do so as they've done on many occasions is to bring this to the judicial courts. but if they do so they will find that law has dictated that courts read without much interest in deciding whether or not an administrative decision has been made with fault. the president, through executive order, is making an administrative decision in terms of how laws are prosecuted. just yesterday, the state of texas and a number of other states, filed a lawsuit against executive actions announced by the president on november 20. much to my surprise and, of course, with great joy, the fifth circuit court of appeals appears to have already issued a decision dismissing such a complaint. it did so in 1997 when governor george w. bush arguing that the federal government's failure to enforce our immigration laws violated article 1. the court rejected the texas argument that the federal government had breached a

nondiscretionary duty to control immigration under the immigration and nationality law. specifically, the courts said we are not aware and have difficulty conceiving any standards for determining whether immigration control efforts by congress are constitutionally adequate. why? because there's an interpretation of the law and an administrative component of the law. likewise, in heckler vs. chainy the courts said an agency's decision not to take enforcement actions is unreviewable under the act because the court has no workable standard against which the judge the agency's exercise discretion. the president of the united states is instructing and giving guidance to administrative agencies who will make decisions accordingly to the framework of making sure that those who are felons are out but families are not. if you want to stop human trafficking, if you want to have a conscience in this nation, if you want to protect the vulnerable, if you want to keep young people whose bright eyes is to simply serve in the

united states military or in -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. mr. conyers: i yield 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for 30 seconds. ms. jackson lee: if you want to recognize those individuals who have come here to do what is right and if you want to stop the siege of human trafficking, as i've said, where houston is the epicenter of it, we see it every day where people are out of the shadows, if you want to do that then you will vote against this misdirected law and you will read the constitutional dictates, first from the fifth circuit court of appeals, then from the united states supreme court in arizona vs. the united states, and understand that the president has executive authority to do what he's just done, to be a moral keeper and to give discretion to the law. with that i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentlelady has expired. the gentleman from virginia. mr. goodlatte: mr. speaker, may i inquire how much time is remaining on each side? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia has 14 1/2 minutes remaining. and the gentleman from michigan

has 14 1/4 minutes remaining. mr. goodlatte: mr. speaker, at this time it's my pleasure to yield two minutes to the gentleman from california, mr. mcclintock. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for two minutes. mr. mcclintock: i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. speaker, this transcends the issue of illegal immigration. the president's action has crossed a very bright line that separates the american republic that prides itself on being a nation of laws and not of men from those unhappy regimes whose rulers boast that law is in their mouths. it's true that throughout the nation's history presidents have tested the limits of their authority, but this is the first time a chief executive who is charged with the responsibility to take care that the laws be faithfully executed has asserted the absolute power to nullify or change these laws by decree. under our constitution, the president does not get to pick which laws to enforce and which laws to ignore. he does not get to pick who must obey the law and who gets

to live above the law. and he's forbidden from making law himself, all legislative power herein granted shall be vested in a congress of the united states. whether we choose to recognize it or not, this is a fall-fledged constitutional crisis -- full-fledged constitutional crisis. if this president is allowed to stand, it will render meaningless the separation of powers and the checks and balances that comprise the fundamental architecture of our constitution that have preserved our freedom for 225 years. if this precedent stands, every future president, republican and democrat, will cite it as justification for lawmaking didecree. the measure before us is the first act of this congress to restore the balance of powers within this government. the president would be well advised to heed it before sterner measures are required. the seizure of legislative authority by the executive

proved failtal to the roman republic. now it's happening in our own time. let that not be the legacy of this administration. for more than two centuries, americans have successfully defended our constitution and now history requires this generation to do so again, which it does beginning with this measure today. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentleman has expired. the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: mr. speaker -- mr. speaker, i'm pleased to yield now two minutes to the gentleman from rhode island, member of the judiciary committee, representative cicilline. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from rhode island is recognized for two minutes. mr. cicilline: i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. speaker, everyone in congress and most people in this country understands that our immigration system is broken and needs to be fixed. our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have blocked a bipartisan senate bill from coming to the floor, and president obama has taken action that he's legally permitted and morally obligated to take. executive orders are not unusual.

every president since president eisenhower has used this authority to take action on immigration issues, including six republican presidents. so mr. speaker, when the gentleman from florida said voting against his bill is like voting against the constitution, i suggest it's just the opposite. the contours of the executive authority of the president are defined in the constitution and by precedent of the courts and there is no question that the president has authority to exercise prosecutorial discretion in this regard. in fact, voting for this bill undermines the constitution because the executive authority of the president is set forth in the constitution of the united states. we all recognize there are 11 million undocumented citizens or residents of this country. we don't allocate resources to deport all 11 million. we allocate resources to deport about 400,000, which means by definition we are asking the department to set priorities in deciding who to deport and say those priorities makes sure they deport the most serious

offenders, those that pose harm to our communities. this is what's reflected in the president's executive order. it's very important to understand that there is -- in fact, little question from legal scholars and i'd like to ask unanimous consent that a letter which has the signature of 136 law professors who support the constitutionality of this provision as well as a separate letter from additional titans in the legal community, beginning with president lee bolger from colombia university, several other legal scholars be submitted. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, they will be part of the record. mr. cicilline: mr. speaker, the speaker's executive order will ensure we have a safer country, that we will grow our economy, that we will keep families together. i strongly urge my colleagues to reject this republican proposal and to allow the president's executive order to remain. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentleman has expired. the gentleman from virginia. .

mr. goodlatte: at this time i'm pleased to yield three minutes to mr. barletta. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. barletta: mr. speaker, i rise in support of h.r. 5759. this bill simply says that the president cannot issue blanket amnesty. this legislation also contains language that is similar to my own bill, the defense of legal workers act. it states clearly that illegal immigrants who are granted executive amnesty are not authorized to work in the united states. when we talk about illegal immigration, we always hear about what we should do to help the illegal immigrants. what about the american workers? who's going to stand up for them? there's this toxic intersection of this executive amnesty and the affordable care act. under the a.c.a. employers with 50 or more workers will have to provide health insurance or pay a $3,000 fine. but under the president's amnesty, the legal immigrants

are exempt from the a.c.a.. that means with their new work permits, the legal immigrants will be $3,000 cheaper to hire. that will drive companies to hire illegal immigrants instead of legal american workers. or worse yet, get rid of american workers in exchange for cheaper replacements. this bill is a small step but i will vote for any bill that stops executive amnesty. that includes stopping the funding and supporting my own bill that protects american workers. let's remember that we have been put in this position by a president who campaigned on the slogan of, yes, we can. but the government's under the philosophy of -- but governs under the philosophy of, because i want. to i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: mr. speaker, i'm pleased to recognize the distinguished gentleman from north carolina, mr. price, for two minutes.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from north carolina is recognized for two minutes. mr. price: i ask permission to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. price: mr. speaker, i rise in strong opposition to this misguided and politically motivated legislation. in fact, it would be dangerous and irresponsible for this body to prohibit the department of homeland security from exercising prosecutorial discretion. d.h.s. and i.c.e. must be able to prioritize the detention and the deportation of people who pose a threat to public safety and national security. as opposed to deporting, for example, college students who were brought to this country by their parents. or perhaps spouses of u.s. citizens serving in the military. it's not even a close question. the reality is discretion is and always has been exercised by every prosecutor in this country.

to my knowledge, republicans have never questioned this. never challenged it. until the current president began prioritizing dangerous criminals for immigration enforcement. as former solicitor general walter dillinger recently wrote, and i quoting, in light of how legally conservative the justice department opinion really is, it is a wonder that this issue has become the subject of such heated, occasionally apocalyptic, commentary. those who object to the president's efforts to unite families should stop hiding behind unfounded legal allarums and debate president pes action as on the merit -- the president's actions on the merits. very good advice. i urge defeat of this cynical and unwarranted legislation and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from virginia. mr. goodlatte: mr. speaker, at this time it's my pleasure to yield 1 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from south carolina, mr. sanford. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman from south carolina is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. mr. sanford: i thank the chairman and i thank not only the chairman here but i thank the gentleman from florida for his hard work on this important measure. because my dad used to say, at times in life it's important to call an ace an ace. and i think that fundamentally what this bill depuzz is call an ace -- does is call an ace an ace with regard to cutting off and ending unilateral actions by presidents, whether they're republican or democrat. this is fundamentaly about the balance of power in our federal system. it's also important because it fits with what i'm hearing from a lot of folks back home when they say, this issue of immigration reform has less to do with immigration than it does to do with the rule of law in this country and the way in which it should be applied to all folks equally. they say that it's fundamentally unfair for states to be burdened with new costs based on the unilateral action by a president. they say it's fundamentally unfair for our federal entitlement system to be that

much more wobbly becaused on a unilateral action by a president and they say it's that fundamentally unconstitutional for the president to take action in the pattern that he has, where it's with the affordable care act, whether it's with the federal contracts, whether it's with war in the middle east or now immigration. so is this enough ultimately? no, i think we ultimately need to defund the president's ability to move forward. but it's important -- it's an important first step in that basic notion of what my dad prescribed as calling an ace an ace and with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: thank you, mr. speaker. i'm pleased to yield now to the gentleman from texas, al green, for two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for two minutes. mr. green: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i cannot support this legislation. and hope nobody expects me to. mr. speaker, i'm the beneficiary of the greatest executive order ever written. the emancipation proclamation. in 1863 when lincoln signed the

emancipation proclamation, the country was at war, it was being torn apart. yet he signed that proclamation. while it did not liberate the slaves, it did lead to the passage of the 13th amendment in 1865. i can't agree with this legislation because truman in 1948 signed an executive order integrating the military and it went on to integrate the broader society. because it was a part of the avant-garde efforts. and i would note that at the time he did it, the dixicrats were formed. they split from the democratic party. we have always had time of strife in this country. but great presidents have always stepped forward and they've done the right thing. now, let me address something quickly that has to be addressed. the question of, this is a magnet, that it attracts a lot of people to the country. you can't be serious about this. if you were serious about the

magnetic approach, you would have done something about wet foot, dry foot. wet foot, dry foot allows any person to get one foot on american soil who's from cuba to come right on in and get into a pathway to legalization. just by getting one foot. have the other foot in the water, one on land, come on in. and that is the policy of the united states government. you'd end that if you were serious. that is a magnet. but you don't see magnets until it comes to certain people, it seems. mr. president, i salute you for what you have done. i commend you, i stand with you on this issue. but more importantly, i stand with bringing people out of the shadows of life, into the sunshine of a new life. god bless you and i thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the chair would once again remind members to address their remarks to the chair. the gentleman from virginia. mr. goodlatte: mr. speaker, at this time it's my pleasure to

yield two minutes to the gentleman from georgia, mr. collins, a member of the judiciary committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for two minutes. mr. collins: thank you, mr. chairman, thank you, mr. speaker. it is amazing again to come down to this house floor to discuss issues and to be a part of this debate. and i think one of the issues that really has to come to light here is when it is being said that what we're doing is trivial, what we're doing doesn't matter. then frankly what does matter? does the constitution matter? does the rule of law matter? what is amazing to me, and i sat through a whole 5 1/2-hour hearing the other day in dealing with this, where we use letters that were not probably used for the right context, we used other examinations, and it always came back to, in the end, if it just helps somebody it's ok. the problem i'm having here with this is this problem. is the ones who are coming into our country, many of them who i have spoken with, they're coming from places where rule

of law is not followed. where rule of law is broken. and so now what do we do? they come to a country in which rule of law is being put aside. is being expanded. just to help, just a little bit -- i applaud the gentleman from florida, i applaud everyone here who is saying it doesn't matter if it's a democrat or a republican. what's right is' right and that's what mat -- what's right is what's right and that's what hatters. it is a time for debate. it's not a time for exercising further outside the lines. it is a time in which we as a group come together and say, let's solve problems. let's not poison the well in which we cannot have conversations and we don't have the dignity in which we have. for those who truly want to come to our country, who have done it legally, who have done it right, why would we do that? that's what's wrong about this debate. that's the problem we're having right now. we're saying, mr. president, there are three brancheses of government and you can do whatever you want to within

your side, but the congress has to do its side and it listens to the people as well. i think they spoke pretty loud and clear three weeks ago. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: a -- thank you, mr. speaker. i'm pleased now to recognize for three minutes the distinguished gentleman from illinois, mr. gutierrez. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois is recognized for three minutes. mr. gutierrez: mr. speaker, i have spent the past year speaking every week in this chamber about the damaging affects of our broken immigration system on our security, our economy, our families and communities. we started with such great hope at the beginning of this congress. but here we are in the final hours of the 113th congress and instead of moving a piece of legislation that the majority would put forward to address the underlying problems with our immigration system, we have before us another symbolic, superphysical vote that will fix absolutely nothing. this bill will not strengthen security at our borders. including the most important

gateways that are rarely mentioned. at l.a.x., chicago o'hare, or j.f.k. this bill will not address the labor needs of our agricultural industry or tech industry. this bill will not protect american workers by implementing e-verify across the board, to make sure there is one legal labor force in america. paying their fair share of taxes and fully protected by american labor laws. this bill does not do that. this bill will not answer the pleas of u.s. american citizens who have a parent or a spouse who want to get right with the law, is willing to submit to a thorough background check at their own expense and prove to the american people that they are not a threat and able to work and pay taxes and contribute to the success of this country. instead of moving forward, instead of legislating actual solutions to difficult public policy issues, instead of putting the emphasis on doing what needs to be done to improve the economy, the security and the basic human decency of our laws, we are left with a tired and

unfortunate partisan battle. it is a partisan fight based on pure fantasy. not just a fantasy that the u.s. congress will ever appropriate enough money to jail, expel and deport 11 million people and their families, but also the fantasy that what your side votes on today will ever become law. you know it. i know it. apparently the majority prefers to take symbolic votes instead of legislating real and lasting solutions. mr. speaker, they didn't call ronald reagan a tyrant. they didn't call him lawless. yet he said, i will protect a million and a half undocumented people that you call illegal. he protected them. when the congress expressly said they would not be included for any benefit under the 1986 immigration reform and control act, he protected them.

he used his presidential power to do that. and he wasn't called a tyrant. he wasn't called lawless. he was doing the right thing, protecting the siblings and spouses of those that would be granted legalization under that law, that congress expressly excluded. and you want to know something? i'm happy that president barack obama is following in that great and proud tradition set forward by president ronald reagan, that he would rather put families first, the demagoguery and any anti-immigrant policy always last. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. goodlatte: mr. speaker, i yield myself one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. goodlatte: mr. speaker, it's always a pleasure to me to see former president ronald reagan, especially here in the house chamber. i in fact voted for president reagan twice and was proud to support him and one of the things i remember most about president reagan was that great debate with his opponent in one

of the presidential debates in which he said, there he goes again, pointing out when his opponent said something inaccurate about him. well, there they go again. because what we have is something today very, very, very different than what president reagan did. president range signed a law -- president reagan signed a law, a bill passed by congress, signed it into law and then he found some things that he didn't think were correct, so he then took action. but in today's "the washington post" which i would cite for the gentleman from illinois, its headline is, "the washington post" editorial today, "an action without precedent." so when he cites president reagan as a precedent here, "the washington post," clearly refutes that by pointing out how small that was and how it was done in response to a specific identifiable concern

about legislation passed and the congress then subsequently fixed it as well. that is not what's occurring here today. and as "the washington post" notes, it's plain that the white house's numbers, the 1.5 million claim, are indefensible and the scale of mr. obama's move goes far beyond anything his predecessors attempted and without legislation that had been passed to found it upon. no, this is a power grab of enormous proportions. it is unconstitutional. it is clearly what he said he was going to do when he came to this body. i yield myself an additional one minute. . when he came to this body almost three years ago with a list of things he wanted done, he said if you won't do it i will. some members on the other side of the aisle stood up and applauded. since then, in health care reform, in the environment, in

our enforcement of our drug laws, in a whole host of other things, that's exactly what he's done. he said he was going to do it. take my pen and my phone and i'm going to do it myself. well, in this case, he had on more than 20 occasions say he did not have the authority to do it. now, the folks on the other side of the aisle are saying, oh, he didn't change the law. mr. speaker, i yield myself an additional 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. goodlatte: he didn't have the authority to change the law, but guess what, when he signed the order, here's what he said. he said, what you're not paying attention to is that i just took action to change the law. to change the law. article 1 of the constitution says the law is only changed by the united states congress. article 3 says the president shall faithfully execute the law. his actions are unconstitutional and they are unprecedented. at this time, mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia reserves his time. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. conrad engweiler -- mr. conyers: mr. speaker, i'm pleased to yield the gentlelady from california, zoe lofgren, for 1 1/2 minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. ms. lofgren: mr. speaker, i in my opening remarks did note the uncanny similarity between the action that president reagan and the first president bush took and the action that president obama has now taken. i would hope -- i don't know. i use the official record as a source of information instead of chat in articles and i submitted for the record the memorandum, the internal decision memorandum in the i.n.s. dated february 8, 1990, indicating that 1.5 million, 40% of the undocumented

population in controvention to the orders of congress were going to be given deferred action. the commissioner of the i.n.s. under oath testified that 40% of the undocumented population were going to be in contradiction to the congress' explicit decision were going to be given deferred action. i also have the draft processing plan that says millions of people would be given in controvention to the act of congress deferred action. they even had the amount of money that they were going to make off the estimated filing fee. so i would recommend that people take a look at the documents and they will see that what president reagan did is almost exactly the same as what obama did. 40% of the population. i don't think that president reagan could get the republican nomination today, but that does

not diminish the validity of his action at that time. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from virginia. mr. goodlatte: mr. speaker, at this time i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the gentleman from georgia, mr. kingston. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for two minutes. mr. kingston: thank you mr. speaker, mr. chairman. we are -- thank you, mr. speaker, mr. chairman. we're hearing outrage from the other side. number one, it was the president himself who said over 20 times why this action is illegal. i would invite the democrats to read his remarks. over 20 different references to it. number two, they talk about prosecutorial discretion. this is ok. but as i understand it, that you have that discretion when you've run out of money and maybe you can't implement a finer point of a law, something you are prosecuting. it doesn't mean you change the law. i would invite the democrats who think that we disproportionately pick on this president, i would invite them to look at the 1950's case

during the truman administration in which president truman nationalized the steel business by executive order in order to avoid a strike. it went to the supreme court. the supreme court found on a 6-3 vote that you could not change the law of such magnitude by executive order. and that is not the case we were picking on poor little harry truman. it was a case we were sticking up for the constitution. i invite the democrats to look at the court cases -- the lawsuit that 17 states have now joined in saying that the president has violated article 2, section approximate 3, the part of the constitution -- section 3, the part of the constitution that talks about executing laws which this president seems it is a pick and choose operation run out of his political office. i also invite the democrats to go to central america and talk to so many of the immigrants

that i have. i have been to honduras. i've been to el salvador. i've been to guatemala. i've talked to people. one of the earlier speakers said they come here because we changed the law, you're out of your mind. go talk to the folks in central america. they got the word that it's easier to come here under those circumstances. can i have 30 seconds. mr. goodlatte: i yield 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. kingston: they need to go to central america and talk to the people who would be taking advantage of this. finally, let me say this about leadership. you know, in split government with three branches, equal branches, you don't get what you want. but leadership is pulling together the coalitions to talk to people and say, you know, what part of this law can we agree on and what can we do about it? that's what leadership is about. the president has that opportunity to show leadership now that he's going to have a

new congress and new senate to work with. the way to get things done is reach out and work with people and not to be in your face against them. thank you very much. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentleman has expired. the chair recognizes the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: mr. speaker, i'm pleased now to yield two minutes to the distinguished gentleman from california, mr. javier becerra. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for two minutes. mr. becerra: i thank the ranking member for yielding time. i don't hear anyone disagreeing that our immigration system is broken. it's broken for our commerce as businesses try to figure out how to do the best business across the border, as they try to figure out who they can employ and not employ, it's broken. i don't think anyone could say we need to have much -- attest we could have as much security abroad as we have at home.

and if we don't have laws that work well our security is broken. certainly the whole discussion here makes clear that american families, american families are being disrupted, separated day after day, no one wants to see that done to an american family. srnl not to a whole bunch of american -- certainly not to a whole bunch of americans who wants opportunities in the future. our immigration system is broken. let's just all agree with that. so what do we do? well, we can fix the broken immigration system or we can put message bills on the floor of the house that are never going to get signed and become law and leave in about five more days and in the year 2014 without having done anything and watch as we've gone more than two to three decades without fixing a broken immigration system or we could finally take the bill that's been sitting here in the house for 525 days, that passed in he senate on a bipartisan vote

68-100 senators, republicans and democrats voted to fix the broken immigration system. bipartisanly. that's been sitting here for a vote for 525 days. we have five days left in the session. we don't need to wait another 525. we could fix the broken immigration system for our economy, for our families and for our national security. or we can do a message bill, as we have on the floor, which will not pass the senate, which will not get signed by the president, which means we leave 2014 having done nothing. the president said in january during his state of the union, congress, let's get this done together. but if you can't do something then i'll do what i can under my executive authority? mr. -- under my executive authority -- can i have 30 seconds? mr. conyers: i yield 30 seconds. mr. becerra: i'll do what i can under my executive authority under the constitution and so he did. so now it's a matter of trying to make things work better and

smarter given we have a broken immigration system. now is not the time to double down with the social agenda matters that go nowhere. we could get this done but we all have to be accountable. just as we demand those immigrant families to be accountable, congress needs to be accountable. let's get this done. the american people have been telling us for years, get this done. you know the solution. let's act. five days to go, let's get this done.

the c-span networks. saturday, live coverage of the memorial service with marion barry. then the woman who recently retired as abc correspondent. the university of new hampshire thestant professor on how northeast wasn't always a haven

of progress. then the american enterprise president arthur brooks with your phone calls, e-mails, and tweets. martha jones on female slaves and the law. sunday at 8:00, president george former secretary of state james baker on the follows the berlin wall and the liberation of europe. let us know what you think about the programs you are watching. call us, e-mail us, or send us a tweet. join the c-span conversation. like us on facebook. follow us on twitter. the pentagon released a report on the number of rapes and sexual assault in the military that have happened in 2014.

the study was done by the sexual -- sexualrevention prevention society. but it's good afternoon. -- >> good afternoon. president obama asked the dod to onort back with the progress the fight against sexual assault in the military. we briefed the president this week. everyone, andk there were many involved in this, but i want to thank anyone involved in this comprehensive review, which was organized and directed by our sexual assault

prevention and response office, the defensive manpower data center. i want to thank our just white.ry i think you know she has announced her retirement after 40 distinguished years of her country. i asked if she would stay on the job until this mission was .omplete she did. i appreciate that. thank you for the service to this country. for the many long and distinguished years you have given to this country.

general snow heads the office. to your team, thank you for what you have done, your leadership and commitment, and to all who it. with you, we appreciate i think we all know general snow is going to stay after my remarks. i will take a couple questions, and he can take you into the depth of the review and the results for as far as you want to go with this. we briefed the president on this two days ago, and the white house is often briefed. the review was about quantitative measures. needed to evaluate our progress here at the dod.

we asked the rand corporation to independently administer a department wide survey, which was the largest ever of its kind. received over 140 5000 responses, which was the highest response rate will -- over 145,000 responses, which was the highest response rate we have received. there were important recommendations, many of which have been incorporated into the directives i am issuing today. for the first time ever, we talked to survivors of sexual assault in the military to learn where they have seen progress and where we need to do better. overall the data shows where ofre has been measures progress over the last few years, with improvement in 10 of the 12 specific measures, including reduced prevalence and

increased reporting. we still have a long way to go. sexual assault threatens the lives and well-being of the who served our country in uniform. eradicating sexual response -- sexual assault is not only essential to the readiness of the force. it's also about honoring our highest commitments to protect our fellow soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines. the department of defense has been taking aggressive action to stop sexual assault. this one of my highest priorities as secretary of defense. as i think you know, i have directed over 28 new initiatives over the last year to strengthen how we prevent and respond to sexual assault in the military. support the survivors of

these crimes. nothow we hold accountable only offenders but the dod as an institution. we recommend reforms that have been codified in the law, with the help of congress, with the help of the white house, and have givenups that us much counsel on this and support and help. we implemented a groundbreaking special victims counsel program across dod od, giving survivors , givingfirst time survivors of voice. we believe our efforts to prevent sexual assault are beginning to have an impact. compared to 2012, the survey we are releasing today shows the prevalence of sexual assault in the military over the past year

have decreased by about 25%. most service members highly rated their commanders efforts to promote a healthy climate of dignity and respect and discourage inappropriate behavior. nearly 90% reported taking action to prevent an assault when they saw the risk of one occurring. areelieve survivors becoming more confident in the military's response to sexual assault. survivors participated in the justice system than ever before. we have been able to hold more perpetrators accountable. we now have more than 1000 full-time certified counselors over 1700tes and personnel ready to assist survivors. after the increase in reporting, the rate has continued to go up.

that's good news. two years ago we estimated about one in 10 sexual assaults were .eing reported today it's one in four. are still heavily underreported, both nationally and in the military. we must maintain our focus throughout the ranks and continue to earn the confidence of survivors. one of the most important ways of earning that confidence is to reduce retaliation against those who report sexual assault. this is a challenge we are aware of and have been addressing. we now have better data to help us keep working to be more effective in stopping this retaliation. of women who reported sexual assault received some kind of retaliation. often in the form of social retaliation by coworkers or peers.

we must tackle this problem head-on, because like sexual assault itself, reprisal directly contradict one of the highest values of our military, that we protect our brothers and sisters in uniform. when someone reports a sexual assault, they need to be embraced and helped, not ostracized or punished with retribution. today i am issuing for new directors to help close the gaps and build on what we have already done. we are developing new procedures to engage commanders to prevent professional and social retaliation. we are revamping training for , junior enlisted supervisors and civilian supervisors so they are better prepared to both prevent and respond to sexual assault within their units. the potential for retaliation. while these initiatives will take time, they have an impact.

they are critical for lasting change. additionally, to better howrstand how lower -- environments mitigate the risk, we are taking steps nationwide. there is much more to be done. data showed we have a long way to go in fighting cultural stigmas that discourage reporting among men. in addressing assault that hide under the veneers of hazing or practical jokes. we must reinforce cable -- accountability up and down the chain of command. there may becerned an increase in use of social media for sexual harassment. like sexual assault, this problem is not new or unique to the military.

the dod holds its people to a higher standard. if you want to wear a uniform, understanding our core values is not enough. mustty or off duty, we live these ideals and enforce our values every day. dod will continue its efforts to at combatingches sexual assault in the military. president obama and all of the dod leaders are committed to doing whatever it takes to stamp out the scourge. in may i told you about my visit to the help line for survivors of sexual assault. i told you about the wall i saw. notes,covered in post-it notes that contain inspiring words of thanks spoken by individuals who called into the hotline. i thought about those notes.

we'll timidly want a military with no more victims, no more calls, no more post-it notes -- we ultimately want a military with no more victims, no more calls, no more post-it notes, because it will be stop. we are not there yet, but we will get there. we will continue working relentlessly to prevent sexual assault, and we will give survivors the help and support they need. i want to thank you all for your continued coverage of this issue, and before i take a couple questions, i want to acknowledge our vice chiefs of our services who are with us this afternoon. leadership,s, their their commitment to stamping out sexual assault would not have come as far as we have come. i am glad you are

here today. general snow proceeds with his details. to take a grateful couple of questions. >> there has been a lot of report about your decision to resign, including your observation you were forced to resign. resign feel pressured to ? did that play a role in your decision.

he pointed to micromanagement. was that also a factor in your , and how big a problem do think that was and is? >> i haven't really noticed there has been attention given to this. i am flattered you would concern with this. , i wouldquestion answer it this way. you heard the president's comments on this. comments speake for themselves. had areident and i have have hadussions --

private discussions. no one else has been in the room. speculation and all the smart people figuring out what was said and what wasn't said, only two people know what was said. me.'s the president and i will give you my version, and you can ask the president his. he has spoken directly on this. i submitted my resignation to the president. this was a mutual decision based on discussions we had. i don't think there was ever one in situationsion like this, unless there is some notous issue, and there was between any of us. as aays looked at this job

job of immense privilege, which i have expressed many times over, which i will always be grateful to the president for this privilege, but also, when you look over the last two part of leadership is you build and participate and an institution. you build on a process. predecessors,t my secretary gates and secretary , did.a i took on a separate set of challenges over the last two years. an preparation of institution is probably the most significant responsibility a leader has. to hand that off to someone who

came behind you, and the conversations we had were about the next two years. how is he best prepared to lead this country? how is the institution prepared to do the things he must have insurance they are prepared to do? capabilities, capacities? going back to the point i made about the last two years, we have had a tremendous amount of challenges over the last two years. i'm very proud of how this institution and its leaders, all of our chiefs, the secretaries have responded. i am proud of our leadership, but the next two years is another zone of kinds of challenges for this country. enough have to be wise

to know that. as we talk through what the president and i did, we both ime to the conclusion that think the country is best served with new leadership. he thought it was after we talked for a bit. i'm in my contribution during my time, and i'm proud of that, of what we did. all of us together as a team have prepared this institution over the last two years to take on these big issues that are ahead. are undefinable.

we know some of them. we know long-term challenges, but i think you need to know when to leave. there were just two of us in the room during these discussions. direct and very honest relationships. i would also say the president is a friend. i consider him a friend. me, which i about appreciate. plainly withalk each other. he is president of the united states. we talked as friends. we talked as americans. talked as senior leaders for this country who both have awesome responsibility. as for any differences you reference, there were no major

differences in any major area. sure, there are always issues of style and how you get things done and are things moving fast but this country is well served to has a -- to have a president like president obama, who is thoughtful, careful. that the most powerful nation on earth must be very wise in its implementation of power. do so with a clear, steady sense of who it is, what it wants to accomplish, always looking to the longer-term, not just the quick decision, impacts, consequences, ripple effect.

the united states has that awesome responsibility. i've been proud to served in his administration. serve in his administration. i leave here very secure in knowing these people and the next secretary who comes behind prepared thanter we were two years ago, not having anything to do with my predecessors, because they did tremendous work. there challenges were different. we bring a new leader in, and we face a new set of challenges. >> was senator mccain wrong? five i have already answered the question. >> you are suggesting you came , thinking you might only stay a couple years, but

nobody i know thinks of you as someone who would quit, so the question goes back to you. why did you feel you could not stay and finish the job if there were all these challenges? much?is too -- why you want to stay didn't you want to stay and finish the job? >> i didn't come into this office with any preconceived notion i am staying for years, one year, three years -- four .ears, one year, three years this is a business that is always unpredictable. recognize that going in. i would never say i would be here two years or four years.

that's the first part of your question. job,e ever knows about a especially a big job until you get here, until you are the actual practitioner of the job. you can read about it. your predecessors can tell you about it. you can think you know about it, and you can write about it and broadcast about it, but nobody knows about these jobs. matter of whether i thought i could stay here for another two years. i thought i explained it. that wasn't the issue. thought i could do the job or isis or any other challenges, that was not the issue. you look forward the next two years and the challenges that are coming, as the president and i think fresh it,

leadership is not unimportant in all areas, but the president and --ad a long conversation actually more than one conversation about this, so it wasn't a matter of was i still much.ch -- was isil too no. it comes with the responsibility of knowing when it is probably a good time to let someone else come in behind and pick up where you left off, as panetta did, as gates did, an institution. stay? didn't want to >> it's not a matter of what i wanted to do and didn't want to do. it's a matter of what i thought was best for this institution,

for the country and the president. this has been a great job. i loved every minute of this thisbut as i think ahead, may be hard for people to understand. you've got to be in this jobs to understand. to prepare an institution and what's best for an institution. further, i think everyone knows most likely there is going to be a rotation of the new chairman of the joint chiefs of staff next year, a vice-chairman of some of the chiefs. that's the president's call ultimately, but there's most -- buts, but there's most likely going to be a rotation of leaders. one other point.

comments, it's not one defining issue for me. it would be different if it was one thing i just could not do. no, it wasn't that at all. it's a combination of things as you think through these things. the president and i talked about it. comfortable in my decision. i think the president feels good about it. i feel good about it. this country is such a great country. this institution is so much the core of who we are as a people. i have always tried to do everything in my life based on what i thought was best for the iuntry or institution represented. not that i am a selfless person.

i'm not, but one last point. i will end here. 46 years ago today, i arrived at oakland, california, on a transit back from vietnam after i spent one year in vietnam 46 years ago today. if anybody would have told sergeant hagel walking off that plane with my duffel bag where i would be 46 years down the road, that would have been pretty hard for me to believe it. the privileges i have had have been tremendous. happy holidays. >> one question.

[captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] >> ok. i guess it's called last man standing. listen, i would like to and asked the secretary to articulate, kind of go into the details of the .eport i will walk you through a set of highlights and reinforce some of the points. the first point i would like to make is this report is comprehensive. it covers a lot of ground. it's over 1000 pages long. in addition to the overall report, each of the military departments and the bureau attributed a further report detailing their progress. the secretary also agreed to include a submission, because they modeled their program after hours. innificant improvements made

and the justice system over the past few years. the report contains results from the survey conducted independently by the rand and overseen by the people here today. they will provide a separate pressng following today's conference. it also contains results from the survey. and a servicemember focus group overseen by dr. elizabeth van winkle. the report provides data of in theassaults department during fiscal year 2014. why we believe the report -- whiletes progress we believe the report demonstrates progress, we by no

means believe we have accomplished our mission of eliminating sexual assault. we have much more to do. the secretary is erecting efforts -- directing effort. as most of you know, in the ensuing years we have taken many .teps to further our efforts then secretary2, panetta and secretary hagel gave the program personal attention. in 2012, the joint chiefs of staff provided guidance that eventually became the departmentwide strategic plan secretary hagel issued in 2013. this has driven much of the progress contained in the report

to the president. 's willingnessagel to put it on his daily schedule has been a key factor to much of the attention paid. the secretary of defense has directed toward one initiatives efforts.e or expand ourssist with describing system, the white house insisted the department develop metrics. a set of 12 metrics. also included were a set of six non-metrics. while metrics are developed with the understanding they can be tailored to generate certain outcomes, the non-metrics are about the justice system we try not to influence, and doing so would be undue influence under

military law. as secretary hagel told you, the department found evidence in 10 , and our progress in what iscluded provided to you. we demonstrate our focus and uncompromising commitment to victim assistance. these improvements are changes to how the program is applied. are leading indicators show continued progress -- our leading indicators show continued progress. assaultrts of sexual continued at the same rate last year. in 2014 we experienced an 8% in reports of sexual

assault. they counted that as an increase in sexual assault, but that is not true. the increase is in reports, which as you know in this crime, an increase in reports is a good thing. given the increase in reporting, we estimate we heard from one in four victims, up from one in 10 in 2012. sizensing a report of this does not do justice to the progress the department has made over the last 12 years. i will try to give you some highlights. the department approaches this problem through a strategic plan organized by lines of efforts. on this slide is listed some of progress and of more evidence of the progress you can review for yourself. for example, the prevention line of effort captures the work we're doing to stop the crime.

past research shows there are likely to be fewer sexual assaults and years with healthy climate. in 2013, the secretary directed every unit commander to regularly assess the unit and act on the feedback of that assessment. that process includes accountability measures as well. each commander's immediate supervisor has also provided the results of that assessment. each has a limited policies that allow actions to be assessed. this cycle of assessment, feedback, and a valuation is something the department has not had in prior years. we expected to be a powerful aid creating change to prevent sexual assault. another thing was something that was enacted this year across the

department. that was the special victims counsel program and the victim counsel.victims legal this is the program that provides consultation and representation to the military justice process. when this was less than a year old, indications are that the victim was highly satisfied with the services rendered by these attorneys. we will be watching closely how this program impact sexual assault reporting and victim participation as it occurs and becomes a robust part of the response system and justice process. the steps we have taken a real and tangible, and this has a demonstrable effect on some of the statistics. we use prevalence rates to estimate the extent of sexual assault in the military. between 2012 and 2014,

prevalence of unwanted sexual contact decreased significantly in military women and trended downward in men. sexual contacted went down for men and women. from an independent survey effort taken at the theest of leadership of senate armed services committee. the doctor will describe this in more detail at another press event following this one. the official reports of sexual assault in 2014 continued at the same high levels we saw in 2013 and actually increased by 8%. can see, reporting increased substantially between 2012 and 2014. last year and this year, 9% of the reports we received were from victims who were seeking assistance from an incident that occurred prior to them coming into the military service.

we see these reports as particularly encouraging and an indicator of confidence in the response system. victims in these cases are already -- only seeking in catching the perpetrators. this highlights our efforts at closing the gap. the blue points our population -- estimates of military service members who experienced unwanted sexual contact and are based on a scientifically conducted survey. men indicatedf experience of unwanted sexual contact prior to being surveyed. we estimate about 19,000 service members experienced unwanted sexual contact in 2014.

the red points are the number of active duty members. ofse are reports coordinators. the number of active service members making a report increased substantially. year's reporting --es, we estimate about 24% we received a report for about 24 percent of victims of sexual assault. this is up from 11% in 2012. that is progress in terms of closing this gap. however, there is considerable estimated in reporting between women and men. we estimate 40% of female victims made a report in 2014. elite 10% of estimated male victims made a report. we have more work to do to encourage men to come forward.

reporting of sexual assault is a highly personal choice and one that may never be right for some. we respect that decision, and for them we have a report 100ice available which is percent anonymous. to those victims who are considering reporting to the department, we have provided services they can choose to assist them and help them navigate the process. a survivor of sexual assault, please reach out to one of our counselors at the dod hotline at www .safehotline.org.

the 2000 419 service members accused of sexual assault, the department had -- 241 nine service members accused of sexual assault, the department 9 service the 2,41 members accused of sexual assault, the department could one -- could take action most. victims declining to participate in the process and other evidence-based reasons. cases endinge of in some kind of action is up considerably from 57% in 2009, and we believe this represents the investment the department has made in the training and resourcing of criminal investigators and attorneys over the years. this finally answers the question, how do military commanders address allegations

of sexual assault when they have significant -- sufficient evidence of the assault and authority over the accused? two thirds of the commanders, supported by legal advice, chose to address sexual assault allegations by preferring court-martial. was was -- and 21% this best done through the judicial process. the offenses range from crimes like roping to penetrating like groping toing -- penetration like rape. iso contained in the report the first of its kind anonymous survey of military survivors of a reportsault who made to the department in 2014.

in the reportted is our initial analysis in 150 surveys and what we plan to be an ongoing survey. this is an important source of data we can use to expand our support. overall, most supporters that responded to our survey were aware of and satisfied with the assistance they received from our first responders and service providers. coordinators were the most highly rated of those who used the services, receiving 90% and ratingssfaction respectively. of most concern were the victims that received some kind of social or professional retaliation. 59% of survivors indicated they received some type of social retaliation associated with their report, and 40% indicated

they received some kind of professional retaliation. of these terms are defined at the bottom of the slide. while this was not generalizable to the full force, we asked about retaliation as well as a scientific survey of active duty this summer. of those women who experienced unwanted sexual contact and reported it to dod authorities, 62% indicated receiving some kind of retaliation associated with the report. with most receiving social amounttion and a lesser receiving professional retaliation. this is one measure -- metric in which the department cannot demonstrate progress. once inside we were able to gain is the commanders received fairly high marks in their support of victims, but these all marks did not extend to as you moved down the chain of command. this and other data indicates

commanders appear to be giving good support, but others may not have the skills and knowledge to do the same. the last summer of datacenter conducted service groups to capture information that is more qualitative in nature. while the things they captured may not be generalizable to the entire force, they were heard across all services in the national guard. this gives us an estimate of what people are thinking about sexual assault and the department's efforts to address it. here is what they told us. they said they have been trained extensively on the problem. focus group members noted a positive shift in the department's handling of sexual assault and harassment. this is a substantive change from years past. exceptions,

participants indicated they were create anrd to environment of respect. report isded in the review of the reforms to the military justice system since april of 2012. the military justice system has seen change over the last few years. last year's changes were the most sweeping reforms since the late 1960's. victims rights and legal protections have been expanded while commanders discretion over sexual assault cases have been limited with decision making authority having been pushed to higher, more experienced levels of command. these and other reforms are under way. the department is reviewing recommendations to further improve response, and the panel that haveg reforms

already been implemented. next year the military justice review board will be making recommendations to further amend military justice. their focus will be the court of military justice, and it is not specific to sexual assault. the secretary is announcing further actions to address some of the findings in the report. specifically address retaliation -- the first two specifically address retaliation. we believe people should be able to report the crime without retaliation. if the military commander specifically ask about and follow up on experiences of , commanders will be asking about retaliation against responders, and

referring them for investigation if appropriate to do so. most commanders receive high toks in their efforts promote a climate of respect. this does not hold down the chain. for this reason, the secretary improved training for first-line supervisors and civilians. the skills and knowledge that allows somebody to effectively promote a healthy climate and prevent retaliation must be acquired and practice. first-line supervisors are the most likely to see an acceptable behavior when they occur and take corrective action. the secretary is directing a study that will allow us to customize and consider local factors that impact sexual assault prevention efforts. several efforts indicate one size does not fit all when it comes to prevention.

what works at a large army base in a metropolitan area may not necessarily work at a small air force base in a more remote rural area. this will help identify concrete examples of what these military communities could do to further prevent sexual assault. finally, feedback from our focus ourp sessions indicated troops may benefit from hearing about the progress we are making in sexual assault response. feedback toovide our soldiers and rains. in summary, the report documents progress since 2012, progress we engagement,nited by transparency, and enacted by members of congress and other federal partners. nobody here is declaring success. you heard that from the

secretary, and i will reiterate it. we have much more to go. any decrease in prevalence indicates there are fewer think we would all agree that as a step in the right direction. we will continue to monitor and publicize our progress. we are not satisfied and recognize future progress will be defined by decrease in sexual assault. it is our intention to define this as broadly and creatively as possible to reach our goal of eliminating sexual assault from the military. our focus is on reinforcing a climate where sexual assault is -- were combating sexual assault as part of our core values. by the doctor i am fortunate to have as my partner in this effort. we will be happy to take your questions. >> two things.

one on the retaliation. last year's 50% bite, do you think that played a role in the fact there was a lot of retaliation and that there is a smaller increase this year than 8%? isyou think the retaliation clamped down over time, and how do you address that? these are officers it sounds like people are claiming retaliation. do you add training? how do you get to those first-line people? i have a follow-up on prosecution. >> let me take a step back. you said something that is not accurate per se. laster you are correct. we had a 50% increase in reports. -- last year, you are correct.

feedbackt have the that specifically addresses it's difficult to know and link the two. about not making progress from the retaliation ofe found by the wgr report 2012 compared to 2014. when weard to officers, say first-line supervisors, you are right. we are talking junior officers, but we are also talking about noncommissioned officers. are under direct supervision of the demographic is 18 toisk, which 21-year-olds.

do you want to add to that? next. >> correct me if i am wrong, because there are a number -- a lot of numbers floating around. it sounded to me like the prosecution aspect seemed a little flat from last year to this year. said 73% there was some action taken. this number wasn't all that different, but i wasn't sure. the court-martial number seemed to go down. that didn't gok up? >> let me just say this. that's why i made the point, and i talked specifically evidence-based. this is one of those metrics where we report it, but that's what the evidence presents. the fact it happened to be the

same last year and this year, we e facts as they came to us. the second with regard to the court-martial, you are right. there has been a trend. put up slide eight if you can. are showing is if you look at this, it shows when the documentary came out, the invisible war, it shows there that,obably some truth to given the evidence that was presented, but obviously we have 2009. long way from just because there has been a slight decrease, that's what the evidence shows for 2014 we don't see that as a bad they. -- bad thing. add to that?o >> even though the percentage was the same, the actual numbers increased.

number of the military offenders considered by commanders during each of those years. you will notice there is almost a 300 increase. >> that was one of the issues congress is deeply concerned about. this added fuel to the fire for changes in some of the and all thatories because we do see a drop in that number. >> i think a drop in percentage, but it is actually the numbers. >> you mentioned the retaliation , butne of the two total what are the others? you getl make sure these slides. will you go to the first slide and the backup?

anytime this crime is reported, it is referred to a criminal investigation. what we've found is that the increasedion length from four months to 4.7 months. as we really looked at this,, when you actually look at this slide, we did not claim that as progress but we did not say that it's not progress either and i will tell you why. reporting has increased dramatically. a number of his reports are reports from happening not just in the past year but years prior to that. the fact that it has taken a slower to investigate them, we don't think that is a bad thing. probablyection, we should have made it a nonmetric. it is what it is.

>> you mentioned that military commanders, sexual assault cases were limited. can you give us more specifics, how they are limited. >> one of the first things that secretary panetta did in 2012 was a limited -- was elevated captains in the navy and criminals in the army and the air force that had special court-martial convening authority. is, one of the concerns was, when an offender, when a commander gets a report of investigation and has to decide what to do, what if that commander knows this person that has been accused and they are under their command/the concern thoseat maybe was commissions were not as independent as they should be. what secretary panetta did was

to elevate that decision up out of that unit and to a much higher level in the chain so seasoned,t a more experienced. research to give the initial decision on what are we going to do with this case. will he go to court-martial, punishment, and things like that. there have been changes to article 60, which addresses clemency so the ability for a commander to set aside a verdict after a finding of guilt is almost -- is all but taken away. and there are in number of reforms that i would refer you to the judge advocates that could go into more detail. but those are the two must significant ones. >> that clemency, have you seen a change in the number of changes? for a victim, that is probably the worst thing, to see another officer overthrow that. have you seen significant differences in the number of cases?

>> i haven't seen any. >> yet. christ the last one that we are aware of was the -- case. >> i'm glad you asked the question. that particular case has received a lot of publicity for all of the right reasons. but that can't happen. that is why we say we have not had any evidence. it just hasn't happened. >> reporting on how hundreds of they get out of the military, and up falling out of the radar and not into any public registry. talkedpector general dod about in august how the military's inability to register sex offenders while they are still in can commit helps these

-- still in confinement helps these offenders. where does the pentagon stand on this issue? >> i think that is one that i will have to take. not in ourjust office. >> that is one probably better left to someone else. ig or maybe the ouagadougou see within the department. >> it has not come to your attention yet? >> no. i have seen an extract of what you are describing but i will tell you that is not one that i am well-versed in. >> if this is the office essentially that is in charge of looking at sexual assault prevention and response, should there be an aspect of prevention sexualponse for further assault in the civilian world as well that comes under your leadership? >> i think we have a relationship and we work very closely.

one, again, int my experience, over the course of the last year, that we have had that. a light of your question, we will take a look at that so thank you. >> i want to ask about the screening of troops in positions of trust. as you know, the army disqualified 588 soldiers. that screening is ongoing and how many troops have gone disqualified from those positions and how many of them have been discharged from service? >> i can to you the answer is the screening ongoing is yes. in the wake of that analysis, we are working to take that to the next level and automate some of that. as to the specific -- your specific question, i would ask you to defer to the army on what their latest numbers are. i just don't have that.

>> on retaliation, the report today indicates that the percentage of people in the that they indicated perceived some form of retaliation remained untainted -- unchanged for 2014. what is the mechanism for someone who has retaliated to complain about the retaliation? there any data indicating that the department of defense has prosecuted or investigated these claims of retaliation? is suchnow, retaliation a tough issue. we would hope that, if an individual was willing to come forward and report that they were retaliated, that they would tell someone, either within the chain of command or outside the chain of command. leadershipto come to convention, then it would be

investigated. unfortunately, we don't have a lot of statistics yet to tell us what in fact has been referred to investigation. to have more of that as part of the annual report. >> as an air force office of special investigations agent for 12 years, i followed up on any report of retaliation because that was witness intimidation, because it was something that i deathly wanted to get after and hold people appropriately -- that i definitely wanted to get after and hold people appropriately accountable. yet as have data on that far as the numbers go. our process this year for meeting the president's guidelines or guideline was to shrink a five-month process to about 30 days. so all of the quality and wealth of data that i usually have for an annual report i just don't have yet but it will be coming this spring when we report to congress. --you are actually collating

collecting data on people who report retaliating? >> i will be reaching out to those people and collecting data, of course. >> the way that rand looked at the data and the military did, it appears that rand found that the number of assaults, sexual assaults on women in 2014 that 39%lved penetration was versus 29% the way the military looked at the data. for men, it's worse, 35%. rape is theow that worst form of sexual assault, a much more -- much more problematic than you initially thought? >> the answer is no. there's two things. rand 15 minutes

after this will have a briefly and walk you through that. i would encourage you to do that because it is really going to lay out for you the differences and why. i really want you to have that because those who have the numbers and don't have the briefing come to that conclusion. crime,ar as penetrating in our survey, we don't try to classify what kind of crime under article 120. that is where we have the broad categories. theirand will show you is methodology and how they may be tapping into some of the crimes that people have experienced a but maybe did not necessarily think that they were sexual. under the uniform code of military justice, article 120, a behavior that you experienced doesn't necessarily have to be sexual and that might be tapping into hazing and things like that

, like the secretary said. >> had he looked into the offenders,s of the -- have you looked into the of the offenders, if they have posttraumatic disorder? is that included in the report? in the is not included report. for the most part, and our demographic offenders are about 18 to 35 years old. they are enlisted ranks. most of them group between e2 e8.e7 or we are currently conducting some willrch right now that give us better insight as to service history and where these folks come from and what they have been doing but i don't have that yet.

>> thank you very much. i appreciate your interest in this matter. house minority leader nancy pelosi will be holding a briefing on her party's agenda. the california democrat is expected to take questions on a spending measure that is needed to avoid another government shutdown. live coverage from capitol hill tomorrow at 11:00 a.m. eastern on c-span 2. later in the afternoon, a forum on north korea and the west. we will hear from journalists, former diplomats, and the president of the korea institute. live coverage from woodrow wilson institute begins at 1:4 i-5 eastern also on c-span 2. 1:45 eastern also on c-span 2. dangers policee face. and king jefferies -- hakeem

jefferies on the staten island man killed by police. >> next, a law enforcement conference looking at training methods, the use of force and the relationship between law enforcement and the communities they serve. we panel talked about the events in ferguson was -- ferguson, missouri and the choking death of her garner in new york by a police officer.

corrects ladies and gentlemen, my name is craig floyd and i would like to welcome you to to the new series called conversations on law enforcement. the series focuses on topical law enforcement issues on the minds of many. tonight's conversation is entitled "when police shoot, a dialogue on the use of force." we are proud to be jointly hosting this event with a new thelong-term partner, memorial foundation, builders of the magnificent martin luther king jr. memorial. i want to begin by thanking our event sponsor, the target corporation, which has been one of our top supporters over many, many years. several target officials have traveled from their headquarters in minneapolis to be with us tonight and we are very grateful. they are deeply committed to supporting safe communities

across the united states and tonight's discussion is intended to help foster their very important role. .- important goal they national law enforcement heads ofmemorial fund the national law enforcement museum. it formed in 1984. our mission is to tell the story of american law enforcement and make it safer for those who serve. our vision is to inspire all citizens to value law enforcement. we established a national monument here in washington, d.c., to honor the service and sacrifice of our peace officers. it is located a few blocks from here. names of more than 20,000 officers who have sacrificed their lives in law enforcement service are inscribed on the walls of that monument. now in the midst of

building a national law enforcement museum right across the street from the monument. it is intended to help our citizens better understand and appreciate the vital role of policing in america. interactive exhibits, the museum will allow visitors to walk in the shoes of a police officer and better understand what they do and how and why they do it. one of the major exhibits planned for the museum is a use of force judging training simulator that allows the experience of virtual situations that involve life-threatening, just-second situations like sometimes our officers have to make. in recent months, there have been several high-profile events involving they youths -- the use of lethal force by law enforcement professionals. each time, the same questions were asked. was there not another option? why not shoot to wound rather

than kill? why were there some and shots fired? tonight, we will pose these questions and others to veteran law enforcement professionals and we will examine the impact of police shooting, especially .ne that ends in death the u.s. department of justice tells us, among the millions of percent to come in contact with officers, use of force was used in less than 2% of the time. most law enforcement professionals will go through most of their career without ever firing their webcam. but for most emergency watch of firing their the -- use thei weapons. but for most americans watching the news and television. and look at the numbers

look at the number of violent offenders confronted by police each year and argue that the figure shows great restraint. that sore mortified many lives are taken each year by trained professionals. number,atter what the every time an officer is compelled to shoot and kill someone, it is a terrible tragedy for all involved. less lethal weaponry by officers will be discussed as well as community-oriented policing. most of all, we want to have an open-minded conversation that will lead to a stronger public safety partnership between law enforcement officers and the citizens they serve. time, i am very pleased and proud to introduce my new

good friend harry johnson, president of the memorial foundation. [applause] >> thank you so much. good evening. what a joy it is for me to stand here this evening as we talk why police shoot. on behalf of the builders of the martin luther king memorial, where dr. king's stance together with the jefferson memorial and the washington monument, we built the martin luther king memorial so the world would have a place to honor and that is it -- and visit one of our heroes of this great majestic country. to a man ofrial peace, a man of color, and in non-president to be set in a prominent place of the national

mall and among the pantheon of great leaders in our country. we built it and not just to recognize the life and legacy of dr. king, but also to accentuate the four major themes of the memorial. justice, hope, democracy, and love. totonight, how proud we are be and partner with craig floyd of the law enforcement museum and target to have a dialogue aout when police shoot and dialogue on the use of force, and hopefully bring to the forefront those four tenets of the king memorial. justice, the belief that we are all do justice under the laundry got us a color, the belief that we as americans have the competent expectation that we can be better, that we can expect better, and that we can do better for ourselves and for a future. the universal doctrine

that we are all god's people and belief, asre love, much as we love those that we have within us. and finally, we understand that ferguson is not an island unto itself, but a reality in every city. but if we apply the four tenets of the memorial, we will make better families, better communities, better cities, better states, and indeed have a better nation in the world. god bless you and let's speak together tonight. to the podium jeff johnson, a world-renowned author, commentator, and a good friend of the memorial. jeff johnson, it's your show. >> thank you. [applause] the check is in the mail. [laughter] who he was talking about it first. it is an honor and privilege to be here and moderate the discussion.

i'm not going to stay at the podium. i will join our panel sitting down. it i do want to frame -- don't think there has ever been i have moderated that needs less framing in lieu of what our country is looking at and many of us have listened on the way over all of the commentary and the reviewing of what is happening in new york even right now. they grand jury has failed to indict officers in the air garner killing. -- the eric garner killing. linesms that very sharp have been drawn in communities all over the country. whether it is in new york, ferguson or even now in andeland, as city officials public safety officials are determining what the next steps investigations around the shooting of 12-year-old taymar r

and isn't a lot -- there often isn't a lot of reasonable conversation. i'm hoping that the conversation we have tonight will not only be reasonable, but a conversation that begins to point at the practices that we are seeing in certain parts of the country, potential solutions, and even the framework of how those of us who are in this room serve as ambassadors for how we move forward in creating more , practices,licing the mobilization for more effective policy, and greater relationships. aboutt even talking of allowing there a level of engagement, it helps to bring those things about him as a former activist and youth activist, we understand that even though some policy works well sometime, there is an opportunity to see better policy .

sometimes that better policy only comes when there is unrest. what does that unrest look like? how does it become effective? and when does it become counterproductive? i hope he can have an honest discussion. i hope you all are involved in that honest discussion. moderator, i hate panels where you wait until the last five minutes to open up the floor to discussion with the audience and then you hurry up and try to get 35 questions in two minutes and 16 seconds. it never works. my goal is to involve you in the discussion as quickly as we can because i think we have a more robust and true community conversation when that happens. we have a great panel that is with us and i would like to introduce them before i take my seat. to my immediate left is tom stryker. mr. stryker is a principal with stryker, formally the

kernel and chief of the cincinnati police department. i was the national youth director when there was a great deal of strife in cincinnati over the killing of a young man and protests ensued. there was a great deal of unrest in the city under colonel stryker's leadership. he now travels the country as a consultant engaging communities in best practices and how to do effective collaborative policy as well as government accountability. please, a round of applause for tom stryker. [applause] to his left is cedric alexander, .he ceo -- the coo he has a rich history. he was working with the -- as

the federal security director with tsa and has worked with the state of new york. please give him a round of applause. [applause] and last but certainly not least is reverend tom watson. minister, that means pastor -- [laughter] of washington memorial training ministry in new orleans, louisiana. manifestsctivist and the prophetic word. for those of you who don't know what that means, he operates in speaking the words so that we can move and engage in communities. think a legacy of men and women of god who understand that we can't afford to be a political but it is necessary for churches to engage in the communities that they help bring about the change is necessary.

please give him a round of applause. [applause] all -- can join you mr. stryker, i would like to start with you. i think there are so many directions we can go into this conversation and the first one, when we start talking about why do police shoot, why do officers shoot, talk a little bit about, for those in the audience who don't understand, what training do your officers receive and by a large can we assume that officers receive as it relates to the use of force and the discharge of their weapons in particular. trainingare a lot of that goes into this and it is not something that is specific to use of force only. agencies that do it properly actually teach decision-making and that is something that has to be woven through the very thatc of all the training

all of their officers receive. so i have to be able to make a decision over whether or not i will approach you based on constitutional grounds, and my here to introduce myself? am i here for unofficial reason, official reason and the context of this stop? is it a stop? to walk away? these are the things we have to go all the way back before the use of force occurs. we have to teach officers had to make those decisions in context of their position as a police officer, a public official, a person with an enormous authority and power. an amount of authority and power that no one else in the united states has. no one has more than a police officer has, not even the president of the united states.

that is a frightening thought on one hand. on the other hand, it is something that we all know we need in this nation to protect the rights and liberties of everyone. this group of people with this anonymous amount of authority and power that have to be able to make decisions from the very beginning of a stop, the context of that stop, all the way through to the point where there is interaction between an officer and a person and if that interaction goes awry, how does that officer make that decision. it's not just, oh, boy, i get to use police force now. there has to be a decision-making process that unfolds very quickly. one of our hosts, craig floyd in the beginning. this is something that can .appen in a split second and then the decision about what type of force and the actual source that -- actual force that is used. then what is the review process?

do we say, ok, is this justified or not justified? we actually go back and look at these situations, take a look at a look at what happened. we have to be able to extract exactly what occurred, what lessons are there, how can we apply those lessons to training to help the decision-making process in the future so we can hopefully alleviate the new for an officer to use force. that should be the ultimate goal of any police agency. >> let me build on that a little bit. i want to stay with this training thread before we gone on to other parts of the conversation. as someone who has trained people, i understand through a training process i realize that there are certain people i am training that don't necessarily necessary to do

what it is i am training them to do. how often do we find in these types of trainings through assessment processes that these people probably have more responsibility than almost anybody in the job that they do but they just don't have the decision-making skills necessary? do we find within police training that there are those who are assessed to say, wait a minute, you don't really possess the decision-making skills to be in necessary those life-and-death situations, this series situations and as a result you do not make it through the training course, through the academy? is that a litmus test for success in the academy? litmus to remain on the street? if not, should it be? >> let me say this. when we think about police training and