tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN October 11, 2014 2:30am-4:31am EDT
to have 670,000 more degree holders. we have to increase capacity and reduce costs. under governor walker we have seen cuts to technical colleges in higher education which has left 41,000 people on the wait list for financial aid for tech colleges and universities. i will prioritizes and the state budget and reduce the cost of higher education. technical colleges and universities. >> rebuttal? >> if you look at the rate when my opponent worked in congress, we would have half as many jobs. i do not want to go back to that, i want to build off of that. you can read my 62 page plan that talks about the things that my opponent has talked about that we have been doing. investments in higher education, investments in a technical colleges, investments in
workforce programs. >> just this week, the "journal sentinel" said that the governor's plan is more of the same. i do not think we should double down on the strategy that has not worked for four years. as regards my record, we had 50,000 more jobs and we have currently and the employment rate was 4.8%. i cut $70 million out of the commerce budget. >> good evening, everyone. one of the issues on the eau claire county ballot next month is the state minimum wage. the minimum wage is $7.25 an hour. for some money working full time that is $15,000 a year.
a complaint was filed under the living wage law recently, saying that $7.25 is not enough to live on, and they rejected that. please tell us if you believe a wisconsin worker can live on our minimum wage? if you believe the state has any obligation to make sure that workers are paid some sort of minimum wage? and if so, what that wage should be? >> i do not think that our minimum wages enough for folks who live on. that is why i strongly support an increase in the minimum wage to the suggested $10.10 an hour over three steps. i have talked of business people, both small and large. they support increasing this. the reason is, first of all, it reduces reliance on government assistance. i want people who work full-time to have the pride of a job and being able to support themselves. at $7.25 an hour, that is ridiculous, you cannot do that.
it ensures that people are dependent on government assistance. the second reason to do that, that is money that gets spent right back into the economy, which helps local small businesses and our communities grow. businessperson craig culver, restaurants, we are proud of that, he supports increasing the minimum wage. that is the smart thing to do, it will help the economy and reduce government assistance. >> governor walker? >> in august i met a wonderful 25-year-old woman who had gone back to school to be a welder. she told me that her daughter who was four weeks old would go to kindergarten for the first time. she told me that the reason she was able to be there was because of the investments that we made over the summer to buy down the wait list for programs like welding, i.t., health care, and
other areas. those are targeted areas that we need not just there but all across wisconsin. we have invested more than $100 million the last year alone in workforce development. the reason that i bring that up is because our plan for the future is based on a concept that we call learn more to earn more. we want to raise wages but we need to do that by giving skills to making them more valuable. we do it through high schools, technical colleges, apprenticeships. i want jobs that pay two or three times the minimum wage. earlier today, i broke ground for a new headquarters down in stevens point. not only did they make that capital investment in the state of wisconsin, they retain the high-quality jobs that they have. they will add 510 new jobs that, on average, have salaries work -- worth about
$20 an hour. in middleton, we created 55 new jobs that pay $33 or more an hour. >> governor walker, time. >> the fact is, governor walker made cuts to our technical college system, taking them back in his first budget to 1989 funding levels. to put additional money into grants now does not help the 41,000 people who are on the financial aid waitlist while giving tax rates to those in the top. it is unrealistic to think that all of the workers who work in retail, home health care, that are paid the minimum wage, are going to be able to shift to welding jobs. that is not realistic, there are not that many jobs out there. we have to raise the minimum wage immediately. >> governor walker? >> there is a website that the state has. there are 70,000 job openings on their. we do not have a jobs problem, we have a work problem.
we have to connect the dots between people looking for a better job and the skills they need. it is not just welding and advanced manufacturing, it is i.t., we talked about that in the chippewa valley. >> keith, i believe you asked a specific question about the actual minimum wage. >> governor walker, i need you to answer, do you believe that a worker can live on the minimum wage? do you believe that there should be some sort of a minimum wage? >> my point is, i think the state should be focused on creating jobs that are greater than the minimum wage. i worked for mcdonald's when i was a kid. i used that to save up for college, i did not expect that to be my lifetime work. at the same time, we need to make sure that people who are
living off that to support themselves and their families have jobs that pay far greater than that. the way that you do that is not by an arbitrary level of a state. as first technical colleges go, the reality is that we saved -- >> time is up. miss burke, your rebuttal. >> i have already rebuttal be minimum wage. -- the minimum wage. >> when we asked a follow-up, we give everyone a question to respond. >> i do not think that people can live on the minimum wage. that is why i support raising the minimum wage, the money will be spent in the local economy and will create more jobs. i want to be clear about this, as governor, i want to reduce people's need for public assistance. that is what the minimum wage does. >> we now go to an anchor.
>> there are dueling television ads airing this week focusing on the governor's position on abortion. governor walker, you are on record as opposing all abortion without exception. is that still your position, and why or why not? >> first of all, reasonable people can obviously disagree on this issue. i am pro-life but i can only imagine how difficult it is for someone in going through the difficult decision to determine whether they will end the pregnancy or not. that is why i supported legislation that would increase safety and provide more information to a woman considering her options. that bill leaves the final decision to a woman and her
doctor. to the specific request the u.s. made, that issue has been resolved, that was decided by the supreme court 40 years ago. the larger issue, but seeking to protect the health and safety of every wisconsin citizen, does. >> i believe it should be up to a woman, according to her religious belief and in consultation with her family and doctor to make that decision on her own. when governor walker talks about making these decisions and passing this legislation that stands in the way of women being able to make their own health care choices, making politicians in at madison that the deciders on this, it gets ridiculous. and frankly, safety when cuts have resulted in the closing of five clinics that provided needed health care such as cancer screenings, birth control, and family planning services, along with mandating invasive procedures that are against a woman's right to choose. i think women should be able to make these choices for themselves.
>> governor walker, rebuttal? >> in terms of funding, for example, the winnebago county health department, we moved up clinics that were respected in their communities. we increased funding for the university of wisconsin to help not only uw but affiliates across the state. we have added $50 million more to help victims of domestic violence and child abuse. we have done more to help victims of other issues across the state. we have added to that, and in the last budget in particular. >> governor walker is trying to have it both ways, he talks about health and safety as if it was reasonable, but his position is anything but reasonable. he believes that, even in cases of rape and incest that is not a woman's choice, and that is politicians deciding that for him. that is wrong. >> shawn johnson, next question.
>> if voters elect you in november, do you promise to serve your whole four-year term? this question goes first to miss burke. >> it will not take me 90 seconds to answer. absolutely. i look forward to being governor not just for four years, but the longest-serving governor in the state of wisconsin. there is no greater job in the entire world for me. i look forward to doing that and i hope the people of wisconsin will have me. >> my plan is that if the people elect me is to be here for four years. i have had to work pretty hard three times in the past 4 years to run for governor. >> response? >> i look forward to being governor of this great state and i get more excited every day i am on the campaign trail.
because of the people of wisconsin who are so committed to their own communities. >> there is no way i could run for 4 terms. >> there is an estimate that turning down medicaid will cost wisconsin. estimates show that 27,000 people are lacking health insurance after losing coverage and told to transition to the marketplace earlier this year. governor walker, would anything make you reconsider your decision to turn down the
federal funds and to ms. burke your decision in regards to the federal funds? >> the start about that in terms of obamacare, i think it has failed to live up to promises. i would like to repeal it and put health care decisions in the hands of patients. that is the difference between she wants to expand and i want to put it back in your hands. we did something unique, we did a wisconsin-specific option. we were able to draw down the waiting list that was under governor jim doyle. everyone living in poverty has access to health care through medicaid. we help people above poverty transition to market. my opponent will ask you to depend on the federal government that cannot even deal with trillions of dollars of debt. the congress and a president that have failed to meet their commitment to medicaid. i had to add money to medicaid, more than a third of that was
because of government commitments. that is a risk i will not take on behalf of the taxpayers' money. we help everybody living in poverty, we transitioned everyone above it to market place, through exchanges or through their own plans at work or spouses. at the same time we were able to protect. >> as governor, what i will work for is bringing down the cost of health care for everyone throughout the state. these are tough issues, but as i travel throughout the state, i talked to far too many entrepreneurs or farmers who say they are going without insurance because of the cost. governor walker turned down the expansion of the funding, that was fiscally irresponsible. $206 million in this budget alone.
over a lifetime, billions of dollars. this is money that could come into the wisconsin economy to fuel the economy and bring down costs for everyone. we know that when we turned down the money, people still get sick. we are just not getting money to pay for it. in the business world, ceos would be fired for this kind of fiscal responsibility. i would definitely accept the federal medicaid funding. it only makes common sense. the majority of governors in the united states took it, including eight republican governors. they were right and governor walker was wrong. he is leaving the taxpayers holding the bag for his poor decisions. >> governor walker? >> a couple weeks ago, i was down in janesville. i was speaking at a small business, 12 employees, a small manufacturer. i was talking about obamacare. the owner grabbed the microphone and said, wait a minute.
over the next couple of years i will see a 40% increase in my premiums because of obamacare. where is it going to come from? out of his paycheck and the paychecks of his workers. that is not affordable. we had something that worked better before. it was not without faults, and we have to build on that. >> miss burke? >> i stand by the fiscal irresponsibility of this decision. this is hundreds of millions of dollars in this budget alone, billions of dollars over the next 10 years. the wisconsin taxpayers deserve this. the thought that we would turn away -- this is wisconsin taxpayer money that we pay to washington, and the fact that we do not have a governor fighting to get the money back here in wisconsin is irresponsible. >> mike, you wanted to ask a follow-up? >> governor walker, would be anything to make you reconsider? >> again, from our standpoint, we are protecting taxpayers. jim doyle made a bad bet when he
raised eligibility. he created a waiting list of people living in poverty. we have eliminated that list by covering everybody living in poverty. we moved ourselves forward but did not put ourselves at the same risk. our opponent is asking us to trust a federal government that cannot make medicaid payments even now. that is not a realistic bet. >> i'm a business person. in the business world, if a company -- if you are getting a contract from a company, and they say we can only promise we will do that for three years, you take the contract. it is revenues that increase your sales and profit. that is no different. you do not know what will happen in the future, but in the meantime, this is money for the wisconsin economy.
it reduces the cost of health care and creates jobs. >> next question, keith edwards. >> it has been three years since legislature approved act 10, and the state supreme court upheld it. tell us what you think the law has accomplished, good or bad, and whether you plan to expanded to include law enforcement and firefighters or repeal it. miss burke. >> i think that when i can was put into place, governor walker had said it was needed -- act 10 was put into place, governor walker had said it was needed to get our house in order. contributions to pensions are only fair, and the private sector you have to do that. but we are back to a deficit. we were told that this was necessary to get the fiscal house in order and we are back to a deficit. $1.8 billion. the plan is not working.
he is spending money that we do not have. this year alone, he is spending 400 million more than we are taking in. the lagging economy means that the revenues are down. i want to focus on making fiscally responsible decisions that are going to put wisconsin in a place where we have a thriving economy. act 10 was divisive and now we are back to a deficit position. i would definitely continue in terms of contributions, but public employees should have the right to collectively bargain. that does not stand in the way of having effective, efficient, and accountable state government. that is the kind of governor i will be. >> literally every day, every week as i go around the state, i wanted to school board members, town board chairs, who tell me thank you. the savings alone saved some $3 billion for schools, towns,
counties, and local government. that is why property taxes, per the first time in about a dozen years, have gone down. they are lower than they were four years ago. but it is not just about the money and balancing the budgets. it is about empowering people to do what they were elected to do by local officials. i spoke to an official in northern wisconsin, he said to me that in that school district, one of the best things was that he was able to go back to his office, instead of worrying about grievances he could focus on curriculum. dedicated public servants go to work on the local level. the appleton school district alone, the first year, save $3.1 million -- saved $3.1 million by bidding out their health insurance, and that went back into the classroom. my opponent went around this
answer, because in this campaign she has done everything to avoid talking about act 10. the people that are spending millions of dollars for attack ads want that repealed. because we took the power out of their hands and put it in the hands of taxpayers. >> thank you governor. miss burke? >> i have been very clear who i will work for as governor, and that is the hard-working people of wisconsin. like the mom in munro, who was worried that her daughter after graduating has not found a job yet. it is the student who wants to go back to tech school, but is one of 41,000 still on the wait list for financial aid. those are the folks i will fight for every day. i want to make it perfectly clear that i do respect the right to collectively bargain to get those wages. >> the bottom line is that i will stand with the hard-working taxpayers.
that is what it was all about. i do not see a need to expand it one way or another, per your question. i think that empowered the people that we elect of the local levels, for schools and and municipalities, to do what we elected them to do. >> the latest figures from the department of natural resources show 135 active frack operations in central wisconsin. just this week, a couple were shut down after county regulators said they were in wastewater into a pond. a recent report by wisconsin public radio says that 20% of the mines are presenting environmental problems. do you think that the economic benefits outweigh the health
effects? >> thanks to god and the glaciers, we have some of the best frack sands in the world. we want to continue to do that going forward. in the last budget, i added additional positions to do those inspections. it is because of the boom that you talked about, we need to do more in the future. if i am still around, we will add more positions, both because we want to keep up with the pace for those were legitimate leader to operate, as well as to make sure that we protect the health and safety of everyone in and around those mines. >> i do have concerns about whether we are balancing job creation with protecting natural resources. there was legislation to try to take away local control so that
local communities could be making decisions about what is best for them. big-money special interests are driving the decisions in the governor's office instead of what is good for the people of wisconsin and the local community, to find the balance between jobs and protecting natural resources. what we have seen recently is that there was a secret $700,000 campaign contribution from an out-of-state contribution. governor walker changed the rules so that we have that company strip-mining in the northwoods. i think that most of the people of wisconsin think that that should be illegal, if it is not. i will not sell out to special interests. i will make sure that we make the best decisions for the people of wisconsin, for local communities. i know that we can balance jobs and protecting natural resources. >> governor walker? >> there is bipartisan interest in this.
mayor of whitehall. i join with him and other local officials to tour a site. he said at first he had hesitation, but then he saw the operation, saw what was required, and saw the economic impact, both on the construction as well as long-term for the people. i think there will be a healthy balance to continue to add staff to the dnr and keep up with the boom -- >> governor. >> we have not found a balance between jobs and protecting the environment. and that is what is important. we have to make sure to give the local communities the control that they need to make sure they are not only protecting our environment but also giving them the tools that they can negotiate, so the communities can repair the damage to the roads that the mining causes. this is an opportunity for wisconsin, but we should not be selling out our natural resources.
>> sean? >> wanted to ask you both about the budget, specifically the budget shortfall for the current fiscal year. a nonpartisan bureau says that even if the tax revenues grow by the 3.5% they projected, wisconsin will end this fiscal year $397 million in the hole. how would you feel that wh -- fill that hole? >> i have balanced budgets my entire career. you have to go line item by line item. the priorities that i would set are job creation. we have to focus on what will grow that economy, because
if we had grown at the same rate as the national economy, or be -- would be $4 billion a year bigger. governor walker made fiscally irresponsible decisions. he's spent money we did not have ahead of revenues coming in, and now we are on deficit. i will prioritize spending based on economic development. we will not spend money that we do not have. i will stop some programs, like the new $30 million entitlement program that the governor created that subsidizes private school tuition for wealthy parents. along with the expansion of the statewide vouchers. we have to say what will impact wisconsin, what will help local communities to make sure that we have strong education. it will be about tough decisions, but i am prepared to do that. >> governor walker?
>> sean, as you know, the most recent memo with respect of the bureau shows that the next budget will have a half billion dollars surplus. the one my opponent is talking about is based on no changes, which has never happened. the bottom line, is that if you take reasonable judgments, you take the five-year average of revenue growth, we end up with about $500 million in surplus in the next budget. we made reasonable adjustments out there. we took a $3.6 billion budget deficit that we inherited from my predecessor and turned into a surplus. we did at the old-fashioned way, we pay back the money from the transportation fund. we pay back the money raided from the patient compensation fund. today, the rainy day fund is 165
times bigger than it was when i took office. once we got a surplus, what do we do? we give it back to the people who earned it, the taxpayers. this spring, we lowered property taxes agains so a typical family will see an extra $320. my opponent said that we should not do that, we should keep the money in madison. i do not hear a lot of people in eau claire saying that we should keep more of our money in madison. >> the fact remains that it is a $1.8 billion projected deficit. in most cases, that increases in spending plans. i think that number could go up. governor walker made fiscally irresponsible decisions based on so governor walker made these fiscal irresponsible decisions,
based it on rosie projections and what we're hearing tonight again rosie projections and not being honest with the people of wisconsin. in surplus,llion that's one of the more recent memos out there. my ohending decisions possibly enlt just talk -- about areust talked giving you your money back. that's a lot of diapers or trips to see the grab kids, or a or of new tires on the truck other things like that. so i think we made some good in giving that money back to the hard working taxpayers of this state. to onee going to go final and very quick question because we have a limited amount of time. mike, you get to ask it and you'll have to give very short answers to this one. thin that your opponent brings to the table that you see as a positive to the nexthe state for four years? each. minute
>> governor walker, you're first. >> i respect the philanthropic opponent has been involved in. working the last couple years girls club.s and some remarkable work, donated some great money, provided great leadership there, i give her hats off for that. >> ms. burke? >> i think that governor walker has certainly done some very things in community, certainly his work around domestic abuse is important, along with some of the charitable work that he has done. of you.s to both we now are going to turn to your opportunity to give us each closing statements. because of the coin flip, go first.alker you >> thanks to you, to the broadcasters association, thanks and thanks to my opponent, look forward to seeing next week.
and thanks to all of you your friday part of night to talk more about the future of this grit state. the past changed over four years. we now have the lowest rate since almost six years ago. jobs are coming back, small expanding, new businesses are starting around the state. property taxes are down for the a dozenme in about years. tuition at our u.w. campuses is frozen. we took a deficit and turned it into a surplus. that saturn i bought back in the fall of 1998, although my son drives it more do these days. i still eat lunch out of a brown today.d one earlier and i still love the people of the state of wisconsin. one of tell you, it's those where i'm looking forward to being your governor if you the nexthe chance over four years. i love being governor, i love traveling, i love
across the state, i love going farms and small businesses and meeting truly amazing people. to work together as a team to represent the people of wisconsin. your vote on for behalf of two other people, matt our two sons, and more than four years ago my wife and down and talked about, ultimately prayed about getting in this race for governor. be tough. would since then we've had to make tough decisions along the way, wouldck then we knew it be worth it because we were afraid. we were afraid that our sons grow up in a wisconsin that wasn't as great as the one we graw up in. for us as parents that was unacceptable. tonight i'm proud to tell you reforms, as of our tough as they were along the iy, and some of you might say don't agree with everything you've done over the past four
can seeut i hope you that our motives were pure marks we did it to ensure that the had a betteron future and that we thought more about that generation than just about the next election. of those reforms for matt and alex and all the others sons and daughters like upm, they're going to grow in wisconsin even better than the wisconsin we grew up in. backwards,nt to go we want to keep going forward. and tonight on their behalf i november 4. vote on >> thank you, governor. now your three minutes, ms. burke. >> thank you to everyone who has tuned in and to the panelists jill, yourself. as out of heard tonight, there's a clear choice in this race. fournor walker has had years and his top down approach much putting those at the top of special interests ahead you isn't working. let's recap the last four years. theeconomy is dead last in midwest in terms of job creation, 35th in the country, and it's not getting better. august alone, we lost 4300 jobs.
the typical wisconsin family has nearly $3,000 of real income over the last four years. $3,000. and we're facing a $1.8 billion deficit going into the next budget. that's not a comeback, and it's not good enough. in just kept pace with the rest of the country over the years our economy would be $4 billion a year bigger. that's money that gets spent in local businesses and our communities, it's additional tax base on which to fund education infrastructure, while reducing taxes. think about what that means for you. child.r school for your more affordable college education. more economic security for you retirement. tax cuts for millionaires and special interests don't create jobs. growing the middle class and small businesses does. put politics aside and focus on what's going to work. i don't care if ideas are democratic or republican ideas, just whether they're going to done.e job
i'm also going to set a different tone. governor walker's tone and his own words, hass been to divide and conquer. well, that's not the wisconsin way. change they going to tone, i'm going to change the system him there's no way that big money and special interests should have a greater voice than you do. governorve seen from walker what happens when you turn over our state to powerful special interests. a $700,000 campaign contribution and governor walker changes the that big corporation can strip mine the north woods. big companies get government handouts, while small businesses are struggling. with the new direction that i out, once again wisconsin will be about a fair shot, a square deal, for those willing to do the hard work. my career has been about seeing possibilities, taking on the challenges and getting results. i can't wait to get to work as your governor. we have everything we need to be innovativethriving,
state that's a leader. i ask for your vote on to join me ind building a wisconsin that works for everyone. thank you. like to thank the candidates, and recap for a that wehe subjects covered tonight. voter identification, jobs, the abortion,ge, act-year terms, medicaid, 10, sand mining, the budget, and there are many other questions citizens of the wisconsin want to ask you, which is why we are glad you agreed to another debate next week. we know that you'll be asked climate,stions about about student debt, about transportation budgets, we know that the journalists at that panel will be, we think, as persist ten as this group has been. we thank you for listening carefully and responded candidly. thank thelso like to wisconsin broadcasters
association. over 100 television and radio stations are carrying this broadcast either live or delayed today. it is airing live on c-span, and on pbs also streamed news hour. there is a lot of attention on we would like to thank you for your contributions this evening. we would also like to thank the panel. hawn johnson, of wisconsin public radio. mikeuld like to thank thompson of wkbt news 8 in lacrosse. of wqow news in owe claire. and jewy clark, anchor and news in au weau13 claire, the host city. thank all of you. now the audience, which has been so patient and promised us it applause, may now do what it wants to do. [applause]
captioned by the national captioning institute --www.ncicp.org-- >> that concludes tonight's debate between wisconsin candidates,l democrat mary burke and scottican governor walker. wisconsin radio and television stations work together to thisce and broadcast debate as a public service to ensure every citizen of opportunity ton hear and see the two leading candidates for governor. this debate has been spos sored by our wba foundation, through therous grants from wisconsin association of independent colleges and universities and aarp of wisconsin. we would like to thank the theirates for participation, as well as the team of broadcasting professionals representing the
lacrosse au claire market tonight. geisler, and the panelists. we invite you to watch for and listen to our second debate froml milwaukee, on october 17th. remember to vote on november 4th. on behalf of the wisconsin broadcasters association, thank night. good >> c-span's campaign 2014 coverage is bringing you more debates for the control of congress. stay in touch with our coverage us on twitterllow and like us on facebook. our campaign 2014 debate withage continues tonight, the iowa senate debate between candidate to fill the seat of retiring democratic senator tom
hark in. democratic congressman bruce republican joni ernst. >> c-span's 2015 student cam competition is under way. competition for middle and high school students will award 150 prizes totaling $100,000. create a five to seven-minute documentary on the topic, the you. branches and videos need to include c-span programming, show varying points must be submitted by january 20, 2015. for moredent cam.org information. grab a camera and get started today. >> the defense department's judicial proceedings panel was to review thee military's policies on sexual assaults. on five-member panel met friday to hear from legal experts who talked about how the justicecode of military
handles sexual assault accusations. this is an hour and 10 minutes. >> today's meeting is being recorded and streamed live by c-span. in addition the recording will in c-span's video library. a link will also be posted on jpp's website. the judicial proceedings panel thecreated by congress in national defense authorization act of 2013. an mandate is to conduct inreview and assessment of
judicial proceedings conducted under the uniform code of military justice involving adult sexual assault and related offenses, since the most recent amendment to article 120 of the ucmj in 2012. to start this morning the panel begin deliberating on what we've learned about article 120. tasksnel has three pertaining to our review of article 120. minimum.ffics at a first, we must assess and make recommendations for the the current to version of article 120, which in 2012.ed by congress second, we must assess the likely consequencees of amending situations of sexual assault from a service member abusing his or her position in the chain of command. the response panel, to
to amen article 120 to separate penetrative and into distincte is punitive articles. the panel received numerous documents and held two days of public meetings to hear a variety of views on these issues. i don't expect today's deliberation will conclude our issues,f article 120 but it will allow panel members to discuss their perspectives on andinformation we received help identify the way forward. following our deliberative session, we had begin our examination of other panel taskings that require us to consider privacy issues for victims of sexual assault crimes. our review of our review of the
use of evidence from prior sexual conduct of an alleged victim in article 32 proceedings and courts martial. which is addressed by military rule of evidence 412. we will also examine the use of a victim's mental health record by defense, during preliminary hearings in courts martial which is addressed by military rule of
evidence 513. we will hear about trial practices from prosecutors and defense counsel and finely we'll hear from those who work with and advocate for victims in military judicial proceedings. i anticipate we will hear more about these issues in future meetings including next month's meeting which will fox on the special programs that have been implemented by each of the military services. each public meeting of the panel includes time to receive comments and input from the public. the panel did not receive any request from the public to meeting. today's all materials from today's meetings, however, and previous meetings are are available on jpp's website at jpp.whs.mil. thank you very much for your attention. are ready to we begin our deliberation and discussion of article 120. panel members, i outline the large issues we have to look at to 120.ard and i think maybe we should just start by having each of the members, since we're not allowed to discuss any of this, meeting, the public express where they think the come out, where their own what their own position is with regard to the status of 120. should it be amended and if so to what extent. we need further information. and so we'll just proceed in
way. if that's acceptable to the panel members. with you, judge jones? >> well, i'd like to just make general comment that i think it's almost an understatement to say that -- you.orry, thank i'd just like to start with the general comment that this is a very difficult task, a very interesting and statute. we've heard a lot of testimony alone inhould be left toer to give the judges time write on it, to create some common law here. generally speaking,
that makes sense to me. a lot of cases out there yet with this new version of article 120. own personal experience is that if the judge gets legal instructions right when they're instructing in this case the make theat you can statute understandable and avoid error. i'm not certain exactly how yet.cult the statute is i don't have an opinion on how theicult it is yet for practitioners, the defense and for the particularly the prosecutors in terms of charging. we've heard examples that they are frustrated with it. i think at the end of the day essentially the statute time, there needs to appellate comment from a development of the case law.
so overall that's my general comment. with respect to particular parts it, it may be that there are small things that we might tackle. to suggest anyng one of them right now. will come up those perhaps when we go through the sections. wouldnerally speaking, i not at this moment want to take hand to try to either ofrite significant portions bifurcate it for that matter. i saw testimony from one of our presenters that basically said so you have to flip through the statute, but you can
do it with respect to the difference between essentially 120 rape charges and the lesser charges in it. and again, overhauling it in bifurcating i think may cause more confusion than it's so those are my comments. >> thank you very much, madam chair. having listened carefully to the testimony and read the materials been presented thus far and balancing that against my own interest both in law and public policy, i'm coming out at this point about the same place judge jones did. it a very difficult thing to that ist a statute relatively new unless you have cases. and it's very hard for us to assess the implementation of the statute until we have enough
cases aref how the working out in order to give us or basisal evidence for making recommended changes. by the numberess of people who have identified relatively small changes that thought would improve the statute. and my own bias is that if those changes can be accomplished through executive order or to the benches book instructions that judges a moreen that's probably efficient way of making changes. on the one hand. hand, i was disheartened in our last session to hear the length of time that has taken to this point to implement some of the changes the workslready in regarding not on this statute other statutes as they make their way through the interagency process. that couldgood thing come from this review is some
pressure and emphasis on making the system work faster to get changes to the field that need to be made. specifics, i also agree with judge jones that things, as ill went through and listened to the various testimony that's been seem tohat would improve the overall tenor of where we stand. rewriting thethat law at this point is one of those. is a told by someone who true expert, teaches this subject, that if you can you cannd article 120, criminal section anywhere in the code. seems to me that if you bifurcated the statute you might have some simplicity, but not that much. just means you maybe turn fewer the sameget to outcome. so i don't think we should shy the statute just because it times tame to
understand and it become familiar with it. issue, i guess i'm also interested in understanding now howarly than i do it is that we can move things through the system, as i said earlier, with much greater speed to help the people in the field who feel like they need theification on some of tough issues, get that kind of clarification, instead of waiting for tin evidence tabl number of cases that would work toir way through the system the appellate level. thank you. >> i coke most of what my colleagues had to say with the of view thatint court martial convening authority could probably benefit articlebility around 120 and an opportunity for clarity around the case law as part of the line officer's role in this important task. also, i was struck by the number of people mo spoke to about the need for some
definitional clarity and the opportunities that exist to achieve that with recourse other than rewriting the statute itself. think i would echo what my sayeague has to >> thank you, madam chair. like my colleagues on this ofel, we've heard a lot people who have been able to the statute and haven't been totally frustrated it. positions, iprior was constantly reminded by my colleagues not to sacrifice the the perfect. that what at least i heard so far is that what we good.s workable, it's and yes there's many ways that
perfect. make it but you have to be careful that turn out to work badly. it seems to me that the focus thati'm trying to keep is we look at repetitive problem and not justome up anecdotes of situations that badly, because there's no statute that can be perfectly. and so i'm trying to keep track think are recurring if we canand see mentioned, aas few, whether they're definitions or sharpened terms here or there. within more or less the scope of leaste have, because at most of the testimony i've heard is that it does work.
to try andst like make it work either a little bit better or a little more efficiently. so that's my impression so far. thank you. much.nk you very thank you very much. i can give you some of my littleions, which are a bit different in the sense that agree that if we can we should statute inrove the the small ways that were suggested. example, defining , and other small issues such as that. i don't think we have enough information at this point to exactly recommend what should the change should take place, but i do think that those changes.useful i'm agnostic actually about the
question of whether those changes should be made by executive order or by congress, the amount of attention focused on the issue of secretaries you assault in the military i think that as opposed the normal course of events that it's likely that congress onld act with amazing speed these issues. so i'm not necessarily saying that the executive route would be faster and more efficient. so i think we should think about that. i
i also am very troubled about the statute itself, because to me, and i'm glad that people can make it work, but i don't know what it means to make it work. we will not know how many acquittals took place because of the badly worded statute, because acquittal is acquittal. we're not going to get appellate review of those cases. we're just stuck. to me two of the issues trying to read the statute keep cropping up. one is the fact that you have to show bodily harm. well, when you tell a normal person who understands the english language that you've got to show bodily harm, that suggests that there's got to be some kind of bodily harm. but if you read the definition, bodily harm is an offensive touching no matter how slight. well, wait a minute. what does this all mean? you take the normal usage of the bodily harmuage, and then you have an offense of
touching no matter how slight, get reconciled. how do panel members deal with that? what happens in the real world under those circumstances? the issue of consent. fromw we've heard professor at n. y.u. about the big you'dity of that term. you want to look at the statute, --l, it says something about free and willing consent. consent freely and willingly given. but then if you read all the way can, it suggests that you infer consent from passive conduct. those seem to be pretty inconsistent terms. and what particularly concerned wasn't really actually focused on this issue initially. read thei began to materials on 412, the question
becomes very important. be that further clarity with regard to consent would help alleviate some of the issues under 412. that actually understood the connection before. i generally agree with the premise that it's a good idea to jones and others articulated, some stability with ofard to the interpretation the statute that has been changed three times in such a of time.iod i accept that premise. accepton't necessarily the premise that this is a workable statute, and fact, andly given the i don't know, excuse me, i shouldn't say fact. particularly given the we were given at the last hearing that this statute is used to train soldiers and sailors and
.ecruits practiced it's taking professional lawyers so much time and effort to understand statute, how can we be training people effectively ambiguous, difficult statute? i these are the concerns that have. and maybe it means we just loaf things, many things alone. but at least from the point of view of training, if this is tool, ied as a training would have a lot of concerns. suggest possibly move, ours a followup next step should be to take a look at some of the areas, i good the staff made a very chart for us. specifiche issues, issues on article 120 and see what we want to do about each that's okay with the panel members.
objection to that? okay. the firststart with one that the staff put on our chart. all have this chart in front of us? you?tone, do good. ory, the first is drug administration, 120 a 5. does everyone have the statute or her so we can go forward? i can't seem to find mine over here. is, sorry. 120, a, 5. here, the issue is provision of article 120 does
intoksicants intentionally or for the purpose of impairing capacity. think that was suggested by shulhof? shulhofer, sorry. know how the panel feels about that. does anyone have a comment to make? on that point. one whohe was the only recommended that. i don't think we got any militaryations from personnel. judge jones? going to ask, because i wasn't here last time, this wase comment that a problem? or how big a problem is it? how many such cases there are, or if there have been such cases. a problem with the
way -- only asking because i wasn't here but also because i don't know whether this is an issue. obviously you wouldn't convict under this unless there was cause and effect and intent. that seems obvious just from the statute.f the >> that was my impression as well. this is one of those that i did not think needed any change because it seems to me that if a accused of a violation of this says he did it that will bethen that person's responsibility to raise. so i think this is pretty clear to me at least. >> it's not as explicit as you i understand the professor's comment. but i agree with you. think this is, this one with,to be tinkered evidenceheard a lot of that in such cases they were not being able to actually charge
them. else have a comment? >> just the same, i have not heard more than one person actually bring this up. >> so is the consensus -- reaction as well. nobody indicated that it was a problem. in the services. the statute may be as possible. kyle, is this some way aof of assessing, aside from the had, is there any other way of assessing whether to be addressed? >> we could follow up with a more detailed request to the cases, ifo ask for there are any indicating this. we could follow that. >> how does the panel feel about that? think it's a good idea?
okay. that's a goodhink approach. okay. issue is sexual harm.t by causing code sections, well, you can see them. is, does bodily harm mean sexual intercourse without consent? sexual act contact with an additional offense of touching orond that of penetration sexual contact. i'm not sure i even understand point. people on both sides .f this issue anybody have any comment? >> it seems to me that this is that does need clarification. and again to your comments, madam chairman, how it's clarified is a separate
conversation. to me thatoubling people would think that there had to be bodily harm in actual sexuale penetration in order to be guilty of this offense. >> any other comments? earlier, theid term bodily harm as it's defined is something that i find puzzling. ambiguous.y too judge jones, do you have a comment? was just looking for the definition of bodily harm. ofany offensive touching another however slight including or nonconsensual sexual act nonconsensual sexual contact. well, i would have to spend some thinking all this through. i think it's confusing, i agree.ly >> it could be defined, i think,
for the panel members. if your initial impression harm is to find bodily that you have to look for something that's really harmful. force.ort of con notes >> and connotes some other kind aside from the sexual act. and that's the problem with it not clear. so the difficulty with that, out, professor, is that this may be taking on a biggy. it might not need more than one these little fixes that we were urged to take on. how do the other panel members should we take a further look at this question of bodily harm? think so.
>> i don't know that this need to be at the top much our list. this was the that most important problem that the cases hasn of these raised. so i don't mind having it on the but i think it's not quite at the top. >> good point. >> i think, so we'll leave that on our check list, and then out how we're going to approach all of these issues that we still need to deal with. definition of incapable of consenting. the definition of incapable of consenting is ambiguous and unclear. requests toseven clarify
clarify, and no specific objection to clarification of this point. how do we feel about that? should we try to clarify this? >> i thought the testimony was compelling from the witnesses who did testify on this is that it's not well spelled out and people are going to other parts of the code to try to fine definitions for capacity, and this seems to be something that needs a better understanding out there. >> anybody else have any point on the question? mr. stone. >> just that i think that in doing that we ought to tie that with what we do with use of consent throughout the statute. it seems to me incapable of consent and what consent means are related and we ought to try and do those together. you know, change one with an eye on the other at the same time. because they do interrelate so much. one where ite nice tortainly be clarify through instructions as have to gotrying to back for an amendment. way.nk i would lean that i haven't read all the law that has come out, not under any of 120's.vious but i would just like to think about this in terms of what a struck, eve 2010 the statute as it's written. just a thought, as opposed to trying to reword it. >> to your concern with regard to how the statute is used for training, this would be one of the key issues that would need to be clear in training to young soldiers. i guess one of the points that we ought to bear in mine as
any changes isst the extent to which the clarification would help in terms of training as well as in prosecution. >> that's a really interesting the notion that people are being trained on this, our military. i would love to see how this, statements that are made in this training. are there some training materials? figuringhaving trouble this out, i'd be very interested see, i don't mean an extensive search with every piece of training material, but samples of how this is being portrayed to new recruits or who ever is along thethe training way. sexualdefinition of assault and the d.o.d. programs ofe standardized the use these terms and each of the services has created
on many ofd training these concepts. the ability of the person to consent is a key part of of those.n most so we can pull that together for the panel. >> i'd like to see that, thank you. there was only one witness who raised the issue of training, that really resonated with me because as i said in my own comments, i'm having difficulty, are, i've been practicing law for a long time. that could create a problem. also like to ask, kyle, i agree that we should take a look at the question of of consenting, because we've been asked by a number of clarify it. does this also include the issue of capacity, kyle? a separatet was issue that was raised. and i don't see the capacity in our materials.
>> i guess within the capacity what, ma'am? >> wasn't that one of the two asked toat we were take a look at, was definition definitionwhat the of the term capacity? that's -- that's incorporated here, ma'am. i think the capacity to consent incapable to consent, i think those are issues that were raised by presenters somewhat interchangeably. a separates not issue, that would be included in this review. good, thank you. definition of wrongful action is fourth one. threatening wrongful action is ambiguous, we've been asked to amend, clarify.
and we've been told not to amend. same numbers on both sides. panelt do we think, any members on this point? i think this had to do, if i'm not wrong, with the issue that raised about whether we needed the statutes on abuse of authority, isn't that correct, kyle? correct. >> because this provision would threateningy cover wrongful action, this provision would theoretically cover those cases. >> yes, ma'am. threatening with wrongful action. the previous version of the statute included within the term the offer of a benefit wrongful action, and so this is a more narrow
ofinition of only the threat a negative action. so those other as respects of potential abuse of authority are necessarily included. although the military judge's book has used the terminology from the 2007 term ofwithin the threat. >> so the judges have decided to theey're going back amended, to the unamended statute. a broader include .efinition could that be challenged, kyle? know, i'm not sure from the service what is the status on that or if it has been, but as a practitioner, it came to my mine. >> i think that the point mere, if i can try to narrow the focus for us, is that we had two suggestions for, by members of congress, very forceful
deal withs to statutory, to support statutory changes that would enhance the to prosecute abuse of force. abuse of status, in other words, a trainer abusing a up the chainomeone of command abusing somebody that, that this provision could be used. were, from visions were suggested to deal with those problems. if the existing statute is sufficient, then those two betutory suggestions would unnecessary. from my point of view, it took to get an answer to that question as to whether
used inute could be those circumstances. remember, peep couldn't remember whether the statute had ever been used, some it couldn't be used, and so forth. so i'm just concerned that even language may be there, it's not being used in an way.tive my own view would be in looking at the two statutory made, that that were we get a little bit more information if we can. closer look at this law.sion of the particularly if the judges are way that'sg it in a broader than the existing language. members of the man el want to comment are i think we should definitely look boo more, and pay attention to
it. by the comments that i read from the last there are other violations, criminal violations, than 120 that are being effectively,ther in situations where there's an abuse of power. i guess one is called, and me, maleve to forgive ordersnt and just just violationings. so is there enough in the arsenal of possible charges out there already, while at the same time figuring out whether this statute can't cover what we're, this abuse of power, of the wrongful action language in there. and i don't know to answer to here.s i hit but i would definitely look at all the other possibilities that seeing, just in terms of again how important it is to put
analyzeo 120 and maybe liabilitystrict offense, as is being suggested, should be put in 120. are all issues that come to my mind. i think they're important and wes is something that definitely and obviously should continue to look at. to come to anyd conclusions today. >> mr. taylor? >> i agree that all of these actions are intertwined in a very interesting way, and i the essential evil that we're trying to get at in part inanything that takes place the training environment that suggests that some activity on trainee will benefit or not that individual, as tied to some sort of reaction they have to overtours by someone who is in charge of them. tohink that's what we've got get at and be sure there are enough ways to doing that so escapesone accountability with that kind of
action. >> i think that's a special case. i think the fundamental issue of of authority is part of what's being asked for thinkaddress here and i that does deserve further examination. >> mr. stone? degree that if this is being read more narrowly than version, i can't belief that's what congress intended. it was inartfully drafted, or sometimes in the and thingscommittee people put together word without realizing that they are consequences in the case law. i think that's something that yes, we have to look at. again since what's on a little chart, the next one, withnents of fear, deals exactly the same definition. we ought to deal with this and hasquestion of whether fear to be objective as well as
subjective. again, my inclination is to view so that, sogether they work together. i agree that that's important to focus on. if we can shore up the definition and therefore solve a lot of problems that result from that definition. agree. with the comments that have been made and i think this should be on our list. anybody have any other comment item, components of fear? 120, g, 7. mr. stone has suggested that we look at that.
anybody disagree? disagree.t powerful he made a case for making a change there. >> okay. would you objection we're the list, okay. the, no, i i guess wouldn't say it's the final one because we've still got a few more. consent throughout the statute. congressional intent regarding consent is unclear. requests or three three suggestions to clarify, to clarify. out thatld just point changing the meaning of consent could be more than what one fix to thea minor statute. don't stone's point, i can -- you
these are intertwined issues. otherbody have any comment? >> no, i just agree with that. we have to look at consent everywhere it gives in the statute. >> well, i'm concerned about the .erm of consent not only because of the issue need toaised about the define incapable of consenting, of what i seese as a concern about the clarity of the term itself. because there is a suggestion on the one hand in the statute on kind of ant it's affirmative consent that's needed. if you look at a, consent means
a freely given agreement. agreement. and then, somehow lack of under c, may be inferred circumstances. all the surrounding circumstances are to be considered including whether a cannot resist or ceased , suggesting that resistance alone is the factor is ano to me this ambiguous consent, but i am a humble about dealing with it just in the sense that this major repercussions about the statute. but that doesn't mean we at it fromake a look my point of view. so i agree with the other may.nts that were so that's on our list. we haven't reduced our workload
far.uch so >> i will make the comment that here, itsee con send wouldn't surprise me that at the there isn't any better way to say all these things, but i agree that we have looking at everything. >> okay. next, turn the page over, force.ion of force is too narrowly defined, that was a suggestion made by shulhofer. how does the panel feel about that? anybody have a comment? terp force means the use of a weapon, the use of such or rice as toing
overcome a person, or inflicting physical harm stuff to coerce or cop spell submission. >> can anybody tell me more theifically what professor's criticism was? to me. needs fine it should be more? >> if i may, one of the things i was actually by dean shaing. too marrowly defined, it also should include suggesting possession of a dangerous weapon incitied of weapon.ng a dangerous so for me that was enough to tip this into the scale of something that needed a further look. >> normally i would agree with that, but i don't know how that
number 7. with point which is threatening or placing that other person in fear. objecting tom not it, to taking a look at this. okay, so that's also on our check list. next item, accuse perception of behavior condition. the issue here is charging be based on the accused perception of victim's behavior or condition. amend the statute, dean shaing and colonel jackson. can you you remember, flesh this point out for the panel, please? >> a be glad to comment because
a good dean shaing made point. she said that the statutory provision only requires the thernment to prove that accused knows or reasonably should know the victim's state theonsciousness, even if victim testifies about her capacity to consent or ability the government must prove the accused knowledge or shouldt that the accused have known and for her recommended change would look actualrward the knowledge. in other words the dish elements be deleted her opinion. that delesion take place? out really
analyze these and have another deliberation. >> i think her point. you look at d-2. the second says that the accused has to know, the person knows or reasonably should know. her point is you do not need to prove that the person actually knew but that the person reasonably should have known. an objective standard, and maybe that is fair, not fair. before making any change to this, i would like to know somewhat, a bit more. >> me, too. it is in the alternative.
so you have both options there. >> yes, i think we should look at it. other points? you are ok with looking at it? >> consent -- affirmative consent. current version of article 120 removing the permanent consent which was previously expressly available. unclear if the tenses are still available. here we have -- to clarify congressional consent. executive order could clarify consent. judge currently instructs on both. did we actually have anybody suggesting a change on this? because it is not indicated on the sheet. >> lessman, it recommended that
consent meant, that consent be added back into the statue. there are removed from the 2007 he pointed out a it was al counsel, mistake of fact. his recommendation was to add it back in. >> you would not have to go to congress to do this. so apparently, an executive order to clarify it? wait a minute. think this is important and it ought to be clarified. it needs to be put on the agenda for action. the two defenses, it should be clear that they exist and they can be used. >> i thought the materials that we got, the mistake of fact mostly involved situations where you had a victim who was
underage. i presume that really is not going to happen much in the military, that they are going to be 14 or 15 or 16 and look like they are 18. wasn't that the situation that kept coming up in the materials, a mistake of fact? or was there another situation that was unique to the military that is repetitive? >> i'll think about that. mistake of fact as a general defense under our rules of courts-martial. i mean, in terms of the carnal knowledge situation, you can have civilian victims. that is a crime that does occur. not emitted to military on military. but more generally, there other crimes -- >> if you have, given the lack of clarity for the term of consent, you could have somebody claiming, she did not say no. where some people have said no
means yes. big issues are raised when you buy the " mistake of fact" claim. i certainly have no problem taking a look at it. but i think that is one of the big issues that comes in as the result of allowing somebody to raise that. >> yes. had, intimony that we fact, was precisely as you recall, and that is mistake of fact has to consent is the key issue. this is all bound up with the question of consent. >> right. if you have a very good definition of consent, then i do not know that -- the mistake of fact i think which rate. >> -- i think would shrink. >> i agree absolutely. as to whether we should go in the direction of california that
yes means yes. and no does not mean yes. and that gets to the mistake of fact thing, oh, she was protesting. she was protesting too much and it meant no. for training and prosecution purposes, i think it would help if people knew what was going on. and i think that is the consent issue, not so much a mistake of fact issue. i do not understand -- i don't think it's good to keep that in the mistake of fact category that when a person says no or y may not mean it. i think we are encouraging the problem. >> wouldn't always permit a defendant to say, i thought she contented and let -- consented and let a jury decide? can you really remove the mistake of fact. i see it as a knowledge and intent element. i agree --
no two ways about it. but i would be very reluctant to defense.hat >> i agree, but i think the defense becomes much narrower if the definition of consent is clear and braoad. the definition of consent if nar -- is narrow. i had not really thought of that before, but i think it also becomes part of the problem of because if consent becomes yes, then prior sexual conduct becomes less and less relevant. so on 412, it might not come in so readily as it is today. just a point. we could take a look at that, i would suggest if you look at 412, that's something we bear in
mind. so that's something that obviously needs to be reviewed. that's on our checklist. indecent acts. sorry? i missed something. definition of sexual contact and sexual act. 120-g2. the definition of sexual contact is too narrow, since it does not include touching a compass by object. and overbroad because it includes any touching. we received three recommendations to change, i'm not sure, aside from the general objections, i am not sure that we made any changes received and received any objections to making these
changes. how do members of the panel feel about this? we start with you. >> ok, yes -- the testimony was thet there is a hole in statute because it does not do with objects, and we should start with that. that is the easiest item to fix, something that it seems everybody agrees is missing. or got dropeped. estion isvery hard qu presented. i know it has troubled me with any touching through the clothing. because i think that people get smacked on the back or smacked on the rear end in what's meant to be a positive way, a team s pirit. they gave them an attaboy. it may be offensive but i do not know that it belongs in the definition of sexual content. excuse me. >> anybody else want to make a
comment on that? i agree with him. i think that should be on our list to take a look at. i think, by the way, that one of the things we have to look at, a suggestion was made that the definition to include an object should not be done except by statute. but we can take a good look at that. i think that recommendations for statutory changes would not necessarily have to take forever, given the concern over this whole subject. without objection, we will add that to the list. ok. indecent act. the latest version of article 120 deleted indecent act from the statute. we have two suggestions for change. how do people feel? any comment about this?
ms to me that it still should be an offense, under 120 or article 134, where was historically, is up for grabs. i think it should be an offense. it was taken out of 134. d theypercenters sai were not sure why. they thought perhaps it was an oversight. >> an oversight by congress? shocking. >> i know it would be unusual. any other comments? >> i agree with the question about whether belongs in 120 or 134. >> ok, let's see. recommendations against wholesale changes sheet. i guess we can look at that as
part of our general examination of the separate points. i guess we are up to article 120, abuse of authority. in our time frame? >> have about 12, 13 13 minutes left in our window. >> ok, thanks. ofe we had two suggestions ofanges on the abuse authority statute by, abuse of authority by both representative - and representative frankel. having aative frankel broaderauthority by both represe nkel. representative fra
representative frankel having a broader focus. we received four recommendations for change. and 1, 2 -- 8 recommendations against change. i should just say that in our examination of threatening wrongful action, these issues will come up, but i also would wee to point out that if supported either one of the statues are supported either one of the statues with change, with the recommendations for change, there might become chances this could move quickly through congress. so, i don't -- i'll ask the panel how you feel about proceeding on this point. i mean, these issues will be covered by the threatening, review of threatening lawful action, but we could separate them out and just look at these two statutes. >> i think will end up doing
both, but i would like to look at the statute as well as part of it. >> anybody else? >> i totally agree with you that i would like to at least try and g7 of it in the threatening or placing the person in fear. i think that would be taking care of the problem at the same time that we take care of the other problem. and that would be a great way to address the abuse of authority. theh is a version of unlawful force, it seems to me, that someone is mentally worried about. so let me see if i can parce that out. you are saying that we should take a look at this. we should look at the statute as well as the underlying issue. >> yes, yes. but first, try and take care of
it when we are, if we are going to fine tune that definition, see if we can take care of it right there as opposed to requiring a completely separate abuse of authority provision. it seems to me i would try to stay within -- this find out whether statute actually is capable of taking care of the. at risk i'm not sure. i would prefer testimony the people felt they could prosecute abuse of authority situations under the statute. shouldt saying, we first decide whether this can maybe it can, but we want it to be clear. but then take it from there. >> ok, one of the things that i'm going to suggest, unless somebody has a different point
of view, because the statutes are at least -- maybe under consideration by congress that the issues we address, perhaps we start off with the -- so we can be relevant in terms of the consideration of that statute. is that acceptable to the panel? >> great idea. >> don't go too far. [laughs] ok, now we have bifurcation. >> in terms of the panel, i want clear, sure we are looking at it under the definition of threat, under 7. senator spears proposal creates strict liability. so it does not tie it to a threat. you are a traitor or have a
sexual context with the trainee, that is an offense -- if you are a trianer. -- the trainer. is that something to still consider, or is the panel more looking at this as a situational threat? >> i think we should keep on the strictthis idea of liability, because as i said in my earlier comments, i think this is one of those places power is mostive likely to be used in a way that is contrary. when the services were asked to comment on this kind of issue, you may recall we got a report -- i think it was last time of all the services who had reviewed this and concluded that they had adequate regulations to deal with this problem pretty much on the strict liability issue because it involved a violation of regulations. then the question became whether the violation would be service regulations was adequate to address the problem.
>> i think the other issue that came up was this could be prosecuted under a non-120 provision, but those do not carry the same consequences, penal consequences, as conviction under 120. because then you get denominated youxual offender, and then have to be registered in the state. so the consequences are much more serious. and i think, and very clear point. so to go to the point that judge jones made, if we take a look all of this together, we can determine whether we support the idea of strict liability for this very limited period of time. it may be important even if we do have revised the existing statutes, just to make this very clear. a training point, as you were
saying. this might be training for those noncommissioned officers. very clear, they do not have to parse any long statute. there would be a good reason to take a look at that. i might also point out how i could be wrong here. please correct me. that we did not get any objection to the strict liability, except to represent a statute -- except that the representatives of the joint services committee said he was opposed, not to the initial 30 day time, but the the second 30 day period? is that correct? >> yes, the time limitation was definitely what they were focused on. >> a number of service members look at their ability to prosecute these types of offenses under non-120 from work. generally, whether strict liability offenses belonged under the 120 umbrella.
>> ok, there was one case that had a result of two years of confinement under the orders. i think the orders, as opposed to 120. is that the max? >> it is for violation of general order under an article mighty too. different frameworks they have. they are looking -- the joint services committee talks about potentially increasing the potential liability under those offenses. so there are different options there. but that was the point talks about. >> an important issue in what attaches a 120 conviction in terms of the sex registry. >> yes, and but to me, if i can just make one point, it seems to me that if we are going to label somebody as a sex offender for slapping somebody on the rear end through clothing, then how
do you exempt someone who has taken use of his or her authority to abuse a young recruit? so, i mean, there needs to be some proportionality on his offenses. but i think we do not have to debate this, the substance of this or the merits of this but you all agree we want to take a look at this? >> yes. >> now the very tough point arises. you have suggestions for how we approach getting the information we need to go forward on this? we have one more. oh, yeah, right. sorry. bifurcation. shouldeived, this -- penetrating offenses be bifurcated from non-penetrating offenses? one suggestion for the amendment, and three against.
how do we feel about this? mr. taylor? >> sure. i do not think it should be amended. i think it is going to be complicated whether they are in one statute or two. once your parse your way through it, then you understand it. it needs to be presented in a way that will -- will be readily understandable to recruits than just lawyers that are schooled in this. i would not recommend it at this point. >> i agree with that. i think that if you run, just all kinds of potential problems if you start to bifurcate attempted rape where the person gets interrupted before the penetration, which statute is that one in? if congress decided to put them together, i think we should except that framework and try and work with what we have got in this case. they could have done it differently, but i do not see
this as something there's a compelling need to change what we have other things we need to work on. >> i agree with that. >> ok, so that is not on our list. we have made good progress. we took two items off our list. we have a pretty full plate otherwise. how wesuggestions about can proceed? we will suggest a panel member, how they will proceed on these point. and right now we'll continue with the hearing before us. then we will take a five minute break. and commence in five minutes with the rest of the panel members, with the witnesses who have come to testify. thank you very much. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014]
[captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> on the next "washington journal," a politics editor talks about the campaign funds raised and spent this year. then a discussion about same-sex marriage with brian brown of the national organization for marriage and the president of freedom to marry. and center for audit quality executive director on the implementation of dodd-frank regulations after the 2008 financial crisis. "washington journal" live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. here are a few comments we have received from our viewers. >> i would like to speak you about immigration and a man who had a visa that had expired. on 9/11, she took one of our one of and crashed into
the two towers. -- andld have gone back the buildings that were built on our land. they were landmarks. and something we were proud of. that is a good reason, i think, why we should not have people who are not legal. in this nation. >> i'm calling with regards to the catholic charity. you had on c-span with regards to the representative from texas. i came in the united states from italy with the catholic territories. everything that that young lady said was wrong. she does not know the procedure. she got me so mad that she
doesn't know what she's talking about. >> i just listen to congressman gutierrez and joe probably. -- joe crowley. justice would say -- given people the means to have come here legally and broken our immigration laws is to punish them. is about.at justice send them back and have them come back in through proper channels. obviously, congressman gutierrez is not worried about them coming to this country -- diseases coming to this country like ebola. our first experience in this country in texas. so, i think he should get off his emotional high horse and start to think a little rationally about the rest of the citizens of the united states and our health, protecting us
from these diseases that are prevalent in the other countries because their people are not inoculated. >> continue to let us know what you think about the programs you're watching. call us at -- email us at firstname.lastname@example.org. send us a tweet. join the conversation. like this on facebook, follow us on twitter. 's campaignof c-span 2014 coverage. follow us on twitter and like us on facebook to get debate schedules, video clips of key moments, debate previews from our politics team. c-span is bringing you over 100 debates. you can instantly share your reaction to what the candidates are saying. the battle for control of congress. stay in touch and engaged by following us on twitter @c-span. and liking us on facebook at facebook.com/c-span.
>> next a memorial service for former white house press secretary james brady. he was shot and currently disabled in the attempted assassination of president ronald reagan in 1980 one. his memorial service held in the new vienna, washington, d.c. included speeches by members of the white house press corps. this is an hour and a half. >> welcome,. we are reading to as jim brady would greet you with an irish blessing. with that in mind, we will each
leave such a blessing in his honor. and we begin the service to celebrate his life. >> may the road rise up to me to, may the wind be ever at your back. may the sunshine warm up on your face, and the rains fall soft on your fields. it until we meet again, may god hold you in the palm of his hand. >> may you always have walls for the wind and a roof for the rain. laughter to cheer you, those you love near you, and all your heart might desire. may saint patrick guard you wherever you go and guide you in whatever you do. may his loving protection be a blessing to always.
>> good morning. i am joe lockhart. i am proud to be in a very small fraternity of former white house press secretary's. to walk up after a prayer, though that was subtly different than what i used to say to myself. please god, let me get to the next hour. on behalf of the brady family, we want to thank you for coming. your presence means so much to them and to the family. we have some former press secretary's here. thank you for coming. we're here for a simple reason.
we loved jim brady. let me amend that a little bit, we love jim and sarah brady. to me, they are jim and sarah brady. we are here to honor his legacy, but to honor sarah and the family and all they have done. they were one of the most formidable couples in town. they were also one of the most lovable couples. we are here to celebrate his life today through many of his colleagues and the operative word is celebrate. and one who stands behind white house podium knows you spend most good time answering hard and tough questions. on