[House Hearing, 111 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]
[H.A.S.C. No. 111-4]
SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE MILITARY: VICTIM SUPPORT AND ADVOCACY
__________
HEARING
BEFORE THE
MILITARY PERSONNEL SUBCOMMITTEE
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
HEARING HELD
JANUARY 28, 2009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TONGRESS.#13
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
49-634 WASHINGTON : 2010
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402�090001
MILITARY PERSONNEL SUBCOMMITTEE
SUSAN A. DAVIS, California, Chairwoman
VIC SNYDER, Arkansas JOE WILSON, South Carolina
LORETTA SANCHEZ, California WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina
MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, Guam JOHN KLINE, Minnesota
PATRICK J. MURPHY, Pennsylvania THOMAS J. ROONEY, Florida
HANK JOHNSON, Georgia MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma
CAROL SHEA-PORTER, New Hampshire JOHN C. FLEMING, Louisiana
DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa
NIKI TSONGAS, Massachusetts
David Kildee, Professional Staff Member
Jeanette James, Professional Staff Member
Rosellen Kim, Staff Assistant
C O N T E N T S
----------
CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF HEARINGS
2009
Page
Hearing:
Wednesday, January 28, 2009, Sexual Assault in the Military:
Victim Support and Advocacy.................................... 1
Appendix:
Wednesday, January 28, 2009...................................... 53
----------
WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 28, 2009
SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE MILITARY: VICTIM SUPPORT AND ADVOCACY
STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
Davis, Hon. Susan A., a Representative from California,
Chairwoman, Military Personnel Subcommittee.................... 1
Wilson, Hon. Joe, a Representative from South Carolina, Ranking
Member, Military Personnel Subcommittee........................ 3
WITNESSES
Horwath, Sgt. First Class Michael, Sexual Assault Response
Coordinator and Victim Advocate, U.S. Army..................... 10
Katka, Capt. Daniel, Sexual Assault Response Coordinator, U.S.
Air Force...................................................... 9
McKennie, Chief Petty Officer Tonya D., Victim Advocate, U.S.
Navy........................................................... 11
Watterson, Laura, Former Airman, U.S. Air Force.................. 4
Whitley, Dr. Kaye, Director, Sexual Assault Prevention and
Response Office, Department of Defense; Teresa Scalzo, Senior
Policy Advisor, Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office,
Department of Defense; and Robert Coombs, Director of Public
Affairs, California Coalition Against Sexual Assault, beginning
on............................................................. 38
APPENDIX
Prepared Statements:
Davis, Hon. Susan A.......................................... 57
Katka, Capt. Daniel.......................................... 61
Whitley, Dr. Kaye............................................ 64
Wilson, Hon. Joe............................................. 59
Documents Submitted for the Record:
Testimony of Suzanne Brown-McBride, Executive Director,
California Coalition Against Sexual Assault................ 83
Two articles on Lauterbach case submitted by Mr. Turner...... 86
Witness Responses to Questions Asked During the Hearing:
Ms. Tsongas.................................................. 91
Questions Submitted by Members Post Hearing:
Ms. Shea-Porter.............................................. 95
SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE MILITARY: VICTIM SUPPORT AND ADVOCACY
----------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Armed Services,
Military Personnel Subcommittee,
Washington, DC, Wednesday, January 28, 2009.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 a.m., in
room 2118, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Susan A. Davis
(chairwoman of the subcommittee) presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SUSAN A. DAVIS, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM
CALIFORNIA, CHAIRWOMAN, MILITARY PERSONNEL SUBCOMMITTEE
Mrs. Davis. Good morning, everybody. We are delighted to be
here this morning and to have you all here.
Before we get started, I just wanted to introduce the
members of the Personnel Subcommittee. This is our first
meeting, and we wanted to give you a chance to get to know
them.
I am Susan Davis. I represent the area of San Diego,
California. And our next ranking member is Dr. Vic Snyder. Vic
is from Arkansas; Loretta Sanchez from California; Madeleine
Bordallo from Guam; Carol Shea-Porter from New Hampshire; Dave
Loebsack from Iowa; and Niki Tsongas from Massachusetts.
And Joe Wilson, who is the ranking chair on the committee,
will introduce the Republican members.
Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. And it is an honor
to be here with you, and I look forward to working with you on
behalf of the soldiers and sailors and Marines and airmen in
our military, the men and women who, indeed, make it possible
for us to have the freedoms that we enjoy.
I am grateful to be here with fellow members. With me is
Congressman Walter Jones of North Carolina. Congressman Jones
has very extensive military facilities in his district. Tom
Rooney is our rookie freshman. We are very grateful to have him
on board. Mary Fallin, the former Lieutenant Governor of
Oklahoma; I want to thank her for her impending service on this
committee. And we have a visitor who is here today, Mike
Turner. Mike is the former mayor of Dayton, Ohio.
And I would like to point out that I am very grateful that
I represent the Second District of South Carolina, which
includes Fort Jackson, it includes Parris Island, the Beaufort
Marine Air Station, also the Beaufort Naval Hospital. But I
have to tell you that my greatest appreciation is that I have
four sons serving in the military, so I appreciate seeing these
uniforms in front of us today.
Thank you very much.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you.
And I also wanted to ask unanimous consent--we will have a
few members joining us. So I wanted to ask unanimous consent
then for the non-committee members who are participating, they
will also be asking questions. Without objection? Hearing none,
okay, thank you.
Today's hearing will be the first of a series of hearings
the subcommittee will hold this year looking at sexual assault
in the military. Sexual assault is a complex problem, where
most, if not all, aspects are interrelated. Such a topic does
not lend itself to a single hearing. So, as a result, we have
chosen to hold multiple hearings on discrete topics so that the
members and witnesses can have in-depth discussions about
various issues to build towards a comprehensive understanding
of the problem. This will help guide our deliberations on what
can and should be done next.
Today we will be focusing on victim advocacy and support.
Our next hearing will look at current and planned Department of
Defense (DOD) programs to prevent sexual assault. I would like
to say that we are encouraged by the level of commitment,
resources, and expertise that the services are applying to
prevention programs to educate service members and change
cultural norms. And, finally, we will hold a hearing to examine
how sexual assaults are prosecuted by the military.
No one can deny our responsibility to ensure that victims
of a sexual assault receive all the support that can be
provided following an attack. The Department of Defense has
made significant improvements in recent years to the depth and
breadth of services available after an assault since the
implementation of a new policy in 2005. But the question we
need to ask is, has enough been done? What more can be done?
This hearing will look at how the Department of Defense
currently handles victim advocacy. We are very fortunate to
have an impressive first panel. These are individuals who deal
with the very real needs of victims of sexual assault.
Our first witness is Laura Watterson. In 2001, Laura was an
airman on active duty when she was assaulted by a fellow
service member. She will tell her story of what she had to
endure, usually by herself, after the assault.
Laura, we thank you very much for your willingness to share
your experience with us. We are humbled by your courage that
you have displayed by coming forward. We know it is not easy,
and many victims do not feel comfortable doing that. Thank you.
Next, we have three witnesses from the services. These are
not policy wonks. These are people who have helped individual
victims in the aftermath of an assault. I would like to thank
the services for dispensing with their usual policies and
procedures regarding rank and vetting to make these service
members available to the subcommittee. Their participation--
your participation--will add greatly to our understanding of
what victim advocates do on a daily basis and what resources
they need to do even more.
Captain Daniel Katka is a sexual assault response
coordinator, or SARC, from the Air Force. He has worked as a
SARC both in the United States and while deployed overseas, for
both operational and training units.
Sergeant First Class Horwath has served as both a unit
victim advocate and as a SARC in the Army, both here and while
deployed. While serving in Iraq, he found himself performing
the duties of both the SARC and as the first responding unit
victim advocate.
And Chief Petty Officer (CPO) Tonya McKennie has served as
a sexual assault victim intervention advocate for the Navy,
both in the United States and while deployed.
Again, thank you all for being part of this hearing.
Our second panel will include two witnesses from the
Department of Defense's Sexual Assault Prevention and Response
Office (SAPRO), Dr. Kaye Whitley and Ms. Teresa Scalzo, as well
as Robert Coombs, the public affairs director of the California
Coalition Against Sexual Assault (CALCASA). And I will make
more introductions later.
I want to reiterate that the purpose of this hearing is to
focus on victim advocacy and support. Other issues will of
course come up, but I would like to save in-depth discussions
on prevention programs and prosecution for our later hearings,
so that we can give each of the topics the attention and the
discussion that they deserve.
Mr. Wilson, would you like to have a few words?
[The prepared statement of Mrs. Davis can be found in the
Appendix on page 57.]
STATEMENT OF HON. JOE WILSON, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM SOUTH
CAROLINA, RANKING MEMBER, MILITARY PERSONNEL SUBCOMMITTEE
Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Chairwoman Davis.
And, as we have begun, we have been joined by another
subcommittee member, Congressman John Kline of Minnesota.
Congressman Kline is retired, but of course he still is a
Marine colonel, and very proud of it, as you can tell from his
pin.
Today's hearing continues the work this subcommittee
started several years ago to address the problem of sexual
assault within the military. We began our efforts during
Chairman John McHugh's tenure in response to increased reports
of sexual assault at our military academies. In 2004, we
required the Department of Defense to establish a task force to
examine sexual harassment and violence in the United States
Military Academy and the United States Naval Academy. We also
asked for an assessment of the effectiveness of the corrective
actions taken to address sexual harassment at the United States
Air Force Academy.
We followed these initial steps by expanding the mission of
the Task Force on Sexual Harassment and Violence at the
military service academies to include all of our Armed Forces.
We then focused attention on strategies to improve the
Pentagon's response to sexual assault. As a result, we required
the Department of Defense to implement a comprehensive policy
for the prevention of and response to sexual assaults involving
members of the Armed Forces.
In response to concerns we received from the field over the
length of time it took to process forensic evidence, we
required DOD to eliminate the backlog of the processing of
forensic evidence collection kits and ensure that an adequate
supply of rape kits are available for all military
installations. We also made sure that military personnel who
use forensic evidence collection kits receive training to
ensure evidence is collected properly.
Finally, working with the Congresswoman from California,
Ms. Loretta Sanchez, we took an unprecedented and bold step to
reform the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) to establish
a comprehensive and modern sexual assault law based on other
federal laws and regulations that effectively addressed sexual
assault.
These legislative actions point to this committee's
consistent, thoughtful, and aggressive approach to addressing
the issue of sexual assault in the military. Throughout this
process, we have looked to the experts to help us find the
right solutions, and we have worked with the Department of
Defense to put in place policies that address both prevention
and support for victims of this devastating crime. This has not
been an easy task, but our commitment to protecting the health
and welfare of our service members is unwavering.
To that end, it is my understanding that the purpose of
today's hearing is to focus on the support provided by the
military to victims of sexual assault and to assess whether
DOD's programs meet the needs of the victims or not.
I sincerely appreciate the willingness of Ms. Watterson,
who was a victim of sexual assault, to testify today. Although
your experience took place prior to DOD's new, comprehensive
policy, I hope you can give us your assessment of whether the
current policies and programs would have helped you and where
there still may be gaps.
I continue to hear in media reports and from various
individual assertions that this system isn't working well
enough. I look forward to the views of the members of the
second panel. How do you measure the program's success? Where
does the system fall short? Have you identified areas that need
improvement? How can we help?
I hope that our discussions today will be informative and
productive. My purpose today is to continue the dialogue
towards improving the support services and care available for
military victims of sexual assault.
With that, I would like to welcome our witnesses and thank
them for participating in the hearing today. I look forward to
your testimony.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Wilson can be found in the
Appendix on page 59.]
Mrs. Davis. Thank you very much, Mr. Wilson.
And I want to mention that we have been joined by Mr.
Patrick Murphy of Pennsylvania, who was part of the committee
last year, has an esteemed military career, and also Ms. Jane
Harman of California, who has been very passionate and
interested in this issue. Thank you.
And now, Ms. Laura Watterson, would you please start?
Again, welcome. We are delighted that you are here.
STATEMENT OF LAURA WATTERSON, FORMER AIRMAN, U.S. AIR FORCE
Ms. Watterson. Thanks.
I will just start off--this is very difficult. I don't
usually come out of my bedroom, so coming all the way to the
District of Columbia (DC) is a little--well, freaking me out.
But, however, comfortable I may be, I think it is more
important that I be here instead of worrying about my own
problems, because this really needs to be done.
Mrs. Davis. If you could just get a little closer to the
mike, that would be very helpful.
Ms. Watterson. Is that good?
Mrs. Davis. That is better.
Ms. Watterson. When I entered the Air Force, I seriously
considered making it a career for myself. I wanted to travel,
and I wanted to have a stable life and career. After I was
assaulted, I no longer trusted anyone on base, and my career
was no longer an option for me.
Because of my Military Sexual Trauma (MST) and Post-
Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) that resulted from it, I was
forced to move in with my mother at the age of 30, because I
could not take care of myself, keep a job, or feel safe
outside, even in my own apartment. I lived on cereal and
microwaveable dinners so I did not end up causing a fire
because I forgot that I was cooking something.
I was so depressed that I actually quit smoking, because
the task of actually picking up a cigarette and lighting it was
just too much. Of course my doctors were happy about that. But
I had crying fits that were so powerful I could not even get my
head off of wherever it landed because of exhaustion. One time
my head landed in my shoe. And it would leave me hoarse for
three days, from crying so hard.
I have gained over 60 pounds, and I would go into violent
rages. One time I ransacked the house to find every present I
had ever given my mother, smashed them to bits, and dumped them
on her bed. I would swear at her and throw things at her, as if
I had Tourette syndrome. Any attempt at communication with me,
I would just flip her off.
This behavior was--I had never treated my mother like this
before. I didn't understand why this was happening, and it
ruined my self-esteem that much further.
I have missed most family functions since being in the Air
Force because I am unable to be around many people, especially
people who are asking a lot of personal questions, like, oh,
how is life, what are you up to, what are you doing? I mean,
yeah, that kind of brings the family celebration down a little.
It has been only recently that I would even leave my
bedroom. I used to have very good credit, and I was proud of
that. Because of not being about to pay my bills because I
couldn't keep a job--just recently I had an attempt to have my
wages garnished.
I was too afraid to wear anything at all inviting, i.e., I
would wear men's clothing, usually in all black in several
sizes too big. I didn't want anyone to find me approachable. I
am afraid of being assaulted again. I used to have my hair and
makeup and nails matched every day, no matter what I was
wearing, for years. Now, with the exception of today, I would
only wear ChapStick and stick my hair up in a bun. I rarely, if
ever, even painted my nails. I don't have the energy to look
good, due to depression.
I have had meltdowns in the supermarket because if I saw
someone, especially if it was a man, I knew they were stalking
me, and I would run from the grocery store.
My marriage to a man who I am still friends with ended due
to my PTSD symptoms. I didn't realize why I was acting the way
I was, and neither did he. Nonetheless, it ruined our marriage.
That is probably the hardest part.
Excuse me.
I began therapy at the Veterans Affairs (VA) because I had
lost everything as a result. I began to see patterns and
realized that I needed to get my life back. I realized that
there are many other people who need to be helped to get back
on track, as well. And that is also why I am a victim advocate
myself, out of my bedroom and out of my own pocket.
Part of my wellness is testifying today, forcing me to get
out and do things that are challenging because they are more
important. I will leave here today, but hopefully my message
will not leave.
If I had a caring SARC representative, I believe that I
would not have ended up in the mess that I have ended up in. I
was never given a representative. When I called to have some
assistance, no one came. It got to the point that I called the
15th Air Force commander, who was in charge of the entire
western half of the United States and whose name was also in
all of the sexual assault booklets and leaflets. And, since
basic training, we had all been taught the same thing. I
trusted in that.
I also trusted because I had friends, before I went in,
``Aren't you afraid of the sexual harassment, like the whole
Tailhook thing?'' I was like, ``No. With all this media, why
would they--you know, they must be really careful about it
now.''
The 15th Air Force commander said, ``Well, why don't you
just keep it on base and have them take care of it?'' They
wouldn't. I reported it, as I was supposed to, to my
supervisor, as well as his. They said it would be taken care
of, and I trusted that.
Two weeks later, I was at work, and everyone was asked to
stand up because there was going to be a pinning-on ceremony.
That pinning-on ceremony was for the man who assaulted me to
now out-rank me and become a supervisor. He was rewarded. This
is when I got very angry.
After fighting and calling everyone I could possibly think
of, my commander finally called me into his office, with my
supervisor here, the guy who assaulted me, my chair, and then
his supervisor. So I was not even close to my supervisor or the
one who should be protecting me or making me feel safe.
I was told by my commander that I need to understand that
different people have different personal bubbles. For example,
when you go to England, sometimes when you meet people over
there and you shake their hand, they like to hold onto your
hand while they are speaking, and, as Americans, because we
don't do that, it is uncomfortable for us. And that is how he
told me that I needed to get over what had happened.
That is when I began--I started drinking obscene amounts.
Again, not knowing anything about PTSD, I started yelling at my
husband over the stupidest things and having absolute fits of
rage. And, again, this is not me.
After this meeting I had with my commander, my SARC, or
whatever he was called at the time, offered me therapy. I asked
if it was going to be from someone on base or if it was going
to be civilian. He told me it was going to be from someone on
base. And from the treatment that I had gotten so far to try
and help me, there was no way I was going to trust another
military member to tell them how I felt and what was going on.
So when I refused help, they had me sign a waiver saying that,
because I refused treatment, I was not going to be eligible for
any VA treatment or benefits. I, of course, did not realize
that that was a load of malarky until several years later when
I had to go to the VA because I couldn't handle my own life.
I was also told that punishment of my perpetrator was not
my business. I think that is--I don't know for sure what the
real rule is about that now, but it is definitely my business,
because I trusted them in the first place to take care of it.
And promoting him two weeks later is not fixing it.
All of the evidence that had been in my files about this
was sanitized. This is a normal and way-too-often thing that
happens with files, that things that are important that would
have something to do with a claim are taken out of your files.
So when you request them, over half of your file is no longer
there. So trying to fight the VA to get benefits is next to
impossible, because there is no proof anymore. Even if you
reported it to the on-base police, even if you reported it to,
like, anybody who would listen, like I did--nothing. This,
again, makes us trust the government even less.
I would be afraid. Even when the phone rang, that could
make me cry. A few months ago I was at a friend's house and her
washing machine turned on, and I had a panic attack from that.
I don't know why. I have panic attacks all the time for the
oddest reasons, I am sure. As I get further in my treatment, I
will figure out why certain things trigger me.
I believe that there are some good SARCs but not enough.
The SARCs need to be on top of their game. A victim is not
going to seek out help. They are going to do what I did; they
are going to stay in their room and drink. They are not going
to trust anybody else to go help them.
I also believe that a SARC should not be a dependent of a
military member, because the way that they would run their case
may be far too influenced on their fear that, if they go
against the way the command is saying things should be done,
that it could be detrimental to their spouse's career.
Excuse me just a second.
The SARC also needs to be able to have complete
confidentiality. The things that a victim says and does with
their SARC needs to be completely confidential. It was maybe a
month or two ago that a victim's SARC was subpoenaed to testify
against their own victim. And, of course, they had no choice.
Just like you are doing now, let the MST victims be involved in
the training of SARC personnel. They know how it feels. They
know what needs to be changed.
And commanders also need to be accountable, when it comes
to the rapist. We have plenty of rules that are not worth the
paper that they are printed on. For example, if somebody has
done a sexual assault, it is supposed to stay in their record.
They are supposed to sign up as--I am sorry, I am blanking out
the name, but whatever the civilian thing is that a sex
offender has to register under, that is a rule. I have very
little--in fact, I don't think I have ever seen that done, now
that I am even do advocacy work for people that are still in.
The next base they go to, that file does not follow them, so
the next command does not know that they have done it. They are
put in the same situation, and they know that they can get away
with it.
I do not believe a lot of the rumors and the little two-bit
ideas that most people have about, ``Well, it is the alcohol.
Well, then maybe women shouldn't be in the military. Well,
well, well.'' I believe it is due to the consistent and
rewarded attitudes of misogyny, thinking that women and also
men--there are plenty of men who have been sexually assaulted
that I have worked with as well. They need to be able to be
safe, feel like they have been taken care of. And when you find
out that a person who has sexually assaulted you, did it at the
last base, where is the safety?
I felt like I was entering the band of brothers as their
sister. I was then an outcast, alone and challenged on
everything I did.
There is also the Troops to Teachers Act. So a person who
has sexually assaulted a member, when they get out of the Air
Force or Coast Guard, whatever, so they get to go be Troops to
Teachers, and their file does not follow them because they have
not registered as a sex offender. So they get to be in schools
with children as a sex offender.
More often than not, the reason--is that for me?
Mrs. Davis. No, keep going.
Ms. Watterson. Oh, okay. I am like, ``Am I talking too
long?''
Mrs. Davis. If you can try and summarize, that would be
helpful, because we will talk to the other witnesses, and we
may have a vote coming up as well.
Ms. Watterson. Oh, okay, sorry.
Mrs. Davis. But that is all right. We really are anxious to
hear all that you have to say. Go ahead.
Ms. Watterson. Okay. I will quit for now then and let
somebody else speak. I will answer any questions you guys have.
Mrs. Davis. All right. Thank you so much for your
presentation. We will have some questions. And I think also
what we want to do is have a chance to really engage together
to understand what is different today, what of that that is
different works and what of that doesn't. How you can add to
that discussion, we will be very happy to hear about that.
Thank you again.
Captain Katka, if you and the other witness want to
introduce yourselves and tell us a little bit about your
experience with the sexual assault program, that would be very
helpful. I understand that you don't have a long testimony but
that you would just like to let us know where you fit into all
these pieces.
STATEMENT OF CAPT. DANIEL KATKA, SEXUAL ASSAULT RESPONSE
COORDINATOR, U.S. AIR FORCE
Captain Katka. Yes, ma'am, thank you.
Good morning. And thank you, Chairwoman Davis and
subcommittee members, for your interest in the issue of sexual
assault. My name is, as stated, Captain Daniel Katka, and I am
stationed at Lackland Air Force Base, San Antonio, Texas, where
I am honored to have the opportunity to be a sexual assault
response coordinator.
I have had the privilege to be in the Air Force for 20
years now. I enlisted in 1988 and commissioned in 2002. I have
served as a squadron section commander for large units, as a
military training flight commander for over 1,500 personnel.
And, in those duties, I dealt with numerous personnel issues,
to include sexual assault. Those experiences led to my desire
to become directly involved in the care and advocacy of sexual
assault survivors, for courageous people like Ms. Watterson.
Thank you for sharing.
In 2007, I was honored to be chosen as one of Lackland's
two SARCs. Supporting Lackland's sexual assault survivors is my
top priority. Air Force SARCs report directly to the
installation vice wing commander. And reporting to the vice
wing commander ensures top-level support and immediate access
when needed.
I also work directly with the Sexual Assault Response Team,
or the SART, comprised of first responders from the chaplaincy,
investigators, the Judge Advocate General (JAG), and the
medical communities. The SART team meets monthly to review
cases and discuss ways to improve response procedures.
I recruit, screen, train, and supervise 70 victim advocates
who are military and DOD civilian volunteers. Air Force victim
advocates receive 40 hours of training to provide immediate and
ongoing survivor support. Victim advocates and SART members are
trained to understand restricted and unrestricted reporting
options.
The local San Antonio civilian community is also involved
in supporting Lackland survivors. The local rape crisis center
works with our survivors who prefer to receive one-on-one or
group counseling off-base. We also have an outstanding
partnership with a local civilian hospital for survivors who
desire a sexual assault forensic exam. When utilizing the rape
crisis center or the local hospital, survivors' restricted
reporting option is still protected.
The majority of the reports made at Lackland are from
trainees, which encompasses the Air Force's youngest
demographic. Training is essential to informing Lackland's
nearly 50,0000 personnel about sexual assault. Lackland is the
Air Force's largest training base, with the only Air Force
basic military training center and numerous technical training
schools. Every basic trainee receives a four-hour sexual
assault awareness class. Airmen are presented an additional
two-hour follow-on class during the introductory week of their
technical school.
To ensure our permanent personnel receive necessary sexual
assault training, Lackland has over 200 sexual assault
prevention and outreach representatives who conduct briefings
and distribute awareness products.
The annual Sexual Assault Awareness Month also presents an
opportunity to educate the base. We have had numerous
activities to heighten awareness--base walks and runs targeting
the younger population; leadership luncheons; Take Back the
Night vigils; banner campaigns at base entrances; and
strategically placed information booths at highly frequented
locations, such as the Base Exchange.
The experiences I have had at Lackland prepared me for the
SARC mission abroad, as well. One of the most rewarding
opportunities I had was to deploy as a SARC in support of
Operations Iraqi and Enduring Freedom at Al Udeid Air Base in
Qatar. Most Air Force SARCs are DOD civilians, but, to ensure
contingency and deployment capability, 30 are military members.
In the area of responsibility (AOR), it is vital to have a
robust sexual assault training and awareness program to ensure
all know, regardless of military branch, that the SARC is there
to support them. With strong base leadership support, I
provided Sexual Assault Prevention and Response (SAPR)
information at weekly in-processing briefing, reinvigorated
monthly case review meetings, trained new SART members, and
started new awareness campaigns using base organizations such
as the Airman's Group, First Sergeants Association, and the
Desert Chiefs Group. I also supported Al Udeid's geographically
separated unit, Eskan Village in Saudi Arabia.
It is a profound privilege for me to be here today,
Chairwoman Davis. And it is very important that we have these
kinds of hearings, to keep our most important resource in the
forefront of our minds, and that is our human resource. Thank
you very much.
[The prepared statement of Captain Katka can be found in
the Appendix on page 61.]
Mrs. Davis. Thank you very much, Captain.
And if we can, as quickly as possible because we do have a
vote on and we want to hear from both of you quickly. And then
we will come back and have the questions.
STATEMENT OF SGT. FIRST CLASS MICHAEL HORWATH, SEXUAL ASSAULT
RESPONSE COORDINATOR AND VICTIM ADVOCATE, U.S. ARMY
Sergeant Horwath. Good morning, Chairwoman Davis,
Congressman Wilson, subcommittee members. I am Sergeant First
Class Michael Horwath. I have been in the Army for 22 years,
currently assigned to Fort Hood, Texas, with the Fourth
Infantry Division, Fourth Combat Aviation Brigade.
I have been working with the sexual assault program with
the Army since 2004, after graduating from the Defense Equal
Opportunity Management Institute, and I have been assigned to
Fort Hood as an equal opportunity advisor. At that time, the
program manager had mandated that all the equal opportunity
advisors would become a part of this program, either as a
victim advocate or a sexual assault response coordinator.
Having had close ties to a victim of sexual assault and having
a teenage daughter at the time, I was more than happy to step
up and become a part of this community.
We spent most of 2004 coming up with programs to push
awareness to the soldiers. We were using a draft copy of the
Army Regulation 600-20, Chapter 8, Army Command Guidance. We
pushed that as hard as we could, got the soldiers aware of the
program. We did a lot of sexual assault surveys to find out
what the awareness levels of the soldiers were.
In 2005, I deployed to Camp Taji, Iraq, where I was
assigned as the camp's sexual assault response coordinator. I
was responsible for 4 brigades, 52 tenant agencies. It was
double duty for me because most of the tenant agencies didn't
have victim advocates, so I was required to respond to as their
victim advocate. I was also required to respond for any sexual
assault on camp that was reported to an alternate agency.
Upon redeployment back to Fort Hood in November of 2006, I
started working hand in hand with the contracted civilian
Sexual Assault Response Team. I would fill in for them when
they needed SARC help, I would fill in for them when they
needed trainers, and I would work with them as a liaison
between the military commands and themselves.
In 2007, I was selected as a first sergeant to go be
redeployed to Camp Taji, Iraq; continued my collateral duty as
a SARC while I was over there this last time; returned in
November of this year and have continued working hand in hand
with the civilian team that works the Fort Hood sexual assault
response since then.
I have a 21-year-old daughter and a 19-year-old son, both
who are active-duty Army, both deployed right now. And I am
comforted and confident that this program is there for them;
that, if something as traumatic as a sexual assault was ever to
happen in their life, that this program that I have been a part
of for the last four years would be there to see them through,
to help them overcome the trauma that would take place in their
life and get them back to their day-to-day business of being
soldiers.
I want to thank you all for allowing me to be here today to
share my observations of how this program has evolved and grown
over the past four years. I am extremely proud of the
contributions I have been able to make with it, and I think it
will just continue to become a better and better thing to make
soldiers' lives easier when something as horrible as this
happens.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you very much.
And, Chief McKennie, we will come back to you, of course,
after we come back, but if you could give us a brief
introduction, that would be great.
STATEMENT OF CHIEF PETTY OFFICER TONYA D. MCKENNIE, VICTIM
ADVOCATE, U.S. NAVY
Chief Petty Officer McKennie. Good morning, Chairwoman
Davis, Ranking Member Wilson, and distinguished members of the
Military Personnel Subcommittee.
I am Navy Chief Petty Officer Tonya McKennie. I enlisted in
the Navy in 1988, and my rating is aviation electronics
technician. I am qualified as both an air warfare and surface
warfare specialist. And I am also married to a Navy chief, and
we reside with our son, Jeffrey Devonte, in Chula Vista,
California.
I currently serve as my command's training legal chief
petty officer for Fleet Logistics Support Squadron 30 at Naval
Air Station North Island, California. I also serve as the
command's sexual assault victim intervention advocate. The
program that we use in the Navy is called SAVI. It is spelled
S-A-V-I, and it stands for Sexual Assault Victim Intervention.
Throughout my 20-year Navy career, I have been assigned at
several duty stations, ranging from Florida; Maine; California;
Japan; Guantanamo Bay, Cuba; and I have deployed to Italy with
a U.S. Naval Patrol Squadron (VP), VP-11. My sea duty
assignments include Persian Gulf deployments onboard the USS
Kitty Hawk and USS Carl Vinson. In 2004, I reported to the USS
Ronald Reagan, where I not only served as a production control
maintenance chief for 350 technicians but also a sexual assault
victim intervention advocate.
After two successful deployments during Iraqi Freedom and
Enduring Freedom aboard the Ronald Reagan, I reported to my
current command. And I must say that, as I have continued to
work with SAVI, it has been one of the most rewarding aspects
of my Navy career. My work as a victim advocate has been
absolutely awesome, and I plan to continue this as long as I
can.
I thank you for the opportunity to share my experiences
with you today, and I look forward to your questions.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you very much. I appreciate all of you
being here.
We will return in probably about--we just have one vote, so
within 10 minutes.
Thank you very much.
[Recess.]
Mrs. Davis. I want to thank you all for being here. We are
going to go on the clock, essentially.
The members, we have five minutes to ask a question and
also to hear from you, and if possible, we may have an
opportunity to get into some exchange really. And I would
invite you all to chime in when you think it is appropriate.
Ms. Watterson, clearly the system did not keep you safe.
And I know that you believe it doesn't keep other members of
the military safe today either.
But the time that we are talking about was prior to some
new policies that had been in place and with the work that you
have done in your advocacy. I wonder if you could speak to a
few instances, perhaps, where you think the system today would
have served you better. And in those cases when you don't think
anything that has been done would really have made a
difference--I think you alluded to some of that in your
testimony--but if you could go back and talk to us a little bit
about that, that would be very helpful.
Ms. Watterson. Well, one big thing is the confidentiality
so that the victims do feel safe and able to tell them that,
you know, ``I have insomnia, I am,'' you know, ``throwing up
all the time, I am drinking a bottle of Jack Daniels a night.''
You know, all of that kind of stuff. They need to be able to
feel safe that they can tell someone about that so they can go
get treatment.
And in my experience with working with active duty and also
working with veterans recently, there is a big problem with
many, many, many bases and commanders who have tried to brush
off what the mandates and the laws are that have already been
put in place.
There is one commander, for example, who treated me like I
was an absolute idiot. He was completely cocky about the whole
thing. And I read off the mandates, like, this is what you
should be doing for your troops and you are not doing it at
all. And you are allowing other people--for example, I had one
that was a male victim of MST and they were not protecting him
as well. They were allowing people to walk by him and call him
a fag, they were allowing people to beat him up because they
were saying that he was a fag. He was being administered
psychiatric drugs by his peers and not a medical professional.
It was his peers. And he was still in training. He hadn't got--
it wasn't basic training but the training for his job; that was
where he was.
And it was--it was disgusting and it has been--I have had
to call the Inspector General (IG), and I asked these troops
and things like, ``Have you talked to your IG yet''?
``What is an IG?''
``Well, have you talked to your SARC yet?''
``I don't think so.''
And a lot of the SARCs, they have the initial meet and
``how are you doing'' and ``da, da, da'' and that is it. They
don't call to check up and see how you are doing and let us
make sure you get into the hospital and make sure your meds are
correct. Basically to take care of them, make them feel like
they have someone, because most of them, their families are
very far away. And especially in training they probably don't
have any friends either.
But that is a large thing.
The SARC needs to be able to have enough power to fight the
commander when the commanders are ignoring and basically
mocking the system that has supposedly been put in place. That
is a huge, huge problem.
Mrs. Davis. I would actually like to turn to our folks here
as well and see.
Could you respond and help us with that as well because I
think there is a big question of whether the SARC comes to a
commander and says, Listen, we have got a problem here and
nothing happens.
What kind of authority do you have to follow up?
Captain Katka. Yes, ma'am. We report directly. At my base
we report directly, and in the Air Force, to the vice wing
commander, essentially the second on the base, which helps
tremendously by the way.
And so we are able to kind of go and interact with
commanders, of course not tell them what they must do, but
recommend highly with the vice--their understanding that the
vice wing commander is who we report to. So it helps us
tremendously in advocating for the survivor and whatever her or
his needs are.
Sergeant Horwath. We are very similar, ma'am. We do a
monthly sexual assault review board, and we report everything
that goes on, that is involved in the program, goes to the
senior movement commander at whatever installation we happen to
be on. For me, that happens to be the division commander, and
it is reported up through there. And if there were any
instances of anything like that going on, it would immediately
come down. There is a lot of focus on command emphasis right
now.
Mrs. Davis. Quickly--I am out of time--I just want to get
your response quickly.
Chief Petty Officer McKennie. Well, the Navy where I am
affiliated in San Diego, all of our SARCs are civilian
personnel so they are not normally subject to military
intimidation and have free rein and have a lot of leeway in
being able to deal with any commanding officers and any
military personnel. So in my experience, we do not have that
problem.
Mrs. Davis. I think we will want to follow up with that a
little bit more and see how we might be able to hold them
accountable in a career sense as well.
Thank you.
Mr. Wilson.
Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and thank you all
for your service and past service.
Chief Petty Officer McKennie, I understand that the option
for restricted reporting for sexual assault may be encouraging
victims to come forward who in the past have been reluctant to
report. From your experience, do victims often change from a
restricted to an unrestricted report, and what factors would
enter in?
Chief Petty Officer McKennie. Ranking Member Wilson, sir, I
have not had any experience in dealing with any of the victims
that did desire a restricted report. However, for some
individuals who come out of restricted series to unrestricted
series, they have a year to decide by policy to come from
restricted to unrestricted, and any evidence that had been
gathered for them on their behalf during that time would be
available, sir.
Mr. Wilson. And again, thank you for your personal service.
It was very inspiring.
Sergeant Horwath, please walk us through how a victim
advocate and a Sexual Assault Response Coordinator provides
assistance to a victim once a victim requests help.
Sergeant Horwath. Sir, once we receive the initial report,
it will come up to the Sexual Assault Response Coordinator. We
immediately take the victim, and if they need immediate medical
attention, we take them to the medical care provider. Once we
get them there, the victim advocates will show up.
We work it so that the victim advocate in the Army, at
least, in my brigade and the division, we ensure that the
victim advocate is not from the same battalion as the victim in
case they do want to go restricted. Once we have got them
through the portion where they would make their choices of
whether they want to continue on with it and do a forensic exam
and so on, then it is a matter of the victim advocate is there
to be that person's go-to, the victim's go-to person. We ensure
that they go to their appointments. We ensure that they have a
battle buddy to get them where they need to be, and from there
it is just a matter of ensuring that they get counseling and
the treatment that they need. And we stay with them through it
until they come to us and ask us to no longer participate.
Mr. Wilson. And the person knows how to access you and the
team?
Sergeant Horwath. In a deployed environment, we make a
point of doing large campaigns. We will put up posters with the
sexual assault response team's photos on it; it will have the
SARC; it will have all of the victim advocates. We put them up
in the dining facilities. We put them up in the laundry area.
They are basically all over the camp so the folks know how to
get to us if they need to.
Mr. Wilson. Thank you very much. And Captain Katka, you
were deployed as a sexual response coordinator. How did you
ensure that the victim advocates available were trained in your
AOR?
Captain Katka. Yes, sir. In the Air Force, if you go
through victim advocacy training, you receive what is called a
special experience identifier in your personnel record, or
better known as SEI. So when a deployed person goes overseas or
SARC goes overseas, they can run--they can request that a
personnel record is run on the people on the base, and those
who have had that special experience identifier in their record
will be noted, and then that SARC will know that person is a
trained victim advocate.
Additionally, when a SARC goes into the AOR--or at least in
my experience, I also put a bulletin to the base: If there are
any experienced victim advocates here, trained victim
advocates, please come see me if you would like to serve, if
for some reason if their experience identified didn't get
updated in the system.
Mr. Wilson. As a former JAG officer, myself, in the
National Guard for 31 years, I am impressed with the ability to
have restricted and unrestricted reports. How do you find that
system working?
Captain Katka. It is working fantastic, in my opinion. Last
fiscal year 2008 we received 43 percent, in Lackland now, not
in the AOR. I had 43 percent of our cases were restricted
reporting cases. In the AOR, I had eight cases in four months,
and three of those were restricted. It worked fantastic to be
able to speak to a survivor and say, ``You think about what you
would like to do,'' and he or she--it brought them solace.
Mr. Wilson. I think it is very impressive to protect the
privacy of individuals, and so I want to commend you on your
helping to promote the policy and educate and inform the
personnel of the availability. So again, I am very grateful.
And respecting the chairwoman's five-minute strict rule, I
yield back.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you.
Dr. Snyder.
Dr. Snyder. Thank you, Mrs. Davis.
Ms. Watterson, I missed the year, the date of the incident
that led to all of the problems that you have had, that you
described for us today.
Ms. Watterson. What was the last part you said?
Dr. Snyder. I missed the date of the incident that led to
the discussion that you gave us. What was the year or date of
the assault?
Ms. Watterson. Oh, of my assault? I just remember it was in
2001. And I only remember that because it happened before
September 11th. It was a good year.
Dr. Snyder. Sergeant First Class Horwath, you mentioned
Taji, and it has been several years since I have been there,
but it is a bit like a boomtown, all kinds of personnel coming
through, multiple services, even different nationalities of
services, lots of private contractors, civilian local workers.
How does this system work in that kind of environment?
Sergeant Horwath. The system, as for how well it works, it
works fantastic. The process of the system is the report comes
in, goes to the Sexual Assault Response Coordinator, is
delegated down to a victim advocate for the advocacy portion.
The SARC would then report up to the next level, which for me
at Taji would have been Multinational Division Baghdad and then
goes to Multinational Forces Iraq where it is put into the
database.
Dr. Snyder. Can an Air Force personnel end up with an Army
advocate?
Sergeant Horwath. It is possible, sir. I would not turn
anyone down for advocacy. I advocated for civilians, military,
male, female, contractors.
Dr. Snyder. Tell me about the contractors. How did that
work?
Sergeant Horwath. With the contractors, the way we worked--
and this is from my personal experience--was we gave them
advocacy service, got them to the counselors because they fall
under the program for all medical and processing while they are
over there.
Dr. Snyder. So if something happened to them at Taji, and
so they come and see you or one of----
Sergeant Horwath. Yes, sir. They will come to us. We were
fortunate in that the agency they were contracted to also had a
program internally. So we achieved the advocacy portion for the
victim, and then the contractor processed it once the victim
was comfortable with going back.
Dr. Snyder. Have you ever been aware of situations where a
higher ranking officer than the three of you sent down word
of--to change your normal kind of process or procedure with
regard to a specific individual who makes an allegation of
sexual assault?
Sergeant Horwath. No, sir. I am not.
Dr. Snyder. Does your system, as it is working now, which
you think is working very well, does it have those kinds of
protections in it if you have got--does somebody have the
ability to order you to back off?
Sergeant Horwath. Starting at the division up to the core,
at each echelon there is a program manager. If I felt I was
being pressured in any way by a senior level commander, I would
go to the program manager, and it would be pushed up to the
next echelon as high as it needed to go.
Dr. Snyder. Captain and Chief Petty Officer, do you want to
respond to that question?
Captain Katka. I have not received any pressure to reveal
any kind of information or change procedures from a command. I
think the closest I could maybe give an example of is one time
a colonel was wondering about a case, and I said, ``Sir, do you
have the need to know?'' And he goes, ``You know what? You are
right. I don't have the need to know.'' And it was as simple as
that. He knew exactly what the policy was.
Chief Petty Officer McKennie. I can also comment on the
same, sir. I have not received any pressure. I have had an
incident where I was asked for information and I immediately
responded it was--they were not on the ``need to know'' list
and I immediately talked with my Sexual Assault Response
Coordinator and received no other problems after that.
Dr. Snyder. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you.
Mr. Jones.
Ms. Bordallo.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman. I
appreciate your leadership, and I look forward to working with
you on this subcommittee this term.
I want to say I appreciate the testimony from all of our
witnesses this morning, particularly to you, Ms. Watterson. It
takes a great deal of courage to come to testify before Members
of the U.S. Congress on a situation like you went through. And
I want to thank you for your advocacy work. There is no better
advocacy experience than to be a victim yourself. And I am sure
you will find that out as you go along your way in this
direction.
I would like to direct my question to any one of the sexual
assault response coordinators. I believe that you are all
active duty, but I am wondering how this system of coordinators
works for members in the National Guard. Have you heard any
stories from colleagues about implementation in the National
Guard? Oftentimes the support systems are designed for active
duty without thought of the Guards.
So I will begin with you, Captain.
Captain Katka. Well, ma'am, I can't speak for the Air
Force, of course. I do know that if a survivor, if someone is
in the National Guard and they are on orders, they receive all
of the same exact care in regards to the restricted reporting
that an active duty member would there on orders.
But in terms of the Guard and what their way ahead is and
things like that, I don't know if I can speak officially to
that other than to say that I believe--and you may qualify this
in future panels with future leaders--I believe that there is a
Guard, a separate Guard SARC course to respond to those.
Ms. Bordallo. Sergeant.
Sergeant Horwath. Ma'am, I have personally been involved
with training the National Guard SARC at Fort Hood a couple of
times when they come in to processing through for deployment.
They go through the exact same sexual assault response
coordinator's course and unit victim advocates course that
active duty soldiers do.
Chief Petty Officer McKennie. I have not had any personal
experience with working with National Guard. There is a
community solutions, a civilian component available in
California that I could refer them to if I could not provide
any assistance to them.
Ms. Bordallo. Well, I feel if there are any rules or
regulations in place at this current time that we have to
include the National Guard. They are out there fighting with us
shoulder-to-shoulder. So I would be interested to hear about
programs and see that they are getting the same treatment.
To all of the witnesses, from your experiences, what
lessons learned can and should be applied to improve sexual
assault victims' support in the military?
Are all of the rules now from Ms. Watterson, from the time
she was in, apparently there weren't all of these rules and
regulations. Now many new ones are in place. Are they enough or
do you see anything that should be included?
Captain Katka. Well, ma'am, there is always room for
improvement, to be sure. And although we have come a long ways
from the time of Ms. Watterson, I do believe that we have work
to do. Perhaps--and this is from my experience and again, maybe
future panels may be able to answer this better than a layman's
position in regards to the legal issues. When a victim comes
forward in an unrestricted setting where he or she says, You
know what? I want to go forward. I want an investigation,
whatever. They sign the paper.
Unfortunately, it is tough, as we all know, for a survivor
to come forward and go through the litany of interviews. It is
estimated that 25 to 35 times from start to finish through
court and such you will have to tell your story. That is
extremely draining and perhaps retraumatizing and
revictimizing.
In that setting, right now it is difficult once that ball
gets rolling for that survivor to say, You know what? I want to
stop. I am tired. I don't want to do this, family issues, as we
heard from Ms. Watterson, and what have you.
And again, I wish I had solutions. You know, we are taught
in the military to come with a problem and a solution--and
this, again, maybe this should go to other panels with regards
to legal. So that can be an issue because there have been times
in my personal experience where an individual originally had
signed under restricted and then later on as they go through it
is tough on them saying I really wish I could put the brakes on
it, and it can be difficult.
Ms. Bordallo. So that is understandable. So this happens
not just in the military but in other cases as well. But you do
feel there could be improvement.
Sergeant, do you have any comments to make on that?
Sergeant Horwath. Ma'am, I believe it is an ever-evolving
thing that we are working with. The Army, in my personal
experience, a lot of programs focus, and re-focus. This program
will do the same, and it will continue to do that and focus in
the areas as I have seen it do already. When we find something
that is lacking, we change focus and attack that also. And I
believe this program will continue to do the same.
Chief Petty Officer McKennie. The Sexual Assault Victim
Intervention Program in the Navy has afforded me a great
opportunity to be very successful in supplying the support and
guidance for those victims that I have dealt with. It is a good
solid program. But as other programs, it is always evolving,
and there are more things to come. I am sure of that.
But as in use right now, it has really afforded me a great
opportunity to--and the resources that are available under this
program have been supreme in the recovery and restoration of
many victims that I have worked with.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you very much. I hope as we go forward
when the rules and regulations are in place that we perform
them in the strictest ways.
Mrs. Davis. Mr. Rooney.
Mr. Rooney. Madam Chairman, first of all, I want to say to
Ms. Watterson, you know, I was nervous for you when you
testified. I think you showed a lot of courage. And as a former
prosecutor at the Federal level and State level in Florida and
as a former judge advocate, your testimony here--and I know
everybody agrees with me, and I know you have probably heard
this a million times already today in coming up here--it is so
vitally important that you continue to tell your story and, you
know, try to pave the way for in the future so other victims
don't have to deal with what you are having to deal with. So I
thank you for that, and I really appreciate your testimony here
today.
My question as a former judge advocate in the 1st Cavalry
Division at Fort Hood, Texas, what is the process, just for the
good of the group here, with regard to a situation like Ms.
Watterson went through and coordination with the military
police (MPs) and with the judge advocates, staff judge advocate
and we are sort of looking at the other end of this spectrum.
What is supposed to happen to the person who commits the
assault? And I know in your story, obviously, it didn't work
the way it was supposed to work. But with regard to the
branches sitting at the table, what coordination do you all do
with the military police and the staff judge advocate in a
normal case?
Chief Petty Officer McKennie. That is a very good question,
Congressman Rooney.
In the Navy as an advocate when I am dealing with a victim,
my first and sole duty, of course, is to advocate for the
victim. So the only interaction that I would ever have on
behalf of the victim is to just put--be there for support and
guidance while they are doing any interviews or going through
the process, the legal process that they need to go through.
So my interaction is solely focused on the victim
themselves. So no dealings with the perp. Not my concern. My
concern is that victim, and that is who I am there for.
Sergeant Horwath. Speaking from personal experience, as a
victim advocate against the same thing as CPO McKennie said, I
focus on the victim as a Sexual Assault Response Coordinator.
It is my job to have coordination with the JAG, the MPs. It is
a point of the training that I go through. It is a point of
something I have to do every time I set up a new sexual assault
response team. I have to make those contacts, and I have to be
able to receive that information. And I will be the one as the
Sexual Assault Response Coordinator who will back-brief the
victim on any information that is passed back to me through the
JAG office, the Criminal Investigation Division (CID) office,
the MP office. And it all comes through me as the SARC and will
go directly to the victim from there. And I have never had any
contention whatsoever with any of the agencies that I have
worked with.
Captain Katka. Sir, in the law enforcement realm, there are
checklists. If a survivor would present themselves or a case
would be, you know, investigated, there is a checklist for the
investigator in security forces to call the SARC. We are
actually on the top line. They would call us. We would ask them
to not interview that survivor until our victim advocate gets
there so that they can--have solace to know that somebody is
there with them.
In terms of the legal sides of it, the Air Force assigns
what is called a victim/witness assistance program
representative. That person is a liaison to tell that survivor
everything that is going to happen should this go to court, or
if it doesn't, what would it look like if the commander is
going to assign judgment or punishment to the perpetrator or
what have you.
So that person is assigned to that survivor specifically.
And myself, as the coordinator, is intimately involved with
that victim witness program representative. So we kind of form
this kind of hug, if you well, with this survivor so he or she
is fully aware of everything that is going on.
Mrs. Davis. Ms. Sanchez.
Ms. Sanchez. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
As you know, we have been working on this issue for so many
years now, and I think a lot of the task forces and the changes
in the law, I hope, are helping. But I continue to receive
information from victims and from people in the forefront that
with respect to having somebody there in the field with
everybody, that it is different between the services.
For example, with respect to the Navy, I think you all sort
of move around in a grouping and you get on a ship and you are
there for however many days, 90 days, 3 months, what have you.
So everybody sort of understands who the person is that is kind
of in charge of taking care of things if some victim should
emerge and everybody knows who to go to and you have the
support system to help with that.
But for example, with the Army, in particular, if someone
is in combat, in the combat zone, let us say Iraq, we are
filling positions with reservists, with National Guard, with
pieces of volunteers from other units, that it is not
necessarily true that an advocate is stationed or in a zone
with a particular person. It is not that well known who that
person would be or there is not that much emphasis placed on it
because you are in a war zone, and other things are going on.
So I would like to get some comment in particular from you,
the Army, as to what are the challenges with respect to having
these special advocates or special counselors assigned. What is
the commitment to that? What could we do better to ensure that
if someone is in Iraq--because we have had--I think now I want
to say almost 600 reported assaults in Iraq or more at this
point, the last number I checked. Given the difficulties of
Afghanistan or Iraq, in particular, how are you coping with
that and what are the mechanisms or the procedures you have
used to identify that, the fact there is somebody to turn to if
an assault takes place?
Sergeant Horwath. Ma'am, I can only speak with my personal
experiences working with the 4th Infantry Division. The policy
is in place. There will be two unit victim advocates per
battalion and a SARC for every brigade. When we deploy out, the
SARC is the one who oversees the program. I have had several
small units that have detached and gone on to different forward
operating bases (FOBs) where they were away. I make it a point
of my job as the SARC to contact whatever group is running that
and find out who their victim advocate is and making sure that
the chain of command and the soldiers are aware of it.
Again, we do poster campaigns. We put it out as much as we
possibly can. I can't make a soldier come forward and report,
but I can definitely throw it in their face if there is someone
available for them.
Ms. Sanchez. What is the mix going on with respect to the
Air Force in this? Because again, I think I am more familiar
with--the Navy is more stable in respect to that. What do you
see in the Air Force happening?
Captain Katka. With respect to advocacy in the AOR, ma'am?
Ms. Sanchez. Yes. Down all the way to the airman or
airwoman who might be involved.
Captain Katka. Yes, ma'am.
There is a challenge, I will admit to you, in the forward
operating bases. The GSUs, the Geographically Separated Units,
and I will speak to that experience.
Ms. Sanchez. And that is what I would like to hear about
and any comments you might have as to how we might make it
better.
Captain Katka. I will try.
In the base I was at, we had victim advocates without
problem because it was such a large installation. But I also
supported the geographically separated unit in Saudi Arabia. I
think perhaps about 300 airmen were on that Army installation.
So victim advocacy--the spirit behind the victime advocate
program is volunteerism, all right, to keep people who really
have a passion for this program to ensure those are the people
who are serving us not for a performance report rating or what
have you.
So when we set up the GSU or when the GSU is there, if we
don't have any volunteer victim advocates, it can be difficult
to fill that victim advocate slot over there. We don't assign.
We don't make people do victim advocates in the Air Force.
What I did when I was over there before I left is I found
out a month or two prior to me leaving who was going to be
coming into that GSU, and I found out people's names, very
frankly. And I called back to those bases and I asked them or I
asked the SARC, ``Could you ask those people if they would like
to volunteer to be a victim advocate in that arena.''
Fortunately, it worked out. We got three or four victim
advocates for that GSU in the next rotation. And I have made up
a continuity binder for my successor to understand this is what
I did. I highly encourage you to do the same. And that is how
we began.
Ms. Sanchez. Do you see that the volunteers--because this
is based on volunteer. Do you see that it is mostly women
stepping forward to volunteer?
Captain Katka. Yes. At Lackland on my main base, we have
approximately 65 to 70 victim advocates. We have about 15 that
are male.
Mrs. Davis. Ms. Fallin.
Ms. Fallin. I, too, appreciate your coming to testify. It
has been very interesting. Madam Chair and I were co-chairs in
the Women in Military Task Force, so we appreciate having
another hearing on this important issue.
Ms. Watterson, I appreciate your testimony today, and I
know it is very difficult to come forward but just would like
to encourage you to keep telling your story so you can help
other women as they go through this process, and hopefully your
healing will continue to carry forth.
I had a question for you. After listening to all of the
testimony today by various officials and our victim advocates,
do you feel like since your incident in 2001 that we have made
progress in the military in establishing procedures and
advocates and programs that you would find today more helpful
than what was available to you back then?
Ms. Watterson. To be honest, no. I have seen a lot of new
mandates and a lot of new, you know, whatever, but the fact is
that the majority of what I have seen and dealt with and heard
from other survivors is that nothing has changed. They are
still using the McDowell checklist, which basically they can
turn it around and make it look like the person is lying. And
so someone who comes forward and wants to report it could be
charged with conduct unbecoming, filing false charges, and if
either the victim or rapist or assaulter is married, they can
be charged with adultery.
That is a big reason why people do not come forward. And
other women will see what happens to one woman about what
happens about them, basically getting their lives torn apart
just because they went forward and asked for help. They get
stalked by the friends of the perpetrator. I don't see any
change.
Ms. Fallin. I appreciate those comments, and I hope the men
and lady here will listen to those comments and hopefully make
improvements on that.
But the one I have been listening to, I feel like there has
been progress made. And I appreciate the steps that you have
taken in your various divisions, but I do want to ask some of
the things that she brought up earlier today.
She talked about if someone has been accused of sexual
assault or rape that they might be moved to another military
base. Is that what I was understanding you to say earlier?
Ms. Watterson. They have the option of either changing
jobs, changing bases, and they also have the ability to get out
of the military on an administrative discharge.
Ms. Fallin. You were saying that the files do not follow
them. If I could ask you to comment on that, on the procedures,
that if someone is accused of assault and if there has been
something that has happened, do you move them to another base?
Does their file follow them, or what is their procedure in
that?
Chief Petty Officer McKennie. Yes, Congresswoman Fallin.
In the cases that I have dealt with of victims, there has
been an opportunity for either to be moved. In some cases that
I have dealt with as a victim advocate when I have made the
needs and wants of the victims that I have been dealing with
known, they have had an opportunity to being moved to a
different department or division away from the perpetrator. In
other instances, the perpetrator has been moved off the
facility completely.
It is always, in my experience in dealing with the victims
I have worked with, it has always been the command's intent to
make the victim as comfortable and be supportive as they
possibly could.
Ms. Fallin. Let me ask you about that real quick. So you
are saying that the victim can request to be moved during the
process of determining guilt or the other person accused could
be moved?
Chief Petty Officer McKennie. I apologize, ma'am.
I make those needs and wants made available to the Sexual
Assault Response Coordinator, and they make a recommendation to
the command. It is an opportunity to them available. However,
the command does have final approval over who will be moved.
Ms. Fallin. So it is optional. And the reason I ask--and I
see the Lauterbachs are here and I had an opportunity to meet
with Mrs. Lauterbach on her daughter's case where she lost her
life because she and her accused were kept in the same
battalion, if I remember right; and that wasn't moved and she
ended up losing her life. And so it is an important point that
we do all that we can to separate the victim and the accused.
And I know everybody has the right to due process, to be found
guilty or not guilty. But if there is a situation where the
accused feels like their life is threatened--excuse me, the
victim, I should say--they should have those options of being
moved.
Let me ask you about the sexual assault.
Mrs. Davis. We going to come back and have another round.
Thank you very much.
Ms. Shea-Porter.
Ms. Shea-Porter. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
I want to follow up on that very question that the
Congresswoman asked because when I was hearing about what
happened to the victim, I kept wondering what was happening to
the alleged perpetrator. So what I heard on that testimony,
that it is not necessarily so that the alleged perpetrator is
removed.
And I also wonder about the damage for the victim losing--
having to be the one to request the transfer, losing the
friends, the security and the comfort of the job, the
familiarity of the routine and allowing the perpetrator to stay
in place.
So I wanted to ask that question also. Is this something
that the commander must do, or is it still optional? I know
that you probably recommend that they be separated. But I
didn't quite understand what actually does happen. Is there
something in stone, something codified that says this is what
they have to do, they have to be separated? And who leaves? Is
it up to the victim about whether he or she stays and the
alleged perpetrator has to leave?
Could you go a little bit further on that? And I think,
Captain, if you will tell me what happens in the Air Force,
please.
Captain Katka. Let me speak to a recent case.
Recently--and I won't speak in specifics because it is
still going on--a young lady presented and she asked that she
be removed as the survivor. She is the survivor. As the Sexual
Assault Response Coordinator in concert with the mental health
provider, we were both able to write letters recommending to
her functioning community that she go to a base of her choice
to be around family members for support.
And so she got what was called a humanitarian reassignment.
And it was all predicated on her assault.
Now, in other instances, I work in a training base and so
there are training units where men and women obviously are
together. And if there is an assault, and we will use a male-
female, a male assaulting a lady, there will be an automatic
``no contact'' order given. Now as a SARC, I can't--I am not an
authority in terms of this is what will happen. I am only a
recommender. I am a liaison to the command. I help the command
understand the survivor's situation, their mental well-being
and things of what is important.
So I recommend to them the no contact order, but it is just
automatic that the survivor--or excuse me, the offender will be
moved from that squadron into another squadron.
It is hard to move perpetrators because they need to stay,
often, to be brought up on charges, so on and so forth, at the
base that they are assigned to. And quite honestly, in my
experience, the victims have always wanted to be the ones to be
moved in terms of the permanent party division so they could be
around other families members at other continental United
States (CONUS) locations. So I hope that helps.
Ms. Shea-Porter. But ultimately it still is not a rule. It
is a recommendation. And you hope they act upon their
recommendation.
Captain Katka. Ultimately, but future panels may help you
understand that better.
Ms. Shea-Porter. And Sergeant, do you have anything to add
to that? What is your experience where you are, please?
Sergeant Horwath. For the Army, there is an automatic flag
placed on the perpetrator, which means they cannot move just
because of the difficulty it would make in going forward with
the prosecution if you moved the perpetrator around. It is
optional for the victim. If they would like to be moved, we
work with them. We work with the command as much as possible
and we will move them around. I have never been refused to move
a victim. It has always been made available.
With the exception of redeployment, we will move them
within theater if they are over in Iraq or Afghanistan. They
have moved them around, but they don't redeploy them
automatically.
But the flag stands for the perpetrator to ensure the
individual is there to be investigated and put through the
processes that have to come forward.
Ms. Shea-Porter. Sergeant, I want to ask you, I realize you
have different sets of circumstances, but the rate of rape
continues--at least reported rape--continues to climb in spite
of these programs, and the Army has a much more significant
problem than, say, the Navy does. And to what do you attribute
that, and can you tell me that when recruits come into the
Army, are they allowed to have anything on their record
whatsoever that would suggest that he or she could be a risk to
other troops?
Sergeant Horwath. Ma'am, I have never ever been a
recruiter. I am not aware of anything that would be looked at.
I have no knowledge of that.
My personal belief on the reason that you are seeing higher
number of reports is because the program is working. The
soldiers are being made aware of the program, they know that we
are there to help them, and they are coming forward in higher
numbers and reporting situations that may have gone non-
reported for a number of years.
Ms. Shea-Porter. So you think there is a higher reporting
of rape, Captain?
Captain Katka. Yes, ma'am. I think it may sound
contradictory, but I think it is a good story. I think the
higher our rates go up, we hope--and it is anecdotal, of
course--but we hope it is because young men and women are
feeling more comfortable to come forward so obviously the
numbers would be higher.
Ms. Shea-Porter. Same to you, Petty Officer.
Chief Petty Officer McKennie. I believe that the training
that the Navy provides and the continuous training that we do
every year, it does instill a confidence in our sailors to come
forward and report any type of sexual assault.
Ms. Shea-Porter. Ms. Watterson, do you feel the same? Let
me thank you for being here and sharing your story. Do you
agree with that that we have better reporting now?
Ms. Watterson. From what I have seen and what I have dealt
with honestly, I don't think so. I don't--I just don't think
so.
Ms. Shea-Porter. That is the purpose of the committee, to
keep looking.
Mrs. Davis. Ms. Tsongas.
Ms. Tsongas. Thank you all. I appreciate very much your
testimony, Ms. Watterson. As others have said, it has taken
great courage, and we learned very much from it.
Among other things, I think it reminds us, one, the assault
in and of itself is horrible but our response to it can really
aggravate that circumstance and how important it is, as we go
forward, that we recognize our obligation to put in place
mechanisms that have real teeth.
One of the things as I listened that I am concerned about
is the chain of command structure in the military works to our
advantage in many instances, but it seems to me that in this
area it is one which really works against our being able to
respond in a way that is truly meaningful.
So I have just a couple of questions.
In terms of the reported assaults, do you keep any track of
how often the assault is by a superior? I know that in the
military academies, for instance, we heard reports of one upper
classman, one class up could make a difference in a woman's
willingness to report it, take it on in some way.
So do you keep track, you know, keep records of how often
it is a superior of any kind that is involved in assault as a
perpetrator?
Captain Katka. Yes, ma'am. We have in our tracking database
ranks of both the subject and the survivor so we know exactly
what the rank breakout is.
Ms. Tsongas. Can you quantify percentages at all?
Captain Katka. I would say approximately the survivors'
status is--73 percent of the survivors are about E-1s through
E-3s, and then the offender status is 54 percent E-1 through E-
3. So obviously the leftover would obviously be of the higher
rank of the E-3.
Ms. Tsongas. That would be how much? My math isn't great.
Captain Katka. I am not good at public math either.
Ms. Tsongas. How about for you?
Sergeant Horwath. Ma'am, the Army uses a self-reporting
system. All sexual assaults that are reported goes into one
database, so they do have it available. It does have the rank
of the alleged victim and of the perpetrator, so it is tracked
throughout the Army. As far as statistics, I do not have any
available with me.
[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix
on page 91.]
Ms. Tsongas. I would like to see those, if possible.
How about the Navy?
Chief Petty Officer McKennie. As an advocate, I do not
track members, and the Sexual Assault Response Coordinators
track and keep files of any victims that happen in our area. I
am not aware of any formula or percentage data that they have
available to them.
Ms. Tsongas. If there is any way of getting that data, I
would appreciate it.
[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix
on page 91.]
Ms. Tsongas. The other question I have is I happened to
attend a session last year for those who are returning, wounded
warriors who are returning, and happened to go over and speak
to some of the women, several of whom who had been victims of
sexual assault although that was not why they were in this
setting. And one of them did comment to me that while she was
in Iraq she felt more afraid of her fellow soldiers than she
did of the enemy. So that told me that we have a serious
problem, especially in the theater of war, and that whatever we
are doing clearly to deal with the victim, those who are
victimized, we really haven't put in place sufficient
mechanisms to sort of alert women, help them figure out self-
defense mechanisms to empower them in some way as we go
forward. And I think that is particularly important in the
chain of command context. That is just a statement.
I am wondering what you all have as leverage with your
commanders if they refuse to take action after you have gone up
the chain of command in reporting what you think should be
appropriate action. If they do nothing, what can you do?
Captain Katka. Could you explain the nothing? Nothing
against the perpetrator? Nothing to help the survivor?
Ms. Tsongas. Maybe against the perpetrator.
So, for example, the story of the soldier who gets promoted
in the face of your reporting, but what you can do to have a
commander take this very seriously?
Captain Katka. What we could do is--what we would do is we
would interact with that commander, and obviously that
commander would be aware of what happened.
Now, I should point out that the interaction with
commanders for a Sexual Assault Response Coordinator is going
to be with the survivor's commander primarily. It wouldn't be
with the perpetrator's. We are very survivor centric. We are
victim centric. So everything that supports her, that is what
we would take care of.
In terms of the perpetrator's commander, admittedly very
little interaction.
But to help the survivor, obviously we would ensure that we
would talk with our vice wing commander if necessary. That is
base level commander, and we would bring it up to his attention
to see if he needed more mentoring, if you will, from one
commander to another.
I hope that helps.
Mrs. Davis. Mr. Johnson.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I applaud you for
holding this hearing today on this very important subject.
Ms. Watterson, I want to convey to you my deep respect for
having the courage to take on this kind of cause and to share
your experience publicly.
And every one of you at the table, I want to thank you for
your service to the Nation.
I will say, being--my background is in law. I have
practiced law for 27 years. Most of that time I was a criminal
defense lawyer, but also for 12 years of that time I was a
magistrate court judge. And I find that it is bad when we have
a culture in the military of ``boys will be boys'' kind of, and
so there is not a real serious investigatory effort. And I know
that that culture is changing, as it should.
But I would hope that we would also keep in mind that some
complaints of sexual assault are unmerited. And so therefore
when we talk in terms of the victim, the perpetrator, the
survivor, depending on what phase of the process that we are
in, if it is pre-trial or pre-disposition, I think probably a
better language would be the ``accused'' and the ``accuser''
instead of assuming that the accused is guilty by calling him
or her the ``perpetrator.''
Now aside from that, I do think that in the civilian world
a deterrent for people committing sexual assault crimes is a
vigorous law enforcement approach which begins, of course, when
there is a call to the law enforcement agency; and most law
enforcement agencies in the civilian world in a large
department will have a sexual assault investigatory team.
And I would like to know whether or not when a complaint is
made, is it an untrained MP--untrained in sexual assault
investigation techniques--that is brought to the scene, or is
it someone who has been trained specifically to investigate
these kinds of issues, collect evidence, crime scene unit. You
know, how do we do that? Protocols for doctors. Are medical
doctors trained to investigate or from a medical perspective
and preserve evidence and document things?
I mean, is that something that people are trained in? And
in terms of chain of custody issues of the, say, rape kit, you
know. Are there protocols for passing those on up the chain?
If we have a vigorous, well-trained enforcement and
investigatory apparatus, what is your opinion as to that issue?
And I know you all get the cases--well, you get the case at
some point after a complaint is made. Tell me how you get that
case, how does it come to you?
And then Captain Katka, you mentioned something about you
ask that no one talk to the survivor first without you being
the one or your office being the one to speak with the
complainant. Can you explain the reasons why and whether or not
that includes the police investigating the matter first with a
exposure to the complainant?
Captain Katka. Yes, sir. The reason that we want to ensure
that we get to speak with the survivor first is, first of all,
remember the restricted and unrestricted reporting options. We
don't know what she had said or he had said at this point. So
to preserve her privacy or his privacy, to get to them to help
them understand the reporting option is key to understand that.
Mrs. Davis. I am sorry. I am going to have to cut you off
because I have been cutting everybody else after five minutes.
Mr. Johnson, we will come back on another round, and we will
have some more time, I think, for additional answers.
Thank you.
Mr. Turner.
Mr. Turner. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Ms. Watterson, I also want to, as everyone has, thank you
so much for what you have done. Coming forward, I know, has to
be incredibly difficult. Your story is very moving. But what is
important is you are bringing light really to an issue in a
process that is really about people. It is about people like
yourself, and we can't make it right if we don't know what the
problems are; and your doing that makes a difference for
others, and hopefully it makes a difference for you.
I have with me today--I want to tell you also, Ms.
Watterson, that I agree with your comment that we don't have it
right yet. It is not fixed. And that is why this committee--and
I want to thank the Chair for undertaking this issue. We know
this does not just happen in 2001, but as many members have
said, this is an ongoing issue and we don't have it right.
I have with me today Mary Lauterbach. She is the mother of
Maria Lauterbach, who was a Marine who, upon coming forward
with an allegation of rape, was subsequently murdered, and that
was in 2007. And in working with the Lauterbach family, we have
basically seen that there are two different types of issues we
have to deal with. There is the cultural issue--and it is a
strong cultural issue that needs to be addressed in the
military with the issue of this being acceptable and the issue
of the treatment, how sexual assault victims are treated.
The second is our rules and regulations, what the processes
that we go through. And there are some things that we find
along the way that need to be changed. For example, from the
Lauterbach case, two things that we just changed in the last
National Defense Authorization Act applied to protective orders
because in Maria Lauterbach's case, her protective order was
allowed to lapse. So we changed that in the last law so that
now will be permanent. And also the local authorities knew
nothing of the protective order so that when she was off base
they had no idea that there was an issue that was ongoing, and
that has been changed in the last act that we did.
But we need to learn more of these things and more
culturally. And I want to thank Madam Chairman for undertaking
this. I know she has met with Mary Lauterbach, and I want to
thank Jane Harman for her work on this. She has met with Mary
Lauterbach, and we appreciate your advocacy on this.
Now getting to that issue, we have two--we have culture and
we have rules and regulations. I have two separate sets of
questions for representatives of the military.
I want to set this up by telling you that after Mary
Lauterbach and she had the detailed report from the base as to
their description of what had happened to Maria, the family was
very concerned because it appeared that the base was saying
that we had no knowledge that there was any risk to Maria, that
in fact because they had no knowledge there was no protection
that needed to occur.
So from my office, I inquired, asking the Marines to
explain to me how they could have no notice that someone is at
risk when they are coming forward with an allegation of rape.
And I know you are very familiar that the safety of the victim
is very important. And I want to read to you part of the
response that I got because I want to get your thoughts on it
because it was very repugnant to me.
When I got this response from the Marines, I thought it
went right to the culture. And this letter is dated March 31st,
2008, and it is from Lieutenant General Kramlich, and I asked
this question:
Doesn't a rape accusation inherently contain an element of
force or threat?
And then they go on in their answer to relate that
according to their information, there were two sexual contacts:
one being alleged rape, one being consent. And then they write
this sentence, which I would like you to respond to. It says,
``Lauterbach never alleged any violence or threat of violence
in either sexual encounter.''
Now, I don't know how there could be a rape where there is
not an allegation of violence or threat of violence. And that
was my reaction, and it has been the reaction of the members
that I have read this to.
And I am certain that as you advocate for victims, you run
into cultural issues and responses like this, which I happen to
have from the Marines in writing.
Could you each please respond what your thoughts are when
you hear someone say that there was never alleged any violence
or threat of violence in relationship to a rape?
Mrs. Davis. This is to your personal experience. You are
not representing the services here.
Captain Katka. If I understand you correctly, just because
there was no physical force, then there wasn't a rape. Is that
a simple way of----
Mr. Turner. No, they are acknowledging that there was a
rape. But, see, the question that we had is there was a rape
and that we believed that the victim, Maria Lauterbach, was
therefore at risk for future violence. She'd come forward with
the allegation of rape. And so we were inquiring, because there
was a rape, didn't you know that there was a threat of
violence? And they wrote back and said that Lauterbach never
alleged any violence or threat of violence in either sexual
encounter, meaning, of course, referring to the rape itself.
That the rape itself did not include an allegation of violence
or threat of violence.
And that is just so shocking to me, and I would think it
would be in your experience. And this is--again, this is dated
March 31st, 2008, from Lieutenant General Kramlich, U.S. Marine
Corps.
What are your thoughts?
Captain Katka. Well, in regards to--I notice the time going
down, ma'am.
Mrs. Davis. Right. Your time is essentially up. But can you
quickly respond to his question?
Captain Katka. That astonishes me, too. I don't know how
much quicker I need to be.
Sergeant Horwath. The same, astonished that someone would
make that remark.
Chief Petty Officer McKennie. It is an unfortunate remark;
and a victim of sexual assault is that, a victim of sexual
assault, regardless of what anyone thinks. As an advocate, and
that is what I advocate for for that victim.
Mr. Turner. Madam Chair, thank you for the extra time for
them to finish.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you.
Ms. Harman.
Ms. Harman. I thank you, Madam Chair and the members of the
committee, for welcoming me back.
As you know, I served on this committee for six years. One
of the members at the time was Pete Geren from Texas, who is
now the Secretary of Army and who is taking an extraordinary
leadership role on this issue. I want to commend him in
absentia but also want to commend the Army's representative for
what you are trying to do.
I want to repeat something from Ms. Watterson's testimony.
I don't think it was in her written testimony.
She said, ``Where is the safety? I felt as though I was
entering a band of brothers. I was then an outcast, virtually
alone.''
I can't imagine a better summary. And I just want to say to
you, Ms. Watterson, and I certainly want to say to the
Lauterbach family, America failed you, the military failed you,
and Congress failed you. And it is past time to get this right.
This is an epidemic.
A woman in the military is more likely to be raped by a
fellow soldier than killed by enemy fire in Iraq. I have said
this before. It is still true. And I am glad that we are
working on victim care, but what we need to work on more is
prevention. And that is why Mr. Turner and I reintroduced our
joint resolution. And that is why I hope, Madam Chair, that
this committee will move on to adopt this resolution, which
calls on the military to develop an effective strategy for
investigation and prosecution of these crimes.
These are not just crimes against individuals. These are
crimes that impair our national security. And so I hope in the
30 seconds I have left that I can just make the point that I
don't want any more women or men who are victims of these
crimes to be virtually alone, to feel that they are outcasts
and to feel afraid to come out of their bedrooms and have, you
know, horrific personal consequences from this.
So I just would conclude by saying America has failed; and
I hope that this committee, a great committee with a great
tradition of defending soldiers who stand up and sign up to
serve their country, will take this issue very seriously, pass
this joint resolution and do as much as we can to stop this
epidemic.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I yield back.
Ms. Watterson. Can I say one more itty-bitty thing?
With all the victims that I have worked with, at least 90
percent say that the way they were treated after the assault
was far worse than the actual assault and far more devastating.
And this is still with all the new rules and the new
regulations. This is still. And so I just want to make that
point.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you, Ms. Watterson. I appreciate that.
Because I wanted to come back to you. I mean, that is a
stunning statement. And what we are trying to do is to figure
out where the gaps are. Are there different tools? We have some
wonderful examples of some SARCs here, people that have a great
commitment and a passion for serving the people that you are
working with.
You mentioned at one point in your testimony that you have
concerns that there should be more sexual abuse help and
support to victims from outside the system, not from inside the
system. You mentioned spouses, if they have a special problem,
in terms of nevertheless being independent in their assessments
and independent I think in their advocacy, which means going
all the way up the chain as well.
Is that part of the problem as you see it? That we need
people from outside the system?
Because we also could suggest that that could be a problem
certainly in theater. In a combat theater, that would be an
issue. Where is that piece that you are looking for as you've
see it now and worked with other advocates? Is that still
critical in your estimation, or is it more the training, the
people who choose to select, because it is a self-selection
process in many ways, people who volunteer? Again, we have some
wonderful examples of people who are choosing to do that. How
can we fix this part of it?
Ms. Watterson. I am not saying it is every SARC or every
base, but the reasoning that I am saying that it needs to be
civilians and people that are not, say, dependents of someone
in the military, just because, first of all, it will make the
victim feel more secure with actually telling the whole truth,
talking about their symptoms, thinking that someone is actually
on their side. They are far less likely to come forward to
another military member, since they were just assaulted by
another military member.
So the other reason is because there is too much room for
intimidation and with several SARCs that I have to basically do
their job for them, because they were not doing their job for
the victim. They don't have enough power to say, you know, what
are you doing to the command? You are not following the rules
and the regulations and all the mandates and all these rules
that have come, you know, come up. But there is just far too
much intimidation factor. They do not want to lose their job,
or they don't want to endanger the job of their spouse, et
cetera.
Mrs. Davis. Could I ask the rest of you to speak to that?
Because one of the things you said, Captain Katka, is that
you or a SARC has no real link to the accused--in the words of
my colleague--and that you are not able to necessarily track
that, what happens in those cases and to find that there is
some way, some accountability there for people acting
appropriately, not just within the rules but acting to be
certain it that doesn't happen again, certainly not with that
accused but within the unit as well.
Where do you see that? Is there a tool that would be
helpful? Ms. Sanchez and I talked earlier about career
advancement. Is that an issue? What is it?
Captain Katka. Perhaps I also misspoke earlier to say that
there is no tracking of the perpetrator for the accuser,
because we do. We do bring updates to the survivor, continually
working with the legal system. So there is that, and maybe I
didn't communicate that good enough.
Although we don't have authority--not authority, but we
don't have decision-making power to do thus and so with the
perpetrator, please understand that the vice wing commander--
reporting to the vice wing commander is essential. And we feel
as though, because we have the vice wing commander's--the
person that we are subject to, it helps tremendously; and I
have seen case after case where we are able to use that
authority to help us get things done on behalf of the survivor
and understand what is going on with the perpetrator and such.
Mrs. Davis. Any other follow-up comments, quickly?
Sergeant Horwath. We run the same program, basically. And
the legal system tracks the alleged perpetrator, and we get
updates to give to the victim. We have no say in what happens
to them, but we are not a part of the investigatory process
either. We are there to be victim focused almost solely.
Chief Petty Officer McKennie. One of the great things about
the Navy, especially in the southwest region which I am
affiliated, being an advocate for the victim, they do receive
updates periodically from Naval Criminal Investigative Service
(NCIS) or from the detectives that are handling their cases. It
is their right, and they are aware of that when I first come on
scene.
One of the tools that we do in the southwest region to
prevent intimidation or at least alleviate it as much as
possible, as a advocate I am never in uniform, so they do not
know any rank; and I always address myself by my civilian name.
So they have no idea who I am, except that I am their advocate.
And that tool works extremely well for us in the Navy. Having
civilian SARCs who are not normally intimidated by military
personnel is another balance that we use as part of our Navy
program in the southwest region.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you.
Mr. Jones, we are going to go back to you. Thank you.
Mr. Jones. Madam Chairman, thank you; and I want to
apologize if any of my questions might be repetitive. I had to
be out for almost an hour, and I didn't hear the questions from
my colleagues.
I am very taken aback by the testimony. I want to say to
you, Ms. Watterson, that I regret what happened to you and I am
sure other members have said that as well for a multitude of
reasons.
I got a call three or four years ago. Camp Lejeune is in my
district, and I never will forget a lady from Alabama who
thought that her daughter had been raped. I actually ended up
meeting with the mom when she came to North Carolina from
Alabama, and I also met with the daughter.
I guess, to get to the point of what I am trying to ask,
based on your testimony, Ms. Watterson, do you in the Navy,
Army, Air Force--is the compassion there? From you, yes. I
understand that. But when I heard this testimony--and I go back
thinking of the lady who came up from Alabama. When I hear this
testimony, somewhere in the process, the pain and hurt of the
victim, it doesn't seem that up the chain, so to speak.
And I am not trying to point my finger at anybody. You are
the experts. I am not. I am just here trying to learn and
trying to do what is right.
But somewhere along the way what happened to Ms. Watterson
should never have happened. And why would--has that changed?
Where the person who committed the crime, if he in this
situation--and I don't know the case. I do appreciate and
understand testimony. I believe everything you said. But has it
improved, that the victim is treated as a human being? Or is it
because the military has the structure that it has?
I will never forget what Secretary England, who I thought
the world of, of being down at Camp Lejeune in 2004, 2005 and
2006. And one of the companies returned from Iraq, and
Secretary England was talking about we want to help you with
PTSD and these kind of illnesses. And I promise you, when this
one Marine stepped out, I thought the Colonel was going to
faint. Because the Marine is not to show that he has got a
problem.
So has it changed?
What year did you say this attack happened to you?
Ms. Watterson. I am sorry?
Mr. Jones. What year did this attack happen?
Ms. Watterson. 2001.
Mr. Jones. 2001.
Can women be assured now--and maybe, in a few cases, men. I
don't know. Can women be assured now that if it happens today,
in 2009, that the system has changed such, that the percentage
of those who would be hurt like this woman has been hurt is
being reduced?
Chief Petty Officer McKennie. Congressman Jones, I can't
guarantee and tell you that all women in the Navy will be
assured or all men will be assured that are victims. Because as
long as there are evil people out in the world who want to
perpetrate this crime, it is going to continue. But as an
advocate what I guarantee from me as an advocate is that any
victim that I deal with will receive as much guidance and
support as I can physically muster for the entire time that I
am their advocate.
Because people are different in our society and they are
from different backgrounds and there are some that are more
compassionate than others. I understand that I will run into
someone that is not compassionate to the victim that I am
advocating for and that will increase my motivation to advocate
for them even more, and I will do all that I can to ensure that
as long as I am their advocate that they will get the support
and guidance that they need or whatever requirements we need to
do or whatever steps we need to make to make sure that they get
that. We are going to do that, and that is not going to stop as
long as I am their advocate.
Mr. Jones. Chief, let me ask you or the Sergeant or the
Captain--again, I apologize. I should have been here, but I
could not help that. I was watching Ms. Watterson shake her
head on a couple of comments I was making. Do you feel that in
2009, compared to 2007 or 2005 or 2001, that the number of
instances of rape that are being reported are up, down or there
are still things happening that have not been reported? Do you
feel better about the fact that those who are victims are
coming forward and that they are being supported by the chain
of command in comparison to what maybe it used to be? I don't
know.
Chief Petty Officer McKennie. Sir, I have been an advocate
since 2005; and, in that time, my cases have increased. So I am
confident that because of the training that we are providing in
the Navy, because of the awareness that we are providing in the
Navy, the tools that we are giving people to come forth, that
that has helped increase the reporting. And I am glad to see
that those numbers are rising, because that is more people who
are no longer hiding that pain and shame and that they can get
the help and guidance that they need.
Mr. Jones. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you, Mr. Jones.
We have two votes. We should be back in about 20 minutes, I
think. If I could beg your indulgence, we will finish this
round with all of you; and then we will go on to our next
panel. So are you all able to stay?
Captain Katka. Yes, ma'am.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you very much, and I hope everyone will
return as quickly as they can.
[Recess.]
Mrs. Davis. Thank you, everybody, for waiting. We are going
to return to the panel. We have a few members who are coming
back. We want to finish up this round, and then we will move to
the second panel.
Ms. Sanchez.
Ms. Sanchez. Thank you, Madam Chair; and, once again, thank
you to all the panel for being here.
I have just one question. Because in the 12 years that I
have been on this committee and in the Congress we have had
this problem. I believe it is a major problem when we are a
voluntary force in particular and when we are looking at 50
percent of Americans being women and the fact that we need to
draw the talents from that pool just as we do from the men. And
I believe women should be in the military and that this problem
is continuing to happen and has for so many years drives me
crazy.
We were able to pass, as you know, a new UCMJ section that
dealt with this. I hear back from the prosecutors that they
love using this new law and that they are more effectively
using it to get the prosecutions they need.
But, you know, I have always said that there are three
things we need to do: One, change the culture; two, change the
law so that we do prosecute and we can prosecute; and, three,
work well with the victims who have had this happen and make
sure that they don't lose their lives.
So let's go back to the first one, change the culture,
because this shouldn't be happening at all. I have zero
tolerance for this. And it seems to me that no matter what we
try, no matter how many rules we put on and how many
administrative issues and everything, it all comes down to how
the top is handling this, how the commander handles this and
whatever, wherever it is, whether it is Iraq or whether it is
an Air Force academy or whether it is a base, in Camp Pendleton
in California, wherever it might be, that it is about how the
chain of command deals with this; and they don't seem to deal
with this very well.
And so my question is to Ms. Watterson, who so bravely came
forward today--and I thank you for that. Because, believe it or
not, I personally know how difficult it is. It has been my
contention that the only way we are going to make the command
understand how important this issue is is that it is actually a
section on every promotion that they receive. That in order for
them to be promoted, they have to deal with what did you do
about this, how much of this has happened under you, how come
you were ineffective about this? And they don't get promoted if
they don't take this seriously. Now that runs counter to so
many people who say, oh, we just care about making fighting
machines.
Ms. Watterson, do you think that if these people in command
that you go to thought that if they didn't handle this
correctly or didn't make an attempt to handle it, if they
thought that they would lose their ability to be promoted, that
they might have taken this more seriously for you?
Ms. Watterson. Yeah, yeah, this sounds like an excellent
idea. That way, they are held accountable.
Ms. Sanchez. Because they are not held accountable. This is
not an accountability issue for the people in uniform. Some do
it well; some don't do it very well. Some say, oh, the
handshake was just a little too long, or take care of it
yourself, or you are a big girl. And these are all things that
I have heard from so many women who have been put in this spot.
So do you think that that would make a difference if they
thought that they wouldn't get promoted if they just told you
to handle it yourself?
Ms. Watterson. I think that would be a great incentive. I
think that part of it should also be interview or contact with
whoever the victim was and ask them how they were treated and
if they think that everything was done fairly.
Ms. Sanchez. Well, that would be part of it. I mean, the
way we would judge whether this person, whoever was in command,
actually really took care of it is that there would be input
from those who had suffered the acts and had been treated one
way or the other by this person.
What about the rest of you? What do you think? Because you
have probably come across some commanders who really care about
this and really do something right away about it, and you have
probably come across people who sort of move the pieces on the
checkerboard around. What do you all think?
Captain.
Captain Katka. In the 10 seconds we have, a culture change,
I would love to see it to be genuine. Disingenuous, using
people as ranks and things like that perhaps would promote
disingenuous culture change, rather than real culture change.
Completely my opinion, but I understand where you are going.
And then the criteria issue. I mean, what would you put in
that promotion? What would be the criteria for that promotion?
The statistics? If statistics are up, is it good on the
commander or bad on the commander?
So there are a lot of questions that I just immediately
have that we probably don't have time maybe to get into.
Ms. Sanchez. Thank you.
Chief.
Sergeant Horwath. I agree, ma'am, that if it were done
right it would be an effective way of pushing the program
forward.
Ms. Sanchez. That it would not or it would?
Sergeant Horwath. That it would.
Ms. Sanchez. That it would.
Sergeant Horwath. But, again, then it would be a threat;
and that is just my opinion.
Ms. Sanchez. I am just asking your opinion.
Sergeant Horwath. It would be threats against someone who--
--
Ms. Sanchez. It is not threats. It is sort of like, hey,
this is important enough for you to be graded on.
When you go to a class in college, if you are a smart
student, you understand what the professor wants and what they
are going to grade you on. And you tend to work on those issues
that are going to get you the A if you care about the grade.
Sergeant Horwath. I can see it being effective. We have
blocks on the Army non-commissioned officer evaluation reports
(NCOERs) for equal opportunity and things of that nature. So I
can see that a soldier may look at that as being more important
if they see it officially in their paperwork, sure.
Ms. Sanchez. Thank you.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you, Ms. Sanchez.
Can you respond really quickly?
Chief Petty Officer McKennie. I can. I believe that it
would be effective, but it would also take training as well in
combination with that so that it would be genuine and
effective.
Ms. Sanchez. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you, Ms. Sanchez.
I think that we had a chance to sort of brainstorm that a
little bit and some of the downsides to it and upsides.
One of the questions that I would just ask in trying to
close this out, there, obviously, is some uniformity within the
service that you are in. Although there are certainly
differences in the way people respond. But there is not a lot
of uniformity across the services. Do you think that there
should be? Is this an issue that all the services ought to have
very, very similar policies or is there enough uniqueness in
the way people respond within that service that you think there
ought to be true differences?
Chief Petty Officer McKennie. Chairwoman Davis, I believe
that each service, each of the services that have been
represented today, in my opinion, because of the unique
missions that we have in all of our services, that the programs
that we have in place have shown effective in the experiences
of each of the advocates.
I do believe that we can learn from each other, and there
are high points to each program that could be adopted into
other service programs. But I do believe that part of the
reason, in my opinion and as an advocate, that there are some
differences in our programs is because of the missions that we
serve.
I deploy--as a sailor, I deploy six months at a time on a
ship; and some of the parameters that are inherent in their
programs might not be effective for us in what we do. Most of
their brothers and sisters in arms are in Iraq. Most of our
sailors are not. We do have some, but the majority of us are on
ships or shore facilities. So I do think that we are unique in
itself and that our programs in the missions that we serve have
been effective enough so far and more improvements to come to
be of great service to our brothers and sisters in arms.
Sergeant Horwath. I agree with her, ma'am. I believe the
uniqueness of each of our services requires a different
program. But I, also--my personal belief is that there is
enough of a sense of one that if I had a soldier who was based
on an Air Force Base that there would never be an issue with
them taking care of the situation for me. There is a closeness
enough with the program that the basis is the same. It's about
taking care of the victim and making sure that the process is
moved forward.
Captain Katka. On a large level yes, ma'am. In our joint
environment I think it is imperative like many of our programs
kind of marry so we can give survivor support no matter what
the branch of service, of which we have done.
On a smaller level, base to base, for instance, my base,
Lackland Air Force Base, is the only basic military training. A
large portion of the individuals that we help in my office are
those that were assaulted prior to even coming into the
military. That is different. That is unique to our base alone.
So there may be supplements or those kind of things that need
to be addressed just at my base; and, as my colleagues pointed
out, there is differences there as well.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you.
Ms. Watterson, I wanted to just give you the last word,
because we are so supportive of your coming forward; and I want
you to have a sense of how important your testimony has been.
I can tell from several things that you have said that it
doesn't all resonate with you in terms of where we go from here
and trying to deepen our commitment in this regard and having
the kind of objectives and follow-through that is important. Do
you have a last thought or concern that you would like us to be
thinking about in the next few months that might change the
environment that you see for men and women today?
Ms. Watterson. To wrap it all up, this conversation that we
are having right now I think is a very, very good start. I
think that the SAPRO, those are all the main rules. And then
little intricacies, depending on what is going on.
But I think that representatives, like several from each
service, there should be more meetings like this with
survivors, with other SARCs, with, you know, whoever. But it
needs to be like this, where we are all talking and can figure
out what is best for everybody and then kind of trickle down
into the little points that like, say, he was mentioning that
are important at his base.
So I think this is an excellent start, and thank you very
much.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you. Thank you all for being here. We
certainly appreciate if you can stay for the next panel.
We are going to have not so much long statements initially,
but we are going to ask them if they can respond a little bit
to some of the things they have heard here today. So if you
would like to stay, we certainly welcome that.
Could the next panel please come forward?
Thank you, again, very much for being here. Thank you all.
For our second panel we are pleased to have two witnesses
from the Department of Defense's Sexual Assault Prevention and
Response Office and one from the California Coalition Against
Sexual Assault.
Dr. Kaye Whitley is the Director of the Sexual Assault
Prevention and Response Office, what we all have been saying,
SAPRO. She holds a doctorate in counseling and human
development. I also believe that this is her first appearance
before our subcommittee. Welcome.
Also from the Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office
is Teresa Scalzo. Ms. Scalzo is the Senior Policy Advisor for
the office and is a former Director of the National Center for
the Prosecution of Violence Against Women. Her purpose here
today is to provide her subject matter expertise on the
Department of Defense's policy of restricted reporting.
And, finally, we were supposed to have Suzanne Brown-
McBride, Executive Director of the California Coalition Against
Sexual Assault. However, Mother Nature was working against her;
and she wasn't able to fly into D.C. last night.
But we are very fortunate to have Robert Coombs, who did
manage to arrive before the bad weather. Mr. Coombs is the
Director of Public Affairs for the California Coalition Against
Sexual Assault. Mr. Coombs will offer Ms. Brown-McBride's
testimony and will be available for questioning.
We thank you very much for stepping in, Mr. Coombs.
STATEMENTS OF DR. KAYE WHITLEY, DIRECTOR, SEXUAL ASSAULT
PREVENTION AND RESPONSE OFFICE, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; TERESA
SCALZO, SENIOR POLICY ADVISOR, SEXUAL ASSAULT PREVENTION AND
RESPONSE OFFICE, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; AND ROBERT COOMBS,
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS, CALIFORNIA COALITION AGAINST SEXUAL
ASSAULT
Mrs. Davis. In the interest of disclosure, it is also
important to note that while the California Coalition Against
Sexual Assault is here to provide an outside perspective on the
Department of Defense's victim support and advocacy programs,
they have and I believe continue to work with the Department on
a number of areas related to sexual assault. We are very happy
to have you and look forward to your testimony.
Now, I mentioned earlier that we were going to ask you if
you could share with us perhaps initially comments from your
testimony, but if you wouldn't mind doing that with the group,
your response to what you heard today. I know that certainly we
had some wonderful advocates for victims, and they spoke very
passionately I think about the work that they are doing. On the
other hand, we had a survivor who continues to work with
victims and would like to see more done.
And I think everybody seeks improvement. No question about
that. Could you share with us a little bit about your thoughts
on what you heard today and help us by starting in that way?
Dr. Whitley.
STATEMENT OF DR. KAYE WHITLEY
Dr. Whitley. Thank you, Chairwoman Davis and Ranking Member
Wilson. We appreciate the opportunity to be here today.
And I do want to thank Ms. Watterson, because we all know--
all of us who work with victims know that this is a really
difficult thing for them to do. We also think she's a perfect
example of why we needed our policy and why we needed our
program.
I do have some concerns, because I felt when we were
talking about the new programs she thinks that there is still
some things out there that are still going wrong through her
work with victim advocates. So I have offered to meet with her
to see if I can get more concrete examples to what is happening
to some of the victims and where it is happening so that we can
follow up on it.
I would also like to say I think you saw today the caliber
of the people we have that are working this program. I can't
speak highly enough of the SARCs and victim advocates and their
passion. That is what we find when go out to installations and
when we work in the field and work with the services.
I am also happy to share the panel with one of our civilian
partners. They are in the business of victims advocacy, where
we are a policy office and we consult with the California
Coalition Against Sexual Assault and other State coalitions as
we develop our program. Because we do believe that in the
civilian world there are some best practices, and in planning
our program and policy we have worked very hard to use those
best practices.
Is there anything specifically you would like?
[The prepared statement of Dr. Whitley can be found in the
Appendix on page 64.]
Mrs. Davis. No, I think that is fine.
We will continue.
Ms. Scalzo.
Ms. Scalzo. I have nothing additional to add to what Dr.
Whitley said.
Mrs. Davis. Mr. Coombs.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT COOMBS
Mr. Coombs. Yes. First and foremost, I want to acknowledge
that I come here as a victim advocate. From my core, that is
where I operate. I happen to have a professional background in
working in media and policy, and so when I am working with
folks like the Department of Defense I have very little
interest in defending problems that they have had but rather
seeking solutions.
We have had a fantastic collaboration with the SAPRO office
in particular. I have been working with them since about 2006,
have met with hundreds of SARCs and have done trainings for
SARCs. I have worked with the Department of Defense Office on
prevention policy.
I think that the testimony that you heard earlier today is
absolutely essential to understand the magnitude of the
problem. But it is also important to remember that every single
victim and survivor of sexual assault has a unique experience
and that, for as much work as is being done within the
Department of Defense within each of the branches, we always
will have room to grow in this area. We do as civilians. We do
when we look to the military. And so I am heartened to see the
great work that has been done and really tremendous progress,
more than I ever expected to see. But I also know we have a lot
of work ahead.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you.
I will go on the clock at this time.
One of the areas that has made a big difference is the
restricted reporting, and yet we know that there are some
loopholes essentially in the law that creates some problems
around that. One issue, Ms. Sanchez mentioned how it might be
used for career advancement. And yet if there is restricted
reporting, there are a number of cases that we might not be
able to track, and so that is essential that there is a comfort
level around that.
There is also an example if a victim reported to a friend
that they had been raped and in fact that friend told the
commander who then had to go and that changes--that changes and
the victim essentially loses control over that issue and over
the decision about whether or not one is going to have it be
unrestricted at that point.
Could you talk to us a little bit more about that issue of
restricted and unrestricted reporting and what you see is the
next generation of that law, what ought to be included in any
changes that are made around it?
Dr. Whitley. I'll let Teresa address that.
But, first, I would like to say that when the policy began
in 2005, well, since it has begun, we have had 1,896 victims
come forward with a restricted report. That tells me that it is
a good thing and that tells me that that is 1,896 people who
came forward and got help and the care that they needed, which
is one of the things we are trying to do in the Department, to
get victims access to care.
Mrs. Davis. And perhaps, Ms. Scalzo, if you could just for
the sake of our audience explain that probably better than I
could.
Ms. Scalzo. The Department has two reporting options,
restricted reporting and unrestricted reporting. Restricted
reporting is, quite simply, confidential reporting where the
command and law enforcement are not involved. It was quite
controversial and very novel when it was created, and it wasn't
introduced until six months after the policy was initially
passed.
In the military, it is a culture where the commanders need
to know and they do know everything that is going on underneath
them. It was difficult to construct a system where we could
protect the victim's privacy but yet give them just a little
bit of information, Jane Doe information, non-identifying
information, if you will, that would enable them to keep the
community safe.
We know that there are some challenges; and you mentioned
if a victim reports to a friend and that friend then reports to
the commander, the victim loses control of their restricted
report and it is no longer confidential. That is actually one
of our priority issues for addressing with respect to policy in
the coming year. That is something that we believe is a policy
issue, although there are pieces of it that are controlled by
the UCMJ. In particular, commanders have a duty to report to
law enforcement; and that is something we are working with the
lawyers to figure out what the exact parameters are.
However, I can tell you that some of our biggest challenges
from restricted reporting come from the civilian community and
from civilian laws. For example, there are State mandatory
reporting laws in the State of California that make it
completely impossible to make a restricted report should the
victim choose to seek medical care; and those are some of the
more challenging issues we face because they are not within our
control.
Mrs. Davis. Mr. Coombs, did you want to comment on that
from California's perspective?
Mr. Coombs. Absolutely. And California has the dubious
distinction perhaps of being one of the only places on the
planet where restricted reporting does not work for service
members. That is specifically because of our adult mandated
reporting laws coming from medical service providers. It is
something that we are trying to address, and there is a handful
of significant obstacles in trying to change that.
We see restricted reporting as a very progressive move
coming from the military. It is something that I think
absolutely you are going to see an increase in the number of
folks that come forward with unrestricted reports.
You heard earlier folks were talking about an increase in a
number of reports, whether restricted or unrestricted is a good
thing. And from the perspective of victim advocates--I work
with 85 rape crisis centers throughout the State of California,
and we have served over 26,000 victims just last year alone. We
think that is a good thing.
When those numbers are going up, those are fundamentally a
positive move. Because it means that, number one, those folks
are getting services. Number two, it means that there is an
atmosphere and environment in which people believe that they
can come forward, that they are safe in doing so. And so if
restricted reporting enhances that, we are absolutely all for
it.
If there is other things that we can do, I think some of
that could include some of the things that you were hearing
earlier from the SARCs: better training and better
communications coming from leadership saying this is something
that we prioritize, and we would want to make sure that you
feel safe in coming forward with these things. I think that
those are some of the areas of growth to look towards.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you.
Maybe just a follow up really quickly, if I might. The
process of someone becoming a SARC, should that be more
rigorous, less rigorous in terms of people actually
volunteering essentially to be a part of that?
Mr. Coombs. From my perspective, I believe that this
morning you heard from some excellent examples of folks that
are working out in the field.
I think that a couple of things that are very difficult for
recruiting and training SARCs include when you have that as
collateral duty on top of other types of duties. This is
something that, for many of us, this is our primary duty. This
is our primary function. And when you add that on top of other
jobs, it is really hard for them to have the services and the
support really to go all into that. I have seen tremendous
growth from folks supporting those position.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you, Mr. Wilson.
Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman; and thank all
three of you for being here today. I appreciate your efforts to
prevent sexual assaults.
Dr. Whitley, I am very interested in your program. How is
the Department of Defense evaluating the effectiveness of the
program? And what criteria are you using to determine success
or failure in order to make improvements to the program?
Dr. Whitley. Well, we do an annual report to Congress in
which we convey to you the aggregate numbers from all the
services. That does give us some information.
We also, in terms of measures of compliance, is basically
what we do now is we go out to check to ensure the policy is
being followed. We can measure victim care and victim services.
Are they getting the services they need?
But one of hardest things to measure is if we are
preventing it. And as Mr. Coombs was talking about numbers,
when we have numbers, we don't really know is that a good
number or a bad number, because we don't know how many sexual
assaults are out there. But one of the things that we are doing
now in the Department of Defense, we are developing more
measures and repeating those measures.
We have two surveys, two gender relation surveys, that we
do every two years, one for the active duty force and one for
the reserve component. That survey asks the respondents, have
you ever experienced unwanted sexual contact? What we are
finding is a number of our reports are way lower than the
number of people who are saying on the survey they have
experienced that. So now we do have a measure, and we can look
at the gap between the number of people that are saying they
experienced to the number of people that are reporting. Our
goal now is to reduce that gap and to get those victims to come
forward and to get them the care and the help that they need.
We also are evaluated consistently through different
outside organizations. As you know, we always have oversight,
of course, but the Government Accountability Office (GAO)
recently did a study on our program, the DOD IG has
investigated our program. We have had more than one task force,
and there is one that is currently ongoing right now that will
be bringing back recommendations for us.
In terms of measuring success of a sexual assault program,
that is very difficult to do, especially the prevention aspect.
Mr. Wilson. Thank you very much.
And I agree with Mr. Coombs, that the persons we saw in
uniform were professional, they were competent, capable. It
makes you so proud of the American military.
Ms. Scalzo, with American forces deployed in very remote
areas of the world, how is the program being adapted to, say,
smaller units in remote areas?
Ms. Scalzo. The services work individually to whatever
particular challenges they are facing in that area. They work--
the SARCs job is to figure out how to adapt.
I can tell you that at a policy level one of the issues
that we are looking at is what happens in joint environments
such as those deployed environments. We are in the process of
drafting policy modifications to make it a little bit clearer
as to who is responsible for what and to improve that
situation.
Mr. Wilson. And with isolated units, whether they be in
military facilities in Djibouti, on ships in the Persian Gulf,
Indian Ocean, how in the world do you make this work?
Ms. Scalzo. Well, certainly it is very complicated. That is
a very good question. It is complicated, it is challenging, and
we do our best to make sure that somehow victims have access to
those services in remote locations. It may take them a few days
to get them to where they need to go to get those services, but
we work to make them available. I can't tell you that it is not
complicated, because it is.
Mr. Wilson. Again, thank you for your efforts.
Dr. Whitley, as we have the DOD program before us, again,
is there any recommendation on any legislative change that you
feel we should perform?
Dr. Whitley. There is nothing at this time. We are still
trying to make sure that we got the policy right. We are still
examining gaps. So at this time I don't have any
recommendations for legislation.
Mr. Wilson. And, again, thank all of you for being here
today.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you.
Dr. Snyder.
Dr. Snyder. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Dr. Whitley, at the end of your written statement we didn't
give you time to talk about today, you do talk about what you
call four challenges. It seemed to me that some of them may
have some legislative possible solutions. I don't want to ask
you about those now, but maybe before we're done we can have
you amplify on those four challenges.
I wanted to ask about one of them, being this issue of the
civilian adult mandated reporting statutes. Maybe I will ask
you, Mr. Coombs. How does that work in California? Are military
doctors required to report under California law, or is it
civilian doctors who see military personnel that are required
to report?
Mr. Coombs. As far as military doctors on base, I would
have to defer to my colleagues on that.
Dr. Snyder. Does it require a report?
Ms. Scalzo. Yes, sir, they are. Doctors are licensed in a
State, and they have to abide by the State laws in addition
to----
Dr. Snyder. Are you telling me any time a doctor is
transferred to another base they have to go through State
licensing requirements in that State?
Ms. Scalzo. No, sir. But the opinion we have gotten from
our office general counsel is that, because the State of
California has that law that on base, our doctors, many of whom
are licensed in California, are not comfortable with compliance
issues of reporting because it violates California State law.
In addition, there are a number of bases that have
concurrent jurisdiction in which State law would apply as well.
So the only time military doctors would be exempted possibly
would be if it is an exclusively Federal jurisdiction on that
base.
Dr. Snyder. It seems like here we have a California
advocate who is saying this is not helping sexual assault
victims. I don't know what is going on in California.
I was a family doctor in the olden days; and I was
expecting just a lot of lying that goes on, kind of nudge,
nudge, wink, wink. A woman comes in who has been sexually
assaulted or hurt in some way who knows that if she says what
happened it will be reported. And so they kind of say, oh, you
fell down the stairs, again? And then if you actually get to a
criminal case you then have a note in the chart that says the
woman says she fell down the stairs. I don't see what good
comes from this, but we are not hearing the other side of that
today.
But we do have the option legislatively, I would think, if
we choose to, of preempting that California statute. But that
may not be the solution. It really does seem to work against
the goals that you have with the restricted reporting
requirement.
Dr. Whitley or Ms. Scalzo, would you describe for me the
need-to-know concept, how that works with a commanding officer,
a commander?
Dr. Whitley. As we said earlier, it was a hard sell to the
commanders. They need to know everything that is going on. One
of the things that we said to the commanders when we were
putting this policy out is there are sexual assaults that are
going on in your command right now that you don't know about.
Wouldn't you at least like to know if one occurred and where it
occurred so you could take actions to protect your troops? And
that helped us somewhat with them.
And so when there is a sexual assault our policy says the
command is supposed to be notified that a sexual assault took
place and whatever details that they can give that would not
give away the identity of the victim. So that way, if it is
happening in a barracks, maybe they would put more senior
leadership in the barracks. It gives them other options to
address the protection of their troops.
Dr. Snyder. I want to ask you, Dr. Whitley, on page 11 of
your written statement you talk quite a bit about prevention.
And it seems--I don't want to say it is idealistic, but I
appreciate it is a very laudatory goal.
It reminded me of the time some years ago I was touring
housing on a military base, and the yards were smaller and the
houses had smaller square footage. But the personnel said, but
we don't need as big because we trust the people who live next
door to us. Our kids can run in the yard next door. It is like
they have a big yard because we are an Air Force family. It
seems to me what you are trying to do is augment that whole
concept that we are a family and take care of each other.
You have this one statement here, you say there is some
research that suggests that by educating military members when
and how to act we may be able to turn bystanders into actors
who can prevent sexual assault. Would you amplify what that
means, please?
Dr. Whitley. Absolutely. And I have to say that most of the
services do have programs or bystander intervention programs in
place.
Most of our assaults, the numbers reported to Congress,
they are not stranger assaults. They are not this guy jumping
out of the bushes with a ski mask and a weapon. The majority of
the assaults are between 18- and 24-year-olds. Usually alcohol
is involved. Our numbers tell us about a third. We believe it
is more than that.
So what we are trying to do is to teach young people if
they see predator-type behavior to intervene. Because we do
know there are predators that will use alcohol as a weapon to
reduce a woman's defenses in order in order to complete a
sexual assault.
So one of the things we were trying to do is to make young
people aware if somebody is mixing really strong drinks for a
young girl, stop it, intervene. Or if they walk out together
and it just doesn't look like a good idea, they should take
care of each other and maybe say we need to go in this
direction. Let's not go home with him tonight or walk out with
him tonight.
So we are trying to give them some warning signs so they
can see if there is anything they can do to step in. And
certainly to help them that if something does occur that they
know exactly what process--if someone crosses the line, they
need to go see a SARC.
Does that answer your question?
Dr. Snyder. Yes.
Dr. Whitley. It is a very interesting concept, to get
people to intervene. And we think that it is going to be
possible in the military because of that same concept that you
watch out for your battle buddy or your wing man.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you. Thank you, Dr. Snyder.
Ms. Tsongas.
Ms. Tsongas. Thank you very much for your testimony, and I
would have to say those comments you just made were as
encouraging as I have heard in the course of this day.
I would like to go back to the issue of restricted versus
unrestricted. And you said that, in 2005, 1,896 reports were
made under this process.
Dr. Whitley. Have since come forward and reported. Some of
those may have converted to unrestricted, but that was the
initial report.
Ms. Tsongas. So my question is, other than this is a
wonderful process for the victim, it allows them to get access
to the kind of help that they need. But short of those who
don't convert to an unrestricted, it means a significant number
of people who have committed these assaults are not
accountable.
Dr. Whitley. You want me to comment? And I will ask our
victim advocate to quote, too.
It is a tough call. We have to balance taking care of a
victim and holding offenders accountable. I think in the
situation that we are in, if we can do anything to get a victim
to get care--I mean, I don't have to repeat things. You all
have heard over and over and over about what sexual assault
does to a military unit. It renders them not ready, and it can
just tear a unit apart and just tears at the very fabric of
what the military is made of. So if a sexual assault occurs, we
want to get that victim in there.
We also know there is research that shows early
intervention after any trauma can prevent PTSD. So we are doing
everything we can to get that victim to come forth so they can
access care. We do hope that they convert. We hope we are
making them so comfortable and have so much confidence in our
system that they will convert to an unrestricted report so we
can go after the offender.
Ms. Tsongas. The question I have--and I think that is a
worthy goal for the victim. On the other hand, you have new
women coming into the military who have no real understanding
of the threat that might exist. And I am just wondering if
there is a way in which we can collect data or have some
understanding of the numbers. I don't know what the answer is,
but we are focusing on the victim. At the same time, we have
many young people coming into the services who we want to
protect. And how we find the balance and how we collect data
and do something to help either move the victim into an
unrestricted category or have some other mechanism to deal with
those that are committing the assaults, I welcome your input on
that.
Dr. Whitley. Hopefully, if they are entering the service,
they are getting sexual assault awareness training very early
on. That is one step through training.
Another thing that we do, even if they do have an
unrestricted report, it is difficult to get victims to stay
with the military criminal justice process. You heard early
testimony that when they tell their story if they go
unrestricted, they may tell their stories 25, 30 times. It is
very painful, and they drop out. So we have taken some
measures, too, in terms of training SARCs to support victims
throughout the military criminal justice process to get them to
stay with it so we can hold the offender accountable.
Ms. Tsongas. Thank you.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you.
Mr. Turner.
Mr. Turner. Thank you, Madam Chair; and, Dr. Whitley, thank
you so much for your testimony and for the others. But, Dr.
Whitley, it is just so great to hear you with your commitment
and your heartfelt work on this.
I serve on the Government Reform Committee, as you know;
and so I was there for your testimony there. And also the time
when you were directed by your supervisor not to appear as a
result of a subpoena that was given. I know you regret that.
And I just want you to know that so many times when
something like that happens, when the actual individual comes
forward and testifies, their testimony is colored by that past.
And it is somewhat indicating that perhaps they don't have
something to say but you do. And I appreciate your telling the
story because I know you're here to help us also to find out
what is right and you are also dedicated to your program. So
thank you for continuing to do it and to tell your story.
One of the things that we heard from Ms. Watterson when she
told her story was the sense of what happened after being such
a violation in addition to the sexual assault. And the last
time you were in my office we talked about the Lauterbach case,
and you informed me that the Inspector General had been
requested to take a look at that case about what happened after
the fact.
Your principal under secretary, who was your supervisor,
had requested that IG investigation; and we understand that it
is ongoing. We have not heard anything from them, and neither
has the family. That is of a concern to us, because part of
their independence, of course, should be that they hear from
all sides and not that we just have a report handed to us.
We have concerns that are continuing, not just what has
happened up to the time where Maria was murdered. For example,
I have two news articles that, with the chairwoman's consent, I
would like to enter into the record where we know that, just
recently, the Marines approved the alleged murderer and sexual
assault----
Mrs. Davis. Without objection.
[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix
on page 86.]
Mr. Turner [continuing]. Thank you. Went to Mexico to visit
the individual who was the murderer, and we would like the
Inspector General to look at the issue of why did the Marines
approve this.
Because, basically, we have the Marine wife, who was a
material witness, leaving the country to visit her husband, who
is absent without leave (AWOL), who is a Marine, who is the
alleged rapist-murderer who is fighting extradition, in an
unsupervised visit where the prosecutors in these articles
indicate that perhaps it was for a conjugal visit, because
under Mexico law, on their birthday, apparently, accused can
have visits from their spouses; and there is concern by the
prosecutor of what that would do to her willingness and
interest in testifying. So we would like to ask them to include
things like that.
Is it your experience where the IG has been asked to look
at a case if you are aware of any other cases where they would
conduct their whole investigation and never speak to the family
members?
Dr. Whitley. I don't really--I don't know. I don't have a
response to that. That sounds unusual to me.
Mr. Turner. That is what I would think. We have a letter
that I sent today to the IG requesting that they engage, and
any thoughts that you have even after this hearing I would
appreciate it.
Dr. Whitley. I have to tell you, sir, the DOD IG has been
directed to stand down, and they are not investigating this
case. They believe it could have undue command influence, so
that investigation has been stopped.
Mr. Turner. Well, once again, I am only hearing information
from you. Because I have correspondence to my office that, in
fact, the IG had accepted the case and was going forward. And I
have no communication indicating that----
Dr. Whitley. They did accept it. And I think they started
forward with that case, and then they were advised by the
lawyers to stand down.
Mr. Turner. See, Dr. Whitley, this goes right to the issue
that I talk about, the culture in the military. How is it that,
a Member of Congress--I have requested that they begin an
investigation. Your supervisor requested it. I get a letter
confirming that they have undertaken the investigation, and
then you relate it us that it is not going forward. It is very
concerning.
Dr. Whitley. I know it doesn't sound palatable. But what we
are told by the lawyers, even though this is a civilian case,
if, God forbid, anything went wrong and there was a mistrial
declared or anything ever got kicked back to us as a military
case, anything that we had done could have undue command
influence. And so I thought that was one of the reasons, I
believe. I am sorry if you were not--I assumed you had been
notified of that.
Mr. Turner. That is astonishing. Thank you, Dr. Whitley.
If I could have just a few more minutes, one of the things
that the Lauterbach family has been concerned about in this
whole process is that the victim advocates perhaps were just
perhaps victim listeners and don't have real authority and
ability to affect the process. Do you have concerns about the
lack of authority in the process?
Dr. Whitley. Well, the program is still very new; and we
are still implementing training for all the victim advocates
and the SARCs. The victim advocate should work directly for a
SARC; and the SARC has a lot of power, if you will, to have
access to a commander to intervene. That was the way the
program was set up.
I can't speak to each and every SARC. We have 2 million
people, including Guard and Reserves, that are taken care of by
our SARCs and victim advocates. I can't speak to each and every
case. I hope and believe in my heart of hearts that most are
like the ones that you saw today.
Mr. Turner. Thank you.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mrs. Davis. Dr. Snyder, did you want to ask a question?
Dr. Snyder. Dr. Whitley, would you take some time and
amplify your four challenges at the end? You haven't really
talked about those.
Dr. Whitley. Whenever I talk about things that are
lawyerly, I bring a lawyer. So I am going to ask Ms. Scalzo,
because as my senior policy adviser she heads up a subcommittee
that works under the Sexual Assault Advisory Council, which is
headed by the Under Secretary for Defense. He established
committees to look at some of these issues. The committees have
members from all of the services as well as some of our Federal
partners and civilian partners. Teresa heads that committee and
these are some of the issues that they have identified that
they are currently working on, and she can speak in great
detail about each of them.
Ms. Scalzo. Thank you, Representative Snyder.
Dr. Snyder. All of the great detail you can do in four
minutes.
Ms. Scalzo. The first challenge was the State mandatory
reporting laws that we have already discussed. The second would
be jurisdictional challenges. Our SARCs and victim advocates
have to collaborate with civilians. As you know, the military
does not always control the prosecution. For example, it could
be a civilian perpetrator, or if the case happened off base,
the civilians would have the first option to prosecute that
case. In those sort of circumstances, we are constrained by
what is going on in the civilian world and, frankly, it is not
always perfect.
I come from a background of being a civilian prosecutor and
training prosecutors across the country. The example that we
use to illustrate that is a case that happened in the D.C.
metro area where D.C. had primary jurisdiction. Our victim was
at Bethesda waiting to have a sexual assault forensic exam, but
because D.C. had a rule that their Sexual Assault Forensic
Examiner (SAFE) exams had to be performed within D.C., our
victim had to be transported to D.C., had to then wait
approximately eight hours to be served, and then in the end
D.C. refused to prosecute the case. So we ended up picking it
up.
SARC and victim advocates have to work to coordinate that,
and they do, but we raise that so that you understand some of
the jurisdictional complications that we face that are enhanced
when you are dealing with Federal/military/state collaboration.
The second issue is the line of duty issue. If a Guard or
Reserve member is assaulted while they are in active status or
in active duty training and then seeks care when they are no
longer in activated status, they need to get what is called a
line of duty in order to get care and treatment. That is not
consistent with the restricted reporting policy simply because
of the process. It is a public process where the command is
involved, and there needs to be an investigation.
What we have done is we modified our policy to require the
services to rewrite their policy to ensure that line of duty
can be accessed to sexual assault victims in a private manner,
just a limited line of duty for just care for victims of sexual
assault.
The final piece is the investigation and prosecution of
sexual assault--which I understand there will be an entirely
separate hearing on--but the challenge there that we have been
looking at is are our investigators and prosecutors trained
well enough. We are working with our legal community to take a
look at that, and we do what we can at SAPRO, although the UCMJ
provides the JAG, the Judge Advocate Generals, with complete
authority over the legal piece of the process. We at SAPRO do
try to interface with them, try to make sure that they are
being as sensitive to victim practices as possible, make sure
that we support them and that they are supporting victims as
much as we are able to do.
Dr. Snyder. I am confused on the line of duty issue. If a
person is activated or they are on their two-week training in
the summertime, an incident occurred on the last night's going-
away party, they very clearly know, everyone knows when the
incident occurred, 1:00 a.m., May 3rd. Why is there any big
whoop-dee-do? Shouldn't it just be based on when the incident
occurred?
Ms. Scalzo. It is based on when the incident occurred. The
challenge is if they report when they are not in an active
status, they are not eligible for medical benefits at that
time; they are not eligible for treatment. Our policy makes
them eligible for care and treatment. But because of the way
the Guard and Reserve works, if they are not in an active
status, they need that line of duty finding to get care.
So it is a method of getting them care when they are not
under the insurance of the Guard and Reserves.
Dr. Snyder. That would seem like something that could be
pretty easily corrected.
Ms. Scalzo. You would think.
The challenge is that our policy controls sexual assault,
and within the Department of Defense there are many different
directives that control different pieces of things. Line of
duty is a separate policy. So in order to have it rewritten, we
need to follow the bureaucratic steps of getting our policy
rewritten to have them rewrite their policies. So we are in the
process of getting that done.
It took a while, actually, just to identify and solve how
to figure it out because it is such an unusual idea, the
concept that you can report something privately. Restricted
reporting is just so out of the box that sometimes these
complexities arise, and that is a perfect example.
Mrs. Davis. I think we are going to wind up on this. I am
going to ask one or two more questions, and I understand that
there aren't any more questions that my colleagues have.
I am looking at the Government Accountability Office report
of 2008, and in that it talks about the fact that the military
services haven't really provided the data that would facilitate
oversight and enable the DOD to conduct trend analyses; and I
know in the last authorizing bill we included language to move
that collection of data forward.
Where is that? And we are waiting to get more information
about it. What can you tell us?
Dr. Whitley. We recently sent the plan for that database to
Congress. We had a working group, and it was composed of the
services and a member of my staff to design a database that
would do what we need it to do. We have the money for it. It is
going to take us about a year to get it up and running.
I think one of the issues I would like to talk about as far
as data, when our program first stood up, we were required to
report aggregate numbers, and that we have been doing. But as
the program has grown, we are realizing we need the ability to
look at this data in a lot of different ways because it gives
us information that has policy implications.
For example, by installation. And I often would get
questions from the Hill, How many military-on-military sexual
assaults took place at training brigades in CONUS. And I could
not slice and dice the data that way. I would have to go back
to the services. I could get it, but it was almost like a
stubby pencil technique to get that type of data.
Hopefully when this database is up and running, we will be
able to look at the data in a lot of different ways. But we
were reporting just aggregate numbers of reports. And that
paper has been sent with explaining the plan of setting that
up.
Mrs. Davis. Once we have the database, do you believe that
we will be able to, in as transparent a way as possible,
understand the effectiveness of programs that we have
undertaken?
Dr. Whitley. I think it will be very helpful. I go back to
what I said earlier about the surveys that we have that are
telling us how many people are reporting anonymously on surveys
about experiences, be able to look at that and compare that to
the number of reports. And that is going to tell us if we are
reaching the population. It is really hard to measure, I guess
you would call it, prevalence versus incidents. So this will
give us a better idea of that.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you.
Mr. Coombs, from your perspective in California, how is the
military doing in terms of other victims support advocacy
programs? How does it compare?
Mr. Coombs. Well, as I was listening to all of these
questions, I started thinking about what it would like look if
you had me up here talking on behalf of rape crisis centers,
and all of these questions that you are asking are questions
that we would also ask of civilians. And frankly, there are
some of the same problems in the civilian world. We have some
of the same battles over jurisdiction. We have some of the same
trouble with lack of training with certain victim advocates and
the folks that they work with.
I think that when you compare our movement, the sexual
assault prevention and intervention movement, our field, and
you look at the 30 years, the 30-plus years that they have been
working on this, to see the progress that has been made in the
military in 5 years is outstanding. I mean, they have really
done an outstanding job.
That being said, I think that there has to be ongoing
collaboration between military and civilian communities that
every single day civilian victim advocates are learning more
about how we do this work, how we provide the very best
services for victims and survivors and also, frankly, how it is
that we do better work with sex offender management.
So that learning experience is something that is going on
in the civilian world right now. We want to make sure that we
continue that collaboration so that we can share that
information. We can create new policies, we can enhance the new
types of services in the military.
Mrs. Davis. One of the things that I know is happening in
all of the services, although I reference the Army for a
second, is trying to provide better expertise, really using the
resources that are at hand. And there is a sense that we
haven't done that, that perhaps we haven't sought out those
folks who are really at the top of their game in this and that
we are doing that now and that is starting to move forward.
I think the other piece, which we will hear about at
another hearing, is just the education one. I mean, the idea
here it seems to me is to prevent all of this. We obviously
mirror society, so we are not going to wipe this out entirely.
But having the kinds of educational programs as people enter
the services, the kinds of screening that is appropriate, and
to really lay down the law in many ways, that this is not
acceptable, absolutely not acceptable. And everybody has to be
a partner in making certain that people are kept safe in all
places when they are devoting their lives to keeping the
country safe. We have people who are not feeling safe in the
services.
And so I think more needs to be done in that area. And the
greatest thing would be to throw you all out of business,
essentially. We are not going to do that, but that would be
something that would be very positive.
Dr. Snyder has a question quickly.
Dr. Snyder. Regarding getting the restricted reporting
requirement, I assume that there is an age of minority below
which the restricted reporting requirement would not apply?
Ms. Scalzo. Under the sexual assault policy at this point
in time only service members are eligible for restricted
reporting.
Dr. Snyder. Family members are not?
Ms. Scalzo. There is a domestic violence policy which the
family advocacy program has oversight over which does give
restricted reporting to family members. I am not an expert on
that. My understanding is that it is only for adults and it
comes in conflict with----
Dr. Snyder. The mandatory reporting requirements of
children.
Ms. Scalzo. For the purposes of sexual assault under
SAPRO's policy, it is just service member victims.
Mrs. Davis. I want to give you a moment. Is there anything
in your introductory remarks that you might have said that you
want to be sure that we heard before we close down?
Okay. Great. Thank you so much. We appreciate your being
here and especially responding to our first panel. Thank you
very much.
[Whereupon, at 2:03 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
?
=======================================================================
A P P E N D I X
January 28, 2009
=======================================================================
?
=======================================================================
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
January 28, 2009
=======================================================================
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9634.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9634.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9634.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9634.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9634.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9634.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9634.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9634.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9634.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9634.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9634.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9634.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9634.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9634.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9634.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9634.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9634.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9634.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9634.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9634.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9634.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9634.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9634.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9634.024
?
=======================================================================
DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
January 28, 2009
=======================================================================
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9634.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9634.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9634.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9634.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9634.029
?
=======================================================================
WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING
THE HEARING
January 28, 2009
=======================================================================
RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MS. TSONGAS
Sergeant Horwath. For FY07, there were 768 Soldiers with founded
sexual assault offenses. Of the 768 Soldier subjects, 182 were senior
in rank to the victim. Of those 182 subjects, 136 were in the same unit
(battalion-sized unit or smaller).
For FY08, there were 619 Soldiers with founded sexual assault
offenses. Of the 619 Soldier subjects, 127 were senior in rank to the
victim. Of those 127 subjects, 92 were in the same unit (battalion-
sized unit or smaller).
Caveats:
1. The ranks E1 through E4 were treated as one pay band, and were
not counted in the superior-junior ratings above.
2. There are a number of FY08 cases still open and active;
therefore, no final Founded/Unfounded decision has been made on those
cases. Thus, the numbers of subjects for FY08 is subject to change.
[See page 26.]
Chief Petty Officer McKennie. The requested data is presented in
table format for ease of reference. Have also included the statistics
for E-5 and below for consistency with earlier response. [See page 26.]
US Navy
FY07 FY08
Total # of Investigations Involving Service Member on Service Member reports \1\ 176 196
# of Victim Reports (Victim Subordinate in Rank to Subject): 87 83
# of Victim Reports (Subject Subordinate in Rank to Victim): 15 16
# of Victim Reports (Victim and Subject were Same Rank): 26 49
# of Victim Reports (NFI) \2\: 56 65
Total # of Service Member Subjects 195 212
Statutory Basis - # Of Investigations for Disposition of Subjects 176 196
# UCMJ 162 185
# Civilian 14 11
Total # of Service Member Subjects \3\ 195 212
Total # of Service Member Subjects--E-4 and Below 69 89
Total # of Service Member Subjects--E-5 and Below 92 121
Total # of Service Member Victims \4\ 184 213
Total # of Service Member Victims--E-4 and Below 148 172
Total # of Service Member Victims--E-5 and Below 169 191
_______
\1\ Taken from the total number of unrestricted reports in the Annual SAPRO submissions for FY07 & FY08. This
total does not include the following types of reports: Non-Service on Service, Service on Non-Service, or
Unidentified on Service. Investigations may include more then one subject and/or victim.
\2\ NFI--No Further Information provided--Either the rank of the subject and/or victim is not available to make
a determination for the report to be placed in one of the previous three categories.
\3\ Includes Subjects from other services and those whose ranks are higher than E5 or for which NFI was
available.
\4\ Total number of Victim reports include those made by other service members and those with ranks higher than
E5.
?
=======================================================================
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING
January 28, 2009
=======================================================================
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MS. SHEA-PORTER
Ms. Shea-Porter. Are moral waivers being granted to individuals who
have been convicted of sexual misconduct? If so, how many people have
received moral waivers and what are the criteria for waivers to be
granted?
Dr. Whitley. Conduct waivers are considered for individuals
involved in offenses involving sexual misconduct regardless of the
case's final disposition. Whether a finding of guilt was rendered or
there was some other court-ordered action, the Department requires the
Services to carefully review each case before granting a waiver. The
number of people that were allowed to join with a conduct waiver for
sexual misconduct is still being researched/reviewed by the Services.
That information will be provided as soon as it is available.
Ms. Shea-Porter. Is there, or will there be a way to track
individuals that have been convicted of sexual misconduct and granted
waivers in the Sexual Assault Incident Reporting Database?
Dr. Whitley. No, there will not be tracking of individuals that
have been convicted of sexual misconduct and granted waivers (for
accession into the Armed Forces) in the Sexual Assault Incident
Reporting Database--which is now known as the Defense Sexual Assault
Incident Database, or DSAID.
The Department and each of the personnel components of the Military
Services already have a method for recording, coding and identifying
the locations of military members who have been granted misconduct
waivers at accession. The Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and
Readiness has tasked the office of Military Personnel Policy to manage
information associated with misconduct waivers.
|
NEWSLETTER
|
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
|
|
|
