that come into play. >> it almost has been like a check the box thing on too many campuses. we're going to do the bare minimum that we can do to be compliant but we are not really having robust training or the underlying support on campus to make this work the way it's supposed to work. frankly, we don't have the data yet from the survey. i think we do need to make some changes because nothing is more frustrating than a rote exercise that you're required to do. that's why people get mad at the government. that is one of the problems we have got here is that if every campus took it seriously and tried to support it and understand that there is

something required other than cut and paste on -- oh, it is time to cut and paste on the security report again. right? but the same language, i bet if we look, i bet those reports change very little. >> i'm someone that says i wish we didn't have to do enforcement. i wish we could train and educate people to do it. what we're seeing is that it is the only way we're going to see changes. i can name five institutions on one hand that really do it well. they are all under investigation. >> to piggy back on what allison was saying, 1/3 of the policies were not fully compliant with the clery act in written policy. we're seeing 1/3 of the schools

out of 300 that are not compliant. >> that means thousands of schools are not compliant. > yes. to me, as a compliance officer, i look at the statutes and the regulation and then i help administration and management interpret it into a policy and then i work with the units to help them get it done. but, you know, we are not, i'm a compliance officer and my management team, they are not experts in sexual assault, dating violence, preventing those types of crimes. what we need is simple things. give us the model policy. what does it look like. not just cut and paste and legal ese. the policy is just the beginning. we need the procedures to implement it. to get those procedures to implement it, i thought of a simple solution. the department of education, they conduct audits.

surely they can publish best practices. what have they seen when they have gone into institutions? could they publish their audit reports so that we can see the good and the bad? >> where are those audit reports? do they get published? >> they do compliance to reviews and that information does become public. >> if i wanted to go look at the results of a compliance audit done by d.o.e., department of education, where would i look? where would i find it? >> it is on the f.s.a. data center website. >> what does f.s.a. stand for? >> i'm sorry. the office of student aid. >> if i go on the website, and click on there, am i going to be able to find these audits and y50u6r9s that have been cited

for not being compliant on clery? >> yes. >> is that part of a larger audit or do you do clery-specific audits? >> in 2010, the office of federal student aid which is responsible for enforcing the cleyy rules created a special unit that does nothing but create clery complines. we have plans to double that in the next few years. there are specifically clery compliance reviews being done as well as when we do audits on larger compliance issues, we also look at clery through those. >> how many institutions would you say on annual basis are getting a clery compliance audit either through the clery-specific unit or as part of a larger student aid.

is that what it is called? >> yes. >> a larger f.s.a. audit? what would be the number on an annual basis? >> i don't know the number on an annual basis. about 300. >> 300 a year? and has there been any attempt to ko late those results and put a report together on college campuses on an annual basis that we could look at year-to-year. has there been any effort to do that? >> we have not done it yet, but we are going to implement that. >> ok. i was also an auditor. 13 is not very many for 7,000 campuses? >> yes. we certainly are planning to grow that office and as i mentioned, we are also doing that through our larger compliance effort so it is not just 13 people. i -- how many of the just clery audits are

being done by the 13 auditors on an annual basis opposed to the 300 unit. the clery unit, how many are they doing? >> about 20. >> that is still a lot for 13 people. i can't wait to look at the audits. >> we also have a summary with an analysis of the findings that we put together. i have a spread sheet. >> that would be great. >> they are the only division title ing a law enforces nine. that is a big part of this problem. we spend all day making laws and rules and regulations. when it comes to survivors who ask for enforcement, we don't have special ed enforcers who know the details of this law or rk together with the clery doesn't work with them.

not a big person giving big money for other than survivors to recover. if you're going to spend money somewhere, please allow them to spend it on enforcement. >> or at least integration. >> i think that would help institutions because they are splitting their minds on the issue of sexual assault between two laws and now three. that is difficult. so if the government can figure out how the put it into one unit, so can institutions. >> and they can model that better for the institutions? >> absolutely. >> let me add to that. i was also a former auditor but of clinical trials. what we did for f.d.a. regulated studies, we had a checklist so we knew when the audit team came in, what are they going to look for? that is what we are going to be graded on. why can't we do the same thing? to me, if you find at audit, that is too late. we spent all of this time that we're not getting it right.

i would rather get it right and know you have to do x, y and z. >> the only problem with that is when -- the federal government does audits on child support collection, and when i took over that office, we were not collecting very much child support, but we were passing every audit. they were so busy checking the box they knew they were going to be looked at no one was asking the question why aren't we collecting for child support? you have to be careful when you do that because institutions train themselves to be audit responsive opposed to looking at the underlying problem. it is not that they passed the audit. it is that victims are getting services on campuses. young people on campuses are being trained about the reality of this problem and we are getting more law enforcement activity around these crimes. i mean, that is ultimately the goal here. that is the ultimate deterrent.

it is hard for me not to talk about the criminal justice system today because i have to wait two weeks to be able to do that. that is a huge part of the problem. let's look at some of the other things i have on my list here. the i know we are supposed to see a draft role very soon. >> we will publish that in mid-june. >> domestic violence must be included. how are you going to handle the confusion around those three crimes? we already have the confusion of reporting each crime separately, but many not each perpetrator separately. are you going to be providing definitions for the difference between dating violence and domestic violence?

>> several of the members of this roundtable served on that committee and we were very grateful for the expertise they brought to the table. it represented a very wide troop -- a very wide group of interests. the gamut of different interests that would be affected by these regulations. we grappled with a lot of issues that we have been talking about today, including how crimes are counted and we have talked a lot about training programs as well. we were able to come to consensus on the language and i because a lotup of time and effort went into it and you really worked very hard to come to consensus on that. we feel as though we have a very good regulation that we will be publishing for public comment.

we did have a very wonderful -- the department did a great job of presenting a definition of consent and how to show when consent lacks. you do not have to fight back. is there the presence of a gas? -- presence of the yes? that is why it is silent and that is why it hurts survivors so much to have someone say,

clearly, it is consensual because you did not do x, y, and z. it needs to exist. >> the problem is that this is not a federal crime. unless you're in the district of columbia or in indian reservation, these crimes are state crimes. we cannot define for states elements of their crimes. do models and incentives. >> that is one thing we should look at. how can we incentivize states to update their definitions of consent? i was surprised we still had 16 states that said it was only by force or threat of force. that is a lot of states that still do not understand that is an inappropriate and incomplete definition of consent.

what laura was talking about. when you go back to the negotiated rulemaking and coming up with a consensus, if we can get states to the point where they are consistent in their loss. under the new regulations, dating violence is not listed. you will continue to have an inconsistent definition between what other his apologies and sheriffs departments -- municipalities and sheriffs departments are reporting i'm a college campuses are reporting. -- reporting and what college campuses are reporting. >> should it go into the fbi reporting program? anybody give that any thought? >> if i thought the data was accurate, i would say yes.

when survivors are more empowered, that will change. i do not know if it would have the effect we would want right now. >> ok. let's talk about accountability and enforcement. when i realized the punishment for the department of education -- ior doj is suspending know there is the $35,000 fine -- but then there is -- the punishment that is supposed to provide all the meat, the stick behind this is suspending institutions from participating in federal student financial aid programs. does anyone believe that punishment is ever going to be given to anyone? ok.

it was not an adequate deterrent. what do we need to do -- and ery. is not just with cl the $35,000 fine is nothing to an institution. i cannot imagine -- what is the annual budget at the university of michigan? >> several million. fine compared to a very small campus that maybe has 500 students -- that does not appear to make much sense and it does not make sense to threaten something we will never do. what do we do about meaningful deterrence? does anybody have any ideas about other ways we can make this work?

>> this is my favorite discussion to have. i do not know if there is a way to do it percentagewise, taking a percentage of the school's gross income so that it does hurt, but not overwhelm smaller institutions. at lunch, we are discussing penn state getting find more for their sport violations versus what clery could ever do to it. -- there are two ways to enforce title ix and one of them requires voluntary complainants -- voluntary compliance. again, another agreement watch out, you will only get a contract every time you violate. they are survivors lives being destroyed. i do think we need intermediate sanctions.

the fine is arbitrary and it is not meaningful, so i do not know if we can look at adjusting it. you have to remove that voluntary part of it. we need to change that. >> anybody else? institutions are operating under a lot of instant -- anxiety and fear. i would be concerned about adding more sticks with no carrots. have enough programs that inspire innovation and new knowledge about this issue. we are placing all of our resources in enforcement and we are not complementing that with innovation.

i think we are creating a situation where we do have box checking. >> i understand what you are saying. i get what you are saying. we depend on college campuses for innovation for so many things and you have -- i do not want to pick on michigan, although i would kind of like to pick on michigan. you have law school. you have medical school. you are training psychologists and psychiatrists and social workers. you have every discipline, academic excellence in every discipline needed to come together on this problem. and you have endowments. you have alumni. if this problem is causing such

isess, and i think it because they are worried that they will be next. there is going to be a victim that will come forward and tell another horrific tale about how they were marginalized and how they did not get help or another heartbreaking suicide where there is a trail of tears and in action by people in a position to help. i do not understand why we are not getting more innovation from these college campuses on an interdisciplinary approach that they are willing to put some money behind from their own resources to make it work better. i am very proud to say the university of michigan is innovating. we created one of the first primary prevention programs. we have implemented a controlled matched of that program so

that we can identify its efficacy on the campus, that we are planning to launch a second to look at other stages of our efficacy programs. the university of michigan has an extraordinary wealth of resources. we have chosen to invest some in this effort. many campuses do not have that benefit and we need to be able to extend the ability to innovate to other campuses that do not have those kinds of resources. campuses look different and we need to have different kinds of innovations to address specific campus populations. it is important that they we provided the support and encouragement to do that research. -- i am sure you do have a program you've put together that is excellent.

one of the reasons you are on this panel. to share that?ng if you put together a model that works, where you have an interdisciplinary approach and you have a criminal justice degree where forensic interviewing is taught so that there are people on campus to understand there is a big as opposed to the kind of interview that should be done when somebody is willing to talk about what has occurred. why are we not seeing this cross pollinate across the country? >> violence against women has been considering doing things highlighting what has been done.

schools will have an incentive to keep funding. they need to use that money wisely. beenrsity of michigan has highlighted, i am very proud that they have done such great things. leave that to newspapers and other things. i do not know if that is the business of the government. we do not need to be handing out universities -- institutions. the people who are suffering are the victims. if we are going to give money, let's give scholarships to survivors who are brave enough to file complaints. >> the prosecutor in me just said we cannot give scholarships to someone who is brave enough

to file a complaint. they will be cross examined. their credibility would be attacked. i get the point you are making. it is a valid one. does anybody disagree? >> i do not know that i necessarily agree. i agree with the points that holly made that -- again, going back to institutions that have changed have been under investigation. they have not even been found in violation yet, so they have made the changes based on the media scrutiny. they have been on the cover of time, newsweek. they have made changes even before there is any finding of violation.

think the public being out there in public, the attention that has been on this , six months in particular the spotlight has really shown on this. i don't know that putting all of the exit into looking at finds eggs into looking at fines is the way to handle it. holly makes a great point. i was charged with preventing alcohol use, suicide, eating disorders, sexual assault. they would pick up the phone and say we have an eating disorder problem and you need to go out and educate on it. we need to start bank strategic about prevention. look at the public health model.

colleges and universities have many, because of lack of support or lack of resources, are not building robust programs around prevention. if they do have programs around ,revention or maybe one person they are not being strategic about how they prevent. they may do a one-shot orientation. i struggle with this daily, how do we have -- how to we help them change that? , how doriting a check they do this? even if it is creating a grant one, theynd we have

do not hand out a lot of those, only a small amount. being at an institution that could have applied for that, i would've had to write that federal grant with maybe the help of irb. that struggle -- it goes back to some of the organizational dynamics within in terms of what is valued. his prevention valued -- his prevention valued? i do not know if it is valued in all institutions. >> if we don't step up enforcement side, the enforcement side brings the media attention. on toly thing we can rely make these universities and colleges do what they should be doing this for them to get a bad story. that is a lot of victims.

depressingbe a conclusion. we have to figure out some way to up the ante that is short of waiting for another tragedy to hit the front pages. >> more focus with the department of ed. the changes i have seen institutions start to make is when they are immediately under investigation. i would almost rather see an investment -- in all fairness, the fines will be paying for this. where does the money come from? they can fund their own enforcement. that is the justice in every survivor would back that up. enforcement, i understand that is a component.

the important pieces to have clarity. so many people are confused about how to read the regulation or understand what is going on. it is hard to say enforcement when you have some mini people who do not understand the regulations. it -- we you have so many people who do not understand the regulations. -- of with a lot of right good people who want to do the right thing. i am cautious to label institutions. there is mass confusion. >> what about the victims? being told that the laws hard to figure out is not an answer. i understand, i went to law school and i studied this law, but we are talking about victims . >> at the end of the day, we all want to be on the same page. roundtables, ie thought i knew this area pretty

well, i have already learned several things today that i did not know. there are ways we can simplify this. what needs to be reported and how you define it. we need to be less reticent about best practices models being provided to schools. there has been -- i know the task force has done some of that, toolkits for universities to help them figure out the right way and the more we do of that, the more consistency we the morehat -- consistency we will get on campus. i get the point you are making. it requires schools to publish their evidentiary standard. we still do not have an evidentiary standard in law.

>> the title ix grievance process does address sexual assault. the answer is provided somewhere. i think it needs to be solidified. campuses are not dealing with crimes. the behavior may also qualify as a crime, but they are talking about his conduct. >> -- misconduct. >> i know it is in a dear colleague letter, i will tell you that if i were in court, the judge would say to me, i don't remember where we studied it. >> is just guidance. itit is just guidance, and is problematic for institutions. it is hard for us to come down institutions not using the standards when our government has not have the political will to put it into law. if we are not talking about losing someone's liberty, we are

talking about losing something of value. the preponderance of the evidence is an appropriate standard for losing something of value, not your liberty. that is all we are talking about. feel pretty strongly that we need to step up and do that and i think it would send the right message that this is what it is. absolutely. >> does anybody disagree with that? the preponderance of the evidence standard would empower more colleges to take more severe action against assailants. in many cases, colleges and universities are afraid of taking a stronger stance for fear of having the alleged assailants come back and file lawsuits.

stating that it is not a criminal courtroom. you have to call it a violation of the college. having that stronger preponderance of the evidence might encourage and empower institutions to take a stronger stance against assailants come especially repeat perpetrators. >> here is a hot one. with more survivors report to law enforcement if they had clear information on how to do so or accompanied by an advocate in the process? >> i first tried going to the school. they said, do you want to go to the police, i felt comfortable. i think it is hard to go to the police right off the gate.

the white house talked about having a confidential space. even in the military, we have options. >> what about requiring law thercement to report it -- university to reported to law enforcement unless the survivor opts out? >> i think it can be used as a threat to keep victims silent. when it goes to the police, sometimes your friends find out and your family finds out. not everyone wants the spotlight on their sexual assault. i see the intention in it, but i am worried about be used as a threat. if you talk to me, i have to

talk to the police. the ability to opt out and to say no, i do not want to report it. >> who will make sure they know their rights? that theyquirement are required to say, you may report to law enforcement or you may not, they are hearing don't report to law enforcement. i think that might be because some of the universities are shading it that way because they know it remains an administrative proceeding on campus and it is not as difficult for the university. that is what a lot of victims tell me they hear. they are just hearing the second part. >> it is a tough issue. i am telling you the silence cuts both ways.

>> what about jane doe reporting? things.ple of have in their policies these types of procedures, the option to report to law enforcement. picture ishow the painted, right? if it is painted in terms of, you really do not want to do that. ask you really embarrassing questions. it will be awful for you. , building that relationship with crisis centers , where they are trained to provide options of empowerment counseling. i know they sound fluffy, but if they are done well, they really work in terms of explaining and providing the education to

students about what happened and providing some of the definitions in the language that students will understand. i can actually be raped by my friend. ors is when your parents guardians will be contacted. someone that can explain to them that takes three sessions sometimes to fully explain the process from a to b. if a student is experiencing trauma, they can look back at that or have that document so they know what is afforded to them. , younonymous -- per clery have to include that. .t gives you an accurate number if you're counseling number is giving you the anonymous numbers

, we can include this number in our statistics. accuratewe can have an picture of what is going on on our campus. i am certainly in favor of that if it captures the right data. this happens here and that is why the board of trustees, we are hiring a prevention person. >> it is my understanding that there are a number of college campuses and universities who are not recording the data. is the only place it resides is an institution with confidentiality? if someone goes to a mental health center or to a hospital and the only people they tell our people who have a requirement of confidentiality, they are not even including the

data because they are considering it confidential even though it is just an aggregate of the data. >> it depends on the institution. is very important that we have jane doe reporting options arethat victim advocates training side-by-side with law enforcement so that together, they understand that they are working as a team. they have different rules, but they are a team. when it comes to explaining options and choices, we want survivors to be fully informed and to make those informed choices and that takes time and well-trained and well informed law enforcement officers as well who have not only the knowledge about for in sick examined -- forensic examinations, but also understand the impact of trauma and are able to sensitive to

survivor so they are getting really good information that they are able to pursue. comingave fewer matters before prosecutors that do not have enough information to move forward, which is the biggest issue we see when it comes to law enforcement. not having enough information so that the case can move forward. >> a lot of campuses are really devoted to creating a collaborative environment. they are establishing sexual assault teams that include a number of individuals who have the responsibility for responding to those particular crimes. that way they can go with the victim to say this is what we can do for you and needs are the avenues we can take. that would be something i would advocate for, the establishment of some sort of team.