[House Hearing, 110 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE MILITARY--PART II
=======================================================================
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
__________
SEPTEMBER 10, 2008
__________
Serial No. 110-188
__________
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
51-636 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 September 10, 2008............................... 1
Statement of:
Whitley, Kaye, Director, Sexual Assault Prevention and
Response Office, U.S. Department of Defense; and Brenda S.
Farrell, Director, Defense Capabilities and Management,
U.S. Government Accountability Office...................... 27
Farrell, Brenda S........................................ 52
Whitley, Kaye............................................ 27
Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:
Farrell, Brenda S., Director, Defense Capabilities and
Management, U.S. Government Accountability Office, prepared
statement of............................................... 54
Shays, Hon. Christopher, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Connecticut, prepared statement of............ 10
Tierney, Hon. John F., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Massachusetts:
Letter dated April 15, 2004.............................. 15
Prepared statement of.................................... 5
Whitley, Kaye, Director, Sexual Assault Prevention and
Response Office, U.S. Department of Defense, prepared
statement of............................................... 30
SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE MILITARY--PART II
----------
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 10, 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 10:05 a.m., in
room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. John F. Tierney
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Tierney, Maloney, Lynch, Yarmuth,
Braley, McCollum, Shays, Platts, Turner, and Foxx.
Also present: Representative Harman.
Staff present: Dave Turk, staff director; Andrew Su,
professional staff member; Davis Hake, clerk; Mary Anne
McReynolds, graduate intern; and Alex McKnight, fellow.
Mr. Tierney. A quorum being present, the Subcommittee on
National Security and Foreign Affairs hearing entitled,
``Sexual Assault in the Military--Part II,'' 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 if the Chair or ranking member of the full
committee should come, we will also have them make opening
statements if they so desire.
Without objection, so ordered.
I ask unanimous consent that the following Members be
allowed to participate in this hearing: Congresswoman Jane
Harman from California, Congresswoman Susan Davis of California
and Congresswoman Diane Watson from California. Pursuant to
House rules, these Members will be allowed to ask questions of
our witnesses 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 of the members of the
subcommittee will be allowed to submit a written statement for
the record.
Without objection, so ordered.
Good morning, and thank you all for being here today. We
continue our oversight into sexual assault in the U.S.
military. In July, this subcommittee held the first
congressional hearing focusing on the military's sexual assault
prevention and response programs since 2006. We heard from two
brave women who shared their personal and deeply moving stories
with us, Ms. Ingrid Torres and Ms. Mary Lauterbach.
Ms. Torres is an employee of the American Red Cross who was
stationed at military bases, was raped by an installation
doctor at Kunsan Air Base in South Korea. She told us how she
received different levels of care by various victim advocates
and health specialists, including some who had little to no
knowledge of the military's own prevention and response
procedures.
Mrs. Lauterbach, the mother of Marine Lance Corporal Maria
Lauterbach, told us how she is still trying to get answers
about her daughter's rape and subsequent death by a fellow
soldier. She also provided specific recommendations to improve
the system for other potential victims and their families.
We heard testimony from top congressional leaders,
including Congresswomen Louise Slaughter and Jane Harman, about
their proposals to bring additional improvements. We received
preliminary testimony from the Government Accountability
Office, GAO, on its in-depth, on-the-ground investigation into
the Defense Department's sexual assault prevention, response
and oversight efforts. Today the GAO will testify again, this
time on the final results of its investigation, which includes
specific recommendations for the Defense Department.
Finally, at the July hearing we also heard from General
Michael Rochelle on the Army's effort to prevent and respond to
sexual assaults.
We did not, however, hear from all the necessary executive
branch voices, and that is why we are here again today.
Beginning several months ago, we had asked to receive
testimony from the Defense Department's top expert on sexual
assault, Dr. Kaye Whitley, the director of the Department's
Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office. Dr. Whitley's
office is, by the Pentagon's own acknowledgement, the ``single
point of accountability for Department of Defense sexual
assault policy.''
Inexplicably, the Defense Department refused to allow Dr.
Whitley to testify before Congress. The Oversight Committee,
with bipartisan support, was forced to subpoena her.
Despite this valid congressional subpoena, Dr. Whitley did
not appear to testify. And according to Principal Deputy Under
Secretary Dominguez, Dr. Whitley's superior, he told her or
ordered her not to comply with the subpoena and not to attend
the July hearing. Such an order does not, however, absolve Dr.
Whitley from any personal responsibility to comply with the
subpoena directed to her.
Not only did Dr. Whitley and the Department choose to defy
a valid, legal subpoena and to place Dr. Whitley in danger of
contempt and personal legal jeopardy for her nonappearance, but
the Department gave no valid, legal justification for
restricting her from appearing, and Dr. Whitley proffered none
as well. Over August, this committee, again on a bipartisan
basis, was forced to press the matter directly to the Defense
Department.
We are satisfied that Dr. Whitley is appearing unfetterred
before us today to shed light on the work of her office and the
challenges remaining. But what kind of a message does her and
the Department's unwillingness until now to allow testimony
send to our men and women in uniform? Do they take Dr.
Whitley's office seriously? Is she being muzzled, or is the
Department hiding something?
Let me be clear: Preventing and responding to sexual
assault perpetrated against our soldiers is simply much too
important to be playing a game of cat and mouse. We hope that
Dr. Whitley's presence here today is an indication that, going
forward, the Defense Department will give sexual assault
prevention and response the attention, resources and urgency it
deserves. We also hope that Dr. Whitley's presence with us
today presages the kind of bipartisan, constructive focus we
envisioned when deciding to conduct oversight in this important
issue.
But just because the Pentagon establishes a sexual assault
office does not ensure that our task in preventing and
responding to sexual assaults is complete. Just because the
Defense Department's Task Force on Sexual Assault, after 3 long
years, finally had its first public meeting in August does not
mean that we can all collectively take a sigh of relief. Far
from it; an incredible amount of work remains.
As the GAO will document more fully later this morning,
programs need to be standardized and staffed with dedicated
personnel and dedicated funding. A message of zero tolerance
needs to be vigorously enforced all the way up the chain of
command. The message must come clearly, repeatedly and
vigorously that not a single case of sexual assault by or
against a member of the U.S. military is tolerable and that it
will be punished to the full extent of the law.
I understand that the military has taken the GAO findings
and recommendations seriously and the Department and services
have already begun to institute several changes to standardize
and improve the training, education and care of all soldiers in
our Nation's military.
While I applaud these reforms and I hope to learn more
about their implementation today, I believe that much more
needs to be done to address longstanding cultural problems on
the prevention side and greater effectiveness and willingness
to bring sex offenders to justice on the response side.
Sexual assault scandals have taken place in every
administration and in 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. They continue today. And what all the experts agree on is
that many more assaults are unreported.
Today the subcommittee will finally hear directly from the
Pentagon's point person, Dr. Whitley, 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 punish those committing these
heinous crimes.
I hope we will all have an open and constructive dialog
here today, with the goal of empowering sexual assault victims
to come forward to seek justice and to receive help and to
ensure a climate in our military where sexual assault is in no
way either officially or unofficially condoned, ignored or
tolerated.
I now yield to the ranking member of the subcommittee, Mr.
Shays, for his opening. And I want to thank him again for his
leadership on these issues, for his cooperation, as well as the
cooperation of Mr. Davis, and for their staff in working
together with us on a bipartisan basis in preparation for these
hearings.
Mr. Shays.
[The prepared statement of Hon. John F. Tierney follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51636.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51636.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51636.003
Mr. Shays. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you again for
holding this subcommittee hearing.
The subcommittee's continued focus on the problem of sexual
assault in the military is just an essential effort. We must
ensure all of our services members are protected from
predators.
One of our witnesses today is Dr. Kaye Whitley, who
testified before this subcommittee in 2006. When she was
recalled for a followup hearing in July of this year, the
Department of Defense refused to allow her to appear. I find
this foolish and perplexing. Our question to DOD was, what
authority grants them the right to prevent a Government
employee from testifying before Congress and the American
people? DOD has not answered this question, and we expect a
response regardless of the fact that Dr. Whitley is present
today.
During that June 2006 hearing, we also heard from Ms. Beth
Davis, a former U.S. Air Force Academy cadet. She testified
about being continuously raped by an upperclassman and a
culture at the Academy that tolerated this destructive
behavior. Unbelievably, Ms. Davis was discharged for having sex
at the Academy, while her assailant remained at school. And it
was not until the June 2006 hearing that Beth Davis received
her only apology from the Air Force, years after the attack, an
apology the Air Force provided under duress.
At the 2006 hearing, Dr. Whitley testified about the
improvements and effectiveness of the sexual assault program
implemented since Beth's ordeal, stating over 1 million service
members and 5,000 victim advocates had been trained on sexual
assault prevention and awareness. Dr. Whitley also said that
there were new reporting standards for sexual assaults. I
believe the Government Accountability Office, GAO, today will
validate that these measures have been instituted.
However, at this 2006 hearing, we were also assured a
Defense Task Force and comprehensive data base on sexual
assault in the military were days away from being fully
operational. Given their first meeting occurred 731 days after
this statement, I hope Dr. Whitley will correct the record
today and explain to us why it took the task force so long to
have their first meeting.
Last month at another subcommittee hearing, we heard from
Ms. Ingrid Torres, who discussed her ordeal not just as a
victim but as a patient and recipient of services through the
Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Program after being a
victim. I hope the members of the Defense Task Force on Sexual
Assault have a chance to interview Ms. Torres. I am confident
she can provide them insight that will help protect the women
who serve in defense of our Nation.
The American people, through their representatives in
Congress, are determined to address the sexual assault problems
in the military. This commitment is demonstrated through
hearings, legislation and funding of governmental and
nongovernment programs. Task forces have been established, GAO
investigations have been commissioned, and reports published to
address sexual assault. Now we need to see tangible results.
The hearing held by this subcommittee 2 months ago was a
continuation of our ongoing efforts to curtail sexual assault
in the military. However, instead of partnering with Congress,
senior figures in DOD chose to prevent, for reasons beyond our
comprehension, Dr. Whitley from testifying. This is one of many
reasons why DOD has no credibility with me when it comes to
protecting our women in uniform.
The reluctance to allow Dr. Whitley's testimony is
convincing evidence that DOD is still not serious about the
problem of sexual assault. Why would senior political
appointees in DOD impede a congressional hearing and allow
contempt charges to be filed against a lifelong civil servant
such as Dr. Whitley?
The new DOD leadership, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates
and Secretary of Army Pete Geren, must give sexual assault in
the military a higher priority. I have tremendous faith in
Secretaries Gates and Geren, and it is not lost on me that the
GAO has seen improvements in addressing sexual assault. In
contrast, I also see a task force that did not meet for 731
days and the director of the sexual assault program being
prevented from testifying before Congress.
There exist very real problems that we must get to the
bottom of, not next year, not next month, not next week, but
today.
I thank the witnesses for being here today, and I look
forward to their testimony.
And again, Mr. Chairman, thank you so much for being on top
of this issue.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Christopher Shays follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51636.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51636.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51636.006
Mr. Tierney. Thank you, Mr. Shays.
If our witnesses will excuse me for 1 minute, we have some
housecleaning to deal with.
With unanimous consent, we are going to invite the Members
to give an opening statement if they wish.
Mrs. Maloney.
Mrs. Maloney. I didn't know that I would be allowed to.
Mr. Tierney. Well, it is not required.
Mrs. Maloney. Well, first of all, I would like to thank
both of you for this hearing. It is very, very important.
I have been working on this issue for many years, and
Christopher Shays and I had several hearings on it in the last
Congress. And I strongly believe that sexual assault and rape
must be prevented and prosecuted in both civilian life and in
the military.
And the FBI has told me that the most harmful crime to a
human being, preceded only by murder, is rape, that it destroys
lives. And I would like to place in the record an article that
appeared in The New York Times magazine section that outlined
the abuse of power, the culture that continues rape in the
military. And I find it outrageous that brave women who are
defending our constitutional rights overseas, that the most
extraordinary military in the world cannot protect them from
rape and the culture of rape.
I want to thank you both for being here. You are in a
unique position to work hard on policies that can protect women
from having their lives destroyed by this extraordinary harmful
mental experience, and we need your help.
I looked at some of my papers and I found a letter that I
wrote in 1984 that stated that it had been 16 years--now 20
years--since we have called upon the Department of Defense, the
most effective military in the world, to put in place a
tracking system so we can monitor the number of rapes and
sexual assault in the military. And I am told that this
tracking system is still not in place and is not expected to be
in place until 2010.
This is absolutely, completely unacceptable. And I view it
as a military who wants to sweep under the rug rape and
violence against women and consider it as unimportant. We need
to protect our soldiers just as much as our soldiers need to
protect this country.
I would like to place, with your permission, in the record
17 reports that have been made in the past 20 years about
sexual assault in the military, problems in the military, the
culture, the chain of command, not keeping records--17
different reports.
I hope that we can finally get this behind us. I have been
in Congress for seven terms now, and every single term we have
had meetings with DOD, and they come in and they confirm to us,
``We are going to be serious, we are going to take care of
this, we are going to stop this, zero tolerance.'' But the
rhetoric is not being turned into the reality of protecting our
women and, in some cases, men in our military.
Just as winning a war, winning the peace, protecting our
country, which DOD is the best in the world, they have to take
that expertise and can't they put in place a tracking system?
How hard is that? When you have 20 years to put it in place
since it was first called for in 1988, then we put it in again
in the 1990's with an amendment in the DOD bill, it still is
not in place. So when I see that I think that there is a lack
of will to succeed or maybe the will to hide an ugly, harmful
item from public view and from correction.
And today I congratulate you, Chairman, for calling this
hearing. I think this is tremendously important. We need to
protect the men and women in the military from sexual assault
and a culture that may demean them. We have to put in place a
reporting system, so crimes can be reported. And we have to
stop this. The greatest military in the world can achieve this.
And I would just like to close to say that I come from a
military family. My brother served in Vietnam. My father served
in World War II. His father, his grandfather, his grandfather
before all served in the military of this great country. So I
feel very deeply and strongly, and I know that you can correct
this. And I hope this will be the group that will make it
happen, with the leadership of our chairman.
Thank you.
Mr. Tierney. Thank you, Mrs. Maloney.
Without objection, the article that was referred to in the
gentlewoman's testimony, as well as the 17 reports, will be
included in the record.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51636.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51636.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51636.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51636.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51636.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51636.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51636.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51636.014
Mr. Tierney. Mr. Turner, if you wish to make an opening.
Mr. Turner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I think you are going to hear today from almost all the
Members who are here that they have had substantial work that
they have done on the issue of sexual assault. They have
received a number of complaints from personnel and family
members that are service members that have indicated that there
is a high need for attention to this. Our job, as you know, is
an issue of oversight, legislative, funding authority.
And I am just really saddened that I have to attend a
hearing today where Dr. Whitley is coming back to us after she
was requested to testify on July 31st. And noting in our report
here on July 10th, the committee received word that the Office
of the Secretary of Defense would not permit Dr. Whitley to
testify, the committee having issued a subpoena for her
testimony on July 28th, yet you never appeared.
This is such an issue that, as Carolyn Maloney was saying,
this is destructive to lives. And this is something where--
there is no partisan issue here. There are no shades of issue
here. This is where we should all be going in the same
direction. And I just cannot imagine why we did not have the
cooperation so that we could all work together and go in the
same direction.
Maria Lauterbach, the Marine who was raped and murdered and
buried in the backyard of another Marine after being burned in
North Carolina, was from my district. Her mother, Mary
Lauterbach, testified at that hearing. It would have been very
nice of you to have heard her testimony, because in it she
detailed a significant number of issues that arose in the
handling of that case that I believe and she believed put Maria
at risk, where there was not a recognition that she was at
risk. And one of the questions I am going to have for you today
is some of the written responses that I received from the
Marines that indicated their view of the sexual assault as not
having been a violent occurrence, when my understanding is that
inherent in the definition of sexual assault is violence.
So there is clearly a problem within DOD, a number of areas
that relate to policy that should be within your purview and
your job and in the types of things that we need to address
today.
Mr. Chairman, I just greatly appreciate your continued
focus and efforts to give us an opportunity to try to impact
the policy of DOD.
Mr. Tierney. Thank you, Mr. Turner.
And, Mr. Braley, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Braley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would ask unanimous
consent that my written statement be included in the record, so
I will keep my remarks as brief as possible.
Mr. Tierney. Without objection and with great hope.
Mr. Braley. I want to thank you and the ranking member for
holding this followup hearing.
And even though the topic of today's hearing is sexual
assault in the military, it is closely related to another
problem, and that is domestic violence in the military. And as
my colleague just pointed out, the problem we are dealing with
here is the tolerance of violent acts against women in the
military who defend us every day. And this, again, hits home
personally with me, because at our hearing in July of this year
I spoke about the issue of violence against women serving in
the military and how it is impacting me and the residents of
the First District, where I live.
In July of this year, the body of Army Second Lieutenant
Holly Wimunc, a young woman from Dubuque, IA, where my wife was
born, was found near Camp Lejeune in North Carolina. Her
husband, a Marine corporal, has been charged with her murder.
Before her death, she had secured a temporary restraining order
against him and had told authorities that he held a loaded
handgun to her head. And she leaves behind two children.
And these tragic stories that we are talking about here
today demonstrate the pervasiveness of sexual assault and
violence against female members of the Armed Forces and
demonstrate the urgent need for reform. That is why all of us
here today are unanimous in our agreement that we need to do
everything we can to ensure that victims of sexual assault,
sexual harassment and violence have access to the resources and
services they need, including well-trained and supportive
commanders, independent advocates and qualified mental health
providers.
And if this sounds familiar, it is because these are the
exact same concerns we identified when this subcommittee held a
hearing out at Walter Reed shortly after I was sworn in as a
Member of Congress.
Mr. Chairman, I can remember to this day talking to General
Schoomaker during that hearing on the subject of post-traumatic
stress disorder. And I got him to admit on the record that PTSD
is real. And I looked at him, and I said, ``General, thank you
for making that admission. Now you need to go back and
communicate that down the entire chain of command so everyone
you work with not only understands that is the position of the
U.S. Army but believes it.''
And the problem we have had with providing women the
protection they need while they are serving our country is we
can have the best written policies in the world, just like the
ones I saw when I was in private practice representing victims
of sexual assault and victims of sexual harassment in the
workplace, you can have the best policies on paper; they don't
mean a thing unless the people responsible for enforcing those
policies believe they are important and are committed to making
sure that the people you are trying to protect actually have
someone advocating for them.
And when we were at Walter Reed, we had the same problem,
that there were no independent advocates for people with
disabilities to stand up and fight for them within the
structure of the Department of Defense. That is why it is so
critical that we take action to make sure these resources,
these advocates are available. And your presence here today
puts a punctuation mark on the need, and we thank you for
joining us.
Mr. Tierney. Thank you, Mr. Braley.
Mr. Lynch, you are recognized for 5.
Mr. Lynch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I also want to thank the ranking member. I know he had a
special role in this early on, when he was chairman of this
subcommittee. I want to thank you both for your willingness to
hold this hearing, and also I want to thank our witnesses for
coming forward.
Very briefly, when you think about how highly we honor
military service and how that service and sacrifice of American
families accrues to our benefit here in this country and to
think that there are men and women--a lot of men. I know the
talk up here on this side of the panel has been mostly about
women being assaulted, but based on the population in the
military, obviously male, we have a huge number of male
respondents to sexual assault claims. So I don't want that to
be ignored.
But when you think about the service and sacrifice of our
men and women in uniform, to think that there are American
families that send their sons and daughters to fight this
Nation's wars and to think that there are men and women who put
on that uniform and make that tremendous sacrifice on behalf of
us all and go into the service and then they are subject to
sexual assault is just unthinkable. It is just totally
unacceptable.
I notice also in reading your reports, the GAO reports,
that a lot of the cooperation depends on the willingness of the
commander to accept their role and responsibility in
instituting these protocols. Now, we just have to have zero
tolerance from top to bottom. I know that we have had
significant improvement in our military academies because we
have taken zero tolerance there. And I think we have to go
forward with the same approach in every base, in every unit in
the U.S. military. And there is just no other way.
This is a societal problem and perhaps--not perhaps--it is
definitely a situation where folks have problems with sexual
assault and come to the military with that baggage. And we have
to rout it out. But, you know, we have that responsibility
here. We owe it to American families that send their sons and
daughters to war on our behalf, and we owe it to those
soldiers, sailors, Marines and air men and women themselves.
So, with that, I want to thank you for your work on this
issue. And I yield back the balance of my time. Thank you.
Mr. Tierney. Do you yield back, Mr. Lynch?
Ms. McCollum, do you wish to be recognized?
Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for being
so persistent to have the witness in front of us today.
This is an issue, as many on the committee have already
stated, that we have spoken about time and time again, whether
before a Members of Congress hearing about what was going on in
our military academies and then especially in light of what we
heard being reported out of Iraq.
I wrote Secretary Rumsfeld on it very simply and asked--I
am paraphrasing what I asked him--but, ``What is the program?
Why are you not standing up as the Secretary of Defense and
saying we have a zero tolerance program?'' And in reading
through the reports and in quickly reading through the
testimony, I keep hearing reference to policies and ``this is
our policy'' and ``this is what our goal is.'' Not once in
here, quickly--and maybe someone can point this out to us later
on--do I see ``zero tolerance.''
That is what we ask of the private sector. That is what we
ask of our schools to teach. That is what we should expect from
one another: zero tolerance for any act of violence, especially
sexual violence, zero tolerance for someone to commit the
crime, zero tolerance for underreporting these crimes, zero
tolerance for a commander not to take action.
So, Mr. Chairman, I look forward to hearing from the
witnesses. Rather than something that I received in a July 9th
letter, which I quote from--and I will enter this in the record
so that it is fully present. At the July 9th letter that I
received from the Under Secretary of Defense, ``Secretary
Rumsfeld met in May with combatant commanders to re-enforce his
desire''--his desire, not his will, not his command--``his
desire that they take immediate corrective action with respect
to the climate of reporting systems and care and protection for
victims of sexual assault.'' It goes on.
Mr. Chair, we are here again, and it is now September 2008,
4 years later, and we are still looking for the simple phrase
``zero tolerance.''
I yield back.
Mr. Tierney. Thank you.
Mr. Yarmuth, you are recognized for 5 minutes if you wish
to speak?
You waive on that. Thank you.
Then the subcommittee will now receive testimony from the
witnesses that are before us today.
Dr. Kaye Whitley is the director of the Sexual Assault
Prevention and Response Office in the Department of Defense.
She has the office that is self-described as the Department of
Defense's single point of accountability for all sexual assault
policy matters. Previously, Dr. Whitley served as senior
director of communications for the Defense Prisoner of War/
Missing Personnel Office.
We appreciate your testimony today.
Ms. Brenda S. Farrell--Ms. Farrell is the director of the
Government Accountability Office's Defense Capabilities and
Management team, responsible for defense personnel and medical
readiness issues. Before her current assignment, she served as
acting director for GAO's Strategic Issues team, overseeing
work on strategic human capital, government regulation and
decennial census issues. Over her 27-year career with GAO, Ms.
Farrell has earned numerous awards, including one for sustained
extraordinary performance.
Ms. Farrell, we greatly appreciate you being with us here
today. We understand you are suffering from a bit of a cold,
and if you break into a coughing fit we will all understand. We
are indebted for all the hard work that you and your staff do,
and we want to thank your staff for their work as well and for
coming back a second time with your completed report.
We thank both of you. Everybody agrees this is a very
serious issue, so we hope to conduct a constructive oversight
hearing today to examine the root problems that are involved.
It is the policy of this subcommittee to swear you in
before you testify, so I ask you to please stand and raise your
right hands. And any people that will be testifying with you,
we ask that they do the same.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Tierney. The record will please reflect that both
witnesses answered in the affirmative.
Your full written statements will, of course, already be
placed in the hearing record, so I ask you to keep your
statements as close to 5 minutes as you could. I noticed that
you both have extensive written testimony, so to the extent
that you can keep that down within 5 minutes, that would be
good. We will try to be as lenient as we can, but we do want to
have an opportunity for discussion with everybody.
Dr. Whitley, you are recognized.
STATEMENTS OF KAYE WHITLEY, DIRECTOR, SEXUAL ASSAULT PREVENTION
AND RESPONSE OFFICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; AND BRENDA S.
FARRELL, DIRECTOR, DEFENSE CAPABILITIES AND MANAGEMENT, U.S.
GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE
STATEMENT OF KAYE WHITLEY
Ms. Whitley. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Members Shays and other members of
the subcommittee, I am pleased to be here today to update you
on the Department of Defense's progress in our crusade against
sexual assault. Thank you for your statements, and, more
importantly, thank you for your support.
Today I stand before you not only as the director of the
OSD Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office but as a
woman who is passionate about caring for the victims of this
crime. I have been here since SAPRO's inception 3 short years
ago, and in that time DOD has fundamentally changed its
approach in sexual assault prevention and response. We are
proud of the progress that we have made so far, but we know
that we can always do more to exceed our goals of offering the
best care and support services for our victims while
simultaneously preventing this terrible crime from occurring.
In this statement, I would like to highlight some of our
accomplishments, as well as some of our challenges. And my
written statement submitted for the record contains
significantly more detail, but I hope this overview will serve
to provide a starting point for our discussions today.
In 2004, the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and
Readiness established the Department of Defense Care for
Victims of Sexual Assault Task Force, which was quickly
followed by the standing up of the Joint Task Force on Sexual
Assault Prevention and Response. Within 1 year, that task force
was able to get a DOD directive, or a policy, published. It is
almost unheard of in the Department of Defense to get a policy
published that quickly.
That policy and our program centers around three key
things: the care and treatment for victims, prevention through
training and education, and system accountability. This new
policy revolutionized the Department's sexual assault response
structure. And in June 2005, we further advanced our policy by
instituting restrictive reporting, which allows victims to
confidentially access medical care and advocacy services.
But at the heart of this policy is a system that respects
the privacy and needs of the victim. And in October 2005, that
task force transitioned into the office that I represent today.
Care and treatment for victims became the foundation of our
program.
As you know, sexual assault is the most underreported
violent crime in our society. And we know that in our lifetime,
one in six women and 1 in 33 men will be a victim of sexual
assault. Well, we believe it is also underreported in the
military, and we know it not only affects the health and
stability of our warfighters, it has a negative impact on our
mission readiness.
So our policy created a unique framework for an expanded
and thorough response system. We have a 24-hour, 7-day-a-week
support network at all military installations and even for the
deployed units worldwide. Sexual assault response coordinators
and victim advocates are available to provide consultation and
support so that our military members can understand their
options and get the care and the support they need.
Victims have two options for reporting the crime. By
offering this confidential reporting option, we expect more and
more victims to come forward. Since June 2005, we have had more
than 1,800 restrictive reports, and that tells me that is 1,800
people that would not have come forward otherwise.
Although immediate care and support of our victims is
essential, it is equally important to focus on the prevention
of this crime. And in 2005 we initiated an aggressive and wide-
reaching education agenda. Mandatory sexual assault prevention
and response training is required of every service member at
multiple stages throughout their career. And for the past 3
years, we have focused on making military service members aware
of the program, their reporting options and the kinds of
assistance that is available for victims.
The Department's program provides baseline training for all
military personnel. As soon as an individual enters the
military, regardless of rank, we educate him or her about
sexual assault, about our policies, our programs and our
prevention strategies. To date, the services have provided
sexual assault prevention and awareness training to more than 1
million active-duty and reserve service members. And moreover,
the services have expanded their training programs to adapt
training curricula to their unique needs.
No civilian institution, State government or city has ever
undertaken a mandate to prevent sexual assault in a population
as large, diverse and geographically distributed as ours. As we
develop our prevention strategy, we are literally at the
leading edge of what social science and public health can tell
us about what works. By educating our members when and how to
act, we may be able to turn bystanders into actors who can
prevent sexual assault. Our prevention efforts come from
renowned experts who have dedicated their lives to sexual
assault prevention and response.
Our aggressive training and outreach program coupled with
the new option of restrictive reporting sends an important
message: The Department cares about its members. And we believe
our service members are hearing us. After 3 full years of
policy implementation, we are seeing more victims making
reports and accessing care.
While we are extremely concerned when even one sexual
assault occurs, we see the increase in victim reports as a very
positive indicator of growing confidence in our program. We
believe the increase in reports is a validation of the need for
the ability to privately access medical care and advocacy
services. And we believe that these military members would
never have sought services had they not had the ability to
select how and when to engage our support system.
We have several oversight mechanisms in place to oversee
and evaluate whether our policy is being implemented
effectively, including the Sexual Assault Advisory Council
chaired by Dr. Chu, the Under Secretary of Defense For
Personnel and Readiness. The Department takes a cross-service
team to installations and to the academies to assess the
programs there. We have two annual reports that we make to
Congress. And we have recommendations from several oversight
bodies, including the recent GAO report.
Sexual assault prevention and response efforts are
coordinated throughout the Department and conducted in
partnership with the military service programs, the military
criminal and legal offices, and other Federal partners,
including the Department of Veterans Affairs.
Care for victims, prevention through training and
education, and system accountability--these are the three
cornerstones of our program. And I have only skimmed the
surface of a comprehensive but young and evolving program. We
have accomplished remarkable progress in a short timeframe, and
we know our work is not complete.
In the future, we will no doubt meet additional challenges,
but we will continue to work Congress, the GAO and other
oversight bodies as we continue to refine the Department's
sexual assault program.
Thank you for your time, and I would be happy to address
any of your concerns.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Whitley follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51636.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51636.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51636.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51636.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51636.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51636.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51636.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51636.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51636.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51636.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51636.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51636.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51636.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51636.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51636.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51636.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51636.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51636.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51636.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51636.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51636.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51636.036
Mr. Tierney. Thank you, Dr. Whitley.
Ms. Farrell, please.
STATEMENT OF BRENDA S. FARRELL
Ms. Farrell. Chairman Tierney, Mr. Shays, members of the
subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to be here today
for this follow-on hearing to discuss issues related to DOD and
the Coast Guard's sexual assault prevention and response
programs. My remarks today draw from GAO's recently issued
report that examine DOD and the Coast Guard's programs
conducted at this subcommittee's request.
Sexual assault is a crime that is fundamentally at odds
with the obligation of men and women in uniform to treat all
with dignity and respect. Nonetheless, incidents of sexual
assault are not a new concern. In 2004, following a series of
high-profile sexual assault cases involving service members,
Congress directed the Secretary of Defense to develop a
comprehensive policy to prevent and respond to sexual assaults
involving service members, including an option that would
enable service members to confidentially disclose a sexual
assault incident. Though not required to do so, the Coast Guard
has developed a similar policy and program.
My main message today is that although DOD and the Coast
Guard have taken steps to respond to congressional direction by
developing and implementing programs to prevent, respond to and
resolve sexual assault incidents involving service members, DOD
and the Coast Guard do not know what is working well or what is
not working with their respective programs.
My written statement is divided into three parts regarding
policy, visibility and oversight.
The first addresses the extent to which DOD and the Coast
Guard have developed and implemented policies and programs. 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 statement addresses visibility over
the reports of sexual assault. GAO found, based on responses to
our nongeneralizable 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 male and female service members indicated that they had
been sexually assaulted within the preceding 12 months. Of
these 103 service members, 52 indicated that they did not
report the sexual assault incident. We also found that factors
that discourage service members from reporting a sexual assault
include the belief that nothing would be done; fear of
ostracism, harassment or ridicule and concern that peers would
gossip. Importantly, some noted that a report made using the
restricted option would not remain confidential.
The last part of my written statement addresses the extent
to which DOD and 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. GAO's prior work has
demonstrated the importance of outcome-oriented performance
measures to successful program oversight and shown that having
an effective plan for implementing initiatives and measuring
progress can help decisionmakers determine whether initiatives
are achieving their desired results.
Mr. Chairman, our report made 11 recommendations to DOD and
the Coast Guard for improving implementation and oversight of
the programs. DOD and the Coast Guard concurred with our
recommendations, and we shall monitor implementation of those
recommendations.
In summary, Mr. Chairman, a number of implementation
challenges that, left unchecked, could undermine DOD's and the
Coast Guard's effort--importantly, without an oversight
framework in place to evaluate the effectiveness of its
programs, DOD and the Coast Guard will be unable to determine
what works well and what is not working well in order to make
adjustments accordingly.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That concludes my statement.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Farrell follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51636.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51636.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51636.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51636.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51636.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51636.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51636.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51636.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51636.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51636.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51636.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51636.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51636.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51636.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51636.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51636.052
Mr. Tierney. Thank you, Ms. Farrell. We appreciate the
succinctness of your testimony here today.
We are now going to proceed under the 5-minute rule for
questioning of the witnesses.
And, Dr. Whitley, while I don't want to beat a dead horse,
as the saying goes, I do want to just clear some things up. You
were served with a subpoena to testify before this committee?
Ms. Whitley. Yes, sir.
Mr. Tierney. And you understood the impact and the import
of that subpoena?
Ms. Whitley. Yes, sir.
Mr. Tierney. And it was addressed to you individually, is
that not right?
Ms. Whitley. Yes.
Mr. Tierney. And with whom did you consult when you
received that subpoena?
Ms. Whitley. Well, sir, what actually happened, there was
discussion----
Mr. Tierney. So with whom did you consult when you
received----
Ms. Whitley. Mr. Dominguez, sir.
Mr. Tierney. Mr. Dominguez, who is the Under Secretary?
Ms. Whitley. Yes. I did not know that I was not going to
testify until we had pulled up in front of the Rayburn
building, and then I was issued the order that I would not be
testifying.
Mr. Tierney. And that was on the day of the hearing?
Ms. Whitley. Yes, sir.
Mr. Tierney. And it was at that time that Mr. Dominguez
told you that?
Ms. Whitley. Yes, sir.
Mr. Tierney. So you had come fully prepared to testify that
morning?
Ms. Whitley. Absolutely, sir.
Mr. Tierney. And you felt pressured by your employer, your
supervisor to not appear?
Ms. Whitley. I was given a direct order to stay in the van
and return to the Pentagon.
Mr. Tierney. That is interesting. And we will have to deal
with that situation. You do understand, however, for future
times, when a subpoena is addressed to you personally, it is
your personal responsibility, notwithstanding a superior's
indication of what their desire might be, to respond to this
Congress?
Ms. Whitley. Yes, sir, I understand that very clearly now.
Mr. Tierney. OK. Well, I am sorry that you were put in that
position. I am also sorry that you didn't take the personal
initiative to consult counsel and to act on that. So you didn't
have a lot of time to act on this, Mr. Shays is saying. So we
appreciate that, and that is the first we have known of that.
So thank you for clearing that up. And we are glad you are
here with us today, and hopefully we will get some information
that will help us move forward on a policy basis.
Ms. Whitley. Thank you.
Mr. Tierney. In the General Accountability Office report,
it said the Department of Defense guidance may not adequately
address some issues, such as how to implement the program when
operating in deployed or joint environments. It said it doesn't
take into account the unique living and social circumstances
that can heighten risk for sexual assault or where resources
are more widely dispersed.
Let me ask you first, have you or your staff visited bases
that might be remotely located or overseas?
Ms. Whitley. No, sir, we have not done that yet.
Mr. Tierney. So never since the time that the staff has
been created have you done any onsite visits?
Ms. Whitley. No. Oh, wait. I am sorry. We have done some.
Not to deployed areas such as Iraq or Afghanistan, but we have
done policy assistance visits at other locations.
Mr. Tierney. How many staff do you have?
Ms. Whitley. I have seven permanent positions and some
contract support. There are a couple of those that are not
filled at this time. So I think I have five.
Mr. Tierney. And the size of your annual budget?
Ms. Whitley. The annual budget for the office is roughly $3
million.
Mr. Tierney. So is it staff and resources, is that the
basis for the reason that you have not been able to set up a
consistent schedule of visiting bases and installations?
Ms. Whitley. I think the way I would like to address that
is one of the things that we are finding as our office stood up
is we were going to be a small policy office, and once the
policy was written we would monitor the policy and do some
oversight. But what we are finding, especially as we get
recommendations from the GAO and the Defense Task Force and as
we go out, we are finding that we are needing more resources,
more people, more money so that we can expand our program. And
we are planning for that and we have budgeted for that in the
future.
Mr. Tierney. OK. You understand--I don't want to seem like
a wise guy. You mentioned that you were on a crusade to get
this right, but it seems to some--I hope you understand--it
might be more like a slow walk than a crusade. I mean, you have
been stood up now since 2004 under the statute, and it seems to
be a long time to come to the realization that you just don't
have enough people to oversee and manage the oversight of this.
When did you first come to that realization, and what did
you do about it?
Ms. Whitley. It has been gradual. And also, sir, keep in
mind that the services, when we implemented our policy, they
literally were given a policy that they had to implement and
they had to take the money from other programs. And they are
still not fully funded to operate the sexual assault prevention
and response without taking from other funds.
Mr. Tierney. So, in essence, the Department has not set up
a clear plan for the different services to implement?
Ms. Whitley. Well, we have, and we have budgeted--we have
POM for fiscal year 2010 for enough money to run the programs
for all four services.
Mr. Tierney. OK. And what oversight mechanisms do you have
in place now?
Ms. Whitley. Well, we have the Defense Task Force, which
has just stood up and will be going out and looking at our
programs.
My office does what we call policy assistance visits, and
we have people from the service programs go with us, and we go
into the field and talk to the people that run the programs. We
have just recently started those. And what we are measuring at
this time is if the policy is implemented correctly, if there
are any gaps in the policy, what a particular installation
needs assistance with, because it is still fairly new to them
and some of the concepts are still fairly new.
Mr. Tierney. Did it ever occur to you at any point in time
to ask the General Accountability Office for a study earlier
than the one that we asked them to do? If you were short on
staff and resources, that might have been a resource?
Ms. Whitley. Well, sir, since the inception of our program,
we have had a lot of oversight, in terms of--as well as the
Department of Defense Task Force, the IG. We are really
grateful for this most recent report, and the Department
concurred with every single recommendation, and we have already
begun steps to implement them. I am grateful for some of the
things that they highlighted because it does give me the
backing I need to make changes in the program that are needed.
Mr. Tierney. OK. Have you done a survey or any instrument--
have you used an instrument like that in the course of your
work?
Ms. Whitley. We have the Defense Manpower Data Center
survey. They do a survey every 2 years on gender relations. Is
that what you are asking me?
Mr. Tierney. And the nature of that, but that is the extent
of it?
Ms. Whitley. Uh-huh, uh-huh.
Mr. Tierney. Thank you.
Mr. Shays, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Turner, then you will be recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Turner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I certainly hope that you do followup on all
the issues of the subpoena not being fulfilled. I greatly
appreciate the manner in which you have asked the questions and
that this be addressed.
One of the things inherent in our democracy is a government
that is responsible to the people. And being responsible to the
people goes just right to the issue of oversight, because
Congress has the responsibility for oversight. And one of the
ways we do that is we call members of the bureaucracy forward
and we ask them questions to account to the policy and the laws
of this country. And when the bureaucracy doesn't respond, the
democratic processes are breaking down. But when the military
doesn't respond, when DOD isn't responding, it is even a
greater concern that everyone has, because that is certainly
the one agency where history would tell us that there has to be
an absolute responsibility and responsiveness to the democratic
institutions or we could all lose our liberty.
So your not having responded to the subpoena is a very,
very serious issue, and I appreciate the chairman following up
on it. And certainly the callousness in which you were directed
not to attend is a significant issue.
In my opening, I mentioned that Maria Lauterbach was from
my community, the Marine who was raped and killed. In your
statement, you indicated that you saw your office as a policy
position, and I am going to read a bit from your written
statement. You have, ``Within 3 months of being stood up, the
JTF-SAPR created a comprehensive sexual assault provision and
responsive policy centered around three key themes: care and
treatment for victims, prevention through training and
education, and system accountability.''
I have a policy question for you. It is one that has really
troubled me from the Maria case. And that is that when the
Marines came forward with their statement to our country about
what had happened to Maria, they seemed to indicate that they
had no knowledge that she was at risk for further violence by
seeming to indicate that they did not believe that rape was
inherently violent. So I sent them a series of questions hoping
that, upon clarification, I would get a different response from
the Marines that would let me know that they don't hold that
position. Unfortunately, what I got just made me more
concerned.
I asked this question, ``Doesn't a rape accusation
inherently contain an element of force or threat?'' They give
me the definition of ``rape'' in the Uniform Code of Military
Justice. They say, `` `Rape' is defined as the sexual
intercourse by a person executed by force and without the
consent of the victim.'' They then go on to say this following
sentence. Well, first off, let me indicate that they give a
paragraph where they say that there were two sexual encounters
alleged, one of which was alleged to be rape. Then they give me
this sentence, ``Lauterbach never alleged any violence or
threat of violence in either sexual encounter.'' That is
obviously very troubling to me, that they would say an alleged
rape, that the victim never alleged any violence or threat of
violence in the rape.
Could you give me your thoughts on that statement?
Ms. Whitley. Well, I did go out to Quantico to get a
briefing on that case. Whenever there is a case such as that,
our office goes to look to see if we can figure out what went
wrong in the process and is it something that would be an
implication for our policy.
One of the things I have been told is that I should be very
careful discussing the case because of the trial, and I would
not want to say anything or do anything publicly that could
keep us from holding that offender accountable.
But I think what I would like to know, I would like to take
the case apart from beginning to end and see what happened
every step along the way after she reported the sexual
assault----
Mr. Turner. Before my turn expires, I understand that and I
understand your concern. That is very, very valid. But that has
nothing to do with my question.
My question is, do you find it troubling that they could
say that an act of alleged rape----
Ms. Whitley. Oh, absolutely.
Mr. Turner [continuing]. Did not have an allegation of
violence or threat of violence?
Ms. Whitley. Absolutely. I agree with you, sir.
Mr. Turner. Great. Thank you.
Now, upon getting this, I wrote to Secretary Gates,
expecting DOD to be engaged and say, wait a minute, this isn't
DOD's view, this is outrageous, this is not what we should be,
A, putting in writing, but, B, we shouldn't be having people in
management positions that would give this answer.
So I am going to ask to you, in your position with policy,
what do you think should be done from your agency with respect
to managing the policy response of the Marines that have put in
writing this belief that a rape allegation could be made
without any violence or threat of violence indicated?
Ms. Whitley. Well, I find that rather alarming, and I have
not heard the Marines say that. They did not say that to me.
But I will certainly followup with them, because there should
have been some alarm there.
One of the most difficult things for the people in the
field when they are working with domestic violence or sexual
assault victims is the safety issue and the safety planning
that needs to take place whenever someone reports a sexual
assault.
Mr. Turner. Great. I will send this to you. And you and I
are going to be meeting also later----
Ms. Whitley. Today, yes, sir.
Mr. Turner [continuing]. Individually, and I will give you
a copy of this. And I would prefer your assistance in seeing
what we can do to get to the bottom of why the Marines would
ever put something like that in writing or ever even mean it.
Ms. Whitley. Yes. Thank you.
Mr. Tierney. Thank you, Mr. Turner.
Mrs. Maloney.
Mrs. Maloney. Thank you.
Thank you very much for your testimony and for being here
today.
I would like to ask Dr. Kaye Whitley, why do you think your
superiors did not want you to testify?
This committee had to threaten to subpoena four of your
superiors to come and testify before they allowed you to come
and testify about your work. From your resume, you are a very
accomplished woman. I congratulate you on your hard work.
And I can't think of any reason except that your testimony
might show that they haven't done anything. That there have
been 18 different reports since 1988; we have called for, for
20 years, a data base to be put in place. It is still by all
accounts not in place, will be put in place in 2010. And in
this latest GAO report, they talk about in 2004 setting up this
task force on sexual assault in the military, yet, according to
GAO, they did not begin to review and do work until August
2008.
So do you believe it was because DOD has not addressed this
problem, has not done anything about it, has ignored it, swept
it under the rug, has let men and women overseas protecting our
constitutional rights and the security of our country--that DOD
has been so ineffective in protecting their personal safety and
rights in terms of sexual assault? Why do you think it is that
they would not let you testify?
Ms. Whitley. Well, Mrs. Maloney, I was not privy to the
discussions that took place as to whether or not I would or
would not testify.
I do know that they felt I was down here on the Hill a lot.
I am, by the way, willing to meet with any staff member, any
Congressman, any Senator on this subject, and I am down here a
lot doing that. And I think they thought that was the best
forum for me to interact.
But I was not privy to the actual discussions. I am very
open, I am very transparent. I will be happy to answer----
Mrs. Maloney. I know you are. But what this Congress was
not asking for is meetings, we are asking for results. And I
would like to focus on the questions of getting this data
system in place.
So, Ms. Farrell, the GAO's report and testimony indicates
that SAPRO, the sexual assault program, is not able to conduct
comprehensive cross-service trend analysis of sexual assault
incidents, even though they are responsible for identifying and
managing trends.
What obstacles prevent the SAPRO office from conducting
this type of analysis?
Ms. Farrell. Several obstacles prevent SAPRO from
conducting such an analysis. In fact, when this request came to
GAO, part of the request was for us to look at a trend analysis
to say what is working well and what is not working well.
One of the problems that we noted in our January 2008
report, as well as the one that was just issued, is the lack of
common terminology for, say, ``substantiated cases'' that
impacts on what is being put into the individual systems and
then has that snowball effect of what type of analysis you can
do.
In the case of ``substantiated cases,'' there is various
interpretations of that by the academies. The Navy Academy has
a very broad interpretation. It can be anything from a report
that has been in process of being investigated, it can be one
that has already have a guilty verdict. It is a number of
obstacles.
Mrs. Maloney. I see this is something we should review
more, and I would like to followup with a meeting with you.
But how in the world can SAPRO fulfill its oversight role
without this information, Dr. Whitley?
Ms. Whitley. Well, we do a report to Congress every year
that we deliver on March 15th that has aggregate numbers of
sexual assault.
Once again, as the program is growing and emerging, we,
like GAO, are figuring out we need to be able to look at this
data in a lot of different ways. The way we collect data, at
this point in time, we provide matrixes to the services, they
fill them out, they bring them to us, we add them up, and we
meet the requirements of the NDAA. But we know we need a better
system.
Mrs. Maloney. Well, in the DOD response to the GAO report,
the Department is--they said that they were currently drafting
a letter for the SECDEF signature, ordering the military
services to provide installation data to SAPRO.
Has this letter been drafted? Has it been signed? Are the
services complying?
Ms. Whitley. They are complying, and we are receiving data
by installation.
Mrs. Maloney. Has the letter been drafted?
Ms. Whitley. I believe the letter has already been sent.
Mrs. Maloney. Could we get a copy of that letter?
Ms. Whitley. Uh-huh.
Mrs. Maloney. My time has expired. Thank you.
Mr. Tierney. Mr. Yarmuth, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Yarmuth. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have very little
voice so I am just going to ask one question. I think all of us
are concerned about what appears to be a reluctance of
commanders and others in the hierarchy to take this seriously
and to participate in the oversight of these issues. Is there a
history of the military using this compliance or the
cooperation and your efforts part of the promotion process and
evaluation process? And if not, should it explicitly be made
part of it?
Ms. Whitley. Well, I don't think it is explicitly a part of
it. But a commander in the military service is given a lot of
responsibility. And we have a lot of faith in their judgment in
handling a crime that happens in their unit.
I will go on record to say what we are finding as we go
out--and the GAO will confirm--when you go to an installation
or to a program, the program is only as good as that commander
and the sexual assault response coordinator. Those are two key
people. They have to work closely together in order for the
program to be effective and to work. But at this time it is not
part of any evaluation of a commander.
Mr. Yarmuth. Would that seem to make sense, to make it part
of the explicit responsibilities?
Ms. Whitley. What I would fear, I think we should hold
commanders accountable and we should hold them accountable for
the program. The danger and the challenge is sometimes that may
be misinterpreted as holding them accountable for the numbers.
And we certainly do not want to do anything so that commanders
would feel that they had to drive the reporting of sexual
assaults underground. So I think if they are held accountable
when we do our evaluations they should have a good program in
place, they should have a good relationship with the SARC, they
should have a prevention strategy.
But as far as the numbers of sexual assaults that really
would not--if you have high numbers, that may mean they have a
good program and that there is confidence in the system. If
they have low numbers, it may mean people are afraid to come
forward, or it could be quite the opposite. It is very
dangerous to draw any kinds of conclusions from the numbers of
sexual assaults. So that would be what I would say, that we
have to hold them accountable for the program.
Mr. Tierney. Does the gentleman yield?
Mr. Yarmuth. Yes.
Mr. Tierney. Dr. Whitley or Ms. Farrell, what
accountability mechanisms do you even have if you find the
commanders are not implementing the program or they are sort of
undermining it or they are just ignorant of it after training?
What are your mechanisms for enforceability?
Ms. Whitley. That report would--we write reports and it
would go to Dr. Chu and then he would probably work that with
the military side of the house.
Mr. Tierney. OK. Thank you. Yield back, Mr. Yarmuth.
Mr. Platts, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Platts. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to first
commend you and Ranking Member Shays for the last session and
this session, staying very focused on this topic, and the
importance of doing right by our men and women who are serving
us so proudly in our Nation's Armed Forces, and that we stand
by them if they are victims of sexual assault and do everything
we can to prevent that.
I have, I guess, a concern, having sat in on hearings last
session and this session that while we're making headway, it
certainly doesn't seem to be as quickly as we would like or as
thorough and comprehensive. And that's troubling given the
seriousness of this--and other Members have talked--we're
talking about criminal acts here. That's what sexual assault is
and it should be created as such.
I know in last session, one of the hearings we had
representatives from the academies testify, senior officials.
Only one of those individuals, even though they were talking
about what they were doing to combat this issue, only one
referenced this issue and these acts as crimes, which is, I
think, one of the challenges in the military is that we're
maybe not yet fully appreciating what the civilian society has
come to fully appreciate, that these are criminal acts and the
perpetrators need to be treated as such, as criminals.
My specific question, Dr. Whitley, is on the issue, kind of
a followup to what the chairman just asked. In the response
when there isn't cooperation, and my understanding you've met
with GAO and their work and the investigations they've done and
have made some specific recommendations, is it accurate that to
this very day, many of your recommendations or some of your
recommendations have not been acted on by various branches?
Ms. Whitley. We have all begun the process of acting on all
of the GAO recommendations. We concurred. I think the services
concurred and made some comments, but we have all begun the
process of acting----
Mr. Platts. But my understanding is you made specific
recommendations and that certain branches of the military have
refused to act on those recommendations.
Ms. Farrell. I think you're referring to what we just
discussed about the installation-level data. We thought that
would be beneficial to SAPRO to do a trend analysis, to not
compare the installations, but to see where there are problems
and discover what the root of those problems so that actions
could be taken. It is our understanding from the comments back
to GAO on that specific recommendation, the services had
objections to it.
Mr. Platts. And--and that your reference, Under Secretary,
to what may happen, but I guess what has happened is what I'm
after. Has there been an effort on the military side to go down
and say, you know, these are not just recommendations, but
these are issues that you need to address and comply with? Or
is it still in limbo that there may be a discussion on the
military side to bring those installations in line with
everybody else? Because one of the things I think we're after
is consistency across the board, whether it is Army, Navy,
Marines, Air Force, that everybody is on the same page,
treating these crimes and trying to prevent these crimes in the
same manner to the best of our ability.
Ms. Whitley. Yes, sir. I think that was one of the primary
reasons for the creation of the office I represent is to get
that consistency of excellence across all of the services. At
this point all of the services are fully on board with
implementing the GAO recommendations and we've started the
process.
Mr. Platts. So when you say, ``are on board with
implementing,'' so at this point there is no refusal to
implement recommendations you've made?
Ms. Whitley. I'm not aware of any.
Mr. Platts. I hope that's accurate and continues to be the
case, because this issue needs to be given, I think, the
highest priority when we're asking these men and women to go
into harm's way in defense of our Nation that we do right by
them. Again, thank you for your testimony.
Mr. Chairman, thank you again to you and Ranking Member
Shays.
Mr. Tierney. Thank you Congressman Platts.
Mr. Shays, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Shays. No, no, Ms. Harman.
Mr. Tierney. Ms. Harman, are you prepared?
Ms. Harman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and ranking member, for
letting me participate in this panel again. I appreciated the
chance to be here on July 31st, I missed Dr. Whitley; I'm glad
she's here today. And I'm very glad that the DOD has corrected
a bone-headed decision by Michael Dominguez, the Deputy Under
Secretary for Personnel, to block your appearance and counsel
you to defy a subpoena of Congress, a huge mistake. And
obviously higher levels overrode that decision. I'm happy to
see you again.
Dr. Whitley is known to me. I've met with her numbers of
times. This issue is a passion of mine. I think that we are in
every way failing women in the military if we don't act and
take stronger measures. I commend SAPRO for the efforts you're
making. However, I believe you don't have the jurisdiction and
the clout in the DOD to get the whole job done. And I think
that the comments by the GAO are useful, but I don't think that
SAPRO will be able to self-correct.
I wanted to let our colleagues know, Mr. Chairman, that
yesterday I attended an Army roll-out of a program that I think
has enormous promise. It is called the ``I Am Strong
Campaign.'' It is described in today's Army Times and it is the
brain child of Army Secretary Pete Geren, our former colleague
whom I served with on the Armed Services Committee and
supported totally by the military side of the Army. George
Casey apparently is there today at a 4-day work session to
discuss the program.
What the program is intended to do is to create zero
tolerance for sexual assault and rape in the Army, which is a
million people strong, and to make this program fully effective
over 5 years. This is what we need. And it will include massive
reorganization of the training programs in the Army so that
recruits, both women and men, and their supervisors understand
what the bright red lines are. And it should result in a higher
prosecution rate which has been the big problem, at least to
me, as one who with you has studied this problem for years. So
I want to put out there that part of DOD is moving swiftly and
has senior leadership behind the effort. And I want to do
everything I can to be helpful.
The other thing I want to mention, Mr. Chairman, is that H.
Con. Res. 397, which Mr. Turner and I have introduced, which
will again call on DOD to have a real strategy here, is being
introduced today in the Senate and it will be offered today on
the Senate floor as an amendment to the Defense authorization
bill which is pending on the Senate floor. So there is at least
hope that Congress in the other body will start to take action,
and I hope we will soon too.
My question for Dr. Whitley, if I have time remaining, I
can't really see the clock, is what do you know about the ``I
Am Strong Campaign'' and what are your views of it?
Ms. Whitley. I think it is an outstanding campaign. The
Department--we are also releasing one in the fall that is
similar to that's called the ``My Strength Campaign.'' I think
it's an outstanding way to get at the young men and women. If
you take apart our data, you will see that the largest number
of cases are the 18- to 24-year olds. And we are looking at
ways to go for that target population and we're working with a
group called Men Can Stop Rape. And we're going to take it--
look at it from the male side, I am strong, my strength is not
for hurting. And the Army campaign is very similar. We will be
rolling out one that will work very well with that one in
fiscal year 2009, this fall.
Ms. Harman. Well, just to comment on that, I am pleased
that you are doing that and I was aware that you were taking
more action next year. The good news is the Army is taking more
action yesterday. And we don't have any days to waste. The
stories of the suffering of military women are intolerable. As
Pete Geren said, this is immoral, it is repugnant, it is
inconsistent with military values. And he feels this is the
challenge of our time, identical to the challenge the military
had to integrate on the basis of race in the mid-20th century.
It succeeded there and it has to succeed now. I hope there will
be a lot of progress before 2009.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, again for letting me participate.
Mr. Tierney. Thank you, Ms. Harman.
I will just use the Chair's prerogative for a little
editorial note here. Mrs. Maloney was testifying earlier about
some 20 years of activity in this area, of insisting on things
get going, so let's hope that the Army and Department of
Defense is going to step up here and we are not just being
given another 5-year program that kicks the can down the road.
Dr. Whitley, were you aware of this program that the Army
was doing? Was your office the initiator of that program or
what was the relationship?
Ms. Whitley. Well, we work very closely with all the
services, and last year we held a prevention summit with all of
the services. And each of the services are working on their own
prevention strategies. The Army got out ahead of the pack and
came up with a wonderful idea. We are working with them as well
as the other services and with the ``Men Can Stop Rape.''
And Ms. Harman, what I mean by next year is October 1st, so
fiscal year, so something very similar will be rolling out for
all the Department of Defense this fall.
Mr. Tierney. Thank you.
Mr. Shays, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Shays. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for having this
hearing. Ms. Whitley, I am struggling with not that you
disobeyed the subpoena, particularly given that you were
prepared to testify and you were told you were not to testify,
you know, just evidently an hour or so before you were to
testify and you actually were in the vehicle. Was there some
dialog in the vehicle that led to your--their deciding that you
shouldn't testify?
Ms. Whitley. No, sir, not really. We pulled up in front of
the building and Mr. Dominguez said, ``You will not be
testifying,'' and asked me did I understand that he was giving
me a direct order.
Mr. Shays. And he called it an order.
Ms. Whitley. Uh-huh, yes.
Mr. Shays. Did he explain to you why?
Ms. Whitley. No, sir.
Mr. Shays. Did you say ``Yes, sir'' or did you try to
basically ask why?
Ms. Whitley. I really didn't have a lot of time. And as an
employee of the Department of Defense for almost 18 years, I
have always followed orders from my superiors, so I thought
that was the best course of action.
Mr. Shays. I wrestle with the fact that in our 2006
hearing, June 2006, Mrs. Maloney asked you about the Defense
Task Force for Sexual Assault and you said it would be meeting
the next month, and it didn't. It didn't meet the month after,
it didn't meet the month after that, it didn't meet the month
after that, it didn't meet the month after that, didn't meet
the month after that, it didn't meet the month after that, did
meet the month after that, it didn't meet the month after that.
It didn't meet for 731 days. Why?
Ms. Whitley. When I testified at that hearing, that was the
information that I was given when I came into the hearing, that
it would be stood up. That task force is congressionally
mandated and it will oversee and evaluate the program for which
I am responsible. So I--that's another thing that I was not
privy to any of the discussions about the delays in the task
force. One of the----
Mr. Shays. You know what, you testified under oath that it
would be meeting. I would----
Ms. Whitley. That's what I was told.
Mr. Shays. Well, that's fine, but it didn't.
Ms. Whitley. Right.
Mr. Shays. And I'm struck by the fact that you had an
obligation to make sure that the record would be clarified. Do
you know why it didn't meet?
Ms. Whitley. My understanding is they had a difficult time
getting the right people on the jobs and getting them cleared.
I was not--as I said, I was not privy. One of the things that--
--
Mr. Shays. I understand that you--I view you as being in
charge of sexual assault in the military.
Ms. Whitley. Uh-huh.
Mr. Shays. Are you in charge?
Ms. Whitley. I am, but the Defense Task Force is similar to
the GAO. So I would not have any interaction with the GAO as to
when--where they went or how they started their investigation.
The Defense Task Force is similar to the GAO in that they will
be evaluating the program for which I am responsible. So----
Mr. Shays. So let me be clear so I understand. This is a
task force that, from your standpoint, is evaluating how you're
doing?
Ms. Whitley. Yes, sir.
Mr. Shays. OK. And so the fact that it wasn't set up to
look at what you were doing, your view was, well I'll just keep
doing my job?
Ms. Whitley. Yes, sir.
Mr. Shays. OK. Well, you know, I think it would have been--
I would be very conscious, if I was giving testimony before
Congress, that if something I said was going to happen didn't
happen, that I would make sure that they know that it hadn't
happened. I don't know. Was there a point where you ever
thought about it, like a year later, my God this thing hasn't
met, I said it was going to meet?
Ms. Whitley. As I said, I wasn't privy to the discussions
about why----
Mr. Shays. The problem I'm having is that it sounds like
you're weak. It sounds like if you're not privy, then so be it.
And we don't want someone weak in this office. We want a change
agent. We want someone to shake it up. We want someone to get
in trouble. We want someone to have to come to us, to say,
``You know what, I'm so aggressive they are going after me,''
and then we would look to protect you. We don't want you to be
passive. It almost has a feeling like you're being abused,
ironically, in a different way.
We need to sort out really--the fact that you were ordered
not to testify is not only dumb and foolish, it raises huge
questions as to why. Did they think you would be too
transparent? Did they that you would just speak the truth? Did
they think that you wouldn't be persuasive enough?
I can tell you Mr. Dominguez was not persuasive. He came
across a bit arrogant, as I saw it, so I think we've got a
problem. And unfortunately you're going to have to pay some of
the penalty, because you can't be out of the loop, you can't be
passive. You need to be aggressive. And I will tell you why.
Every time I think of Beth Davis being kicked out of the
Academy because, ``she had sexual activity in the Academy when
she was raped and the person who raped her was allowed to
stay,'' I find it beyond comprehension. She needs someone who
will shake things up.
Mr. Tierney. Thank you, Mr. Shays. We're going to wind this
up with one last round of questions for those that want to. I
think Mr. Shays makes an excellent point here, one that we've
been sort of subtly trying to convey. And I think his
directness is well served here. If you're not privy to whether
or not the task force is going to be stood up and you're not
out there fighting to get it stood up, understanding how
integral it is to this legislation and to your role, then
probably you need to find out why you're not doing that part of
your job.
If you're not even consulted on whether or not you're going
to testify and then have no opinion about whether you testify,
and have no conversation with anybody about whether you are
going to testify, that raises some serious concerns on that, on
how you see your job, but also how they treat this job, the
lack of seriousness with which they treat this whole operation.
This is evidence I think of the deeper culture problems that we
have with the issue itself on this area.
I'm just going to go quickly through. You have reports on
the General Accountability Office about problems with the
implementation of the programs; they are hindered because the
program coordinator position is sometimes seen as a collateral
duty. Would you agree with that on some occasions?
Ms. Whitley. Absolutely.
Mr. Tierney. Well, if you agree with that on some
occasions, you would expect you would have done something about
it, you would have spoken up about it, you would have gone to
your superiors and said this isn't working. If they lack
resources dedicated to the program, you would have fought for
those programs. If they lacked commander understanding, you
would have fought to try to implement something to make sure
they understand. If they don't consider it a priority, you
would have been fighting to make it a priority. I have a sense
that your superiors are just OK with all that. And they are
happy to have you there not rattling the saber and just going
on for that.
If you're not systematically evaluating the effectiveness
of the training that's provided, they seem to be OK with that.
You shouldn't be. You shouldn't be. And we shouldn't be 4 years
into this operation to find out why this hasn't been done yet.
Why haven't you systematically evaluated the effectiveness of
the training program to this point in time?
Ms. Whitley. It is very difficult to evaluate. I don't
think anyone in the civilian world knows how to evaluate the
effectiveness of training in sexual assault. We can evaluate
the implementation of the training, and we are doing that.
Mr. Tierney. Ms. Farrell, do you think that GAO can find a
way to do that?
Ms. Farrell. Our concern about the effectiveness of the
training centered from our interviews and the survey
respondents that disclosed. They did not understand how to use
the restrictive option, although most of the service members we
surveyed had taken the training and it ranged, from
installation to installation, from at least half to at least 90
percent or less. There was a wide variety that did not
understand how to use the restricted option. The problem with
that is if they do not understand what the restricted option
offers them, they could mistakenly report it to someone else
and thus lose their rights to keep that incident confidential
and not trigger an investigation.
So our concern about the effectiveness is not related to
the numbers that are necessarily being sexually assaulted, but
indications from our survey and our one-on-one interviews with
100 service members showed that quite a number of the service
members did just not understand the reporting options. That's
what we would like to see them focus.
Mr. Tierney. So what you did was a systematic evaluation of
whether or not the training program was effective, right?
Ms. Farrell. Yes.
Mr. Tierney. So I would expect, Dr. Whitley, that if you
don't think you have the resources to do that--and seven people
doesn't seem like quite enough to go about that aggressively
over that period of time--then it would be your position as the
head of this program to fight for that.
Ms. Whitley. Uh-huh.
Mr. Tierney. To make that recommendation. There is a
shortage of mental health providers, the General Accountability
Office thought. Do you agree with that?
Ms. Whitley. Yes.
Mr. Tierney. What have you done about that?
Ms. Whitley. Oh, I have met with the OIPT and the senior
counsel.
Mr. Tierney. Who is the OIPT?
Ms. Whitley. It's a group that meets about the Wounded
Warrior Program. We made a presentation, as Mr. Braley was
discussing, to try to draw a connection or to prove that there
is a connection between sexual assault and PTSD, and that early
intervention can go a long way to delaying those or minimizing
the symptoms of PTSD. And I did that in hopes of getting some
funding under Wounded Warrior for the sexual assault program.
Mr. Tierney. And that's it--what else? Have you thought
about the larger question of just there being a shortage of
people in that mental health area?
Ms. Whitley. We have met with the director of health
affairs and we work very closely with Health Affairs and DOD
and we've made them aware of that.
Mr. Tierney. Have there been funding recommendations made
to Congress that you've initiated for resources?
Ms. Whitley. We have just recently put in our POM, as I
said earlier for fiscal year 10, we've asked for full funding
for our program--for Army, Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps, Guard
and Reserve programs.
Mr. Tierney. Now where do we stand on your development of a
proper framework of setting out clear objectives and
milestones, performance measures and criteria for assessing
your operation?
Ms. Whitley. We have a strategic plan and it is almost
completed.
Mr. Tierney. Ms. Farrell, have you seen that program yet?
Ms. Farrell. No, we have not. But I believe they have been
working on it since we issued the report. So we would look
forward to seeing that, to see if it does contain the elements
that we've discussed in the report.
Mr. Tierney. Would you share that with Ms. Farrell?
Ms. Whitley. Absolutely.
Mr. Tierney. Ms. Farrell, will you then give us your
assessment when you can?
Ms. Farrell. Certainly.
Mr. Tierney. Thank you. Mrs. Maloney.
Mrs. Maloney. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I'd like
to reference Congressman Shays's comments about recruit Beth
Davis. She was raped, undisputed, and booted out. Yet her
rapist stayed and probably got a promotion. We need to reverse
this trend and this treatment.
Ms. Farrell, your written testimony indicates that the
victims' advocates office and criminal investigation offices in
the Defense Department reports incidents of sexual assault
differently, which negatively affects the reports provided to
Congress and others. I would like to request that you further
expand in writing this information and provide it to the
committee, because I think it's very important.
Your testimony also mentions the confusion caused by
double-listing incidents as restricted and unrestricted. Would
you please explain to us how this problem arose and how it
affects the Defense Department annual report?
Ms. Farrell. It goes back to what we were discussing when
we began the questions about the different use of terms among
the services, and that affects how they report the data which
ends up with Congress. The duplication can be from--you
mentioned the victims versus the criminal investigators. The
victims' advocates report their data based on the number of
victims. That's who they see, so that the data is reported by
the number of victims. Whereas the criminal investigators in
some cases report the number of incidents that could involve
multiple victims. So you could have a duplication of incidents,
you could have a duplication of victims in that manner. It goes
back to the inconsistency in the terminology, and how the data
is being collected and the methodology to filter through that
and report it to Congress.
Mrs. Maloney. Well, Ms. Farrell, what would you require
from the services or other Defense Department offices to obtain
the necessary data? What would you require, what elements would
you require? You mentioned it should all be in the same form,
but what are the specific elements or actions or incidents that
you would require?
Ms. Farrell. I think this goes back to that strategic
framework, what's the goal? A report is not going to do
Congress or SAPRO or GAO, add any value to the discussion,
unless the goal is clear first of what the office is trying to
achieve. And then from that comes what's the data----
Mrs. Maloney. I believe the goal both from 1988, 1994 and
many of the requests from Congress is to create a comprehensive
data system that tracks the number of sexual assault to females
and males in the military. Whether there was any action to
followup, whether the rapist got promoted and the woman raped
got booted out. This is the type of thing that is reported to
us and we want the scientific data to follow that up. So what
would you request, knowing that as the goal?
Ms. Farrell. I don't think that DOD could produce the data
that you're talking about. The type of data would be down to
the installation level, making sure that everyone is using
consistent definitions to report up in terms of incidents that
include the number of victims, whether the victim is a service
member or a civilian. There's confusion sometimes in that
regard of--but it would have to be very specific elements of
victims, incidents, where the incident took place. Consistency
of terminology is critical in order to get the type of
information that you are requiring.
Mrs. Maloney. And I would like to ask Ms. Farrell first,
and then Dr. Whitley, why has it taken so long? Why can't we
set up this data system? Why can't we achieve zero tolerance? I
finally agreed with Secretary Rumsfeld when he said zero
tolerance. Why haven't we been able to achieve this and why has
it taken so long?
Ms. Farrell first, and then Dr. Whitley.
Ms. Farrell. Well, from GAO's perspective it goes back to
what's the goal. And there is not a plan that is result-
oriented to get the services to a zero tolerance policy
actually implemented that way. There's not clear goals with
long-term objective milestones to measure the progress. So that
for us, you need a comprehensive integrated framework that
would bring all this together with specific actions to measure
the progress to reach the goal.
Mrs. Maloney. Dr. Whitley.
Ms. Whitley. And we are going to have that. And in terms of
the data base we have met. Because of the GAO report we have
pulled all of the legal investigators together and we are
working to--all of those process definitions that give us a
difficult time in interpreting the data, we are going to
standardize those definitions for the DIBERS data base which is
the criminal data bases. We also were just awarded moneys from
the end-of-the-year funds to start a more comprehensive data
base. We are finding as we get more and more reports from the
GAO and the Defense Task Force from the academies that we do
need a better and more comprehensive way of looking at the data
so we can slice and dice it any way and use it for program and
policy implications, and we have started that process to get
that type of data base.
Mrs. Maloney. Well, it is almost common sense that you have
uniform terminology, that you have this data base. But we've
been working on this for well over 20 years. Why has it taken
so long? Dr. Whitley?
Ms. Whitley. I can just say we have made progress on that
in just the last few months in getting those definitions
standardized. And each service, they have three different
criminal investigative offices.
Also we did not start collecting data aggregately until
2004. So we've only been doing this for the last 3 years. The
first year we called up the three service and asked them, How
many reports of sexual assault did they have? The second year
we were putting the policy in place, they reported the numbers
to us and we reported them aggregately and so on. So we have--
we do have the money in place for a comprehensive data base at
this time and we do have the legal and investigative side of
the house on board with standardizing the definitions.
Mrs. Maloney. My time has expired. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Tierney. Thank you, Mrs. Maloney. I want to wind this
up by saying I think one of the reasons I suspect that people
didn't want you to talk to Dr. Whitley is that they thought
that they could be slicker and gloss over what appears to me to
be an abject failure of this system to work so far. As a single
point of accountability for the Department of Defense sexual
assault policy, it isn't happening. And I think that's
something that perhaps your superiors didn't want us to know.
It isn't happening in large part because they don't seem to
be putting the kind of seriousness and importance in this issue
and its resolution that needs to be put there. And we would
hope that in your office you would begin to start purring some
pressure upward on this thing if you're not getting the
pressure downward. We don't really want GAO to have to do your
job. All of these things that GAO has done with things with
this department, with this particular office, should have been
implementing right along, and it shouldn't take 3 to 4 years to
do it.
So your superiors, they have fallen down on the job. You
can certainly do better as we have seen here. And even though
you're understaffed with seven people and a few contractors or
whatever, maybe you should fight for more resources so that you
can do all the things that Ms. Farrell and her staff's report
indicate ought to be done.
Clearly after 20-odd years, Mrs. Maloney says this is not
where we should be. And that's the job of this committee to ask
the questions why. I think we have some answers why right now
and the principle one is they don't think it's serious enough,
they are not taking this seriously at the Department of
Defense. And we are going to keep on this issue with oversight
and keep measuring this, and with the good offices of General
Accountability Office to help us out as our investigatory arm,
keep following this until the members of our service can get
the feeling that when they in duty to their country,
sacrificing their lives and their health, that we're going to
be standing there for them to make sure that these types of
incidents don't go on.
I know in your heart this is what you want to do also. I
know you're a good person. I know you're well qualified, and I
know your intentions are there. We need to ask you to steel up
a little bit and get ready to push back on that and we'll take
care of your superiors on this, including their conduct in
instructing you not to testify.
Ms. Whitley. Yes, sir.
Mr. Tierney. That will not be dropped either. I think you
were put in an awful situation on that. You were probably in no
position to do something about it yourself. Certainly, believe
me, we are.
Ms. Farrell, thank you and your staff. Are your staff
members here who helped you with this?
Ms. Farrell. Yes. Marilyn Wasleski, and Pawnee Davis, and
Cheryl Weissman, those that are left from this. They have moved
on to other assignments.
Mr. Tierney. Our appreciation goes to you and the three
ladies with you. Thank you very, very much for your service and
the work that you do. We appreciate it. This meeting is
adjourned. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 11:38 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]