[House Hearing, 110 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE MILITARY
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY
AND FOREIGN AFFAIRS
of the
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT
AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JULY 31, 2008
__________
Serial No. 110-187
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/
index.html
http://www.oversight.house.gov
----------
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
51-635 PDF WASHINGTON : 2009
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
HENRY A. WAXMAN, California, Chairman
EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York TOM DAVIS, Virginia
PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania DAN BURTON, Indiana
CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut
ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland JOHN M. McHUGH, New York
DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio JOHN L. MICA, Florida
DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana
JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania
WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri CHRIS CANNON, Utah
DIANE E. WATSON, California JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee
STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio
BRIAN HIGGINS, New York DARRELL E. ISSA, California
JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky KENNY MARCHANT, Texas
BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia
ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of PATRICK T. McHENRY, North Carolina
Columbia VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina
BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California
JIM COOPER, Tennessee BILL SALI, Idaho
CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland JIM JORDAN, Ohio
PAUL W. HODES, New Hampshire
CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut
JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland
PETER WELCH, Vermont
JACKIE SPEIER, California
Phil Barnett, Staff Director
Earley Green, Chief Clerk
Lawrence Halloran, Minority Staff Director
Subcommittee on National Security and Foreign Affairs
JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts, Chairman
CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut
STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts DAN BURTON, Indiana
BRIAN HIGGINS, New York JOHN M. McHUGH, New York
JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania
BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee
BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio
JIM COOPER, Tennessee KENNY MARCHANT, Texas
CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia
PAUL W. HODES, New Hampshire PATRICK T. McHENRY, North Carolina
PETER WELCH, Vermont VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina
JACKIE SPEIER, California
Dave Turk, Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on July 31, 2008.................................... 1
Statement of:
Harman, Hon. Jane, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California........................................ 18
Rochelle, Lieutenant General Michael D., Deputy Chief of
Staff, G1, U.S. Army; and Brenda S. Farrell, Director,
Defense Capabilities and Management, U.S. Government
Accountability Office...................................... 91
Farrell, Brenda S........................................ 98
Rochelle, Lieutenant General Michael D................... 91
Slaughter, Hon. Louise M., a Representative in Congress from
the State of New York...................................... 7
Torres, Ingrid S., MSW, CSW; and Mary Steiner Lauterbach,
mother of Lance Corporal Maria Lauterbach.................. 24
Lauterbach, Mary Steiner................................. 45
Torres, Ingrid S......................................... 24
Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:
Farrell, Brenda S., Director, Defense Capabilities and
Management, U.S. Government Accountability Office, prepared
statement of............................................... 100
Harman, Hon. Jane, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California, prepared statement of................. 21
Lauterbach, Mary Steiner, mother of Lance Corporal Maria
Lauterbach, prepared statement of.......................... 47
Rochelle, Lieutenant General Michael D., Deputy Chief of
Staff, G1, U.S. Army, prepared statement of................ 93
Slaughter, Hon. Louise M., a Representative in Congress from
the State of New York, prepared statement of............... 10
Tierney, Hon. John F., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Massachusetts, prepared statement of.............. 4
Torres, Ingrid S., MSW, CSW, prepared statement of........... 30
SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE MILITARY
----------
THURSDAY, JULY 31, 2008
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on National Security and Foreign
Affairs,
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in
room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. John F. Tierney
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Tierney, Braley, McCollum, Cooper,
Welch, Shays, Platts, Turner, and Waxman (ex officio).
Also present: Representative Davis of California.
Staff present: Dave Turk, staff director; Andrew Su,
professional staff member; Davis Hake, clerk; Andy Wright,
counsel; Rebbeca Macke, graduate intern; A. Brooke Bennett,
minority counsel; Todd Greenwood and John Ohly, minority
professional staff members; Mark Lavin, minority Army fellow;
and Nick Palarino, minority senior investigator and policy
advisor.
Mr. Tierney. A quorum being present, the Subcommittee on
National Security and Foreign Affairs hearing entitled,
``Sexual Assault in the Military,'' will come to order.
I ask unanimous consent that only the chairman and ranking
member of the subcommittee be allowed to make opening
statements. And I ask unanimous consent that the following
Members be allowed to participate in this hearing:
Congresswoman Louise Slaughter from New York, Congresswoman
Jane Harman from California, Congresswoman Susan Davis from
California, Congresswoman Diane Watson from California and
Congressman Elijah Cummings from Maryland.
Pursuant to the House Rules, these Members will be allowed
to ask questions of our witnesses only after all members of the
subcommittee have first had an opportunity to do so. Without
objection, so ordered.
I ask unanimous consent that the hearing record be kept
open for 5 business days so that all members of the
subcommittee be allowed to submit a written statement for the
record. Without objection, so ordered.
Good morning, and thank you all for being here. I
particularly thank our fellow Members, our colleagues who are
here. Ms. Slaughter, I understand that you have to leave to be
on the floor of the House by 10:15. Mr. Shays has graciously
indicated he will waive his opening statement until after you
have testified. I will just open quickly and set some
groundwork for the hearing.
We are conducting this hearing obviously for the oversight
of sexual assault in the military. What is at stake here goes
to the very core of the values of the military and of the
Nation itself. When our sons and daughters put their lives on
the line to defend the rest of us, the last thing they should
fear is being attacked by one of our own.
We fundamentally have a duty to prevent sexual assaults in
the military as much as humanly possible and to punish
attackers quickly and severely. We also must empower victims so
they feel comfortable coming forward to seek justice and to
receive help to get their lives back on track and to restore
their dignity.
Finally, we simply must ensure a climate in our military
where sexual assault is in no way, either officially or
unofficially, condoned, ignored or tolerated.
Sexual assault scandals have taken place in every
administration and each and every military service, from
Vietnam to the 1991 Tailhook scandal in the Navy, from the 1996
Aberdeen incidents in the Army to the Air Force Academy in
2003. After each scandal, we are told by Defense Department
officials that they will crack down on violators and change the
military culture so that those despicable crimes will never
happen again.
We hear time and again that the military has a zero
tolerance policy toward sexual assaults. Yet there sometimes
appears to be a lack of urgency or leadership or resources to
transform those statements into reality.
Since this subcommittee's 2006 hearing, I understand and
appreciate that the Defense Department has taken some positive
steps to improve training, education and care. Congress, too,
has been active. We have demanded greater transparency and
accountability. We have tasked the Pentagon with establishing
comprehensive policies to prevent and respond to military
sexual assault and to ensure access to trained personnel. We
have required the Department to collect information and to
report this data back to Congress.
Today the subcommittee will assess the military's efforts
with a specific focus on exploring what more we can do to
prevent sexual assaults from happening in the first place; to
provide support, dignity and services to victims; and to
quickly and vigorously punish those committing the heinous
crimes.
We will first hear from top leaders in Congress,
specifically from Louise Slaughter of New York and Jane Harman
of California. These are representatives who have been
instrumental in past legislative accomplishments and who have
been advocating for further specific improvements.
We will then welcome Ingrid Torres and Mary Lauterbach. We
are privileged to have you both testify before us today, so
that all of us, Members of Congress, executive branch
officials, and the American public can learn from your personal
tragedies; so that lessons from your harrowing tales and your
insights can spur action; so good can come from your tragedies.
Your courage in being with us here is truly inspiring, and we
thank you.
Finally, we will hear from a panel of Government officials.
We have scheduled some key policymakers from the Defense
Department as well as our military services, and we expect that
they will explain to us all of their current efforts. We will
also hear from the Government Accountability Office on its 2-
year independent investigation into efforts to prevent and
respond to military sexual assaults. The Government
Accountability Office will discuss both the progress that has
been made as well as highlight remaining challenges and
obstacles that need to be overcome.
I will waive the balance of my statement, and put it in the
record with the assent of all the Members here. Hearing no
objection, so ordered. We will move to Ms. Slaughter, who has a
time constraint, and we really do want to hear what you want to
say, particularly about the legislation that you filed.
[The prepared statement of Hon. John F. Tierney follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
STATEMENT OF HON. LOUISE M. SLAUGHTER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Ms. Slaughter. Thank you for your great kindness in
foregoing your opening statements. I have the convergence of
facts that falls on us every morning here, and I have to be on
the floor very shortly.
This is a terribly important issue to us. I thank you for
the interest that both of you have shown in this, and the
support you have given.
I want to express this gratitude, because not only are you
worried about it, and it has been a continuing oversight on
your part to address this problem of sexual assault in the
military. It is an ongoing problem. It has gone on for far too
long. And I appreciate your efforts to hold the Department of
Defense accountable for implementing the programs to prevent
and prosecute sexual assault and to care for its victims.
Incidents of sexual assault and sexual harassment in the
military undermine the solidarity and trust essential to the
success of military operations. The very nature of military
operations exposes our service men and women to dangers that
most of us could never imagine. Those who enlist to serve
expect to sacrifice their safety to protect Americans from
foreign enemies. But they do not and should not expect to have
to defend themselves from their fellow service members.
Unfortunately, women have suffered in silence for decades, but
as the result of courageous women sharing their stories of
being sexually assaulted, we decided to act.
In March 2004, as co-chair of the Congressional Caucus on
Women's Issues, I held a hearing on this issue. I will never
forget one of the witnesses who talked about her horror of
having to salute her rapist every day. She finally left the
military. In fact, many women who tried to report sexual
assault were told, you don't want to ruin that young man's
career, dear. There was absolutely nothing done for them, it
was classic blame the victim. And most of them failed to be at
all supported and lost their own military careers because of
it.
But following that hearing, the House unanimously adopted a
amendment to the fiscal year 2005 Defense Authorization bill,
requiring the Pentagon to develop a comprehensive and uniform
policy to prevent and to respond to the sexual assault of women
in the military. And every year since, we keep chipping away at
the problem, and there is still, I am sorry to say, a way to
go.
Beginning in 2006, DOD allowed victims of sexual assault
options in reporting. The unrestricted reporting triggers the
chain of command, making health care information and other
details part of a record available to the military law
enforcement. While restricted reporting enables the victim to
get the counseling and health care services they need, DOD
needs to expand this protection to allow victims to come
forward and seek justice throughout the legal system without
compromising the confidentiality of their private health care
system. Many women have had to go off base, seeking out rape
crisis systems to get any kind of relief at all.
This March, the Department of Defense fourth annual report
states that 2,688 results were reported last year by people in
uniform. It was down about 9 percent from the year before. But
the decline follows a change in reporting methods in 2 years of
marked increases in reports of sexual assault. The reports
jumped by about 24 percent in 2006 and nearly 40 percent in
2005. Given the increase in reports of sexual assault
documented in two previous reports and possible discrepancies
arising out of the change in the reporting methods, it is hard
to conclusively determine that the decline in reports of sexual
assault reflects an actual decline in that behavior.
Failure to uniformly gather and report information related
to the investigation and disposition of sexual assault claims
complicates our policy-based efforts to address sexual assault
in the military and frustrates the purpose of the Department of
Defense's existing programs. Moreover, failure to use common
terminology in reporting among the services prevents Congress
and DOD from having a complete understanding of the problem.
Additionally, the holes in information and the
understanding left open by a lack of cohesive reporting
practices are made worse by an overall lack of coordination
among the services. Piecemeal solutions will not solve a
pervasive problem. We need a comprehensive approach to
addressing sexual assault and harassment. So I have
reintroduced the Military Domestic and Sexual Violence Response
Act. I think this is an important piece of legislation that
will ensure greater protections for service members and their
families should they become victims of violence. It will also
strengthen programs to prevent violence against fellow soldiers
and military families.
The Military Domestic and Sexual Violence Response Act will
bring the military up to par with civilian laws. Specifically,
it will establish the Office of Victims Advocate within the DOD
to bring the Family Advocacy Program under the Office of
Victims Advocate, and create a director of the Office of
Victims Advocates to oversee and to coordinate, to prevent and
respond to cases of domestic violence and sexual assault. That
is done rarely, too seldom. It will codify the rights and the
restitution policies, the treatment and other services for
victims within UCMJ, including creating comprehensive
confidentiality protocols to protect the rights of victims. I
cannot stress enough that in these cases the victims have
almost no rights at all. It will strengthen policies for
reporting prosecution and certainly going after the
perpetrators of violence.
Now, in addition to protecting our service members from
sexual assault and harassment, we have a new duty we have to
perform, and that is to protect individuals who work in foreign
countries as contractors working overseas. Earlier this year, I
was troubled to hear the story of Jamie Leigh Jones, an
American citizen who alleged that she was gang raped by fellow
employees while employed in Baghdad by KBR in 2005. After the
alleged attack, Army doctors did perform a medical examination
on Ms. Jones and found evidence of vaginal and anal rape.
For reasons beyond my comprehension, the results of the
rape kit were turned over to KBR. According to Ms. Jones, she
was held captive in a shipping crate under armed guard and
deprived of food and water for 24 hours by KBR security.
The State Department and U.S. Embassy in Baghdad did
facilitate Ms. Jones' release, and thanks to Congressman Poe
for helping with that. All the portions of the kit have
mysteriously disappeared. Over 2\1/2\ years later, her
assailants have yet to be indicted and she has yet to receive
justice. Mr. Chairman, she is only one of many cases.
The affidavits filed in the case of Jamie Leigh Jones show
an alarming pattern of widespread sexual assault and harassment
among Government contract employees in environments that
condone and support such behavior, and retaliation against
victims who come forward regarding these crimes. Now, I
understand that DOD has a protocol for dealing with assault
claims raised by contractors. But these harrowing experiences
prompt us to pose serious questions regarding the DOD's overall
efforts to address crimes against individuals in similar
situations.
The question basically is, do we have any responsibility
over the American contractors? I know that from time to time,
we have wavered a lot in the answer for that. DOD must do more
to ensure that American civilians serving abroad receive the
same protections as our service members. Any incident of sexual
assault is one too many. The military should be at the
forefront of prosecuting assailants and setting high standards
for treatment for service men and women and the civilians with
whom they work.
We will lose valuable soldiers if our armed forces cannot
guarantee the most basic protections to ensure that the victims
receive necessary counseling and treatment.
Mr. Chairman, in my own district, I know of a young woman
in the intelligence services in the Air Force who was based in
Alaska and was a victim of the great macho Air Force, we are
the big men who fly, sort of the same thing that happened with
Tailhook. This brilliant young woman with a brilliant future
ahead of her, in her 20's, was so broken by what had happened
to her that she had to give up any opportunity for promotion or
even to serve the country that she loved just as much as anyone
else in the service.
We have had this go on far too long. I appreciate the
complexity of it and the laying of responsibility. But at the
very least, we should change our attitude and determine that
the victim deserves the best that we can give her. And if it
requires separating the person she has accused until it can be
adjudicated, I frankly would like to see that happen. I don't
want any more women ever coming to work in the morning saluting
the man who may have raped her the night before.
Thank you very much for your courtesy; I appreciate it.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Louise M. Slaughter
follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Tierney. Thank you, Ms. Slaughter. We appreciate your
testimony and your leadership on this issue and also the fact
that you have to remove now to the floor where you are doing a
rule, I believe, on that.
Ms. Slaughter. I can't thank you all enough for giving up
your time. You are most generous.
Mr. Tierney. We appreciate it. Thank you.
Ms. Harman, with your consent, we are going to go to the
chairman's opening statement. We are pleased to have with us
the chairman of the full committee to make an opening
statement, then Mr. Shays, then we will have the testimony of
Ms. Harman.
Mr. Waxman, you are recognized.
Mr. Waxman. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate
the indulgence of our colleague, Jane Harman. And I thank her
and Louise Slaughter for their leadership on this issue and
their speaking out about this problem.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate you and Mr. Shays holding this
hearing. Yesterday, we held a hearing about the accidental
electrocutions of military people in their barracks, even in
their showers. And it showed that the Defense Department has
failed the test of providing our soldiers with a safe living
environment. Today we are going to examine another area where
the Department has failed the test of basic protections for our
soldiers, sexual assault.
Sexual assaults have occurred in every branch of the
military. It is a longstanding problem and the refusal of the
military to fix this problem is embarrassing and tragic. As the
Government Accountability Office is going to report today, it
is difficult to get the Department of Defense to take basic
steps, such as standardizing definitions of sexual assault and
harassment, collecting data and hiring victim advocates and
social workers.
It appears that commanders at Military installations are
given far too much latitude and discretion in deciding the
outcome of reported assaults. Often offenders simply get a slap
on the wrist. This hearing and Congress must send a message
that sexual assault and harassment will not be tolerated
anywhere in the military and there will be a clear and harsh
punishment for violators.
Mr. Chairman, I am concerned that given our Nation's
increasing reliance on contractors, they should be neither
immune from prosecution nor left without medical and legal
recourse when they are the victims of sexual assaults. Our
troops make enormous sacrifices to protect our Nation. We need
to protect them from being victimized by their fellow soldiers
and commanding officers.
I thank you for this opportunity to make a statement. I
have a longer one I wish to put into the record.
Mr. Tierney. Without objection, it will be put into the
record and thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Shays, you are recognized.
Mr. Shays. Thank you, Chairman Tierney, for scheduling this
hearing and continuing to apply needed pressure on the
Department of Defense, DOD, regarding sexual assault in our
military. As the former chairman of the subcommittee, I held a
hearing on this issue and commissioned a report from the
Government Accountability Office [GAO], in 2006, focusing on
sexual assault in two of our Nation's military academies. This
subcommittee heard from Ms. Beth Davis, a former U.S. Air Force
Academy cadet who detailed a horrific experience of rape in a
culture that fostered this destructive behavior. She testified,
``I was raped and assaulted repeatedly, and they instructed us
that if we were attacked, to not report it to the authorities,
because it would effectively destroy our careers.''
Her ordeal triggered a 2005 Defense Task Force on sexual
harassment and violence at the military service academies.
Understanding that this problem was more systematic, the 2005
National Defense Authorization Act required DOD to establish a
second task force to evaluate sexual assault in the military.
That was in 2005.
At the time of our June 2006 hearing, this task force still
needed the appointment of several more members. DOD offered no
sound reasons for dragging its feet other than the members were
being strategically selected. The task force is intended to
provide the military with feedback on its programs and evaluate
them across the DOD. The task force was chartered so best
practices could then be incorporated and sound policy
implemented.
One key development to support the work of this task force
was the creation of a data base that accurately records
incidents of sexual assault across the military. This
information will be used to evaluate programs and better
protect our service members who fall victim to sexual assault.
So the questions I have are simple. Where are we today? And how
far has the program developed in 2 years?
Well, let's look at the facts. Programs have been
implemented by the services. However, DOD has still not created
a data base to accurately record incidents of sexual assault.
DOD is limited in its ability to conduct comprehensive analysis
of sexual assault incidents because the services are not
providing the installation data.
Therefore, DOD lacks the information to try to evaluate its
programs, apply lessons on a macro level or target its
resources to fix problems. Additionally, as one brave young
lady will describe today, there exists a large gap between the
level of care and services available to both civil servants and
civilian dependents who are subject to this criminal behavior.
These challenges in program limitations could have been
addressed and potentially remedied by the Defense Task Force
nearly 2 years ago and certainly by now.
However, this group has never met. We have just recently
been informed that they will meet for the first time next
month, in 2008, while it was supposed to be established in
2005. At the June 2006 hearing, the DOD told this subcommittee
that the task force and the data base were days away from being
fully operational. That was in 2006. Here we are in 2008. And
again being told that they are days away from being fully
operational. Years of inaction at the DOD continue to speak
volumes about the senior leadership commitment, or more
appropriately stated, lack of commitment, to our service
members and civil servants. Our military's greatest challenge
should be on the battlefield, not protecting its members from
sexual assault.
Thankfully, this subcommittee had the foresight to keep GAO
studying and auditing DOD to document its lack of commitment to
battling sexual assault. Testimony today will show that at the
department level, little progress has been made. I look to the
GAO today to help us sort out this colossal mess. The
subcommittee understands that sexual assault is a problem
within DOD and within our society. This should not be an excuse
for DOD, but a reason for extra effort. The culture in the
military has changed somewhat from the days of the Tailhook
incident. But it is pathetic to think that DOD cares so little
about the safety of its female employees and the conduct of its
male employees.
I appreciate Congresswoman Slaughter and Congresswoman
Harman for testifying today. I want to assure them, we will do
everything we have to on a bipartisan basis to make sure DOD
wakes up to the victimization of the women who serve our
country. The DOD has run out of excuses. When it comes to
sexual assault in the military, DOD has no credibility,
absolutely none, zero, zip.
Mr. Tierney. Thank you, Mr. Shays, and thank you for your
leadership on this. I think it is important to note that these
hearings were actually commenced when you were chair of the
subcommittee, and we continue on with that work because of its
importance.
The Honorable Jane S. Harman has joined us here this
morning. Congresswoman Harman has represented California's 36th
District since 1992. She currently serves as the Chair of the
Homeland Security Subcommittee on Intelligence and Terrorism
Risk Assessment and is also a member of the Energy and Commerce
Committee. Most recently, she has introduced a sense of
Congress resolution urging the Secretary of Defense to
encourage more investigations and prosecutions of sexual
assault in the military. Congresswoman Harman is a long-time
leader of women's health issues, and we are happy to have you
here today.
Ms. Harman, please benefit us with your testimony.
STATEMENT OF HON. JANE HARMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Ms. Harman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr.
Shays, for your powerful remarks, for your enormous concern
about an issue that is deeply personal for me. As a woman
Member of this House, as someone who has focused her entire
career here on protecting the security of the United States of
America, it is galling and enormously upsetting to think that
the personal security of the women who fight for our flag is at
risk.
As you mentioned, I spent 6 years here serving on the Armed
Services Committee where I was on a three-person task force
investigating sexual harassment against women in the military.
I spent 8 years on the Intelligence Committee, I spent 4 years
on the Homeland Security Committee, where I chaired the
Intelligence Subcommittee. And these issues are never far from
my personal priority list.
Sixty years have passed since President Truman issued his
historic order ending racial segregation in the military. Here
in Congress, we recently commemorated this milestone with
Defense Secretary Robert Gates and former Secretary of State
and chairman of the Joint Chiefs Colin Powell. Speaking at the
event, Secretary Powell, who joined the Army just 10 years
after Truman's order, said, ``They no longer cared whether I
was black or white, immigrant or not.'' His commanders, he
said, asked him only one question: can you perform? And as we
all know, he did.
Perhaps less well known is that the same year, Truman also
signed the Women's Armed Services Integration Act into law,
landmark legislation that allowed women to serve permanently in
the armed forces. And we have. But as noteworthy as this event
was, the progress it represented on paper, the progress for
women it represented on paper, it still in many important
respects eludes us. And I want to focus today, as you are, and
as this hearing is, on a major problem, which is rape and
sexual assault in the military, and the bipartisan legislation
that Mike Turner, a member of your panel--who is sitting right
here, and I am pleased to see you, Mike--and I have introduced,
H. Con. Res. 397, which is intended to halt the epidemic of
assault and rape against women in our military.
The stories are shocking in their simplicity and brutality.
A female military recruit is pinned down at knife point and
raped repeatedly in her barracks. Though her attackers hid
their faces, she identified them by their uniforms. They were
her fellow soldiers. During a routine gynecological exam, a
female soldier is attacked and raped by her military physician.
Yet another young soldier, still adapting to life in a war
zone, is raped by her commanding officer. Afraid for her
standing in her unit, she feels she has nowhere to turn.
These stories are sadly not isolated events. Women serving
in the U.S. military today are more likely to be raped by a
fellow soldier than killed by enemy fire in Iraq. Let me say
that again. Women serving in the U.S. military today are more
likely to be raped by a fellow soldier than killed by enemy
fire in Iraq.
The scope of the problem was brought into acute focus for
me during a visit to the West Los Angeles VA Health Center,
where I met female veterans and their doctors. My jaw dropped
when the doctors told me that 41 percent of the female veterans
seen there say they were victims of sexual assault while
serving in the military; 29 percent say they were raped during
their military service. They spoke of their continued terror,
feelings of helplessness and the downward spirals many of their
lives have taken since, just the kind of story that Louise
Slaughter just described.
Numbers reported by the Department of Defense show the same
sickening pattern. In 2006, 2,947 sexual assaults were
reported, 73 percent more than in 2004. The DOD's most recent
report, released earlier this summer, indicates that 2,688
reports were made in 2007. But a recent shift, as you have
heard, from calendar year reporting to fiscal year reporting
makes comparisons with data from previous years much more
difficult.
The Pentagon has made some efforts to manage this epidemic,
most notably in 2005, after the media received anonymous e-mail
messages about sexual assaults at the Air Force Academy. The
press scrutiny and congressional attention, and I thank you for
that, which followed led DOD to create the Sexual Assault and
Response Office, SAPRO. Since its inception, SAPRO has
initiated training and improved reporting of rapes and sexual
assaults, but has failed to track prosecution rates, or how
witnesses are faring within the military structure. I can tell
you how they are faring, and it is not a happy story.
At the heart of this crisis is an apparent inability or
unwillingness to prosecute rapists in the ranks. According to
DOD's own statistics, a mere 181 out of 2,212 subjects, or 8
percent investigated for sexual assaults in 2007, including
over 1,200 reports of rape, were referred to courts-martial. In
nearly half the cases investigated, the chain of command took
no action and in the majority of those that were acted upon,
the offenders were assigned administrative or non-judicial
punishment. As Chairman Waxman just said, in most cases that
meant a slap on the wrist.
In more than one-third of the cases that were not pursued,
the commander took no action because of ``insufficient
evidence.'' This is in stark contrast to the civil justice
system, where 40 percent of those arrested for rape are
prosecuted, according to Department of Justice and FBI figures.
The DOD must close this gap and remove the obstacles to
effective investigation and prosecution. Failure to draw bright
red lines produces two harmful consequences. First, it deters
victims from reporting rapes, and it fails to deter offenders.
But second of all, it perpetuates the attitude, which all of us
should condemn, that boys will be boys.
The legislation that Mr. Turner and I have introduced calls
on the Secretary of Defense to develop and implement a
comprehensive strategy to end assault and rape in the military,
to encourage and increase investigations and prosecutions. It
also urges the Secretary to provide better protection for
victims from their alleged attackers after reporting a sexual
assault or rape.
I have raised this issue, Mr. Chairman, personally with
Secretary of Defense Gates, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs
Admiral Mike Mullen, our former colleague, Army Secretary Pete
Geren, among others. While they express real concern, and I
believe that Pete Geren is going to make this a major focus of
his tenure as Secretary of the Army, and I commend him for
this, much, much, much more needs to be done.
And Congress must do better, too. While these sexual
assault statistics are readily available, our oversight has yet
to come to grips with an effective answer to solve the problem.
No doubt the abhorrent and graphic nature of the reports makes
people uncomfortable. But this is no excuse, and I applaud you,
and I applaud Mr. Shays for shining a light and focusing on
this problem.
Let me just conclude with this. Most of our service women
and men are patriotic, courageous and hard-working people who
embody the best of what it means to be an American. The failure
to stem sexual assault and rape in the military runs counter to
those ideals and shames us all.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Jane Harman follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Tierney. Thank you very much, Ms. Harman. You have
given us some information that is substantial there.
Did you want to ask for clarification on any of that, Mr.
Shays?
Mr. Shays. Just one. First, thank you for your great
statement and your kind words to all of us. But you gave a
statistic of something like 2,000 or 1,200, and was that an
annual rate of accusation? This was, you were making, it was
something to do with accusation.
Ms. Harman. I said that according to DOD's statistics, 181,
a mere 181 out of 2,212----
Mr. Shays. 2,212 accusations. Thank you, that is the
number.
Ms. Harman [continuing]. Subjects investigated for sexual
assault in 2007 were referred to courts-martial. So it is an 8
percent rate, and that compares with a 40 percent rate in the
civil justice system.
Mr. Shays. So it was a 2,000 number that was studied?
Ms. Harman. Yes, 2,200 in 2007.
Mr. Tierney. Thank you, Ms. Harman.
I understand that, if possible, you are going to join the
panel some time today. I know you have a busy schedule. We want
to thank you very much for sharing your testimony and for your
drive behind this issue and your leadership.
Ms. Harman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I will try to
stay, because as I said, this is a very deeply personal issue
to me, and I respect very much the people who will appear on
panels following me. I appreciate the committee's courtesy in
inviting me to sit as part of the hearing panel. I want to
thank you again for your personal interest.
Mr. Tierney. We are happy to have you join us.
Ms. Harman. You and I have had numerous conversations about
this subject.
Mr. Tierney. We have. Thank you.
With that, we will move to the second panel. Thank you
again, Ms. Harman. If the members of our second panel will
kindly take their seats, in a couple of minutes we will get
started on that.
The subcommittee will now receive testimony from our second
panel of witnesses. We want to thank you both for your courage
in coming to share your stories and your insights with us
today. We are hoping that your testimony gives us some guidance
on how we might improve the situation and what we do in the
service with respect to issues of rape and assault.
Ms. Ingrid Torres is a station manager with the American
Red Cross. She has served in close proximity with the U.S.
military, including by providing direct field support to
military operations. Since beginning her career with the
American Red Cross in 2003, Ms. Torres has served, among other
places, in Germany, Korea, Iraq and Japan. She has a masters in
social work from the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. We
thank you, Ms. Torres, for your years of dedicated public
service. We welcome you to the hearing today.
I would like to yield to Congressman Turner to briefly
introduce our second witness on the panel, who is a constituent
in his district, Ms. Mary Lauterbach.
Mr. Turner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you
and Ranking Member Shays and Representative Harman for your
efforts to highlight this issue. This is a very serious issue
which has incredible consequences on individual people's lives.
We will hear some of that today. It is an opportunity where I
think we can get the type of information necessary for us to be
able to take action that hopefully can make a difference in
this.
Today I have with us Mary Lauterbach, who is from my
district in Vandalia, OH. Many people have heard the tragic
story of her daughter, Maria, who was raped and murdered. Maria
accused a fellow Marine, Cesar Laurean, of raping her. After
that accusation, Maria and her unborn child were found dead and
buried in Laurean's back yard.
Since that tragic death, Mary has been a tireless advocate
for women in uniform. She has visited Capitol Hill, and Mr.
Chairman and ranking member, I appreciate your efforts to meet
with her and hear her story and the ways we can make a
difference. Her story is inspirational. She has taken this to
the issue of not only wanting answers about the tragic death of
her daughter, Maria, but how can we make a difference in
protecting other women who are serving and addressing this
issue.
So Mr. Chairman, thank you for having her today. We
appreciate the opportunity to hear her story.
Mr. Tierney. Thank you, Mr. Turner.
Thank you, Ms. Lauterbach, for joining us.
It is the custom of this committee to swear in witnesses
before they testify, so I will ask the witnesses to please
stand and raise your right hands.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Tierney. Thank you. The record will please reflect that
both witnesses answered in the affirmative.
Your full statements are going to be placed on the record
with the unanimous consent of this committee, so you needn't
feel compelled to have to read the whole of it. We allot about
5 minutes for opening statements, because Members will be
anxious to ask questions and delve for some insight on that. So
please try to keep your remarks within 5 minutes. You will see
the light turn from green to yellow when there is about a
minute left. A bell doesn't go off, just the light changes.
Then it turns to red when time is up. We of course will let you
wind down and finish as appropriately as possible.
We appreciate your being here. We are going to be as
lenient as we can on the time.
Ms. Torres, we will start with you if you are ready.
STATEMENTS OF INGRID S. TORRES, MSW, CSW; AND MARY STEINER
LAUTERBACH, MOTHER OF LANCE CORPORAL MARIA LAUTERBACH
STATEMENT OF INGRID S. TORRES
Ms. Torres. Chairman Tierney, Congressman Shays and other
distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to testify today about the Department of Defense
Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Program.
I would also like to thank RAINN for their continued
support of victims of sexual assault.
I would like to begin by explaining a little about whom I
am and the work that I do before summarizing my experiences
with the SAPRO program. Before I get into that, however, I just
state that I am here not as a representative of my employer,
but rather, I am here as a private citizen.
That said, I am currently employed by the American National
Red Cross within a branch of our organization that works almost
exclusively with the military. As a member of the Service to
the Armed Forces [SAF], mobile staff, I have been stationed at
Yokota Air base in Tokyo, Japan; Camp Victory in Baghdad, Iraq;
Kunsan Air Base in the Republic of Korea; and the U.S. Army
Garrison Mannheim in Mannheim, Germany.
At overseas bases, American Red Cross managers are
considered emergency and essential personnel and are thus
required to live on the installation. My time overseas was
spent with the American military and the men and women that I
lived and worked with became my colleagues and friends.
I grew up in Indiana, moved to Ann Arbor, Michigan to
pursue a masters of social work [MSW], at the University of
Michigan. I first started working for the Red Cross in 2003 in
Michigan while working to complete my MSW. I graduated in 2005
and accepted a position with the American National Red Cross as
an assistant station manager in Japan. I remember being so
excited to be doing a job that can make a difference to those
serving their country, especially during a time of war.
It was while I was stationed at Kunsan Air Base in the
Republic of Korea in 2006 that I endured an assault, which is
the reason I am sitting in front of all of you today. On the
evening of the assault, I had taken Ambien, a medication I had
been prescribed to aid in sleep after serving in Iraq. And I
was raped while I slept.
The perpetrator, who was an installation flight doctor, had
a complete understanding of the effects of a sleeping aid such
as Ambien, and he used that knowledge to hurt me. He was later
found guilty and is currently in military confinement and has
been dismissed from the Air Force.
The road after sexual assault is a long and challenging
one. As is typical with victims of violent crime, I suffered
from PTSD, terrifying nightmares and depression. I still wake
in the night, he still comes after me in my dreams. Since the
night of the rape and in the aftermath of the trial, I have
experienced the SAPRO program at duty stations in Korea, Japan
and Germany. I must say that the programs in each area vary
greatly, some better, some worse, all in need of change.
Civilians are not afforded the same protections as active duty
military personnel after suffering a sexual assault. And yet
civilians outnumber the military personnel with whom they live
and serve. Civilians outnumber active duty personnel, and yet
they are sidelined when it comes to being provided adequate
care after an assault.
Throughout the rest of my statement, I am going to advise
you of some of the different aspects of the SAPRO program and
provide you with my recommendations for change. Specifically, I
will be discussing restricted versus unrestricted reporting,
some of the differences in the SAPRO program at different duty
locations and the response from military personnel. I will
conclude by making five recommendations.
First, restricted versus unrestricted reporting. About 2
years ago, a policy was established that allowed for military
personnel to report a sexual assault as either restricted or
unrestricted. A restricted report gives victims the option to
come forward and get medical services confidentially, without
going through the chain of command.
Mr. Tierney. Ms. Torres, we are going to turn the light
off, so that you can take the time that you need to testify.
You have five recommendations, I think that we want to hear
them fully. So don't feel compelled to rush because that light
keeps flicking in front of you. We are happy to hear the
balance of your testimony.
Thank you.
Ms. Torres. A restricted report gives victims the option to
come forward and get medical services confidentially, without
going through the chain of command or the legal system.
Civilians, however, were not and are not yet afforded this
option. We are only allowed to make an unrestricted report,
which means that once a civilian comes forward, the Military is
required to investigate the crime and, if there is sufficient
evidence, the military is required to prosecute. The entire
process is difficult, prolonged and serves to re-victimize the
injured party at every turn, as I was. If I knew then what I
know now, I can't say with certainty that I would have reported
the assault, because of the challenge that I experienced with
the system.
I should at the very least have had the option of making a
restricted report, if for no other reason than to avoid facing
the obstacles that I faced every time I needed to go to the
health clinic, where my perpetrator worked and was allowed to
continue working, or to attend meetings with the base's group
commanders, lawyers or investigators that were processing my
case. My life became about the rape.
I have dealt with a lot of hostility over the last year and
a half because of the sheer number of people who knew about the
incident and the way that my case was handled. It seemed that
everybody knew what was going on, and I had to continue to work
with these individuals for nearly a year. Because of the
pending court-martial, I was advised by OSI, the Office of
Special Investigations and JAG not to talk openly about the
case, which caused rumors and misconceptions to run rampant.
There was no escaping it and there was no making it better. The
hostility grew with my silence, mostly, I learned, after the
trial, because no one knew exactly what was going on and it
made everybody uncomfortable.
Ultimately, our society still publicly and privately tries
the victims in sexual assault cases. Rape is the only crime
where the victim must prove their innocence.
The Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Program has very
little oversight and is different, depending on where you live.
During legal proceedings of my case, I was stationed at three
different bases in three different countries and had three very
different experiences with the SAPRO program within multiple
branches of the military. There are so many differences that I
can't really go into all of them now.
Some of the things of note, the difference between victim
advocates between the Army and the Air Force specifically, how
they are selected, inconsistent knowledge of the program by the
SARCs, the sexual assault response coordinators. Also being
denied care was another issue. I would be happy to answer
further questions about some of the differences in detail
should you have those. They are written in my official written
statement.
Third, response from military personnel. I do believe that
the response from senior leadership as well as other military
personnel is an important element in preventing future rapes
from occurring. The best example I can give you is that I was
actually approached by the offender's commander and he
requested my opinion on punishing the crime with an Article 15
rather than a court-martial. An Article 15 is non-judicial
punishment, and is essentially a slap on the wrist.
Commanders do have broad authority and discretion in how to
respond to rape. But simply giving an Article 15 will not deter
such crimes, and it sets the tone that such crimes will go by
essentially unpunished.
There were people who were supportive of me in command
positions, and they were fantastic. But it is actions like that
do set the tone as well.
The most important thing to note about the response of
commanders and personnel is that I as the victim made others
feel more uncomfortable than he did as the perpetrator because
I stood up and said something.
My recommendations. I recommend the following five actions
be undertaken as appropriate by the administration, the
Department of Defense and Congress.
One, seriously review the SAPRO program in each branch of
service and at the academies. Real change is needed to ensure
that sexual assault prevention programs do more than minimally
address the issues.
Two, change the SAPRO policy so that civilians can make a
restricted report in sexual assault cases. This is an extremely
important change that needs to be made as soon as possible. We
need to be afforded the same protection as those in the
military.
Three, standardize the SAPRO program DOD-wide, so that
victims are cared for around the world in the same way. Create
a standardized training program and continue training for all
SARCs and VAs DOD-wide, so that services are consistently
rendered to those in need, no matter where they are.
I would also recommend creating and maintaining an e-mail
list of all SARCs and VAs to assist in training and
dissemination of program updates.
In addition, civilian resources, such as the National
Sexual Assault Hot Line, should be utilized as a supplement,
though not a replacement for military assistance and education
and the use of said resources should be included in all
training.
Fourth, reevaluate and update the prevention portion of
SAPRO. Prevention starts with accurate and useable knowledge.
The current prevention program is insufficient and does little
to keep this crime from occurring. New programs should be
implemented that incorporate best practices from the field and
content focused on prevention.
Further, there should be an emphasis on training everyone,
from senior commanders to incoming personnel, on issues
surrounding sexual assault and prevention. This training should
be different every year, and designed to engage attendees who
have to meet yearly training requirements on the subject.
Also, mental health professionals need to be trained to
deal with this issue specifically, so that they meet the needs
of the victim in a military environment with sensitivity and as
enlightened professionals. You should take into account common
misconceptions, such as who is responsible for rape.
Additionally, detailed information should be made available
to the general population on military installations regarding
SAPRO confidentiality and other policies and services. While I
knew a SARC existed, even knew him personally, I knew very
little about the SAPRO program when I needed help. It took
another friend telling me how to get in touch with the SARC to
get the help I needed. Knowledge is connected to empowerment,
and the more people know, the more likely they will be to get
the services they need, or tell someone and ensure their rights
are being addressed.
Fifth, enact reforms such as those proposed in H.R. 3990,
the Military Domestic and Sexual Violence Response Act, or
other similar legislation, which would enhance protections for
civilians and military personnel stationed around the world.
All those who serve this country, both military and civilian,
deserve to be protected while rendering their service.
I would like to close with an observation. I was recently
in Poland, and while there I went to Auschwitz. While walking
through the expansive camp, wondering how it was that so many
people came to be murdered in that place, it occurred to me,
the most egregious human rights violations have been one at a
time. And while rape and mass murder are two very different
things, they have something in common, in that they are the two
most violent crimes, and they violate the basic rights of
individuals.
We can make ourselves overlook one individual rape, even
blame the victim. But it is only when you start adding them up
that you see what really happened. There are about 300 million
people in the United States today, 150 million of them are
women, and according to RAINN, 1 in 6 of these women have been
sexually assaulted. That equates to tens of millions of victims
in the United States alone. And they happen one at a time.
Ultimately, you have to protect each individual victim in order
to protect the group, and that is what I am asking you to do,
to protect all of us.
The system is broken, and it is time that more significant
changes are enacted and that commanders are held accountable
for the actions of those beneath them. The military has come a
long way in the last 10 years in dealing with sexual assault,
but much work remains. Women, both civilian and military
employees, serve this country honorably and should be
respected, not marginalized. Understand that I have the utmost
respect for the military and I appreciate the service of those
that have answered their Nation's call to duty. I understand
that most people serve with honor. But that does not negate the
fact that there is a very large problem that must be dealt with
effectively and decisively if we are to create a better
military for the future, where women, both military and
civilian, can serve their country without having to fear the
people they serve with.
Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the subcommittee,
thank you for your time and consideration. This concludes my
statement. I welcome your questions at this time.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Torres follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Tierney. Ms. Torres, thank you very much for your
statement. We know that was not easy, but it certainly was
compelling and helpful, I think, in the suggestions that you
gave. We look forward to the questions and answers.
Ms. Lauterbach, you are recognized.
STATEMENT OF MARY STEINER LAUTERBACH
Ms. Lauterbach. Good morning, Chairman Tierney, Congressman
Shays and members of the panel. Thank you for this opportunity
to appear before you today to offer testimony on sexual assault
in the military. I have submitted my written statement to the
committee and I will just give a short summary now.
My name is Mary Lauterbach. I live in Vandalia, OH, just
outside of Dayton. With me today is Merle Wilberding, an
attorney who represents our family and is a former member of
the Army's Judge Advocate General Corps.
I am the mother of Lance Corporal Maria Lauterbach, the
pregnant Marine from Camp Lejeune who was murdered in December.
The bodies of Maria and her unborn child, my first grandchild,
were later found buried in a shallow fire pit in the back yard
of fellow Marine Corporal Cesar Laurean. Seven months before
her murder, Maria had filed a rape claim against Laurean.
I believe that Maria would be alive today if the Marines
had provided a more effective system to protect the victims of
sexual assault, a more effective support program and more
expeditious investigation and prosecution system.
Today I would like to share with you the changes that I
believe need to be considered for the military. I believe the
military needs more effective security measures, more effective
victim advocates, more effective programs for sexual assault
victims, and finally, much more expeditious prosecutions.
By more effective security measures, I mean there should be
an absolute right to base transfer. I also mean that military
protective orders should create absolute physical separation
and not just mandate separation between individuals. The victim
should not have the burden to connect the dots between
incidents of harassment and the rape claim, and the victim
should not have the burden to generate evidence for the
command.
By more effective victim advocates, I believe we need a
study of the effectiveness of the victim advocates in the
military compared to victim advocates that are in civilian
society. Based on my observations, my conversations with Maria
and our conversations with many other victims and mothers of
victims, too many victim advocates are merely victim listeners.
I believe a victim advocate needs to be more proactive. Victim
advocates need to have clear authority to act independent of
the chain of command.
By more effective victim programs, I mean the military
needs to actively enroll victims in proper trauma treatment
programs, education programs, and rehab and training programs.
I know, I have seen the military, the Marines' Power Point
program where they acknowledge the results of sexual assault
trauma syndrome. But I in no way believe that it is effectively
respected or practiced in the field.
By more expeditious prosecutions, I mean that the victims
of sexual assault should not be left to twist and turn while
the claim is being prosecuted or dismissed, especially because
that time period is the period of the greatest risk, threat,
intimidation and physical harm to the victim. It should not
take 8 months to convene an Article 32 hearing on the claim, as
it did in Maria's case.
I also mean more effective use of DNA data. While I
understand that there are arguments of constitutional privacy
against unrestricted use of DNA data in criminal
investigations, I believe that the military should authorize
the use of DNA data in the same way that fingerprints are
authorized, or at least make DNA available for felony
investigations.
Maria will always be a hero to me. Maria is dead, but there
will be many more victims in the future, I promise you.
I am here to ask you to do what you can, to help change how
the military treats victims of crime and to ensure that the
victims receive the support and protection they need and they
deserve. Thank you for your time and attention.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Lauterbach follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Tierney. Thank you, Ms. Lauterbach. We appreciate that
very much.
We are going to have some questions here, we are going to
try to strike a balance between being sensitive to how
difficult it is for both of you to courageously testify and
respond while at the same time giving Members an opportunity to
delve further in, because your information is valuable to us.
So I am going to start by asking my colleagues if they have
questions. Mr. Welsh? We customarily go 5 minutes for every
Member here.
Mr. Welch. I don't have questions. I just would like to
thank Representative Slaughter and Representative Harman, whose
testimony was really compelling. But then I really thank you,
because we certainly appreciate how difficult it is to come
here in a public forum and to share what is an intensively
private and traumatic experience. What we fully appreciate is
that you are doing it for other people. You have sisters who
are in harm's way, and I think the way Representative Harman
put it, quite nicely, the ideals that you went in to provide
service to your country are being violated when your country is
not standing behind those ideals when people are victimized by
ones not so honorable as you.
So I just want to thank you. It is amazing, in Congress,
some of the people that you meet. I have been here 2 years, not
very long, but you are two of the most extraordinary people I
have met in Congress. And I say that having been seated at the
table where you are, Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of
State, but I will take you.
Mr. Tierney. Mr. Shays.
Mr. Shays. I would like to yield to Mr. Turner.
Mr. Tierney. Mr. Shays yields to Mr. Turner. Mr. Turner.
Mr. Turner. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, thank you,
Ranking Member Shays, for your holding this hearing. I want to
thank both of you ladies for being here.
Ingrid, we just really appreciate your coming forward and
telling your story. Because you are not just giving us the
information of what occurred, you are also providing us some
incredible opportunities for solutions. We appreciate that you
stood up and did the right thing. You did it because it was
right, and we are sorry for everything that you went through in
standing up for justice.
Mary, every time I hear you tell the story, I am always so
amazed at your strength and the insight that you give us. One
of the contexts, I think, that is absolutely incredible about
this, when we talk about DOD and the fact that they are not
responsive, frequently we think that surely, DOD will get it by
now. But they don't.
And I want to share a portion of a letter that I shared
with the chairman and the ranking member that I received from
the Marines inquiring about Maria's case on behalf of Mary. We
had put together a number of questions concerning the
circumstances of the investigation surrounding Maria and what
occurred.
I sent it to the Commandant of the Marines, James Conway.
And the response that I got back officially from the Marines
was alarming. We had asked them, we had a sense that they
really had not understood the threat that Maria was facing when
she came forward and made her allegations of rape. So we asked
them the first basic question of, isn't rape inherently a
violent crime, and they of course answered back with the
statutory definition of rape, which includes violence.
And then we said, well, if that is true, certainly relate
that to these circumstances. And they told us back that Maria
had reported one sexual encounter, which they alleged was
consensual, another which she had alleged to be rape. And then
they wrote this sentence, which I want to read, which I think
encapsulates what we are all concerned about. They wrote
``Lauterbach never alleged any violence or threat of violence
in either sexual encounter.'' I don't know how DOD could ever
write a sentence like that with this issue. How can a rape ever
not be violent, and the reporting of it certainly is a
reporting of violence.
So that comes to the whole issue of what happens when a
rape is reported and what are the obligations of DOD for the
protection of the accuser, when they come forward and make an
allegation of rape. Mary, you have said that certainly, the
issue of how the investigation was handled impacted Maria's
safety. That is one of my first questions to you, is, can you
expand on your concerns about how the investigation was
handled, and also how the investigation was handled once Maria
came up missing?
Ms. Lauterbach. Certainly. One of my big concerns is, as I
had mentioned before, it was on Maria to connect the dots. Here
you are looking at a teenage girl who doesn't understand really
the way the world works. She makes this complaint at my urging.
She had waited a month to come to me. I said, it is important
for you to make your complaint. So she does, and all of the
actions from the beginning led one to believe that they just
didn't believe her.
Unfortunately, Maria did become pregnant. She became aware
of it at the end of June, beginning of July. And shortly
thereafter, her car was vandalized. And they described it as
being keyed, but really it was screwdrivered. There is a huge,
thick white mark from the front door to the end tail light. It
was clear someone was making a statement.
She reported it, the Marines dismissed it. Within a couple
of weeks, she was getting something out of her trunk at
twilight. They yelled her name, she turned around, she got
punched in the face. She was very afraid at this point. She
once again went and reported it, they said, can you identify
the voice, she said, no, I am not certain who it is. They said,
well, we can't link it with your sexual assault accusation, so
too bad.
Maria had asked, she goes, I would like to be transferred
from Camp Lejeune. They said, don't bother, it is not going to
happen. Again, they said that at any time, Maria never
indicated being afraid of violence. This simply was not the
case. So we go forward, Maria could tell that her rape
accusation was going nowhere. I spoke to her on December 14th,
3 o'clock in the afternoon. She was very upset, because she
said, Mom, they are making me go to a Christmas party again
tonight, and this guy is going to be there. And I said, that is
the craziest protective order I have ever heard of. She said,
well, I have to go. So we decided she was just going to show
her face and leave.
It was about 2\1/2\ hours later, when I walked into my
home, her housemate called me on the phone. There is a note
here from Maria, she says, I can't take it any more, sorry for
the inconvenience, suggesting she was leaving. But this was
completely, and I was going to be seeing her, go to visit her
within a couple of days. It was completely incongruous with any
conversation we had ever had. Her roommate asked me to wait to
report it to the Marines, so we wouldn't get her in trouble in
case she showed up that weekend.
It was reported on Monday. I talked to them, got the name
from her housemate, reported it Tuesday morning. They
immediately said, well, we don't do anything about this. We
can't even report it to the civilian authorities. So they gave
me the phone number for the police. SO I went ahead and pursued
it actively, talking to people. They knew I was terribly
concerned. Maria was chronically nauseous. She was very sick,
she was developing gestational diabetes, having early
contractions, 8 months pregnant. January 15th was consistently
her due date.
I didn't know what happened, I thought maybe she was in a
diabetic coma. I didn't know. But by December 21st, they found
her cell phone, someone had recovered it from the side of a
highway. At that point, I knew it was a violent end, because
she would never have thrown her cell phone away like that.
That afternoon, a Lieutenant Colonel from the Marines, who
was in charge of the prosecution of her rape accusation, called
me, saying, she is on unauthorized absence, do you know where
she is? This investigation is going to fall apart, and she is
our key witness. I said, do you think this could be a
coincidence? Has anyone checked this guy? Has anyone talked to
him? We are really worried, do you know where he is?
And she said, he is accounted for. And I said, you need to
talk to him. After that, she quickly got me off the phone. I
said, I am scared to death, I think harm has come to her.
In the reports from the Marines, they said that at no time
did the mother indicate concern of violence. That simply is not
the case. Clearly, she did not followup on my concerns, because
Maria's car was parked in front of his house for a few weeks
through this whole process. No one even bothered to drive in
front of his home.
And then as time goes on, her first sergeant, First
Sergeant Jordan speaks to me, and she said, even after 30 days,
we don't look for them. It is too bad. After I reiterated my
concern, she is going to have her baby at any time now,
something is really wrong here, just the level of lack of
concern in which she was going away, it was dramatic.
Mr. Tierney. Thank you very much.
Ms. Torres, I do want to ask one question. You indicated
you have been on three bases, in three branches of the service
after the incident. In each of those bases, did you find the
commandant to be insensitive or less than informed or less than
trained or was it only in some?
Ms. Torres. The command element or the SAPRO program
itself?
Mr. Tierney. Let's deal first with the command element, and
then we will deal with the SAPRO.
Ms. Torres. In Korea, I thought the commander, the wing
commander and his deputy were wonderful. They were very
personally supportive of me and the issue. I really didn't deal
with the commander at Japan. I was TDY there for 2 months, and
so really was just seeking services. I was just passing
through.
In Germany, the commander didn't really know about it. He
was my neighbor and friend, but no, there was nothing.
Mr. Tierney. How about SAPRO?
Ms. Torres. In Korea, it was actually, the response program
seemed very established, I imagine through frequency of use,
especially at Kunsan. The SARC was extraordinarily knowledge
and helpful and really went out of his way to help protect me,
to include getting the medical commander to agree to keep paper
records on me rather than through the digital system in ALTA,
so that, since the person who raped me was a doctor, he would
have immediate access to all of my records at any time with
little supervision or ability of anyone to control that. And
again, because I had been diagnosed with PTSD, there were
ongoing issues as well as the pending court-martial.
So in Korea, the response portion was actually as put
together as it could be at Kunsan. And again, I think a lot of
that had to do with the specific SARC who was there, he was
wonderful. But even that, out of the three, four SARCs that I
dealt with, all of them were male, which is OK in some
circumstances, but certainly not for everyone. In Japan, the
SARC had very little knowledge of the program he was leading
and was asking me questions about the process and things that
needed to be done and how to have them done, which I thought
was not useful, really.
I tried to be seen at the clinic there. Again, they wanted
to put me on medication for the PTSD. And the doctor at the
clinic, the psychologist refused to see me and keep paper
records, which, with the pending court-martial, my records just
could not be available to the perpetrator. There was no
understanding of that. And even though this had been approved
by higher levels than this particular officer, I was still left
without care.
In Germany, the SARC, again, he was excellent, but I found
the victim advocate situation to be troubling. In the Air
Force, my understanding is that victim advocates are
volunteers, they want to be there. Oftentimes they have been
through this experience themselves. They are not just there to
listen, really, they have a better understanding of what is
going on. Whereas, in the Army, and I believe this might be an
Army-wide policy, victim advocates are appointed by their unit.
And while at Mannheim, they had tried to put together an
understanding that if you don't want to be the victim
advocates, we will find someone who does, but I don't know that
is a policy everywhere.
And the mental health care that I received in Germany was
quite insufficient. During intake, when I went to go in, and
this was all related to the assault, during intake, the doctor,
the psychologist didn't listen to me. She kept calling me
Sergeant Torres, which is funny, as I am not only not a
sergeant, but not in the military. And I had another
psychologist tell me, this was days before I went back for the
court-martial, I had a psychologist tell me that I was acting
like a baby, and if I wanted to learn how to act like an adult,
he would be happy to work with me.
So there was a significant lack of understanding about
PTSD, its effects on an individual's life. And this is
something that will affect me for the rest of my career. I have
to maintain security clearance, and every time that I do, as I
am sure most of you know, this issue of PTSD will come up, as
well as all of the notes that these psychologists and doctors
have made that were not as professionally addressed as they
should have been.
Mr. Tierney. Thank you. Thank you very much.
Mr. Braley.
Mr. Braley. I want to thank the chairman, and I also want
to thank Ranking Member Shays, for their leadership on this
issue. I want to thank my colleague, Mr. Rogers, for his
ability to help demonstrate the bipartisan nature of this very
important issue.
We have a lot of hearings in this committee room that cause
my blood to boil, but I have to tell you, nothing has angered
me more than what I hear today. I want to start by telling both
of our witnesses how grateful I am for your bravery and your
courage and for your willingness to share these stories.
Ms. Lauterbach, my father enlisted in the Marine Corps when
he was 17 and served on Iwo Jima. It was one of the defining
experiences of his life. And I am just ashamed at what you told
us today. Mr. Rogers, I hope you have the ability to introduce
Ms. Lauterbach to the Commandant of the Marine Corps, so she
can ask him, wake up.
I want to share with the committee a story that appeared in
yesterday's Dubuque Telegraph Herald. I am proud to represent
the city of Dubuque. My wife grew up in Dubuque. The story
reads, ``A bagpipe burst through the silence at St. Rafael's
Cathedral in Dubuque. U.S. Army Second Lieutenant Holly
Wimunc's military comrades carried her coffin on their
shoulders Tuesday, taking slow, heavy footsteps. The crowd was
dotted with crisp, green military uniforms whose owners turned
to watch the slain soldier's children clutch their father's
hands as they walked to the front pews. The fallen soldier was
laid to rest at Mt. Olivet Cemetery. Military funerals honor
the lives of young men and women who were taken too soon. For
soldiers who have died in combat, their loved ones are well
aware of the ultimate cost of service, knowing in the back of
their minds that the day could come, however piercing their
grief may be. But Holly Wimunc wasn't killed in combat. Police
investigating her death allege her life was taken by a fellow
service member, a Marine who also happened to be her husband.
Wimunc died on July 9th, brutally murdered in her own home,
according to investigators. Her estranged husband, Marine
Corporate John Wimunc, 23, was charged with first degree
murder, accused of killing her and dismembering her body, which
was discovered burned in a shallow grave in North Carolina.''
This is not an isolated incident we are talking about. I
have represented victims of sexual assault, sexual abuse and
domestic violence. I can tell you that unless the people who
are in charge of enforcing policy understand it and believe in
it to the core of their being, nothing is going to change, we
will continue to have tragic hearings like this. It is one
thing to have a policy on paper. It is one thing to have a
Power Point presentation. But unless commanding officers and
everyone in the chain of command believes at the core of their
being that these are important priorities that need to be
communicated to every member of our armed service and every
civilian employee who has contact in that sphere, nothing is
going to change.
And when you talk about victims advocates, Ms. Lauterbach,
the No. 1 priority for any victims advocate, dealing with a
rape victim, is ferocious independence in advocacy. When you
have a chain of command structure that makes those members
responsible to have their careers reviewed by people who may be
upset with that ferocious advocacy, you have a problem. So I
welcome your insights, and I look forward to working with the
committee in addressing that problem.
With that, I will yield back my time.
Mr. Tierney. Thank you.
Ms. McCollum.
Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Ms. Lauterbach, I am sorry for your loss.
Ms. Lauterbach. Thank you.
Ms. McCollum. Ms. Torres, I am very sorry for what happened
to you. But I do want to thank you for coming forward today.
Because behind you in this room are many women, all around this
country, whose story you are also sharing with us. I would say
that I sent a letter to Secretary Rumsfeld when this, when the
incidents in Iraq were becoming far too frequent occurrences in
the press. And you know for every one in the press, I can't
even imagine how many more aren't being reported.
I said, where is our zero tolerance policy toward sexual
harassment, violence and gender discrimination? Took a while, I
finally got a letter back, it was one line. Secretary Rumsfeld
told me he was looking into it.
There has to be a zero tolerance policy, and you have my
commitment to work with you and this committee to make sure
that commitment becomes a reality as well.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Tierney. Thank you, Ms. McCollum. We are pleased to
have with us this morning as well Congresswoman Susan Davis,
and Congresswoman Jane Harman. Although they don't sit on this
subcommittee, we are honored to have them with us. Ms. Harman,
would you like to ask some questions?
Ms. Harman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thought maybe Susan
Davis should go first, since she hasn't had a chance to say
anything.
Mr. Tierney. That is fine. We generally go by order of
appearance.
Ms. Harman. I appreciate that.
Mr. Tierney. You defer to Ms. Davis.
Ms. Davis, do you have some questions?
Ms. Harman. And she chairs the Personnel Subcommittee of
the Armed Services Committee. So I am very excited that she is
joining this hearing.
Mr. Tierney. As are we. Ms. Davis.
Ms. Davis of California. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank
you to my colleague, Ms. Harman. I was at another hearing, but
I have read your testimony. I especially, Ms. Lauterbach, I
know that we had a chance to meet. I appreciate that time we
had together. And I certainly as well am very sorry for your
loss. But I believe that you are going to make a difference for
other women and men who are the victims of sexual assault and I
appreciate that support.
Ms. Torres, as I read your testimony as well, I certainly
was touched by that, as also a social worker and someone who
knows that many times, it is our personal experiences that lead
us into doing such important work. You are certainly part of
that, and I thank you very much for bringing your story and
your experiences forward, along with your skills. Thank you
very much.
I wanted to begin, Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for
having this hearing and for bringing it to additional
attention. We certainly have been working on these issues.
There are a number of individuals that have been, and the
Military Personnel Subcommittee will continue to do that. But I
want to broaden that, so I am delighted that you are bringing
attention to it and helping us all. Because there are many
tragic stories out there. We deal with this in our district all
the time. So it is very important that we do that.
I know that there have been some refinements even included
in this year's Defense Authorization Bill. Congressman Loretta
Sanchez and I, Representatives Cummings and Castor included in
the bill a greater mandate for visibility over sexual assaults
by creating a comprehensive data base for tracking and analyses
that is just the tip of the iceberg, we know, but it is
important to have that kind of tracking in the data base.
One of the issues, Ms. Lauterbach, that you brought to me,
and that we will be having additional hearings and work on, is
the victims advocacy support. It is the issue that you have
been talking about today. One of the concerns is whether there
is perhaps a different way to even organize this in a different
kind of a role for someone who is playing that. I think that we
have gone to a certain point, and that is admirable. I really
commend the Department of Defense in creating the position, but
I think what we have learned is that the position doesn't have
enough authority in order to be able to help people to get the
kind of resources that they need, and to really hold people
accountable. I think that is the key here.
So I think in the next hearing as well, we will be looking
at, is there a different way to structure this, is that the
problem? Is it also training? Is it not having the status for
that position that is required? I think it is a very important
role that people are playing. And I think as you have testified
to the fact that it isn't one that has resonated.
Could you speak to that particularly? I know this is
difficult. If you were to organize this differently, what is it
about the position that you would really like to see changed?
For both of you, and Ms. Torres as well, because you have been
in that position.
Ms. Lauterbach. In particular, I think that the victim
advocate, as Mr. Braley had addressed before, it needs to be
outside of the chain of command. In Maria's case, it was
someone who had direct authority over her. And as he was
saying, there is a real fear that, oh, if I am being too
cooperative or sympathetic, it affects my career. They need to
be completely outside of the chain of command. That is terribly
important.
As I had said before, we have to remember, so often these
are teenagers who are being dealt with. They don't understand
their rights. The victim advocate needs to be aggressive in
encouraging these young ladies, and some men, to exercise their
rights instead of discouraging them from doing so. So really
acting as an independent advocate requires it being outside of
the chain of command.
And another important part about the victim advocate, they
need to be proactive. Again, in Maria's case, she suffered two
very direct attacks. And we were concerned at home. I had no
idea the level of a lack of interest within her command
structure. But if she had a true victim advocate, once she got
punched in the face that second attack, they would say, we have
to get you out of here, you have to go off base, be transferred
to another base, as she had wanted to do. So a real sense of
independence is critical.
Ms. Davis of California. Ms. Torres, and forgive the
repetition, because I am sure you have dealt with that. Ms.
Torres, I am looking for, is there something besides being
outside the chain of command? If that person is outside the
chain of command but is not recognized as having any authority,
then it is perhaps not going to make that difference.
Ms. Torres. Having seen the differences in, the way the Air
Force structures it, at least in the locations that I was at,
the victim advocates were a group of volunteers. So it wasn't
each unit having a specific victim advocate. Because again,
then you wind up having to work with the victim advocate who is
part of the unit and you both have the issues of the unit
affecting you. Whereas my experience with the Air Force was,
there was a group of volunteers and you could pull the most
appropriate one for the individual.
As a civilian, it didn't matter if my victim advocate was
an enlisted personnel or officer personnel, it didn't matter to
me. The most appropriate person for the job. The biggest thing
I could say, really, is training. Victim advocates outside of
the unit, I wholeheartedly support that. I think that is
imperative to get assistance.
But training, I did feel that even though I had some
fantastic victim advocates, it was the SARC who was the driving
force behind all of the assistance that I got, all of the
protections that I received. He went out of his way to protect
my medical records. All of that happened with the SARC. And
that is the person that tends to have a lot of that control.
So the victim advocates were helpful in that they did go to
doctors' appointments with me. I had no desire to be in the
clinic by myself. They helped arrange it so I was often seen at
the end of the day when no one else was there. And when you are
deploying and working with the military, it seems like you are
in the clinic all the time, you have to get shots, you have to
go to the clinic. It is a never-ending saga.
So I think training is probably the most critical. But also
maybe even re-examining what the victim advocates do. Because
again, it was the SARC that was the driving force, not so much
the victim advocates. I don't know if that is just different
between the Marine Corps or the Navy and the Army and the Air
Force, because the programs are all different in all the
branches of service. So some of that standardization is a
little bit hard to really address, I think.
Ms. Davis of California. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Tierney. Thank you, Ms. Davis.
Ms. Harman.
Ms. Harman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you again for
holding the hearing, and thanks to these two witnesses for your
enormous courage and concern for those who are still out there
serving in harm's way in more than one sense. As a mother and a
grandmother, I can barely hear these stories. I can only
imagine how I would feel if my own daughter called, as yours
did, or experienced what you did. Fortunately, that has not
happened. But I think the pain on the face of everyone in this
audience and the pain on the face of every Member here
listening to you is evident. If that is any consolation, please
know that we care a great deal and that we are in a position to
help.
The question I have relates to something that Ms. Torres
said in her testimony. You said that all of the people who
intervened after your rape were male. When I was at the West
Los Angeles VA, at this extraordinary women's clinic, one of
the things they told me was that they were a women only clinic.
All the physicians and all of the aid givers were female,
because they had discovered that the only intervention that
truly worked for most women who have been seriously assaulted
and raped is if women provide it. So I want to ask you to
elaborate, both of you, on what difference it would have made
in both cases, if the people you had contacted were women.
Ms. Torres. Well, I think it depends entirely on the person
who has been assaulted. In my case, when I initially got in
touch with the SARC, he was someone I knew. Kunsan is a very
small installation and the officer corps is quite small as
well. That is kind of where we fall into the structure. So I
had known him, it wasn't as uncomfortable for me to have a SARC
who was male, because I knew him. And he was a wonderful
individual who really went out of his way to be helpful and
non-threatening. He had a very clear understanding of the
problems and knew that him being male was also an issue. He was
fantastic.
And I can't really say, because when I went in, that was my
experience. Then it just kept being that way.
I think it depends on the individual. I know a lot of women
who would be very uncomfortable with that, and it would be
completely unacceptable. Had I gone into the program and not
known the SARC, I am not sure I would have been comfortable
with it, especially in that environment. At Kunsan, I think
there are only like 400 women or something. It is very small.
There definitely is something to be said for that. I still
can't see male doctors. I just refuse. And so there is
definitely, the individuals doing the rape kits, there is no
excuse for anything other than a female doctor in those
situations. Probably also the mental health providers, in my
skills, or the mental health clinic, whatever they call it in
each branch of service, I really do feel that is imperative,
just for sensitivity and ease of being able to talk.
But I don't know the statistics on the number of SARCs who
are male versus female. I am not really sure what those might
be. But of the four that I knew, they were all male, yes.
Ms. Harman. Thank you.
Ms. Lauterbach, do you have any observations?
Ms. Lauterbach. I do know that Maria was more comfortable
with female doctors. That is a fact. Though her victim advocate
was a female, and a surprising number of the chain of command
that she was in were female. And yet it was the chain of
command effect that was the biggest part of the problem in
Maria's specific case, because people were very concerned about
their career and how that would affect them.
Ms. Harman. Thank you for that answer. I know we need to
move to the next panel.
I would just observe that as we go forward and solve this
problem, we need to be focused on what happens to the victim.
That was something I said and something you both said. And
what, who she interacts with when she comes forward to say what
has happened to her. But we also do need to focus a lot on the
chain of command. The training, at least, that I think we all
think is necessary, and the prosecutions that need to follow
the commitment of these crimes should not just be for the
person who has perpetrated the crime, but should be against
those who have helped that person cover up the crime. And we
need to understand it in a command structure like the military.
It starts at the top. And the responsibility goes way up to the
top.
That is why, in closing, let me just say, Mr. Chairman, I
have been comforted by conversations I have had about this
issue, particularly with Secretary of the Army Pete Geren, who
gets it, and has made some moves in the Army to feature this
issue and help to draw bright red lines. That is what it is
going to take. And Mike Mullen, too, feels an enormous
responsibility here.
So I hope the military will do more. But I know this
committee and this Congress must do more. We cannot let this
epidemic, and that is what I think it is, of rape and violent
assault, continue.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Tierney. Thank you. Thank you and Ms. Davis both for
your presence and your participation this morning.
Mr. Shays, you are recognized.
Mr. Shays. Thank you. I would like to also concur. I thank
Ms. Harman for participating and Ms. Davis, particularly given
that this is legislation that would go through your committee,
and we thank you for participating.
Ms. Lauterbach, I want to first say to you that you come
across as just a wonderful mother. And I marvel at your
daughter's courage. The fact is, you were dealing with a
Government agency, the military, that you had no way of knowing
was the problem, and almost in a sense, the enemy. I hate to
say it that way.
I have been in public life 34 years. I meet people like you
occasionally who decided that they are going to make a
difference for someone else, so no one has to go through what
you did. Your daughter is courageous, you are courageous, and
our next panel is where we are going to start to begin to see
some change. And I will speak to that in a second.
Ms. Torres, you are extraordinarily courageous as well. I
was saying to my colleague up here, sometimes we think that we
have to have a courageous vote or do something that is tough
politically. That is child's play compared to what you all are
dealing with, and obviously what your daughter dealt with, Ms.
Lauterbach.
Ms. Torres, I am unclear about one thing that is sensitive,
and I don't need a lot of detail, but I am unclear about your
comment that you were unaware at the time that you were raped.
I want to know, during the act, were you aware, did you realize
afterwards? And then I want to know the actions you took right
afterwards, or as soon as you could. I am just unclear of that.
Ms. Torres. I had taken Ambien the night before this
happened.
Mr. Shays. That part I got.
Ms. Torres. It was, I hadn't been taking it regularly, so
the dosage was probably too strong. And I don't remember moving
to my bedroom, I don't remember taking off my clothes. I have a
few second memory of him being on top of me and that is it
until I woke up the next morning.
When I woke up the next morning, I was still groggy. Again,
the Ambien was still too strong. And nauseous, I have to sleep
it all the way off. When I had gone into the bathroom, there
was a condom in the trash can, and that is when it all came
together.
Mr. Shays. And then that day did you report, a week later,
a month later?
Ms. Torres. This would have been a Sunday. I reported it on
Monday to the SARC and OSI later during the week.
Mr. Shays. Let me just respond. Thank you very much for
that information.
When we had our hearing in 2006, we realized that the
second task force that was set up by Congress in 2005 had not
had its full membership. And I am thinking that was stunning.
Now to realize that it has never even met, now that it has its
membership. I can't help but wonder, if they had met, if they
had done their job, would you, Ms. Lauterbach, even be dealing
with this issue. I just hope some heads roll, because they need
to. This is not the first time, it is not the second, this is
like the third time. When Beth Davis appeared before us, she
was raped repeatedly. When she told the commanding officers
that she was raped, she was forced out of the Academy for
having sex. When she was testifying alongside folks from the
U.S. Air Force Academy, they had never once apologized to her.
So they gave a belated, begrudging apology to this woman
for forcing her out because ``she had had sex.'' And the person
who raped her had still been allowed to stay in the Academy.
So I say that, Mr. Chairman, to say that I really hope
heads roll. And I don't say that often. I was saying to Mr.
Turner, where do we go? It is just unbelievable, the reluctance
to deal with it. And his comment to me, if I could say it, was
we need an outside change of command. In other words, Ms.
Davis, I am saying this, I think we are reluctant to do that.
But I think that you have to have a separate, independent body
that deals with this. Because I don't think the military is
capable of dealing with it. That is where I come down. And I
just want to throw it out and have reaction to it. Because this
is just--anyway. I yield back.
Mr. Tierney. Thank you very much.
Again, let me thank both of our witnesses here. I hope and
I trust that the comments--Mr. Turner, did you want to say
something else?
Mr. Turner. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I appreciate the
additional time. I don't have a question, but I did want to
request. Mary Lauterbach has had a number of questions to the
Marines that have not been answered. Our office has attempted
to intervene and to get some of those answers. I would ask, if
she would, in supplementing her testimony, if you could send to
the committee the types of questions that you have been asking
that you have not received answers to. I think it would be of
interest to the committee, of areas where you have asked about
her circumstances where the Marines are not being helpful.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Tierney. Thank you.
And again, thank both of you. We know it was very difficult
and not a bit easy, but you stood up not only for yourself but
for others in your circumstance, and I think it is incredibly
important to them and to the country you continue to serve. So
thank you very, very much. You are welcome to stay, if you
wish, or to proceed. We appreciate your testimony and that
concludes this panel. Thank you.
We will take a minute to allow the third panel to be
seated, then we will go from there.
We will swear in the witnesses.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Tierney. Will the record please reflect that all the
witness answered in the affirmative? Thank you.
Mr. Dominguez, I notice that Dr. Kaye Whitley is not in her
chair. Is it under your direction that she has not shown for
testimony this morning?
Mr. Dominguez. Yes, sir.
Mr. Tierney. You directed her not to?
Mr. Dominguez. I did.
Mr. Tierney. Do you have an executive privilege to assert?
Mr. Dominguez. No, sir.
Mr. Tierney. Mr. Dominguez, this is an oversight hearing.
It is an oversight hearing on sexual assault in the military.
As such, we thought it was proper to hear from the Director of
the Defense Department's Sexual Assault Prevention and Response
Office, Dr. Kaye Whitley. Your own Web site states, ``SAPRO
serves as the single point of accountability for Department of
Defense sexual assault policy.'' Dr. Whitley has testified in
Congress before, in fact, before this very subcommittee 2 years
ago, also on sexual assault in the military.
While we understand that you are involved with these
issues, along with your vast other areas of responsibility, Dr.
Whitley is the day to day person who coordinates all policies
with the military service branches and other Federal agencies.
For the sake of continuity, detailed responses to the
Government Accountability Office's findings and recommendations
and general sustained oversight from the 2006 hearing, we feel
strongly that Dr. Whitley should be sworn in to testify in
addition to you.
If the head of the SAPRO office is up to the task of
coordinating sexual assault prevention and response in the
military, which is a huge undertaking, then surely she can come
and speak for herself and answer questions directly from
Members of Congress. The SAPRO office was created precisely to
ensure that the Department of Defense and the military services
would not follow the unacceptable mentality that led officials
to circle the wagons and engage in cover-ups in the wake of
Tailhook and Aberdeen.
All of this is why we are so puzzled that the Defense
Department, apparently you in particular, have gone to such
great lengths to try to stop Dr. Whitley from testifying and
speaking for herself at this hearing. We invited Dr. Whitley to
testify at this hearing more than a month ago, on June 27th.
Inexplicably, the Defense Department and you, apparently, have
resisted. We were forced to issue a subpoena to compel Dr.
Whitley to testify. Despite no claim of executive privilege,
because none exists, the Defense Department appears to be
willfully and blatantly advising Dr. Whitley not to comply with
a duly authorized congressional subpoena, something that would
put Dr. Whitley in serious legal jeopardy.
As I said, these actions by the Defense Department are
inexplicable. It is more than curious why the Defense
Department is making every effort, including flouting a duly
authorized subpoena, to stop Dr. Whitley from testifying and
speaking for herself. It appears that there is disrespect, not
only for the two women that preceded your testimony here, but
for everyone who finds themselves in a similarly situated
circumstance and for others who continue to be in the service,
for the Government Accountability Office, which spent 2 years
investigating this matter in an effort to help the Department
of Defense comply with its congressional responsibilities and
its own moral obligations, and obviously, it goes without
saying, it shows contempt for this particular subcommittee and
the full committee as well.
We are going to be showing all of our options here in the
face of this blatant disregard of the subpoena. I will be
forced to seek a contempt citation at the next full business
meeting of the committee, whether that will be against you or
Dr. Whitley or both. We will take other appropriate action as
may be there. But I think you have imperiled Ms. Whitley
unnecessarily in that respect.
Mr. Waxman, do you have any comments to make?
Mr. Waxman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Department's Agency, Sexual Assault Prevention and
Response Office, SAPRO, that is the agency that is in charge of
dealing with the sexual assault problems. We asked the
Department of Defense to provide Dr. Whitley, who is the person
in charge of this department, to come and testify. We were told
that she wouldn't be permitted to come and testify, so we
subpoenaed her.
Notwithstanding that, she is still not here. And Mr.
Dominguez, you said you instructed her not to come? What is
your reason for doing that?
Mr. Dominguez. Sir, in consultation with the Department's
leadership----
Mr. Waxman. Tell us who in the leadership? Who did you
consult with in the leadership of the Department of Defense?
Mr. Dominguez. Sir, I consulted with the Assistant
Secretary of Defense for Legislative Affairs and the General
Counsel of the Department of Defense. And----
Mr. Waxman. And they told you not to let her--she is under
your command, is that right?
Mr. Dominguez. Yes, sir, she is my subordinate, and the
point we are making here first is that she is available to the
Congress and Members, and has been up here repeatedly on her
own with her staff, unfettered, unmuzzled by us to provide
whatever information she has and answer any person's questions.
In this hearing format, we wanted to ensure and make the point
that Dr. Chu, the Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel and
Readiness, and I, are the senior policy officials accountable
to Secretary Gates and to the Congress for the Department's
sexual assault and prevention policies and programs.
If you find the Department's response and provisions
efforts fall short of your expectations, responsibility for
that shortfall rests with me. For that reason, sir, Dr. Whitley
was directed not to appear today.
Mr. Waxman. That is a ridiculous answer. What is it you are
trying to hide?
Mr. Dominguez. We have nothing----
Mr. Waxman. Let me speak. She is the one in charge of
dealing with this problem. We wanted to hear from her. And
despite a subpoena from a committee of Congress, you have been
instructed by the Undersecretary or Deputy Secretary in charge
of legislative affairs not to allow her to come? Well, and you
want to come because you are in charge of this area and you can
speak instead? Do we have to subpoena the Secretary to get
people in the Department to come before us? We subpoenaed her.
You have denied her the opportunity to come and testify and put
her in a situation where we have to contemplate holding her in
contempt. I don't even know if we could hold you in contempt,
because you haven't been issued a subpoena.
Mr. Chairman, the Department of Defense has a history of
covering up sexual offense problems. We all remember Tailhook
and the scandal and how the military tried to cover that up. I
don't know what you are trying to cover up here, but we are not
going to allow it. We are going to talk further as to what
recourse we have. I don't know if we need to subpoena the
Secretary and then hold him in contempt, Mr. Chu and hold him
in contempt, you and hold you in contempt. Those are better
options to me than to hold her in contempt when she is put in
this untenable position when the line of command instructs her
not to comply with a subpoena of the U.S. Congress.
I don't know who you think elected you to defy the Congress
of the United States. We are an independent branch of
Government.
Mr. Chairman, I am going to talk to you and Mr. Shays and
Mr. Davis about what we do next. But this is an unacceptable,
absolutely unacceptable position for the Department to take and
we are not going to let it stand.
Mr. Tierney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Shays.
Mr. Shays. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and the chairman of the
full committee.
Mr. Waxman has the authority solely to issue a subpoena
without the approval of any Member here, and he has every right
to issue it at any time. But in this case, you have the
chairman of the full committee, the ranking member of the full
committee, the chairman of the subcommittee and the ranking
member of the subcommittee, which is me, all in support. And I
will cooperate any way whatsoever to get Ms. Whitley here. And
I would ask Mr. Dominguez to reconsider his very foolish
decision and encourage her to come. And if not, we will get her
here some other way.
Mr. Dominguez. Sir, I do want to say----
Mr. Tierney. No, we don't want to hear from you right now,
Mr. Dominguez. We are more than a little bit upset with you,
and whatever this false notion of bravado or whatever of
thinking you are covering up for something or for Dr. Whitley--
is she in the room today?
Mr. Dominguez. No, sir.
Mr. Tierney. She is not even in the building?
Mr. Dominguez. She is not, sir.
Mr. Waxman. Mr. Chairman, who is here to advise you on the
details of that office and what they have done?
Mr. Dominguez. I know the details of that office and what
they have done, sir.
Mr. Waxman. You do?
Mr. Tierney. Well, let me tell you something, Mr.
Dominguez. We decide who we want to have for witnesses at this
hearing, we decide who the people are who are going to give us
factual testimony and the ones that we want to hear from when
we are investigating or having a hearing. So for now, Mr.
Dominguez, you are dismissed.
Mr. Dominguez. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Tierney. We will proceed with the rest of our witnesses
here, with the Army witness and the Government Accountability
Office. And we will hear from the Defense Department and the
witnesses we want to hear from at a future date and will take
such action as we all deem is appropriate in light of your
inappropriate action that you have taken.
The remaining witnesses with us today are Lieutenant
General Michael Rochelle. General Rochelle is the Deputy Chief
of Staff of the U.S. Army for Personnel Management. He has
served in the Army since 1972, and has a masters degree in
public administration. The subcommittee felt it very important
to have the perspective of the military services represented at
this hearing, but recognizing, however, that it is too
cumbersome to invite representatives from all of the different
branches, we picked the largest service and asked them to
testify. So General, we are greatly appreciative of your
service and for your testifying today on behalf of the Army.
Also we have with us Ms. Brenda S. Farrell. Ms. Farrell is
the Director of the Government Accountability Office's Defense
Capabilities and Management team, responsible for the defense,
personnel and medical readiness issues. Before her current
assignment, she served as acting director for GAO's Strategic
Issues team, overseeing issues on strategic human capital,
Government regulation and decennial census issues. Over her 27-
year career with the Government Accountability Office, Ms.
Farrell has earned numerous awards, including one for sustained
extraordinary performance. We greatly appreciate all the hard
work that you have done and that you have done with respect to
this particular project, as well as your team, and we look
forward to hearing from you.
The subcommittee wants to thank both of you for being here
to testify. You have already been sworn in. I repeat just for
your benefit that we have a 5-minute rule. The green light will
go on, with about 1 minute left, the yellow light, then when
your time is up, the red light, at which point we will ask you
to wind down. We are not going to slam the hammer down
immediately on that.
Your testimony in its entirety will be included in the
record at any rate, so we are going to ask you, General, if you
would please proceed.
STATEMENTS OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL MICHAEL D. ROCHELLE, DEPUTY
CHIEF OF STAFF, G1, U.S. ARMY; AND BRENDA S. FARRELL, DIRECTOR,
DEFENSE CAPABILITIES AND MANAGEMENT, U.S. GOVERNMENT
ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE
STATEMENT OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL MICHAEL D. ROCHELLE
General Rochelle. Thank you, Chairman Tierney.
Chairman Tierney, Ranking Member Shays, Chairman Waxman,
distinguished members of the committee, I thank you for the
opportunity to appear before this committee today and to
discuss the Army's efforts concerning sexual assault, a subject
we feel very powerfully and strongly about.
Even one sexual assault violates the very essence of what
it means to be a soldier. And it is a betrayal of the Army's
core values as well. On behalf of the Secretary of the Army,
the Honorable Pete Geren, and Chief of Staff of the Army,
General George Casey, I can assure you that the Army takes
sexual assault very, very seriously.
The Army's comprehensive sexual assault prevention and
response program is every leader's responsibility. And
explicitly, it is a responsibility of every commander. It is
formalized in Army regulation 600-20, in alignment, of course,
with the Department of Army policy. The primary goal of our
program is to create a climate where every soldier lives the
Army values, thereby eliminating incidents of sexual assault,
where soldiers feel they can report incidents when they occur
without fear, knowing they will receive the help and care they
so richly deserve, and where appropriate action will be taken
against offenders.
In executing their responsibilities, Army commanders ensure
allegations are investigated, that victims are treated with
dignity and respect and receive promptly the care they need.
And commanders take appropriate disciplinary or administrative
action. Army senior mission commanders, generally one or two
star commanding generals of installations, hold monthly sexual
assault review boards to provide executive oversight,
procedural guidance and feedback concerning program
implementation and case management.
Following their initial pre-command course training, all
new commanders receive localized sexual assault prevention
response training after their assumption of command. Soldiers
receive annual as well as pre- and post-deployment sexual
assault prevention and response training, while our first
responders, legal professionals, medical professionals,
advocacy, law enforcement, to include criminal investigation,
as well as chaplains, receive specialized initial and annual
refresher training.
Since November 2004, the Army has had a comprehensive
training program for all levels of Army professional military
education, from initial entry training all the way through our
senior-most level of professional military education for
commissioned officers, the Army War College. During our
objective assessment of our program, we concluded our
prevention efforts were insufficient, inadequate to the task.
As we continue to work through and improve our program, the
Chief of Staff and the Secretary are personally involved in the
development of our Army's comprehensive prevention campaign and
strategy. In the words of Secretary of the Army Pete Geren,
``The goal of our sexual assault prevention and response
program is to create a climate where soldiers live the Army
values, thereby eliminating incidents of sexual assault.
Soldiers must understand that they can report incidents when
they do occur without fear, knowing they will receive the help
and care they deserve. And leaders must ensure that offenders
receive appropriate action.''
I would like to conclude with a quote from a recent
communique that Chief of Staff of the Army George Casey sent to
every senior leadership active Guard and Reserve. Once again,
``Sexual assault is a serious crime,'' he wrote, ``and has no
place in our Army. It is incompatible with our Army values,
undermines unit cohesion and prevents us from working
effectively as a team. Despite our efforts to eradicate sexual
assaults from the Army, they continue to occur at an
unacceptable rate.'' And he concludes, ``Our soldiers,
civilians and their families make tremendous sacrifices daily.
They deserve to live and work in a community free from the
threat of sexual assault. This is our goal, and all leaders
must be dedicated to achieving it.''
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Shays, distinguished members
of the committee, again, I thank you for the opportunity to
appear before this distinguished committee and I await your
questions.
[The prepared statement of General Rochelle follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Tierney. Thank you, General. We appreciate your
testimony.
Ms. Farrell.
STATEMENT OF BRENDA S. FARRELL
Ms. Farrell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Tierney, Mr. Shays, members of the subcommittee,
thank you for the opportunity to be here today to discuss GAO's
preliminary observations on DOD's and the Coast Guard's sexual
assault and prevention and response programs. My remarks today
draw from soon to be completed work examining DOD and the Coast
Guard's programs conducted at this subcommittee's request.
As you know, sexual assault is a crime that contradicts the
core values that DOD and the Coast Guard expect service members
to follow, such as treating their fellow members with dignity
and respect. Recognizing this, in 2004, Congress directed DOD
to establish a comprehensive policy to prevent and respond to
sexual assault involving service members. Though not required
to do so, the Coast Guard has established a similar program.
Now let me briefly summarize my written statement. My
statement is divided into three parts. The first addresses the
extent to which DOD and the Coast Guard have developed and
implemented policies and programs to prevent, respond to and
resolve sexual incidents involving service members. We found
that DOD and the Coast Guard have taken positive steps to
respond to congressional direction. However, implementation of
the program is hindered by several factors. Those factors
include inadequate guidance on how the program is to be
implemented and deployed in joint environments; some
commanders' limited support of the programs; program
coordinators' hampered effectiveness when they have multiple
duties; inconsistent training effectiveness; and sometimes
limited access to mental health resources.
The second part of my written statement addresses
visibility over reports of sexual assault. GAO found, based on
response to our non-generalizable survey administered to 3,750
service members in the United States and overseas, that
occurrences of sexual assault may be exceeding the rates being
reported, suggesting that DOD and the Coast Guard have only
limited visibility over the incidents of these occurrences. At
the 14 installations where GAO administered its survey, 103
service members indicated that they had been sexually assaulted
in the preceding 12 months. Of these 103 service members, 52
indicated that they did not report the sexual assault.
We also found that factors that discourage service members
from reporting a sexual assault incident include the belief
that nothing would be done, fear of ostracism, harassment or
ridicule and concern that peers would gossip about the
incident.
The last part of my written statement addresses the extent
to which DOD and the Coast Guard exercise oversight over
reports of sexual assault. DOD and the Coast Guard have
established some mechanisms for overseeing reports of sexual
assault. However, neither has developed an oversight framework
including clear objectives, milestones, performance measures
and criteria for measuring progress to guide their efforts.
Further, in compliance with statutory requirements, DOD reports
data on sexual assault incidents involving service members to
Congress annually. However, DOD's report does not include some
data that would aid congressional oversight, such as why some
sexual assaults could not be substantiated following an
investigation. Also why the Coast Guard voluntarily provides
data to DOD for inclusion in its report. This information is
not provided to Congress, because there is no requirement to do
so.
In summary, Mr. Chairman, while DOD and the Coast Guard
have taken positive steps to prevent, respond to and resolve
reported incidents of sexual assault, a number of
implementation challenges could undermine the effectiveness of
the program. Left unchecked, these challenges could undermine
DOD and the Coast Guard's efforts by eroding service members'
confidence in the programs, decreasing the likelihood that
victims will turn to the programs for help when needed or by
limiting the ability of DOD and the Coast Guard to judge the
overall successes, challenges and lessons learned from their
program.
Our draft report is with the agencies awaiting comment on
our findings and recommendations. We expect to issue our report
in August. Thank you for the opportunity again to be here, Mr.
Chairman. I would be pleased to take your questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Farrell follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Tierney. Thank you once again, thank your staff and you
for putting the report together. I assume it is going to be a
helpful tool, General, for the Army and for others to sort of
look through this report. I think it also corroborates some of
the testimony we heard from the two previous witnesses in terms
of training, in terms of availability or access to services on
that.
Let me explore. The report is on the record, obviously, and
it is pretty detailed. It speaks for itself in a lot of
respects. But when we talk about data and the need for Congress
as an oversight body and probably the DOD as well, to have data
from each of the different services, currently some of that
data is difficult to get, as your report indicates. What is it
that could be done about that? I am going to ask the General if
he thinks the Army would cooperate with releasing that or if
the Army is one of the entities that is raising the objections,
Ms. Farrell, that you note in your report.
Ms. Farrell. The data in the report could be very
misleading and very confusing for a number of reasons, besides
the fact that we think that it is in complete. The data, for
example, we have pointed out in our report that we issued in
January of this year on the academies as well as the soon to be
issued report in August about the use of common terminology as
lacking. The services have different definitions of how they
even define what they report.
And we feel that OSD should make clear what type of data
they are trying to collect. The data I think you are referring
to specifically are the installation based data that we had
requested at the beginning of our review. We thought that would
be helpful in determining our methodology of which
installations to visit, those that had few incidents versus
those that had what would appear to be at a medium range and a
high number. We did not have the benefit of such data to
develop our methodology of where we would visit.
And at this time you cannot do any trend analysis, either.
So our point was not to pinpoint installations to say this is a
bad installation, this is a good installation. It was to try to
understand just what is working and what is not working. And
that is one of the reasons why we would think installation data
would be helpful to SAPRO, to the services, to share their
experiences, to share what is working and what is not working.
Mr. Tierney. Thank you.
General, is there an objection from your branch of the
service on providing that installation data?
General Rochelle. No, sir, none whatsoever. In fact, the
Army did cooperate, and it required us to crunch the numbers
differently in order to be able to respond by installation. And
we did so.
If I may continue, Mr. Chairman, first of all, I applaud
the value of the overall report, the GAO report. That was your
basic question. It is useful. It gives us a way to see
ourselves more clearly from the view of an outsider, which is
always helpful. I don't envy the GAO's task, however, in
synchronizing the multitude of ways in which the services right
now look at themselves. That is a pretty huge task. We know how
we view ourselves and how we slice and dice, if you will, the
data. But it is inconsistent with how our sister services do
so.
But I would like to just conclude by saying, it is a very
valuable report.
Mr. Tierney. I think one of the reasons that we had the
task force that was supposed to be set up, and this goes to
another point the report makes, it was not started that year,
is that would help the Department of Defense work with the
different branches to try and get some conformity across all
those branches. I am sure your branch would be cooperative with
the others if they had some idea from this task force of what
might be done to make sure that everything was the same or
standard across all those. So we will get into that when we
continue the hearing and we have the appropriate witnesses
here.
General, some of the comments that the witnesses made
earlier were about training. They said there is some
inconsistency and the report also indicated some inconsistency
of the personnel that were dealing with victims on that. What
is the Army doing to try and make sure, I know you talked in
your opening remarks about the training being available. But
obviously we have some real life circumstances here where
people found that individuals were not as well informed as they
might be on training.
So what do you do on a regular basis to keep ramping up
that training and to make sure it gets right down into each
installation?
General Rochelle. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the question.
In addition to initial training, which we measure in terms of
the number of ours, for every person going into the sexual
assault prevention program, everything from the individual
soldier whose training initially upon arriving at basic
training might start at a 4-hour training session, orientation
on reporting, orientation on, an introduction to the sexual
assault coordinators and the victim advocates at that
installation and unit level, it grows to the unit victim
advocates at our deployable sexual assault coordinator, at the
brigade level and above, to the installation SARC.
Everyone's training is measured based on the
responsibilities that they are given, of course. And then it is
annually refreshed, and then refreshable by the individual
via----
Mr. Tierney. You indicated you are measuring that by hours.
I am assuming that you also measure it somewhat by some more
objective standard as to whether the victims advocates and
whether the others, the SARC actually get it, whether they
understand what they do. Do you have some other measures
besides just putting in the time?
General Rochelle. No, sir, that is not what I meant. What I
meant to convey to the committee is that based upon the
responsibilities of the information, we expand the training to
meet the needs that individual will have to address in the
unit, at the installation or as an individual soldier. And of
course, productivity of the training is measured on the basis
of assessments by the commander and also by individuals who are
responsible at the unit level.
Mr. Tierney. Thank you.
Mr. Turner.
Mr. Turner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
General, it is my understanding that in the GAO
information, where they did this survey of 15 installations,
that one of the questions that they asked was, in the last 12
months, have you received any sexual assault training. It is my
understanding from that information that the Army and the Air
Force posts are high, in the 80 to 90 percent range. My
additional understanding is that the Marines, however, are
barely over 50 percent, with Camp Lejeune being at 43 percent.
I want to know if you find that information surprising.
General Rochelle. If I find it surprising?
Mr. Turner. Surprising. We talk about training, we talk
about the efforts of it. So many times when Congress asks
questions, we are given process answers of, we have a program
on that. This information that we are receiving from GAO says
80 to 90 percent of the people in the Air Force and Army report
that they have received sexual assault training. The same data
collection point for the Marines was just slightly over 50
percent. But Camp Lejeune, again, there have been so many
troubling instances, was it 43 percent? And I wonder if you
find the statistics surprising.
General Rochelle. Sir, I must admit I do.
Mr. Turner. I appreciate that. I am going to put you on the
spot one more time, General. If you were listening to the
earlier testimony, when Mary Lauterbach was telling me the
circumstances of what had occurred with Maria Lauterbach, there
were a number of questions that needed to be answered by the
Marines. I am going to ask you this question, because what I
believe is part of the problem that we are dealing with here is
a culture question. It is not one that you just put another
program in place and it is going to be self-executing. I think
there is a cultural issue that is a problem.
So I wrote the Commandant of the Marines on March 11, 2008,
and if you were listening to the testimony, you would have
heard my reading of the response that I got back from General
Kramlich that I am going to read for you also. It was, ``In
answer to the question of doesn't a rape accusation inherently
contain an element of force or threat?'' Their answer was,
``Lauterbach never alleged any violence or threat of violence
in either sexual encounter,'' one of which, in the paragraph
above, they identified as allegedly being rape.
Now, I have shown that to Members of Congress repeatedly,
Members on the House floor, members of this committee. And I
want you to know that everyone finds that response, this is in
writing, with a letter dated March 8th, just shocking. Could
you tell me your thoughts on that?
General Rochelle. Sir, I would not attempt to put myself in
the position of the Commandant or anyone who may have assisted
in crafting that letter. I don't know what was intended by that
phraseology, so I am not sure I could offer a comment, except
this. I have no doubt but that the Commandant and the entire
Marine Corps feels nothing short of disgrace over the
circumstances that we are discussing. I would like to, on
behalf of the U.S. Army, offer my condolences to the family as
well.
Mr. Turner. Would you agree that inherent in an element of
the crime of rape is force or threat of force and violence?
General Rochelle. Indeed I would, sir.
Mr. Turner. Thank you, General. I appreciate that.
Mr. Tierney. Thank you.
Ms. Davis.
Ms. Davis of California. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you both for being here. One of the things that you
mentioned, Ms. Farrell, in the GAO report, is that there
weren't specific guidelines, a framework from which to evaluate
it. I am wondering, General Rochelle, do you believe, does the
military feel that in fact they have those guidelines? Is that
a disconnect from the report and some of the thinking that in
fact there is a framework there?
Maybe Ms. Farrell, if you could identify what you think,
what is the missing framework?
Ms. Farrell. Let me talk a little bit about what that
guideline is before you launch into that. We are really talking
about a framework. DOD does have policies. They do have
instructions that set out what the SAPRO office is, roles,
responsibilities. There are a number of players that are
involved in this process, as has been discussed today, the role
of the program coordinators, the victims advocates, the medical
personnel. There are clear definitions about the restricted
option versus the unrestricted option.
And when we reported in January of this year on the
academies, we acknowledged that there was a framework in place,
but there was more that needed to be done in terms of
benefiting from that framework in terms of an analysis and
taking the data that was being reported to Congress and
analyzing it to determine what it did mean, in order to tell
what was working, what was not working.
By the time we spread our wings, so to speak, and started
looking at this issue throughout DOD, not just at the service
academies, it appeared to us that the framework, that we saw
more in place at the academies, was really not in place DOD-
wide. Again, there are policies and there are regulations. But
there are not very clear goals, very clear milestones. The task
force would be an example of the milestone that Congress had
set for DOD, but there is nothing in any type of comprehensive
framework that sets milestones of how this program is going to
move forward over the next few years.
So we are looking for very clear goals, very clear
milestones, very clear performance measures and very clear
criteria of how DOD will analyze the progress that it is trying
to make.
Ms. Davis of California. Thank you.
Can I ask General Rochelle, is there a disconnect there? Do
you think there is a belief, that there is a framework there
that you are working from, or would you say that in fact that
is a fair assessment of where you are right now?
General Rochelle. Thank you for the opportunity, Ms. Davis.
It certainly is from a factual perspective accurate, that is
the absence of broad guidelines from DOD. But I will also add
that I don't believe it has hampered, I really do not believe
it has hampered the Army. I won't attempt to speak for any
other service here in establishing our programs and making sure
that our programs are moving forward.
Now, that is not to suggest that we are perfect and from
the sense of milestones, objectives, intermediate objectives
and the like. I would never suggest that. But I really believe
that we have the flexibility in the absence of those guidelines
to be able to design our program in such a way that it works
best for soldiers, especially given where the Army is in the
global war on terror.
Ms. Davis of California. But where do you think the
shortcomings are? And Ms. Farrell as well. Because I think one
of the issues that people have testified to, and very well, is
the victim advocate and the role that individual plays. They
are volunteers, they perhaps are not trained necessarily as
well as they could be. Is that an area, or is there something
else that maybe we haven't looked at?
General Rochelle. Let me offer, if I may, as I mentioned in
my initial response to the chairman, the one area is in the
definitions, is in simple definitions and in how one computes
certain metrics. That might be very helpful, so that it is
consistent across the services.
On the other hand, I would also add that once again, what
it has not done is hamper our ability to launch what we
consider to be certainly on the response side of the equation,
which I can speak more to later, what we consider to be a very
good program. We are not satisfied, by any stretch of the
imagination, with where we are. But we are confident that we
have a good----
Ms. Davis of California. Is there anything about those
statistics, whether it is in enforcement, whether it is in
prosecution that you would believe would be something to look
at? What concerns you as you look at those numbers?
General Rochelle. What I would add, I would have a greater
degree of confidence that when I looked across the same data
for the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps that the
definitions are common, that I can then glean greater insights
from the information.
Ms. Davis of California. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Tierney. Thank you, Ms. Davis.
Ms. Harman.
Ms. Harman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to the
witnesses for trying to shed more light on this really urgent
problem. I especially want to thank our representative from the
military for apologizing to the family, the Lauterbach family
for what happened. Obviously, we don't know all the facts there
yet. But there is nothing, there is no way to deny that a woman
serving her country and her unborn fetus are dead and that
probably the circumstance came about because of a crime that
she tried to report and tried to protect herself against in the
military.
I want to say a couple of things, Mr. Chairman. First of
all, about the absence of the director of SAPRO. I am really
shocked that the civilian side of the Defense Department would
have created this problem. Responsibility starts at the top.
Bob Gates is a person I have talked to personally about this
issue, and who has expressed some interest and concern. It
makes absolutely no sense to me that the Assistant Secretary of
Defense for legislation would block the head of the appropriate
office from testifying here under oath. All that suggests, as
Chairman Waxman said, is that for some reason she might have
under oath felt compelled to tell us something that the
civilian side of the Defense Department didn't want us to know.
Well, my plan, following this hearing, is to call Bob Gates
and see what light he can shed. Having said that, the military
side of the Defense Department is trying to step up to this
problem. As I mentioned in my opening remarks, I think the Army
is probably doing the best job. I have talked to Pete Geren
several times about this myself and he is the one who said that
he sees this as a watershed issue much like racial integration
was 60 years ago. So I commend him and I commend you for what
the Army is trying to do. I know that the chairman of the Joint
Chiefs, Mike Mullen, is very interested in this, too.
Leadership starts at the top.
This isn't just a response problem. This is a prevention
problem. The goal here is not to counsel women who have been
brutally physically destroyed. The goal here is to prevent
young soldiers from doing this to their fellow soldiers. We
recognize that in an all volunteer force, some young people
sign up for duty who may not have had clear boundaries imposed
by the families they come from or the communities they come
from. That is a problem with all young people. As a parent of
four, I think I had to counsel my own kids many times on what
was right and what was wrong. Maybe their families have done
this and they haven't learned the lessons, I have no idea.
But the point is, once they show up for duty, or even at
the earlier stage, at the intake proceedings, because we hear
that some of these problems start then, they have to be given a
clear, easy to understand, course in what is right and what is
wrong. So does their chain of command. Does either of you
disagree with that?
General Rochelle. Not only do I not disagree with it,
Representative Harman, but I wholly, wholly endorse it. Our
efforts toward prevention, and I am happy to have the
opportunity to talk briefly about it, our effort toward
prevention has really begun with a, if you will, a realization
that young men and women are entering our Army today as you
said with a different set of values in terms of the
relationships between men and women, and between one another,
men and men, women and women. And where the Secretary and the
Chief are leading the Army, personally leading the Army, is
toward this prevention aspect.
As you know, ma'am, and I believe you have been invited to
attend, the Army will launch in September phase two of our
Sexual Assault and Prevention Response Program. We have
phenomenal expectations for the success of that. But it will
primarily begin before an individual enters the force, in terms
of orientation and training on the prevention aspects, and to
counter those, if you will, social norms that they enter our
force with.
As Secretary Geren has said, it is unconscionable to him,
and the Chief has echoed this as well, that the same Army
values that could cause a young man or woman to willingly and
without hesitation lay down his or her life for a fellow
soldier are the same Army values that should make sexual
assault prevention unconscionable in the U.S. Army.
Ms. Harman. Mr. Chairman, my time has expired. I would just
like to quote one phrase from the GAO report which says,
``Occurrences of sexual assault may be exceeding the rates
being reported.'' You bet. We have an epidemic here. We have
some folks in the military who really want to get this right.
We have victims sitting before us who have been grievously
abused, and many victims in the future unless we fix this. And
I commend your subcommittee for moving forward here. I think we
have to pass legislation demanding that changes be made,
especially given what we just learned this morning, which is
that at least some people on the civilian side of the
Department of Defense don't want to come and talk to us.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Tierney. Thank you again, Ms. Harman.
Elijah Cummings, Mr. Cummings from Maryland has joined us.
He is a member of the full committee and we are pleased to have
him with us this morning. Mr. Cummings, feel free to ask some
questions.
Mr. Cummings. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
When I first got to Congress in 1996, sexual assault was a
big deal. I will never forget, after I was only here for about
3 months, I went on a tour of some of the bases, and we
addressed some of the problems. But there have been continued
questionable trends in the nature of non-combat related deaths
of female soldiers that report incidents of sexual assault in
theater. Of the total 174 reports of sexual assault in the U.S.
Central Command, some 68 percent of unrestricted reports and 38
percent of restricted reports were made in Iraq in 2007.
Further, as indicated by the Sexual Assault Prevention and
Response Office in 2007, these numbers are subject to change,
as information is validated over time. Has this data changed
since the Department's 2007 report? Either one of you.
General Rochelle. Sir, I can't answer that question for the
entire Department.
Mr. Cummings. Do you find that there has been a continued
higher amount of incidents of sexual assault in Iraq than any
other area in the U.S. CENTCOMM?
General Rochelle. Not for the Army, sir. Let me answer your
question specifically for the Army. Sexual assault, reported
incidents of sexual assault for the entire deployed theater
represent 0.58 per 1,000. Whereas for the total Army, that
number is 2.53, I will verify the last part of that in just a
moment, per 1,000. So my point is, less than a third, less than
a third of the total number of restricted and unrestricted
sexual assault reports for the deployed force for the Army.
Mr. Cummings. Thank you first of all for what you just
said. I am also deeply concerned about the troubling numbers
and that Congress, for that matter, has failed to prevent the
Department and Congress has failed to prevent sexual assaults
in theater, and the link to some of these service members'
later non-combat related deaths. Specifically, this is what I
am most concerned about. A lady named, well, it is Private
Johnson, specifically, my office and the offices of
Representatives Diane Watson and Lacy Clay have been contacted
by Private Lavina Johnson's father. Are either one of you
familiar with that case?
General Rochelle. Sir, I am.
Mr. Cummings. Specifically, my office and the offices of
Representatives Watson and Clay have been contacted by her
father, Private Johnson was a constituent of Mr. Clay. And an
Army soldier who served in Iraq and later committed suicide
while stationed in Iraq. There are a lot of questions
surrounding her death. Are you familiar with that?
General Rochelle. Sir, I am.
Mr. Cummings. As a result of this case, I began to scratch
the surface regarding the link between victims of sexual
assaults and their later non-combat related deaths in theater.
Unfortunately, I discovered several cases where a report of
sexual assault occurs, and it is shortly followed by the death
of the victim. And a suicide is far too often determined under
questionable circumstances.
To make matters worse, as identified in Ms. Farrell's
submitted testimony, reports of sexual assault may be exceeding
the rates being reported. I can only imagine the real number of
our men and women in uniform who have suffered through a sexual
assault ordeal in theater. For instance, of the bases located
in Iraq, Camp Taji has reported a high incidence of female
soldiers that have fallen victim to sexual assault and later
meet their untimely death by suicide. There are even additional
reports by the press indicating that these numbers at Camp Taji
may be much higher, including eight victims from Fort Hood
alone, that reported an incident of sexual assault, and later
committed, allegedly committed suicide.
One example is the case of Army Private First Class Tina
Priest, who died on March 1, 2006, apparently committing
suicide 11 days after she reported being sexually assaulted by
a fellow soldier. After her death, the Army concluded that PFC
Priest used her big toe to pull the trigger to commit suicide.
Rape charges against the soldier whose sperm was found on
Priest's sleeping bag was dropped, and he was convicted of a
lesser charge of disobeying a direct order. No further
investigation was conducted.
I have run out of time, Mr. Chairman, and I thank you for
your patience. But would you all comment on this whole
phenomenon of sexual assault and allegations of suicide? And by
the way, when are we going to get a clear answer with regard to
PFC Johnson's father? He came in here, he was here, sitting in
that seat right over there about 7 days ago, literally with
tears in his eyes, saying the Army is giving him the runaround.
He is very, very upset and I want to be able to give him some
answers.
General Rochelle. Sir, let me attempt to clear up, first of
all, non-combat related deaths, which I would like to make sure
we are clear on what that definition is. It includes everything
from accidents to suicides to fatalities from disease that
occur in theater and natural causes, writ large. In other
words, it is not related to direct combat with the enemy or
indirect fire, for example.
So we are talking a very, very large number of types of
incidents. The relationship between sexual assault and those
types of fatalities, I am not sure how we can draw that
connection because of the broad nature and the definition that
relates to non-combat related fatalities. I don't specifically
know the details on Private Johnson, who I think you mention is
related in some way to the Lavina Johnson. I am familiar with
that matter, and I also know, sir, that Army criminal
investigative agents met with Ms. Johnson's father this month
and were very forthcoming with him for all of the forensic
evidence and all the information that relates to how the Army
concluded its findings in her very unfortunate death.
Beyond that, I don't know how much more forthcoming we
might possibly be.
Mr. Cummings. I know my time is up, Mr. Chairman. I will
provide you with some written questions, because we have had an
opportunity to look at the evidence, and I can tell you, it
just doesn't, there are some inconsistencies that a first year
law student would pick up on.
General Rochelle. I would be happy to receive that, Mr.
Cummings.
Mr. Tierney. Thank you, Mr. Cummings.
Mr. Platts, do you have some questions?
Mr. Platts. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First, I want to thank you and Ranking Member Shays for in
the last session and this session holding these very important
hearings and helping to raise awareness and focus on this very
important issue.
I want to thank our witnesses for their testimony.
Lieutenant General Rochelle, I am a fellow Shippensburg
graduate. Mine was undergrad in public administration, and I
know yours was masters. I represent Moore College, so I
appreciate your service.
First, I just want to make a comment: your record of
service and that of the overwhelming majority of all of our men
and women is deserving of our Nation's deepest, deepest
gratitude in serving and defending our Nation and the security
of our citizens. I guess what I am challenged to understand,
and in the previous hearing under then-Chairman Shays and now
with Chairman Tierney, is, we certainly are making efforts, but
we clearly have a long way to go in adequately addressing the
challenge of sexual assault, prevention and response in our
military ranks. And when we don't do it right, as I don't think
yet we are, it does bring great disrespect on all who wear the
uniform.
As you well stated in your testimony, even one sexual
assault violates the very essence of what it means to be a
soldier, and is a betrayal of the Army's core values. I think
that goes across all of our military branches. And somehow we
need to do better in conveying from the top down that this is a
betrayal. It is a betrayal of the values of the military, it is
a betrayal of what our Nation stands for, and it will be dealt
with in the most severe manner possible, with all due process
being afforded.
Until we get to that point, we are not doing right
especially by the men and women wearing the uniform, all men
and women wearing the uniform with honor, because they are
being brought disrespect because of the wrongdoing of the
minority in the ranks. And especially that man or woman who is
wearing the uniform who is assaulted and not able to be
protected, in the first instance, and then helped and assisted
adequately.
So I hope with your leadership and work and all in uniform,
we will do better. The testimony we had last session from the
cadet at the Air Force Academy, as a parent, it was just heart-
wrenching to hear. As one who regularly interacts with the
military and does my best to support them, it is hard, as a
parent, maybe, to say to a mom or dad, especially of a female
looking to enlist or go to one of the academies, that you do it
without some hesitation because of us not getting it right yet.
I do have a specific question regarding Pennsylvania. In my
district, I do a lot of work with the Guard, the 28th Division,
soldiers getting ready to do pretty significant with the only
Guard Stryker brigade going to Iraq later this year, including
a good number of friends who serve who will be over there as
part of that deployment. Can you highlight Army specifics you
are taking, and trying to be more proactive here in protecting
our soldiers and responding to assault, specifically if there
is an effort focused on Guard and Reserve? Because they are in
a different setting in the sense that often, the support they
have is not the same as active duty forces who are at large
bases with large Army infrastructure, as opposed to the Guard
and Reserve who, if it happens during a 2-week summer
activation or weekend training, or they go back to Guard status
from full-time activation, is there some specific effort to
ensure that Guard and Reservists that are sexually assaulted
have the support in their home communities as opposed to simply
on the bases where they may have been stationed?
General Rochelle. Thank you, Representative Platts. I
welcome the opportunity to comment on that.
This is a one-Army program, a total Army program, active
Guard and Reserve. Both our sexual assault response
coordinators at installation and/or higher level command
positions who have responsibility for coaching and mentoring
it, and by the way, many of those installation-level, higher
level sexual assault response coordinators are masters in
social work degree individuals. And the policy to have unit
victim advocates applies equally to the active component as it
does to our reserve component brethren. More so than ever
today, we have to function as a total force, we must. And we
always strive to do that.
Let me add one editorial comment, if I may. We have in our
total force today 163,000 women. I would like point out that
across the Department of Defense, it is my perception that this
is a Defense-level statistic, 12 percent, 12 percent of our
victims are male. So we don't discount, nor do we underscore,
fail to underscore the importance of, this is a problem for
everyone. We are addressing it in our National Guard and
Reserve just as aggressively as we are in the active component.
Deployed unit victim advocates and deployed sexual assault
response coordinators, just like in the active component.
Mr. Tierney. Thank you, General. Thank you, Mr. Platts.
Mr. Shays, you are recognized.
Mr. Shays. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
General, thank you for your service to our country. The
questions I am going to ask do not reflect on your service. But
how can I have any confidence whatsoever in a military that
forces a young girl out of the Academy because she was raped,
and then they said, well, she had sex, and leaves the rapist
in? And how can I have confidence with a military where a young
woman says she was raped, she is pregnant, and they just let
her have to deal with the unbelievable intimidation that she
had to deal with? How can I have any confidence in a military
that comes before our committee in June 2006 and the Defense
Task Force on Sexual Harassment and Violence that was set up in
2005 did not have its complete membership and the military
says, well, they will get right on it? Then we find out that
they filled up the membership and yet they haven't met once.
How can I have any confidence whatsoever?
General Rochelle. Sir, first of all, I must assume that
those are actual incidents. I am unfamiliar with any of them,
or either of them with the exception of the committee that you
refer to at the Department of Defense level. I can only tell
you that the senior leadership of the U.S. Army is committed to
ensuring that the American people have the confidence and this
body has the confidence that we are totally committed to
eradicate sexual assault in the U.S. Army.
Mr. Shays. General, as the G1, you are responsible for
retaining qualified soldiers and recruiting new members to the
Army. You have discussed recently that some of the largest
recruiting challenges you face are that moms and dads are not
supportive of the Army as a career choice during a time of war.
I am assuming you have seen the figures from the VA that one in
three women in uniform report having been sexually assaulted.
How do I tell my constituents that serving in the military
is good and a noble service to our country when they also have
to face danger from their peers as well as the enemy?
General Rochelle. Sir, I am familiar with the VA's
statement and the data that has recently been reported. We are
concerned, as well, with the confidence of the American people,
especially that every soldier is valued for his or her
contribution on or off the battlefield. That is precisely why,
Ranking Member Shays, that the U.S. Army is focused on
prevention. Addressing the social norms that young people come
to us possessing, if you will, today, and then instilling in
them and their social interactions between soldiers, as well as
between civilians, or with civilians on the battlefield and off
the battlefield, that those values are equally applicable to
those relationships as they are to the relationships when under
fire.
Mr. Shays. Would you explain to me why this task force has
not met?
General Rochelle. Sir, I am not in a position to explain
why the DOD task force has not met.
Mr. Shays. Ms. Farrell.
Ms. Farrell. We have heard a variety of reasons why the
task force hasn't taken place. We have been monitoring it since
we began this work at the request of this committee. Initially
we were told that there was the intent to carry task force
members over from the first task force that served on the
academy task force. Then we heard that there was difficulty
just getting people, the right mix of people and the
composition. We hear the same thing that you have heard, as we
have been monitoring this for the past year and a half, that,
soon, you know, next month, next month. Our understanding is
that all the task force members have been appointed and now the
plan is to begin next month.
Mr. Shays. I heard that in June 2006. And it was a pretty
incredible hearing, so you would have thought that would have
been immediate action.
First, I have to, we all are up for re-election and I am
asking my constituents to renew my contract. But if my
constituents renew my contract and I am appointed to be either
the ranking member of the full committee or chairman, I am
going to hire, as one of my hires, a woman who has been
sexually assaulted in the military, someone like Beth Davis. I
am going to have her be able to devote her time to visiting the
academies, obviously working in conjunction with the majority,
and to visit the military. I don't think the military yet takes
this seriously. And I am just dumbfounded by it. I think the
little actions we have seen are frankly not impressive.
Mr. Tierney. Thank you, Mr. Shays.
We have a couple of Members who wish to ask a few more
questions as followup, if the witnesses are fine with that. Ms.
Davis.
Ms. Davis of California. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and
again, thank you both for being here. I think we would all
recognize that on many fronts, tremendous improvement has been
made. I especially appreciate the fact that you talked about
early prevention, because I think that is important. And that
is not just your job, that is all of our jobs, it is the
school's job, it is our family's job, and we all need to do a
better job at that. Having people that are willing to come
forward and talk about their experiences is critically
important.
I wanted to just followup a little bit on Mr. Shays,
because we have talked about a number of issues here, the
witnesses have spoken about the need to look at the advocacy
program, the sexual abuse response team and how people become
part of the SARC, what their role is, whether that should be a
volunteer. We also know that there is a host of information
about whether investigations go forward with the kind of
support that they need, whether they are resourced enough to do
that.
Where do those discussions take place, and how can we be
more helpful in helping you to get to that place? One of the
things we did do in the recent authorization bill was to ask
for better definitions, so that those reports can move forward.
But beyond all those statistics and behind the statistics are
the people that we are trying to serve. We learn from people in
our districts every day about problems. And how do you see
that, what is that context? Is it the task force? Is it our
Committee on Personnel? How can we support that effort to a far
greater extent? Because none of us want to be sitting here in
another year or so feeling that there are pieces of this that
we could perhaps have dealt with better, and I would like you
to respond to that.
General Rochelle. I think the answer to your question,
Representative Davis, is all of the above. It is the task
force, it is the partnership, and I am speaking now from the
standpoint of the Army, the partnership that the Army views it
has with the Congress, specifically the House Armed Services
Committee, the Personnel Subcommittee, this committee and
others, and working collectively and collaboratively to
eliminate sexual assault from our lexicon. I agree, and would
echo once again that I think definitions, common definitions
would be beneficial to all of us, not just definitions, but
quite frankly the way in which we calculate our various
statistics, so that we know we are looking at a common playing
field, level playing field, if you will.
But I would conclude by again saying, we view this as a
partnership with the Congress.
Ms. Davis of California. Thank you. I think the chairman
would probably say that partnership would certainly mean having
appropriate people testify. And I think that is a great
frustration that is not part of the Personnel Committee today.
But I certainly would ask that be responded to, because I think
that is part of the partnership.
Thank you.
Mr. Tierney. Thank you, Ms. Davis.
Mr. Turner.
Mr. Turner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman and ranking member, I want to thank you again
for holding this. One of the things that is so important when
we have a hearing like this is that you start to learn more
information, additional information that takes you down other
paths that hopefully can lead to solutions and some
recommendations. I was just told by staff that the Army and
Marine Corps apparently signed felony waivers for a total of 10
convicted sexual assaulted-related crimes in fiscal year 2007.
General, are you aware of this, and if so, that of course begs
the question, how does the Army enforce a DOD no tolerance
standard while simultaneously allowing convicted felons to
enlist?
General Rochelle. The Army, I am familiar with 5 of the 10
cases I believe you cite for the Army and the Marine Corps. Two
points, if I may, Representative Turner. Every waiver for
enlistment against any standard, certainly a standard that
deals with a misdemeanor or a waiver of an exception for
enlistment that deals with something that may carry a felony
level conviction or offense is reviewed by a general officer in
the chain of command within the U.S. Army Recruiting Command,
the National Guard or the Reserves. So every single one of
those was looked at by successive levels of leaders, all the
way up to a general officer, who then made a decision that the
circumstances warranted that young person enlisting.
The key distinction I would like to make is because the
offense may have carried a felony level conviction does not
mean the individual was convicted. It may not even mean the
individual was taken to court.
Mr. Turner. Obviously you can understand our concern,
though. If you have a no tolerance standard, you are saying
that, you can't stay. But it appears from this information, you
are saying you can come in. I am certain that we are going to
have additional questions about this. I know the committee has
been working on this issue with you. I appreciate that there is
additional information that we need to know, but I do believe
that we will be asking for it.
General Rochelle. I would be happy to share it, sir.
Mr. Turner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Tierney. Thank you. Just let me wrap up, if I can, with
a couple of questions. I think Ms. Farrell's work deserves some
attention here.
Ms. Farrell, you talked about the guidance not adequately
addressing some issues like implementation of the program in
deployed and joint environments. Can you expand on that a
little bit for us?
Ms. Farrell. Certainly. Especially in locations such as
Iraq, Afghanistan, where you have members from all the
services, possibly even the Coast Guard, when we did our
surveys at overseas locations, and had our one on one
interviews with over 150 service members, often the issue came
up that members would not know who to turn to in the event that
they were a victim of sexual assault, if they were Coast Guard,
for example, in Bahrain and in a joint environment. Do they go
to the Navy? Who is their Coast Guard representative? The
guidance is just lacking in this particular area of how
situations would be handled. And of course, this is so
important with the restricted reporting requirement, where you
can only go to certain individuals and keep that incident
confidential.
Mr. Tierney. Thank you.
General, how does the Army deal with that in a joint
environment, in a deployed situation?
General Rochelle. Every joint element, whether it is the
Joint Staff in the Pentagon, or a joint headquarters in Iraq or
Afghanistan, has a U.S. Army element that is the command and
control element that oversees both training standards,
discipline in general, as well as the sexual assault prevention
program for the Army members of that unit, in order to assure
service consistency, which is very important. I think that is
the answer to your question, sir.
Mr. Tierney. So you are saying that the Army has its own
operation wherever they go?
General Rochelle. That is correct.
Mr. Tierney. Whether it is a joint force or whatever, that
they stay within the Army lanes and they just report on up
there?
General Rochelle. Under the U.S. Army element for that
joint headquarters, yes, sir.
Mr. Tierney. OK. Now, other services don't report to that
Army chain?
General Rochelle. Sir, they do not, for certain----
Mr. Tierney. They don't have a SARC officer there?
General Rochelle. For certain Title 10 functions, they do
not.
Mr. Tierney. So I am thinking that maybe some other service
might not have the direction that the Army does, they may be
there without a SARC officer and they can't go to your force
and they may not have one of their own.
General Rochelle. Well, I wouldn't assume that, sir.
Mr. Tierney. I wouldn't assume it, either, but I am seeing
Ms. Farrell's point here, it would be nice if the DOD had sort
of a standard across that dealt with that, and it might make it
easier.
General Rochelle. Yes, sir.
Mr. Tierney. Ms. Farrell, you found that sometimes the
program management was collateral duty for people. Did you find
that invariably diminished the capacity of the person that was
responsible for the program, or did you make that point that it
just was a fact, without making an assessment as to whether or
not it diminished the performance?
Ms. Farrell. You are referring to the program coordinator,
sir?
Mr. Tierney. Exactly. The program management is how you
phrased it, the program coordinator's effectiveness can be
hampered when program management is a collateral duty.
Ms. Farrell. We found that there are different staffing
models for the program coordinators, where they were talking
about the SARC or the victim advocates, which often are
volunteers. This is something that is flowing from our draft
report that DOD could take action on instead of waiting for a
task force that is next year, by looking at the various
staffing models and what is working well and what is the most
effective. It is one of those best practices that may be
applied from one service to another service.
Mr. Tierney. General, does the Army have all full-time
people or do they have a mix? And have there been any
assessments as to whether or not one is outperforming the
other?
General Rochelle. Thank you for the opportunity to address
that question. I had hoped to address it from a previous
question by one of the Members. At the installation level and
at the higher command level, it is not a collateral duty in the
Army. The installation sexual assault response coordinator is
solely responsible for that program.
At the unit level, it is a collateral duty, but it is not a
voluntary duty in the U.S. Army. The commander selects the non-
commissioned officer or the officer who serves as the unit
victim advocate, two at certain levels at command, one at other
levels of command. And that is the commander's way of putting
his or her stamp of approval on that individual's capability
and training, I might add, to perform the duties adequately.
Mr. Tierney. In the Army, do you have any attempt to see
that there are more women involved in this process than men?
There was some interesting discussion between the witnesses
that preceded whether or not it makes it easier on a female
victim to report up through people who are also women.
General Rochelle. Sir, it varies. Our anecdotal, if you
will, information suggests that it just depends on the
individual. Some are more comfortable speaking to a member of a
different gender, and others are equally comfortable speaking
to a SARC or unit victim advocate of the same gender.
We have approximately 85 percent, I think that is on our
deployed force, 85 percent of our program managers at the level
of unit victim advocate SARC, deployed SARC, are male, 10
percent in theater. And in the continental United States, it is
15 percent female.
Mr. Tierney. Ms. Farrell, do you have any observations on
that point, or any comments? It might be outside your report,
but I am just curious to know your thoughts.
Ms. Farrell. Often in some of these locations, there aren't
females, enough females to volunteer to take on such duties. I
agree that it would vary by the individual, who the individual
is comfortable with. It did come up in some of our one on one
discussions, that some females feel more comfortable with other
females as the victim advocates. I would assume the same would
be true for males, they might feel more comfortable with a male
victim advocate.
Mr. Tierney. Thank you.
Ms. Torres had a particular situation where her assailant
was in fact a medical professional, and then she was in a
situation where she was in that system and trying to keep paper
records as opposed to electronic records. Does the Army have a
policy for just that situation, where somebody might be in a
situation where their assailant was in the medical profession
and would otherwise have access to their data, unless they were
kept separately, and what does the Army do in that kind of an
incident?
General Rochelle. Sir, I am sorry, I am not completely
familiar with the instance you are referring to.
Mr. Tierney. Ms. Torres testified earlier that her
assailant was in fact a doctor, and that after she had made her
complaint, she still had to get medical treatment in the
system. But that all the records were being kept in electronic
data, unless whoever was in charge of that particular SARC
office would have cooperated and made sure that they were kept,
or the commander made sure that they were kept in paper
documents, so that this individual who was going through a
disciplinary proceeding wouldn't have access to all of her
medical records while that was going on.
So does the Army have a policy with what they do in that
situation, or is that so unique that you have not addressed it
yet?
General Rochelle. Sir, I am insufficiently familiar with
exactly how that may be addressed under the HIPAA rules that
govern who has access to medical records and who does not. If
you would permit me, I would like to take that one for the
record.
Mr. Tierney. I would be happy to do that, just give it to
you for your consideration, since if a situation happened once,
it is probably not the only time it is going to happen. Maybe
each branch ought to look at what they are going to do about it
in such a situation. I would appreciate that.
Last, Ms. Farrell, you mentioned the shortage of mental
health services, the access to mental health services. How much
of a shortage is there, how desperate is it, and what
recommendations might you make with respect to that?
Ms. Farrell. Shortages are DOD-reported shortages coming
from a report a couple of years ago. And we do have current
work that is underway for the Senate Armed Services Committee
to look at medical personnel requirements and where are the
gaps and what is DOD and specifically the Army doing about
those shortages as they move forward.
The shortages of mental health providers came up at
locations, in deployed locations. Of course, in CONUS, service
members can have long waiting lines, as well, depending on the
installation and the population that they are serving. They may
have access to VA, they may not. It depends upon the location.
So it is going to vary by location.
Mr. Tierney. What we found at the Walter Reed hearings and
subsequent hearings as well, just getting mental health
professionals into the service at adequate levels is difficult.
General, it just begs the question, what are you doing?
General Rochelle. Sir, just to add to Ms. Farrell's
comments, we are challenged on several fronts, not just because
of the heavy demands of deployment. But I would like to
specifically highlight mental health providers. We are
challenged not only in the deployed environment, but we are
challenged here in the continental United States as well.
Fortunately, however, the answer to the question what are
we doing, we have received the authorization from the Office of
Personnel Management to bypass many of the OPM bureaucratic
rules and do direct, and actually execute direct hires of these
professionals. Even that level of authority, which would allow
me to walk up to, or the commander of any hospital facility to
walk up to a person who is fully qualified and say, I would
like you to come to work for us, serving our soldiers, family
members, as well as our deployed force, it is inadequate to the
task. There simply aren't enough.
Mr. Tierney. Is there something on a policy basis, or
otherwise, that Congress should be addressing to help with that
situation?
General Rochelle. Sir, if I may, that may be an area for
continued discussions in the partnership with the U.S.
Congress.
Mr. Tierney. OK. We should do that, then.
Do either of you have any comments you would like to make
as we wrap this up? Is there something that we should have
asked you that we didn't? Ms. Farrell.
Ms. Farrell. Thank you for the opportunity, and I would
just like to take a second to thank some of the staff that are
here that have done this very comprehensive work for you.
Marilyn Wasleski, the Assistant Director, Wesley Johnson, the
Analyst in Charge, Pawnee Davis and Steve Marchesani, Analysts.
Mr. Tierney. We thank them as well. We really appreciate
your work, and it was a comprehensive report. I think we will
be able to hopefully get some direction on a new policy on that
will be helpful.
General, do you have any closing comments?
General Rochelle. Sir, I would like to take the opportunity
on behalf of the Secretary of the Army, the Honorable Pete
Geren, and the Chief of Staff of the Army, General George
Casey, and every soldier in uniform, to take the opportunity to
apologize to any, any soldier who has ever worn the uniform who
has suffered the outrage of sexual assault.
Mr. Tierney. We appreciate that.
Thank you both very much for your testimony. This concludes
the hearing.
[Whereupon, at 1 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]