[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.]