it is a cultural issue. second, north korea. i will answer this way. we are prepared to always respond to any contingency. as you know, the premier of south korea is here today. i was in one of those meetings and i will see her later this afternoon and be with her tonight. we talked a lot about this issue. the united states is prepared with its allies to deal with any contingency. we hope that the leadership in north korea understands the wiser course of action is to participate in a process towards peace. we hope and believe that can happen. >> the case involving the air force officer has gotten a lot of attention for obvious reasons. do you think it is anything larger about the pentagon's efforts for sexual assault? >> my personal feelings i have expressed. secretary donnelly, chief ed they expressed themselves clearly and directly this morning. no one in this building is happy about what happened. we are disappointed. it does not fix the problem. you saw the reports and we will see more reports today on this issue. it is bigger than just the pentagon. we are particularly disappointed because this alleged incident occurred here. the heart and the main leadership of our institution, the men and women around the world give themselves and their families -- and they expect more and deserve more. we all have to take some responsibility and i have said clearly in my statement that we will all be hold accountable -- and held accountable. i will take one more. >> he said people should feel comfortable coming forward. senator gillibarand and others said as long as commanders have control over the sexual assault cases, whether it is the convening authority or moving court cases, they won't feel comfortable. are you ready to endorse some of those proposals coming out of progress to put -- congress? >> i took the initiative suggesting that we make some changes in article 60 for the ucmj. it deals directly with that issuea. i believe with others on capitol hill that the ultimate authority has to remain within the command structure. there are things that we need to do and should do to make it more accountable. that is why i suggested the changes. we are working with senators and congressmen. i think they have legitimate points. as i said in my comments, as i said one month ago, and as leaders have said, what is going on is not acceptable. we have to go back and review every aspect of that chain of command. things do need to be changed. but i don't think taking away the old and a responsibility -- ultimate response ability from the military is the way. we will weaken the system. we will continue to address it, it is not perfect. i think it does say something that we are seeing more people come forward. i think that means, when you talk with some of these individuals, that there will be some more confidence starting to develop. that we will take those charges seriously. the victims will not be penalized. that we will do something about it, and we will get control of this. it's imperfect, it's a problem, but we have to address is. working with congress, what we are doing is the responsible way. i will ask general patton to go into specifics about what i talked about and what we are announcing today. thank you. >> thank you, secretary hagel. general gary patton director of the sexual assault response office. i have a couple opening remarks and i will address the rest of your questions. let me reiterate that sexual assault is an affront to the values we defend. as today shows, we have work to do and it remains a persistent problem and the department. it is a challenge confronting the military. while we are moving ahead to combat this crime, it is clear we have work to do. we have to eliminate this threat for the safety and well-being of those in uniform. this report contains data for military services and outcomes of sexual assault as well as results from a confidential surveys of active and reserve components of the force. everyrveys are conducted two years as was mandated in the national defense authorization act. this is the year we have survey results incorporated into the annual report. it will be included every two years from here on out. the surveys provide prevalence estimates for estimated occurrence for unwanted actual contact among the forces. we also included survey from the national intimate partner survey, a joint effort between the centers for disease control and the national institute of justice with the department of defense. first i will go through some of the key findings of the annual report and i will talk to you briefly about the strategic plan that the secretary announced. he covered some of the eight initiatives and i will be prepared to take questions. from the annual report, we have the principal findings. the prevalence of unwanted sexual contact increased for active duty women. it is defined as any offense in the full range of offenses from rape as a penetrating crime to abusive sexual contact. the survey gives prevalence for unwanted sexual contact, the term that encompasses the full range of continuing harm. the prevalence of unwanted sexual contact that we derive from the survey remained unchanged for active duty men and for reserve components, national guard, men and women. i'm change active duty men and unchanged men and women in the national guard. there were reports of sexual assault revolving -- involving active service members. i switched from the survey results to the actual reports. these are the reports that come from the victims in the form of unrestricted reports, the and one that goes forward. it is investigated independently by the military criminal investigative office. restricted reports remain confidential but they still get medical care. 3374 total reports. a 6% increase from fiscal year 11. of these 3374 reports, 816 were restricted. 2000558 were unrestricted. -- 2558 were unrestrickted. when you compare the survey results with the actual reports were the victims make the tough step of filing a report to enough already, it shows sexual assault is a vastly underreported crime. prevalence remaining at a current level, we view an increase in reports with victims coming forward as meaning that we have more victims coming forward that are receiving medical care. and in unrestricted reports, coming forward with the cases are entered into the law enforcement system. ultimately, we have more cases that proceed to the military justice system and holding the appropriate offenders accountable. increased awareness and new programs i have seen since the time i have been director this past july, we have these in place across the department. but we have more work to do. with this understanding, the department is publishing a revised sexual assault strategic plan. secretary hagel made references to this. it provides authoritative guidance for the department agencies and components. it operationalizes the key tasks for the strategic direction for the force on sexual assault prevention and response. theligns and synchronize efforts across the department along the five lines of effort. prevention, investigation, accountability, victim advocacy, assessment. assessment is important to us this is not a static program. -- because this is not a static program. just months ago in july, it will not be the program that we see in the future. forre continually looking ways to improve and make a difference. initiatives new today that will make a difference and change the culture. driving the culture change to turn this around. along with the strategic plan just described for you, and i have given you additional descriptions, there are the new initiatives that we feel are directly responsive to issues identified in the annual report and will contribute to making this enduring culture change. i am prepared to describe any or all of these right now in detail and i am happy to answer your questions. >> the secretary mentioned climate survey. the air force has a climate survey every two years that they are not used to rape leadrs. -- leaders. wi on sexual assault? >> all the services do some commandclimate survey, climate survey, the national defense authorization act stipulated that they be done at a certain frequency. there is one initially done at 120 days or earlier upon assumption of command. and it specified there'll be one done annually thereafter. within the first 120 days is the initial and annually to the lifetime -- through the lifetime of the command. these surveys are important. questions number of not just about sexual assault. it is about hazing and other elements of climate important to an effective command. we wrote questions and to the survey last april, a year ago. 50,000 of those surveys are conducted every month. we see the results. my office sees the results. what is different? this initiative will direct that the survey results be given to the next higher commander in the chain of command. currently, the survey results are provided to the survey commander. the higher level commander can request them results but they are not given as a matter of policy. this affords divisibility of the senior command. if i may colonel in command and i have a subordinate battalion beneath me, i will be seeing the annual reports and annual surveys of each of those battalion commanders as they are provided to me directly. by this, we are increasing the level of visibility of the command climate. it adds a more senior and experienced commander into the mix in terms of assessing these results. ultimately, if there is trouble and climate issues that are not corrected or addressed, they are able to hold the junior commander accountable. that is one set of templates. -- of inputs. this is aimed at increasing accountability at the higher level of command. >> [inaudible] >> the surveys are currently conducted at multiple levels the services, and so the direction is that they will be provided to the next higher level of command. >> do you accept the problem is getting worse or do you think people are simply more comfortable reporting the problem and it might be a measure of success? >> i will break it into two pieces. when we looked at the actual reports, the victims make the difficult step of coming forward and filing a report. we view an increase in those reports that could be a sign of improving confidence. there are other things that we look at in terms of confidence as well. i will get to that. we want more reports because more reports, another victim is getting cared for. the unrestricted reports means more cases investigated by law enforcement and ultimately taken to the justice system and holding offenders accountable. going back to the survey, it is confidential and goes out to a broad base of the individuals, both male and female, different ages. results are weighted. we have a team of statisticians that look at this every year from 2006 to 2010, and 2012 with the data points that we looked at. and what we saw this year, as i mentioned for the active duty females, an increase in the prevalence indicated by their responses to that survey. we take that very seriously. that one of the key ways we measure whether a prevention program is effective and having the -- ultimately preventing the crimes from happening in the first place. what we want to see is the prevalence trend to come down. until that rate comes down to it intersects with the reporting rape, they both go down. as long as it remains at a high level, it is a sign of victim confidence and coming forward. what else did we look at? the rate at which victims remain in the justice system. we look very closely. you can't prosecute a case when a victim withdraws from the process. we look at that rate. we also look at the rate at which victims come forward and make a restricted report and convert from restricted to unrestricted. that is a sign of victim confidence, willingness to take their case to law enforcement. uptickar, we saw an there. a positive indicator that there are signs of improving confidence. 14% last year to 17% this year for victims that converted to the unrestricted report. there are a number of things that we look at, the survey is a big part of it. we also will try to get to victim confidence. one of the things that secretary hagel announced is the initiative to direct the service chiefs to develop methods where we are caring for victims and monitoring and improving how they are being treated by their peers, co- workers, and leaders. why is that important? we were told victims were not satisfied by the way they were treated in the unit. they received retaliation, social retaliation, leadership retaliation. that is a huge barrier for reporting. we pay attention to that and so we get out there and develop methods by which we are getting better treatment. and not medical treatment, but better peer and leader-led treatment to improve victim confidence. >> the survey numbers that you mentioned, is that the 19,000 no. why? that was two years ago -- 19,000 number, right? two years ago? >> for active duty women, the percentage we get is that -- this is an estimate derive from the survey methods -- 6.1% of active duty when men were victimized by unwanted sexual contact based on a 2012 survey. for men, 1.2% active duty men, victims of unwanted sexual contact according to their survey. the number you are referring to in 2010, the calculation was made with an extrapolation when you take the percentages and apply them against the n strength of the force. it gives you a figure. it is an extrapolation of the percentage. this year, when you apply the figure to the female n strength, you get 12,000. the male percentage to the male n strength is 14,000, plus or minus 1,000 in the survey results. that is the equivalent figure. adding them together is 26,000, cooperative to the 19,000 that was derived in the 2010 survey. >> [inaudible] activethat is based on duty survey. >> one more number. i apologize, but we did not get the report before the briefing. the total number eligible to be charged by the u.s. military, how many were court-martialed and convicted? >> if i can say that question and get you an answer when we dig into it. i can get that answer to you. i need to make sure that i got the numerator and denominator correct. i will come back to you on that and take that question for you. >> of all the things you are worried about is the perceived legitimacy of the process. at is the argument for not taking it out side of the chain of command? >> i think the secretary addressed that question, so i'll say having been a commander over five years, i'll say that we need to have commanders more involved in the solution, not less involved. we want the more involved because it is important to set the right climate. commanders lead by example lead set standards. commanders have to hold people accountable to meeting those standards. when people choose to be undisciplined, they need have the tools and the authority to take care of that and address that. that is one side of it. the other side is that section 576 which has been mandated, the independent panel that the secretary mentioned. one of the charters for that panel is to look exactly at this issue, the role of commander as it pertains to the prosecution of sexual assault cases. we made the announcement of the panel members today. we are announcing that the members of the panel will commence work. he has called upon the panel today to complete its work. we want a quick return on that. it is probably one of the key issues that the panel is looking at. the role of the commander and the investigation. >> the panel will consider taking the investigations -- >> i would have to look at the exact language but it was told that the uniform commander is apprised of cases of sexual assault. >> the secretary talked about accountability at the president talked about accountability. can you point at cases where commanders have been held accountable for mishandling cases or for climate regarding sexual assault cases? >> i will point to the initiative that the secretary put in place today. aiming at greater command accountability. climateion to the survey peace, directly relating to command accountability, directing the service members and the service chiefs to develop members -- methods to evaluate the performance of commanders in terms of their establishment of their respect and how they are adhering to the principles of sexual assault prevention response in command. that is something reinforced from the secretary level across the field. it is that important. it is hugely important. this is something he is announcing as an initiative that will really improve that measure of accountability up and down the chain of command. >> this is not a new problem. are you saying people have not been held accountable? can you point to any cases? is there substance to it? >> there are plenty of cases that have yielded convictions of offenders and held appropriately accountable. we are looking to improve that step of the process. criminal investigators are now taken every sexual assault case they investigate. those cases are provided to commanders and we have recently elevated the disposition and authority level. last year it was that the '05 level. we elevated it to the '06 level, making disposition decisions about how assault cases will be handled. taken to nonjudicial punishment or administrative action. i will end there saying this is not a static program and all the lines of effort are subject to change. in addition to the independent panel, we are looking at ways can improve that. we are looking at the initiatives to focus on greater accountability. >> two more questions. andrew? >> the assessment tool that the service chiefs might develop, what will happen to the results of that tool? incorporated into the personnel file, a promotion process? what is the next step? >> the task was to develop methods. it is not a prescriptive tasks. the answers your questions will lie in the methods that are developed. the service chiefs have suspense for that particular task. let me put my finger on that. report your methods back to the secretary by november 1. there is suspense there. i would expect that the methods developed will address the points that you made. how will this inc. valuations? what is the method of assessment? their vast experience and ownership of this problem to develop solutions that will work for their servicemen. thank you. >> will you or anyone in your office here with a lieutenant colonel, have you spoken to him? has he offered an explanation or anything? >> i will refer you to the air force on that. he may have been in a meeting or two that i was part of. i don't recall a meeting. he works on the air force staff. he has been removed from his and secretary hagel made those comments to you. i would expect the air force to keep us posted on that, but that is where we are at. >> sure. you and the secretary have spoken about holding commanders accountable. is there anything here that deals directly with stopping the attackers from committing the crimes in the first place holding the people that commit the crimes more accountable? sometimes even the best of commands, there might be bad people. >> i think something we are working on right now is the special victims capability. this gets at investigators and prosecutors, improving their training and methods, the way they collaborate and work together so we can get exactly what you are saying. a lot of these are very difficult cases to prosecute. whether you are in the civilian or military sector. we are undergoing right now, a program development policy. this is something that was mandated in the last defense authorization act. we're working on that and we report back to congress in september of this year. we are collaborating with services on it. we will develop standards and develop the very best training practices for investigators and prosecutors. training them together like it will operate and putting them together in a work environment from beginning to and where they are focused on solving these cases. and being able to take up ford and prosecuting. these services are doing a lot of this already so we are looking to standardize what they already have under way. i have been out to the school where we teach, of course. for leonardwood, that is where we train the criminal investigative division and a military policeman. i have sat through elements this course, i have talked to the agents out there, and people have been working on investigating sexual assault cases there military career. and in many cases, civilian law enforcement. it is a best practice out there and we are looking to standardize it as far as the special victims capability to make them better investigators and get at these very difficult and complex cases to prosecute. thank you. >> thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] pearon thursday, jackie s joined us. host: presented jackie speier, member of the armed services committee joining us. sexual assault in the military is the topic for this segment. representative speier, it seems to be a big increase in estimated sexual assaults in the military, 7000 cases. do you agree with the statistics that have come out from the recent report? why the increase? guest: the increase is close to a 83% from the last survey that was done in 2010. -- the increase is 33%. it is so disheartening because we have put a spotlight on this issue. we have had hearings in the capital. we have had big brass, talk about it. secretary leon panetta called it an epidemic. secretary hagel says he wants to address it and yet nothing changes. host: why the increase? is there reason given? guest: i think the fact that people are more likely to speak about the fact they been raped. naupa they will come forward, because only about 9% of the 26,000 actually filed a complaint. the reason for that is because more often than not if you file a complaint it is not taken seriously. casesbout 23% of those actually gets a court-martial. and only about 8% of those cases actually end up in convictions. what happens to the victim, they get re victimized. they are then interrogated. the defense has the opportunity to ask them about their previous sexual history. in most states in this country that kind of inquiry is prevented. but not in the military. and you are ostracized from your unit. over time they find a way of discharging you honorably but often times with a personality difference. host: front page of the new york times -- legislationroduced to change the current prosecutions standards. guest: our system is based on the british system. uniform code of military justice was an act of congress in the 1950's. it has not changed in all those decades. meanwhile, the british system has changed. in 1995 they took these cases out of the chain of command and placed them in a separate office. my bill would do precisely that. it would take these cases out of the chain of command, keep in the military, but create a separate office in the military with experts on prosecution and with legal training to make these kind of decisions. host: the new york times details some of the other bills that have been introduced. how is your bill different from senator joe grant's or -- from senator kirsten gillibrand's bill or mr. turner's? tost: mind is similar turner's. a three-star general dismissed the conviction, reinstated the lieutenant colonel in his post, and it's like it never happened. that's because the uniform code of military justice article 60 and 63, of which allow him to do so. my bill would prevent a commanding officer from doing that but also from reducing the sentence. in mr. turner's case, he would allow the convening authority to continue to reduce the sentence. so you could be convicted of a crime, but if you reduce the sentence, then where is the punishment? host: jackie speier is our guest. the topic is sexual assault in the military. we have set aside our fourth line for active-duty military. 3883. representative speier, a want to get your reaction to what the secretary of defense and recently said. [video clip] >> it is my strong belief and i think others on capitol hill within our institution that the ultimate authority has to remain within the command structure. do,e are things we need to should do, will do to make it more accountable prevents my i suggested the changes. there will be more suggested changes. we're working with the senators and congressmen. they have very legitimate points. as i said in my comments and as i said a month ago and every response i have had, and i think our leaders have said, what's going on is just not acceptable. we do have to go back and review every aspect of that chain of command, and that accountability. some things do need to be changed. i don't think taking it away -- the ultimate responsibility away from the military. i think that would weaken the system. host: representative? guest: the secretary i think wants to do the right thing. jointlistings to his chiefs of staff. this is a significant change, but it's a very necessary change. we should not have persons in the military who have no legal training making decisions on whether or not to prosecute violent crime, whether or not there's sufficient evidence to prosecute crimes. they should not be judge and jury. they should not have the power to basically dismiss a case completely. that's the way it stands right now. military justice really is not justice at all. for every other purpose, having a chain of command makes all the sense in the world. but not when it deals with sexual assault. not when it deals with any felony crime. host: when it comes to sexual assault in the military, is it comparable to the civilian world? guest: in terms of actual crime? host: ratios and things like that? guest: if you look at the civilian society, there is a 40% conviction rate of sexual assault cases. in a military, it is 8%. we have a huge problem. host: jackie speier introduced a sexual assault training, oversight, and prevention act establishes a sexual assault oversight and response office of within the department of defense. it establishes a sexual assault oversight and response council in the department of defense. what is the difference between the council and the office? guest: the council is one that would provide additional advice to the office, but it does not have any ability to circumvent the office actions. host: director of military prosecutions, what would be the function? guest: the director of military prosecution is the function that will be staffed with legal experts, lawyers, attorneys who will be able to assess these cases and make a decision whether or not to move forward with prosecution. host: the important part, you want to get it removed from the chain of command in the military. guest: >> that is the component. after they make a decision, that is the information is shared with the commanders, but the commander is not making the final decision. host: we begin with a call from charles in eastern maryland, democrat and in active duty. you are on the washington journal. caller: good morning and thank you for c-span and thanks for taking my call. i am an active duty member, master chief currently serving. representatives that the dismissal of sexual assaults to not be within the chain of command but that local commanders should be able to adjudicate assaults. the military has taken great steps in terms of awareness, training to process and protect victims and to prosecute the perpetrators of sexual assaults. guest: thank you, charles. the only thing i disagree with you on is the training and all the prevention has not really resulted in changing the culture and the incidence of sexual assault and rape. in fact, those numbers have skyrocketed in the last survey. host: american hero tweets -- guest: and ? the problem is you can have all these opportunities, but if cases are not going to be prosecuted, in convictions are not going to occur, it does not matter that you have all the frills surrounded. we've got lots of training. we have spent millions and millions on training and creating a separate sexual assault and prevention office. but the truth is nothing is changing. so we've got to look at where others are doing a better job. host: this is diana in monticello, minnesota, republican. caller: good morning. my question -- and thank you for c-span -- my question is has it gone up more with males or females? be honest. they should call you -- they used to call yuba dummy democrats. now they call they should call to discuss the democrats. if you kill people and you don't tell the guest: truth assaults in the military happened to men and women. it happens to more men than to women in raw numbers, because there are far more men in the military. but about 14% of the military is female. if the recruited numbers are growing by 20% per year. host: this is from yesterday's baltimore sun newspaper when the report first came out -- brian lewis said that after he was raped he was told to keep it quiet. he said the report "shows the failure of leadership all the way from the white house to the lowest level commanders and demonstrates the need for aggressive reform. he said he felt sexual assaults had never been taken seriously by the military before. at what level do you see it breaking down? guest: i think it breaks down at every level. we had a general testifying before the armed services committee in the senate this week talking about that the problem in the military really starts with the teenage culture, that kids today are hooking up and therefore that kind of mentality is wafting into the military. that could not be further from the truth. so it happens at the highest levels and it happens at some of the lowest levels. i sent a letter yesterday to secretary hagel about a disgusting facebook page that was brought to my attention on tuesday. it is so misogynist as to be impulsive. i think that it is emblematic of what has become a culture of discussed and we've got to change it. host: according to usa today, here's the article -- john is active duty marine, fairfax, virginia. go ahead. caller: good morning to the representative. u.s. marine, a democrat. i appreciate your service. guest: i appreciate yours. caller: banks, ma'am. the commandant of my marine corps has recently apologized for the shameful behavior. i am ashamed of what i have hearing. when we drove down on this issue, perhaps it appears, as you noted in your comments, the lieutenant general and the recent arrest from a particular recruit, and a service academy incidence of rape at a particular services academy. i would personally direct your attention to perhaps a more focused view of the culture in which service needs more attention. guest: john is referring to the air force, because the air force has had a string of scandals. lackland air force base, where 59 victim's, these were military trainees being sexually harassed or sexually assaulted by 32 military training instructors. they have had problems at the academy. the most recent case in italy was an air force case. the major general that overturn the conviction was obviously from the air force as well. host: is there reason the air force is seeing best? guest: i think there's a growing recognition the air force has a very serious problem. we should probably start there with cleaning up. one of the things i will recommend to the secretary is led to a pilot project. let's take it out of the chain of command in the air force and see how it goes. try that for size. but let's be clear, this is not just happening in the air force. it's happening in every one of the services. host: representative speier, we have a tweet -- guest: no. there's a survey that's done. in the survey, which is fairly anonymous, you indicate whether or not you have been sexually assaulted or raped. and then you compare that to the actual number of complaints that are filed. distinctionere the comes in. in the military, you can also do or restricted report, which is another an anachronistic means of reporting, but you don't want anyone to get charged with it, you just want to get health care associated with the rape or sexual. sexual host: have you talked to commanders or sergeants about your legislation, taking it out of the chain of command? reflect i think they what you heard from secretary chuck hagel. who wants to have power taken away from them? they like the fact they are in total control. they are in control except for determining whether or not there should be a prosecution when a violent crime has been committed. that's the way i look at it. host: next call comes from california. emahns. caller:hi. guest: you are up early. caller: yeah. i agree there needs to be some type of separate entity for these issues. twoi don't agree with things. the reason we have had a spike in the military is because we have gotten better reporting mechanisms in place. second, i don't like the fact that we are painting this as military is not taking steps. myself and my sailors have been mandated to tour all of our barracks from during the nighttime hours on the weekends and during a short period throughout the week to provide a physical presence to curb any type of issues with sexual assault. guest: thank you for alerting to that. i am not suggesting that there have not been attempts made to improve the situation. we are spending tens of millions of dollars on prevention and training programs. there are a number of steps being taken by the military and its attempts to address this. i'm not dismissing the effort being made. i'm just suggesting that we should be seeing dramatic changes in those numbers, which we are not. changeseeing dramatic on the upside and the downside. host: have you had to discipline or work on sexual harassment or sexual assault cases? caller: yes, i have. at my command, we have several -- we have military and civilian, male and female, so i have had to deal with sexual harassment, not sexual assault. but it is everywhere. it is in our society. guest: 1 happened to the perpetrator in both of those caller: without getting into too much detail, we did end up having to tell the civilian your services are no longer needed. in the case of the military member, that person was taken to nonjudicial punishment. guest: what was the punishment? caller: what was the actual judgment against them? guest: yes, what did you have them do? caller: forfeiture of rank and a half months pay. iest: from my perspective, think that there's a willingness to allow those who sexually harass to continue to the military. in a corporate setting, someone creating a hostile work environment, you are terminated. we don't need people who cannot conduct themselves with good order and discipline. those are hallmarks of the military. and yet it has the conduct that is rampant that has been allowed to fester for very long time. host: so instead of forfeiture of rank, half a month's pay, would you would-- and we don't know any of the details of this -- would you advocate taking somebody out of the military? guest: it would really depends on if this is someone who passes by and just says -- i don't really know. you need the specifics to evaluate it. host: according to the annual defense department report, 6% women surveyed anonymously as well as 1% of male soldiers declared they had suffered sexual assaults but not reported them. steve is in maple, north carolina, republican. jackie speier, democrat of california, is our guest. guest: hi. caller: good morning and thank you for your service. i happen to be a retired 30-year marine. my daughter, 14 years ago suffered a rape in the u.s. marine corps. since then i have been fighting to try to restore name. -- her name. the pattern of the personality disorder, i am familiar with that. i am a little emotional about this. guest: i understand. and your story is so similar to so many out there. caller: my daughter, they tried to initially discharge her under a pattern of misconduct. the commanding general in new orleans picked it back because they had a problem. my daughter was a series of undergrad at recruit training. militaryows about the will know this is extraordinary. i'm so proud of my daughter. of obtained the rank corporal in 11 months in the marine corps. extraordinary story. letters of commendation, all those things. herhey tried to discharge for that but were not able to. then they tried to discharge her for a personality disorder. the problem with that is she had never been diagnosed with a personality disorder. so the board of correction of naval records agreed with the documents that i submitted, so they came back and ultimately discharged her for a physical condition and not a disability. i have been fighting this for years. spokeent as yesterday i with the office of the sergeant major of the marine corps, a fine gunnery sgt. the sergeant major of the marine corps, and major barrett, also a fine man, refuses to meet with me. general a mess, a fine marine officer, refuses to meet with me. -- general amos. dcnr refuses to meet with me. host: steve, what was the final results? caller: the final result was my daughter was discharged from the marine corps, was assigned re4 discharge code, which means that you are not recommended. it is a stigmatizing stain on our family that has for generations, back to the american revolution, served in the guest: military steve, would you do me a favor and call my office and give me the specifics and let me see what i can do. i can hear the pain in your voice. this has been the track record of the military for decades. they find a way of sweeping these cases under the rug and then revictimize the victim. the kind of discharge is staining. we've got to make an example of cases like your daughter's so that the military gets it right. 202-225-3531, if you'll call my office, i would love to look into this. host: susan is in north carolina, and she's a member of the reserve. guest: hi, susan. host: susan, you've got to turn down the volume on your tv. we are listening. former i'm also a marine. it is that way in the marine corps. if a woman reports or it is brought to the attention of the command, the woman is shunned by the marine corps. host: did you ever -- were you sexually assaulted? caller: yes. guest:? did you: caller: not for years later. host: why? caller: because the person that did it was highly respected in the military. his chain of command protected him. they did not want nothing to happen to him. guest: her point is really good. under the code of military justice there is a way in which you can mitigate a judgment and a sentence if you have a good military character. that means if you are a great soldier, the fact that you are a great soldier can reduce the sentence or reduce the charge, even though it is established that you have raped. host: mary, a democrat, michigan. caller: hi. i just wanted to say i was in the military in 1976 in the air force. i had a co-worker tried to rape me. it was reported the next morning. i was the one -- i have to take a polygraph test because the man i accused would not. in order to get him discharged, reduced in rank, i had to take some of the most humiliating questions i have ever been asked at age 19 in my life. think i had never even dreamt of, perversions. they asked if i had done these things or dreampt these things. things i might be done with my husband, they wanted to know about. it was the most horrendous experience of my life. and i was pregnant at the ime. at the time and the man did this to me. they had me take this polygraph and i was pregnant. my baby was born three months prematurely. my doctors said it was because of stress. luckily, i was able to get out with a hardship discharge and good standing. had i not, i was already being shunned by everybody who knew me and knew that i was a good, decent person. guest: could i ask how old you are now? caller: 56. guest: i get chills right now, because your experience happened so many years ago and obviously is still very painful for you. that is what happens to so many victims. the pain, the suffering, the victimization continues. i just extend my sympathies to you. thank you for the service you did provide our country. thank you for speaking out. we will fix this so that not another generation of women and men who are impacted by this. ost: representative speier, is there anything to do with door the type of people -- is there anything to do with recruitment or the type of people going into the military that creates a situation that could be changed? guest: when it was all volunteers and we were engaged heavily in iraq, reporters were willing to take people that probably did not have pristine records. that is not the case today. and that is not a reason -- that's not an excuse. it's time to stop finding six -- excuses for what is going on here. we've had a number of examples this morning that make the case of why this is so important to address. and it has been happening over and over again for decades. the last caller, mary, when she was talking about the humiliation and the interrogation, there's no rape shield law in the military. there is in virtually every other state. so why would anyone want to report a crime when they are going to be put through an interrogation of 12 hours and the defense counsel will be able to ask them about their prior sexual history? who wants to deal with that? they want you to suck it up and move on. that's the situation where you allow sexual predators to infiltrate the military and really create a cancer that is just growing. host: george is in mount pleasant, south carolina. caller: i think that there should be a time when you all admit that you messed up by trying to integrate women and men in the same quarters together in the military. it just is not going to happen. you are getting what you bargained for. it does not make any sense to expect men not to be men and women not to be women. this is going to continue to happen until a new suck it up and get rid of the idea that you are going to put men and women in close quarters together a common in men and young women. ust admit you messed up. guest: i really disagree. i think that women and men can serve our country together in the military. when you think about, this is not just an ordinary environment. you are trained to follow your command, to be a responsible service member, showing good order and discipline. and i can think that this idea that boys will be boys and therefore we've got to accept that it is just wrong. host: has the situation hurt recruitment of women into the armed forces? guest: i don't know the answer. we know recruitment of women is going up. with their ability to now serve in combat, which gives them greater likelihood of being promoted to significant posts, that you might see more women. what's interesting, among many of the victim's i have talked with and met with, they have a legacy of service. their father was in the military, their grandfather. these were persons that made careers of the military. so here's a young daughter who has been encouraged by her family to invest and who has made a commitment to want to serve in a career in the ilitary. then to have it become caught off because of a rape is just tragic. host: do you face -- being a female member of the armed services committee, the you see anything -- i don't know. s it a male culture? guest: sure, absolutely. but that does not mean because it's a male culture it cannot be a fair and equitable culture where we respect individuals and treat them with dignity. that's what this is really all about. host: representative speier is also on the oversight and government reform hearing yesterday. you as one of the witnesses, mark thompson, he made the mentioned that thompson would not meet with democratic members. what was the approach the democrats took to meet with mark thompson and why would he not meet with you? guest: whenever there's a hearing, there's a witness list hat comes out. typically, the republicans have an opportunity to ask questions so they know what their testimony will be like, and the democrats have the opportunity to ask questions. mark thompson's attorney refused to allow the committee staff to meet with him and to get a sense of what his testimony was going to be about. so it was a very partisan hearing when it really did not have to be. there are some legitimate issues we have to address. the accountability review board that actually was independent review the benghazi tragedy came out with a blistering criticism and very important recommendations. we need to focus on that, because we've got men and women serving in our diplomatic core around the world in hot spots, in very potentially dangerous hot spots, and we should able to say to their family members, we've got their backs. i don't know if we can say that. we could not say that in tripoli or benghazi, because the buildings were ranked as being high threat buildings that needed more reinforcement and they did not have it. and yet we still took occupancy of those buildings. host: did you learn anything yesterday? guest: i cannot say there was a lot of light shed on the issue yesterday. there have been nine hearings. there's been an exhaustive report. i think we've got to focus on moving forward. if i'd think the republican spin about this is another watergate or this will be worse than watergate or this will bring down the presidency or foil secretary clinton oppose the efforts to be a presidential candidates are pretty transparent. i think there was a little too much of that kind of posturing going on. having said that, i think mr. hicks is a fine diplomat, a courageous diplomat. nd i think that he should be posted to a new where he can show the kind of leadership that he showed in benghazi and in tripoli. host: we have been talking with a representative jackie speier, emocrat of california. >> next senators talk about the pentagon report on sexual assault and how they are planning to address the issue. this is about 20 minutes. >> thank you. is in the charactd dedication of our men and women who wear the uniform. it is the courage of these americans to volunteer to serve that is the pentagon's greatest asset. i know it's said a lot, but take a minute to really think about that. our service members volunteer to face danger, to put their lives on the line to protect our and all of its people. when we think of those dangers, we think of i.e.d.'s, we think of battles with insurgents, many of whom are so cowardly and evil that they refuse to even wear a uniform themselves and they seek to kill innocent civilians. but there are, unfortunately, other dangers as well, dangers that cannot be accepted, and none of our courageous service members should ever have to face and that, what i'm speaking about, is sexual assault. and that continues to plague the ranks of our military services. it is absolutely unconscionable that a fellow service member, the person that you rely on to have your back and be there for you, would commit such a terrible crime. it is simply appalling that they could commit such a personal violation of their brother or sister in uniform. even worse is the prevalence of these crimes. just today we are hearing the alarming statistic that the number of cases has increased by more than a third since 2010. more than a third. and for the estimated 26,000 cases of military sexual assault in 2012, less than 3,000 of them reported. out of 26,000, only 3,000 reported. what's even more startling is that of those who bravely come forward to report the abuse, an astounding 62% of them were retaliated against in one way or another. 62%. rs about 1-5g to the department female veterans treated by the v.a. has suffered from military sexual trauma. one in five. that is certainly not the act of a comrade, it is not in keeping with the ethics of any service and it c no longer be tolerated. we still have not done enough to put annd to these shameful acts. well, madam president, today i am taking action to change that. today, senator ayotte and i join together to introduce the combating military sexual assault act of 2013. this is bipartisan legislation that we have worked on to make several vital improvements to protect our service members, tot our bill, the combating military xual assault act, will create a new category of legal advocates called special victims counsels, who would be responsible for advocating on behalf of the interests of the victim. these s.v.c.'s, special victim counsels,ould advice the victim on the range of legal issues that they might face. for example, when a young private first class is intimidated into not reporting a sexual assault by threatening her with unrelated legal charg charges, like underage drinkin this new advocate, the s.v.c., would be there to protect her and tell herhe truth. this bill would also enhance the responsibilities and authority of the deptment of defense sexual assault prevention and response office known as the sapro, to provide better oversight of efforts to cbat military sexual assault across our armed forces. sapro would also be required to regularly track and report on a range of m.s.a. statistics, including assault rates, number of cases brought to trial, and compliance within each of these individual services. now, some of this data collecon and reporting is already being done so this requement is not going to be burdensome but it would give that office statutory authority to track and report to us on the extent of the problem. the combating military sexual assault act would also require sexual assault cases to be referred to the next superior competent authority for court-martial when there's a conflict of interest in the immediate chain of command. this is very important, madam president. this will help ensure that sexual assault allegations get a fair, impartial, and thorough investigation. and the president of military officers association of america agrees. they have said, "preventing sexual assault is a duty of everyone in the chain of comma command." this legislation will increase support for sexual assault victims and strengthen policies and procedures for such cases in our nation's armed forces. end of quote. madam president, this legislation would also prohibit sexual contact between military instructors and service members during basic training or its equivalent or within 30 days ter the training. as we have seen with disturbing frequency at places like lackland air force base or the air force academy, new service members are too often taken advantage of and abused of. madam president, in these settings, new service members have every aspect of their life controlled by their instructor. while this is appropriate for military training, in this type of setting, it is entirely inappropriate for senior service members to seek a sexual relationship with a junior subordinate. it's our view that it's impossible for a service nobody freely give csent in that setting. this bill will also ensure that sexual assault response coordinators are available to members of the national guard and reserve at all times. i was told a very disturbing story recently by a female service member from the national guard in my home state of washington. after being sexually assaulted during her monthly drill on a military base, she took all the necessary steps including calling the sexual assault response coordinator. but when she called, she was told that because the assault happened during monthly drill, not on active duty, the sexual assault response coordinator could not help her. that those services were only reserved for those on active duty. madam president, that is absolutely unacceptable. when one of our men and women in uniform is the victim of a sexual assault and they have the courage to come forward and ask for help, the answer never, ever should be, "sorry, there are regulations. nothing i can do for you." now, madam president, this bill is one step to address the crisis we have in our armed forces and it needs to be done now. and yesterday's news that the air force's chief of sexual assault prevention was arrested for sexual assault is another reminder that we've got to change the cultu arod this issue. but i want to be very clear. the military has taken some steps on its own. for instance, i am looking forward to seeing secretary hagel's proposal on how to reform article 60 of the uniform code of military justice, and as i think most of our colleagues know, under article 60, the convening authority of a court-martial is empowered to dismiss the judgment of a court-martial and overturn their verdict. many of us, myself included, have had serious concerns about how that authority has been used in sexual assault cases. so, madam president, we are here today to introduce this bill and i want to thank the senator from new hampshire for advocy on this issue and for her help in putting this legislation together. and i also want to thank representative tim ryan for his leadership in championing our bill -- companion bill in the other chamber. you know, madam president, when i asked navy secretary ray maybus about the sexual assault epidemic, i was glad to hear he said concern wasn't a strong enough word to describe how he felt about the problem. he said he's angry about it. i know a lot of us here share this feeling. we want it to stop. so i am really hopeful that both chambers can work quickly to do right by our nation's heroes. yo know, when o best and brightest put on a uniform and join the united states armed forces, they do so with the understanding they'll sacrifice much in the name of defending our country and its people. but that supreme court nice should not have to come in the form of unwanted sexual contact from within the ranks. so, madam president, i'm very pleased to introduce this bill and i want to thank senator ayotte again for her hard work and advocacy on this, and it's a pleasure to work with you. and i yield the floor to her at this time. the priding officer: the senator from new hampshire. ms. ayotte: madam president, thank you very much. and i would ask upfront for unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business for up to ten minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. ayotte: thank you, madam president. and let me just say upfront, i very much want to thank my colleague from washington, senator murray, for her leadership on this issue and for the opportunity to work together to address this very, very important issue of making sure that we eliminate sexual assau assaults that occur within our military and that the victims of these crimes get the respect, the support and the justice tha they deserve. and i'm -- i'm very honored to work with you on this and i thank you so much for giving me the opportunity to work with you on this important legislation to address a very serious problem in o military. and i approach this issue not as just someone who comes from a military family and has such great, deep respect for the military, as you know senator murray does, with the important position she has on the veterans' committee, but also someone who serves on the armed services committee and someone who worked in my prior career extensively with victims of sexual assault. during my time as a prosecutor in new hampshire and then later as a state's attorney general, i saw the devastating impact of these types of crime. and i also saw the real need to address what is too often a silent crime and the victims often suffer in silence for fear of coming forward and not being supported when they are to come forward and report a sexual assault. and so that's very important and that's why i also supported efforts earlier ts year that i know senator murray was a very strong leader on in reauthorizing the violence against women act. so i want to thank you for your leadership on that as well. currently, military sexual assault occurs at alarming leve throughout all branches of our military. and according to the department of defense's estimat, 19,000 service members were sexually assaulted in 2011, a rate of over 52 per day. and despite these shocking figures, fewer than 2,800 assault against service members were reported to the department of defense over this same period. the department of defense sexual assault prevention and response office's annual report, which was actually just released tod toy, at the same time that we are filing our legislation, concludes that the number of people who made an anonymous sexual assault claim but never reported the attack increased from 19,000 in 2011 to 26,00 in 2012, nearly a 37% increase. yet the number of reported sexual assaults against service members only increased -- in other words, those that they did report and come forward -- only by 8%. and so this is a dramatic difference of people that were victims but then feel that the can have the support to come forward and report the crimes that have been committed against -- against them. and astonishingly, as senator murray mentioned, just yesterday it was reported that the police arrested a lieutenant colonel in charge of the air force's sexual assault prevention and response branch and charged him with sexual battery, bringing this issue very much to the forefront given the fact that this individual was charged with important responsibility over the sexual assault prevention program. it's important to understand why sexual assault is so destructive, especially when it occurs within our military. of course, when it occurs anywhere, but also in our military, sexual assault is a serious and unacceptable crime that can inflict lasting emotional and physical impact on the victims of these crimes that can last for years and throughout their lifetimes. but in the military, sexual assault can also damage unit morale, readiness, the preparedness of our troops and also military sexual assault can negatively impact the well-earned reputation of those who serve honorably, which is obviously the overwhelming members of our military who serve our country with great courage and with great character.e so we must aggressively tackle this problem to compassionately help victims but also to protect the good order and discipline that ultimately is undermining and supports the readiness of our military units. we do our military and our service members little good if we ignore this problem. conversely, it's very important that we pass common sense legislation that will help solve the problem, but we should make no mistake, the vast majority again of our men and women in uniform serve with tremendous dignity and honor, and the united states continues to be the very best military in the world because of the character, quality and courage of our men and women in uniform. but when a service member fails to live up to our values and commits a sexual assault, we must ensure victims have the support they need and that the perpetrators are held accountable and are brought to justice. that is why senator murray and i have introduced this legislation today, and our legislation titled the combating military sexual assau act would expand and improve military sexual assault prevention and response resources available to the victims of these crimes, building on the lessons we have learned from a pilot program that is already in place in the air force, our bill would provide trained special victims counsels to victims in all service branches to help them throughout the process, and the counsels can help comfort and advise victims after the crime has occurred. the special victims council can also provide victims the confidence that they need to come forward, report the crime and seek justice. the chief of staff of the air force general welch testified this morning before the armed services committee that the evidence is clear that providing special victims council to those who suffer from this crime has been -- quote -- "immensely helpful in the air force,"nd so every victim of crime within our armed services deserve to have the support of the special victims council. our bill would also ensure that sexual assault response coordinators are available to members of the national guard and reserve at all times, and regardless of whether the service members operating under title 10 or title 32 authority, this is very important that we get this in the law now so that our guards men and women, they get the support that they deserve because we could not have fought the battles and the wars that we have fought without their courage and their bravery and the sacrifices that th have made. our bill would also make certain that sexual assault cases are referred tohe general court-martial level when sexual assault charges are filed or to the next superior competent authority when there is a conflict of interest in the immediate chain of command. and right now the way the system is set up, there isn't a set mechanism where there is a conflict of interest. this commonsense approach would recognize the uniquely devastating damage sexual assaul crimes inflict on individuals and ensure that victims can have confidence in the military or justice system. in conclusion, allowing this problem to persist is simply unacceptable, both for the victims and for the morale and readiness of our forces that do so much to ensure the freedom of this country. we must continue to make clear that sexual assault in the military simply will not be tolerated, and we must match these words with actions, and r legislation does just that. i look forward to working with the department of defense, continuing to work with senator murray and thank her again for her leadership on this, andy senate colleagues on both sides of the aisle to strengthen existing laws and policies so that all military sexual assault victims can come forward without fear of retribution and with confidence that they will receive the support, care and justice that they deserve from ur countryryryryryryryryryryryy also met ves speierryryryryryy with the white house on thursday. other members of congress at the eeting, included girlly brand, and claire mccaskill and representatives susan davis, ichael turner. both chambers of congress are back in session this week. the house returns for a brief session monday. business resumes on tuesday. legislation calling for the full repeal of the 2010 health care law and a bill requiring the security and exchange commission to do a cost analysis before implementing new business. no roll call votes are expected. they will work on the water infrastructure bill, authorizing dozens of sewage projects around the country. live coverage of the house on c-span, the senate on c-span2. >> post 9/11, a whole lot more people cared about national security issues than was the case before. then all of a sudden there was a folk --or former c.e.o. c.i.a. folks and all the guys who were used to operating in the shadows saw a market for their services as common taters, book writers. so there was this somewhat uncomfortable, you know, kind of interaction between the agencies and these former employees. >> at the time i felt water boarding was something we needed to do. as time has passed and as september 11 as moved farther and farther back into history i have changed my mind. water boarding is something we should not be in the business of doing. >> why do you say that now? >> we're americans and we're better than that. by his is a guy who i think all accounts who served his country for 15 years in dangerous situations. he risked his life to take on al qaeda in pakistan and take on terrorism before that. he's going off to prison for 30 months leaving his young family behind. > this weekend on "q&a." "from spy to source to convict." that is on sunday at 8:00 on c-span. >> on thursday, the judiciary committee began the consideration of the gang of eight bipartisan bill. a look at the committee's pening statements. >> we can begin by voting on amendments this morning. i recognize the ranking member for his opening remark. i had intended to call on senator schumer for the first .mendment even though everybody has spoken dozens of times about this on the floor and tv and everything else, senator grassly tells me people still want to speak so we'll have everyone up to four minutes. but i would hope that if people don't feel like that have to repeat over and over again they have already said a dozen of times we can get to marking up the bill. hundreds of amendments have been filed, posted on the committee website. i hope we consider which of the amendments they intend to offer. we will keep going as many days as necessary. we'll consider the responses, effective amendments. beginning with the amendments filed then we'll move on to amendments filed for border security and finish that today so we don't have to come in tomorrow or later. only two of my four minutes i have used so i will yield to senator grassly. >> during this committee's park upof the immigration reform bill i'm going to invoke the stheems that the president outlined that day he -- themes that the president outlined to the public that the rule of law will be the touch stones of his presidency. i want to help the american people understand what's in this 867-page bill. i want to discuss the details and understand the thinking of the authors with regard to many provisions. i want to know how the bill doesn't repeat mistakes we've made in the past. i want to know how it will benefit generations for years to come. i want to know how the bill preserves the rule of law. since we only do comprehensive immigration reform about once in every 25 years, or at least successfully so, we have to get it right. as the authors of 744, a bill must ensure that the reform is successful so we don't have to revisit this issue again. the bill before us has some of the same concepts of the 1986 immigration reform and control act. title two of that act provides an legalization program. instead of calling it a provisional immigrant status the 1986 bill allowed the undocumented population to come forward and register with the government what was termed temporary resident status. a person had to prove they resided in the united states prior to 1982 and had to remain in the united states until they adjust to permanent resident status. like the bill before us, the 1986 law required individuals to learn english and allowed people to meet that by taking a class. like the bill before us, those in temporary status were authorized to travel and work. any information in one's application was considered confidential and could not render the person removeable. applicanted has to pay a fee and there were no number call limits. there were weak -- there were waivers on the ground and a provision that required the attorney general to get people here illegally with an opportunity to apply for legal status if at prison hended during the application period. no could people be deported at this time. to top it all off, like the bill before us, the bill was to under ake a campaign to desim nate about the legalization program. this ought to sound particular. the sponsor of the bill want americans to believe that people will wait 10 or 13 years until citizenship is granted. they say it will be tough and an expensive road. it will be easier to go home than go through the process. i disagree with that sales pitch. unfortunately, this bill looks too much like the 198 bill, which failed to take care of the problems that we're trying to solve. it falls short of what i want to see in a strong immigration reform bill. so you will hear me say many times, we shouldn't make the same mistake that we made in 1986. you will hear me say many times that we want to move ahead with a bill that does it right this time as the authors of the bill said in the preamble to their things. i have have several amendments that will improve the bill. i have a an amendment to hold the administration accountable how they will spend the $7.5 billion. i'm going to take as much time as i can because i'm the ranking member. the other people are limited to four minutes. >> i limited myself. i know you said all these things before. take another minute or two if you want. >> thank you very much. i have an amendmento le how they spend $7.5 billion in taxpayer's money. i have a an amendment to improve the new grant programs. i have another amendment to limit who can take advantage of the generous legalization program eliminating the ability removingto apply while proceedings. i have amendments to undue weakening current laws. i will offer amendments that ll strengthen the visa programs. no one can dispute this bill is legalization first and enforcement later. i will have an amendment that the secretary has maintained effective control over the southern border for six months before proceeding to the application of registered provisional immigrant status. if we pass the bill as is there will be no pressure on the administration or future administrations or thovepbs of us in congress. -- or even those of us in congress. we need to work together to secure the border first. people don't trust the enforcement of the law. that's why it is important that congress legislate and not delegate so municipal. there's hundreds of provisions that grant waivers and discretionary authority to the director of the homeland security. this follows in the footsteps of the health care reform bill. we're learning a lesson every day that whoever administers that bill pushes the envelope d oversteps authority to the maximum extent possible. it has been three years since that bill has passed. the executive branch has begun to develop the exchange markets but it is not moving along. we current let the same thing happen -- we can't let the same thing happen with this bill. i will make this statement, this bill is complex. any one of us can read 900 pages but it is another thing to understand it all and know the consequences of such an under taking. the bill intersects with the jurisdiction of several other congressional committees. i have a list of the provisions here that we amend 52 other laws, including the national environmental law, the foreign services act, the united states housing act, the military selective service act, the fair labor service act, the national science act just to name a few. so, mr. chairman, i can see by our getting into the jurisdiction of these other committees that this judiciary committee is going to be the most powerful committee in the united states senate. i yield the floor. >> thank you. i allowed theanking member to take twice as long that will be given to anybody else. senator feinstein, did you want to say anything? >> i will pass. thank you. >> senator schumer. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for giving us the time here and showing great leadership as we move forward on this legislation. the group of eight of us, four of whom are on this committee along with senator feinstein and spent a great deal of time on this legislation. we believe it is sound, balanced, sturdy ship that we will now begin its voyage. we believe we have taken all the considerations into account. we have come up with a fair bill where no one gets everything they want. but at the end of the day, it will mean dramatic improvement for the american economy, the american people, and will make our immigration policy much more in sync with what is good for jobs in america. i would ask my colleagues here, what we do is funded on -- founded on a fundamental premise that americans will support common sense solutions to both future immigration and the 11 million who are living in the shadows. only if -- only if they are convinced there will not be future waves of illegal immigration in this country. this bill is far and away the strongest bill that has been put together. it has a chance of passing, in terms of stopping future flows of immigration. just on the border alone, senator mccain and i had an amendment a few years ago that spent about $800 million on the border and the effectiveness rate went up. we spend much more than that. as much as $6.5 billion. the border will effectively be closed, we believe with these expenditures and the way they will be done. we take future immigration and make sure that we deal with the industries that desperately need help. google moved 400 engineers as part of google map to vancouver because canadian immigration policy allowed the people to come there, our policy didn't and they could not get the workers here. at the same time, in new york state the leader cabbage grower in new york did not plant his thousands of acres of cabbage because he could not get people to pick the crops. we will change our policy so people who are needed to help our economy grow can finally come into this country. at the same time, we will note that when families are divided the humane thing to do is bring the families back together. because we so dramatically stopped the flow of illegal immigration we can do both. we do and do it fairly. we know our present system is broken. we know the status quo is unacceptable. but we also know that there are many who will want to kill this bill. i would ask my colleagues, if you don't agree with everything, no one does, be constructive. we are open to changes. don't make an effort to kill a bill that is the best hope for immigration reform, i believe that we've had in this country and frankly the best hope to help break the partisan gridlock that has strangled the senate, the congress, and the country. >> thank you very much. senator hatch, up to four minutes. >> thank you. i want to thank the gang of eight for being willing to take this on. i respect their efforts. this markup is a start of a long process that includes not only this committee and the full senate but the house as well. the bill is hundreds of pages long and hundreds of amendments have been circulated. i know that you have a big task ahead of you, mr. chairman. i commend the bipartisan group of senators that developped the bill that we begin marking up today. no one should expect a simple solution to such a complex set of problems. i believe our goal shower serious effective legislation that can be supported not only by congress but the american people. i cannot speculate about the likelihood of success but i believe it is possible and will do whatever i can to reach that goal. the process started with a bill -- people saw controversial. the paten bill outcome gives me home for the bill before us now. i will be paying particular attention and there are a number of areas. the first is improving the progress -- the process for allowing high-skilled individuals to enter the united states and work in technology and other fields. i introduced the act that so far has 26 bipartisan co sponsor, including judiciary members. the bill is currently drafted h-1b visa and could make it unworkable for many employers. -- ss changed this could en encourage to hire abroad than in the united states. my friend from california senator feinstein deserves a a lot of credit. along with senators rubio and bennett. the third area is enforcement, this is the best legislation of the world is little value unless it is seriously and properly implemented even seriously enforced. we have experience to draw from, negative experience i have to admit but experience all the same. we ignore that experience at our peril we will fail the american people with we repeat the mistakes of the past. as ranking member, i am also concerned about jurisdiction. they include the treatment of registered provision of immigrants, maintaining and strengthening the ban on illegal immigrants to receive welfare benefits. i look forward to working with all my colleagues her to address these critical issue. mr. chairman, my belief is that this process can success will motivate my participation. there is serious disagreements about principles and policy and achieving real and meaningful legislation and that will require addressing the concerns of conservatives as well asrals, in the house and the senate and we should never leave that out of the equation. if we have that perspective now and keep it with us as we move forward, i believe we can success. i thank you, mr. chairman. >> i thank the senator from utah. -- i ing chaired this n't want to interrupt your staff senator hatch. i appreciate your cooperation. >> thank you mr. chairman. the name plates around the table tell the story. we're a nation of immigrants. cruz, session, and all the rest of us. the good news is that in our background there was someone a parent, grandparent or someone before that who had the courage to come to this great nation and look for an opportunity for a better life. in my case, it was a mother. today her son serves in the united states senate. that is my story, that is my family's story but it is an american story. we're a nation of immigrants. immigrants have made us what we are today. they have given us the diversity but in my sectors in the world it is unthinkable, which makes us a strong, vibrant leader in the world. having said that, we know that the history of immigration in this country has not always been positive. we have welcomed the workers to build the transcontinental railroad and then we excluded certain groups and said we don't want any of you in our country. if you look at the history, there has been noble chapters and ignorant chapters as well. our immigration system is broke. the laws that we have do not serve us well. this is our chance in this room to write an immigration bill for the 21st century for america and its future. for the last four months i've been involved in a bipartisan group to do that. it is the most diverse political group you can imagine. but we have come together, we reached an agreement and we compromised and i think we came up with a good work product. we produced it and brought it for for the public to review weeks ago. let me credit the commarme of the committee. he -- chairman of the committee. he he has we will bring it for a full hearing, when it was over more than 20 witnesses were brought in for and against the measure. now we have hundreds of amendments to consider. -- is as open as democracy democratic process that anyone could ask for and is so significant for the future of this nation. we're not only tasked with coming up with an immigration law for america in the 21st century we're task as senators from both sides of the aisle to prove that the democratic process still work on capitol hill. some here have decided they are going to vote against the measure no matter what it says. that is their right. but others come here with a constructive view to make this a better and stronger bill. we want them to come forward. our bill is not perfect the. he only perfect law that was written was carried down a mountain by senator moses. let me close by saying there is millions of people across america who are counting on us. they are counting on us to give them a future, to give them the same opportunity that our parents and grandparents had and to do it in an orderly and legal way. i'm proud that we're under taking this task. we should really focus on it as one of the most important things that may come from this congress in this year. thank you, mr. chairman. > thank you, mr. sexs. >> thank you. you've indicated and i believe we will have an opportunity to offer amendments and discuss this important legislation in the detail and i thank you for that. first, what do americans believe about immigration? well, we believe in it. we're a nation of immigrants. our current law provide for the yearly admission for over one million people, more than any nation of that. we're proud of that. but almost as many have entered the country illegally as legally and that is caused great concern. americans are not happy about that. people in this country are good and decent. they have compassion for those who are here even those here illegally. but they have pleaded, urged ensometimes demanded that their government end the lawlessness and for a creation of a rational system that admits not too few and not too. one with clear rules and i support that kind of a reform. wrestling with thesish uses is what we're about -- issues is what we're about today. i noticed even senator rubio yesterday issued a statement with a lot of changes he believes are necessary. it was crafted in secret by a series of interest groups and too little concern in my opinion, with express for the impact this huge legislation and the increases it in will have on struggling american workers and unemployment,high anemic job growth and workers who have given up and dropped out of the labor force. we must focus on getting jobs for lawful immigrants in our country and americans. wages are not keeping up with inflation and that has been true for quite a long time. we should be hearing from sheriffs, police, and immigration officers about how we can make the legal system work. just today, mr. chairman, i would offer for the record and ask for consent a letter from law enforcement and i.c.e. us officers concerning the reforms that are in this legislation. >> without objection. >> the responses told us there would be enforcement first. this bill provides immediate amnesty and weakens requirement. we're told there is a border fence, there is no fencing requirement in the bill. we were told there would be a biometic entry/exit system that was called for it has not happened yet. this bill undermines that requirement. we're told there would be strict requirements on amnesty but the amnesty is immediate and open to a-- with multiple smind misalexander meaner. the border security provisions weaken current law changing 100% operational control to effective control of only three of the nine border sectors. interior it weakens enforcement. i have two seconds left. mr. chairman, thank you for the opportunity to speak. i would just say that we need to work hard on this legislation. responses. have set forth a vision that is attractive but the legislation does not achieve that vision. >> the number of the senators on this committee and others in both parties have met with me about their concerns and, of course, i'm always open to meet with anybody, in in fact, i'm staying here this weekend to work on this bill. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i look around this hearing room today and i see so many people from so many countries. i think about how that this has made our country great. i think of my own family. my mother's parents came from switzerland, starting a cheese factory in wisconsin. these are our relatives. everyone watching this hearing has their own stories and we must continue that american greatness by getting this bill done. this is a test of bipartisanship in congress. a group has courageously come together to work on this bill. senator hatch and myself have worked on a number of pieces of this bill and amendments. we're a country of immigrants. 90 of our fortune 500 companies were formed by immigrants. 200 companies were started nobel laureates were immigrants. think of our future as we make sure we keep the door open. establishes a pathway to earn citizenship. it contains the dream act. it has provisions that senator hatch and i worked on to make sure that we allow in our engineers and scientists. think about our situation -- we have on limited visas for sports players. in minnesota, we love hockey. we are proud of the fact we have players from all over the world. we should be doing the same with engineers and scientists. we do not have enough doctors in this country. we want to educate more doctors but we also have areas that are underserved. there is an important provision in this bill that i put together with the number of other senators' that allows doctors to finish their residency in this country and not have to go back to their home countries to finish their residency. this is an exciting bill. it is a great opportunity for our country to move forward. and i want to thank the chairman for working on this. and i want to note that we had a hearing and are joint economic committee this week. and we had great attendance at the hearing. the focus of the hearing was on the economic consequences of this bill. we heard from a diverse group of witnesses, including grover norquist, who came to testify for the bill. and he talked about how this actually brings that debt down and the long term because of the economic opportunities that it creates for this country. we heard testimony in this committee from former republican head of the congressional budget office. we talked about how immigration reform would decrease the debt by $2.70 trillion over the next decade. these are republicans, conservatives, economist, and people who have studied this issue for a long time, who see this economic opportunity. america has always been the land of opportunity. and coming from the states across the world, everything from the pacemaker to the post nextte. i want the pacemaker to be made in this country by our workers. that includes native-born workers and people who had the courage to come here from other countries, get an education, and decide to contribute to the productivity of america. that is what this bill is about. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you very much. >> we bring our own unique experiences to this discussion. but my congratulations to the gang of 8 for their work. now is the time for the other 92 members of the senate to weigh in, and i hope we of the process that allows all of us to to contribute. that we have 43 new senators and the senate since the last time we took up a comprehensive immigration bill in 2007. so there are a lot of people who know a lot about this topic and a lot of people who are engaging in the subject, perhaps, a new. people come to america for many different reasons. of course, as we are sometimes painfully reminded, not everyone comes with good intentions. but the vast majority of immigrants, legal and illegal,, because they want to make a better life for themselves and their families. america is a welcoming nation that rewards hard work. that work ethic is alive and well in texas or we continue to grow the economy and add jobs. in texas, we welcome hard working people are willing to take a risk and start a business, people who start with nothing and lift themselves up and help their families live a better life. our conversation about america's immigration system is about people. and we must never forget that. it is about the mexican-american landowners in the rio grande valley. many of whom called the region their home for generations. it is about the vietnamese restaurant owner in houston whose daughter works as a hostess when she is home from college. it is about the salvadorans working in the kitchen who hoped to save up enough money to open their own restaurant. it is about gifted young technologists from china was to be the next michael dell. it is about dreams and success stories, but it is also about heart ached and tragedy. it is about the family of illegal immigrants terrorized by violent street gangs to refuse to call the police out of fear their encounters with law- enforcement could lead to deportation. it is about a young woman from nicaragua who pays a coyote thousands of dollars to illegally cross the u.s.-mexico border, only to be exploited as a victim of modern-day slavery. these are uncomfortable and emotional issues, but we cannot ignore them. this is the debate that cannot be guided by the motion alone, though. this debate is about our most deeply held values. one of those is respect for the rule of law. for too long, our immigration laws had gone on enforced and had been violated with impunity. our effort to fix the broken immigration system must begin at the border, where we must set realistic goals and meet those goals. but as we all know, we cannot solve the problem just at the border along occurred 40% of illegal immigration as a result of people who entered the country legally, but never leave when their be said expires -- their visa expires. we passed a law in 1996 which has never been implemented. we must provide employers with a straight forward verification system to determine the legal status of new hires. is our duty to look at it every provision of the bill and to speak up if we disagree and offer constructive suggestions to improve it. so i anticipate a civil discussion about the bill. but my constituents are pragmatists. that is because we live with this issue every day of our lives, because of our 1,200 mile common border with mexico. and the fact that about 1/3 of my constituents are hispanic. who have been the benefits of our immigration system and who have added immeasurably to our state. this legislation makes a number of positive improvements, but there are areas that need to be improved even more. so i look forward to a robust discussion, and i trust, mr. chairman, given the size and scope of this bill that you will continue the committee's tradition of an open and robust debate -- to get this right and not to simply get it done. >> i appreciate that. one of the things we didn't for the first time in a bill of this significance in the senate -- one of the things we did -- and every single amendment posted online in advance of the markup. thatpersonal note, i know the senator -- what the senator means about the border of his state. he knows i remember his family lived for a while and all pass so. al paso. i saw the border and walked across to several times with him. and saw the lines and the diversity of everything from vehicles to people. so i visited the border and the family members several times in texas. senator white house, did you wish to say something? >> thank you. i wanted to congratulate you on the process we have gone through. i think the process has been very fair and has been a good balance between those two, very eager to get to work on this bill. and those who want to make sure that all of the procedural rights are protected, i think you have done a good job of that. there are people who never want to go to this bill. there is no amount of procedure that will satisfy them, because that is not the purpose. but i think you have done a very good job, and i am delighted to move forward, and have nothing to add other than looking for to getting to work on the amendments. >> thank you. i want to get to those amendments, too. >> thank you, mr. chairman. we all agree that our immigration system is broken and it needs to be fixed. i support fundamental immigration reform, and i am encouraged that both houses of congress are willing to consider this this year. i believe we have an opportunity to make progress with this broad consensus on a number of long- overdue reforms, but overhauling our entire immigration system is not. to be simple and will not happen overnight. this is because we did not face one big immigration problem. our immigration system is a complex puzzle with dozens of interconnected parts and pieces. and some reforms must be completed before others can begin. in, certain culinary measures are necessary prerequisite for a subsequent reforms. for example, we simply will not understand how best to address the problem of our constantly shifting and legal immigration population until our borders are secure and we know who has overstayed their visas. that is why it is futile to make decisions about later stages before the foundations are in place. trying to solve every problem all at once is the surest way to avoid fixing any of them very well. good policy does not flow from massive bills that seek to involve every conceivable -- resolve every conceivable issue. the immigration mess we're in today is because a single comprehensive bill in 1986 did not come close to fixing our problems 27 years ago. despite good intentions, in many ways that bill may have made things worse. serious efforts at lasting immigration reform will have to be considered and implemented in stages over the course of years. that is why i favor an incremental approach. republicans and democrats share much common ground on the most immediate issues. we are largely in agreement on elements like border security, employment verification, visa reform, a guest worker, and -- we could enact reforms in these areas immediately. such incremental progress should not be sacrificed with demands that we try to address every challenge at once. hijack meaningful progress on women during matches by linking them to subsequent more contentious ones. i appreciate the efforts of my colleagues who worked hard to develop a comprehensive proposal we begin to markup today, but i believe success in achieving the goals, identifying the legislation must come through a series of reforms that first and short of the foundational pieces like border security and an effective entry-exit system are implemented properly. the disconnect between policy and enforcement has created distrust that the federal government will or can keep its promises. for decades, congress has legislated border and illegal immigration policies only to have administrations of both parties fail later to implement them. many conservatives are eager to enact fundamental immigration reform so long as those reforms begin with the secure border and a renewed commitment to enforce our immigration laws. but this bill does not do quite enough to establish that foundation. instead, it gives broad discretion to the department of homeland security to make un reviewable determinations about these women the vote -- manipulated goals. according to one tally, the bill includes 400 waivers and exemptions the administration can use to relax enforcement measures without oversight from congress. as written, the border security triggers may be illusory. this is precisely why such comprehensive immigration reform is controversial. rejects step-by-step reforms and refuses to allow the american people an opportunity to assess and approved the initial fixes before further reforms proceed. i look forward to this process into making this legislation -- >> thank you very much. you, mr. chairman. i have said this before. i think because this is such a complex problem with so many moving parts that we actually do need a comprehensive plan in order to address it. taking this piecemeal will not work. i am looking forward to starting work on this bill. i have several bipartisan amendment i plan to offer to help minnesota small businesses and help children and families. let's start this process. thank you. >> thank you very much. senator cruz? >> i would like to begin by thanking the members again of the gang of 8 who have worked very hard on a complex issue, and have put a great deal of time and energy into addressing that. i appreciate that effort. i appreciate that we are now having this process to address a broken immigration system. everyone agrees the system we have now is broken. i'd very much hope that what we are embarking on will prove to be a real markup. and it will be, i hope, a process to improve this bill. the majority has the votes on this committee. every minority amendment or virtually every minority amendment if it so chooses. i hope the majority does not take that approach. we have seen that approach in prior instances, and that is not an approach that leads to passing a bill. let me be clear. i want common-sense immigration reform to pass. i think the american people wanted to pass, but they wanted to pass in a way that fixes the problem. and i am hopeful that the majority on this committee will will in goodst it faith to improve this bill and to consider amendments that would make real changes to this bill. types oftroduced three amendments that are important for improving this bill. the first, and we are considering a set of amendments, addresses border security. the bill has grave problems when it comes to border security. as currently drafted, the bill is eventually a plan to plan for the department of homeland security. and it contains toothless judgment,hich in my would render it a virtue -- render it a certainty that if this bill were passed a few years hence, we would have more hearings discussing why the border is still not secure and the problem of illegal immigration reform -- remains. i have introduced amendments and others have to put pieces of the border security elements. i hope this committee will give those amendments serious consideration. secondly, i introduced a pair of amendments to improve legal immigration. in my view, the best of it -- elements of the bill are the elements dealing with the legal immigration. i believe we should streamline legal immigration. i have introduced one amendment to double the cap of legal to 1.3tion from 675,000 million. the other to take the high-tech visas and increase them from 65,000 to 325,000. we need to remained a nation that embraces legal immigrants. in both regards, my amendment go further to improving legal immigration the does the gang of 8. i introduced amendments to remove the pathway of citizenship and makes them ineligible for means tested, and government benefits. view, if those provisions are insisted upon, and they have the votes, it is likely to scuttle this bill and cause it to be voted down in the house. i do not want this bill to be voted down, and i hope the stakeholders to want this bill to be passed will be interested ll amendments to craft a bi that will pass. i look forward to working with committee members. >> thank you. every member will have a chance to bring up amendments. >> thank you, mr. chairman. this is an historic opportunity, and the nation is watching us to see if we as a body, as a committee and as the senate, can deal with -- and a full and open and robust debate with one of our most important and most challenging issues. as many of the senator said, something that is defined as being a nation of immigrants and something where our history has been positive and deeply negative at times. i look forward t us into the beg of the markup where there will be hundreds of amendments considered and adopted or disposed of. to the point made, i look forward to voting for several of the minority amendments today. i think there are amendments that improve on this bill, and i think this is exactly the sort of a fair and open process which the people of the united states expect. this bill addresses some of the most critical shortcomings of our badly broken immigration system. i am deeply thankful to the 8 senators, the working group, the labor so hard to make such sick the begin progress with this legislation. in my own short time in the senate, i have been privileged to meet with people from all over this country who have been affected by what is wrong with our current immigration system. we have an opportunity here if we would but sees it to make tremendous progress. as many have recognized, where we are today is unacceptable. we have too many people living in the shadows. we have too many families broken by our current immigration system. there are too many young people raised in this country you cannot participate in its promise and opportunity. to many of our best and brightest minds trained universities with higher education funded by taxpayers are fced home to other countries to compete against us with their best ideas. and far too often our immigration system and how this and four spares no resemblance to the most fundamental values of our country and constitution. now is the time. i look forward to getting two amendments and finding ways together to strengthen this bill. and i'm confident that when we are finished, this legislation will make our country stronger, will boost our economy, will show the nation that we can work together, and we will both end illegal immigration and deal humanely, fairly, and responsibly with the terrible impact on families and communities of our current immigration system. thank you. >> senator? >> thank you, madam chair. let me say it. this is how the senate should work. legislation has been crafted, a long arduous process. it came here with sufficient time for people to read and to offer amendments. more than 300 amendments were filed. in my view, the vast majority of them are to make the bill better. already legislation there is the work of many in this room who were not part of the gang of 8. senator hatch, senator feinstein worked on the ag provisions. and others worked on this and we have met and talked with others around this table and in the senate to make sure the legislation as it was introduced aroundhe mark of many the senate. i am convinced it will be improved in this process. as many have said, maybe if we help inhis, it will other areas, like the budget. we can work together. i am pleased to be part of this process and go through regular order as we are doing now. i am convinced we will have a better product at the end of this process, at the end of this market, then we started with. so i think all of you for debating. >> thank you, senator. senator paul? >> thank you, madam chair. the senator is right. the nation is watching, but really the world is watching what we do here today. the world is watching because we are the greatest nation in the history of the world. and our system of immigration is broken and unworthy of the greatest nation in the history of the world. and i want to thank the senators, 8 senators, who have given us this draft. the senator sure and senator durbin of this committee and the others who have participated with great courage that i hope our committee will match. the courage they have demonstrated is the same courage that immigrants do every day when they come to this country, that my dad did when he was 17 years old. 17 years old coming to this country with nothing more than a shirt on his back, knowing when, speaking no english. everyone of us has a story like that one. every single member of this committee, everyone in this room has that story they can recount. we are a nation of immigrants. and our diversity makes us strong. discouraged about america i go to immigration and naturalization ceremonies held on fridays in our state and federal court rooms. and anybody who has not done it recently ought to. i hope we can capture that spirit. they are combination of wedding ceremonies, graduations, birthdays. people, with tears in their eyes, their neighbors and friends along with them, because this is one of the great moments in their lives. and what i tell them this -- thank you for becoming americans. thank you for wanting to become an american and taking a test that most americans could not pass. and i hope we can match their courage in these proceedings. people wanting to become americans, because they want to add strength and values to the greatest nation on earth, and they do. let me test close by s a history that is fragile and fleeting. if not now, when? probably not for a generation will we reform this broken immigration system. and provisions that we have been given in this draft are interlocking. they are mutually dependent and supported. that hasconstruct attracted where consensus, and i hope that we can build on them and just to close, to address the concern that senator cruz r aised. what we do here should be non- partisan because there is nothing republican or democrat about an immigrant coming to this country seeking freedom, tremendous, and the future that this country called for each of them. thank you. >> thank you very, very much. my mike does not seem to be working. thank you, mr. chairman, for your leadership and i join my colleagues in thanking the gang of 8. and to all of the others who have worked on this and continue to work on this measure. yes, we are a nation of immigrants and we have stories to tell. senator durbin, senator bling fall, we all have stories to tell. mothervery courageous who brought me and my two brothers to this country. i am an immigrant. she did this, raised three of us by herself because of her avowed belief that we can have better lives in this country called america. as we go forward, always remembering that immigrants are human beings with families. they come here, the success of immigrants in this country is as excess of immigrants and their families. immigrants andof their families. i look forward to coming up with common sense, he main immigration reform so that, for a sample, i know we are joined by filipino world war ii veteran staff who are waiting decades to rejoin with their children. that is the kind of reform we need. i look forward to going forward with all of you. aloha. >> thank you very much. senator graham was not here earlier. four minutes to senator graham. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank you personally for all of the help you have been to get this bill moving forward. to senator grassley and all of my colleagues on our side. this is a day that we have been waiting for. we will have a debate. there will be a lot of good ideas offered. hopefully we can make the bill better. about immigration. my grandfather owned -- came from scotland and was part of a -- i am trying to keep the family tradition alive by being in politics. the bottom line is that we all come from some work, unless you are native american. having said that, that does not mean that everyone can come when they want to. we got chaos. a couple of things -- senator sessions and i agree on something fundamentally. no guest workers should get a job as -- at the expense of an american worker. we need labor, high-tech, low skill labor, because we are a declining population, but this bill protect the american worker from being displaced. that is important to me. why do have 11 million immigrants coming to america? most of them are not canadian for a reason. we are not being overrun by canadians because that is a stable country with a stable economy. if they come to myrtle beach in march and go swimming and go home. the people who come here illegally come from very poor and corrupt countries. i understand why they come, but we cannot continue this practice. they come to work. i think this bill, on the e- verify side will do more to control illegal employment, the hiring of illegal immigrants than any i have seen a long time. the fence, the combination of border security will make it harder to come here illegally. if you get here and you cannot find a job, because we finally have a way to control illegal hiring. and under this bill, you get a chance to find out who is a legal and who is not. if you hire an illegal immigrant in the future, you will get fined heavily or may go to jail. as to the guest worker program, it allows businesses access to legal labor, paying a fair wage. if things have to happen in my political lifetime and i do not expect the list to be 100. we have got to reform it energy. we have got to export energy resources. the energy expand footprint in america that grows our economy. we have to reform entitlements and reform the tax code. if we do not have an immigration reform as part of that, we are not going to grow. 10,000 baby boomers today are retiring. the 18 to 49 why a democratic is flattening out because our native-born population is not growing fast enough to maintain a vibrant economy. that means of legal immigration has been made available. this bill creates a system where we choose to come based on the economic needs of the country, a fundamental reshaping of immigration. immigration does not nee to be reformed. it needs to be struck down and start over. i think we accomplished that. will willi think this prevent a third wave of illegal immigrants. in 1986, we gave amnesty, but we got 11 million. we had three then. the key is controlling who gets the job and controlling the border and having legal access to a labor and being rational with 11 million. they will have a chance to come into the legal system on our terms not theirs. there will have to wait a long time and learn our language. there will be a fight. but that is what they should do. and i think that is a practical way to do it. at the end of the day, there are some good people coming out of this group and some people not make it. we have to move on as a nation. i am proud we are back at the table trying to solve immigration problems. i am very happy this day has arrived. >> thank you very much. i thank you for all of their work on this. senator durbin reminded me -- that esther olivarias is in the audience. kennedy's key staffer in the last immigration bill. those of us who had the opportunity to work with ted remember that. senator feinstein -- she has time if she would like to. >> just a couple, mr. chairman. for those of us sitting at this table, this is the only chance we are going to have to reform what is a very broken system and to bring a lot of people who have worked very hard in this country out of the shadows. and so i think for most of us it is probably just about the most important piece of legislation that will come out of committee. i want to say thank you to those who worked on it and thank senator hatch who helped with the ag jobs part and senator schumer. for yearsyl and i worked to get full funding of the federal responsibility to pay counties for jail detention in prison payments. this is called the scap program. over the years, federal participation has dropped, and more and more of the responsibility has fallen on to the local governments. and that is just a fact. yesterday, i was visited by the leadership of los angeles county who was concerned that what we do here, not transfer costs on to the states and the county. los angeles has 1.1 million undocumented. they have 10% of the total population in the country. and as members know, there are no federal benefits that accompanied this bill for just about 15 years. and that includes temporary assistance for needy families, supplemental nutrition assistance, supplemental security income, medicaid benefits. so everybody would be in eligible for those for 15 years. i have talked to senator schumer about this. he assures me that there will be no transfer of these benefits on to local jurisdictions. and i just think we need to be very conscious of this, because for a state like california that has certainly more undocumented, and i think most border states, we do not want to see this happen. so i have his assurance that it is not going to happen. assurance. my >> thank you, for that opportunity. >> thank you very much. everybody has had a chance to speak. i appreciate the comments from both sides. >> next, more on immigration from the homeland security committee. opening statements focused on the border security aspects of the bipartisan gang of 8 immigration bill. this is about 35 minutes. you ready? we are delighted to welcome you today. this is a third of a series of hearings that will be held to review what impact immigration reform may have on borders. during our two previous hearings, we heard testimony tablexperts and at this today from front-line personnel about the dramatic improvements we have seen in portions of our southern border regions since the last time the congress debated immigration reform seven years ago, 2006. in recent years, we have made investments in border security. those investments are for the most part paying off. 2006, our border patrol was averaging more than 1 million arrests of on all the rest immigrants. 1 million per year. and the on of the rest population of the united states reached an all-time high of 12.5 million people. since then, we have added more than 9000 agents, bringing the staffing to more than 21,000. we have also constructed 600 andes of new fencing deployed cameras across the good part of the border with mexico. in part because of these investment and apprehensions of individuals attempting to cross the border illegally are at a 40-year low, and the unauthorized population has decrease by 1 million people. despite these developments, we are still facing challenges. all too often, however these challenges have deeper roots in our domestic policies and socio- economic conditions of neighbors. one of our witnesses and noted that we look to the border to solve problems that to not originate there. i could not agree more. we need to focus on the underlying causes of illegal immigration and drug smuggling. the expert and front line witnesses at the hearings earlier were in agreement that passing immigration reform would make our borders more secure. it will do so by addressing several of the root causes of illegal immigration, providing workers and employers with legal avenues to fill jobs that our economy needs to thrive. and allowing our border officials to focus efforts on criminals, rather than on economic migrants. i believe the bill we are examining today represent a step towards achieving that goal. it will increase our security as it provides up there, practical and tough path to citizenship for many but not all of the millions of people within the shadows today. i want to commend our colleagues, especially senator john mccain, a member of our committee who worked tirelessly and fearlessly to craft a bill on which we are seeing today. i look forward to debating a bill on the senate floor later this spring. the goal of today's hearing is to review the bills border security provisions which are this committee's jurisdiction. we have before us a panel of witnesses from front-line agencies. we asked the witnesses to give us their assessment, to tell us how they would implement the border provisions and let us know what they believe they may need, that we may need to add or change the bill. liked chinese proverb goes this -- tell me i will forget. show me i may remember. involve me and i will understand. i tried to visit as much of the border region as i can. three years ago, i visited california. over the past three months, i have managed to go down to arizona with senator mccain, and with janetall and napolitano. i have been to the canadian border with senator carl levin. i have been to texas in the last week checking out the eastern portion. we have all lot of people that are coming that are not from mexico. but separate -- perversely witnessed the challenges that our brave men and women working on the front lines -- i personally witnessed the challenges that our great men and women are working on the front lines with paire. from the urban landscape near san diego to the desert and mountains of arizona to tell lush vegetation of the rio grande valley. some places where you look to the north and see mexico and you look to the south than there is taxes. almost hard to penetrate vegetation on much of that river based on what i've seen, i believe there is no one size fits all solution for securing our borders. things that work so well in arizona will not penetrate much along the rio grande in texas. fly works that they great in some areas but can barely fly and others when the winds exceed 15 knots. achieving that goal persistence surveillance will be challenging and possibly -- however is not impossible. there are a number of steps we can take to get better results along our borders. one of them should be identifying and applying what i call force multipliers that are appropriate for different sectors along our border. in some parts of the border, this may be advanced radar systems. and others, and maybe cameras or systems that are hand-held are mounted on trucks. we need to identify the best technologies with your help so that we will make our front-line agents more effective, provide them with help they need to be more successful in a cost- effective way. one thing i've seen firsthand is that an aircraft without advanced radar on board to help detect illegal activity on the ground is of too little value. many are no fitted with cameras. we have flown three different types of helicopters and only one of them is outfitted correct. we have to be smarter than this. in arizona, i saw an inexpensive single engine airplane that had been fitted with an advanced infrared radar camera system which had proved to be effective and inexpensive to operate. however, the border patrol has 16 more of these aircraft that to not have any advanced sensors on board and are barely used. they are almost worthless. we need to fix that. it is not all that expensive. we need to continue to develop and deploy cost-effective technologies such as hand-held devices i've seen that allow agents to see in the dark or unable our officers to more efficiently process travellers and goods. investing in our ports of entry will also be an incredibly important part of improving border security and our economy as well. i am pleased then that the proposed legislation we are discussing will provide 3500 new opera to -- officers ne. these officers represent a world -- worthwhile investment for our country. officers cost a fair amount of money, and we have an obligation to pay for that. i believe those who worked on this legislation have been working on that. the administration has, too. some good ideas. hopefully we will implement those. hopeful it -- however there are things that may be missing. i plan to work with colleagues in the senate to address them. one of our -- what we're facing is growing on authorize immigration from central americans to transit to mexico. i want to hear from witnesses about what we can do to address this issue, not just addressed the symptom of the problem which i saw firsthand in a detention center with 1100 most the salvadorans, guatemalanss, and hondurans in texas. we need to explore how to make it easier for border officials to work and train their mexican counterparts. finally, i also believe that the department of homeland security needs to do a much better job of measuring its performance at our borders. and that these performance measures must be made available to congress and the american people. measureto be able to what we're doing. we need to be able to do that in an objective way. we understand and you understand, the bill we are discussing today would make one such measure the effectiveness rate public your wallet is a good for step, i believe there are another but it -- another of that is concerning our activities that should be made public. i look forward to exploring these questions with our panel. our country stands to benefit enormously from these policies laid out and this bill. dr. corbin? >> thank you. i want to welcome you all here. i am excited to hear the intercourse and interchange between what our i.g. are said our problems in the answers to those problems. c.p.v. have a and difficult time -- a difficult job. i want to thank you for what you do. it is hard. i am concerned with the immigration bill coming forward and the additional responsibilities that are. to be placed through that bill on the capability of the agencies to actually carry it out. and the reason i am concerned is because there are some areas where we are not affected today. although we have an immigration problem. what we really have a border control problem and a visa problem. and a guest worker problem. and it is important that we fix the real disease not the symptoms. we do not have a secure border today. and we know that by the apprehensions, even though they are less, it is still not secure. and i have a lot of concerns coming forward with the immigration bill. we will wait and see what happens in the markup. i think we made the mistake and we should have asked for sequential referral on that, because so much of it is going to impact the agency under the direction of this committee nevertheless, i am very appreciative of the hard work of those giving testimony today. and i especially want to think and richard for her hard work in the outline she has done. we have other concerns especially on the drone programs. we have not received adequate acts -- answers in terms of the privacy protections. we have had that letter in for over a month and have not got inappropriate answers or satisfactory answers to those questions. that is one of the things that has to be a part of any program. i look forward to your testimony. and thank you for your efforts. carper.ink what senator ford is we want to work as a committee to help you accomplish your jobs. not throw roadblocks but find out what the real problems are and also hold you accountable for the things you can be doing that you're not doing today. so thank you, senator and i appreciate our panelists. some of you heard me tell the story before but most of you have not. about a year or two ago, i was walking into the special olympics basketball tournament at the university of delaware. and i walked in with one of the best high school basketball coaches. i said to him, you have been doing this for a long time, coaching basketball? who are the best players? who is the best shot? the best rebounder, the best passer ? the most valuable player on every team ever coached are the players that make everybody else better. the most valuable player on every team he has coached are those who make everybody else better. part of our responsibility, we do oversight and i think we are good at it, getting better. our responsibility is to find out how to make a better. the thousands of people down on the mexican border from california all week to the gulf of mexico. how can we make those people, your colleagues, better? that is what we are about. i am going to introduce our witnesses. our first witness is the hon. the assistant secretary for the department of homeland security. of experts toeam provide strategy and policy development for the department he served in a number of leadership places. -- pronouncer name for me again? >> macilleny. >> acting deputy commissioner of the order protection. he is the chief operating official of customs and border protection and previously served as the acting assistant commissioner of the agency's office of operations leading its port security and trade operations. welcome. our third witnesses michael fischer. chief of the u.s. border patrol. he is responsible for directing enforcement efforts to secure our nation's borders. his current position, he serves and a number of leadership positions within the border patrol which he joined in 1987. not be given an oral statement. isr next witness is daniel r edale. prior to his assignment, he served as the executive associate director for management and administration at the agency. previously he worked at the former u.s. immigration and naturalization service as a general counsel and served as an attorney in new york and arizona. our final witness is miss anne richards, assistant inspector general for audits within the department of homeland security. assistanteviously an inspector general for audits at the u.s. department of the interior from 2005 to 2007. and she worked with the u.s. army agency. i want to thank all of our witnesses for being here and we will now turn to the assistant secretary for his opening statement. please proceed. your statement will be made part of the record. we look forward to asking questions. thanks for joining us. >> thank you, chairman members of the committee. it is my distinct pleasure to be here today, this morning along with my colleagues from i.c.e and the inspector general's office. it is almost four years exactly to the day that this committee gave me the honor and privilege to serve our nation at the department of homeland security. thank you for your support. i would like to begin by commending the work of the bipartisan group of senators to put for the current bill we are discussing. we recognize that our immigration system is broken and we can no longer ignore the problem. we need a system that meets the needs of law enforcement, businesses, immigrants, communities, and our economy. this legislation will attract skilled workers, encourage growth, and bring prisons living on lawfully out of the shadows and ensure that they pay penalties and back taxes and regularize their status. i applaud the congress efforts and look forward to working with you on this issue. the focus of this hearing is border security and how it relates to this bill. one of the principal missions of the department of homeland security is to secure our nation's borders, to prevent the illegal entry of people, drugs, weapons, and contraband while expediting legitimate trade and travel. it is important for the public to appreciate the extraordinary vitality of our u.s. borders, and the work that chs does every day securing them. let me begin by describing an average day at our border. on a daily basis, dhs processes 1 million in barren travelers entering the u.s. by air, land, and seen. we prescreen 2 million passengers before they fly into or out of the united states. we controlled 3.4 square millions of u.s. borders and 5,000 miles of terrain on our northern and southern borders and screen all cargo coming to an entering the united states. we managed a trusted traveler program with 1 million individuals and rolfe. we process well over 700 vessels. delivering goods to our businesses, homes and communities. and we verify the identities and vet individual seeking to us and to the u.s. every day. in the process of this work, are u.s. coast guard will see is over 20,000 pounds of drugs at our ports of entry. we stopped over half a million dollars daily of counterfeit currency from entering our financial system. our homeland security investigations unit will arrest over 100 individuals who violated immigration or customs law. and we will return an average of 1200 individuals a daily who are on lawfully present. that is what we do daily. , 3 and 65 days a year. days a year. the way we manage for security has changed over the past 10 years. in the last four years, the administration has made investments in border security, adding personnel, improving technology, and strengthening infrastructure. as secretary napolitano has stated, our borders have never been stronger if. first, we made our ports of entry more efficient. second, we expanded our partnerships with the federal, state and local partners in territorial law enforcement as well in the private sector. third, internationally, we continue to improve partnerships to deter illegal smuggling and trafficking and improve intelligence and information-sharing so we can identify threats well before they reach our shores. the numbers speak for themselves. in 2004, the department have a total of 10,000 agents. today we count 21,000. at the southwest border we increased our agents to nearly 94 -- by 94%. in the northern border, we have 2200 agents. we increase the number of officers to secure the flow of people and goods into our nation 17,000 21,000, up from in 2003. as my colleagues with me today will tell you, these enhancements have resulted in improved enforcement procedures, trade facilitation, and outcome. in order to support a modern immigration system, the department understands we must have the ability to track not only who enters our country but also how and when the exit. for two decades, the federal government has worked to obtain timely data on individuals to let overstayed their period of admission to the u.s. the u.s. did not build this infrastructure with exit processing in mind. airports do not have designated exit areas for departing passengers or check points where passengers to part, their departure is recorded by an immigration officer. so it has been a challenge. even so, over the past decade, programs andious 15 airports to try to achieve such a system. we found the limitations of existing technology, plus the lack of infrastructure for departing passengers would drive the cost of programs to nearly $3 billion or more, welcomes -- disrupting air travel. secretary napolitano found that to be unsatisfactory. in 2010, she directed the department to enhance the existing exit system to a level equal to a biometrics system while continuing to preserve -- pursue a more costly solution in the future. over three years, the department has taken steps to implement affordable measures to achieve those goals. through enhancements to our current system, which electronically matches the information on an individual's passports at arrival and departure, dhs to target for enforcement those who have overstayed their period of admission and represent a national security threat. we take action against those. and we continue to move forward with building a by a metric theem to be integrated into system when it is cost-effective to do so. stepmarks a significant forward. let me conclude by saying over the past several years, the department made substantial gains in border security. we have reduced the flow of illegal immigration. we now have an opportunity to strengthen our economy, improve security, and address the legal immigration. it is time for common-sense reform our immigration system. i thank the committee for their work on this today. i look forward to working with you at answering your questions. >> thank you. >> good morning. distinguished members of the committee. thank you for the opportunity to be here today. on behalf of the men and women of border protection, we appreciate the committees' leadership. and we look forward to discussing the progress we have made in strengthening the border and how the immigration reform will build on our successes and improve the safety of the united states. with your support, we have made historic investments and border security, adding more personnel, technology, and infrastructure, making our ports of entry more efficient, deepening partnerships with federal, state, tribal and local and law enforcement. improving information-sharing to identify threats sooner, and strengthening entry procedures. we have deployed proven, affected technology to the border, tailored to the operational needs of agents on the ground and strengthened our air and marine interdiction capabilities. after 10 years of investment in training and equipment and improved information-sharing, our border is more efficiently managed than ever before. the framework articulated in the immigration reform bill has the potential to advance these efforts further. the bill would continue to strengthen security at our border as well as hold employers more comfortable if they hire undocumented worker. but also modernize our legal immigration system. work withntinue to congress on these much needed reforms that will make our border more secure. we are now more capable than ever to secure the border between ports of entry. we have doubled the number of we haveatrol agents, improved intelligence collection and provide a critical situation awareness and support of our officers on the ground. primary fence and vehicle their kids have limited the options available for smuggling organizations. in the aerial platforms with advanced technologies to increase situational awareness, enhancing the way that we deploy resources on the ground. additionally, over the past three years, advanced assessment of enforcement data has produced programs such as a delivery system which has allowed us to reduce the percentage of apprehensions that result in a voluntary return from 41% in 2011 to 22% in 2012. the delivery has contributed to the reduction in the rate of recidivism from a six year average of 24% to 12% today. at our ports of entry, we have increase the number of officers facilitating the secure flow of people and goods into our nation from 17,000 customers immigration inspectors in 2003 to more than 21,000 officers and 2300 agricultural specialist today. in 2012, the officers arrested 7700 people wanted for serious crimes, including murder, rape, assault, and robbery. the officer stopped 145,00 it is abhe and the states through our ports of entry. to build on the success, the 2014 budget includes a request 1600 arenew officers, requested to appropriate funding, and legislative changes are recommended to fund the additional 8077 officers, who will support economic growth and the creation of new jobs. a recent study from the center for risk and terrorism analysis of the university of southern california has found the increase in staffing at ports of entry has an increase in transaction costs and according to the results of this study, these numbers could generate in that -- 115,000 new jobs each year and increase the gdp by $7 billion. success, efforts to secure the border must continue as threats of all, and this will allow the continuance of securing maritime borders, ports of entry into combat illicit border activity, to build on the progress we have made and build a safe and thriving border. thank you once again for allowing us to appear today and we welcome the opportunity to talk about the progress we have made in strengthening the nation's borders. >> thank you very much. i know that you are here to testify -- testify -- do you approve this message? you are on. and thank you. , please proceed. >> good morning, members of the committee, and thank you for the opportunity to testify on the important reforms to our immigration system. this is the second-largest agency in the federal government. the men and women play an important role in carrying out smart and effective emigration policies. has made much progress and has made 34,000 criminal arrests in fiscal year 2012, representing an increase of nearly 30% since 2009 and many of these convictions were tied to the border and the nation's immigration system, with document and added to the fraud, human smuggling and trafficking. we have also developed the illicit pathways attack strategy, to combat traditional organized crime by focusing on international organizations dealing with crime and a list of finance. and we also set records in civil immigration and enforcement, with smart, clear priorities. this year, our enforcement and removal operations moved a record number of individuals from the country. more than 225,000 have been convicted of felonies or misdemeanors, but another record of 96% fell into the fold priority category. this success could not be achieved without the implementation of efficient policies by secretary the polyp, -- napolitano. office of professional responsibility and our ongoing relationship with our colleagues -- we entered into a memorandum of understanding regarding the investigation and employee conduct. this was not available, had included the efforts to involvement in criminal investigations -- and we have laid the groundwork for continued success in the critical area of insuring the integrity of the work force at the border. this will be important for any increase in staff at the border. and it investigating cases referred from cdt. between the ports of entry. this relationship has made america a safer, and these are the results of reasonable immigration policies and priorities, and even during this time of budget uncertainty, we use our resources in a responsible manner, to build on these gains an enhanced border security -- we must update -- update our immigration law. the updates like in the crime bill will allow focus on those who threaten public safety and provide the tools we need to crack down on those who cheat the system by hiring illegal labor. thank you again for the opportunity to testify and i look forward to any questions you may have. >> it is good to see you, please proceed. >> good morning, and thank you for allowing me to testify today. you ask that we focus on the steps that affect what we need to proceed, -- these are verifiable and can be enforced, that we look at audits and inspections for border security and immigration programs and i will highlight only a few of those in my statement this morning. in the last 10 years we have made progress has come together in a department to accomplish our fundamental mission of securing the borders but numerous challenges remain. we will need to fully assess the current status, methodically identify needs and requirements to execute feature acquisitions and operations. this will require both time and resources but ultimately, the department should be able to master this challenge. i have three issues we identified in our inspections at the department will lead to address to meet the standards of this act, planning and systems modernization. the first issue is the state of reliability, to a value of -- and violet performance -- we will need a complete, accurate and up-to-date information. we identified many program that did not -- programs that did not have complete and accurate data, and instances where we did not have what we needed for this -- and in 2011 we determined cannot alwaysers maintained -- maintain accurate information in the case management system. last year we reported in the systematic alien entitlements program -- emigration status information was sometimes erroneous. and some people were labeled as having lawful immigration status when they did not have it, and some people were getting benefits that they were not entitled to receive. we found that they cannot ensure that participants were low-risk because mexico does not share thermation in monitoring participants eligibility. eligible drivers may have continued to participate in the program because we used incomplete data for this process. the second overarching area is planning. the actionsomplish played out in the act, such as increased surveillance, the department will be an effective planning process for operational requirements, the act requires 247 management of the border by aerial systems, and no unnecessary quality of aerial vehicles and ground support and maintenance were these resources will be needed. the department has direct policies for planning but does not have detailed plans for unmanned aerial systems. the department will need to address the long-term system challenges and continue to pursue additional technology for border security issues. although dhs is working to emigrate their systems, including those related to immigration has not yet succeeded in fully transforming them. from 2011 we found the transformation has been delayed in continues to rely on the paper-based process. in addition, dhs has to seek out through technology, with various components and enhance their ability to secure our borders. in renewing the strategy for this tunnel -- we determined that there was not existing tunnel detection technology. we have identified a number of challenges, with the immigration differing- with the legacy systems and programs that have to be coordinated with the stake holders outside of the department. other challenges are related to an adequate strategic planning, performance measures and information that cannot be relied on to make sound decisions. based on the response to the numerous reports, we are -- they're diligently working on these issues but it takes time to correct the underlying conditions. uncertainties also affect the ability to address these issues. for these issues, overcoming these challenges will take considerable effort but we believe that the department will continue to achieve its goals. the office of the inspector general will continue to work on these issues and our goal remains the same, to develop solutions to protect the thegrity -- to increase department of transparency. this concludes my prepared remarks and i welcome any questions that you may have. >> this is very helpful testimony. attkisson talks about the investigation into last year's attack on benghazi and we look at state and federal law -- with carolyn from the national center for missing and exploited children. philip mudd will talk about homegrown terrorism. washington journal, live at 7:00 eastern on c-span. both chambers of congress are back in session this week as the house returns for a brief session on monday. legislative business will resume on tuesday. among the agenda items, the full repeal of the 2010 health care law and securities and exchange commission with the cost-benefit analysis before implementing new regulations. the senate will be back on monday for morning business only, and no roll call votes are expected. they will continue work on the flood built -- and later on a vote on president obama's choice to -- for medicare and medicaid services. senate, on c-span. on friday, the state department envoy for human-rights in north korea had a special review on north korea that will be presented to the united nations next month and could go to the international criminal court. --ert king spoke at an event and said that north korea is holding between 100,200 thousand political prisoners. this is just over an hour. >> good afternoon, everyone. tenge for this opportunity to introduce the ambassador. he became a special envoy for north korean human rights issues in november 2009 following confirmation by the united states senate. embassadorder davies, with the lead on human rights and humanitarian affairs. on capitol hill for 25 years, 24 of those years as the thef of staff, -- with congressman from california. and he was concurrently the staff director of the foreign affairs committee, of the united states, representatives -- and the democratic staff director of the committee and he held various professional staff positions on the committee since 1993. ph.d. ina international relations from the fletcher school of law and diplomacy and he has authored five books, and more than 40 articles on international relations. he will address the human rights issues of north korea. >> thank you for the opportunity to be here with you today. i appreciate the opportunity of talking with you and the invitation -- for the chance to be here and talk with you about 03 of's human-rights concerns. since november 2009 when i assumed the position of the special envoy for north korean we haveghts issues, seen changes -- with the death of kim jong-il, and the consolidation of power of his not but one thing -- has really changed. this is the human rights korea which north is deplorable. reflecting on the humanitarian and human rights issues of north korea -- i am convinced of two things, first of all, we have to continue to hold the north korean leadership accountable, for their deplorable human- rights record and we have to call attention to these problems. to break downe the barriers for information and increase the exposure of north korea to the outside world. if we are going to create positive change that we would like to see in terms of security and humanitarian challenges, a greater flow of information is important to this process. let me say a few words about calling attention to the human rights abuses in north korea. in northhts problems korea are well documented, the state department produces, annually -- reports on human rights practices -- and the most recent report was released a couple of weeks ago by john kerry, and the report continues to say that we have received reports from refugees and defectors who have left north korea, they continue to report extra-judicial killings, the arbitrary engine, a rest, the judiciary is not independent and does not provide fair trials or due process and the north korean government continues to control all aspects of the aspects of the lives of its citizens, the nine the freedom of association and reports continue that the government severely restricts the freedom of movement of its citizens, and subjects its citizens to forced labor. it is disappointing to see such little change from year to year on this situation in the north. thatmportant development helps in terms of the process of calling attention to the human rights abuses in north korea was the decision made by the u.n. human rights council to create a commission of inquiry, on human rights. the united states actively supported the discussion, of the north korean human rights situation and the human rights council of the general assembly. for 10 years, we have had debates in the general assembly in the human rights council on north korean human rights, with resolutions adopted in the general assembly and in geneva calling for a new mint -- improvement in human rights. and through this process of -- we had a special -- to report on human rights abuses, and it may have reported annually to the general assembly and the human rights council. with human rights there were nine with theg pattern, freedom of movement and after a of theensive review, all reports on north korea over the last several years, they have called for the creation of document these abuses that he has called attention to. the high commissioner for human rights also said that it was time to create an inquiry mechanism to look closer at north korea. report that in march, the united states co- sponsored this commission of support with the strong of north korea, with the inquiry that has been created to cover the systematic violation of human rights. -- theights ago president of human rights council announced the appointment of the membership in this commission of inquiry. mr. michael kirby -- a former australianthe supreme court has been appointed chairman of the commission of the human rights advocate in the balkans has also been appointed as a member of the commission. the former indonesian attorney- general -- who is the special -- on north korean human rights will also be a member of this commission. the human rights advocate inwe will continue to h our partners. we will help to look at these human rights problems and make recommendations and the committee -- the commission of inquiry will present its findings to the human rights council, next year. we will have the opportunity to review those recommendations when the report is completed. that theignificant resolutions adopted recently in the united nations general assembly and human rights council, the last three have been passed without recorded votes. considered worth the bother of voting, because there were so few in opposition for north korea. the inquiry was done a couple of moments ago. with the concern of human rights in north korea, there is a growing awareness, with books and other things that have been published in the last year -- two very important books came out in english talking about the problem of human rights in north korea. one of them escaped from camp no. 14. the author of this book is a journalist formerly of the washington post and he basically tells the story of -- a north korean political prisoner and a young man who was born in this most stringent of in the prison camp. they were there not because they committed a crime but had brothers or sisters who had left north korea. the parents were allowed to marry in the prison camp, and she and her brother were born from that marriage. there was nothing that he had done that would justify his presence in the prison camp and yet he was expected to spend his entire life in the prison camp. the story and the accounts of life in the prison camp and his escape are remarkable documents of the nature of the north korean political system. a second book that appeared one year ago, also extremely important with the prison camp issue, this was david cox and his second edition of the hidden gulag. he went through to document the locations, and the nature of prison camps scattered throughout north korea, and there is an excellent, publicly available satellite imagery that is used to identify these camps, to indicate the scope and the size of this problem. but the disinformation called convict -- considerable attention to the fiscal problem and these reports and other reports on the prison camp system indicates that there are 100 and 100,000 in this we talk about a number of political prisoners, larger than what the soviet union has for most of its history. -- to be about the same this has been incredible in this day and age, with the political problems like this. the most important thing that we can do with encouraging change in north korea is to work to break the information blockade, that exists in north korea, one of the most closed societies on this planet. we have seen modest indications that despite government restrictions, this is beginning to change. with the u.s. state department, the research intermediate, did an extensive report, on the availability and the changes that are taking place in the availability in north korea. the changing media environment. this report indicates that north korea still has virtually no internet access and one of the few places on earth with the internet is not generally available, the government does not want the population having access to the internet. despite the fact that in north korea, it is illegal to own a radio that can be tune and the only radio that you can legally korea are radios presented from the government channel. despite the fact -- there are a surprising -- 20-city% of refugees who left north korea indicate that they have listened to foreign radio. radio is less and less important as a source of information, in north korea, radio is still the most important source of information about the outside world that is reaching north korea. -- foreign debt have been seen in north korea and there was another report that suggests that number is as high as 80% of north koreans. koreant a fan of south soap operas the north koreans are and they're very popular. cellphone communication has been available in north korea in the past few years, just in the past few years and calls in the country are possible though they are probably very closely monitored. calls to parties outside of north korea are not possible on the official cell phone network. nevertheless, there are now somewhere around 2 million cellular phones in north korea. to give the indication of the difference between north korea and south korea, north korea, with a population of several million people -- one in 12 have access to a cell phone. ofsouth korea, the number cellular phones per person as 1.3 and the difference is dramatic, but the changes in north korea are significant as people are able to talk with people in other parts of the country and other parts of the city and the price of goods in the markets circulates very quickly, and with these kinds of information tools available, we begin to see changes taking place in both korea. nature of north korea and the limitations on information that is available, one of the most important things that the united states does, is to support the broadcasting board of governors with its broadcast on voice of america and radio free asia, and we now have close to eight hours per wave radiodium- transmissions, that go into north korea, and it is interesting that in north korea, prime-time is not until covers night, under the and listen to the radio without having anyone know that you are listening to the radio. the daytime listenership is north korea -- is zero in north korea. this is a different situation and i worked for radio free europe, broadcasting during the cold war, and we had people listening, in fact, the communist party newspaper complained about teenagers listening to radio free europe, broadcasting american popular music in the afternoon. in northot a problem korea. one thing that is clear is -- we have to encourage north korea to invest its resources in feeding and educating its people. and not to continue down the path of isolation that has -- has followed. we would welcome meaningful measures, economic and otherwise to improve the lives of the people of north korea. one way for good-faith efforts to denuclearization, something that would offer tangible benefits to everyone involved. we have made clear that we are up to improve relations with north korea if they are willing to take concrete actions to live up to their international obligations and commitments, though given the events of the past 10 months, the bar for resumption of meaningful engagement is now much more difficult to reach. president obama put it best during a major speech he gave in burma in november, in a passage directed at north korea he said, let go of your nuclear weapons and choose the path of peace and progress and if you do, you will find an extended hand from the united states of america. if north korea wants to join the international community, they need to refrain from actions that threaten peace and stability of the korean peninsula and northeast asia. comply with their commitments in the september 2005 joint statement of the six party talks. and also their obligations under relevant u.s. security council resolutions to abandon nuclear weapons and programs. north korea will have to address the human rights record, and their choice is clear, investment in their people and concrete steps will lead towards peace and prosperity, improve relations with the international community, including the united states -- and we have a deep the human rights cut -- conditions in north korea and the well-being of the north korean people, reflecting our commitment as americans to the rule of law, respect for individual rights and our support of these rights, and we look to the time when north korea will move in the direction that will be positive in that regard. thank you for the opportunity to talk with you about north korea's human-rights. thank you, very much, ambassador. they missed one element to introduce you. we have been working with your are allsors -- and they part time, but in his case he is the first full-time ambassador on human rights issues so we are very happy to have a full-time ambassador, finally. -- i will ask larry problem that we have had with regard to human rights issues in north korea is getting north koreans to talk to anybody outside of north korea about this. i know that ambassador king has had difficulties in meeting with the north koreans and he may want amplify on that a little 2004, theback in 2003- european union made a major initiative, to try to get the north koreans to begin a systematic dialogue of human mades, the european union some significant diplomatic toorts sending officials p'yongyang about this, but this fell through, basically to north korea's unwillingness to agree, to this kind of dialogue. one of the interesting things about the human rights issues, and i think that perhaps we overlook -- is that north -- that they have what they refer to as a human rights agenda to south korea. they demanded that south korea abrogate the national security law -- that south korea stop blocking pro-north korean websites, into south korea. that south korea stop prosecuting south korean citizens to illegally travel to north korea. korea, theuth government lift restrictions on leftist labor unions. in south korea. and if you follow the north korean media, there is a fairly constant raising of these demands on south korea -- and i guess the question i have -- is oris there any possibility, perhaps should we give some consideration to try to take advantage of these north korean some pressure on them -- to negotiate on the elements of their system that ambassador king talked about, in terms of a north and south of theseon on all issues, both what both career is demanding of the south, and the agenda that ambassador king has laid out, is this something, perhaps that we ought to consider, in terms of a counter- proposal from south korea saying -- yes, we will negotiate with you on these issues, but, there are things about your system your treatment of your citizens that will have to be on the negotiating table, as well. is there any consideration that we might sit down with our south korean allies and talk about -- in terms of taking this kind of initiative, to try to perhaps put the north korean in -- koreans in more of a difficult position, with regard to the human rights issues? >> one of the issues with dealing with north korea for the nine states, is -- making sure north korea inth a way of that is done in cooperation, fully with south korea. these are two countries -- to people who are the same people, basically, they are divided by government. reasonson -- the real becomes -- what is the role of the united states? one thing that we have tried very hard to do is to make sure do on north korea -- is done in cooperation with south korea. sure that to make they understand what we are trying to do, and we want to understand what they are trying to do and cooperate on doing that. it is difficult for us to suggest that maybe the south koreans should be more liberal in allowing south korean citizens to go to north korea. decisions the south korean government makes, with the sensitivities and has to deal with and we worked with the south koreans about how they do what they do, and -- it is difficult, for example -- american citizens may travel to north korea. we have no restrictions on going there, there are economic sanctions about what you can do in spring -- spend money on and take with you but there is no limit on your ability to go to north korea. the south korean government has different issues and they are a lot closer to north korea with different security concerns, and different governments took different attitudes on that, but we work with the south koreans and try to cooperate with them and make sure that we're working together in pushing together on these same issues and we want to engage the north koreans in discussions of human rights rights we have human discussions, and ongoing dialogue with the chinese and significant differences with the chinese over some issues, and much of you are too young to remember this but earlier, china was in a very different situation with their own human rights situation and as we still have problems with where china is today. remarkable progress has been made. move ast north korea to far as china has moved -- we are moving in those directions. the relationship with north korea has been strained in the last while and it was difficult to do that. we had the possibility of engaging on human rights and this was a little bit of an earlier time, when things were more positive and we will see where we will continue to do that. we are moving forward on discussions with north korea. >> very informative presentation. about your was -- point about china. what do you say about the human rights issues, the you consider this morning external interference? in the affairs of north korea. >> this is an interesting relationship in a lot of areas where we have strong agreements but there -- this is interesting to see how much progress we have made, in north korea this is a complicated issue for china, and this is a border country and they are nervous about who is across the border, and one area of concern for us is that for the north koreans who want to leave north korea and go elsewhere, the only way out is through china. the north koreans have kept the border very tight, and there are indications that this has become increasingly difficult to get across the border and we have expressed our concerns to china because when north koreans make it to china, frequently, if they are captured, they are returned to north korea as economic and is hard, with our own problems to be too critical of china on this issue, we have argued that these are not economic immigrants as much as they are people who want to leave north korea and go elsewhere, we don't want them to stay in china and we want them to be able to go to south korea, with the chinese in terms of doing that. probably 25- were 2800 north koreans who left north korea and went through china and made it to south korea. last year that number was only 57%, more than half of that the numbers so far this year have still been lower, and this is a concern for us, and people want to leave their country to travel freely should be allowed to do so, and we would like to see this haden, this is an issue we issues we had, concerns of with the chinese, and we are very cooperative in terms of our relationship with the chinese. same has many of the objectives in terms of north korea and we continue to work very closely with the chinese. >> thank you. ifficu your job must be it and in particular, the fact that your work as much overshadowed by our focus on north korean nuclear weapons. i cannot prove this but i would throw out that in the last 60 years, both career is responsible for more deaths with their human rights violations than the current stockpile of nuclear weapons could ever cause. that with some sarcasm but we should realize -- with the work that we're doing, the 24 million people who are suffering out there at the hands of this regime. i want tole of points make right now -- i cannot agree any more about immigration the defector organization and the dvd is that you mentioned, i had some conversations with diplomats and some diplomats have traveled back t'yongyang and have had internal cell phone coverage the entire way. those are things that can be exploited. i think that we need a comprehensive influence campaign, with radio free europe, i am glad that you mentioned eight hours per day, this is often criticized. understand what you provided for, and one thing that we are not doing and have not done in some years is the use of the south korean and u.s. military operations, there has been a moratorium on that. of ald say as part comprehensive program, doing everything in concert with south korea, the military aspect to intribute to the influence, think that we should do that and we haven't. we have to take a holistic approach. of someimistic because of the things that have been happening recently, we know that -- has been closed in the 50,000 workers are not being dispersed back into the population. this is outside information. the report that we get from kenneth bae -- from the government, they say he was bringing in information that was trying to conduct subversive activities, and what i get the sense of is that the external information is having a difference in the regime. i think we have to reinforce our and use all of capabilities, supporting south korea to influence the north. i am glad that you look into the inquiry -- and this is not in the news enough, and i did not realize that march 14 was the time for the findings. what do you think that the tospects are, of being able have the operation of those findings and do something with those findings? we all know what those will be. indicated,, as you show a pattern of real tragedy and abuse, but will they be able to operational lies these findings, to influence the north? this would be my specific question. the think in dealing with this isghts situation, a long-term continuous effort. the main thing we have to do is keep this up and one thing that the commission of inquiry does, is raises the level of raising the attention on north korea and north korea's problems because the north koreans do not like being singled out, and they don't like the security council answering on their military and we continue to document and established the of -- north is out korea is out of step with the rest of the nation's of the world. the economist intelligence unit -- produces reports periodically and they get a what is theeedom, best country in terms of human rights, and they give numerical values to these criteria, and ranking all of the nations of on earth and how they were human rights, the nine states was in the 20's, both career, at 162 countries, north korea was 162nd. not a good place to be and we have to continue that effort and -- as the information have ans, this will effect on the leadership, and it some of the things that -- i thisd about with radio, kind of thing getting in, this is happening because of the economic issues with china, there are a number of dignitaries traveling to china and you cannot go to china -- to see the vibrant chinese the -- what you see in north korea -- to not have an impact on the people who see that. thousands of people going back and forth from china legally in north korea. in this day hard to bee, for any people isolated from the rest of the world. they will be- they will be dragged kicking and screaming into the 20th century and we will have to continue to work on that in terms of their human rights record. >> first, this is the first time i have attended this meeting -- and it has been my mistake, -- i just retired last year, and although in my college years and korean issues were predominantly -- the rest of my life has been spent on making a family. this is disturbingly to frequent, and a recent survey -- north korea was 167 and for ats is -- this must rank we, and the panel said -- said, how, in this day and age, such a country can exist, and this is more surprising for someone like me. parents are not originally from north korea. i moved south when i was -- about recommended -- recommending a greater human intelligence efforts in north that, expressing the hope like all the other systems -- all of korea it would face a similar fate and ambassador king said in this day and age, this system cannot be closed forever with a path opened up. i have such hopes. but many things indicate, north korea is not like any other country. country like north korea never existed in the history of mankind. getting human intelligence or any intelligence of north korea, they are like an open book, and during the worst days cia,ina, our people -- they are talking to people and they can talk to anyone. with the special anniversary, kim jong-il allowed these to exist in p'yongyang, and this fennecs the unique intelligence -- and they were mostly educated in science and technology, and they came and spoke to us, and asked us questions. and a few people that they met outside -- they did not tell anyone this outside of p'yongyang at all. they cannot talk about north korea in general. they often criticized western observe, because they systems -- and if you have a we get rid of the symptoms, and the fundamental cause of these headaches still remains. i think that we may be doing the same thing here, gathering and why is this not happening in north korea? -- or hosni mubarrak or ghadaffi.sein or the human rights situation in north korea -- china never had that this badly. there is aoreans, thiswest of the on yang, was in the capital and -- this was called in japanese times -- many of us grew up learning this thise name of the city, means pressure. the control. the police officers of japan, there would be stationed and found dead the next morning. difficult for japanese military to control the city, so they changed the name of the city -- that is seventh in spirits are, with the dynasty and most of the rebellion started in the north. against this unspeakable system, this was one of the most vocal and rebellious in our history. what is the secret? i am sociologists. -- one person can write a book, and they can shout in the wilderness, but if you want to make any difference in the real-world, you will have to talk to somebody, and talk about how you can live like this in life can be better, you have not seen this -- this is the 21st century. someone should say something to north korea -- you cannot do in north korea. can you imagine that? -- raised the military coup in 1960, they always do that toer this regime -- he had meet some of his people to try to wage a coup and the had the money to raise a dozen men there. that, in north korea has nobody has enough money to entertain 1000 people at a dinner table and talk. five people cannot get together and talk for 10 minutes without someone else knowing about this. what with the human rights expert in the united states. -- to about a situation like that? gather more information? i don't know. >> north korea is a tough place and part of the difficulty is the repressive this of the was repressive but andre was still -- a su-chi there is not in north korea because the government is so affective and one problem is simply the number, the number of political prisoners is so high, and there are a lot more people in prison, and virtually everyone in north korea knows somebody who has been dragged off in the middle of the night and disappeared. and when you see that happen, it extremely confined -- you are careful not to have anything like this happen to you. a regime that is so repressive is successful in terms of keeping descent down. this is why we need to have more information. as we learn about what conditions are like elsewhere and in south korea or the united states or china, it makes a difference in terms of what people are willing to put up with and the indications of problems -- with currency reform in december 2009, there were certain things the population would not accept and the government had to back down. this is something that may happen over time and the north koreans are good at repression. >> patrick mullins? >> those three gentlemen had a great presentation, it is refreshing to know that some people understand what is going on in asia, but politicians tell follow our lead, from time to time. i wish that this was the case. i would like to talk about human rights. we need to talk about the regime in order to talk about human rights and human rights violations. the structural violence that they have, in order to maintain the regime, they will have more structural violence. in order to counter that, information helps, you cannot get social mobilization from the ground off unless we are able .o provide hope to the people i think he was back in the reagan administration that he said we would use food aid as a sanction or a tool for policy in that matter. when you type thing so closely together like that, we know most of the food aid goes to other places and not the north korean people, we do not provide the ability for the north koreans to raise up from a level of to how to discuss changes in the future. ining said that, how do we addition to the information flow that is necessary and maybe getting some food there, how about other tools of foreign- forcy such as the exchanges fulbright at the height of the cold war that some have said there was a great effect on that. we did those things with the soviet union. we did that with china. he do not name -- we do not do that with small donations. what would you recommend for that? any gentleman on the panel. >> i think it is extremely important that we engage the north koreans. .e have tried to there are a number of american ngos involved in north korea. we have tried to encourage him and help them -- we have try to help them and encourage them. it is more helpful if we are not too close. there are a number of american ngos that are heavily involved in north korea. we think it is helpful and encouraging. there are a number of programs that have attempted to be involved in an educational strangers. there is a lack of money and we should probably come up with money to do that. it is useful if you talk to members of congress and say it is worthwhile for us to try to do this in terms of putting money into exchange programs. a number of universities have done exchange programs and they brought people to look at issues like the economy and the rule of law issues and how to deal with foreign trade issues. there are some that have done it with agriculture. these are all helpful and useful. these are things we try to encourage. there is great value in engaging the north koreans. it is difficult as there is not a lot of money available. you mentioned that humanitarian assistance. we have probably been the country that has provided more good assistance to north korea than any other country. when they had the famine, the u.s. was the biggest computer. .- biggest contributor it is still the policy of the u.s. that we do not provide food on the basis of political consideration. in addition to looking at how we provide food aid, there are three principles that affect what we are able to do in terms of providing food assistance. this applies to other countries as well. assistance that we provide, humanity -- unitarian aid we provide needs to be based on need. we need to assist the need and determine what is needed and how much. that is the first consideration. this is justok at a particular country in the and demandbal need for resources that we can provide. right now there are problems in africa that are fairly serious. there are problems in certain countries in the middle east where the economies are having difficulties adjusting to changes in places like egypt and tunisia and so forth. many of these countries are in need of our systems as well. we have to look at the demand of what resources we have. the third thing we have to be able to do is have some reasonable assurance that the assistance that we provide reaches those who are most in need. this means we have got to be able to monitor it and carry out the monitoring. to do that inble the past and in north korea to some extent. it is not an easy place to monitor simply because it is it a vocal place to get around. roads are terrible. -- it is a difficult place to get around. roads are terrible. i think the issue is one of do we have assurances that there is a need? competition for resources? wasconcern that we have and the north koreans agreement that we had reached. in april of 2012, we were looking at whether we were provide assistance -- would provide assistance to the north koreans, we reached an agreement and an understanding on nuclear issues. within two weeks, the announced they were going to violate it. we are sitting there looking at providing tons of food. we have got people in africa and other places who are in need of food and we say, it can we the north koreans to keep their agreement if we enter into it? 500,000greed to provide tons of food assistance in north korea in the fall of 2008. we began the process of distributing that food. there is another 330,000 tons of food online to be to stupid. .he north -- to redistribute it the north koreans said coming get out, to all of the eight providers. -- the north koreans said, get -- aid all of the eight providers. that was the end of it. the north koreans are difficult to deal with. in some cases they are their own enemy. humanitarian assistance is tough to provide and associate tough under circumstances. a follow-up question. i was in albania which is dealing other country that that had a similar level of isolation to north korea. andh korea is still going then he finally gave it up in the early '90s. of the en -- at the end told war ii, we sent in help help overthrow the dictatorship. we give up becauseone sent got policed or killed. . there were two good in their internal security. we stop trying. the british head of half of the operations was a guy who was a communist spy in the british system. , we have let those people live like that. perhaps if we had kept going, we could have made a change, but we stopped. i got in there in 1993. i cannot tell you how many people asked me, why did you do this? why did you leave us? why did you think us under that government for so long? why did you not do something to help us? you knew what was going on. i did not have a good answer for it. they are doing the best they can. not try all of the elements of influence and power. i do not mean to sound bellicose. i'm not advocating that we invade north korea. we have got to do more than just wag our fingers at them. we have got to keep thinking and never be satisfied with the results and told the result is that all of those people are free, or at least moving in that direction. they are not right now. they're all captives. of time, whyerest don't we do this -- george and dave. the questions. great. >> my question has to do with the u.n. commission of inquiry. there is little doubt on what the findings will be. if it recommends that the -- will thencil u.s. support that or at least not veto it? -- why why not estimate not? one thing i disagree with is -- we have interest to protect our allies to an interest. and giving engaging american chocolate and candy to children. if i get them, i love them. i'll have to bring them in next time. even have been in new york at the top of the empire state building and the staten island ferry right in front of the statue. i was touring with the team. when my mom died, i got e-mails or my north korean friends, praying for my mother sold. -- soul. in order for us to engage, we need to be localized in the visa process and have someone in the u.s. department assigned to help oversee these things. .veryone has said engagement many are pushing for it. in north korea, will he go there, -- when we go in there -- i do not want to ask for money, but if we can get money, that makes it easier. percy. -- thank you. >> i want to make one comment. thatlephant in the room is nothing is going to change as regime the kim jong-un exists. .here is growing resistance it takes engagement. it takes contact. the best change will come from within. everything we can do to kimlitate that -- developed a very sophisticated system in the world. that is what is repressing. as long as the regime exists, it will still be press its people. -- repress its people. it will be a threat to the south korean region and the international community. there is growing potential for change from within us that we have got to support that. >> we heard terms like political and diplomatic and so forth. i think if we look at the behavior of the regime, we must deal with him politically and diplomatically in terms of international systems. but i think the behavi can be , amed as a regime, a nation pathological nation led by psychological heads. it is very difficult to deal with that. if it were a family rather than a nation, we would be using those terms. i think we're being very politically correct in using the .erm human rights violation i think that is a gross understatement. that is it. questions andaid, comments. >> we will do them very quickly. ofa comment on the referral the findings of the commission of inquiry for the security council and the possible international criminal court. that is one option. that is one that was recommended i should be referred to the security council. the politics of the security council is well beyond my keep the elegy. dealing with the chinese and the russians as well as the other members of the security council make it very difficult. if it is referred, it is something we will look at. it is difficult because i'm not sure the chinese are going to want to do something like that. they have a veto power. it is remarkable however that the security council and the 94, after the- north koreans tested their last nuclear weapon, the chinese agreed in very tough language in the resolution. there are indications in a restaurant we set the chinese are moving in the direction to enforce -- there are indications in the resolution that the chinese are moving in the direction to enforce it. i can be surprised that a lot of things these days. .our efforts are noble there have been all sorts of contortions to get visas for the group to come to the u.s. i saw it is very positive. visase been able to give to a lot of groups like that that come to the united states. keep up your work. it is a thing. it is important for them seeing the u.s. and also important in terms of them seeing what americans aren't like -- are like. you are doing gods work. keep it up. -- god's work. keep it up. with regards to problems with the family and the repression, one of the things that i think needs to be keept in mind, when thelook at central europe, most impressive one on time ago was germany. north korea is not like that. you have a divided nation in which both countries are willing in very different directions. the intensity of the concern, the ability of people to go back and forth across the border is much more difficult. a south korean fits in very quickly. intensity of the repression is much greater. on the other hand, you saw with east germany and the intensity extent, it breaks down quickly. we will see what happens in regards to north korea. , yeah, it is a difficult place. good job for sociologists in terms of looking at how these kinds of things are allowed to go on and how they are allowed to continue. it is a struggle. it is tough. it is groups like this that get together and talk about these issues and bases issues and try to raise awareness that are helpful in terms of producing results that are positive. keep it up. >> thank you. >> thank you. we have a good working relationship with icc. we know what he is thinking. 12 years or something like that. he indicated the political .n. securityn the u council. he has a judge cannot engage in anything else. [indiscernible] >> group of people on the commission of inquiry include people with legal expertise and a lot of experience dealing with these kinds of situations. i have confidence they will make good decisions. let'sies and gentlemen, give our panel a round of applause. [applause] thank you. the meeting is adjourned. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> house armed services committee member is our guest this week on "newsmakers." ,e talks about defense issues including the attack on the u.s. and thein benghazi reported sexual assaults. watch "newsmakers" on sunday at 10 a.m. and 6 p.m. eastern on c- span. thinking about the situation was just how different it was what we face today. many things are radically different. the are no radical leftist parties are secular parties in afghanistan today. that has been pretty much wipe out. the 1970s, those were really that powerful forces in afghanistan. for much of the by0s was replaced in 1978 the afghan communist witchhunt remodel society according to their own utopian -- by the was tryingunist who to remodel society according to their own utopian design. the almost unending civil war that followed, compounded by the u.s. intervention in 2001 and after, has completely wiped out that part of afghanistan we saw in the 1970s. it is radically different. christian caryl on 1979. part of book tv this weekend on c-span 2. weekly address, president obama talks about the u.s. housing market. -- and an presented alabama representative gives a republican address. >> hi, everybody. our top priority as a nation is reigniting the true engine of our economic growth -- a rising, thriving middle class. and few things define what it is to be middle class in america more than owning your own cornerstone of the american dream -- a home. today, seven years after the real estate bubble burst, triggering the worst economic crisis since the great depression and costing millions of responsible americans their jobs and their homes, our housing market is healing. sales are up. foreclosures are down. construction is expanding. and thanks to rising home prices over the past year, 1.7 million more families have been able to come up for air, because they're no longer underwater on their mortgages. from the day i took office, i've made it a priority to help responsible homeowners and prevent the kind of recklessness that helped cause this crisis in the first place. my housing plan has already helped more than two million people refinance their mortgages, and they're saving an average of $3000 per year. my new consumer watchdog agency is moving forward on protections like a simpler, shorter mortgage form that will help to keep hard-working families from getting ripped off. but we've got more work to do. we've got more responsible homeowners to help folks who have never missed a mortgage payment, but aren't allowed to refinance, working families who have done everything right, but still owe more on their homes than they're worth. last week, i nominated a man named mel watt to take on these challenges as the head of the federal housing finance agency. mel's represented the people of north carolina in congress for 20 years, and in that time, he helped lead efforts to put in place rules of the road that protect consumers from dishonest mortgage lenders, and give responsible americans the chance to own their own home. he's the right person for the job, and that's why congress should do its job, and confirm him without delay. and they shouldn't stop there. as i said before, more than two million americans have already refinanced at today's low rates, but we can do a lot better than that. i've called on congress to give every responsible homeowner the chance to refinance, and with it, the opportunity to save $3,000 a year. that's like a $3,000 tax cut. and if you're one of the millions of americans who could take advantage of that, you should ask your representative in congress why they won't act on it. our economy and our housing market are poised for progress but we could do so much more if we work together. more good jobs. greater security for middle- class families. a sense that your hard work is rewarded. that's what i'm fighting for -- and that's what i'm going to keep fighting for as long as i hold this office. thank you. and have a great weekend. >> hello, everyone, i'm martha roby. i'm proud to represent alabama's second congressional district, where my husband riley and i live and raise our two children, margaret and george. allow me to take this opportunity to wish a happy mother's day to my mom, and to all the moms out there. it is such a blessing to be a mother. raising children is an immeasurable joy, but as all moms know, it comes with unique challenges. and it can be especially tough for moms who work outside the home. talk to just about any mom or dad and they'll tell you they wish they had more time. they wish they had just one more hour in the day to make life work. moms and dads need to find time to take their child to the doctor, attend a pta meeting or make it to the tee ball game. think about those caring for elderly parents or military families where one of the parents is about to deploy. while we may not be able to legislate another hour into the day, we can help working americans better balance life's demands by offering more flexibility for time away from work. this week the house passed my bill, the working families flexibility act, which will remove an outdated and unnecessary restriction on private sector employees accruing comp time, or paid time off, in exchange for overtime. this bill provides options for working moms and dads who need more time to take care of family responsibilities. it also demonstrates how applying conservative principles can help working americans in their everyday lives. what this bill doesn't do is change the 40-hour work week or how overtime pay is calculated. the same protections that have been a part of labor law for decades remain, and we've added additional protections against coercion or unfair treatment. this bill also doesn't add government regulation to the workplace -- we have enough red tape as is. a more flexible workplace isn't a new concept. in fact, many employees in the public sector enjoy this benefit right now. that's because in 1985 congress passed a law allowing local and state governments to offer their employees the option of comp time. so, why should the rules be different for employees in the private sector? why should government workers have more freedom in the workplace than everybody else? and why is washington restricting employers from offering certain benefits that government itself is free to offer? our message to the american people is this -- we want to get washington out of the way of how you use your time. i am proud to champion the working families flexibility act on behalf of working moms and dads throughout the country. i join my fellow house republicans in urging the democratic-run senate to take up this bill and pass it soon. and i urge the president to listen to the working parents of our country and promise them he'll sign this bill into law when it reaches his desk. let's come together to empower americans with more freedom and more flexibility with their time. there are big challenges facing this country. though we've seen some improvement, slow economic growth and job creation is in danger of becoming a new normal. this bill won't solve the debt crisis, or fix the president's health care law, or simplify the tax code. but the fact that we can't solve the big, overarching problems overnight shouldn't stop us from doing what we can right now to help make life a little easier for working moms and dads. the working families flexibility act does that by helping americans better balance the demands of family and work. thank you, and may god bless our mothers, and god bless the united states of america. >> on the next "washington news correspondent talks about the attack on benghazi. and it look at state and federal atwell-davisolyn on missing and exploited children. at 7ington journal" live a.m. eastern on c-span.