[Senate Hearing 115-755]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                                                        S. Hrg. 115-755

                PREVENTING ABUSE IN OLYMPIC AND AMATEUR
                 ATHLETICS: ENSURING A SAFE AND SECURE
                      ENVIRONMENT FOR OUR ATHLETES

=======================================================================

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                  SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONSUMER PROTECTION,
                       PRODUCT SAFETY, INSURANCE,
                           AND DATA SECURITY

                                 OF THE

                         COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,
                      SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
                          UNITED STATES SENATE

                     ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION
                               __________

                              JUNE 5, 2018
                               __________

    Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
                             Transportation

                  [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
                  
                  
                Available online: http://www.govinfo.gov
                               __________

                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
                    
55-215 PDF                WASHINGTON : 2024                   


       SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION

                     ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION

                   JOHN THUNE, South Dakota, Chairman
ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi         BILL NELSON, Florida, Ranking
ROY BLUNT, Missouri                  MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
TED CRUZ, Texas                      AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota
DEB FISCHER, Nebraska                RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut
JERRY MORAN, Kansas                  BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii
DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska                 EDWARD MARKEY, Massachusetts
DEAN HELLER, Nevada                  TOM UDALL, New Mexico
JAMES INHOFE, Oklahoma               GARY PETERS, Michigan
MIKE LEE, Utah                       TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin               TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois
SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia  MAGGIE HASSAN, New Hampshire
CORY GARDNER, Colorado               CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO, Nevada
TODD YOUNG, Indiana                  JON TESTER, Montana
                       Nick Rossi, Staff Director
                 Adrian Arnakis, Deputy Staff Director
                    Jason Van Beek, General Counsel
                 Kim Lipsky, Democratic Staff Director
              Chris Day, Democratic Deputy Staff Director
                      Renae Black, Senior Counsel
                                 ------                                

  SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONSUMER PROTECTION, PRODUCT SAFETY, INSURANCE, AND 
                             DATA SECURITY

JERRY MORAN, Kansas, Chairman        RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut, 
ROY BLUNT, Missouri                      Ranking
TED CRUZ, Texas                      AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota
DEB FISCHER, Nebraska                EDWARD MARKEY, Massachusetts
DEAN HELLER, Nevada                  TOM UDALL, New Mexico
JAMES INHOFE, Oklahoma               TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois
MIKE LEE, Utah                       MAGGIE HASSAN, New Hampshire
SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia  CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO, Nevada
TODD YOUNG, Indiana
                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page
Hearing held on June 5, 2018.....................................     1
Statement of Senator Moran.......................................     1
    Letter dated April 5, 2018 to Speaker Tom Leonard, Michigan 
      House of Representatives from Chairman Klint Kesto, Law and 
      Justice Committee, District 39; Minority Vice Chair 
      Stephanie Chang, Law and Justice Committee, District 6; 
      Chairwoman Kim LaSata, Appropriations Subcommittee on 
      Higher Ed., District 79; and Minority Vice Chair Jon 
      Hoadley, Appropriations Subcommittee on Higher Ed., 
      District 60................................................    96
    Prepared statement dated May 31, 2018 from Martha Karolyi....   126
    Prepared statement from Scott Blackmun, Former CEO, United 
      States Olympic Committee...................................   130
Statement of Senator Blumenthal..................................     3
    Facebook post dated May 30, 2018 by Rachael Denhollander.....   122
Statement of Senator Nelson......................................     4
    Prepared statement...........................................     5
Statement of Senator Thune.......................................    82
Statement of Senator Klobuchar...................................    83
Statement of Senator Young.......................................    85
Statement of Senator Peters......................................    87
Statement of Senator Hassan......................................    89
Statement of Senator Cortez Masto................................    91

                               Witnesses

Hon. Joni Ernst, U.S. Senator from Iowa..........................     6
    Prepared statement...........................................     8
Hon. Jeanne Shaheen, U.S. Senator from New Hampshire.............    10
    Prepared statement...........................................    11
Rhonda Faehn, Senior Vice President, USA Gymnastics..............    12
    Prepared statement...........................................    14
Steve Penny, Former President, USA Gymnastics....................    73
Lou Anna Simon, President Emeritus, Michigan State University....    73
    Prepared statement...........................................    75

                                Appendix

Response to written questions submitted to Rhonda Faehn by:
    Hon. Jerry Moran.............................................   135
    Hon. Todd Young..............................................   135
    Hon. Richard Blumenthal......................................   137
    Hon. Maria Cantwell..........................................   143
    Hon. Catherine Cortez Masto..................................   143
Response to written questions submitted to Lou Anna Simon by:
    Hon. Jerry Moran.............................................   144
    Hon. Richard Blumenthal......................................   145
    Hon. Maria Cantwell..........................................   147
Response to written questions submitted to Martha Karolyi by:
    Hon. Richard Blumenthal......................................   147
    Hon. Maria Cantwell..........................................   155
    Hon. Catherine Cortez Masto..................................   156
Response to written questions submitted to Scott Blackmun by:
    Hon. Jerry Moran.............................................   156
    Hon. Richard Blumenthal......................................   157
    Hon. Maria Cantwell..........................................   168
    Hon. Catherine Cortez Masto..................................   169

 
                      PREVENTING ABUSE IN OLYMPIC
                    AND AMATEUR ATHLETICS: ENSURING
                     A SAFE AND SECURE ENVIRONMENT
                            FOR OUR ATHLETES

                              ----------                              


                         TUESDAY, JUNE 5, 2018

                               U.S. Senate,
      Subcommittee on Consumer Protection, Product 
              Safety, Insurance, and Data Security,
        Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 3:10 p.m. in 
room SD-G50, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Jerry Moran, 
Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding.
    Present: Senators Moran [presiding], Blumenthal, Nelson, 
Ernst, Shaheen, Thune, Klobuchar, Young, Peters, Hassan, and 
Cortez Masto.

            OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JERRY MORAN, 
                    U.S. SENATOR FROM KANSAS

    Senator Moran. Good afternoon. I call this hearing to 
order.
    Earlier this year, the Subcommittee launched an 
investigation to examine cultural and systemic problems 
regarding abuse in the Olympic movement.
    This Subcommittee, which exercises jurisdiction over the 
U.S. Olympic Committee and amateur sports, is fully committed 
to ensuring the health and safety of all American athletes and 
today marks the second hearing in our ongoing investigation.
    We began this process in January following the disgusting 
revelations that former USA Gymnastics Team Dr. Larry Nassar 
sexually abused hundreds of athletes over the span of two 
decades, even well after numerous survivors alerted authorities 
about his actions.
    As we now know, many of our American Olympians, who stood 
tall in representing our Nation on the international stage, 
were suffering behind the scenes. Their stories break our 
hearts and all of the athletes who have come forward to share 
them are to be commended for their courage.
    I know I speak for me and Senator Blumenthal when I express 
our thanks to the many survivors who have personally met with 
us throughout this investigation. We were grateful to have four 
abuse survivors across different Olympic sports join our 
subcommittee hearing panel in April to share their experiences 
and recommendations on what Congress ought to do to make 
certain athletes are protected from predators.
    We are joined by several surviving athletes today and I 
thank them for their continued interest and courage 
demonstrated throughout this investigation.
    Today's hearing marks the next step in our investigation. 
In order to make recommendations that will be effective and 
meaningful in driving change in the Olympic movement so that 
athletes will be able to freely participate in their sports 
without fear of abuse, it is important that we understand how 
this happened, who knew about the abuse, when did they know, 
what did they do with that information, and, importantly, why?
    To that end, this Subcommittee has sought extensive 
documentation from the U.S. Olympic Committee, USA Gymnastics, 
and Michigan State University, organizations represented on 
today's panel.
    We have requested and received additional documentation 
from all national governing bodies on their policies and 
procedures, reporting, handling, and combating abuse, as well 
as their use of athlete organizations non-disclosure 
agreements.
    Unfortunately, for 4 years removed from the first Michigan 
State investigation and Nassar allegations and three years 
after a USA Gymnastics coach first heard of the abuse, there 
are a multitude of questions that remain unanswered.
    My hope and desire is that the witnesses here today can 
help answer these outstanding questions, provide us with their 
perspective on what went wrong, and offer their advice on how 
it can be prevented from ever happening again.
    Joining us today is Steve Penny, the former President of 
USA Gymnastics; Rhonda Faehn, USA Gymnastics former Senior Vice 
President and Women's Program Director; and Dr. Lou Anna Simon, 
the former President of Michigan State University.
    Two additional witnesses were invited to participate today 
but were unable to travel to Washington for medical reasons, 
Scott Blackmun, the former President of the U.S. Olympic 
Committee, and Martha Karolyi, the former National Team 
Coordinator for USA Gymnastics.
    Mr. Blackmun and Ms. Karolyi have each provided written 
testimony for today's hearing and will respond to Committee 
members' written questions for the hearing record.
    We are also honored today to welcome Senators Joni Ernst of 
Iowa and Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire to the Subcommittee to 
provide opening testimony.
    Senators Ernst and Shaheen have taken a sincere interest in 
preventing abuse in the Olympic movement and their testimony 
today will be invaluable in helping this subcommittee further 
raise awareness and identify solutions that will make a 
difference.
    Thank you both for your time that you've taken to prepare 
and for your presence here this afternoon and, most 
importantly, for your care and concern for athletes today.
    I will conclude my remarks by reminding my colleagues that 
in light of Mr. Penny and Dr. Simon declining the Committee's 
invitation to appear voluntarily, subpoenas were issued 
requiring their attendance today. Through their counsels, both 
Mr. Penny and Dr. Simon have made clear that they would not 
appear voluntarily on June 5 or any other date going forward.
    I wish that were not the case as issuing subpoenas is 
something this Committee takes very seriously and only pursues 
as a last resort. Despite the circumstances, however, I 
appreciate their presence today and I look forward to a 
productive hearing on this important matter.
    With that, I will turn to the Ranking Member, Senator 
Blumenthal, for his opening statement.

             STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, 
                 U.S. SENATOR FROM CONNECTICUT

    Senator Blumenthal. Thank you, Senator Moran. My thanks to 
Senator Moran for his leadership and his partnership in this 
profoundly important effort to uncover the truth of a sad 
chapter in American athletics that really is a nightmare.
    It is a nightmare of grooming, manipulating, stigmatizing, 
and abusing young athletes not only in gymnastics but in 
swimming, figure skating, speed skating, and not just by one 
horrible person, Larry Nassar, but an ongoing chapter in 
American athletics that needs to be fully explored and exposed.
    I also want to thank Senator Thune and Senator Nelson, the 
Chairman and Ranking Member of this Committee, for their 
support in this effort, and my deepest thanks to the survivors 
who have come forward, who are the real heroes of this 
nightmare, who have lived it again and again and again at the 
trial of Larry Nassar, in the hearings of this Committee, in 
their public statements. Their courage and strength is the 
inspiration that drives us forward.
    I want to express my deep disappointment in the witnesses 
that we have today and others who bear a responsibility, a 
direct and profound responsibility for what happened here.
    Their lack of cooperation, I think, unfortunately, speaks 
volumes about the need for our continued investigation. 
Clearly, Larry Nassar groomed, manipulated, and stigmatized 
more than 260 women and young girls under the guise of medical 
treatment in his capacity as a doctor for Team USA and Michigan 
State University, and there are likely many more victims. His 
crimes are unparalleled in their abominable horror and savage 
scope.
    Monsters like him have been hiding in plain sight for 
decades at USA Gymnastics and in national governing bodies 
overseen by the United States Olympic Committee, across 
numerous Olympic sports. Stories of young athletes suffering 
physically, emotionally, and sexually from abuse prove an 
undeniable reality, but the governing bodies of these sports 
bear a very serious responsibility, and the reason we're here 
today is to begin, and it's only to begin, to hold them 
accountable.
    What I've seen over these past months is chronic ineptitude 
in leadership. I've seen institutional complicity, in fact, a 
culture of complicity and chaos. These documents reveal a 
governing system that lacks a proactive preventive policy, a 
clear chain of command, and victim-centered services, and that 
system is crippled by its own bureaucratic red tape and 
inefficiency and the failure of individuals to take action, a 
willful blindness that is inexcusable and unconscionable.
    So it's more than just one person. It's more than just one 
governing body. It's a set of institutions, administrative 
policies and procedures of the USOC, USAG, and MSU that enabled 
Larry Nassar and those other monsters out there still who are 
continuing to violate fundamental rights.
    The duplicitous and repugnant scheme of Larry Nassar was 
enabled by these policies or lack of responsibility and 
countless others continue to prey on young athletes because of 
that lack of leadership and accountability.
    So we've seen thus far nothing but an abundance of finger-
pointing, blame-shifting, stonewalling, and denial of 
culpability in the testimony of officials that we've seen from 
those organizations, and the evidence of leadership in all of 
these organizations or lack of leadership is clearly deeply 
troubling to me.
    I'm hopeful for a renewed commitment from all the Olympic 
organizations but what we really need is changes in the system 
and institutions. It's not enough just to repaint the house, it 
needs to be rebuilt, and with that, let me turn back to the 
Chairman.
    Thank you, Senator Blumenthal.
    Let me also do what you did, which was to express my 
gratitude to both Senator Nelson and Senator Thune for their 
efforts to support this subcommittee's work and their 
assistance in the process that occurred in this hearing, in 
particular.
    And I now recognize the Ranking Member, the Senator from 
Florida.

                STATEMENT OF HON. BILL NELSON, 
                   U.S. SENATOR FROM FLORIDA

    Senator Nelson. And kudos to you, Mr. Chairman, and to 
Senator Blumenthal. Senator Thune, the Chairman, and I agreed 
to the subpoena because it's necessary.
    This is for Congress to exercise its authority to compel a 
witness because of the gravity of this situation. We're always 
going to have sick people who will try to harm our children, 
but we can exercise our authority in trying to hold sports 
organizations accountable so that they create environments with 
appropriate checks and safety protocols that can prevent 
predators from being successful. We can also hold individuals 
accountable who do not prioritize the safety and well-being of 
our young athletes.
    I'm reminded of some of the bad things we heard that 
happened at the Karolyi Ranch where our gymnasts were trained 
and much of Larry Nassar's abuse took place. Reports indicate 
that that environment was anything but safe. Terrible physical, 
emotional, and sexual abuse took place there.
    And, Mr. Chairman, if I'm able to return, I may not be able 
to return for the end of the hearing, but I want to put on the 
record a question to Mrs. Faehn, because of that abuse that 
took place at the Karolyi Ranch and since she is a former 
executive of USA Gymnastics and was a gymnast herself who 
trained at the Karolyi Ranch. I wanted to get her to answer 
directly: did she know about the alleged abuse? And was she 
ever or was there ever an attempt--if Nassar was there at the 
same time that she was, did he attempt to abuse her?
    Why the Karolyi Ranch? Also, there are allegations that 
gymnasts were threatened and withheld food and nourishment in 
order to get them to do what they wanted. Well, that's totally 
unacceptable.
    And another thing, the parents of the athletes were 
reportedly not welcomed at the monthly training camps at the 
ranch and couldn't even stay in the same hotels with their 
children, and let's be clear, we are talking about children. 
We're talking about some children as young as 10 years old.
    So how could this have happened to these young athletes? 
They gave their all to pursue the dream of winning Olympic gold 
and they put their trust in their coaches and their trainers 
and their physicians and their staff and in return were abused.
    So it's tragic. We hear a lot about PTSD in soldiers coming 
home from Iraq and Afghanistan. There are emotional scars for 
these victims, as well, and it's downright shameful that the 
USA Olympic sports has a stain that's going to take some time 
to shed and so thanks to you all for holding the hearing. 
That's why we're here today, and we're here to ensure that 
those currently pursuing their dream as an Olympic athlete and 
those that follow them aren't going to have to endure this kind 
of abuse.
    And it's my hope, Mr. Chairman, that eventually we're going 
to hear open, public testimony from the U.S. Olympic Committee. 
I want to hear what the USOC knew and how their officials 
responded. I'd also like to hear how the USOC is adopting 
reforms to protect current athletes and how the organization is 
conducting oversight over national governing bodies, such as 
USA Gymnastics. The USOC can no longer play a passive role on 
these matters.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    [The prepared statement of Senator Nelson follows:]

   Prepared Statement of Hon. Bill Nelson, U.S. Senator from Florida
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    As I have repeatedly said to the brave women who came forward--both 
to me and before this committee--to tell their stories about the 
unspeakable abuse they endured because of their assailant: The system 
failed them. Responsible adults who should have intervened failed them.
    The purpose of this hearing and this committee's ongoing work on 
youth athletic safety is to find out what happened and who is 
accountable--with the ultimate goal of preventing such horrific crimes 
from occurring again.
    We may not be able to douse the evil completely--there will always 
be sick people who will seek to harm our children. However, we can hold 
sports organizations accountable so that they create environments with 
appropriate checks and safety protocols that prevent such predators 
from taking advantage of vulnerable targets.
    And we can hold accountable those individuals who do nothing; who 
do not prioritize the safety and wellbeing of our youth athletes.
    As we sit here today, I am reminded of some of the awful things 
that reportedly happened at the [KUH-ROHL-EE] Ranch where our Olympic 
gymnasts were trained and much of Larry Nassar's abuse took place.
    Reports indicate that the environment there was anything but safe. 
Terrible physical, emotional and sexual abuse took place.
    In addition to Nassar's despicable crimes, the [KUH-ROHL-EES] would 
allegedly withhold food and made gymnasts train in terrible conditions 
that led to frequent injuries.
    Furthermore, parents of the athletes were reportedly not welcome at 
the monthly training camps at the ranch and couldn't even stay in the 
same hotels with their children.
    Let's be clear here, we're talking girls as young as ten years old 
being terribly abused.
    How could this have happened to our young American heroes and our 
role models? They gave their all to pursue the dream of winning Olympic 
gold. For years, they placed their trust in the coaches, trainers, 
physicians and staff, and in return were forced to endure unspeakable 
abuse.
    This is beyond tragic, as many of the victims' emotional scars may 
never heal. It's also downright shameful and a stain on USA Olympic 
sports that will take some time to shed.
    That's why we're here today. We here to help the brave victims 
heal. We're here to change the culture of abuse that was widely 
accepted and supported by USA Gymnastics and other Olympic sports.
    And, we're here to ensure that those currently pursuing their dream 
of being an Olympic athlete and those that will follow them will never 
have to endure the unspeakable abuse the victims experienced.
    Mr. Chairman, it is my hope that we will eventually hear open 
public testimony from the United States Olympic Committee.
    I want to hear what the U.S.O.C. knew and how their officials 
responded. I would also like to hear how the U.S.O.C. is adopting 
reforms to protect current athletes and how the organization is 
conducting oversight over national governing bodies such as USA 
Gymnastics.
    The U.S.O.C. can no longer play a passive role on such matters and 
their officials should also answer questions before this Committee.
    Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing.

    Senator Moran. Thank you, Senator Nelson.
    This topic has created a lot of care and concern by many of 
my colleagues and I certainly hear this question about this 
Committee's work, this Subcommittee's work when I'm home in 
Kansas, particularly by parents of young gymnasts, but here in 
the U.S. Senate, we were pleased to have Senator Ernst and 
Senator Shaheen join us. They have been at the forefront of 
efforts to bring this story alive and to seek congressional 
action.
    I also would highlight the work of Senator Feinstein and 
Senator Thune and the Safe Sports Act.
    While I think I can speak for all the members of the U.S. 
Senate, I'm particularly appreciative of the efforts by the two 
with us today for their efforts to make certain that Congress 
takes an appropriate role in reaching a resolution in regard to 
how do we protect those young men and women who are athletes in 
our country.
    I now recognize those two Senators. I'd recognize Senator 
Ernst for her statement.

                 STATEMENT OF HON. JONI ERNST, 
                     U.S. SENATOR FROM IOWA

    Senator Ernst. Thank you very much, Chairman Moran, Ranking 
Member Blumenthal, and Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you 
truly for giving us the opportunity to testify today.
    I want to thank Senator Shaheen for joining me to discuss 
the importance of ensuring a safe environment for our athletes. 
Like many Americans, I was horrified to hear of the crimes 
committed by Larry Nassar, USA Gymnastics doctor, who abused 
hundreds of young athletes.
    The actions of this man and the individuals and 
institutions that facilitated and protected his behavior are 
reprehensible. They also point to wider cultural issues within 
the amateur athletic community.
    It was a failure at all levels and symptomatic of broader 
problems facing our society on sexual assault, rape, 
harassment, and abuse. These types of failures are the reason 
I've worked with my colleagues in Congress on reforms to ensure 
sexual misconduct across society is reported, responded to, and 
taken seriously, and, ideally, prevented.
    You see, I was previously a volunteer counselor at a crisis 
center that provided shelter and support to survivors of abuse 
and sexual assault. I heard stories of women and men fleeing 
domestic abusers, suffering not just physically but emotionally 
and spiritually. I also took calls on our hot line from people 
that had been raped and sexually abused. Abuse like this is not 
something you can just simply forget. It stays with you and 
these survivors' lives have been forever altered.
    It is through this lens that I come to the issue before us 
today. I want to focus on three points that Congress should 
consider when investigating this tragedy.
    First, we must take survivor stories seriously and ensure 
they are heard. Like you, Senator Shaheen and I have heard the 
terrible accounts from victims of Dr. Nassar.
    One of the most horrific parts of the stories is that when 
these athletes reported the abuse to those they trusted, people 
within their university, their gymnastics club, Olympic 
leadership, or people that their parents paid to grow them into 
strong and healthy athletes, they were shut down, they were 
ignored and told there was nothing to see here.
    One athlete, upon reporting her abuse, was told that ``she 
was fortunate to receive the best medical care possible from a 
world-renowned doctor.'' Another reported that she was told she 
``must be misunderstanding what was going on.''
    Officials even created false excuses to cover up Nassar's 
absence for his shameful behavior. This breaks my heart and 
angers me as these men and women and oftentimes children 
carried this burden for so many years with no help from those 
they trusted.
    Even more maddening is that these organizations rake in 
millions of dollars a year and enjoy tax-exempt status.
    Second, we have to examine the underlying factors that 
allowed this abuse to occur. Answering questions, like who knew 
what, what disincentives existed within the Olympic community 
that caused people to choose inaction when bad things happened?
    There were some halfhearted attempts to institute 
accountability once the Olympic house started to crumble but 
this was too late and the damage was done.
    Where I'm from, when people see something going wrong, they 
say something. We don't pass the buck and we don't wait and 
see. We listen, we act, and we help one another.
    There are people within the Olympic community that felt it 
was not their responsibility to report abuse or claimed that 
liability prevented them from acting. Ethics, morals, and a 
sense of human dignity demand for people to do better.
    Instead, abusers were given more responsibility, more 
money, more prestige, more autonomy, and more cover. Let's be 
clear. This problem is not limited to Larry Nassar. There's 
developed a culture in the Olympics which prioritizes winning 
medals over the health and welfare of the athletes. USOC 
recognized this in their open letter in January where they 
stated that ``we must change the culture of the sport.''
    Third, we must take decisive action to address deficiencies 
in the system. Today's hearing will give witnesses an 
opportunity to explain themselves and hopefully get some honest 
answers.
    When Senator Shaheen and I called on USOC CEO Scott 
Blackmun to resign, we viewed that as the beginning of a long 
sentence on holding Olympic leadership accountable. I am 
concerned that despite the stated intention to change the 
culture of Olympic sport, too much of the old culture persists.
    The Committee has done much work to address these issues, 
including the Safe Sport Authorization Act, which I co-
sponsored. I think the law sets a good framework that will be 
beneficial to our athletes and provide guard rails to protect 
them.
    Additionally, Senator Shaheen and I introduced legislation 
in January calling for a special committee to investigate these 
matters.
    In conclusion, these athletes represent our great nation on 
the world stage. They are called to embody American ideals of 
sportsmanship, hard work, and integrity. This negative 
underbelly of Olympic sport jeopardizes these ideals and makes 
a mockery of the hard work athletes put in to succeed.
    Many children grow up admiring Olympic athletes, dreaming 
that one day they, too, could be on the winner's podium to 
accept a gold medal for their country. I want that dream to 
live on for generations to come, but there is much work that 
must be done first.
    Thank you, Chairman, Ranking Member, and I appreciate the 
opportunity.
    [The prepared statement of Senator Ernst follows:]

     Prepared Statement of Hon. Joni Ernst, U.S. Senator from Iowa
    Chairman Moran, Ranking Member Blumenthal, and members of the 
Subcommittee, thank you for giving me the opportunity to testify before 
you today. I want to thank my friend, Senator Jeanne Shaheen, for 
joining me to discuss the importance of ensuring a safe environment for 
our Nation's athletes.
    Like many Americans, I was shocked and horrified to hear of the 
crimes committed by Larry Nassar, the USA Gymnastics doctor who abused 
hundreds of young athletes. The actions of this man, and the 
individuals and institutions that facilitated and protected his 
behavior, are reprehensible. They also point to wider cultural problems 
within the amateur athletic community.
    It was a failure at all levels, and symptomatic of broader problems 
facing our society on sexual assault, rape, harassment and abuse. These 
types of failures are the reason I have worked with my colleagues in 
the Senate to put forth reforms to ensure sexual misconduct across 
society is reported, responded to and taken seriously, and ideally, 
prevented in the first place.
    You see, I was previously a volunteer counselor at a crisis center 
that provided shelter and support to survivors of abuse and sexual 
assault. As part of this work, I heard stories of women and men fleeing 
domestic abusers, suffering not just physically, but emotionally and 
spiritually. I took calls on our hotline from people that had been 
raped and sexually abused. Abuse like this is not something you can 
just simply forget--it stays with you, and these survivors' lives have 
been forever altered.
    It is through this lens that I come to discuss the issue before us 
today. I want to focus on three key points that Congress should keep in 
mind when investigating this tragedy:
(1) We must take survivors' stories seriously and ensure they are 
        heard.
    Like many of you, Senator Shaheen and I have heard the terrible 
accounts of the victims of Dr. Nassar. One of the most horrific parts 
of their stories is that when these athletes reported the abuse to 
those they trusted -people within their university, their gymnastics 
club, Olympic leadership or people that their parents paid to protect 
them and grow them into strong and healthy athletes--they were shut 
down, ignored, and told there was ``nothing to see here.''
    One athlete upon reporting her abuse was told that ``she was 
fortunate to receive the best medical care possible from a world-
renowned doctor.'' Another reported that she was told she ``. . .must 
be misunderstanding what was going on.'' Press reports indicate that 
officials even created false excuses to cover-up Nassar's absence for 
his despicable behavior.
    This breaks my heart and angers me, as these men and women, and 
often times, children carried this burden for so many years with no 
help from those they trusted. Even more maddening is that these 
organizations continue to rake in millions of dollars a year and enjoy 
tax-exempt status facilitated by American taxpayers.
(2) We have to examine all the underlying factors that allowed for this 
        abuse to occur.
    It is important that we answer questions like who knew what? And 
what disincentives existed within the Olympic community that caused 
people to choose inaction when bad things happened?
    There were some half-hearted attempts to institute accountability 
once the Olympic house started to crumble--but this was too late and 
the damage was done. Where I'm from, when people see something going 
wrong, they say something. We don't pass the buck. We don't ``wait and 
see.'' We listen, we act and we help one another.
    There are people within the Olympic community that felt it was not 
their responsibility to report abuse, or claim that liability prevented 
them from acting. Ethics, morals and a sense of human dignity demand 
for people to do better. Instead, abusers were given more 
responsibility, more money, more prestige, more autonomy and more 
cover.
    Let's be clear--this problem is not limited to Larry Nassar. There 
is evidence of a broader cultural issue in the Olympics, which 
prioritizes winning medals over all other considerations including the 
health and welfare of the athletes. The U.S. Olympic Committee (USOC) 
recognized this issue in their open letter dated January 24, 2018 where 
they stated that ``we must change the culture of the sport.''
(3) We must take decisive action to address every identified deficiency 
        in the system.
    It is now Congress' turn to ensure these athletes are protected. 
Today's hearing will give witnesses an opportunity to explain 
themselves and hopefully we will get some honest answers. I also hope 
we will identify a path forward toward stopping, rather than enabling, 
this behavior.
    When Senator Shaheen and I called on Scott Blackmun, CEO of USOC, 
to resign, we viewed that as the beginning of a long sentence on 
holding Olympic leadership accountable. I am concerned, that despite 
the stated intention to change the culture of Olympic sport, too much 
of the old culture has been allowed to persist.
    The Committee has done yeoman's work to address these issues, 
including the Protecting Young Victims from Sexual Abuse and Safe Sport 
Authorization Act, which I cosponsored. I think that law sets a good 
framework that will be beneficial to our athletes and will provide 
guardrails to protect them. Additionally, Senator Shaheen and I 
introduced legislation in January that called for a special committee 
to investigate these matters further.
Conclusion
    In conclusion, these athletes represent our great nation on the 
world stage. They are called to embody American ideals of 
sportsmanship, hard work and integrity. This negative underbelly of 
Olympic sports jeopardizes our American ideals and makes a mockery of 
the hard work that athletes put in to succeed. Many children grow up 
admiring Olympic athletes, dreaming that one day they, too, could be on 
the winner's podium to accept a gold medal for their country. I want 
that dream to live on for generations to come, but there is much work 
to be done first.
    Thank you and I appreciate the opportunity to testify today.

    Senator Moran. Thank you, Senator Ernst.
    Senator Shaheen, thank you very much for joining us and for 
your efforts. We look forward to your statement.

               STATEMENT OF HON. JEANNE SHAHEEN, 
                U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW HAMPSHIRE

    Senator Shaheen. Thank you, Chairman Moran, and Ranking 
Member Blumenthal, and Members of the Committee, for inviting 
me to testify this afternoon, and thank you, too, for your 
efforts to highlight the failures of the U.S. Olympic Committee 
and others to prevent and stop the sexual abuse of our young 
athletes.
    On January 24, USA Gymnastics' Dr. Larry Nassar was 
sentenced to up to 175 years in prison. It was a cathartic 
moment for Nassar's victims and for the nation, but it was a 
moment of only partial justice because not all of the 
organizations and individuals responsible for predatory acts 
against our young athletes have been held to account.
    Because the U.S. Olympic Committee operates under a Federal 
charter and its athletes compete under the American flag, I 
believe strongly that the Senate has a responsibility to 
investigate the allegations of abuse brought forward by these 
athletes and ANY other misconduct on the part of USOC and the 
national governing bodies.
    That's why I joined with Senator Joni Ernst on a resolution 
to establish a Senate special committee to provide an 
independent and comprehensive inquiry into what has been called 
the worst sex abuse scandal in the history of sports.
    It's also why I so appreciate the important work that is 
being done by this Committee to ensure that the individuals who 
enabled these horrible crimes are held accountable and that 
safeguards are put in place to protect our Olympic and amateur 
athletes.
    In January, as she said, Senator Ernst and I had the 
privilege of meeting three of the women who courageously 
testified at Nassar's sentencing hearing. We thanked these 
impressive women for speaking out and advocating for reforms to 
protect young athletes from abuse.
    In turn, they stressed to us the importance of exposing the 
full scope of the sex abuse scandal at USOC and other 
organizations. Congress must be resolved not to fail these 
women the way so many officials have failed them in the past.
    Olympic and amateur athletes represent a particularly 
vulnerable population for this sexual abuse. The intensely 
competitive nature of the sports in which they participate and 
often began at a young age creates an environment that 
individuals, such as Larry Nassar, are able to exploit.
    USOC abdicated its responsibility to ensure the safety of 
these young athletes and the organization continues to be less 
than forthcoming in exposing past abuses. USOC, USA Gymnastics, 
and others must be held accountable and their failures brought 
to light.
    The fact that there are good people working at USOC only 
underscores the need to account for these failures. The Larry 
Nassar scandal has brought to light disturbing allegations of 
sexual abuse that extend beyond just one man and implicate 
individuals in sports, including Taekwondo, speed skating, 
swimming, and cycling.
    Since Nassar's conviction, we've also seen reports 
indicating that in many respects, USOC's priorities are at odds 
with those of its athletes. USOC's financials show an 
organization that generates nearly $340 million in revenue but 
in 2016 gave a meager 8 percent of those revenues directly to 
athletes.
    While our Olympic athletes received just a small fraction 
of these revenues, USOC has managed to spend about six million 
on its top executives, including a salary of close to $1 
million for its CEO, and to pay 129 employees there $100,000 or 
more a year. These exorbitant executive salaries and a bloated 
budget exist at the same time that athletes have had to sue the 
U.S. Olympic Committee for adequate compensation and run their 
own GoFundMe campaigns to get to the Olympics.
    This suggests an organization that has lost sight of its 
core mission. These reports, along with the more heinous 
allegations of sexual abuse, make it difficult to understand 
why Congress is sanctioning such a flawed entity that has 
failed so many of our athletes.
    It is clear that USOC is not fulfilling its core mission to 
support and protect our Olympic athletes and I believe Congress 
should consider revoking or rewriting USOC's charter to include 
more oversight. The new charter should state clearly that any 
future scandals will result in USOC losing its charter and its 
tax-exempt status. That new charter should also require USOC to 
give 50 percent of its revenues directly to athletes and teams.
    Again, I want to reiterate that I appreciate the work that 
this Committee and others are doing on this issue and I hope 
that your efforts will help to ensure the safety and security 
of Olympic athletes now and in the future.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    [The prepared statement of senator Shaheen follows:]

              Prepared Statement of Hon. Jeanne Shaheen, 
                    U.S. Senator from New Hampshire
    Thank you, Chairman Moran and Ranking Member Blumenthal, for 
inviting me to testify. And thank you for your efforts to highlight the 
failures of the U.S. Olympic Committee and others to prevent and stop 
the sexual abuse of our young athletes.
    On January 24, USA Gymnastics doctor Larry Nassar was sentenced to 
up to 175 years in prison. It was a cathartic moment for Nassar's 
victims and for the Nation. But it was a moment of only partial 
justice, because not all of the organizations and individuals 
responsible for predatory acts against our young athletes have been 
held to account.
    Because the U.S. Olympic Committee (USOC) operates under a Federal 
charter and its athletes compete under the American flag, I believe 
strongly that the Senate has a responsibility to investigate the 
allegations of abuse brought forward by these athletes and any other 
misconduct on the part of USOC and the National Governing Bodies. That 
is why I joined with Senator Joni Ernst on a resolution to establish a 
Senate special committee to provide an independent and comprehensive 
inquiry into what has been called the worst sex abuse scandal in the 
history of sports. So I appreciate the important work that is being 
done by this Committee to ensure that the individuals who enabled these 
horrible crimes are held accountable and that safeguards are put in 
place to protect our Olympic and amateur athletes.
    In January, Senator Ernst and I had the privilege of meeting three 
of the women who courageously testified at Nassar's sentencing hearing. 
We thanked these impressive women for speaking out and advocating for 
reforms to protect young athletes from abuse. In turn, they stressed to 
us the importance of exposing the full scope of the sex abuse scandal 
at USOC and other organizations. Congress must be resolved not to fail 
these women the way so many officials have failed them in the past.
    Olympic and amateur athletes represent a particularly vulnerable 
population for this sexual abuse. The intensely competitive nature of 
the sports in which they participate--and often begin at a young age--
creates an environment that individuals such as Larry Nassar are able 
to exploit. USOC abdicated its responsibility to ensure the safety of 
these young athletes, and the organization continues to be less than 
forthcoming in exposing past abuses. USOC, USA Gymnastics and others 
must be held accountable and their failures brought to light. The fact 
that there were good people working at USOC only underscores the need 
to account for those failures.
    The Larry Nassar scandal has brought to light disturbing 
allegations of sexual abuse that extend beyond just one man and 
implicate individuals in sports including taekwondo, speed skating, 
swimming and cycling. Since Nassar's conviction, we have also seen 
reports indicating that, in many respects, USOC's priorities are at 
odds with those of its athletes.
    USOC's financials show an organization that generates nearly $340 
million in revenue but in 2016 gave a meager 8 percent of those 
revenues directly to athletes. While our Olympic athletes receive just 
a small fraction of these revenues, USOC has managed to spend about $6 
million on its top executives, including a salary of close to $1 
million for its CEO, and pay 129 employees $100,000 or more. These 
exorbitant executive salaries and a bloated budget exist at the same 
time that athletes have had to sue USOC for adequate compensation and 
run their own GoFundMe campaigns to get to the Olympics. This suggests 
an organization that has lost sight of its core mission. These reports, 
along with the more heinous allegations of sexual abuse, make it 
difficult to understand why Congress is sanctioning such a flawed 
entity that has failed so many of our athletes.
    It is clear that USOC is not fulfilling its core mission to support 
and protect our Olympic athletes and I believe Congress should consider 
revoking or rewriting USOC's charter to include more oversight. The new 
charter should state clearly that any future scandals will result in 
USOC losing its charter and tax exempt status. That new charter should 
also require USOC to give 50 percent of all revenues directly to 
athletes and teams.
    I appreciate the work that your Committee and others are doing on 
this issue and I hope that your efforts will help to ensure the safety 
and security of Olympic athletes now and in the future.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Senator Moran. Senator Shaheen, thank you very much. Thank 
you both for your care and concern. Thank you for your requests 
and encouragement and for your instructions.
    We'll now call the next panel of witnesses. In that regard, 
we call to the table Ms. Rhonda Faehn, the former Women's 
Program Director of USA Gymnastics; Mr. Steve Penny, former 
President of USA Gymnastics; and Dr. Lou Anna Simon, former 
President of Michigan State University.
    We look forward to your testimony and, Ms. Faehn, I would 
begin with you. You're welcome to make your opening statement 
to 5 minutes. You should push your button, yes, that turns on 
your microphone.

     STATEMENT OF RHONDA FAEHN, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, USA 
                           GYMNASTICS

    Ms. Faehn. Chairman Moran, Ranking Member Blumenthal, and 
Members of the Committee, thank you for this opportunity to 
speak to you today.
    My name is Rhonda Faehn. I was the Senior Vice President of 
USA Gymnastics for only 37 days when I received a phone call 
from a coach about the concerns of a gymnast that she was 
coaching. The gymnast had experienced what the coach described 
as uncomfortable encounters of therapy with Dr. Larry Nassar, a 
member of the USA Gymnastics National Team Medical Staff.
    After my further inquiry, this coach also disclosed that 
she had heard that two other gymnasts that she did not coach 
personally may have been uncomfortable with Nassar.
    I immediately phoned and reported the concerns to the 
president of USA Gymnastics, Steve Penny, my direct boss, who 
assured me that he would contact the coach, the parents of the 
gymnast, and the proper authorities.
    Within one month from receiving that initial call, I 
received two additional reports of gymnasts expressing concern 
about Nassar's therapy. I again followed the same protocol and 
immediately notified Penny each time who again assured me that 
he was contacting the parents of the gymnasts involved and the 
proper authorities.
    Each time I immediately reported these incidents, I was 
told by Penny to not say anything to anyone for fear of 
possibly impeding any investigation of Nassar. I was not aware 
of any delay in contacting authorities or any efforts to 
misinform anyone of the reasons for Nassar's departure from USA 
Gymnastics.
    I tried to protect the gymnasts involved by making sure I 
immediately reported what I had learned from those that 
contacted me. There is no question that better systems of 
reporting and addressing abuse need to be in place and I truly 
hope this occurs going forward and that I can still find a 
place to make a positive contribution toward it, but my goal in 
immediately reporting complaints to my superior at USA 
Gymnastics was and always has been to protect and care for the 
athletes that I served.
    After being summarily fired from my dream job without 
warning or explanation, I am left surprised, hurt, confused, 
and I feel I am being falsely blamed for the alleged 
deficiencies of USA Gymnastics, but, more importantly, I feel a 
deep sense of loss, sympathy, sadness, and compassion for the 
victims of Nassar on who my most sincere loyalties have always 
been focused and whose concerns should have been reported to 
law enforcement authorities at the earliest possible moment as 
I assumed was being done at the time and just as I would have 
done had I know then what I know now.
    Gymnastics has been my life's passion since I was eight 
years old. That's the age when I started at a small club in 
Minnetonka, Minnesota. At age 14, I moved away from my family 
to Texas to train with Bela Karolyi. I progressed rapidly 
through the ranks, becoming a world-class elite gymnast for 
Team USA, competing for our country at international 
competitions, including the Pan American Games World 
Championships, and as an alternate for the 1988 Olympic Games 
in Seoul, South Korea.
    After my years on the U.S. National Team, I earned a 
gymnastics scholarship to UCLA. It was there under the guidance 
of Coach Valorie Kontos Field I began to realize I wanted to 
make a positive impact on the lives of athletes.
    After competing for UCLA, I worked as a student assistant 
coach for 2 years and that's when my light bulb moment 
occurred. My purpose came into focus. I wanted to help young 
women achieve their goals and dreams.
    I spent 19 years coaching NCAA Division 1 Gymnastics. 
Thirteen of those years were spent as a head coach at the 
University of Florida where I led teams to three back-to-back 
NCAA championship titles. I believed with honesty, integrity, 
hard work, and encouragement the amazing athletes will shine 
and they did.
    During this time, I also realized the greatest gift I could 
give any athlete was compassion and understanding. I was able 
to relate to and understand what the athletes were going 
through because I had lived it.
    The primary reason I decided to accept a position with USA 
Gymnastics was to recommit my heart, energy, and passion to 
elite gymnastics. I felt the time was right to take everything 
I had learned and experienced during my gymnastics life to help 
guide and care for our U.S. athletes.
    I determined that my life had come full circle and I was 
being called to USA Gymnastics to be an advocate, a 
compassionate voice to make an impact, to help bring positivity 
to what is oftentimes a very tense and stressful environment.
    Many throughout the gymnastics community, including those 
who have written character reference letters to the Senate 
Subcommittee on Consumer Protection, Product Safety, Insurance, 
and Data Security, which letters are attached to this written 
testimony as Appendix 1, strongly believe I was successful in 
my endeavors.
    Thank you very much for your attention and for working 
towards finding solutions to prevent similar tragedies from 
ever arising again and for helping the innocent survivors heal.
    I would very much appreciate the opportunity to discuss 
ideas to help promote the safety and security of our gymnasts 
and what is necessary to implement culture change.
    Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Faehn follows:]

      Prepared Statement of Rhonda Faehn, Senior Vice President, 
                             USA Gymnastics
Introduction
    My name is Rhonda Faehn. I was the Senior Vice President of USA 
Gymnastics (``USAG'') for only 37 days when I received a phone call 
from a coach about the concerns of a gymnast she was coaching. The 
gymnast had experienced what the coach described as ``uncomfortable 
encounters of therapy'' with Dr. Larry Nassar (``Nassar''), a member of 
the USAG national team medical staff. After my further inquiry, this 
coach also disclosed that she had heard that two other gymnasts (that 
she did not coach) may have been uncomfortable with Nassar. I 
immediately phoned and reported the concerns to the President of USAG, 
Steve Penny (``Penny''), who assured me that he would contact the 
coach, the parents of the gymnasts and the proper authorities.
    Within one month from receiving that initial call, I received two 
additional reports of gymnasts expressing concern about Nassar's 
therapy. I again followed the same protocol and immediately notified 
Penny each time, who again assured me that he was contacting the 
parents of the gymnasts involved and the proper authorities.
    Each time I immediately reported these incidents, I was told by 
Penny not to say anything to anyone for fear of possibly impeding any 
investigation of Nassar. I was not aware of any delay in contacting 
authorities or of any efforts to misinform anyone of the reasons for 
Nassar's departure from USAG. I tried to protect the gymnasts involved 
by making sure I immediately reported what I had learned from those who 
contacted me.
    There is no question that better systems of reporting and 
addressing abuse need to be in place, and I truly hope this occurs 
going forward, and that I can still find a place to make a positive 
contribution towards it, but my goal in immediately reporting 
complaints to my superior at USAG was and always has been to protect 
and care for the athletes I served.
    After being summarily fired from my dream job, without warning or 
explanation, I am left surprised, hurt, confused and feel I am being 
falsely blamed for the alleged deficiencies of USAG. But much more 
importantly, I feel a deep sense of loss, sympathy, sadness and 
compassion for the victims of Nassar, on whom my most sincere loyalties 
have always been focused, and whose concerns should have been reported 
to law enforcement authorities at the earliest possible moment, as I 
assumed was being done at the time, and as I would have done, had I 
known then what I know now.
My Background
    Gymnastics has been my life's passion since I was eight years old. 
That is the age when I started gymnastics at a small club in Minnesota, 
Minnesota. At age 14, I moved away from my family to Texas to train 
with Bela Karolyi. I progressed rapidly through the ranks--becoming a 
world-class, elite gymnast for Team USA, competing for our country at 
international competitions, including the Pan American Games, World 
Championships and as an alternate for the 1988 Olympic Games in Seoul, 
South Korea.
    After my years on the U.S. national team, I earned a gymnastics 
scholarship to UCLA. It was there, under the guidance of coach Valorie 
Kondos-Field, I began to realize I wanted to make a positive impact on 
the lives of athletes. After competing for UCLA, I worked as a student-
assistant coach for UCLA two years--and that's when my ``lightbulb'' 
moment occurred. My purpose came into focus--I wanted to help young 
women achieve their goals and dreams.
    I spent 19 years coaching NCAA Division I gymnastics. Thirteen of 
those years were spent as the head coach of the University of Florida, 
where I led teams to three back-to-back NCAA Championship titles.
    When I was coaching at the collegiate level, I was fortunate enough 
to work with Olympians, World and Pan Am champions, elite national team 
members and Junior Olympic champions. I believed with honesty, 
integrity, hard work and encouragement, the amazing athletes will 
shine, and they did. During this time, I also realized the greatest 
gift I could give any athlete was compassion and understanding. I was 
able to relate to and understand what the athletes were going through, 
because I had lived it.
    The primary reason I decided to accept a position with USAG was to 
recommit my heart, energy and passion to elite gymnastics. I felt the 
time was right to take everything I had learned and experienced during 
my gymnastics life to help guide and care for our U.S. athletes. I 
determined that my life had come full circle and I was being called to 
USA Gymnastics to be an advocate--a compassionate voice to make an 
impact and help bring positivity to what is often times a very tense 
and stressful environment. Many throughout the gymnastics community, 
including those who have written character and reference letters to the 
Senate Subcommittee on Consumer Protection, Product Safety, Insurance 
and Data Security, which letters are attached to this Written Testimony 
as Appendix 1, strongly believe I was successful in my endeavors.
Statement of Events and Circumstances
    I was hired by USAG as Senior Vice President of the Women's Program 
on May 11, 2015. My duties were to focus on the elite program 
consisting of gymnasts attempting to make the United States national 
team as well as representing the USA in international competitions, and 
also to develop young and junior Olympic athletes. I was to report 
directly to Penny. I was provided with the assistance sofa women's 
programs coordinator, a junior Olympic program director, and a director 
of athlete and coaches programs, but I was not provided assistance with 
communications, which I had to do myself while traveling extensively 
and focusing heavily on the competitions and training camps I attended.
    I had never met Nassar, although because he was known for being 
very knowledgeable of the treatment of gymnastics injuries, I had 
reached out to him to provide consultation on the treatment of one of 
the athletes I coached at the University of Florida. Shortly after I 
arrived at USAG, Nassar contacted me to explain his role as a member of 
the medical staff of the national team.
    Within two weeks of accepting employment with USAG, I attended the 
American Classic competition and my first national team training camp 
at the Karolyi Ranch in Texas from May 28, 2015 to June 7, 2015. I 
returned to Indianapolis, where, on June 17, 2015, I received a text 
message from Sarah Jantzi (``Jantzi''). It should be noted that I no 
longer have the phone I used in 2015, and I currently do not have 
access to or copies of the texts or phone logs from that phone; 
however, I still have copies of some of the written notes I made 
contemporaneously during certain events described herein, and I still 
have some of the e-mails I reference in this Written Testimony, and 
when pertinent, I make reference to and attach to this Written 
Testimony copies of such notes and e-mails.
    Jantzi texted me that she had a concern and wanted me to call her, 
which I did right away on June 17, 2015. Jantzi told me during the call 
that the gymnast she coaches had told her of three uncomfortable 
encounters of therapy with Nassar. Those encounters involved the 
gymnast being massaged in her groin area and too close to her vagina 
for the knee injury treatment she was supposed to be receiving. 
According to Jantzi, the encounters took place at the 2013 World 
selection camp and the 2015 Italy selection camp. Additionally, the 
gymnast had reported that Nassar sent her a private message through a 
social media application that said the gymnast looked beautiful in her 
prom dress, which made the gymnast uncomfortable.
    I asked Jantzi during this call if she had heard of any other 
gymnasts with similar experiences, and although she was initially 
reluctant to tell me of any others, I pressed her for additional 
information and she ultimately told me that two other gymnasts may have 
felt uncomfortable. As reflected in the notes I took at the time of our 
conversation, which are attached as Exhibit A, Jantzi described the 
feelings of the gymnasts as ``the uncomfortable factor.''
    I told Jantzi I would report these concerns to Penny. I immediately 
called Penny and told him in detail about the concerns Jantzi shared 
with me. Penny told me he would call Jantzi and the parents of the 
gymnasts right away. He told me not to say anything or do anything 
because he was going to handle everything going forward and he told me 
he was going to report the concerns to the proper authorities, which I 
assumed included law enforcement.
    I followed up the same night, June 17, 2015, with Jantzi to make 
sure that Penny had called her. She confirmed he had, and that he had 
told her that he would handle everything and would report the concerns 
to the authorities, as she indicates in her statement of her 
recollection, attached hereto as Exhibit B.
    I was in Gainesville, Florida from June 21, 2015 through June 28, 
2015. On June 24, 2015, Taylor Rathke (the former USGA Women's Program 
Coordinator) and I received an e-mail from Nassar concerning his travel 
arrangements to the World Championship selection camp. I forwarded the 
e-mail to Penny and asked him how to respond. Penny responded that I 
should let Nassar know that I would get back to him after the Pan Am 
Games. I assumed this was because he had been reported to authorities 
or may not be traveling based on the concerns that I had raised with 
Penny.
    I traveled to the National team camp at the Karolyi Ranch in Texas 
on June 29, 2015. I was approached by Jantzi, who said she believed 
from her conversation with Penny that she was not to talk about Nassar, 
but that Jantzi had heard about another gymnast that had been massaged 
oddly by Nassar. I immediately e-mailed Penny to tell him of this 
additional report from Jantzi (Exhibit B-1, which has been redacted 
only to hide the name of the gymnast who wished to remain anonymous). 
Penny called me after training was over for the day and said he would 
make contact with the gymnast or her parents and would handle 
everything. Penny said I was not to discuss this and instructed me to 
focus only on the Pan Am selection camp and the upcoming competition.
    I next traveled to the Pan Am Games in Toronto, Canada, where I 
stayed from July 5, 2015 through July 16, 2015. Unknown to me at the 
time, on July 11, 2015, a private investigator hired by USAG 
interviewed the gymnast coached by Jantzi. According to statements 
later revealed by USAG, the investigator did not determine sexual abuse 
could be definitively established.
    On July 13, 2015, while still at the Pan Am Games, I received an e-
mail from Penny informing me that an interviewer was interviewing three 
athletes about Nassar, whom he described in the e-mail as Athletes A, B 
and C. He did not identify the athletes, but I knew who they were 
because he indicated the cities where they were being interviewed, and 
I recognized those as the cities where the athletes lived. Penny wanted 
me to reach out to Athletes B and C to line up interviews without 
involving their parents or coaches because they were ``adults.'' He 
told me in the e-mail, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit C, ``if 
they had to involve someone, the preference would be parents.'' He 
instructed me not to tell them the subject of the interviews and to 
exclude parents and coaches. At the time, I was still under the 
impression that there was a law enforcement investigation.
    I was upset and confused by the e-mail. I did not want to ask the 
Athletes to be interviewed while excluding their parents and coaches. I 
therefore refused to contact the Athletes as instructed by Penny. I 
later made a note at the bottom of the e-mail from Penny (Exhibit C) 
that summarizes what I said to Penny at the time we discussed the e-
mail on July 14, 2015.
    I flew back to Indianapolis on July 16, 2015, and then flew to 
Orlando, Florida to visit my family from July 17, 2015 through July 20, 
2015.
    On or about July 18, 2015, I received a call from Aly Raisman 
(``Raisman''). Raisman told me she had been interviewed by an 
investigator. She said she was rattled by the interview and forgot to 
tell the investigator about McKayla Maroney (``Maroney''). I asked 
Raisman what she knew about Maroney. Raisman said that Maroney had been 
penetrated by Nassar's fingers during a therapy while she was at World 
Championships in Japan in 2011. Raisman told me that Nassar would text 
Maroney to come to his hotel room for private treatments. Raisman also 
told me that she felt bad that she didn't speak about this earlier, but 
Maroney didn't want anyone to know. Raisman wanted to share the 
additional information with an investigator, but only told me about 
Maroney's experience with Nassar-she did not tell me of any experience 
she herself had with Nassar, other than that he was ``creepy'' or made 
her feel uncomfortable. I told Raisman I would report Maroney's 
experience to Penny right away, which I immediately did. I told her 
Maroney's experience would be added to the investigation.
    Penny asked me to text Raisman to ask if Maroney would talk to an 
investigator. I texted Raisman, and Raisman indicated Maroney would be 
willing to talk to an investigator. Penny indicated he would talk to 
Maroney and handle all communications to coordinate the interview.
    Raisman has recently said that she told me in detail about her own 
experiences with Nassar, but that is not accurate. Based on my own 
clear memory and the notes I took contemporaneously with our 
conversation, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit D, Raisman only 
mentioned Maroney's experience with Nassar, not Raisman's.
    I was invited in an e-mail from Penny dated July 19, 2015 to attend 
a July 20, 2015 meeting at Baker and Daniels [sic] law firm in 
Indianapolis (attached as Exhibit E). I flew to Indianapolis from 
Orlando and went straight to the meeting from the airport. Scott 
Himsel, an attorney from Faegre Baker and Daniels was present. There 
may have been another attorney there, but I don't know for sure. I know 
Penny was there. It was determined that Nassar should not attend the 
upcoming Classic meet.
    The next day, July 21, 2015, Penny and I called Martha Karolyi and 
Penny told her that Nassar was not going to be at the Classic Meet on 
July 23, 2015. Penny also told Karolyi that Larry won't be there 
because he is being investigated for his treatment techniques. Penny 
told Karolyi that we are not telling anyone why Nassar will not be 
attending. Martha responded with shock and wanted assurance that there 
would be a doctor on site for the meet.
    Later on July 21, 2015, I received an e-mail from Penny addressed 
to Peter Vidmar, Jay Binder, Paul Parilla, Ron Galimore, Renee Jamison 
and me, with copies to Scott Himsel and Daniel Connolly, a copy of 
which is attached as Exhibit F. In the e-mail, Penny instructs us that 
we are not to have any further communication or discussion about Nassar 
until further notice. The e-mail summarized the points that Faegre 
Baker and Daniels would have with Nassar, and it contained a directive 
to be delivered to Nassar not to attend the Classic meet. The e-mail 
indicated the attorneys would be handling everything.
    I have no idea what was actually said to Nassar. I had no 
involvement in the contact with him.
    On July 22, 2015, Penny forwarded me an e-mail (attached as Exhibit 
G) that Nassar had sent to Himsel. The e-mail contained a link to a 
Dropbox account that contained a video demonstration of a technique 
used by Nassar to treat gymnasts. My impression is that Nassar was 
sending the video to show that Nassar's techniques were not improper 
and were helpful and accepted. I was shocked that Nassar would present 
an ``educational video'' of a partially naked gymnast being touched in 
very intimate areas. I did not, however, witness any penetration or 
obvious sexual acts.
    I attended the U.S. Classic meet from July 23, 2015 through July 
26, 2015. Penny was not there. Gina Nichols approached me in the hotel 
after the competition was over and asked me to please not let Karolyi 
know that it was Gina's daughter who reported concerns over Nassar's 
treatment. In order to respect Gina's request of anonymity, I didn't 
disclose such information to Karolyi.
    Unknown to me at the time, an investigator met with Maroney on July 
23, 2015. The investigator reported to Penny (unknown to me at the 
time) that Maroney presented a clear sexual assault claim. As a result 
of this report to Penny (and again, unknown to me at the time), Penny 
reported Nassar to the FBI on July 27, 2015. It is now my understanding 
that the FBI took over from there, relieved Nassar of his duties and 
handled all aspects of the investigation from that point forward.
    I was not privy to anything concerning the FBI investigation. Lynn 
Raisman, Raisman's mother, e-mailed Penny and me on August 20, 2015, 
seeking an update on the investigation. Her e-mail is attached as 
Exhibit H. Lynn mentions that Nassar sent a congratulatory text to 
Raisman and that Raisman had responded, ``thanks.'' Penny said that he 
would respond to Lynn. I do not know how he responded since I was not 
copied on any response.
    On August 27, 2015, Lynn Raisman again e-mailed Penny and me 
seeking an update. She mentioned that her daughter would be willing to 
speak to the FBI but suggested that the meeting take place in 
Massachusetts so it wouldn't affect her daughter's training schedule. A 
copy of the e-mail is attached as Exhibit I. Penny responded to Lynn, 
saying he was reconnecting with the FBI and would keep her posted.
    Lynn e-mailed again on September 4, 2015, requesting an update (e-
mail is attached as Exhibit J). I don't know if Penny responded to her, 
but I was instructed by Penny not to have any contact or to discuss 
Nassar, even internally among USAG staff. I would often ask Penny what 
was going on with the Nassar investigation, but he would tell me he 
couldn't talk about it.
    On September 28, 2015, Penny e-mailed me (copy attached as Exhibit 
K) and told me to monitor Nassar's Facebook page. He gave no 
explanation for this request. I did this only on September 28, 2015, 
saw nothing remarkable, and advised Penny of such.
    On February 28, 2016, I was told by Karolyi that Nassar was 
requested by USAG to be a guest lecturer at a gymnastics Congress. I 
immediately inquired with Cheryl Jarrett, Vice President ofUSAG Member 
Services, who confirmed this was true via e-mail (copy attached as 
Exhibit L). I told Jarrett that Nassar had been dismissed and to call 
Penny. I assume that Penny was contacted and handled it.
    On November 21, 2016, I received text messages from Gina Nichols, 
questioning me about not reporting her daughter's incidents with 
Nassar. I replied via text that I had notified Penny immediately. I 
then texted Penny and he replied to me that he notified the FBI and put 
them in touch with Gina. I have attached screenshots of the referenced 
texts as Exhibit M, but they are not all chronological and are hard to 
read.
My Firing
    Kerry Perry (``Perry''), current President ofUSAG, having replaced 
Penny in December, 2017, called me on May 17, 2018, while I was 
attending a national team training camp in Tennessee. During an 
otherwise uneventful call, I told Perry that I was invited to speak to 
members of the U.S. Senate about USAG and safety issues for gymnasts. I 
advised Perry that Chris Tebo (the newly appointed chieflegal officer 
ofUSAG) had suggested I decline the invitation. Perry acted like she 
was surprised to hear that if I declined the invitation, I would be 
subpoenaed. She put me on hold, then came back to the phone and told me 
to immediately return to Indianapolis. I told her I was in the middle 
of a national team training camp and could not abandon the gymnasts. 
Tebo then got on the phone and told me I was being asked to resign. I 
refused to resign.
    On May 18, 2018, USAG published a public statement that I was no 
longer employed with USAG. Their publication said only that it was a 
personnel issue they wouldn't discuss. I received no warning and no 
explanation for my firing.
    Up to the last minute of my job at USAG, I was doing everything in 
my power to provide guidance, care and concern for the gymnasts and 
coaches that comprise USAG. Every action I did take was intended to 
benefit the athletes and coaches and was done in reliance on the 
representations that were made to me that the incidents I immediately 
reported to my superior were being properly acted on and were being 
promptly passed along to the proper authorities.
Where Do We go From Here?
    Not only would I like to be a part of a solution that prevents the 
tragic harm that has occurred, but I was in the process of implementing 
new policies intended to protect our gymnasts at the time of my firing. 
For example, in late 2016 or early 2017, I implemented a chaperone 
program at USAG that required young female gymnasts who travel abroad 
to be accompanied by a chaperone vetted and hired by USAG. I also 
suggested that USAG pay for the parents of minor female gymnasts to 
accompany them abroad, when under prior policies, credentials and 
access was not even permitted for chaperones at the Olympics or World 
Championships and gymnasts may have only been accompanied by their 
coach. It surprised me to have received resistance to these common 
sense ideas from USAG, but eventually I did see some success with this 
plan. I would strongly suggest going forward that a chaperone program 
be developed and regulated, including the development of written 
materials and guidelines for the chaperones.
    Additionally, I would strongly recommend that parents of the 
gymnasts be provided more direct involvement and a presence at 
gymnastic meets and functions. This would not only help assure 
protection to the gymnasts, but also help to develop a stronger support 
network for them.
    I also began the implementation and even began site planning for a 
facility that could safely serve the gymnasts as an alternative to the 
Karolyi Training Ranch. Obviously, there was going to be a high cost 
and other factors to consider, but I strongly believed and continue to 
strongly believe that it is essential to plan a national training 
facility that can integrate safety and security, proper health and 
medical care and nutritional and wellness development.
    I would very much appreciate the opportunity to discuss these and 
other ideas I have to help promote the safety and security of our 
gymnasts.
    Thank you very much for your attention, and for working toward 
finding solutions to prevent similar tragedies from ever arising again 
and for helping the innocent survivors to heal.
[Exhibits and Character and Reference Letters to Follow]
                               Exhibit A
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                               Exhibit B
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                              Exhibit B-1
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                               Exhibit C
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                               Exhibit D
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                               Exhibit E
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                               Exhibit F
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                               Exhibit G
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                               Exhibit H
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                               Exhibit I
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                               Exhibit J
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                               Exhibit K
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                               Exhibit L
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                               Exhibit M
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                Appendix
Bridgette Caquatto
May 29, 2018

Dear Senate Subcommittee on Consumer Protection, Product Safety, 
            Insurance and Data Security,

Attn: The Hon. John Thune, Chairman

    I competed in the sport of gymnastics for 17 years. I spent five 
years on the USA National team and four years competing at the 
University of Florida. My most memorable years of competing in the 
sport of gymnastics was in 2013, 2014 and 2015. During those three 
impactful years in the sport of gymnastics, Rhonda Faehn was my coach.
    I clearly remember the day I went on my unofficial recruiting visit 
to the University of Florida. Everyone said there would be multiple 
influences that would help you decide which college you will choose. 
For me, Rhonda was the main reason I decided to commit to UF. From our 
first meeting and her first hug, I knew she would be like a mother to 
me when I was far away from home, that was important to me. Rhonda 
never failed at that role and was my role model and mentor throughout 
my collegiate career. She knew our goals and helped us turn them into a 
reality. It was clear that she was passionate about the sport and that 
she wanted the best for her athletes. Rhonda led and coached me to my 
biggest achievement yet, winning 3 consecutive National Championships 
in 2013, 2014 and 2015. After our third win, I was absolutely crushed 
to hear she would be taking a job at USA gymnastics. I cried for a week 
straight because I felt a positive and influential coach like Rhonda 
could not be replaced. In the end, I was very happy to see her follow 
her lifetime goals because she had helped me achieve mine.
    Winning those National Championships were not easy. Along the way 
came a lot of injuries, luckily Rhonda was always looking out for her 
athletes. With her mindset like this, I always felt comfortable talking 
to Rhonda about my daily aches and pains. She was always willing to 
modify assignments for me and truly looked out for the safety of each 
athlete on our team. Along with endless injuries came challenging 
academics, minimal social life and team conflict. Rhonda was proactive 
about these obstacles. While having Rhonda as a coach, I mastered 
lifelong skills like effective communication, time management, thriving 
in stressful situations and being adaptable. I valued that if Rhonda 
did not know how to help us, she would find someone that could help us. 
She always went out of her way to provide the best for my teammates and 
I.
    Outside of the gym, Rhonda is a sweet person that loves her family! 
While at UF, she would always have us over for fun holiday parties that 
were very memorable. We always looked forward to spending time at her 
house and interacting with her family. It was really nice to have a 
coach that cared for her athletes inside and outside of the gym. She 
made sure we had a healthy balance in our lives and pressed that 
gymnastics did not define us. I can not thank Rhonda enough for 
encouraging our team to give back to our community. I completed endless 
hours of community service while at UF and experienced several life 
changing moments. Community service is something I am very passionate 
about and I will continue to serve my community in the future.
    Altogether, Rhonda created endless opportunity in my life and I 
have watched her do it for others as well. I would never question her 
character or integrity. I am thankful we are still friends to this day, 
even though she is no longer my coach. We have kept our relationship 
going since she left UF in 2015 and I plan on keeping it that way in 
the future. Thank you for all you have done for me, Rhonda. Your impact 
on my life has been priceless!
            Best,
                                        Bridgette Caquatto.
                                 ______
                                 
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
                                 
                                 ______
                                 
To: Senate Subcommittee on Consumer Protection, Product Safety, 
            Insurance and Data Security

Attn: The Hon. John Thune, Chairman

    My name is Gina Chiles, the mother of Jordan Chiles-current 
national team member. I wanted to send this information to you 
regarding Rhonda Faehn. Although we can't speak to the specific 
situation of USAG or Rhonda's involvement in the ongoing issues 
plaguing USA Gymnastics and the USOC, I can speak only of our 
experience with Rhonda regarding a very serious incident that 
transpired with our daughter at a training camp in March 2017.
    On March 25,2017 during a selection camp for Jesolo Italy, there 
was an incident that happened at the former National Team Training 
Center. After the evening training session that was set to announce the 
team for Jesolo, I received a phone call from Erika Bakacs-Jordan's 
(now) former coach. She was not happy, I could tell she was angry as 
she told me Jordan had not made the team and she went into the office 
and let Valerie and Rhonda know what she thought of them and the 
situation. She was also not making any sense-slurring her words to the 
point I had to stop her mid-sentence. I am familiar with that behavior, 
so I asked if she was drunk. She got upset as she slurred her words 
harshly said NO! I asked her several more times. . .each time telling 
her that she was not normal and that I could tell she was under the 
influence of something. I kept asking how she could be drunk because 
practice had just got out. While I argued with Erika I received a phone 
call on the other line that showed a number with ``Huntsville'' as the 
incoming caller. I told her coach I needed to take the call and that I 
would call her back.
    It was Rhonda. She called to explain that she had some upsetting 
news but needed me to be aware of what transpired. She explained that 
Erika was under the influence of what smelled heavily of alcohol. She 
explained that Erika was acting irrational during and directly after 
practice and that several concerned coaches and other athletes came to 
Valeri and to her to report Erika's behavior. She explained to me in as 
much detail as she had what Erika had done and what the other coaches/
athletes reported-this validated what her and Valeri witnessed. Rhonda 
apologized but explained that Erika was not safe to travel to an 
international competition with and that Jordan was sacrificed (didn't 
get named to the team) as a result. She said that Erika would be banned 
from National Team Camp and National Team activities for behaviors that 
put Jordan at risk. Not just alcohol related, but also rules that were 
set up to protect the athlete that Erika would not follow. She 
explained that she would call Jordan in to explain that at any point 
for the remainder of the camp (final morning 1/2-day practice) if 
Jordan felt uncomfortable or was left unattended by Erika, she was to 
come directly to Rhonda or use a hand gesture so that Rhonda could make 
sure Jordan was ok. The plan was to make sure Jordan was escorted 
(driven) to the airport with Erika and that they would not tell Erika 
anything regarding her being banned until after Jordan arrived safely 
home to make sure Erika did not retaliate or putJordan at further risk.
    This is the quoted e-mail Rhonda sent to Erika & Erika's boss Kevin 
regarding the incident on 3/29/17:

    Hello Kevin and Erika,
    I am writing this e-mail to follow up on the situation that took 
place at our March National team camp with Erika. We are all 
responsible to create an environment that protects the safety and well-
being of our athletes. Concerns were reported to me by multiple coaches 
as well as athletes attending the camp. The complaints stated that on 
the last evening of camp, Friday March 25, 2017, there was suspicion of 
Erika in an altered state, slurring her words, while smelling heavily 
of alcohol. Valeri Liukin and I also suspected at the end of practice 
when she entered the office, that she was slurring her words. I did 
call Gina Chiles directly after the training to notify her of what had 
happened. Erika was spoken to a few months ago about her conduct in 
regards to her suspicion of being under the influence of something as 
well as her continually leaving Jordan unattended during training. This 
directly violates our Code of conduct and is unacceptable behavior. 
This was documented in her USA gymnastics report a few months ago and 
initially, Erika said she would not be attending camps anymore with 
Jordan. She was told that if another such occasion occurred, she would 
risk suspension and/or removal from National team activities. Athlete 
welfare is USA Gymnastics top priority, and given the serious nature of 
the allegations, it is in the best interest of both parties that Erika 
Bakacs may not participate in any national team activities until a 
conclusion is reached with respect to these allegations.
    I am currently out of the country and will not return until April 
3rd. Please let me know if you have any questions.
    Sincerely,
    Rhonda

    As a parent, I canonly state that in my situation Rhonda acted in 
the best interest of Jordan. She. communicated what happened 
immediately after the incident and it was clear to me that she was 
trying to protect Jordan from a dangerous situation. Jordan had been 
with that coach for 10 years and had we not been made aware of the 
situation that transpired that day, she may still be in that unhealthy 
and unsafe coaching relationship. It has been more than a year and we 
are still waiting on resolution regarding the pending investigation of 
the incident, but for months after Rhonda continued to give status 
updates when I made inquiries.
    Thank you,
    Gina R. Chiles
                                 ______
                                 
                                              Mary A Wright
                                                          5/29/2018
To:

Senate Subcommittee on Consumer Protection, Product Safety, Insurance 
            and Data Security
Attn: The Hon. John Thune, Chairman

    My name is Mary Wright and I have known Rhonda Faehn, as a 
successful elite athlete, a nationally winning college coach, and as 
the Senior Vice President of USA Gymnastics.

    Before USA Gymnastics formed a National Training Camp based at the 
Karolyi Ranch, they hired me as the National Consultant. In this 
position, I went to Europe, representing USA Gymnastics, to learn the 
compulsory routines which were changed every four years. My job was 
twofold and included:

  1.  To run training camps for coaches, judges and athletes to teach 
        them the compulsory beam and floor routines; and

  2.  To go into the gyms of the national team gymnasts and coaches on 
        a regular basis to consult with the coaches and help prepare 
        the athletes for competency with these routines.

    During these years, I was typically on the road for weeks at a 
time, visiting the gyms where the nationally ranked elite gymnasts 
trained. Additionally, we got together 2-3 times each year with the 
nationally ranked gymnasts to verify the proficiency level of these 
compulsory routines and to also verify the proficiency of the optional 
routines.
    During this period, I was able to watch Rhonda Faehn as a gymnast. 
She always exemplified true sportsmanship, an incredible work ethic and 
an ability to make changes and perform to her very best. She always 
demonstrated a passion and love for gymnastics. Her leadership 
abilities as an athlete garnered the respect of her team mates as they 
took the floor at the 1988 Olympics. She lead by example and compassion 
as her team excelled to a bronze medal win.
    I watched her grow into an incredible coach as she took a mediocre 
college program and developed them into a National Championship team. 
As their coach, you could see the mutual respect the athletes had for 
their coach, and the coach for the athletes. It was this embracing of 
their talent, spirit and drive, that set them apart and allowed the 
Florida team to maintain a top national ranking every year that Rhonda 
was their coach. This is not an easy feat. It takes courage, tenacity, 
perseverance, passion and above all, an honesty in the ownership of 
each individual on the team, both athletes and staff, in their personal 
daily effort, to achieve this success. It is a tribute to the 
leadership of this team, under Rhonda Faehn, that resulted in 
collegiate National Championship titles.
    When Rhonda was selected as the Senior Vice President of USA 
Gymnastics, the gymnastics community, especially the Elite community in 
which she was directly involved, was ecstatic. Her leadership 
capabilities were evident with her past performances both as a gymnast 
and as a coach. The elite gymnastics program was set for golden 
opportunities under her leadership, as she lead the team both on and 
off the podium.
    I had the pleasure of coaching the New Zealand Gymnastics team from 
2015 until the present, and was fortunate that our team was placed in 
the same subdivision as the USA team at the PacRim competition in 
Everett and the Olympic Games in Rio. This meant that we trained 
together everyday, twice daily at both of these competitions. I have 
been directly involved with elite level gymnastics in the USA and 
recently, in NZ and have persona[[y had 11 athletes make the Olympic 
Teams since 1976, some winning Olympic medals. I understand what goes 
into training elite level gymnasts and Rhonda Faehn consistently 
displayed incredible leadership and passion for her gymnasts. She was 
like a ``little mother hen'' as she kept her girls together, answered 
their every need, made sure that they were all on the bus, taking care 
of them, as they were her own children. Being an Olympian means that 
you have sacrificed daily and worked extremely hard for the successes 
you have. Rhonda understands their needs both in training and on the 
competition floor. She was and is ``exactly'' what the USA Gymnastics 
elite program needs. Her number one criteria has always been ``athletes 
first'' and as such has taken care of them emotionally and physically 
with compassion and love.
    One day in training at the Rio Olympics, Rhonda displayed the most 
encouraging moment I have ever witnessed. The gymnast from Venezuela 
who was one of the top bar workers in the world, had been struggling 
with her training on bars. She was actually in a different group from 
both the USA team and the NZ team. The coach from Venezuela asked me if 
his athlete could train with our girls just a few days before the 
Olympic competition began. I asked the other countries in our rotation 
if this was OK with them. They all agreed. The athlete from Venezuela 
could barely put two skills together as she practiced with our group. I 
asked my athlete and the athletes from different countries in our group 
if they would help her, so we started cheering her on every skill. We 
pushed her hard to succeed, and soon she was making her skills. The USA 
girls and coaches noticed what we were doing and soon Rhonda had them 
all cheering for her and pushing her to succeed. Soon she made one 
routine, then she made another routine. We all cheered for her as she 
overcame this psychological wall that had prevented her from doing what 
she needed to do. She went on to make Bar Finals at the Olympics two 
days later. A few days after she had competed, she sought me out at the 
Olympic village and told me that she had completely given up on herself 
and could not push herself past this wall that encompassed her. She 
told me that when we all stood by the bars and cheered for her, girls 
and coaches from NZ and the USA and others, that she found that Olympic 
moment to conquer her demons. That is what the Olympics are all about. 
When Rhonda inspired the USA girls to support a struggling athlete from 
another country and reach past nationalistic endeavors and have the 
compassion and understanding of what our athletes go through to reach 
this point . . . then you demonstrate true leadership, true love for 
this sport and true love for the athletes . . . . . . whoever they are, 
no matter what country you represent. I don't think that Rhonda even 
realizes the impact she had. I know I didn't, until the athlete from 
Venezuela told me. Rhonda was just doing what every great leader would 
do. Inspire each of us to be the best that we can be, even at the 
Olympic Games, especially at the Olympic Games. All the while knowing, 
that this athlete was a true contender for a medal for another country.
    I have been fortunate to know Rhonda as an athlete, coach and 
Senior Vice President of the USA Gymnastics national team program. She 
has always demonstrated honesty and integrity in her dealings with 
everyone around her . . . athletes, coaches and parents. I am honored 
to have been a part of her journey and equally honored to stand beside 
her to support her. She has always demonstrated exemplary service to 
the gymnastics community with her honesty, passion and expertise.
            Sincerely,
                                             Mary A Wright.
                                 ______
                                 
                                                       May 28, 2018

Senate Subcommittee on Consumer Protection, Product Safety, Insurance 
            and Data Security
Attn: The Hon. John Thune, Chairman

    I, Kittia Carpenter, am writing to you on behalf of Rhonda Faehn. I 
have known Rhonda for over a decade both as the Head coach for the 
University of Florida and more recently as the VP of the Women's 
Program of USA Gymnastics. In all that time I have always observed her 
as an honest, professional, caring and effective administrator. She was 
responsible for managing sports programs in gymnastics and she 
performed that responsibility admirably. The three consecutive NCAA 
Championships her teams won while she was the head coach at Florida are 
a confirmation of that professionalism. And yet as impressive as that 
record is that is not what I think of when I think of Rhonda. What I 
think of is the care and concern that she has always shown to the 
people associated with those gymnastics programs.
    I had the pleasure of traveling with Rhonda and the USA Team to the 
2015 World Championships in Glasgow, Scotland, and to the 2016 Jesolo 
Cup in Jesolo, Italy because l had an athlete on both of those teams. 
Rhonda was the delegation leader for the USA Team and she was 
outstanding. Marta Karolyi coached the gymnasts and Rhonda was in 
charge of everything else. She tended to the coach's needs, answered 
any questions openly and honestly, and she looked after the gymnasts 
when she was able to. The trip to Jesolo, included a short visit to the 
beach. This should have not have been noteworthy, but was a welcome and 
appreciated new gesture for the gymnasts attending the competition. 
Rhonda believed the gymnasts should enjoy the culture and sights during 
their travels as well as enjoying the competition. She believed that 
care for the athletes was as important as the preparation for the 
competition.
    Rhonda was also present at the USAG National Team Camps which I 
have also attended with my athletes. She always addressed each coach by 
name and with an attitude of caring and honesty to any question. Her 
touch on your shoulder showed her understanding and concern when a 
coach was feeling a little down after their gymnast performed below 
expectations. Her approach also included words of encouragement and a 
smile to show her appreciation for the effort the gymnast was making 
and her support to continue improving. She made you and your gymnast 
feel you were valued and an integral part of USA Gymnastics. These 
gestures, both big and small, were not required in her administrative 
position at USA Gymnastics. They were simply a reflection of her 
character and priorities and an expression of the care and concern she 
felt toward the gymnasts and coaches alike.
            Respectfully,
                                          Kittia Carpenter.
                                 ______
                                 
                                                       May 29, 2018

Senate Subcommittee on Consumer Protection, Product Safety, Insurance 
            and Data Security
Attn: The Hon. John Thune, Chairman

    I have known Rhonda Faehn since May 2006. As an athlete seeking a 
scholarship, Rhonda recruited me to attend and compete for the 
University of Florida gymnastics team. I trained and competed under 
Coach Faehn's guidance from 2007 to 2011. I was a 4-year letter winner, 
2-time All-American, all-SEC team selection, and a 4-year scholastic 
All-American.
    I consider it a privilege to have been an athlete under Rhonda's 
guidance and leadership. She is a woman for whom I have the utmost 
respect and greatly admire. The way she conducted herself, worked 
alongside administrators, coaches, trainers, and athletes, and 
represented the University of Florida, is the way I strive to be as a 
coach.
    Rhonda treated me as an adult, as an individual, and an important 
part of her team. She was always available to talk about life, school, 
and gymnastics. She always encouraged me as a student first and athlete 
second. This was very important in my college years as that priority 
helped prepare me for life after competitive gymnastics.
    Rhonda's character is what I admire most about her. She is a woman 
of impeccable standards and her honesty is unwavering. She always told 
the truth even through difficult situations. She made decisions that 
were in the best interest of her athletes, looking beyond the sport. 
One personal example is when I suffered a stress fracture to my foot my 
freshman year. Rhonda was the first to encourage and assure me that the 
best option for my career was to have surgery. She promptly called my 
parents that evening to make certain they knew the plan for recovery. 
My parents always appreciated Rhonda's communication and initiative to 
take care of me.
    Rhonda always took proper precautions in the gym to ensure the 
safety of her athletes. She carefully implemented training plans, 
rehabilitation exercises, and rotated competitive line ups in order to 
give athletes' bodies proper rest when needed. Rhonda stayed in close 
contact with our athletic trainer and adjusted practice to the needs 
and health of her athletes.
    Rhonda is one of the most genuine, kind-hearted, caring, and 
intelligent women I know. To this day, she is someone to whom I reach 
out for honest advice and encouragement. Her character and integrity 
are above reproach.
            Sincerely,
                                            Alicia Goodwin.
                                 ______
                                 
                                                          5/29/2018

Senate Subcommittee on Consumer Protection, Product Safety, Insurance 
            and Data Security
Attn: The Honorable John Thune, Chairman

Dear Chairman Thune and Members of the Committee,

    I am voluntarily writing on behalf and in support of Rhonda Faehn. 
I have known Rhonda as a young gymnast from Minnesota whom I first saw 
compete as a Class 1 gymnast in Dallas, Texas in 1984. Her coach was 
Jonathan Tobler and his gymnastics club was named Jonathan's Living 
Seagulls. I have known Rhonda practically her whole life. She competed 
in the USGF (United States Gymnastics Federation now USAG) system just 
as I did. I began my own journey in 1964 as an 8\1/2\ year old young 
boy. Please find my CV attached.
    Rhonda was one of the first kids during that time to leave her 
family, state and club to train with Martha and Bela Karolyi in 
Houston, Texas. I too had 3 Elite athletes at that time. One of them 
was named Corinne Chee. I interacted with coaches and athletes at 
training camps during that era. Rhonda was a workhorse. Always quiet . 
. . always working. Under Karolyi's tutelage Rhonda went on to achieve 
being U.S. Championships vault champion in 1987 & 1988. Additionally, 
Rhonda achieved qualifying to and competing on the 1987 Pan American 
Games Team which took the Team Gold and was a 1987 U.S. World 
Championship Team Member to Rotterdam, Netherlands where she was our 
highest U.S. Team placer. Names you might be familiar with at that time 
which Rhonda competed against were Aurelia Dobre (ROU) and her teammate 
Daniela Silivas who are now coaching in the United States. And one of 
Rhonda's USA teammates was Melissa Marlowe.
    Rhonda was an alternate U.S. Olympic Team Member in 1988 to Seoul. 
Although an alternate she still traveled with the team. I was there. A 
funny story now in retrospect but, serious at the time, Bela never knew 
the rules in all the years he coached. His wife Martha was the brains 
of all things rules. At that time athletes were not allowed on the 
podium unless they were competing. Only coaches could do that if they 
had to move equipment . . . which was a rule. Kelly Garrison mo1mted 
the uneven bars for her routine. The spring board in place was still 
sitting. Spring boards were not allowed in the field of play. So Bela 
sent Rhonda up on the podium to move the spring board. Ellen Berger, 
Chief Judge and from East Germany (she despised us) penalized our team 
under the rules and the Team penalty was 2.0 points. This team total 
deduction kept the USA out of 3rd and the Team Bronze. Later, when 
accosted by the media, Rhonda handled herself with grace, dignity and a 
smile at the debacle. Rhonda was incorrectly blamed for the debacle . . 
. and she never spoke a word to the contrary . . . even to this day.
    After the Olympics which then ended Rhonda's club career Rhonda 
went on Full Athletic Scholarship to UCLA. She had a stellar career and 
went on to achieve NCAA All American status. Rhonda was put on a 
medical her senior year due to prior injuries.
    In her senior year she became ``student assistant coach'' of her 
own team at UCLA under Val Kondos. It was this year that I had the 
pleasure of interacting with Rhonda as a young adult as UCLA was 
recruiting one of my athlete's . . . the above mentioned Corinne Chee . 
. . to attend UCLA.
    Rhonda's genuine love for the sport and concern for the athletes 
well being really struck me. In retrospect, much of what she stated all 
the way back to 1992 held true for today. Corinne shared with me at 
that time after her recruiting trip ``I really want to go to UCLA. The 
team is great and someone that's injured named ``Rhonda'' was honest 
about everything having to do with being a college gymnast and she gets 
it''. Little did Corinne know and I shared that I had known Rhonda 
since she was a young child. Corinne went on to attend UCLA on full 
athletic scholarship. I kept in contact with Corinne all thru college. 
All she talked about was a gymnast from Canada that she became best 
friends with AND Rhonda said this and Rhonda said that. All the time.
    After college, about 1994 I recall, she went to coach club in 
Pennsylvania. She went back to her roots. She began learning how to be 
a coach and earning her chops. She worked under Slava Glazunov who 
currently is coaching Morgan Hurd on the USA National Team. How small 
our sport is . . . Slava came to work under Rhonda when she was still 
in her position with USA Gymnastics 22 years later. I didn't speak with 
Rhonda during this time. But the conversation coming out of that region 
was that Rhonda ``was the real deal''. Young, ambitious, trustworthy 
and an athlete advocate. Apparently, she had called out a handful of 
coaches at competitions for verbally abusing young girls. Rhonda was 
young and brash and was not intimidated. And she did it with a smile.
    She then went on to a short stint at University of Maryland for a 
couple of years. Rhonda was being touted as an up and comer and was 
loved by the athletes for her sincerity and genuine concern for their 
well being . . . especially their grades.
    Rhonda then went on to University of Nebraska where she became the 
assistant associate head coach with Dan Kendig. I've know Dan his 
entire coaching career. Again, Rhonda was recruiting one of my 
athletes. My interaction with her as she was now a seasoned 
professional was extraordinary. Her care and concern for the athletes 
well being was now written in stone. Her mission statement. And again . 
. . the grades. She was committed to every gymnast graduating from 
college. Academics before gymnastics. And then ``safety first'' which 
encompassed many components of our sport. Rhonda was committed to the 
safety, care and well being of her athletes.
    Then came the opportunity of a lifetime for a young coach. She 
became the Head coach at University of Florida. Her enthusiasm was 
infectious. I sincerely thought that this would be the end destination 
in her gymnastics journey. I witnessed her in action with her athletes 
at competitions. A true sisterhood. Rhonda was clearly in her element. 
The athletes loved and respected her. You could see it. It was 
palpable. Then came the day we interacted yet again. Rhonda contacted 
me to begin to recruit two of my athletes. MacKenzie and Bridgey 
Caquatto. While in club MacKenzie qualified to Olympic Trials in 2008 
and made a World Championship Team afterward. Bridgey was Pan American 
Games All Around Champion. Both were Junior and then Senior USA 
National Team Members. All Rhonda spoke about at that time was how much 
she loved her job, her team, gymnastics, her commitment to their safety 
and well being, that they would leave college happy and satisfied with 
their experience with her and become productive members of society 
without any scars . . . and again . . . the GRADES! Rhonda was obsessed 
with their grades and that family and academics came before gymnastics. 
So much in fact that when MacKenzie was having issues in high school 
Rhonda took it upon herself to advise MacKenzie and support us in that 
there was ``life after gymnastics'' and that grades mattered. Rhonda 
did not have to do that at all. But these kids . . . they were like her 
own family and she genuinely cared . . . and all the time. Her mantra 
was consistent every time. Family, academics and gymnastics. Under her 
mentorship University of Florida went on to win 3 NCAA Women's 
Gymnastics Championships and become one of only six schools to do so in 
women's gymnastics. No wonder then that the next chapter was even 
better. How could it be?
    In 2015 Rhonda took over as Senior Vice President of the Women's 
Program at USA Gymnastics; Rhonda came in to the position with ease. 
She effused not only the USA Gymnastics Mission Statement to protect 
athletes' safety and welfare but also that of her own, Her enthusiasm 
and trust permeated the ENTIRE Women's program. Athlete safety and well 
being free from abuse was her mantra. The coaching staff knew it to be 
true. She demonstrated such on EVERY occasion that involved the 
athletes. Moreover, the athletes themselves were ignited by Rhonda's 
demeanor. I only had a short experience with her in this position as I 
had another Elite athlete at the beginning of her start. Payton 
Richards. Her Elite dreams and aspirations cut short when Doctors 
discovered a tumor (sheathing tumor) in the sheathing of her sciatic 
nerve. Rhonda was the FIRST to call me when she learned the news. She 
was genuinely upset at the news. As if Payton was her own child. She 
stated ``Payton's health comes first. Forget about gymnastics. If she's 
able to return to the Elite level we'll discuss it then..Keep me posted 
and if there is anything I can do. You see, Rhonda also knew that she 
recruited Payton to Florida in what was one of her final recruiting 
efforts before departing Florida.
    I'm happy to report that Payton did not lose her leg. She 
recovered. Dropped back a Level from Elite. Has gone on to achieve 
being Level 10 National All Around Champion and individual event 
champion on several events. Rhonda has been with her every step of the 
way. Until two weeks ago. . .
    What has happened in our sport over the past three years at the 
hands of a fake Doctor needs no explanation before you today. Rhonda 
never wavered in her duties as Program Director. She reported what she 
knew when she learned it to her superior in June of 2015. That's good 
enough for me as a club owner, a coach, a husband, a father of three 
adult children and grandfather of three. Many others feel the same way 
but are now afraid to speak publicly on behalf of Rhonda for fear of 
retaliation. I'm not. Since I've known Rhonda in a position of 
authority, where I quite literally watched her grow up to become the 
human being she is today, Rhonda has been the epitome of all that is 
right with gymnastics. And by all accounts she is a fabulous mother of 
two boys. I don't think her husband will argue. Or her own parents who 
I've known since Rhonda was twelve years old. In her position at USA 
Gymnastics she is second to no one in her own personal mission 
statement to protect the safety and well being of ALL athletes and free 
of abuse. It's in her blood. Her fabric. Her soul. Rhonda grew up in 
gymnastics and became an advocate for gymnastics and all of its 
participants . . . the children. I defy anyone to state anything to the 
contrary. And that INCLUDES all of the athletes that have been under 
her watchful eye and care just the past three years. Just ask their 
parents.
            Sincerely,
                                          Donald McPherson.
                                 ______
                                 
                            Curriculum Vitae
                          Donald V. McPherson
                        Education & Achievements

   Former Junior & Senior National Team Member U.S.T.A.

   Former National Competitor--trampoline, tumbling, double 
        mini, & synchro

   Former International Competitor--trampoline, tumbling, 
        double mini

   Numerous competitive awards & accolades between 1965-1975

   Guest Coach & Clinician at numerous clubs, camps, J.O. & 
        Elite training camps from 1970 to present

   Attended Southwest Missouri State on scholarship and was 
        Assistant Women's Gymnastics Coach under Dr. Charles ``Chic'' 
        Johnson 1975-1977

   Attended George Williams College on scholarship as ``student 
        assistant'' and was Assistant Women's Gynmastics Coach under 
        Nora Campbell 1978-1980

   Established Aerial Gymnastics Club in July 1977. Owner, 
        Director, & Head Coach

   Awarded ``Coach of the Year'' several times

   Awarded ``Contributor of the Year'' several times

   Awarded U.S.A.G. Service Award 1992

   Co-author & contributor to ``The Bail Swing'' published in 
        ``Technique''

   Co-author & contributor to ``Twisting'' & ``Twisting Bar 
        Dismounts'' published in Technique

   Co-founded ``Region V Training Camps'' in 1988. These camps 
        and their concepts have been modeled throughout the U.S. Camp 
        Director, Coach, & Clinician numerous times since its 
        inception.

   Coached numerous Individual Event & All-Around Champions at 
        the State, Regional, National & International level both boys 
        and girls

   Have served on the USAG Illinois State Board since 1986 as 
        Safety Chairman

   Have represented USAG and my country as an International 
        Coach with my National Team Members

   Over 150 Ae1ial Gym Club gymnasts, both boys & girls, have 
        been awarded full athletic scholarships at various colleges 
        throughout the USA

   USAG Professional Member since its inception

   USAG National Safety Certifier and recognized by my peers as 
        an expert coach

   USAG Congress--Clinician, Lecturer, & Volunteer

   USAG Safety/Risk Management Review Board Member

   Inducted into Illinois Lifetime Achievement Award 2008

   Had athlete qualify to 2008 Olympic Trials

   Guest Speaker Loyola Sports Medicine Update 2011 With Course 
        Directors Neeru Jayanthi MD & Pietro Tonino MD--Stritch School 
        of Medicine

   USA Gymnastics Advisory Board Member

    I have owned and operated gymnastics schools for 41 years. I have 
coached all levels of gymnastics, both boys and girls, ranging from 3 
year-olds to Elite (Olympic) athletes. I have acted as a USA National 
Team coach, both nationally and internationally.
    I am a national speaker and clinician. I have given presentations 
on topics ranging from how to teach certain high level gymnastics 
elements, lawsuits in the sport of gymnastics, eating disorders, 
physical preparation for competitive gymnastics, emotional as well as 
sexual abuse in the sport of gymnastics and many other issues as they 
arise.
    I am the Illinois USAG Safety Chair. I am consulted nationally as 
to safety practices in the sport of gymnastics, safety practices in 
gymnastics club facilities and advocating for and writing certification 
letters to city townships and their zoning committee's across the 
country for gymnastics club owners in pursuit of ``Certificates of 
Occupancy'' where certain building and fire codes must be met.
    While I am recognized as an expert by my peers and colleagues in 
the gymnastics profession, I have also qualified as an expert in 
litigation matters prosecuted in both the United States and Canada. 
Since 1979, I have been retained as an expert in more than four hundred 
cases in which I have reviewed plaintiff and defendant briefs, written 
expert opinions and in many of those cases I have testified before a 
court.
                                 ______
                                 
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
                                 

    Senator Moran. Ms. Faehn, thank you very much.
    Now Mr. Penny.

          STATEMENT OF STEVE PENNY, FORMER PRESIDENT, 
                         USA GYMNASTICS

    Mr. Penny. Thank you, Senator. I do not have an opening 
statement.
    Senator Moran. Thank you, Mr. Penny.
    Dr. Simon.

STATEMENT OF LOU ANNA SIMON, PRESIDENT EMERITUS, MICHIGAN STATE 
                           UNIVERSITY

    Dr. Simon. I want to thank you for taking the time for this 
investigation, holding the hearing to better protect the safety 
of athletes.
    Before I begin what I had planned to say, I must comment 
that I was prepared to come on your hearing on May 22 
voluntarily, paid for plane tickets and hotel. Unfortunately, 
my attorney, Mr. Morgan Roth, had a conflict today with an 
Appeals Court, and also had to postpone the funeral for his 
sister, so he had a date conflict. So I hope that you don't 
interpret the subpoena as something that I was unprepared to 
come and talk with you.
    Senator Moran. We're glad to have you here, Dr. Simon.
    Dr. Simon. So I apologize for that bit of clarification and 
also before I begin my testimony, I want to again say to all 
the survivors, including those here today, that I am really 
truly sorry for the abuse you suffered, the pain it caused, and 
the pain it continues to cause today.
    I served as President of Michigan State University until 
January of this year and am now President Emeritus. As such, I 
appear today on my own behalf and do not speak for the 
university.
    I spent my entire professional career devoted to Michigan 
State, nearly 45 years, and saw it grow to 50,000 students, 
6,000 faculty, and over 7,000 other employees.
    We must remain proud of what Michigan State has 
accomplished, but I'm here today because of the unspeakable 
crime of one former MSU employee, Larry Nassar. Nassar was a 
famous sports physician who treated Olympic stars. He was also 
a shrewd criminal predator who truly damaged the lives of so 
many innocent survivors.
    Echoing an Assistant U.S. Attorney, it is clear now that 
Nassar led a double life, fooling everyone around him, 
patients, family, friends, colleagues, and law enforcement.
    I am truly horrified that Nassar's crime happened during my 
tenure. I did not know that he was sexually abusing young women 
until a former youth gymnast bravely filed her complaint in 
2016. Had I known, I would have taken immediate action to 
prevent him from preying on additional survivors, including 
terminating his employment and reporting him to the police, as 
was done in 2016.
    Not a day goes by without me wishing that he had been 
caught and punished sooner and not a day goes by without me 
wondering what we missed or what we could have done to detect 
this evil before the 2016 complaint.
    After Michigan State received that complaint, Nassar was 
promptly fired. Even before the investigations were completed, 
we took a variety of mitigating steps to protect patient 
safety. We changed the supervision of sports medicine, moving 
it to the Health Team. We then launched an extraordinary review 
of all MSU clinics.
    Since then, MSU has taken additional steps to improve 
standards for patient care and youth safety to prevent 
relationship violence and sexual misconduct and to support 
survivors.
    With my full support, the MSU Board of Trustees also 
initiated mediation with survivors. That process eventually 
resulted in the current settlement in principal totaling $500 
million with more than 330 survivors, including 31 known to be 
MSU students.
    I recognize that resolving the litigation and providing 
monetary compensation to survivors is but one step in a very 
long journey. I am hopeful that the settlement allows survivors 
to focus on their healing and recovery.
    In every investigation of this matter, I insisted that the 
university and its personnel fully cooperate. Moreover, the MSU 
Board of Trustees requested the Michigan Attorney General 
conduct a separate review of the events surrounding Nassar. 
That investigation is ongoing.
    Shortly after the allegation about Nassar surfaced, we 
retained two law firms to facilitate MSU's cooperation with law 
enforcement and provide advice in connection with anticipated 
litigation. As a critical part of that effort, the firms were 
tasked with reviewing all of the underlying facts and reporting 
those to the university.
    We directed the firms, as well, to report to MSU and law 
enforcement any evidence that anyone at MSU, other than Nassar, 
knew of his criminal behavior and did anything to conceal it or 
to facilitate it.
    It is my understanding that no such conduct has been 
identified by the firms.
    Following the discovery of Nassar's crimes, we also 
commissioned a comprehensive independent review of Title IX. 
That review concluded MSU's policies were among the most 
comprehensive and robust the reviewing firm had seen.
    Although the university devoted most of its diligent 
efforts over many years to improving and enhancing our 
programs, policies, and procedures, Nassar was able to prey on 
survivors under the guise of medical treatments.
    Again, to the survivors of Nassar's abuse, I can never say 
enough that I am sorry that a trusted, renowned physician 
turned out to be an evil predator. I am sorry that we did not 
discover his crimes and remove him from the community sooner.
    Now it's my hope that we learn from these horrific events. 
In the end, the most important legacy of this terrible chapter 
will be how MSU, USA Gymnastics, and the Olympic community 
support the survivors and steps we all take to guard against 
sexual abuse.
    Success will require not just new policies, programs, and 
leadership at schools, sports bodies, and other organizations, 
but also resolve by all members of these communities to emulate 
the courage of the survivors to speak up and to take 
responsibility when they see injustice around them.
    I'll be happy to answer any questions you have.
    [The prepared statement of Dr. Simon follows:]

       Prepared Statement of Lou Anna Simon, President Emeritus, 
                       Michigan State University
    Chairman Moran, Ranking Member Blumenthal, and Members of the 
Subcommittee, thank you for undertaking your investigation and holding 
this hearing to help better protect the safety of Olympic athletes and 
students on college campuses across America.
    I spent my entire professional life devoted to Michigan State 
University (MSU)--nearly 45 years--and was honored to serve as 
President from 2005 until January of this year. I have seen the school 
grow to more than 50,000 students in 17 separate colleges, with nearly 
6,000 faculty and academic staff and more than 7,000 other employees.
    I am proud of what MSU accomplished during my administration, but I 
am here because of the unspeakable crimes of one former university 
employee, Larry Nassar.
    I am truly sorry for the abuse the survivors of Nassar suffered, 
the pain it caused, and the pain it continues to cause today. I am 
sorry a university employee so utterly betrayed the survivors' trust 
and everything for which MSU stands.
    Nassar was a world famous, celebrated sports physician who treated 
Olympic stars. He was also a shrewd criminal predator who cruelly 
damaged the lives of so many innocent victims. It is clear now that 
Nassar fooled everyone around him--patients, family, friends, 
colleagues, and law enforcement. He led a double life, as the Assistant 
U.S. Attorney said in a court filing.
    I am horrified that Nassar's crimes happened during my tenure. Had 
I known that Nassar was sexually abusing young women, I would have 
taken immediate action to prevent him from preying on additional 
victims, including terminating his employment and reporting him to the 
police.
    Not a day goes by without me wishing that he had been caught and 
punished sooner. And not a day goes by without me wondering what we 
missed and what could have been done to detect his evil before a former 
youth gymnast filed her complaint with the MSU Police in 2016.
    After that complaint, Nassar was promptly fired. Since then, MSU 
has taken numerous steps to set even higher standards for patient care 
and safety, to prevent relationship violence and sexual misconduct, and 
to support survivors and respond to reports of such incidents. I 
initiated certain of these improvements during my tenure as President; 
others have been undertaken by Interim President John Engler, who 
succeeded me.
    The MSU Board of Trustees, with my encouragement, also initiated 
mediation with the survivors. This process eventually resulted in the 
recent settlement in principle totaling $500 million with more than 330 
survivors, including 31 known to have been MSU students. I recognize 
that resolving the civil litigation and providing monetary compensation 
to the survivors is but one step in a longer journey to make things 
right. I am hopeful that the settlement allows survivors to focus on 
their healing and recovery.
    Looking back, we know now that the Meridian Township Police 
Department investigated a complaint against Nassar in 2004. But the 
Township Police cleared him, and neither MSU nor the prosecutor were 
informed of that investigation.
    In 2014, an adult patient made a complaint to MSU's Sports Medicine 
Clinic regarding an office visit with Nassar. The physician who 
received the complaint immediately reported the matter to MSU's Office 
of Inclusion and Intercultural Initiatives (``I3,'' the predecessor to 
MSU's Office of Institutional Equity), and Nassar was reassigned from 
clinical practice.
    I3 promptly opened an investigation and, following protocol, 
reported the matter to the MSU Police Department. I3's investigation, 
which included consultation with other medical professions, concluded 
that no violation of MSU's sexual harassment policy had occurred. The 
MSU Police Department turned its findings over to the Ingham County 
prosecuting attorney's office, which did not file charges following its 
own review.
    The criminal nature of Nassar's conduct was ultimately discovered 
by MSU only after the 2016 complaint by the former youth gymnast. On 
August 29, 2016, the MSU Police Department notified the University that 
it had received the complaint, which was different in nature than the 
2014 compliant. Nassar was immediately removed from clinical practice, 
and the MSU Police Department commenced its investigation. After 
confronting him with the allegations related to his practice, MSU fired 
Nassar on September 20, 2016.
    Even before the investigations were completed, we took a variety of 
mitigation steps to protect patient safety. We changed the supervision 
of Sports Medicine, where Nassar practiced, moving it from the College 
of Osteopathic Medicine to MSU's HealthTeam. We launched an external 
review of all MSU clinics. We conducted a policy and protocol review 
within the MSU HealthTeam and a subsequent follow up review for 
progress. And we developed a new chaperone policy, adopted a ``consent 
to treat'' form for patients, and approved a practice location policy.
    In every investigation of this matter, I insisted that the 
University and its personnel fully cooperate. Moreover, the MSU Board 
of Trustees requested that the Michigan Attorney General conduct a 
separate review of the events surrounding Nassar and MSU's handling of 
the situation. That investigation is ongoing.
    MSU Police investigators, particularly those in the Special Victims 
Unit, worked tirelessly with prosecutors to build the criminal case 
that led to Nassar's multiple convictions. Indeed, Michigan's Attorney 
General publicly praised the MSU Police Department for its efforts in 
bringing Nassar to justice.
    Shortly after the allegations about Nassar surfaced, we retained 
the law firms of Skadden Arps and Miller Canfield to facilitate MSU's 
cooperation with law enforcement and to provide advice and assistance 
in connection with anticipated litigation. MSU directed the firms that, 
if in the course of their representation, they found any evidence that 
anyone at MSU other than Nassar knew of his criminal behavior and did 
anything to conceal or facilitate it, then that evidence of criminal 
conduct should be reported immediately to the MSU administration, the 
Board of Trustees, and appropriate law enforcement. It is my 
understanding that no such conduct has been identified, and Skadden 
Arps wrote to the Michigan Attorney General last December, concluding 
that ``we believe the evidence will show that no MSU official believed 
that Nassar committed sexual abuse prior to newspaper reports in late 
summer 2016.''
    Following the discovery of Nassar's conduct, we also commissioned a 
comprehensive independent review of our Title IX program, undertaken by 
the respected law firm of Husch Blackwell. The firm concluded that 
MSU's ``policies and procedures are among the most comprehensive and 
robust we have seen.'' Husch Blackwell also found that ``MSU's policies 
and procedures comply with current legal requirements and agency 
guidance'' and ``also contained a number of leading-edge practices that 
other schools would do well to consider as models for their own 
programs.''
    Nassar's abuse of innocent survivors marks Michigan State's darkest 
hour. Although the school devoted its diligent efforts to improving and 
enhancing MSU's policies, procedures, training, staffing, and 
communications to protect our students and guard against sexual 
misconduct, Nassar continued to prey on survivors under the guise of 
medical treatments.
    In 25 years as either Provost or President of MSU, I welcomed to 
campus approximately 400,000 students, and each of them, and their 
families, had my commitment to creating a safe and healthy environment 
free of abuse. I deeply regret that Nassar was able to perpetuate some 
of his crimes on our campus.
    To the survivors of Nassar's abuse, I can never say enough that I 
am so sorry that a trusted, renowned physician turned out to be an evil 
predator, and I am sorry that we did not discover his crimes and remove 
him from our community sooner.
    Now, my hope is that we learn from these horrific events. In the 
end, the most important legacy of this terrible chapter will be how 
MSU, USA Gymnastics, and the Olympic community support the survivors 
and the steps we all take to guard against sexual abuse. Success will 
require not just new policies, programs, and leadership at schools, 
sports bodies, and other organizations, but also resolve by all members 
of these communities to emulate the courage of the survivors, to speak 
up, and to take responsibility when they see injustice.

    Senator Moran. Thank you, Doctor.
    I'll begin with questions. It'll be a five-minute round by 
members of the Committee, and I'm going to begin with you, Mr. 
Penny.
    You were the CEO of USA Gymnastics from April 5, 2005, 
until your resignation on March 16, 2017, is that correct?
    Mr. Penny. Yes.
    Senator Moran. Former gymnastics Dr. Larry Nassar was 
convicted of criminal sexual conduct with gymnasts, including 
members of the USA National Team.
    My understanding is that you were first informed about this 
abuse on June 17, 2015, is that correct?
    Mr. Penny. Mr. Chairman, with respect to you and your 
question and the Committee, I have been instructed by my 
attorney to assert my rights under the Fifth Amendment to the 
Constitution, which, according to the United States Supreme 
Court in Ohio vs. Reiner, protects innocent men who otherwise 
might be ensnared by ambiguous circumstances where truthful 
responses of an innocent witness may provide the Government 
with evidence from the speaker's own mouth with which it would 
somehow use against him.
    For that reason, and based upon the advice of my attorney, 
I must respectfully decline to answer your question.
    Senator Moran. Let me ask you this. After being informed 
about the abuse, you arranged for a private investigation. How 
did that private investigation come about? And then my 
understanding is that you waited 41 days to contact law 
enforcement, is that correct?
    Mr. Penny. Mr. Chairman, respectfully, I would like to 
answer your question. However, I've been instructed by my 
attorney to assert my rights under the Fifth Amendment to the 
Constitution and, based upon the advice of my attorney, I 
respectfully decline to answer your question.
    Senator Moran. Did you, Mr. Penny, on July 29, after Larry 
Nassar was relieved of his duties, ever contact Michigan State 
University or other employers of Larry Nassar to inform them of 
the allegations of abuse?
    Mr. Penny. Again, Mr. Chairman, I would like to answer your 
question. However, I've been instructed by my attorney to 
assert my rights under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution 
and, based upon the advice of my attorney, I respectfully 
decline to answer your question.
    Senator Moran. Let me turn to the Ranking Member, Senator 
Blumenthal. Questions?
    Senator Blumenthal. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Penny, I respect your right to invoke your Fifth 
Amendment privilege. You have that right, but you also have a 
responsibility.
    You were part of an organization that in effect prioritized 
medals and money over the young women and girls, some of them 
here today, who were sexually abused by Mr. Nassar, and, in 
fact, in the absence of your testimony, documents will speak 
for you.
    We have documents that indicated that as early as 2013, you 
had questions about Larry Nassar. In fact, in one of those 
memos that you wrote to Alan Ashley of the United States 
Olympic Committee, you said, ``If Larry Nassar is the 
gatekeeper, then we have a real issue.''
    What was the reason that you said that at that point?
    Mr. Penny. Senator, thank you for your question. I would 
like to answer it. However, I've been instructed by my attorney 
to assert my rights under the Fifth Amendment to the 
Constitution and, based upon the advice of my attorney, I 
respectfully decline to answer your question.
    Senator Blumenthal. Mr. Penny, another of those documents, 
dated July 9, 2014, from Ron Gallimore to Larry Nassar, refers 
to a ``code of silence'' and indicates that you knew about it.
    Would you explain to this Committee what part you had in 
either beginning or enforcing a code of silence that prevented 
young athletes from coming forward and complaining about abuse 
with fear of retaliation?
    Mr. Penny. Senator, once again, I would like to answer your 
question. However, I've been instructed by my attorney to 
assert my rights under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution 
which, according to the United States Supreme Court in Ohio v. 
Reiner, protects innocent men who otherwise might be ensnared 
by ambiguous circumstances where truthful responses of an 
innocent witness may provide the government with evidence from 
the speaker's own mouth, which it would somehow use against 
him. For that reason, and based upon the advice of my attorney, 
I must respectfully decline to answer your question.
    Senator Blumenthal. I have one final question for you. You 
were part of an organization, United States Gymnastics, that in 
effect gave Larry Nassar that badge of trust that he violated 
and a trust that USA Gymnastics violated.
    Don't you feel you have a responsibility to the athletes 
who are here today and to others around the country, more than 
260 of them, to be more forthcoming?
    Mr. Penny. Respectfully, Senator, I would like to answer 
your question. However, I've been instructed by my attorney to 
assert my rights under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution 
and, based upon the advice of my attorney, I respectfully 
decline to answer your question.
    Senator Blumenthal. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Moran. Mr. Penny, may I assume that it is your 
intent to invoke that privilege in further questioning?
    Mr. Penny. Yes.
    Senator Moran. Let the record reflect that you have availed 
yourself of the privileges afforded under the Fifth Amendment 
to the United States Constitution not to give testimony that 
might incriminate you. The invocation of that right should not 
and does not imply guilt.
    The Committee respects your constitutional rights to 
decline to answer questions on that ground, although we 
certainly would have liked to have been able to hear from you 
today.
    Mr. Penny, you are excused.
    Ms. Faehn, why did USAG not notify or disclose to Michigan 
State University, member clubs,----
    Audience Member. Shame.
    Senator Moran.--member clubs and parents that Nassar had 
been relieved of all of his duties and was under investigation 
for sexual abuse? By not notifying, Nassar continued to remain 
in contact with MSU and Twistars, which exposed women to abuse 
for an additional 14 months?
    Ms. Faehn. Thank you, Senator Moran. I do not know the 
answer to that. To speculate, I was always just told that I was 
not to discuss anything because it was under an active 
investigation and that anything, if I were to discuss it, could 
possibly impede the investigation.
    I was not aware of where else Larry Nassar worked. Again, I 
started at May 2015 and never have met him face to face. So I 
do not know. I cannot speculate as to what Mr. Penny did, only 
that I immediately reported every concern to him.
    Senator Moran. I certainly read your testimony and I heard 
what you said today.
    Is Mr. Penny the only person that you reported these 
allegations or facts to?
    Ms. Faehn. Do you mean----
    Senator Moran. Allegations of abuse. Is Mr. Penny the 
person, the only person that you reported it to?
    Ms. Faehn. Yes, he is my boss. He was my boss.
    Senator Moran. And did he convey to you any response 
different or more than what you have indicated in your 
testimony about what was to happen?
    Ms. Faehn. He would indicate that each time he was going to 
contact the parents of the athletes and the appropriate or the 
proper authorities.
    Senator Moran. And do you know whether that happened?
    Ms. Faehn. I do not know. It is challenging from what I 
read from the interviews after the fact, but I did not know 
that.
    Senator Moran. Did any communication come to you, other 
than through Mr. Penny, in regard to an FBI investigation?
    Ms. Faehn. No, I don't believe so. Where the FBI--I just--
when you said investigator or proper authorities or the 
appropriate authorities, I knew--I assumed it was some sort of 
law enforcement, but in my testimony, when I was asked to pick 
up an athlete and her mother from the airport because she was 
going to be meeting with the FBI the next day, that is where it 
kind of stayed with me.
    Senator Moran. So your knowledge of any investigation, who 
may have performed that investigation is secondhand from the 
conversation you had with a gymnast and her mother?
    Ms. Faehn. Correct. I was not aware, I did not know 
actually about the private investigation or even the name of 
the investigator until--well, November 2016.
    Senator Moran. Who was Mr. Penny's boss?
    Ms. Faehn. I believe that would be the Board of Directors.
    Senator Moran. And you had no communication with them?
    Ms. Faehn. No.
    Senator Moran. Do you have any understanding of why USA 
Gymnastics would have employed a non-disclosure agreement to 
silence gymnasts regarding the abuses by Dr. Nassar?
    Ms. Faehn. No, sir. In fact, I found out about that by 
reading it on the Internet, as well.
    Senator Moran. You stated, Ms. Faehn, in your testimony 
that you would like to be a part of the solution that prevents 
the tragic harm that has occurred. You were a high-level 
executive within USAG. It is fair to say that you played a 
substantial role in the ``culture'' that the athletes were 
subjected to during their athletic competitions, training, and 
related activities. Is that a fair statement?
    Ms. Faehn. No, sir, I don't believe that I would say that. 
What I was trying to do for the last two-three years that I was 
there was absolutely do everything possible to help all of the 
athletes in the very difficult times because I knew how 
challenging it is and how stressful it is and how much damage 
there could be and there has been along the way for a lot of 
athletes emotionally, physically, and I wanted every single 
athlete to feel that they were believed in, that they 
accomplished, you don't have to win. If you finish 21st at 
championships, I wanted them to know that they were a 
tremendous success.
    Senator Moran. Was your view different than--the 
allegations by many of the survivors is there was a culture 
that was damaging to them. Is that your view as to there was a 
culture that was damaging to them?
    Ms. Faehn. Absolutely, yes. There was different periods, I 
would absolutely say, throughout gymnastics that for each and 
every quad, every time period. I believe that there was very, 
very difficult situations, yes.
    Senator Moran. How would you respond to an assertion that 
you had a chance to keep these athletes safe and failed by 
allowing that culture to keep young athletes silent through 
their continued abuse?
    Ms. Faehn. Senator, I would say that the first thing that I 
did when I found out that an athlete was potentially 
uncomfortable was no one should ever feel uncomfortable, no 
matter what, and that that was going to be reported and 
everything that I did from that moment and after was to look 
after and to try and protect the athletes at every moment and I 
still continued to while we were without a president, without a 
national team coordinator.
    I refused to leave the athletes and would do anything to 
help them.
    Senator Moran. My final question at the moment is you are 
no longer employed by USA Gymnastics. Would your testimony be 
any different today if you were still an employee of USA 
Gymnastics?
    Ms. Faehn. No, sir, it would not.
    Senator Moran. Senator Blumenthal.
    Senator Blumenthal. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Ms. Faehn, your firing occurred just about two and a half 
weeks ago, May 17, 2018, after no warning, never a negative 
review by USA Gymnastics, correct?
    Ms. Faehn. That's correct.
    Senator Blumenthal. And is it your belief that USA 
Gymnastics, specifically Carrie Perry, were afraid that you 
would divulge information that could put that organization in a 
bad light?
    Ms. Faehn. I don't want to speculate on what her thought 
may have been or what was going through her mind. I can only 
speak to the timing of the events, that it was directly in the 
middle of an active national team training camp, our only one 
of the year.
    Senator Blumenthal. Well, let me put it this way. Given the 
timing,----
    Ms. Faehn. Yes.
    Senator Blumenthal.--is it plausible that your firing was 
part of an effort to impact your testimony, even to silence 
you?
    Ms. Faehn. I really don't know. I just--I don't know.
    Senator Blumenthal. Are you----
    Ms. Faehn. Sorry. I do know that they also just returned 
from mediation talks.
    Senator Blumenthal. Let me ask you a question that both 
Senator Nelson and I had. As he mentioned in his opening, much 
of the physical, emotional, and sexual abuse occurred over the 
years at the Karolyi Ranch.
    As a former executive of USA Gymnastics and someone who 
trained at the ranch, no doubt you are familiar with the 
environment and the practices there. Do you know about any 
alleged abuse of young athletes at the Karolyi Ranch?
    Ms. Faehn. Senator, I actually never did train there. It 
was a little bit different. When we were--we didn't have that 
system and so we didn't have national team camps when I was on 
the National Team there. It was just starting to be built at 
that time, but I am not aware of any abuse that had happened 
there.
    Senator Blumenthal. Are you aware of anyone in charge at 
the ranch who was responsible for protecting or advocating for 
the young women there?
    Ms. Faehn. That was before I started and I cannot speak for 
who was working prior to my working with USA Gymnastics.
    Senator Blumenthal. Going back to the first report you 
received, do you think what Sarah Gandy told you provided a 
reasonable suspicion that sexual abuse was occurring?
    Ms. Faehn. I believe that there was a concern. It was an 
uncomfortable medical treatment or therapy and that from what 
was described, that no one should ever feel uncomfortable. I've 
had every different kind of therapy for different injuries and 
I was absolutely not familiar with the type of medicine or the 
treatments or therapy that Larry Nassar was doing and I felt 
that it was certainly absolutely something that needed to be a 
concern that needed to be reported to Steve Penny.
    Senator Blumenthal. Thank you.
    Dr. Simon, are you aware of a meeting that occurred between 
the current President, Mr. Engler, and one of the athletes who 
met with him who was told, specifically Kaylee Lorincz, who is 
with us today in the audience, told by Mr. Engler, and I'm 
going to quote her, ``Mr. Engler then looked directly at me and 
asked right now if I wrote you a check for $250,000, would you 
take it? When I explained that it's not about the money for me 
and that I just want to help, he said, well, give me a 
number.''
    This meeting, and I'm asking you whether you're aware of 
it, indicated clearly that Mr. Engler was offering money for 
her potential silence. Are you aware of that meeting?
    Dr. Simon. Only through a newspaper account afterwards.
    Senator Blumenthal. Would you have made that kind of offer?
    Dr. Simon. I did not. We tried to sustain the mediation 
process, as was appropriate with the litigation, and I think we 
are greatly enhanced by the voices of the gymnasts and other 
survivors because it is important to hear and hear loudly what 
their experiences were.
    Senator Blumenthal. Well, let me ask it somewhat 
differently. You're the former President of Michigan State 
University. Would you have taken a meeting with a plaintiff 
involved in ongoing litigation as the President of Michigan 
State with Michigan State being the defendant, would you have 
taken a meeting with that young woman without her attorney 
present?
    Dr. Simon. Not to make an offer for any kind of settlement 
agreement.
    Senator Blumenthal. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Moran. Senator Blumenthal, thank you.
    Chairman of the Full Committee has joined us and we're 
honored by his presence.
    Senator Thune is recognized.

                 STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN THUNE, 
                 U.S. SENATOR FROM SOUTH DAKOTA

    Mr. Thune. Thank you, Chairman Moran and Senator 
Blumenthal, for holding this hearing and for your continued 
work to protect American athletes.
    These events have been a sad chapter for Olympic and 
amateur athletics but I hope that these hearings and recently 
enacted bipartisan legislation authorizing the U.S. Center for 
Safe Sports send a message to adults in positions of authority 
that nothing you ever do in athletics is as important as how 
you respond when an abused child asks for help.
    These and other reforms are only happening now because 
brave athletes stood up and called out wrong-doing to stop 
abuse and it is only once we understand fully what has happened 
in the past that we can work together to prevent similar 
incidents in the future.
    Ms. Simon, in your testimony, you discuss your role in 
pushing the MSU Board of Trustees to initiate a mediation 
process that eventually resulted in a settlement in principle, 
totaling $500 million, for survivors. The size of this 
compensation fund certainly grabbed headlines but it has since 
been reported that rather than this being a done deal, it's 
merely an agreement in principle with key details unresolved.
    For instance, there are questions about how MSU plans to 
pay for this settlement fund, whether the university will 
appoint an independent compensation fund administrator, how it 
will process and evaluate the eligibility to claims and payment 
amounts, and how it intends to handle claimants with pending 
lawsuits.
    Can you provide these additional details today or explain 
what steps remain before the agreement can be finalized?
    Dr. Simon. No, I am no longer involved.
    Mr. Thune. If you're no longer involved with these 
decisions, how then can you take credit for the settlement fund 
in your testimony?
    Dr. Simon. I had not intended to take credit. I said I 
initiated those discussions in November in good faith. I'm very 
pleased that it occurred. It was my not intent to take credit, 
simply stating a fact.
    Mr. Thune. Ms. Faehn, by the way, I'm glad you agreed to 
appear today as a witness because I believe that your 
perspective in the gymnastics operations throughout the Nassar 
scandal and its aftermath and your closeness to the athletes 
themselves makes your testimony especially valuable.
    This Committee has heard extensive testimony about how 
Larry Nassar's crimes have disrupted, perhaps permanently, the 
lives of the athletes that he betrayed.
    I'm curious to hear your thoughts on the impact of this 
scandal on the sport more broadly and including on athletes 
that never met Larry Nassar. How are young gymnasts processing 
all of this? What is the impact on training, on morale, on 
parent trust, on interest in the sport? Would you comment?
    Ms. Faehn. Thank you, Senator Thune. I would say I feel 
definitely that for the current athletes, the young athletes 
that have never known or experienced Larry Nassar, this is a 
very challenging time for them, wanting to live out their 
dreams and their goals and their opportunity, that is 
absolutely being challenged, and I cannot even begin to fathom 
what our incredible athletes that were victims of this 
disgusting crime are having to go through and live daily and 
feeling that it was someone that was trusted is incredibly 
difficult, I think, as well, for our younger athletes to want 
to support as much as possible the athletes that this did 
happen to.
    The morale is incredibly challenging. The athletes want 
to--the current athletes want to show, they want to compete on 
behalf of USA. They want to--they understand, as we all do, 
that their time in their window is very short, very small, and 
there's obvious great concern in that regard, and at the same 
time, the most important thing that the parents and the 
athletes need to understand, we want to help everyone 
understand that there has to be safety in place. There has to 
be significant changes. There has to be education and changes 
within the culture for this to move forward and to not brush it 
aside and say we have a new organization and we're moving 
forward.
    We have to learn and we have to listen and that's the only 
way that we will be able to get through this.
    Mr. Thune. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Moran. Thank you. Thank you, Senator Thune.
    Senator Klobuchar.

               STATEMENT OF HON. AMY KLOBUCHAR, 
                  U.S. SENATOR FROM MINNESOTA

    Senator Klobuchar. Thank you very much.
    Ms. Simon, in 2014, a patient made a complaint to Michigan 
State University regarding a visit with Dr. Nassar. It was 
referred to a university office, an investigation was 
conducted. The complaint was reported to Michigan State Police. 
It concluded no violation of the sexual harassment policy of 
the university.
    Given what we know now, this investigation could have 
potentially prevented a lot of abuse. Why do you think it did 
not uncover abuse and what could have been done differently?
    Dr. Simon. The case involved an adult individual with, as I 
understand it, not an allegation of penetration. It was 
referred by the MSU Police to the prosecuting attorney for 
which there was no charge, and as we've looked at that in 
hindsight, in 2016, there were clearly things that might have 
been warning signs but I think at the time, given the 
information that was available to the investigator, they did 
their best to deal with this fairly.
    Senator Klobuchar. In the response to a lawsuit filed in 
Michigan, USA Gymnastics argued they did not have a legal 
obligation to alert other employers about Dr. Nassar's abuse, 
including Michigan State University and others.
    Given other employers notice that these concerns had been 
raised about athlete safety could prevent abuse like hindsight 
could have been in this other case, do you believe employers 
have an obligation to report to others when concerns have been 
raised about the conduct of an employee?
    Dr. Simon. Yes, the policy's subsequently been changed to 
reinforce that.
    Senator Klobuchar. OK. Michigan State recently hired a 
former Federal prosecutor to assist with its internal 
investigation of athlete abuse. This review will be used to 
make policy recommendations for the university going forward 
but the report is being kept internal.
    Why is it being kept internal, and do you think it could be 
useful for other universities if it was made public?
    Dr. Simon. If I might just, with your permission, go back 
over something I said earlier, the Senator wasn't here, if 
that's OK with you?
    Senator Klobuchar. I just have one minute of time.
    Dr. Simon. That's fine. The law firms were hired in 
October-ish of 2016 to facilitate our interface with all of the 
police investigations. It was my fervent hope that we would be 
an agent for seeking justice through those systems which I 
think did happen with the great work of the Michigan Police.
    The second task was to look at the interface of litigation 
and then the third, more importantly, was to be an aggressive 
fact-finder in terms of what the university----
    Senator Klobuchar. I'm really limited on time and I----
    Dr. Simon.--did or did not know, and so we have--that 
report is one that is sent to the university and so the Board 
of Trustees engaged the Michigan Attorney General subsequently 
to have another independent----
    Senator Klobuchar. OK. But why does it have to be internal? 
Why can't it be released publicly?
    Dr. Simon. That would be up to the Board. There is 
literally no written report. There have been reports given to 
the Board of Trustees and that is their decision now.
    Senator Klobuchar. OK. That's good. Maybe we'll follow up 
on the record.
    Ms. Faehn, many athletes and sports professionals involved 
in gymnastics have expressed concern about the limited access 
for parents, and are there specific circumstances or settings 
where you believe parents should be involved, and what role 
could chaperones play in promoting athlete safety?
    Ms. Faehn. Thank you. This is an area that I feel very 
strongly about. When I was a coach at the University of 
Florida, we had a very close network and group with our 
parents, with communication and tremendous involvement, and 
that was----
    Senator Klobuchar. Could you answer if you think the 
parents--I don't want to hear your whole story. Is there things 
that we could do going forward that could----
    Ms. Faehn. Yes.
    Senator Klobuchar.--be helpful?
    Ms. Faehn. Yes.
    Senator Klobuchar. Because whatever was happening wasn't 
working.
    Ms. Faehn. Yes. Sorry. Thank you. Absolutely. I was asking 
that chaperones, the parents for this World Cup that we had 
athletes competing overseas this spring, we did pay to have the 
parents of those athletes chaperone and get credentialed for 
those competitions as well as at the verification camps, we did 
pay for all of the parents and----
    Senator Klobuchar. Is this something that could be done 
more going forward is to have parents----
    Ms. Faehn. Absolutely.
    Senator Klobuchar. OK. And then just my last thing is 
clarifying reporting requirements. I joined with Senators 
Feinstein, Grassley, and others on this bill. Do you think that 
could help prevent delays in initiating formal investigations 
of abuse?
    Ms. Faehn. Absolutely.
    Senator Klobuchar. OK. Thank you very much.
    Ms. Faehn. Thank you.
    Senator Moran. Thank you.
    The Senator from Indiana, Senator Young.

                 STATEMENT OF HON. TODD YOUNG, 
                   U.S. SENATOR FROM INDIANA

    Senator Young. Thank you, Chairman. I appreciate you 
holding this hearing today.
    The crimes Larry Nassar committed are sickening. For him to 
have acted with impunity for as long as he did tells me we 
still have much work to do to ensure future athletes are able 
to train in a safe environment.
    While Congress has made some strides recently with the 
authorization of the U.S. Center for Safe Sports and new 
protections for amateur athletes to report abuse if it occurs, 
we still need to better understand how people within these 
organizations failed to protect young athletes.
    So I'm thankful that this Committee is continuing its 
oversight of these organizations here today.
    Ms. Faehn, I'd like to focus on the medical treatment of 
athletes and, in particular, on the retention of medical 
records related to the treatment of athletes.
    When it came to Larry Nassar treating elite gymnasts, did 
athletes have the option to use their own physician or were 
they required to use Larry Nassar?
    Ms. Faehn. I'm sorry, Senator, but I don't know the answer 
to that because that was prior to my working with USA 
Gymnastics. I don't have any knowledge of how the medical 
records were done or what the policy was regarding that prior 
to my starting.
    Senator Young. What about today, are athletes required to 
use a team physician or can they decide to utilize their own 
physician?
    Ms. Faehn. They can utilize their own physician and most of 
them do at their home gym in their hometown and when we travel 
overseas representing USA, it's a combination that has to be 
credentialed by the USOC if it's an Olympic Games or a 
PanAmerican Games or by the International Federation.
    Senator Young. OK. What information is typically contained 
in medical records for an elite athlete of the type you work 
with?
    Ms. Faehn. There would be their consent to treat form and, 
as well, our doctor, our team doctor and trainer would document 
and do an assessment if there's an injury that occurs as well 
as speak with their doctor or their physical therapist at their 
hometown to discuss helping them recover from an injury.
    Senator Young. And is documentation generated each time the 
athlete interacts with a physician?
    Ms. Faehn. Yes, I believe so. It's put into a system 
through their computer system, yes.
    Senator Young. As you know, Olympic gymnasts have alleged 
that USA Gymnastics perpetrated the destruction of medical 
records to conceal the conduct of Larry Nassar.
    Are you aware of any efforts by any individuals within USA 
Gymnastics or individuals directed by USA Gymnastics to either 
destroy or move medical records in an attempt to conceal them 
from patient athletes or law enforcement?
    Ms. Faehn. I am not aware of any concealment or destroying 
of records. I am aware of someone being asked to bring medical 
records back from the training center to Indianapolis.
    Senator Young. Who was asked to do that? Who's the someone 
to whom you refer?
    Ms. Faehn. Someone within USA Gymnastics.
    Senator Young. You don't recall who that someone is? Can 
you give me the name?
    Ms. Faehn. Of the individual?
    Senator Young. Yes, of the individual.
    Ms. Faehn. Her name is Amy White, and she was, I believe, 
was asked to bring back medical records.
    Senator Young. Have you heard any rumors, substantiated or 
not, that efforts to destroy or move records may have taken 
place, and I'm saying----
    Ms. Faehn. No, I have not.
    Senator Young. OK. Thank you. Are you aware of medical 
records of patient athletes existing at the Karolyi Ranch 
during your tenure? Are you aware of medical records of these 
patient athletes?
    Ms. Faehn. No, I'm not aware. Again, when there is a 
consent to treat form and a waiver that every athlete that 
trains at the training center is--their parents and they're 
required to sign this and that would be what the record would 
be there.
    Senator Young. And were you ever involved in the 
destruction of any medical records or did you ever instruct 
anyone to destroy or move medical records?
    Ms. Faehn. No, sir.
    Senator Young. OK. Last, Ms. Faehn, are you aware that 
Indiana law requires anyone who has reason to believe a child 
has been abused or neglected to immediately report it to police 
or the Indiana Department of Child Services?
    Ms. Faehn. I'm sorry. It is my belief that under the 
Indiana law, it is my duty to report to my superior.
    Senator Young. As opposed to directly report it to the 
police or Indiana Department of Child Services?
    Ms. Faehn. Yes, as I believe that I----
    Senator Young. Or in addition to reporting it to the police 
and Department of----
    Ms. Faehn. I was under the belief that my superior was 
reporting it to the authorities. Indiana Code 31.33.51, Duty to 
Report, ``Individuals shall immediately notify the individual 
in charge of the institution, the school, facility, or agency, 
or the designated agent of the individual in charge of the 
institution. An individual notified under Subsection (a) shall 
report or cause a report to be made.''
    Senator Young. Thank you. I'll go back and review the 
statute. I'm sure the attorneys will be discussing this and may 
inquire. I appreciate your testimony.
    Senator Moran. The Senator from Michigan, Senator Peters.

                STATEMENT OF HON. GARY PETERS, 
                   U.S. SENATOR FROM MICHIGAN

    Senator Peters. Thank you, Chairman Moran and Ranking 
Member Blumenthal, for putting together this hearing.
    This is indeed a very important hearing and we have to get 
to the root of what was clearly some catastrophic 
organizational failures.
    In April, when former athletes testified before this 
subcommittee, I asked them what questions would they like me to 
ask of the panelists that would be here today and Jordyn 
Wieber, who's a former Olympic gymnast and a Michigander, she 
responded both very emotionally and very powerfully, and I 
quote, she said, ``Why still is the reputation of the 
university and money more important than the lives of hundreds 
of girls and women who are abused?''
    I can say unequivocally that the lives of survivors of 
sexual assault are of the utmost importance and I am certainly 
appalled by what happened, like every American, and we're also 
appalled by how the complaints were handled once they were made 
as well as the inexcusable delay in some of those responses.
    We must certainly take every possible measure to ensure 
that a predator like Larry Nassar is never ever in a position 
to exploit and abuse children and young women again.
    Dr. Simon, as a Michigan State alum and I think I speak for 
all MSU alum and every Michigander and I know every American 
who are deeply troubled and outraged by what we now know 
occurred on campus, perpetrated by a campus employee who was 
entrusted with safety of students, his actions may have also 
been covered up by other employees.
    Although the university has agreed to pay a $500 million 
settlement, this issue, as you know, is far from settled. The 
trauma experienced by the survivors will have lasting effects 
that will last a lifetime and the stain on a great university 
will be there for decades to come.
    This settlement grew directly out of a culture that may 
have enabled a predator. To put it simply, Larry Nassar likely 
didn't get away with his abhorrent behavior for years simply on 
his own. The chain of events over the years may demonstrate a 
culture of complacency at the university.
    So, Dr. Simon, let me first ask you a couple of questions 
about Larry Nassar's supervisor. In 2004, you were Provost and 
received a memo detailing the improper behavior of William 
Strampel, who was the Dean of the Medical School and Larry 
Nassar's supervisor. The memo cited 20 student complaints, is 
that correct? Do you recall that?
    Dr. Simon. The memo was given to me the last day I was 
Provost. I recall the memo. It was regarding his meeting with 
telemarketers in which he made what I considered, what they 
considered inappropriate comments. One of them was ``the reason 
I wanted to help was I live 50 miles away from sin.'' The 
second one in the memo was, ``I may be the only straight person 
in Saugatuck,'' and that precipitated an investigation by the 
new Provost, John Hudson, and in consultation with Legal 
Affairs.
    Senator Peters. In 2010 and again in 2015, additional red 
flags were raised formally about Strampel's behavior during his 
performance reviews with two other Provosts. Strampel is 
apparently, which came out during these flags, an individual 
known for lewdly complimenting female students' anatomy as they 
walk through the halls of campus, among other things, is that 
correct?
    Dr. Simon. Senator, the Provost does those reviews. I 
personally did not see the survey results on which you're 
focusing. The process is that those get reviewed with Title IX 
and with the Legal Affairs if there are issues that are placed 
in an anonymous fashion, and so I cannot speak to acknowledging 
the specifics. I heard some additional comments made by 
students that have been post-Dean Strampel's removal as Dean 
and those are allegations that are being investigated.
    Senator Peters. Dr. Simon, it's my understanding that in 
July 2012, you were on the NCA Board of College Presidents and 
voted in favor of sanctioning Penn State, is that correct?
    Dr. Simon. Technically, I abstained as a Big 10 member.
    Senator Peters. You abstained? The horrific events at Penn 
State certainly was a wake-up call for many people and 
certainly universities across the country and I know in August 
2012, it's my understanding you sent an e-mail to MSU faculty 
and staff reminding them of their responsibility to report 
sexual abuse and assault.
    Dr. Simon. I did.
    Senator Peters. The following month, in September of 2012, 
you became the Chair of the NCA Executive Committee in the wake 
of the implementation of the Penn State sanctions, and as 
Chair, you said your goal was to ``build trust and put 
confidence back in the system,'' and then you went on to say, 
and I quote, ``The purpose is to try to incentivize people 
doing the right thing and the right thing is saying something 
when you see something and doing something after you said 
something. It's really that simple'' was the end of the quote.
    Did you mean so simple that you can send an e-mail as the 
extent of what you need to do in order to deal with the 
situation?
    Dr. Simon. No. I think that we're talking about a set of 
issues. If you think about the current situation in which the 
people nearest at hand who see things need to be empowered to 
say them at the moment in order for us to have the transparency 
and the energy for things that are not just a Penn State issue 
or a Michigan State issue but a societal issue and we have yet 
to achieve that. So it's not that simple in the sense of simple 
to do but it is a simple message that we can try to communicate 
to really make a difference in people's lives if we can make 
sure that people feel safe in doing that.
    There has been some progress in that regard. There's been 
some other things that have not succeeded in bringing that kind 
of energy to the system.
    Senator Peters. In 2014, you were informed of the Title IX 
investigation involving Larry Nassar and responding to 
reporters, it has been reported that you failed to read that 
report, is that correct?
    Dr. Simon. That would be an incorrect interpretation of 
what I believe is the case. I received an e-mail from the Title 
IX officer saying that there was an individual in sports 
medicine being reviewed. My comment was play it with a straight 
bat. It was done in the system appropriately in terms of the 
system.
    I do not normally see any Title IX report, particularly one 
with no finding. They're sent to the responsible Administrator, 
and in this case also to the Office of the Provost.
    Senator Peters. You said you didn't see one. Did you ask 
for the report?
    Dr. Simon. I didn't ask for the report because it was 
simply I don't know why she gave me that notice. In hindsight, 
I meet with the Title IX--I met as Provost with the Title IX 
person periodically. We went through hot button issues, any 
issues of complaints that were problematic to her, but I did 
not read that complaint and did not see it until 2016.
    Senator Peters. Well, that's good.
    Dr. Simon. It was a no finding.
    Senator Peters. I think I've run out of time. I will have 
more questions if we have a second round, but thank you.
    Senator Moran. Thank you, Senator.
    Senator Hassan.

               STATEMENT OF HON. MAGGIE HASSAN, 
                U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW HAMPSHIRE

    Senator Hassan. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, 
Senator Blumenthal. Thank you to our witnesses.
    I share my colleagues, and I think all Americans, 
extraordinary distress and outrage at the lack of integrity and 
proper oversight by the U.S. Olympic Committee and by Michigan 
State University.
    I want to give you both the opportunity, though, to help us 
think through how we can prevent this kind of situation from 
happening again because as long as there are very powerful 
adult interests at play, unless we set up systems to empower 
and protect children-athletes, we are going to see this play 
out again and again.
    When some of the athletes were here in April, Bridie 
Farrell from U.S. Speed Skating, when I asked the panel of 
athletes ``what do we need to do to change our culture so that 
this doesn't continue to happen,'' Bridie said, ``The idea that 
we are so brave to be here, it solidifies what the problem is. 
That shows how hard it is, and then you're expecting a kid to 
come forward and say things that they do not know the words 
that exist for. It's a cultural issue, the idea that people are 
finally speaking up. Honestly, that's not true. We've been 
yelling and nobody has been listening and that is not just true 
in these particular situations. It's true in other 
situations.''
    So I have about three minutes left in my questioning. I'm 
going to ask each of you to take a little over a minute to help 
us think this through.
    What changes do we need to make to the current system to 
ensure that young people and their families are educated, that 
transparency and reporting is encouraged, that victims are 
believed, and that this never happens again?
    Ms. Faehn, why don't we start with you, and then Dr. Simon?
    Ms. Faehn. Thank you. Absolutely with the Center for Safe 
Sports, that alone is a tremendous asset, a tremendous help 
that parents or anyone or athletes can anonymously report 
without fear of retribution or concern, but deeper, I believe, 
as well, the level of education, it has to start with the 
education about the leaders as well as the education within the 
community of gymnastics, about the grooming techniques, about 
the different types of sexual misconduct, the different types 
of abuse that is not sexual, that there is no abuse tolerated.
    The more that this is discussed from a much younger age and 
incorporated with transparency with parents and gym and club 
owners and the entire community and as well as the world, the 
more comfortable the athletes will feel knowing that there is a 
support system to be able to--and there are people there that 
will protect them as well as the National--I believe the 
National Training Center is another area that was of great 
concern and that I was researching to find a place that was the 
model of what I felt was security and safety for minor 
athletes.
    Senator Hassan. Thank you. Dr. Simon?
    Dr. Simon. With respect to medical procedures,----
    Senator Hassan. Could you use your microphone, please?
    Dr. Simon. With respect to medical procedures, we're trying 
to make sure that for sensitive procedures, that there's a 
clear explanation about what people should expect to happen and 
have that be a formal part of the record because if that 
expectation is not often said, we're just doing a procedure, 
and so that is a very important part.
    Second piece is how we reach more broadly the community. 
We've been working with one of our alums in East Lansing who 
has been an advocate for child sexual abuse prevention programs 
and building on her zero tolerance community-based approach 
because we can't make it regulatory. We've got to be able to 
educate people in ways that help them understand and for 
children to be able to say things that are important to us and 
we listen and listening is important.
    The third piece, I think, is to lower the barrier for when 
I react with my gut as opposed to all the regulations and all 
the policy and the thing that I worry about the most because 
I've been part of doing bureaucracies and regulations and every 
time we change something, we put in more procedures.
    But it's very hard, if I feel like something's not right, 
for me to say it without evidence.
    Senator Hassan. Yes.
    Dr. Simon. I mean that's the unintended consequence of our 
system and we've got to find a way to lower that barrier so 
more people can be wrong when they report as opposed to having 
to be so right when they report.
    Senator Hassan. So as I heard somebody say recently, we 
have to start caring about children's safety as much as, if not 
more than, we care about adults' reputations.
    Ms. Faehn. Here here.
    Dr. Simon. I agree with that, but also we have to be able 
to change the error bar on this and with all the media and 
everything that happens, we tend to raise that bar----
    Senator Hassan. Yes.
    Dr. Simon.--and not lower it and that's one of my great 
concerns in my reflections.
    Senator Hassan. Thank you very much. I will just say for 
the record, Mr. Chair, I wish Mr. Penny were still here, even 
if he wasn't going to answer our questions. I would like him to 
be hearing some of this.
    Thank you.
    Senator Moran. Senator, thank you.
    Senator Cortez Masto.

           STATEMENT OF HON. CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO, 
                    U.S. SENATOR FROM NEVADA

    Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you 
for rescheduling this important hearing.
    It's clear there were systemic failures of an institutional 
culture that let our national/amateur sports programs become a 
hunting ground for predators, facilitating the appalling abuse 
of hundreds of children and young athletes.
    It is absolutely critical that this body and the American 
public has the opportunity to hold to account the people 
responsible for these egregious failures. It is equally 
important that we do not lose sight of our obligation to demand 
and implement reforms that will make real change, and it is 
clear that the witnesses before us today, rightfully, are no 
longer in a position to institute these needed reforms.
    Mr. Chairman, I respectfully request that this subcommittee 
hold additional hearings with the new leadership of the U.S. 
Olympic Committee, USA Gymnastics, and other national governing 
bodies to provide continued congressional oversight to ensure 
that these institutions are fulfilling their legal, their moral 
and ethical obligations to athletes, their families, and the 
American public.
    Senator Moran. Senator, that is absolutely our intention 
for a hearing in the near future.
    Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you. I appreciate that, Mr. 
Chairman.
    Last month, we heard from several former Olympic athletes, 
and I was struck by how many of them said that they felt that 
there was no one at USA Gymnastics to whom they could safely 
disclose the abuse they were suffering without fear of 
retaliation. In fact, Ms. Raisman and Ms. Dantzscher even noted 
that the so-called athlete representative was a member of the 
team that decided which gymnasts would compete in league 
competitions.
    So, Ms. Faehn, in your opinion, was there anyone in USA 
Gymnastics whose sole responsibility was to monitor the health, 
safety, and well-being of gymnasts?
    Ms. Faehn. Thank you, Senator. In regard to the athletes' 
well-being, safety, I feel that it was absolutely everyone's 
duty, my responsibility, the athlete representative's 
responsibility, each and every individual coach. It's 
everyone's responsibility.
    In terms of the--absolutely there's a definite conflict. 
That was something that Deborah Daniels, in her review, noted, 
that that is certainly a conflict with the athlete 
representative also serving on the selection of teams and that 
was something, after Deborah Daniels review did come out, we 
immediately changed that and brought on a second athlete 
representative that is solely there for the athletes' needs and 
the care and the communication.
    Senator Cortez Masto. Do you think that in reform that we 
should be looking at athlete advocates that are specifically 
there independent of any oversight of USOC or NGBs or anyone 
else and they're looking out for the specific goodwill--excuse 
me--the health and safety of the athletes themselves?
    Ms. Faehn. Yes, I absolutely.
    Senator Cortez Masto. And do you think that would have 
benefited in the past and we would have been able to protect 
these children much earlier, much sooner?
    Ms. Faehn. Yes, I do.
    Senator Cortez Masto. And so that was lacking. So let me 
just say this. I also have concerns that not only did the USOC, 
the governing boards, and everyone else there failed these 
kids. I've heard use and I've had conversations in the past 
with them and heard the hearings but there was a lack of 
opportunity for them to even come forward to talk to anyone 
that they felt safe and one of the concerns that I have is the 
financial incentives, the structure that's set up with USOC and 
some of the governing boards.
    So, Ms. Faehn, can I ask you this? Were you eligible to 
receive bonuses as part of your compensation during your 
respective tenure within the USA Gymnastics?
    Ms. Faehn. Not on the athlete performance, no.
    Senator Cortez Masto. So, yes, you were eligible for 
bonuses?
    Ms. Faehn. Yes.
    Senator Cortez Masto. And what was that based on?
    Ms. Faehn. It was based on the yearly review.
    Senator Cortez Masto. Your performance alone?
    Ms. Faehn. Yes.
    Senator Cortez Masto. Was it based on an athlete obtaining 
medals or----
    Ms. Faehn. No.
    Senator Cortez Masto.--succeeding in any manner whatsoever?
    Ms. Faehn. No.
    Senator Cortez Masto. Was there anybody within USA 
Gymnastics that had a bonus compensation package that was based 
on the success of an athlete?
    Ms. Faehn. They were privately contracted, yes.
    Senator Cortez Masto. So, yes, there were some that had 
bonuses based on the success of an athlete?
    Ms. Faehn. Not on the athlete but based on the success of 
the USA team.
    Senator Cortez Masto. And when you say success, what does 
that mean? A gold medal, silver medal, bronze medal? What does 
that mean?
    Ms. Faehn. Yes.
    Senator Cortez Masto. So the bonus incentive was, in 
essence, if the USA team succeeded in getting a medal, then 
those around certain individuals would get a bonus?
    Ms. Faehn. So, yes, for example, if USA Gymnastics--and it 
was also for the coaches of the individual athletes, there was 
a bonus structure, I believe. I'm sorry, but I do not do the 
financials. If there was--and the athletes also received the 
financial regarding--there's just a--it's called bonus 
structure.
    Senator Cortez Masto. OK. And that's what I am trying to 
get to the bottom of. If anybody received any financial 
compensation, based on the success of an athlete, really that 
would somehow inhibit their ability to look out for the best 
interests of the athlete, and so what I'm hearing you say today 
is that there's potential that some compensation was based on 
just that, that an athlete's success, somebody would obtain 
financial compensation, if you know. I don't want to--if you 
know.
    Ms. Faehn. I would rather at least do some research and 
respond to you in writing.
    Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you. You talked about reforms. 
Any additional reforms that you can suggest to this Committee, 
because I think the focus really now is to change that culture. 
It is not just about education, it is about changing the 
culture to protect these young athletes for the future, so 
that, God forbid, we never ever see this type of systemic 
failure where we are actually a breeding ground for predators 
that are grooming not only these young athletes but taking 
advantage of them and financially exploiting them, as well.
    So let me ask you do you have any thoughts on additional 
reforms that we can take?
    Ms. Faehn. I felt immediately, even before anything was in 
any sort of written policy, to quickly make as many changes as 
possible to help the safety of the athletes. When we traveled 
internationally for the Pakdam Championships in Colombia, this 
is the first time we had a team, a chaperone there, and 
incorporated the parents in a Whatsapp messaging system that 
were a part of every step of the way, as well as eliminating 
any one-on-one situations with the transportation policy from 
when the athletes landed at the airport to attending a training 
camp, as well as instituting as many recommendations as quickly 
as possible from the Deborah Daniels report.
    It was something when we traveled internationally to have 
what was called an athlete recovery center that had massage 
tables, something out in the open, making all of those changes. 
That was the Number One goal I was hoping for for a new 
training facility that was the best or top-notch in terms of 
safety, medical, as well as security and nutrition and athlete 
development. It was phenomenal, and I think that's the very 
least that all of these athletes deserve.
    Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you. I notice my time is up. 
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Senator Moran. Thank you, Senator.
    We will have another round of questions, and let me start 
with you, Ms. Simon.
    The 2014 Title IX investigation at MSU, my understanding is 
that the adjudication of that case was that there was no 
finding of abuse. Microphone, please.
    Dr. Simon. I apologize. That is my understanding, as well.
    Senator Moran. And was that the nature of the investigation 
was about sexual abuse?
    Dr. Simon. It was about a medical procedure conducted by 
Dr. Nassar that the person believed was invasive and abusive.
    Senator Moran. And what was the explanation for the finding 
of no abuse?
    Dr. Simon. There were medical experts who looked at the 
procedure, which was not defined at that time as penetration, 
but a different legitimate--what they viewed to be a legitimate 
medical procedure, that the experts believed that it fit the 
condition being presented and that was the basis, as I 
understand it, after reviewing the report in 2016 for the 
judgment.
    Senator Moran. And the investigation would be conducted by 
an MSU investigator, an employee?
    Dr. Simon. It was done by the then I3/Title IX Office as 
any other complaint would have been under Title IX.
    Senator Moran. And just for the record, I want to make sure 
what I think you're telling me is----
    Dr. Simon. I'm sorry.
    Senator Moran.--that person is an employee----
    Dr. Simon. Right.
    Senator Moran.--of the university?
    Dr. Simon. Under the procedures, we have responsibility to 
investigate reports that come to us. That individual is an 
employee of Michigan State under an office designed to 
investigate complaints at that point and they conducted that 
investigation.
    Senator Moran. My records indicate a date of July 1, 2014, 
that investigation--I don't know whether it began or ended. How 
long--when did the investigation begin and when did it end? How 
long did it take?
    Dr. Simon. I believe, but I'm going to apologize for not 
having that information in front of me, I believe it began 
sometime late April-May and concluded in that period.
    Senator Moran. Concluded then in July?
    Dr. Simon. That's my understanding but I may be off in my 
dates.
    Senator Moran. Is the next time that MSU had a complaint 
filed in regard to Dr. Nassar was when the complaint was filed 
by Rachel Denhollander with the MSU Police?
    Dr. Simon. That is my understanding.
    Senator Moran. And did you say that investigation's still 
continuing? That one was resolved?
    Dr. Simon. Let me try to be clear. That complaint came in, 
I believe, near the end of August----
    Senator Moran. August 29, 2016, is what I think.
    Dr. Simon.--to the police. Dr. Nassar was then interviewed 
and within 2 days, he was suspended by then Dean Strampel and 
we began to unravel what we knew about that situation in 
October. So that investigation then was turned over because 
more complainants came forward, which was, from my perspective, 
terrific if that abuse occurred, and those were investigated by 
the MSU Police under the auspices of the Attorney General of 
the State of Michigan, coordinated because they became a staff 
at the Attorney General.
    In addition, we learned of the FBI investigation and 
cooperated fully with that, with the U.S. Attorney. So we had 
an ongoing investigation through MSU Police and the Michigan 
Attorney General and an ongoing criminal investigation through 
the U.S. Attorney and the FBI.
    If I recall correctly, my dates may be off by a bit, he was 
eventually charged awhile later, and the criminal proceedings 
concluded for the sentencing for Dr. Nassar in January 2018 and 
the sentencing for the U.S. Attorney pornography charge was 
sometime in----
    Senator Moran. You've led me where I wanted to go, which 
is, have you or anyone you know been interviewed in this case 
involving Dr. Nassar by the FBI?
    Dr. Simon. I was not interviewed by the FBI, and I 
understand that there are MSU individuals who were interviewed.
    Senator Moran. Can you tell me who they are,----
    Dr. Simon. I am not----
    Senator Moran.--what positions they occupied?
    Dr. Simon. I think they were--I do not personally have that 
list of names. I'm sure we could get that for you because I 
believe the FBI report was publicly available.
    Senator Moran. I welcome that assistance.
    Dr. Simon. OK. So I'm not in the position to do that but 
we'll hope that that can be provided through the university.
    Senator Moran. You, Ms. Faehn, were you or anyone you know 
interviewed by the FBI?
    Ms. Faehn. I was not interviewed by the FBI, and the only 
information that I have was that I was supposed to pick up an 
athlete to speak with the FBI the next day, of which that was 
canceled for what reason I don't know.
    Senator Moran. Anyone you know at USA Gymnastics, other 
than this one individual gymnast that the interview never 
occurred, at least to your knowledge never occurred? Anyone at 
USA Gymnastics that you know of that was interviewed by the 
FBI?
    Ms. Faehn. No, sir.
    Senator Moran. Do you know the name Fran Sepler?
    Ms. Faehn. I do now but I did not, no.
    Senator Moran. Do you know--then you would not know why she 
was hired----
    Ms. Faehn. No, sir.
    Senator Moran.--or who hired her?
    Ms. Faehn. No, I do not know.
    Senator Moran. Let me continue a moment longer or a few 
moments longer with you, Dr. Simon.
    According to a report generated by the Michigan House of 
Representatives on April 5, 2018, Michigan State provided two 
materially different versions of its Title IX report to the 
individual who filed the Title IX report complaint and Dr. 
Nassar.
    So according to the House of Representatives, your state's 
House of Representatives examination and their report, they 
indicate that on the conclusion of that investigation by your 
Title IX examiner, two different documents were provided, one 
to the person making the allegation and a different report to 
Dr. Nassar. Do you know that?
    Dr. Simon. I learned that in 2016.
    Senator Moran. And do you know why?
    Dr. Simon. The effort was to include in the report to the 
responsible administrator ways in which their processes and 
procedures could be improved even though the decision that was 
made was no finding.
    Senator Moran. Let me ask unanimous consent that the 
Michigan House of Representatives Report be included in the 
record. Without objection, it is entered.
    [The information referred to follows:]

                          Michigan House of Representatives
                                   Lansing, Michigan, April 5, 2018
Speaker Tom Leonard,
Michigan House of Representatives,
Lansing, MI.

Speaker Leonard,

    In January, you asked our committees to launch inquiries concerning 
Michigan State University's handling of the Larry Nassar case and to 
identify policy and budget solutions to prevent such a tragedy from 
happening again. We would first like to thank you for your leadership 
on this issue, for entrusting us with these important tasks, and for 
your support.
    Since January, we have worked with the members of the Law and 
Justice Committee and the Appropriations Subcommittee on Higher 
Education--Republican and Democrat--as well as policy advisors and 
counsel, to find out what happened at MSU, and to make informed policy 
and budget recommendations. We have requested, received, and reviewed 
thousands of pages of documents from MSU, as well as written answers to 
approximately 50 detailed questions posed by committee members. A copy 
of those questions and answers is attached to this letter.
    In addition, we have met with numerous survivors of Larry Nassar 
and listened to their stories. The courage shown by the survivors in 
telling what happened to them and advocating for change has been 
inspirational, and their input has been instrumental in this process.
    Members of the MSU community also reached out to share their 
perspective on the systemic failures which may have helped facilitate 
incidents of sexual misconduct. Their statements were enlightening, and 
they have shed light on institutional defects which clearly warrant 
change.
    Our inquiries led to numerous findings, some of which were alarming 
enough to convey to law enforcement for further investigation. While 
ongoing criminal and civil investigations promise a more detailed 
public account of MSU's handling of the Nassar case, a summary of the 
key findings we can disclose is as follows:

   From 2014 to the present, at least 243 survivors reported 
        abuse by Larry Nassar to the MSU Police Department. Most of the 
        survivors were minors at the time of the abuse. And while many 
        survivors were gymnasts, others were not. In addition, since 
        Rachael Denhollander's Title IX complaint in 2016, MSU has 
        received 91 other Title IX complaints against Nassar.

   Nassar seems to have spent decades developing his ability to 
        abuse patients without detection by identifying and exploiting 
        loopholes in the policies that governed his professional 
        conduct and patient relationships. This was exacerbated by what 
        appears to have been an increasing self-awareness of his 
        distinguished reputation and the great trust placed in him by 
        patients and the community. To illustrate:

     Medical records were never kept for many of Nassar's 
            ``treatments,'' and numerous records that were kept lacked 
            any reference to the sensitive nature of the ``treatments'' 
            (e.g., intravaginal). We are not aware of any specific MSU 
            policy then in place which prohibited such conduct.

                    Nassar attempted to use this to his 
                advantage in the 2016 Title IX investigation against 
                him in which the complainant asserted Nassar's 
                treatment included vaginal and rectal penetration. 
                While he first told investigators he did not recall 
                treating her, after reviewing her medical records to 
                refresh his recollection, he confidently argued that 
                there was no penetration (apparently because there was 
                no reference to such).

     MSU did not have an adequate informed consent policy 
            in place for much of the period examined, which Nassar 
            methodically exploited.

                    When Nassar starting performing his 
                treatments in the 1990s, it appears he took careful 
                steps so they would be perceived as medically 
                appropriate, such as by explaining the procedure to the 
                patient with a pelvic model demonstration and providing 
                informational materials prior to treatment. The 
                evidence reviewed demonstrates that his conduct shifted 
                over time as he became more aware of what he could get 
                away with. By the late 1990s and early 2000s, it 
                appears he occasionally would only mention that he was 
                going to adjust the pelvic bone, for example, without 
                fully explaining the procedure. By 2014, he seems to 
                have felt confident enough to abuse his patients 
                without any prior notice or explanation whatsoever of 
                the purported medical treatment. By 2016, he was self-
                assured enough to readily admit to investigators that 
                he ``does not get written consent from the patient 
                before treatment'' and even testified that ``unless the 
                patient stops him, he is assuming the patient 
                understands.''

     MSU's policies did not require a chaperone or other 
            person to be present in the exam room during sensitive 
            examinations or treatments of minors for much of the period 
            examined, which Nassar took full advantage of on multiple 
            occasions.

   In some cases, MSU had destroyed the survivors' medical 
        records by the time the survivors reported Nassar to the MSU 
        Police. While the evidence reviewed demonstrates that such 
        records may have proven useful to at least one of the survivors 
        seeking justice against Nassar, MSU's destruction of the 
        records appears to have been in compliance with both state law 
        (requiring retention for seven years) and MSU's record 
        retention policy (requiring retention for ten years).

   Nassar did not solicit or receive payments from patients or 
        their insurers for many of the ``treatments'' he performed, 
        including those at his home and at Twistars, which should have 
        raised questions about his motives to investigators much 
        earlier than it did.

   MSU failed to properly investigate Nassar in response to the 
        Title IX complaint filed by Amanda Thomashow in 2014. By doing 
        so, it may have enabled the abuse of others which otherwise 
        might have been prevented.\1\ Its failings include the 
        following:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ We feel compelled to note MSU appears to defiantly and 
wrongfully maintain it did not mishandle this investigation. For 
example, MSU defends the conclusion of the 2014 report finding Nassar's 
abuse of Ms. Thomashow was medically appropriate on the basis that the 
facts of her case were materially different from those of a later 
investigation which reached the opposite conclusion. See attached, 
Question 9. The university also tries to minimize the significance of 
different reports going to the complainant and Nassar by relying on 
such being consistent with the university's Title IX obligations. See 
attached, Question 1. Similarly, in defense of the investigation's 
reliance on Nassar-affiliated experts, the university argues the 
``potential for bias or conflict of interest was taken into account'' 
and their conclusions in support of Nassar were justified by ``clear 
rationales.'' See attached, Question 23. Putting aside the conflicts 
with known facts (e.g., Dr. DeStefano's statements in the report 
demonstrate actual bias), MSU's arguments simply miss the point. It is 
incontrovertible that MSU arrived at the wrong conclusion in 2014 and 
failed to properly conduct its investigation, and MSU would do well to 
fully acknowledge that mistake.

   MSU erroneously concluded Nassar did not engage in 
        misconduct and almost entirely based this conclusion on the 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        flawed testimony of biased medical experts.

                    MSU failed to utilize truly independent 
                medical experts to determine whether Nassar's conduct 
                was medically appropriate. Astonishingly, one of the 
                witnesses was hand-picked by Nassar himself, while two 
                others were suggested by then-Dean William Strampel. 
                They were Nassar's long-time colleagues and associates 
                who knew him on a personal level, with one, Dr. Lemmen, 
                even admitting to being one of his ``very close 
                friends.'' Such familiarity with the subject of the 
                investigation presents a clear conflict of interest 
                which should not have been ignored. To further 
                illustrate, one expert, Dr. DeStefano, told the 
                investigator ``she would never say that Nassar] would 
                have any intent in exam other than purely 
                professional.'' But if she was not willing to ever say 
                that, no matter what the evidence against Nassar was, 
                then why would MSU rely on, or even ask for, her 
                opinion on whether he did in fact have such intent?

                    The reasoning used by most of the experts, 
                and relied upon by the investigator, was fallacious at 
                best. They mostly provided circular justifications, 
                such as Nassar's reputation, for their conclusion that 
                his conduct was medically appropriate (i.e., his work 
                is medically appropriate because he is so well known 
                and famous for his medical work).

   MSU sent Ms. Thomashow a materially different version of its 
        Title IX report than it sent to Nassar and others internally. 
        The added language in the version which went to Nassar, which 
        points to the potential need for corrective actions, is 
        difficult to reconcile with the report's conclusion that 
        misconduct did not occur. In addition to a lack of transparency 
        and fairness, this discrepancy demonstrates an office culture 
        more focused on protecting the institution than survivors. And 
        MSU's admission that this may have occurred in other cases is 
        troubling.

   Inexplicably, Ms. Thomashow was not provided with the 
        ability to appeal the investigation's report or conclusions, 
        per MSU's policy then in place.

   Then-Dean William Strampel imposed corrective protocols on 
        Nassar, including having others present during sensitive 
        treatments and minimizing skin-to-skin contact, and, as stated 
        by MSU, ``it was the responsibility of COM Dean Strampel to 
        implement and monitor compliance with the agreed-upon 
        protocols.'' Yet Mr. Strampel, and by extension MSU, failed to 
        follow up and enforce the protocols.

   Several survivors stated they reported Nassar's abuse to MSU 
        employees around the time of the incidents, and years before 
        the public learned of Nassar's crimes. Yet MSU confirmed its 
        Office of Institutional Equity did not receive any reports 
        regarding Nassar from MSU coaches or athletics staff prior to 
        his termination in September 2016.

   It appears at least one MSU gymnastics employee made 
        statements and conducted themselves in a way which, by virtue 
        of their position of authority over team gymnasts, served to 
        prevent one or more gymnasts from reporting sexual misconduct. 
        Whether such a result was intentional or purposeful remains 
        unclear, however.

    As these findings indicate, there are clear gaps in current law, 
regulations, and policies that help enable an environment which, 
unfortunately, has proven ripe for abuse. While MSU has made many 
positive changes to its policies addressing these gaps, the Legislature 
must now act to correct these deficiencies on a broader scale to the 
greatest extent it can. It must also closely monitor the impact and 
effectiveness of these changes in the coming years.
    The Michigan Senate has already passed a package of bills to begin 
addressing the inadequacies of current law. These bills are primarily 
aimed at ensuring that the survivors of Larry Nassar and other 
similarly situated survivors will have their day in court. However, we 
believe additional changes are needed not only to more comprehensively 
protect others from similar abuses, but also to change the very culture 
which allows for sexual abuse to occur--whether in a medical setting, 
school, or anywhere else in our communities.
    To that end, we have extensively analyzed current law and the 
information received from MSU, and in consultation with the survivors, 
other lawmakers, and numerous stakeholders, we have compiled the list 
below of tailored recommendations for further consideration. Though not 
all of us necessarily agree with each and every proposal, we all agree 
that a broad review of potential solutions is necessary to protect our 
children from predators like Larry Nassar and fix the problems revealed 
by his horrific crimes.
Prevention and Deterrence
   Ensure intravaginal treatment on minors, outside of certain 
        necessary situations, is not normalized. Additionally, to the 
        extent such treatments are utilized, best practices must be 
        instituted and more guidance must be provided to practitioners. 
        Specifically, we propose the following changes:

     Require the Board of Osteopathic Medicine and Board of 
            Medicine to issue publicly available guidance materials to 
            medical practitioners on intravaginal medical treatments, 
            including internal pelvic floor treatments;

     Prohibit, with certain exceptions (e.g., OB/GYN care 
            and emergencies), the performance of a medical treatment 
            involving vaginal or anal penetration on a minor unless: 1) 
            the treatment is within the professional's scope of 
            practice; 2) another healthcare professional is in the room 
            during treatment; and 3) informed written consent on a 
            standardized form is obtained;

     Require the Michigan Department of Licensing and 
            Regulatory Affairs to create a standardized consent form 
            for vaginal and anal penetrative treatments on minors that 
            includes, in part, statements regarding the use of gloves 
            and the presence of another healthcare professional during 
            these treatments;

     Require any medical treatment consisting of vaginal or 
            anal penetration to be referenced on the patient's medical 
            record;

     Require the retention of a patient's medical record 
            referencing a vaginal or anal penetration treatment for 15 
            years, as opposed to the current seven-year statutory 
            retention period.

   Require the retention of a patient's medical record by a 
        healthcare facility for 15 years if the patient files a 
        complaint to that facility regarding sexual misconduct by an 
        employee;

   Modernize and update the law prohibiting physicians from 
        inducing female patients into sex under the false pretext of 
        medical treatment (MCL 750.90) to ensure that the crime covers 
        all patients from all forms of sexual assault, and require the 
        immediate, permanent revocation of a physician's license if he/
        she is convicted of this crime. Penalties for the crime should 
        also be increased in light of the existing penalties for 
        criminal sexual conduct to make this statute a more useful tool 
        for prosecutors;

   Create new, tougher penalties for distributers and 
        financiers of child pornography to supplement the changes for 
        possession brought by SBs 878-79;

   Require the Department of Education to maintain a record 
        stating the reason or reasons for, and circumstances 
        surrounding, a separation of service for school employees, to 
        deter predators from moving to another school after being 
        accused of sexual misconduct;

   Require the Department of Education to develop age-
        appropriate informational material relating to sexual 
        misconduct to distribute to school districts;
Early Intervention
   Create a new crime for using one's position of authority 
        over another to prevent that person from reporting criminal 
        sexual conduct (HB 5537);

   Expand the OK2Say program to specifically cover sexual 
        misconduct (HB 5539);

   Expand the mandatory reporter law to cover coaches (HB 4020) 
        and athletic trainers (HB 5538), as well as physical therapists 
        (HB 5541);

   Provide training for mandatory reporters to more effectively 
        identify abuse;

   Prohibit schools from expelling or suspending students for 
        reporting sexual assault;
Justice for Survivors
   Expand the admissibility of prior sexual crimes in a 
        criminal prosecution (HB 5658);

   Expand the list of people who can submit victim impact 
        statements at sentencing (in addition to requiring the presence 
        of the defendant during victim impact statements, which the 
        House recently supported with its passage of HB 5407);

   Prohibit the public disclosure of a sexual assault 
        survivor's identity when anonymously proceeding in a civil 
        lawsuit;
Governmental Accountability
   Create a Title IX Ombudsman in the Department of Civil 
        Rights to more comprehensively provide means to justice for 
        students on college campuses;

   Increase accountability for public officials by updating the 
        Governor's constitutional authority to remove officials from 
        the State Board of Education and the boards of public 
        universities under MCL 168.293;

   Encourage public universities to improve their policies, 
        training, and services for survivors of sexual assault (HR 
        164);

   Encourage public universities to submit 5-year Title IX 
        improvement plans;

   Implement the following reforms on public colleges and 
        universities through the Higher Education budget:

     Prohibit the use of expert witnesses who are employed 
            by the institution and/or have close ties with the accused 
            in the course of Title IX investigations;

     Prohibit the issuance of divergent Title IX reports to 
            the survivor and to the accused;

     Require the Office of the Auditor General to 
            periodically audit the Title IX operations of state 
            universities;

     Require universities to notify law enforcement when 
            investigating a sexual assault complaint against an 
            employee of that institution, if the survivor requests 
            such;

     Require annual reporting by universities to the 
            Legislature and others on the number of Title IX 
            complaints, the time to complete Title IX investigations, 
            etc;

     Withhold funding for any university that fails to 
            comply with sexual assault prevention requirements;

     Encourage universities to conduct a sexual assault 
            presentation for all freshmen and sophomores with contact 
            information for the Title IX office;

     Prevent a university from seeking payment of medical 
            bills for ``treatment'' provided by physicians convicted of 
            a related crime;

     Require universities to have independent third-parties 
            investigate their Title IX compliance for the upcoming 
            school year;

     Require universities to annually notify the 
            Legislature that the university president and at least one 
            university board member has reviewed all incidents 
            involving any employee sexual misconduct that was reported 
            in a Title IX complaint;

     Require all Title IX Reports regarding an MSU employee 
            to be transmitted to the Board of Trustees;

     Require an outside investigation when multiple Title 
            IX complaints are made against an employee, if the 
            university previously cleared the employee of wrongdoing.

    We plan to introduce a bipartisan package of legislation to 
effectuate these recommendations in the coming days, with committee 
hearings on the bills, as well as the Senate package, soon after. Given 
the significant policy changes brought by these bills, a thorough and 
deliberative committee process with ample opportunities for public 
input is both justified and expected. Additional ideas are also 
anticipated.
    We appreciate your continued leadership and support on this 
important issue. It has been our pleasure to serve the people of 
Michigan in this endeavor, and we look forward to delivering to them a 
comprehensive set of solutions to protect our children from sexual 
misconduct.
            Sincerely,


Chairman Klint Kesto
Law and Justice Committee
District 39
                                     Chairwoman Kim LaSata
Minority Vice Chair Stephanie Chang  Appropriations Subcommittee on
Law and Justice Committee             Higher Ed.
District 6                           District 79
 
 

                                 ______
                                 
                Miller, Canfield, Paddock and Stone, P.L.C.
                                  Lansing, Michigan, March 29, 2018
VIA EMAIL
Representative Kim LaSata,
Chairwoman,
Appropriations Subcommittee on Higher Ed.,
House of Representatives,
State of Michigan,
Lansing, MI.

Representative Klint Kesto,
Chairman,
Law and Justice Committee,
House of Representatives,
State of Michigan,
Lansing, MI.

Re: Michigan State University--March 8, 2018 Information Request

Dear Chairwoman LaSata and Chairman Kesto:

    This responds to your March 8, 2018 letter directed to Michigan 
State University, seeking answers to written questions you have posed 
related to ``the University's handling of the Larry Nassar case, the 
University's Title IX policies and procedures, and other related 
matters.'' We, again, appreciate your willingness to extend the 
deadline for these answers, which appear below and are based on 
information currently available to the University.
                           Questions/Answers
    1. How does MSU explain the fact that there were two different 
Title IX reports that resulted from the 2014 investigation of Amanda 
Thomashow's allegations: one that was provided to Ms. Thomashow, and 
one that was provided to Larry Nassar?
    The differences between the report as issued to Ms. Thomashow and 
Nassar are limited to the last two paragraphs of the report, which 
discuss the investigator's recommendations regarding steps that the 
department should consider implementing even though no violation was 
found. Other than that, the versions of the 21-page report sent to each 
of Ms. Thomashow and Nassar are word-for-word identical. The two 
additional paragraphs of recommendations were included in the report 
distributed to Nassar, his Dean, the Office of General Counsel, and 
Academic Human Resources. The Office of Inclusion and Intercultural 
Initiatives (``I3'') informed Ms. Thomashow that, despite the finding 
of no-violation, I3 had made recommendations for policy and practice 
changes based on the information learned through the investigation, 
without discussing the specifics thereof. This practice was consistent 
with the University's Title IX obligation to inform claimants of the 
outcome of the investigation.

    2. In 2014, did MSU have a rule, procedure, or any other type of 
policy in place to prohibit the issuance of different final 
investigative reports to the complainant and the respondent at the 
close of an investigation? Is such a policy in place today?
    Under present practice, the Office of Institutional Equity 
(``OIE'') limits investigation reports to the questions of whether or 
not a violation occurred, the rationale for the decision, and the 
specific steps recommended to address any violations found to exist. 
This is the result of a clearer definition of how the OIE investigative 
report fits into the University's overall Title IX compliance effort. 
If an investigator has recommendations that go beyond the confines of 
the specific matter or has recommendations for improvements to policies 
or practices in matters where no violation was found, those are 
addressed in a separate communication to appropriate persons for their 
consideration and review. As a result, under current practice, the 
investigative report issued to the claimant and the respondent is 
identical.
    At the time the report regarding Ms. Thomashow's allegations, I3 
did not have any policy specific to whether investigative reports 
shared with claimants and respondents had to be identical. Title IX at 
that time required only that a claimant be advised of the ``outcome'' 
of the investigation. Generally, in matters involving students alleging 
violations by other students, both the claimant and the respondent were 
given access to the report sent by I3 to the Student Conduct Board. In 
matters involving allegations by a claimant who was neither a student 
nor employee of the University, such as was the case with Ms. 
Thomashow, the degree to which an investigation report was shared with 
the claimant varied with the facts and circumstances, such as concerns 
regarding employee privacy or the terms of any applicable collective 
bargaining agreement. In some cases, the claimant was informed only as 
to whether or not a violation of the policy was found to exist, in 
other cases more information was shared.

    3. The 2014 final report for Amanda Thomashow includes an interview 
with Larry Nassar in which he states that there was ``no preset 
protocol for whether to have another person in the room during such an 
exam.'' Was that accurate then? Is it accurate now? If yes, then why 
does MSU not have such a protocol in place?
    Nassar's statement was accurate at the time. Since that time, the 
University HealthTeam has adopted the Policy on Patient Privacy, 
Chaperones and Informed Consent for Examination, Treatments or 
Procedures, (``Policy on Patient Privacy''), https://msu.edu/
ourcommitment/patient-safety/PatientPrivacyDuringProcedures-Oct-
2017.pdf. The policy, among other things, provides for a patient's 
right to have a chaperone present during sensitive examinations and 
treatments if the patient so desires, and for explanation of that right 
before the examination or treatment commences.

    4. At the end of the version of the 2014 Amanda Thomashow Title IX 
report that was provided to Nassar, Kristine Moore suggested that 
reporting protocols relating to the reporting of misconduct should be 
reconsidered (e.g., should a complaint to the front desk receptionist 
trigger a reporting protocol?). Have reporting protocols changed 
accordingly since that incident? If so, how? Would a patient 
complaining to a front desk receptionist at a clinic today trigger any 
reporting protocols?
    Yes. Since 2014, the Universities policies relating to Title IX 
compliance and reporting have been revised. MSU's Relationship Violence 
and Sexual Misconduct Policy outlines reporting protocols for incidents 
of relationship violence and sexual misconduct (pages 25-30). It 
requires that all University employees, other than those identified as 
confidential sources and certain medical professionals providing 
patient care, are expected to promptly report relationship violence, 
stalking, and sexual misconduct that they observe or learn about in 
their professional capacity and that involve a member of the University 
community (faculty, staff, or student) or which occur at a University-
sponsored event or on University property. While these expectations 
existed in 2014, the current policy provides greater emphasis and 
clarity. Furthermore, MSU mandates that employees report sexual 
misconduct and relationship violence to both the MSU Police Department 
and OIE. OIE reviews and responds to reported incidents of harassment 
and discrimination, including relationship violence and sexual 
misconduct. MSU through its policy and resource materials informs 
individuals of their right to participate in both a criminal and 
University investigation and provides options for reporting to a 
confidential source, such as a counselor. As a result, a front desk 
receptionist who received a communication which was understood to be a 
report of sexual misconduct would have a duty to report the matter to 
OIE and MSUPD. MSU strengthened mandatory reporting by including 
consequences for employees who fail to adhere to their reporting 
obligations in the August 2017 revision of the Relationship Violence 
and Sexual Misconduct Policy.
    The Relationship Violence and Sexual Misconduct Policy can be found 
at:

        https://www.hr.msu.edu/policies-procedures/university-wide/
        RVSM_policy.html

    Additional information and resources to support reporting can be 
found at the following links:

        http://titleix.msu.edu/make-a-report/index.html. http://
        titleix.msu.edu/policy-info/mandatory-reporting.html http://
        titleix.msu.edu/_files/documents/mandatory-reporting-guide.pdf

    MSU also maintains mandatory reporting requirements for child abuse 
and child pornography in the policy titled University Reporting 
Protocols: Child Abuse, Sexual Assault, and Child Pornography. These 
reporting protocols apply to all employees and volunteers who perform 
services for the University. The policy requires that all employees and 
volunteers report suspected child abuse or neglect directly to law 
enforcement; individuals who are mandated reporters under state law 
must also report directly to Child Protective Services. Employees or 
volunteers who become aware of suspected child pornography on MSU IT 
Resource must contact the MSU Police Department immediately. Employees 
or volunteers who knowingly fail to report suspected child abuse, child 
neglect, sexual assault, or child pornography may be subject to 
disciplinary action, up to and including dismissal. The full text of 
the protocols may be found at:

        https://www.hr.msu.edu/policies-procedures/university-wide/
        reporting_protocols.html

    In addition to the foregoing, both the MSU Police Department and 
MSU's OIE connect individuals who report with advocacy and support 
resources available on campus and in the community, including through 
confidential campus and community crisis hotlines and support services. 
An overview of these resources can be found at: http://titleix.msu.edu/
find-resources/index.html.

   Student Claimant Resource Guide

        http://titleix.msu.edu/find-resources/
        Student%20Claimant%20Resource%20Guide%20011118.pdf

   Employee Claimant Resource Guide

        http://titleix.msu.edu/find-resources/
        Employee%20Claimant%20Resource%20Guide%20011118.pdf

   Claimant Resource Guide for Unaffiliated Parties

        http://titleix.msu.edu/_files/documents/unaffiliated-claimant-
        resources-guide-5-31-2017.pdf

   MSU Police Department Options & Resources for Survivors

        https://www.hr.msu.edu/policies-procedures/university-wide/
        documents/AppC-MSU_PD_infoForms.pdf

    The University has adopted information sharing protocols to enhance 
the flow of information between the MSU employees who share 
responsibility for compliance.
    Finally, general information about the University's Title IX 
policies and procedures can be found at http://titleix.msu.edu/policy-
info/index.html.

    5. What has MSU done to address the inadequacies identified in the 
version of the 2014 report that was provided to Larry Nassar but not 
the complainant, Amanda Thomashow?
    The issues raised by Ms. Moore are most immediately addressed in 
the University HealthTeam Policy on Patient Privacy and in the 
enhancements to MSU reporting policies discussed in response to 
questions 3 and 4.

    6. Aside from the Amanda Thomashow Title IX report in 2014, are 
there any other Title IX cases that Michigan State University (``MSU'') 
is aware of in which a victim/complainant was given a different version 
of the final report than the respondent?
    As discussed in response to question 2, under the practice in 
effect prior to the formation of OIE, the information shared with 
claimants, other than in cases concerning student on student 
misconduct, may have been different than that shared with a respondent 
or the respondent's supervisors, particularly if one party was not a 
student, employee or faculty member of MSU. However, under the 
practices in place since mid-2015, this has not occurred.

    7. Please provide a list of all MSU employees known to have seen 
the 2014 Thomashow Title IX report before it was made public.
    Prior to its being sent to Ms. Thomashow, the report was sent to 
William Strampel, then Dean of the College of Osteopathic Medicine, 
Terry Curry, Associate Provost and Associate Vice President for 
Academic Human Resources, Theresa Kelly, Office of General Counsel, and 
possibly to Paulette Granberry-Russell, who was the Director of I3 and 
Ms. Moore's supervisor.

    8. Was there any follow-up with Amanda Thomashaw [sic] after the 
2014 Title IX investigation was completed? If so, what did this entail? 
If not, why not?
    Upon completion of the investigation, Ms. Moore met with Ms. 
Thomashow to inform her that the report would conclude that there had 
not been a violation of the sexual harassment policy and explain the 
rationale for the decision. When the investigation report was later 
sent to Ms. Thomashow, she was invited to provide feedback and was 
informed that I3 had recommended changes in the policy as a result of 
the facts developed in the investigation.
    In 2016, after receiving a complaint from Rachael Denhollander 
regarding Nassar, OIE contacted Ms. Thomashow to discuss her potential 
participation in that investigation or a reopening of the investigation 
of her complaint. Ms. Thomashow did not respond to those contacts until 
after filing her individual lawsuit against MSU. Once a suit is filed, 
resolution of an individual's grievance is through the judicial process 
invoked by the claimant rather than through MSU's internal grievance 
procedures.

    9. How does MSU account for very different conclusions between the 
2014 Title IX investigation (Thomashow) and the 2017 Title IX 
investigation (Denhollander) given that they involved the same 
respondent (Nassar) and similar allegations?
    MSU thoroughly investigated each of Ms. Thomsahow's and Ms. 
Denhollander's complaints. The investigation of Ms. Denhollander's 
complaint proceeded with knowledge of Ms. Thomashow's prior complaint 
as well as other claimants who came forward while the Denhollander 
investigation was pending. The two investigations revealed facts that 
were materially different as between Ms. Thomashow and Ms. 
Denhollander, and these differences account for the fact that no 
violation was found as to Ms. Thomashow's complaint but one was as to 
Ms. Denhollander's.
    Ms. Denhollander reported that Nassar engaged in intra-vaginal 
massage (penetration) and anal penetration during the course of the 
purported medical treatments for her back, and Nassar at times appeared 
sexually aroused during the treatments. She further reported that 
Nassar had massaged her breast, even though she was not consulting him 
for any upper body problems. Ms. Denhollander's mother, who was present 
in the room during the treatments, also reported at least one instance 
in which Nassar appeared to her to have been sexually aroused during 
the treatment. Nassar denied that he had engaged in the behavior as 
described by Ms. Denhollander. At no point did Nassar attempt to 
justify the behavior described by Ms. Denhollander as medically 
appropriate treatment. Having found there being no medical explanation 
for the conduct, a violation was found.
    Ms. Thomashow consulted with Nassar to address gait issues and 
during the examination indicated she experienced shoulder pain with 
certain movement. Ms. Thomashow reported external contact/massage in 
the breast and genital area. While she noted that she feared the 
possibility of vaginal penetration, she stated that such penetration 
did not occur. She did not allege any anal penetration. Nassar did not 
dispute the specifics of the physical conduct described by Ms. 
Thomashow, but contended that the conduct was a legitimate modality of 
osteopathic treatment. He explained that in treating shoulder issues it 
is common to have to palpate the ribs, and in doing so, contact with 
the breast is unavoidable. He stated that the contact near the vaginal 
area was part of a recognized procedure called an STL Release. Nassar 
also provided conference presentations describing the STL Release 
procedure much as it had been described by Ms. Thomashow. MSU also 
consulted other osteopathic practitioners who stated that the conduct 
as described was consistent with recognized modalities of osteopathic 
treatment. Based on the statements of Nassar and the three other 
medical professionals interviewed, the investigation concluded that the 
physical conduct in this instance was a legitimate modality of 
osteopathic treatment, and therefore not a violation of the sexual 
harassment policy.

    10. What is the current status of the U.S. Department of Education, 
Office for Civil Rights' (OCR) monitoring of the MSU Resolution 
Agreement signed by MSU in 2015?
    MSU has a monitoring report due to be filed with OCR on or about 
June 30, 2018. In addition, in January 2018, MSU sought technical 
assistance from OCR regarding procedures for responding to additional 
complaints concerning Nassar. On February 22, 2018, OCR informed MSU 
that it would provide the technical assistance, but requested 
additional information before doing so. In addition, OCR stated it was 
conducting a directed investigation to determine whether the extensive 
information that came to light in conjunction with Nassar's trial and 
news reporting on the matter required further action. MSU provided 
responses to OCR on March 1 and March 9, the dates set by OCR for 
response.

    11. Has the wait time for a sexual assault survivor/victim to 
access a counselor gone down from 2-4 weeks (referenced in the Sept. 1, 
2015 OCR letter)? What is the average current wait time? What is the 
written policy regarding referral to counseling for Title IX 
complainants/sexual assault victims on campus?
    Sexual assault survivors have two primary options for seeking 
mental health treatment on campus, the Sexual Assault Program and the 
Counseling Center. All individuals seeking a first appointment through 
the Counseling Center of MSU Counseling & Psychiatry Services 
(``CAPS'') are seen on a same-day, walk-in basis for their initial 
appointment. There may be a wait time for follow-up services depending 
on acuity and the services needed. The database used by CAPS does not 
allow for isolating the wait time for specific groups of students. All 
sexual assault survivors are offered a referral to the MSU Sexual 
Assault Program for the second and subsequent appointments.
    For the MSU Sexual Assault Program (``SAP''), all of the 
individuals who seek services directly from SAP complete an intake with 
the program. These individuals as well as those who are referred to the 
program (such as through the Counseling Center) are put on a waitlist 
and assigned services based on acuity. Survivors can begin advocacy 
services or groups immediately. There is no waitlist for advocacy 
services. The MSU Sexual Assault Program also has a crisis counselor 
who maintains the waitlist, completes intakes, and checks in with 
survivors while they wait. During the current, spring 2018 semester, 
the average wait time to see a counselor through the MSU Sexual Assault 
Program has been five days, and 72 percent of new clients have been 
assigned to a therapist in seven days or less. Wait times can be 
affected by acuity of need, by a patient's expressed preference for a 
particular counselor or other factors. The wait time has gone down 
since 2015 because the program has added additional therapy staff. In 
the spring 2015 semester, the average wait time was 25 days. In the 
fall 2015 semester, the average wait time was reduced to 14.5 days. At 
the beginning of 2015, the MSU Sexual Assault Program employed two 
therapists, but increased its staff to four therapists by the end of 
2015. Currently, the MSU Sexual Assault Program has five therapists and 
a crisis counselor. The program has posted an opening for another 
crisis counselor position and recently received confirmation of grant 
funding for two additional therapists and two additional advocates, 
which are currently posted.
    The policy for referrals is outlined in MSU's written Relationship 
Violence & Sexual Misconduct (RVSM) Policy.

    12. What steps has MSU taken since the Sept. 1, 2015 OCR letter to 
reduce the length of time to get to final resolution in Title IX cases?
    MSU has significantly increased staffing resources in the Office of 
Institutional Equity to support a prompt and equitable investigation 
process. When OIE was initially created, the office had a staff of 
three full-time investigators. The number of full-time investigators 
increased to seven during the 2015-2016 academic year and nine during 
the 2016-2017 academic year. With Interim President Engler's recent 
authorization of additional staffing resources for OIE, this will 
increase to a total of 10 full-time investigators. Additionally, MSU 
has four staff positions and Interim President Engler recently 
authorized the addition of new staff positions to support timely 
response to reported incidents. MSU has implemented internal protocols, 
including a case management system to increase the efficiency of 
administrative elements of the OIE process. MSU has taken steps to 
streamline the sanction and appeal processes outlined in the 
Relationship Violence and Sexual Misconduct Policy in order to improve 
efficiency while preserving fairness. MSU is currently searching for a 
second staff member to support the student conduct process to further 
improve efficiency. These steps have reduced the average time to 
complete an investigation from 153 days during the 2014-15 academic 
year to 80 days in the 2016-17 academic year. The time to complete the 
student conduct process has fallen from 88 days to 48 days in the same 
period.

    13. Do students have the option of filing a sexual harassment 
complaint with the Michigan Department of Civil Rights, in addition to 
Office of Institutional Equity (``OIE'')? If so, does MSU make students 
aware of that option?
    To the extent the Department asserts jurisdiction of student 
claims, students may file a complaint with the Michigan Department of 
Civil Rights. MSU's RVSM policy specifically advises students of their 
right to file a complaint regarding sexual misconduct with the MSUPD, 
local law enforcement authorities and the U.S. Department of Education 
Office of Civil Rights in addition to an internal grievance with OIE. 
Employees are specifically advised of their option to pursue a claim 
through the Michigan Department of Civil Rights. RVSM Policy at pp. 21-
23 and 33.

    14. When a report finding that sexual misconduct occurred is 
submitted from the OIE to MSU's Title IX Coordinator, what are the 
Title IX Coordinator's next steps? How are those next steps determined?
    Reports prepared by OIE investigators are reviewed by the Director 
of OIE, but are not routinely sent to the Title IX Coordinator. The 
Director of OIE reviews investigative reports for thoroughness, 
accuracy, and consistency in order to identify patterns or issues that 
suggest the need for a broader or more systemic response. After review 
by the Director of OIE, reports finding a violation occurred are 
submitted to the appropriate University personnel to determine 
appropriate sanctions. Whether the respondent is a student, faculty 
member, or staff employee determines which body or person receives the 
report. In addition, the Director of OIE reports to the Title IX 
Coordinator regarding issues identified as meriting consideration for a 
broader response. The Title IX Coordinator is responsible for 
considering the information provided by the OIE Director, along with 
information from various other sources to evaluate the effectiveness of 
overall compliance efforts and to develop additional policies, 
training, protocols, or actions to further enhance compliance efforts.

    15. Does the OIE currently have any policies, guidelines, or 
protocols in place regarding the interviewing of closely associated 
colleagues of a respondent as medical experts in investigations into 
whether a respondent's medical conduct was appropriate?
    While not specific to investigations involving medical experts, 
investigators do have general training in how to recognize and account 
for possible witness bias when making determinations. OIE has also 
issued written direction to investigators on the use of outside 
experts, which is not limited to the potential use of medical experts.

    16. Were complainants in sexual misconduct investigations by OIE in 
2014-16 provided the right to appeal a final determination? How about 
today? If so, are complainants notified of that right to appeal? How?
    OIE became operational as an investigative group around July 2015. 
Beginning in September 2015, student claimants and respondents were 
permitted to challenge the OIE decision, which was akin to an appeal, 
and resulted in a determination regarding the OIE finding. In August 
2016, MSU revised its policy to include student sanction and appeal 
procedures, which outlined a new appeal process for both claimants and 
respondents that were students. Appeal procedures were implemented for 
faculty and academic staff in September 2016 and included equal appeal 
rights for both the claimant and respondent. In May 2017, the faculty 
and academic staff appeal procedures were expanded to include equal 
appeal rights for all employee claimants and respondents. The 
investigative findings are sent to the claimant and respondent 
simultaneously with a cover letter that explains the right to appeal 
the findings along with instructions for appealing. For employees, 
appeals to the Equity Review Officer may be made within ten days. For 
students, when no violation is found, an appeal may be filed with the 
Equity Review Officer within ten days. For students, when a violation 
is found, the report is sent to the Office of Student Conduct and 
Conflict Resolution, as discussed in response to question 14. Appeal 
rights in such cases are triggered once the sanctioning body/official 
has rendered a final decision. Appeal rights are generally described in 
the notification of the sanctioning body/official's decision. The 
appeals process for student conduct complaints are also described in 
the RVSM Policy at page 39-40.

    17. Were there any appeals of the Title IX reports/conclusions 
regarding Nassar?
    No.

    18. Did any MSU coach or other athletics department employee ever 
report complaints regarding Nassar to OIE?
    Prior to MSU's termination of Nassar's employment in September 
2016, OIE did not receive any reports from coaches or athletics 
department staff regarding Nassar.

    19. When was the Interim Measures and Training Specialist position 
created at OIE? Is this a permanent position?
    The Interim Measures and Training Specialist position was created 
and filled during 2016. It is a permanent position within OIE.

    20. How frequently are interim measures used after a Title IX 
complaint/sexual assault complaint is made? What are examples of 
interim measures that have been used in the past 5 years?
    Interim measures are available to all claimants and respondents 
both through OIE and through confidential resources. They are 
frequently used and most often implemented with input from the 
claimant. Some measures, such as a decision to suspend an employee 
pending investigation, may be made without claimant input by the 
University. Until the implementation of OIE's case management system in 
2016, OIE and its predecessor I3 did not track interim measure 
statistics separately. In addition to requesting interim measures 
directly through OIE, MSU's Policy allows for such requests to be made 
through confidential resources on campus including the Sexual Assault 
Program and MSU Safe Place. Because these are confidential resources, 
information about interim measures would not be reported to OIE or 
tracked, unless OIE assistance was required in the implementation of an 
interim measure.
    The scope of interim measures necessarily varies with the specific 
circumstances of each matter and the needs of the individuals involved. 
Measures that are frequently employed include: no-contact orders or 
other activity restrictions; housing assignment or work location 
adjustments; course or work schedule adjustments; academic adjustments 
such as extensions of time to complete course work or retaking of 
exams; and suspension pending investigation.

    21. After the 2014 investigation regarding the Thomashaw [sic] 
complaint, what steps were taken to monitor recommendations in the 
report such as (1) having someone in the exam room and (2) using gloves 
(i.e., not using personal/ungloved touch)?
    Dean Strampel informed I3 that the College of Osteopathic Medicine 
(``COM'') agreed with the recommendations made in the report and was 
implementing the same. Thereafter, it was the responsibility of COM 
Dean Strampel to implement and monitor compliance with the agreed upon 
protocols.

    22. Have communication and informed consent protocols changed since 
the 2014 Amanda Thomashow Title IX report? Are there currently any 
requirements that doctors explain sensitive medical procedures before 
treatment? Have informed consent protocols or procedures changed?
    Yes. See the University HealthTeam Policy on Patient Privacy, 
described in response to question 3, above.

    23. Is it typical that the Title IX office would interview doctors 
who have a ``very close relationship'' with the respondent (Larry 
Nassar) and were all educated and/or employed at the same university to 
see if the medical practice is valid? Are there any conflict of 
interest considerations that the Title IX office considers before 
deciding who to interview? Is there a written policy regarding this?
    The issue of whether a particular medical practice is a valid 
modality of treatment has rarely arisen in MSU's Title IX 
investigations. As a result there are insufficient data points to say 
that any particular practice is or is not ``typical.'' In the 2014 
Nassar investigation, the medical professional referred to as having a 
``very close relationship'' with Nassar had been identified by Nassar 
as a witness with whom to speak and the relationship was noted in the 
report so it could be taken into account when evaluating the evidence. 
The investigator independently sought recommendations from then-Dean 
Strampel as to other doctors who could provide an informed and 
impartial expert analysis of the conduct described by Ms. Thomashow and 
Nassar. Strampel identified two additional personnel who were each 
interviewed. As with any investigation, the potential for bias or 
conflict of interest was taken into account. All of the medical 
personnel, despite their respective level of professional association 
with Nassar, stated that the conduct was a recognized treatment 
modality and provided clear rationales for their assessments.

    24. In a July 30, 2014 e-mail from Dr. William Strampel to Larry 
Nassar, Dr. Strampel provides new protocols for Nassar to follow after 
the 2014 Title IX investigation against him. The third protocol states 
that ``[n]ew people in our practice will be oriented to be sure they 
understand these requirements'' (i.e.., that there should be another 
person in the room for sensitive procedures, there should be little to 
no skin-to-skin contact unless medically necessary, and if skin-to-skin 
is necessary, the patient is adequately informed with another person in 
the room). Has this protocol been implemented and is that currently 
departmental policy for new practitioners?
    These protocols are in place as part of the University HealthTeam 
Policy on Patient Privacy.

    25. Does MSU currently have any policies, guidelines, or protocols 
in place to require that any disciplinary or corrective protocols 
imposed on an employee investigated for misconduct be communicated to 
anyone other than the affected employee? Were any such policies or 
guidelines in place in 2014? If not, does MSU plan to implement such 
policies, guidelines, or protocols moving?
    MSU has implemented a set of information sharing protocols which 
address these concerns, which can be found at https://oie.msu.edu/
policies/index.html. These protocols were not in place as of 2014. The 
practice at that time was that the administrative unit manager would be 
made aware of any corrective protocols/restrictions or recommendations 
resulting from an investigation. The administrator with authority over 
the unit could also consult with human resources if the administrator 
had questions about the extent to which information could be shared or 
how to monitor compliance.

    26. It appears that MSU's Sports Medicine has or had a medical 
record retention policy of ten years, after which medical records are 
destroyed. Does MSU's Sports Medicine still have this policy in place 
today? If so, is MSU considering lengthening the record retention 
policy in light of it being shown inadequate here?
    The requirement that records be retained for a minimum of ten years 
exceeds the current statutory requirement of seven years. MCL 
333.16213. Nonetheless, the University HealthTeam is in the midst of 
conducting a global policy review and there is potential that the 
minimum retention time will addressed.

    27. Did or does MSU have a policy giving patients the right to have 
someone else present in the room? Is there a specific policy regarding 
the presence of another person in the room when the patient is a minor?
    Yes. See the University HealthTeam Policy on Patient Privacy, 
referred to in response to question 3, above.

    28. Did anyone at MSU investigate the medical professionals who 
validated Nassar's claims in the 2014 Title IX investigation with 
regards to whether they had ever had any documented ethics or 
malpractice complaints filed against them, either with the State Board 
or MSU? Did any of them also consult for Twistars or USA Gymnastics?
    It is not MSU's practice to do background investigations on 
witnesses to a Title IX investigation. We believe Dr. Lemmen 
volunteered with Twistars and USA Gymnastics. To MSU's knowledge, none 
of the medical professionals consulted in the 2014 investigation had a 
record of any ethics violation or malpractice findings with either the 
State Board or MSU at the time of that investigation.

    29. Why was Nassar allowed to continue practicing medicine at MSU 
after the first Title IX complaint was made against him? Why did it 
take until August 2016 for him to be reassigned when the first 
complaint had been filed two years prior in 2014? When a Title IX 
complaint is filed against a MSU employee, is there any consideration 
made about whether that person should be at least temporarily removed 
or have less contact with potential victims as an interim measure? Is 
the consideration of these possibilities different for student 
respondents vs. employee respondents?
    On or about April 21, 2014, Ms. Thomashow met with Dr. Jeffrey 
Kovan and expressed concerns that the medical treatment she received 
from Nassar had been inappropriate and may have been a form of sexual 
misconduct. Dr. Kovan immediately reported the conversation to I3, the 
office then in charge of investigating sexual misconduct allegations. 
I3 reported the matter to MSUPD in May 2014 after obtaining more 
detailed information from Ms. Thomashow. Nassar was reassigned from 
patient care responsibilities pending the outcome of the investigation. 
As noted above, the I3 investigation concluded that no violation of 
MSU's then-existing sexual harassment policy had occurred. MSUPD turned 
over the results of its investigation to the Ingham County prosecuting 
attorney's office. The prosecutor's office did not file any criminal 
charges following its review. Because the I3 investigation found no 
violation of the University's sexual harassment policy, and no criminal 
charges had been filed nor were anticipated, there was no cause to 
remove Nassar from employment or the medical practice, and he was 
allowed to return to active practice. Thereafter, Ms. Thomashow did not 
have additional contact with Nassar. Upon receiving Rachael 
Denhollander's complaint in late August 2016, MSUPD forwarded the 
information to OIE. Nassar was again reassigned from patient care 
duties pending the outcome of the investigation. Nassar was terminated 
in September 2016 rather than returned to active practice as the 
investigation indicated that Nassar had failed to consistently abide by 
the practices communicated to him in 2014, and had failed to disclose 
or provided misleading information about the fact that his service with 
U.S.A. Gymnastics had been terminated involuntarily as the result of an 
investigation of sexual misconduct. MSU did not learn of the 
involuntary nature of the termination or the reasons for it until after 
Nassar had been suspended on August 30, 2016. Between the two 
investigations, there had been no additional complaints regarding 
Nassar's behavior nor had the University otherwise become aware of 
information that warranted termination.
    As to the more general question, the potential need for interim 
measures, some of which may involve temporary activity or access 
restrictions on the respondent, is considered when a complaint is filed 
and while pending. Those measures can take several forms. They can 
include a no contact order requiring the respondent to avoid contact 
with the claimant, restricting a respondent's access to campus or 
portions thereof, and suspension of employees or students. Whether the 
respondent is a student rather than an employee is one of several 
factors taken into account in crafting the interim measures most 
appropriate to the particular circumstances of an individual case.

    30. Have there been any changes since either the 2014 (Thomashaw 
[sic]) or 2017 (Denhollander) reports related to requiring another 
adult or medical professional to be in the room for potentially 
intrusive/sensitive procedures conducted by MSU doctors?
    Yes. See the University HealthTeam Policy on Patient Privacy, 
referred to in response to question 3, above.

    31. Were there any Title IX complaints against Nassar, other than 
the 2014 (Thomashaw [sic]) and 2017 (Denhollander) complaints, that did 
not result in a ``full'' investigation? How many? And what were the 
reasons for not completing a full investigation?
    Between April 2014 and August 2016, the only complaint concerning 
Nassar was that received from Ms. Thomashow. Ms. Thomashow's complaint 
was the subject of a full investigation by I3. Since Ms. Denhollander's 
complaint in 2016, 91 complaints have been received to date. All 
claimants were offered support services and interim measures when 
appropriate and feasible. OIE then explained the investigation process, 
and informed the claimant that Nassar had been terminated by the 
University. Claimants were given the option of invoking a full formal 
investigation or providing a witness statement that shared as much 
information as the claimant was comfortable divulging. Claimants were 
informed that the witness statements would be shared with the Title IX 
Coordinator and reviewed to inform decisions concerning relevant 
policies, procedures, and training in order to propose improvements as 
appropriate. Formal investigations were conducted whenever requested by 
the claimant and were not conducted when the claimant stated a desire 
to proceed solely by way of witness statement or to not participate. 
All information received was reviewed by the Title IX Coordinator as 
part of MSU's ongoing efforts to provide an inclusive and safe 
environment. Of the complaints filed in 2016-17, 5 claimants elected to 
seek a full, formal investigation; the remainder did not. Of the 
complaints filed to date in 2017-18, none of the claimants has 
requested a formal investigation.

    32. Has MSU made any policy changes since the Nassar case to 
improve such communications with students or athletes regarding 
investigations of misconduct against University employees or officials?
    The University is not certain as to the scope of the question and 
which communications you are particularly interested in. As noted in 
response to other questions, all students are required to participate 
in a two-hour workshop when first attending MSU, and an additional 
online training program annually thereafter. The training includes 
information regarding policies and procedures for reporting perceived 
sexual misconduct and the process by which the University resolves the 
allegations. In addition, student-athletes are required to participate 
in annual training regarding sexual misconduct issues. Employees are 
required to complete training within thirty days of hire and biennially 
thereafter.
Student Training:
1. Required Online Training
    All undergraduate and graduate students are required to complete an 
annual online training program. First-year students will complete a 
full-length course and returning students will complete a different, 
shorter course each year, which explores a related topic at a deeper 
level. Students will not be able to access important academic 
information in the student information system, including grades, until 
they complete this training.
    Online training programs for students include information on the 
following topics:

   Providing information to identify sex discrimination and 
        sexual harassment, including relationship violence and sexual 
        misconduct.

   Raising awareness of the impact of these issues on the 
        campus community and encouraging community members to engage in 
        efforts to end these types of violence.

   Advising members of the MSU community about their rights and 
        reporting options under the Relationship Violence and Sexual 
        Misconduct Policy.

   Communicating behavioral expectations for all members of the 
        MSU community as outlined in the policy.

   Connecting community members with support and resources.
2. Required Workshop
    The Sexual Assault and Relationship Violence Prevention Program 
(``SARV'') is a required workshop for all first-year and transfer 
students. SARV offers a number of peer-facilitated workshops throughout 
the year. The SARV workshop is a two-hour, peer-facilitated workshop 
that offers a forum for students to engage in conversation and be 
educated about sexual assault and relationship violence on campus, and 
empowers these students to become active members in keeping the MSU 
community safe. In fall 2017, SARV launched a supplemental workshop for 
upper class students providing instruction on bystander intervention 
skills.
    SARV also offers an LGBTQ specialized workshop. During this 
workshop, the format is slightly changed so all scenarios are gender 
neutral. There is no gender breakout for the second half of the 
workshop, as there are for other SARV programs. Additional information 
is provided regarding unique challenges LGBTQ survivors of sexual 
assault and relationship violence may face, as well as resources to 
address needs specific to LGBTQ individuals.
    SARV provides an International Student SARV Workshop designed to 
accommodate a wide range of cultural backgrounds, social norms, and 
education regarding issues of sexual assault and relationship violence. 
This workshop provides more definitions of terms, education regarding 
American university culture, and additional information about legal 
issues and resources for international students.
    SARV provides specialized workshops for Greek-affiliated students, 
called Greeks Take the Lead. The focus of this program, which was 
developed collaboratively with the Greek community, is to raise 
awareness about issues of relationship violence and sexual misconduct, 
recognize ways to intervene, understand the intersection of alcohol and 
sexual violence, discuss positive tools for supporting victims, and 
tips for making their environment safer.
    The SARV program has also worked with campus partners such as MSU 
Police and the Title IX Coordinator on three grant-funded programs 
awarded through Governor Snyder's Campus Sexual Assault Grant Program. 
These grants have funded development of the following programs:

   Bystander Network training program for area bars and cab 
        companies

   Bystander Intervention workshop for upper class students

   Multi-tiered prevention education program for Greek-
        affiliated students
Training for Student-Athletes, Athletics Coaches, and Staff:
    MSU provides training annually to Athletics Coaches and Staff on 
multiple dates addressing the following topics:

   MSU's policies and grievance procedures;

   The role and duties of the OIE office and the Title IX 
        Coordinator;

   How to recognize and appropriately address incidents and 
        complaints under Title IX, including where and with whom to 
        report such incidents; and

   How to identify sex discrimination, sexual and gender-based 
        harassment, assault and violence.

    Student athletes on every varsity team receive two presentations 
per year addressing issues related to sexual misconduct: the first, 
``Huddle Up'', is presented by the Institute for Sport and Social 
Justice and the second program is provided by OIE. Together, these 
programs, and the University's other required training programs for 
students, address the following topics: an overview of Title IX and 
OIE, mandatory reporting at MSU, the University's RVSM Policy, 
applicable laws, healthy relationships, consent, sexual violence 
prevalence and attitudes, harassment, stalking, sex discrimination, 
reporting, intersectionality of alcohol/drugs and sexual violence, and 
bystander intervention strategies.
MSU Awareness and Outreach Programs:
    As part of its ongoing commitment to prevent, respond to and 
educate about sexual assault, partners across Michigan State 
participate in the ``It's On Us'' campaign. This includes posters, 
promotional giveaways, social media messaging, and events designed to 
raise awareness. Events for the 2016-2017 academic year included a 
nationally recognized speaker, a movie screening and panel discussion, 
campus town hall meeting, and the inaugural Student Leadership 
Institute: Engaging and Empowering Student Leaders to Prevent Sexual 
Violence.
    MSU also utilizes multi-disciplinary committees, such as the Sexual 
Violence Advisory Committee and Violence Free Communities Committee to 
gather input from the community regarding pressing campus climate 
concerns and seek input and suggestions to improve the campus culture 
at MSU.

    33. How many Title IX complaints were made to MSU from 2000 to 
2017?
    The below statistics reflect complaints received by I3 or OIE in 
the years listed, regardless of whether the complaint was ultimately 
determined to involve a matter that arose under Title IX or was in the 
University's jurisdiction. Prior to the 2015-16 academic year, MSU did 
not have an electronic database to track Title IX complaints. The 
University is working on back filling the database with cases from 
earlier years and has largely completed the process for years back to 
2011-12. However, given the lack of an organized system at that time, 
the numbers for years prior to 2015-16 may be subject to change as 
additional information is found.

        2011-2012: 55

        2012-2013: 89

        2013-2014: 108

        2014-2015: 201

        2015-2016: 461

        2016-2017: 718

        2017-2018 YTD (3/25/18): 740

    34. What are the requirements to become a Title IX investigator at 
MSU? How are Title IX investigators trained at MSU? What type of 
training do the investigators receive regarding their analysis, the 
preponderance standard, etc.? How often does this training happen? How 
often are the investigators evaluated?
    Below is the Job Description for the Title IX investigator position 
which lists required and preferred qualifications, as well as a summary 
of the on-going training activities provided to investigators.
Title IX Investigator Position Description:
Position Summary
    The Institutional Equity Investigator position is located within 
the Office of Institutional Equity and is responsible for numerous 
aspects of university compliance with civil rights laws and policies. 
Responsibilities include: investigate claims of discrimination and 
harassment involving students, employees, and third parties in 
compliance with university institutional equity policies and civil 
rights laws. This includes, but is not limited to, interviewing 
parties/witnesses, coordinating interim measures, identifying, 
obtaining and analyzing relevant evidence, conducting complex analysis 
under relevant legal standards, producing high quality investigation 
reports, and representing the office in student conduct hearings. Act 
as an impartial fact finder in the investigation process. Handle claims 
with sensitivity and neutrality, ensuring office and university process 
is followed throughout. Provide input regarding policies and procedures 
at the university related to institutional equity. Work collaboratively 
with colleagues, committees, campus partners and experts to ensure 
civil rights compliance. Provide training and guidance related to 
institutional equity matters; ensure training meets all legal 
requirements. Identify and address systemic equity issues; assist 
director of office to respond to findings. Work to infuse the value of 
inclusion--a core value of the university--into the university 
community and support inclusive efforts across campus. Work to build a 
culture of active respect and concern for all members of the Spartan 
community. Perform other duties as assigned.
Unit Specific Education/Experience/Skills
    Knowledge equivalent to that which normally would be acquired by a 
four-year college degree; three to five years of related and 
progressively more responsible work experience in complaint 
investigation, mediation, and conflict resolution in a university 
setting or equivalently complex organization; knowledge of civil rights 
laws, affirmative action legislation and programming, and familiarity 
with administrative law hearing process; understanding of related U.S. 
cultural and historical social movements; experience in multicultural 
recruitment and retention strategies; comprehensive record-keeping and 
research skills; familiarity with legal and business software 
applications; and/or strong presentation and public speaking skills; or 
an equivalent combination of education and experience.
Desired Qualifications
    JD or advanced degree in relevant field; experience in higher 
education; experience in a compliance related role; experience in 
training and professional development program delivery; ability to 
build consensus, collaborate and work with broad numbers of, and 
diverse, campus and off campus partners; adherence to deadlines and 
excellent written and verbal communication skills; prior experience 
with successfully, independently and efficiently managing an active 
caseload; excellent work ethic and high level of motivation and 
productivity; strong analytical and critical thinking skill and ability 
to analyze, summarize and present findings and recommendation.
Investigator Training:
    Training is provided to the Title IX Investigators on how to 
conduct adequate, reliable, and impartial Title IX investigations, 
including an emphasis on the claimant's right to pursue the 
University's process and the law enforcement process at the same time, 
as well as a reminder of the policy prohibiting retaliation and 
intimidation. Investigators receive annual training regarding their 
analysis, application of the preponderance standard, investigation best 
practices, report writing, and trauma informed interview practices. The 
training also addresses revisions to MSU's policy and how to respond to 
additional incidents of alleged sexual harassment and retaliatory 
harassment that the University receives notice of during the 
investigation. Investigators also engage in external professional 
development annually by attending conferences and training programs 
offered by professional organizations recognized for expertise in this 
area.
    MSU also engages in the practice of conducting case reviews, which 
follow an ``after-action review'' model. These case reviews allow MSU's 
Title IX investigation team to assess the implementation of our policy 
and procedures and identify any adjustments to policy, procedures, or 
protocols that need to be addressed. Investigation reports are peer 
reviewed in many cases and are reviewed and approved by the OIE 
Director before they are issued.
    Investigators receive an annual performance review by their 
director.

    35. How many total Title IX staff were there at MSU for each year 
starting in 2000 and ending in 2017?
    The below statistics reflect employment positions within OIE and 
the Title IX Coordinator's office for the years starting in 2015-16. As 
noted in the Husch Blackwell report, other positions on campus 
contribute to Title IX compliance in various ways, even if not 
designated as the full scope of their duties. Thus, accurate counting 
of ``Title IX staff'' is difficult. Prior to 2015-16 responsibility for 
investigations of Title IX complaints was shared between I3 or its 
predecessor and personnel who were not dedicated full time to Title IX 
issue investigations. Thus, the numbers for the period prior to 2015-16 
are not directly comparable to later years.

   1/2000-6/2004: 1 investigator

   6/2004-early 2006: 2 investigators

   2006-7/2011: 1 investigator

   8/2011-7/2014: 2 investigators

   8/2014-10/2014: 3 investigators

   11/2014: 2 investigators

   12/2014: 2 employee investigators plus one independent 
        contractor

   2015-2016:

     Administrators: 2

     Investigators: 7

     Staff: 2

   2016-2017:

     Administrators: 2

     Investigators: 9

     Staff: 4

   2017-2018:

     Administrators: 2

     Investigators: 9 (1 of 9 positions is being backfilled 
            now due to staffing departure, 10th position being hired 
            now)

     Support staff: 4

    36. How many counselors does MSU have for sexual assault victims/
survivors at Safe Place, CAPS, and the sexual assault program for each 
year starting in 2010 and ending in 2017?
    Counselors dedicated to supporting sexual assault survivors are 
housed within MSU's Sexual Assault Program, which is a unit separate 
from CAPS, but still within MSU's Student Health and Wellness 
organization. As such, CAPS does not have designated positions for 
sexual assault counselors. Prior to the August 2017 restructuring of 
the Student Health and Wellness unit and merger with Counseling and 
Psychiatric Services, the MSU Sexual Assault Program was a sub-unit of 
the Counseling Center. All senior staff with CAPS--approximately 24 
clinicians--are able to work with sexual assault survivors, and 
doctoral interns receive advanced training in trauma therapy.
    The MSU Sexual Assault Program had one therapist in 2010 and 2011, 
and two therapists for each year 2012 through 2014. That number 
increased from two to four therapists in 2015; and four therapists for 
all of 2016. The Program had five therapists and one crisis counselor 
in 2017. The Sexual Assault Program currently includes other full-time 
staff positions including a volunteer coordinator for the 24-hour 
crisis hotline, a crisis counselor and program advocate, as well as 
administrative and support staff.
    For each year 2010 to present, MSU Safe Place has had four persons 
offering counseling services each spring and fall semester, two of whom 
are graduate interns and two of whom are full-time staff members. 
During the summer, when graduate student interns are unavailable, the 
two full-time staff members provide counseling services.

    37. Are copies of the MSU SAFE and SARV policies provided to MSU 
students and student athletes? Under these policies, how long is the 
training, what is the content, and how does it describe what sexual 
harassment, assault and violence are? (Does it include unwanted 
touching and/or penetration in its description?)
    SAFE and SARV are not policies per se. SARV is the Sexual Assault 
and Relationship Violence Prevention Program. MSU assumes your 
reference to SAFE is to either the Sexual Assault First-year Education 
program created by the predecessor office, I3, or the Safe Place 
program which provides shelter and other services to survivors of 
domestic or relationship abuse. The SAFE training was replaced in 
August of 2016 with a new suite of online training programs titled 
``Not Anymore.'' All undergraduate and graduate students are required 
to complete an annual online training program. First-year students will 
complete a full-length course and returning students will complete a 
different, shorter course each year, which explores a related topic at 
a deeper level. Students will not be able to access important academic 
information in the student information system, including grades, until 
they complete this training.
    Online training programs for students include information on the 
following topics:

   Providing information to identify sex discrimination and 
        sexual harassment, including relationship violence and sexual 
        misconduct.

   Raising awareness of the impact of these issues on the 
        campus community and encouraging community members to engage in 
        efforts to end these types of violence.

   Advising members of the MSU community about their rights and 
        reporting options under the Relationship Violence and Sexual 
        Misconduct Policy.

   Communicating behavioral expectations for all members of the 
        MSU community as outlined in the policy.

   Connecting community members with support and resources.

    The Sexual Assault and Relationship Violence Prevention Program 
(``SARV'') is a required workshop for all first-year and transfer 
students. SARV offers a number of peer-facilitated workshops throughout 
the year. The SARV workshop is a two-hour, peer-facilitated workshop 
that offers a forum for students to engage in conversation and be 
educated about sexual assault and relationship violence on campus, and 
empowers these students to become active members in keeping the MSU 
community safe. In fall 2017, SARV launched a supplemental workshop for 
upper class students providing instruction on bystander intervention 
skills.
    SARV also offers an LGBTQ specialized workshop. During this 
workshop, the format is slightly changed so all scenarios are gender 
neutral. There is no gender breakout for the second half of the 
workshop, as there are for other SARV programs. Additional information 
is provided regarding unique challenges LGBTQ survivors of sexual 
assault and relationship violence may face, as well as resources to 
address needs specific to LGBTQ individuals.
    SARV provides an International Student SARV Workshop designed to 
accommodate a wide range of cultural backgrounds, social norms, and 
education regarding issues of sexual assault and relationship violence. 
This workshop provides more definitions of terms, education regarding 
American university culture, and additional information about legal 
issues and resources for international students.
    SARV provides specialized workshops for Greek-affiliated students, 
called Greeks Take the Lead. The focus of this program, which was 
developed collaboratively with the Greek community, is to raise 
awareness about issues of relationship violence and sexual misconduct, 
recognize ways to intervene, understand the intersection of alcohol and 
sexual violence, discuss positive tools for supporting victims, and 
tips for making their environment safer.
    The SARV program has also worked with campus partners such as MSU 
Police and the Title IX Coordinator on three grant-funded programs 
awarded through Governor Snyder's Campus Sexual Assault Grant Program. 
These grants have funded development of the following programs:

   Bystander Network training program for area bars and cab 
        companies

   Bystander Intervention workshop for upper class students

   Multi-tiered prevention education program for Greek-
        affiliated students

    38. From the Sexual Violence Advisory Committee (SVAC) formed at 
MSU on October 15, 2015, what strategies have been identified for 
recommendation, and what have been the results of the annual public 
meeting?
    The 2015-16 and 2016-17 SVAC Reports to the Title IX Coordinator 
and the Title IX Coordinator's response thereto are made available to 
the entire campus community and can be found at: http://
titleix.msu.edu/information-reports/index
.html.

    39. Did/does the ``No Excuses'' campaign at MSU, which began in 
2013, reach individuals who are not MSU students but who interact with 
MSU staff/faculty?
    The ``No Excuses'' program, which was developed internally at MSU, 
is no longer in use. It has been replaced by MSU's participation in the 
national ``It's On Us'' campaign, which is a collaborative effort 
involving numerous student organizations, governance groups, and campus 
units. The campaign includes a variety of outreach efforts targeting 
both students and employees including events, as well as social media 
messaging, posters, and promotional giveaways designed to raise 
awareness and community engagement. Each semester, MSU hosts a ``week 
of action'' providing concentrated events over a weeklong period to 
drive community engagement.

    40. How successful has the memorandum of understanding between MSU 
and local police departments regarding sexual assault been? How is this 
being evaluated? Is this modeled after a MOU between any other 
university and local police departments?
    MSU has entered into MOUs with seven (7) local and state police 
departments. The agreements have been successful in promoting 
information flow and cooperation between MSUPD and the other 
departments. The framework for the MOUs was drawn from the sample MOU 
provided by the White House Task Force to Protect Students From Sexual 
Assaults established in 2014.

    41. What, if any, changes is MSU making pursuant to the 
recommendations in the Husch & Blackwell November 2017 report, such as 
changing the bases of appeals for OIE decisions?
    In response to the Phase 1 report issued in November 2017, MSU 
implemented the following policy changes in January 2018.
January 2018 Policy Revisions:
   Definition of sexual harassment (HB p. 15)

   Definition of consent clarified so it is clear that consent 
        cannot be revoked retroactively (HB p.15)

   Statement that the RVSMP applies to individuals of the same 
        sex (HB p. 16)

   Statement that RVSMP prohibits discrimination on the basis 
        of national origin (HB p. 16)

   Move definition of retaliation from appendix in to the 
        policy (HB p. 17)

   Clarification around interim measures (HB p.19, 22)

   Dismissal of advisor (HB p. 21)

   Clearly state our practice of concurrent notification of 
        outcome (HB p. 21)

   Addition of order of protection information (HB p.22)

   Clarified statement of equal procedural rights (HB p. 25)

   Clarification of investigator role (HB p. 27)

   Clarification of sexual exploitation (HB p. 27)

    Additional recommendations outlined in the report, including 
discussion regarding the bases for appeals, will be the subject of 
discussion through our RVSM Policy Workgroup later this spring. This 
multi-disciplinary workgroup reviews the policy each year resulting in 
a revised policy implemented at the start of each academic year.

    42. When will the second phase of Husch & Blackwell's review be 
completed? Will it still be completed by Spring 2018?
    MSU received a preliminary report from Husch Blackwell relating to 
phase two of the Title IX external review in March 2018. It is 
anticipated that the report will be finalized during the Spring 2018 
semester. The Preliminary Phase Two Report can be found at http://
titleix.msu.edu/information-reports/index.html. MSU has already begun 
reacting to recommendations in the preliminary report by restructuring 
Title IX-related functions to improve coordination and alignment. 
Additionally, MSU has announced the addition of twelve new staff 
positions in the newly created Office for Civil Rights and Title IX 
Education and Compliance, and the newly created Title IX Prevention, 
Outreach, and Education office, as well as the Office of Institutional 
Equity. In partnership with the Governor's Office, MSU also announced 
the addition of four new positions in the Sexual Assault Program.

    43. Sexual assault is currently and has been an ongoing problem at 
MSU and other universities across our state.
    a) What resources does MSU provide to prevent campus sexual assault 
and what resources does MSU provide to survivors?
    b) What is the utilization rate of those resources?
    c) How have sexual assault rates been impacted since the 
introduction of those resources? What has changed since the Nassar 
case?

    (a) MSU provides many resources to prevent campus sexual assault 
and to support survivors. In addition to the policies and resources 
described in response to Questions 3, 4, 11, 14, 32, 36, 37, 38 and 39, 
MSU provides a variety of training programs to support prevention of 
sexual misconduct and relationship violence. In addition to the 
programs listed previously relating to the SARV program, MSU offers 
workshops delivered by peer educators on bystander intervention 
strategies and offers a two-hour self-defense workshop. MSU provides 
the ``Not Anymore'' online training which is required for all students, 
staff and faculty. The program consists of separate tracks geared to 
these various constituencies. In addition, there is annual refresher 
training for students under the ``Every Choice'' Program. Further, 
specialized training is provided to Residence Education and Housing 
Services Staff, student athletes, athletic coaches and staff, and 
Greek-affiliated students. Additional voluntary specialized programs 
are offered to international students as well as LGBTQ students. OIE 
provides targeted training as requested or recommended to various units 
of the University.
    As described in response to various questions above, MSU also 
engages in proactive engagement to increase awareness of issues related 
to sexual misconduct through the ``It's On Us'' campaign. MSU also 
utilizes multi-disciplinary committees, such as the Sexual Violence 
Advisory Committee and Violence Free Communities Committee to gather 
input from the community regarding pressing campus climate concerns and 
seek input and suggestions to improve the campus culture at MSU. In 
collaboration with these committees, MSU conducts periodic campus 
climate checks and develops strategies and interventions in response to 
the information gathered.
Resources available on campus for survivors include:
    MSU Safe Place, a University-run stalking, domestic violence, and 
dating violence shelter, provides free and confidential services and 
advocacy to persons affected by stalking, domestic violence, or dating 
violence.
    The Sexual Assault Program is a provider of free crisis 
intervention and advocacy services to survivors of sexual misconduct. 
It facilitates immediate emergency response and crisis intervention, 
provides a 24-hour Sexual Assault Crisis Line, and in person medical 
advocacy. SAP also offers individual and group therapy on a no-cost 
basis for MSU Students.
    MSU Counseling and Psychiatric Services provides individual and 
group counseling to students, including survivors, in a number of areas 
such as depression, anxiety, substance abuse, stress management, and 
other issues.
    While not targeted to sexual misconduct survivors, the Employee 
Assistance Program is a source of referrals and counseling for any 
employee experiencing issues related to sexual misconduct.
    OIE Interim Measures are designed to ameliorate the immediate 
effects of alleged sexual misconduct while an investigation proceeds. 
Interim and protective measures are support services, accommodation, 
and other assistance the university puts in place after receiving 
notice of incidents of relationship violence or sexual misconduct. 
These measures can be implemented before any final outcomes 
(investigatory, disciplinary, or remedial) have been determined. 
Interim measures are available even if an individual chooses not to 
report to law enforcement or participate in a university or criminal 
investigation.
Resource Materials:
    MSU has developed and distributed resource guides and other 
materials to support survivors. Many of these items are provided by 
service-providing units such as MSU Safe Place and the Sexual Assault 
Program. MSU provides comprehensive resource guides, which are publicly 
available at: http://titleix.msu.edu/find-resources/index.html. The 
website and resource guides include information on medical support, 
confidential counseling and advocacy, interim and protective measures, 
as well as community, state, and national resources. Following are 
links to the resource materials available through OIE:

        Title IX Cards
        It's On Us Posters

    The Annual Title IX Report is available publicly at: http://
titleix.msu.edu/information-reports/index.html
    (b) There is no way to compare the number of individuals who 
utilize sexual assault resources to the number of survivors, as not all 
survivors report being sexually assaulted. During the 2017-2018 
academic year, CAPS Counseling Services has served 527 students who 
have reported a history of unwanted sexual contact. All of these 
students have been offered a referral to the MSU Sexual Assault 
Program. The percentage who follow through on this option cannot be 
pulled from the CAPS database. In 2016, the MSU Sexual Assault Program 
served 573 clients, 195 of whom received individual therapy, and 
provided 1,485 total therapy sessions. In 2017, those numbers increased 
to 661 clients served, individual therapy for 291 clients, and 1,874 
total therapy sessions.
    (c) As noted in part (b) developing reliable information on the 
actual number of instances of sexual misconduct occurring in a given 
period is difficult due to issues such as non-reporting. The number of 
reports received by OIE and MSUPD has increased year-to-year since 
2014, but it is expected that improved reporting procedures and 
heightened awareness would result in an increase even if the number of 
instances of sexual misconduct had remained constant or fallen.
    In recent years, MSU has worked to raise awareness around 
relationship violence and sexual misconduct and implemented mandatory 
reporting protocols. As anticipated, MSU has seen an increase in the 
number of reported incidents of relationship violence and sexual 
assault. While there is no direct data from individuals reporting 
incidents to indicate if a prevention program or availability of 
support resources precipitated the report, data from the National 
College Health Assessment in 2016 placed MSU at the top of 
participating institutions with over 90 percent of students 
participating in the survey reporting that they had received 
information from the university relating to sexual assault and 
relationship violence.

    44. Under the Clery Act, colleges and universities that receive 
Federal funding must annually report crimes committed on campus.
    a) How is MSU currently carrying out its duties under the Clery 
Act?
    c) Is there a Clery Compliance Office or Coordinator?
    d) Has MSU ever received a fine or otherwise been penalized for 
non-compliance with the Clery Act?
    e) Were actions committed by Larry Nassar included within the Clery 
report? If not, why not?
    f) Is the Clery report released publicly?
    (a) MSU accumulates data required to be contained in the Clery Act 
report throughout the year and publishes and annual crime and fire 
statistics report, as required by the statute. Officers receive 
training regarding Clery reporting responsibilities.
    (c) Yes, the Clery Act Coordinator is Kristine Moore, who chairs 
the Clery Act Compliance Committee, which has representatives from 
Student Life, OIE, Office of General Counsel, Athletics, International 
Studies and Programs, Residence Education and Housing Services, MSUPD, 
the Provost's Office, Human Resources, and Land Management.
    (d) No.
    (e) Yes, the the reports regarding Nassar would have been included 
in the statistics provided for the year in which the complaint was 
made. The 2017 Clery Act report contains a reference to the reports of 
misconduct by Nassar and an explanation of how the reports were 
incorporated into the data.
    (f) Yes, it is available at: http://police.msu.edu/news/annual-
security-fire-safety-report/

    45. What training mechanisms are in place to assist MSU law 
enforcement officers in recognizing the signs of sexual assault?
    All MSUPD sworn officers receive training regarding stalking, 
domestic and relationship violence and sexual assault that includes 
trauma informed interviewing techniques, referral to campus and other 
resources and information regarding MSU policies regarding sexual 
misconduct reporting and investigation. In addition, sworn officers are 
required to engage in the employee training listed in response to prior 
questions.

    46. What is the protocol that MSU law enforcement officers follow 
when a complaint of sexual assault is received?
    MSUPD maintains written protocols regarding response to complaints 
of sexual assault and coordination of the working relationships between 
MSUPD, OIE and the Title IX Coordinator. The protocols are reinforced 
with training and checklists provided to all MSUPD sworn officers, 
whether they are part of the Special Victims Unit or not. The set of 
protocols and check lists is enclosed.

    47. After U.S.A. Gymnastics (USAG) fired Nassar as the team doctor, 
what communications did MSU officials have with USAG regarding this 
decision? What communications did MSU officials have internally 
regarding Nassar's role at MSU in light of his firing by USAG, and how 
soon after the USAG fired him did that happen? Was there ever a 
consideration of firing or suspending Nassar at that time? If not, why 
not?
    MSU did not become aware that USAG had fired Nassar until September 
2016. At the time Nassar ceased consulting with USAG, he announced that 
he was voluntarily retiring from that work. USAG did not provide any 
contradictory information to MSU, nor did USAG advise MSU that it had 
received and investigated complaints of sexual misconduct by Nassar. 
MSU first learned of Nassar's involuntary termination by USAG through 
published reports in the media after Nassar had been suspended. Upon 
learning that Nassar had been involuntarily separated by USAG in 
connection with the investigation for sexual misconduct, MSU decided 
that Nassar's failure to have provided this information to MSU and 
misleading MSU was an additional cause for termination of his 
employment.
    Thank you for your attention to this matter. Please contact me if 
you have questions.
            Respectfully,
                Miller, Canfield, Paddock and Stone, P.L.C.
                                      By: Scott R. Eldridge
Enclosure

Cc: Mr. Hassan Beydoun, General Counsel, Michigan House of 
Representatives
Brian Quinn, Assistant General Counsel, MSU
Patrick Fitzgerald, Esq.

    Senator Moran. The Michigan House of Representatives noted 
in their report that the version provided to Nassar included 
the potential need for corrective action, as I think you just 
indicated, and ``this discrepancy demonstrates an office 
culture more focused on protecting the institution than 
survivors.''
    Do you have a response to that finding?
    Dr. Simon. My understanding of the reason for that was that 
we would take every opportunity to improve the quality of the 
work being done by the individual and to do that in a way that 
it made the responsible administrator--the individual 
responsible for following through on those actions.
    Senator Moran. This investigation that occurred, in 2015, 
did you or anybody under your supervision speak with USAG about 
Dr. Nassar being under that investigation?
    Dr. Simon. I did not, and to my knowledge, I know that no 
one else who did representing the university.
    Senator Moran. During the time that you were President of 
Michigan State University, Dr. Nassar was employed by the 
institution as a university physician and that employment 
continued until 2016, is that correct?
    Dr. Simon. Yes, it was near September.
    Senator Moran. Throughout our investigation, our staff and 
this Subcommittee's work, it's a surprising finding to me that 
there's a lack of consistent recordkeeping for medical and 
billing information. Beyond the reports that indicate you were 
made aware of sexual misconduct allegations brought against 
Nassar, was there ever a red flag raised about the fact that 
the university physician was providing so-called medical 
treatment to hundreds of underage athletes without adequate 
billing for those services that the university Sports Medicine 
Department would track?
    Let me see if I can paraphrase that in a more direct way. 
Odd to me that you have a university physician who is treating 
patients and yet there is little or no medical records or 
billing information associated with that treatment.
    Dr. Simon. Senator, the treatments that were done under the 
auspices of Michigan State University's Sports Medicine Clinic 
have medical records, to my understanding, and were billed 
accordingly.
    I think it has been noted earlier, Dr. Nassar was viewed as 
a volunteer for USA Gymnastics and in that volunteer role, we 
believed that he was under the direction of USA Gymnastics for 
whatever his provision of medical care and that the records for 
those individuals which he treated were under the auspices of 
USA Gymnastics.
    Senator Moran. Would he see patients that were under the 
auspices of the USA Gymnastics at his clinic, at his facilities 
on the Michigan State campus?
    Dr. Simon. Patients were referred to him at his clinic, our 
clinic, on the Michigan State University campus, which is why 
we are part of the responsible for his care.
    In listening to Ms. Wieber's testimony before your 
Committee, she made a comment that she went into the back door 
of the clinic, if you'll recall that comment. So had I been 
currently president, I find that, in listening to it. So I 
don't know about the records that would go with a visit like 
that, but for our clinic, there are records related to people 
who scheduled appointments and have medical records.
    Senator Moran. So a student--Dr. Nassar would see who--what 
patients would he see associated with Michigan State University 
unrelated to his USAG responsibilities?
    Dr. Simon. Well, Dr. Nassar had a clinic at sports 
medicine. He would see patients from wherever they came from 
who scheduled an appointment with him.
    In addition, Sports Medicine is a contractor with our 
Athletic Department to provide medical services to the Athletic 
Department. Under that responsibility, there are medical 
records retained for our student athletes. If they were--if he 
saw them in the clinic, they would be in the clinical record. 
If they're part of our recordkeeping for student athletes, they 
are also a part of the university's records and retained.
    Senator Moran. And would there be billing records--the 
athlete that's being--Michigan State University athlete who is 
seen by Dr. Nassar, is there a billing record that is 
associated with that visit?
    Dr. Simon. We provide free service through Dr. Nassar's 
Sport Medicine clinic to our student athletes, but there would 
be a medical record but not necessarily a billing record.
    Senator Moran. And a patient who saw Dr. Nassar 
unassociated with your Athletic Department and unassociated 
with USAG, would the university bill that patient's visit?
    Dr. Simon. If a person came to the clinic as a scheduled 
appointment, whether they were associated with USAG or not 
associated with USAG, but came as a scheduled appointment with 
the clinic, those medical records are all the same from our 
perspective.
    Senator Moran. But let me ask the question again about 
billing records. There would be a bill associated with that 
visit?
    Dr. Simon. I can answer you that there should have been. 
That's one of the issues that was under review as we've tried 
to think through all of these issues.
    Senator Moran. The nature of this questioning is that we 
can't find billing records for patients that were seen at a 
clinic on your campus associated with visits to Dr. Nassar and 
that raises suspicions, one about what was going on but, two, 
should the university have known something if they weren't--
those visits weren't being billed?
    Dr. Simon. Sir, my understanding of policy and protocol, 
which has proven to be incorrect, as we've tried to unravel 
this issue more, is that people who went to the clinic were 
billed. I do not know if there were special arrangements made 
for certain people nor, given Jordyn Wieber's comment at the 
hearing that there was a back doorway into the clinic,----
    Senator Moran. OK.
    Dr. Simon.--those are questions that I think have to be 
looked at.
    Senator Moran. Thank you.
    Senator Blumenthal.
    Senator Blumenthal. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
    Ms. Faehn, in a deposition in 2017, Robert Colarossi, 
former President of USA Gymnastics, says that USAG would 
investigate allegations of child sexual abuse only if the 
organization had received a signed written statement that was, 
``corroborated.''
    So that means to me that any of these young athletes as 
girls or teenagers would have been required to sign a statement 
and then have it corroborated by someone else for USA 
Gymnastics to even consider an investigation, is that correct? 
That's according to Robert Colarossi, President of the 
organization.
    Ms. Faehn. I cannot speak on Mr. Colarossi.
    Senator Blumenthal. Well, let me ask you this. The current 
code of ethical conduct, which was last updated April 2016, in 
fact, during your tenure as a Senior Vice President, says 
that--I'm not going to read the whole paragraph, but 
essentially any complaint ``must be signed and state 
specifically the nature of the alleged misconduct.'' In other 
words, it has to be in writing. It has to be signed.
    There is no indication that policy has been revoked, 
correct?
    Ms. Faehn. I believe that that was regarding a grievance. 
There was a difference between a grievance and theirs being 
conflated. I know that when--I do have the----
    Senator Blumenthal. Well, this refers to complaints 
submitted to the USAG and it says that member's obligations 
under this code, they are encouraged to first address that 
concern directly to that member. In other words,----
    Ms. Faehn. Yes.
    Senator Blumenthal.--go to Larry Nassar and complain about 
his sexual abusing them and then sign a written complaint.
    Do you think that policy is fair to victims or survivors?
    Ms. Faehn. No, absolutely not.
    Senator Blumenthal. But it is still in effect.
    Ms. Faehn. No. There's the change to the bylaws after the 
Deborah Daniels report. The Board of Directors unanimously 
adopted all of the recommendations by the Deborah Daniels 
report to the bylaws.
    Senator Blumenthal. And so what does the complainant now 
have to do?
    Ms. Faehn. If there's--it's according to the Safe Sport 
policy. So if there's any suspected abuse, they are required 
to--anyone is required to report immediately or within 24 
hours.
    Senator Blumenthal. Well, that is an instance of the kind 
of mandatory reporting that's required.
    Ms. Faehn. Right.
    Senator Blumenthal. Why is the code of ethical conduct 
still on the USAG website?
    Ms. Faehn. I don't have an answer for that.
    Senator Blumenthal. Let me ask you a different question 
then. A USAG statement from just this past year, January 2018, 
defending the organization for not immediately reporting to law 
enforcement, said, ``The information that Maggie and later a 
second athlete provided was important but did not provide 
reasonable suspicion that sexual abuse had occurred.'' Did you 
know about that statement before it was issued?
    Ms. Faehn. I can say that almost--the great majority of the 
statements that did come out was not aware of the statements 
and would read them as they came out.
    Senator Blumenthal. Who was behind that statement?
    Ms. Faehn. The statements would be organized by the 
Director of Communications along with the President.
    Senator Blumenthal. The President being Carrie Perry?
    Ms. Faehn. What was the date of it again? January?
    Senator Blumenthal. January of this year.
    Ms. Faehn. Yes.
    Senator Blumenthal. Do you think that the information that 
you were provided by Sarah Gandy provided ``reasonable 
suspicion'' that sexual abuse had occurred?
    Ms. Faehn. I believe that it was a very real concern, yes. 
I do not know if, in this release, if they are referring to 
whatever the report was from the investigator.
    Senator Blumenthal. In your testimony, as part of the 
testimony, I think it's Exhibit F, you provided an e-mail from 
Steve Penny to various people, including yourself, Jay Binder, 
Paul Parilla, Ron Gallimore, Peter Vidmar, Renee Jamison, which 
instructed them to avoid saying anything to anyone about those 
concerns raised at the time concerning the references to a 
medical professional. Was that medical professional Larry 
Nassar?
    Ms. Faehn. Yes, sir.
    Senator Blumenthal. And the instruction was that ``you are 
instructed not to have any conversations with anyone concerning 
this issue until further notice,'' correct?
    Ms. Faehn. That's correct.
    Senator Blumenthal. And that was in effect an instruction 
to you to remain silent after July 21, 2015?
    Ms. Faehn. That's correct.
    Senator Blumenthal. Are you aware that Larry Nassar was 
informed of the claims against him and the investigation the 
following day, July 22, 2015?
    Ms. Faehn. I am now, after reading reports that have come 
out, as well as receiving the forwarded e-mail that is in my 
testimony that Mr. Penny had sent to me that showed that it was 
the drop box from Larry Nassar, so that there had to have been 
some communication going on.
    Senator Blumenthal. And the FBI was not contacted until a 
number of days later, July 27, 2015, correct?
    Ms. Faehn. That's my understanding now, yes.
    Senator Blumenthal. So to put it all in a nutshell, you 
were told to keep quiet, Larry Nassar was informed of the 
investigation before the FBI was told about it, correct?
    Ms. Faehn. Yes, that's my understanding now. That is not 
what I believed then.
    Senator Blumenthal. And that was in effect the authorized 
action of the U.S. Olympic Committee--I'm sorry--the USA 
Gymnastics leadership, Steve Penny at the time?
    Ms. Faehn. Yes.
    Senator Blumenthal. There have been various references to 
mandatory sexual abuse education. In fact, you may have read 
Martha Karolyi's testimony. She makes a couple recommendations. 
One of them is, her first recommendation, for mandatory 
education and training on sexual assault, prevention for all 
stakeholders involved in USA Gymnastics. Do you agree?
    Ms. Faehn. Yes, I believe that there needs to be extensive 
education for everyone involved, not just within USA Gymnastics 
but for all of the gymnastics community, coaches, national 
staff, anyone that is around athletes.
    Senator Blumenthal. Let me ask you a general question. 
Based on your experience, at least 2 years with USA Gymnastics 
and as an athlete, a coach, would you agree with me that the 
entire structure of the U.S. Olympic Committee and the 49 
national governing boards, including USA Gymnastics, needs to 
be radically reformed?
    Ms. Faehn. I believe there has to be absolutely an extreme 
open mind in listening to all of the failures and the problems 
so that we can get better. Absolutely.
    Senator Blumenthal. And just so you know, I think you may 
have read Scott Blackwell's testimony submitted to this 
Committee in which he in effect disclaims authority on the part 
of U.S. Olympic Committee to be effective in overseeing and 
disciplining the NGBs, the national governing boards, of those 
groups, like USA Gymnastics.
    In effect, he says all they can do is decertify them and 
that's the limit of the kind of action that can be taken and 
remedies against exactly this kind of failure within the 
national governing boards.
    So I'm not going to press you further because I think in 
effect it's our job, it's on us as lawmakers to try to propose 
those reforms, but I hope we will have cooperation from you and 
others with knowledge about how that radical restructuring 
perhaps can be accomplished if members of the Committee agree 
with me.
    I just want to say for the record that the notification of 
Larry Nassar was by a memo from Scott Himsel to him, Larry 
Nassar, dated July 22, 2015. I made reference generally to it. 
You may not have been aware of it at the time and you were not 
copied on it.
    Finally, Dr. Simon, I'd just like to ask you, you know, 
there have been references to the information that came to your 
attention in 2004, 2014.
    Senator Moran. You'll have to turn on your microphone.
    Dr. Simon. Did you say 2004?
    Senator Blumenthal. Right. 2004, I think there was a 
complaint about him.
    Dr. Simon. There was a complaint about inappropriate 
language in a telemarketing----
    Senator Blumenthal. Right.
    Dr. Simon. Dean Strampel, not Dr. Nassar.
    Senator Blumenthal. So without going into the precise facts 
involving any of these instances, as you look back, and I know 
you've expressed regret, do you wake up in the middle of the 
night and say, you know, I wish I had fill in the blank, and I 
ask this question because your answer might be instructive to 
other leaders in that position. What would you have done 
differently should you have taken the initiative in 2014 
instead of just accepting the conclusions of that III 
investigation?
    Dr. Simon. First of all, 2014, when I was informed, I did 
not know Dr. Nassar--it was simply a sports medicine physician.
    Sir, I am not a doctor nor am I capable of making judgments 
about medical procedures and their appropriateness. I have 
through my career believed that experts should be investigators 
and those of us in positions of leadership should take the 
results of those investigations and take them seriously.
    We are an imperfect system. Do I wish in hindsight things 
might have been different? Do I wish in hindsight the 2004 
complaint that went to Meridian Township that was a sexual 
assault that was not reported to the university nor to the 
prosecutor had been handled differently? I have a lot of wishes 
about that.
    I think going forward we have to think very seriously about 
how we think about the voices and how we hear them. The 
processes that are very bureaucratic and done for lots of 
reasons, including legal reasons, that may have accumulated 
into the wrong unintended consequences, and we have to continue 
to try to make systems better with people and with 
encouragement to have the highest standards.
    And with that, that is our collective responsibility, that 
is our moral responsibility, and I keep thinking about ways in 
which the voices can happen differently and be heard 
differently.
    Senator Blumenthal. Well, I hope that perhaps you, too, can 
give us the benefit of your guidance because a number of the 
athletes have looked back and I'm going to ask that one of 
their Facebook postings be made a part of the record, Rachel 
Denhollander, who actually first came forward to the 
Indianapolis paper for an article in September 2016 and posted, 
I believe it's May 30 of this year, saying, in effect, that 
action should have been taken earlier.
    I'm not going to repeat the whole post, but I think that 
there are warning signs here that perhaps should have been 
heeded earlier at the top of Michigan State University.
    [The information referred to follows:]

https://www.facebook.com/OfficialDenhollander/posts/1838638329549812

Rachael Denhollander

May 30

    Former president Simon refused a subpoena to testify before the 
Senate because she was going to be on vacation at the new date the 
Senate set. According to her lawyer, speaking on her behalf, ``Enough's 
enough. The fact of the matter is, we were going to be there once 
already and lost everything.''
    No. No. You have not ``lost everything''. But talk to the survivors 
who struggle daily with PTSD and can't sleep at night for the 
nightmares. Talk to Tiffany Thomas, your MSU student who lost her 
scholarship because of Larry. Talk to the survivors who are struggling 
just to stay alive, literally. Talk to Chelsea Markham's mom. She lost 
her DAUGHTER to suicide after Larry's abuse.
    And your vacation? MSU, do you have any idea what the last two 
years have been like for my family? Do you want me to detail everything 
we have given up to travel back and forth to Michigan, to NYC, to 
California, to wherever we had to go for court hearings, to face my 
abuser, for mediation hearings, for legislative hearings, for nearly 
two years?
    I'm sorry your vacation got ruined. You know where I am? Back in MI 
for more legislation. Legislation MSU fought, with terrible 
consequences for all abuse survivors.
    You know where I was supposed to be this week? Taking my children 
to a ballet we had tickets for, for six months. Attending their own 
first ballet classes of the summer (they are now missing the first two 
weeks of summer classes.) Attending my 34 week OB appointment (ask me 
how this pregnancy has been?). I've been home one week in the past six 
weeks.
    ``Enough is enough''? Yes. It is. Or at least, it should be. 
Someone at MSU should have been saying ``Enough is enough'' 22 months 
ago after I came forward and was mocked by your Dean, and accused of 
being an ambulance chaser by your Trustee. Someone should have said 
``enough is enough'' when, 17 months into the process, you still hadn't 
allowed an independent investigation. Someone should have said ``Enough 
is enough'' when your new president lied about me making monetary 
demands, lied about our legislation, tried to manipulate survivors, and 
when your own internal e-mails showed vicious character attacks against 
us.
    Someone should have said ``enough is enough'' after you spent half 
a million dollars monitoring my husband's social media, and the social 
media of other survivors, at the very time we were in court for 
sentencing.
    Someone should have said ``enough is enough'' a very long time ago. 
But not in relation to investigating why you had one of the worst 
sexual predators in recorded history on your campus. It should have 
been said on our behalf.
    But it still hasn't been said on our behalf. So we still fight.
    Enjoy your vacation.

    Dr. Simon. As I said in my testimony, I have that same 
wish, as well, but I also think that the Skadden reviews, as he 
reported, the Attorney General indicated that there was no 
explicit information that we neglected to handle.
    Senator Blumenthal. That's why I'm asking you not about 
explicit information. I'm not asking you whether anyone came to 
your door with a great big sign saying Larry Nassar is a 
monster. I'm asking whether you look back and say I should have 
done something different here?
    Dr. Simon. I think we have to--if you look at the sexual 
abuse language and the predators, we have to be able to look at 
people, particularly in medical situations, and find ways for 
better oversight and review of those, including the way in 
which patients have bigger voices.
    If I think about Michigan State and our clinics, I am 
really unfamiliar and have been unfamiliar until recently with 
the way in which USA Gymnastics works and I'm reading it in the 
paper, but for us, we're trying to think about it through the 
clinic and clinical procedures that make it better for patients 
to have voices and be informed and also through our work with 
the Youth Safety to be able to look at grooming and the other 
kinds of issues that I think contribute to this. That's the 
Michigan State part of this.
    I also think that we need to--we're going to ask in our new 
policy, everybody who volunteers, volunteer organizations, 
we're going to ask USA Gymnastics under the new policy, is 
there any issues more regularly that we should be considering 
with Dr. Nassar. We just assumed that, given the status of the 
Olympics and the assumption that they would have the best, we 
didn't question that assumption. So it's a theory of 
assumption.
    Senator Blumenthal. Thank you. That concludes my questions. 
Thank you.
    Senator Moran. Thank you, Senator Blumenthal.
    I'm going to wrap up here very shortly. Just a couple of 
questions to conclude.
    I'll start with you, Ms. Faehn. What's your understanding--
when were you made aware that Dr. Nassar was no longer 
associated with the program?
    Ms. Faehn. I believe that was--I'd have to look to see the 
exact date, but I believe it was----
    Senator Moran. How did you find out about it? Let me ask 
that question.
    Ms. Faehn. I received the one e-mail that stated he wasn't 
going to be at the Secret Classic and then I believe going--it 
was either he wasn't going to be at any events going forward 
after that. I would have to look to see through my e-mails.
    Senator Moran. Was there an explanation why that was going 
to occur, why Dr. Nassar was no longer going to be there? What 
was the explanation?
    Ms. Faehn. I believe it was because he was still under 
investigation.
    Senator Moran. One of the things that troubles me with USAG 
is that the question of whether he was ever fired or whether he 
retired, which again suggests looking out after the 
organization or the individual more than the athletes. So I was 
interested in how you perceived his discharge and what really 
occurred.
    Let me ask you another perception. One of the complaints 
is--well, Senator Blumenthal visited with you about how changes 
at USAG, what role the Olympic Committee played in that regard.
    It's my understanding that the Olympic Committee, with 
their abilities under the law, have decertification as an 
option. They gave the USAG the option of being decertified if 
they didn't change their board and so we have a new board at 
USAG. We have a new CEO and, in fact, you're no longer there.
    So significant changes have occurred but the concern is 
that many of the people associated with the culture of USAG and 
the time when Dr. Nassar was performing treatments, committing 
sexual abuse, and the people who potentially said or did 
nothing about that, is it true that they are still or could 
still be at USAG? With the departure of the board and the 
departure of the CEO, has the culture changed or is it still 
the same? Are many of the same people who were involved in 
those previous days still at USAG?
    Ms. Faehn. Senator, that this is actually something that I 
wanted and agreed with that there should be a thorough 
investigation and I was beyond stunned that I was never 
interviewed and questioned by anyone and I feel that there 
should be for us to really understand exactly who knew what and 
what happened.
    There should be a thorough investigation because there may 
be people still working there that didn't have any affiliation, 
except for maybe, one, they weren't told something, and then 
there could be people that actually had made arrangements or 
had greater knowledge, but I do not have that information in 
great detail.
    Things that I was learning, I was finding out through 
reading what media was putting out and I think that there still 
absolutely has to be people questioned as to what involvement 
they did have and whether there needs to be additional changes.
    Senator Moran. I agree with your view. I solidly agree with 
your view.
    You indicated that you had never been questioned by anyone, 
FBI. In response to my question, you've never been interviewed 
by the FBI. No law enforcement official asked you to provide a 
report or explain what you knew, is that true?
    Ms. Faehn. Until recently, yes.
    Senator Moran. Until recently, being how recent?
    Ms. Faehn. Three weeks ago, maybe a month ago.
    Senator Moran. And what law enforcement agency is that?
    Ms. Faehn. The Texas Rangers.
    Senator Moran. OK. Is it your testimony that no one at USAG 
conducted an investigation as to who knew what and when, is 
that true? I didn't ask the question very well.
    Is it true that no one at USAG conducted an internal 
investigation asking you or others at USAG what you knew and 
when you knew it?
    Ms. Faehn. That's correct.
    Senator Moran. That, too, is part of a reason to be 
disturbed.
    It is my practice to give witnesses the opportunity to say 
anything that they felt like they needed to correct what they 
said or that they wanted to make certain that something is 
included that we should know and be included in the record and 
so I would ask, Ms. Faehn, if you have anything you'd like to 
add to your testimony today or your response to any questions?
    Ms. Faehn. I would like to thank everyone here, thank all 
of the Senators for this opportunity to share the facts as I 
know them and be here to continually do anything I can to help, 
to help not only find out anything more that we can do to help 
make it better for the future, and my heart goes out to every 
survivor.
    It's not right. You can't take that back. We can hope to 
listen and learn from it so that no one else has to go through 
that again.
    Thank you.
    Senator Moran. Thank you. Ms. Simon?
    Dr. Simon. Thank you. I would echo again my apology to the 
victims, the survivors, those we know and those we don't, and a 
way in which I hope to contribute is that while we acted 
imperfectly and I wish we had known sooner, I would like to be 
very much a part of the conversation about the solution.
    I do think I know a bit about how universities work and 
systems and approach and some of the unintended consequences of 
our bureaucratic processes and regulatory work.
    We need to in the future be able to have our now-sight and 
our foresight be much better than our hindsight.
    Senator Moran. This committee intends to pursue those 
solutions, those changes, and organization and systemic 
problems much further and we welcome the input of all those who 
have suggestions about what needs to be done to accomplish a 
more perfect system that protects people.
    When I think about a system, I also just would remind folks 
that we all have an obligation to other people, other human 
beings. Whether the system or not is a perfect system, 
individuals have a responsibility to care for others and that 
includes reporting to authorities any kind of allegation about 
abuse and so when we're going to work toward a system, it's 
just a reminder that we have a responsibility as human beings 
to behave regardless of what the system says to protect those 
individuals who have reached out for our help.
    I'd like unanimous consent, I'd request it, to include in 
the record testimony of Martha Karolyi and Scott Blackmun, who 
could not attend the hearing today due to medical reasons. 
However, they will be answering members' questions for the 
record.
    [The information referred to follows:]

                                                       May 31, 2018

Senator Jerry Moran,
United States Senate,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Consumer Protection, Product Safety, 
Insurance, and Data Security,
Washington, DC.

Senator Richard Blumenthal,
United States Senate,
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Consumer Protection, Product Safety, 
Insurance, and Data Security,
Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Moran, Ranking Member Blumenthal, and Esteemed Members of 
            the Subcommittee:

    Thank you for the opportunity to submit this written statement on 
the processes used by the United States Olympic Committee (``USOC''), 
National Governing Bodies, and other key stakeholders to protect 
Olympic Athletes from abuse. This matter is one of grave importance and 
one that is vital to the safety of our athletes.
    First, I want to express in the strongest terms possible that I 
condemn Larry Nassar's criminal actions, and I hope that, through 
efforts from your committee and otherwise, the entire gymnastics 
community will enact reforms to ensure a healthy and safe environment 
for all gymnasts.
    I was the National Team Coordinator for USA Gymnastics from 2001 to 
2016, after which I retired. I am deeply saddened that some of Larry 
Nassar's sexual assault victims were national team members whom I loved 
and worked with for years to represent the U.S. on the international 
scene.
    As the National Team Coordinator, my primary duties were confined 
to the gymnasium. I did not have any policy-making authority for USA 
Gymnastics or USOC. Nor was I ever consulted on sexual abuse prevention 
policies or hiring decisions. USA Gymnastics hired Larry Nassar to 
provide medical services to the U.S. Women's National Gymnastics Team.
    As outlined in my consulting agreement, attached as Exhibit A, my 
job was to develop a strategic plan to prepare the U.S. Women's 
National Gymnastics Team to be competitive at international 
competitions. To accomplish this, I coordinated the training of the 
athletes at our national training camps to bring a centralized purpose 
to our athletes training in different gyms with different personal 
coaches across the country. I also set priorities for a common training 
plan to prepare the athletes to perform to their best ability. Although 
a portion of my ranch was used for national team training camps, this 
portion was exclusively leased by USA Gymnastics. USA Gymnastics set 
all policies for the camp that were outside of the gym and was 
responsible for running the camp.
    Although my role as National Team Coordinator did not involve 
setting policy for USA Gymnastics and I do not have firsthand knowledge 
of any policy changes that have been made since 2016, I do have two 
recommendations that would potentially protect our athletes from abuse.
    My first recommendation is for mandatory education and training on 
sexual assault prevention for all stakeholders involved in USA 
Gymnastics. One issue that has come up repeatedly in the media is that 
many parents, and even the athletes themselves, did not know that Larry 
Nassar was sexually assaulting the gymnasts when it was occurring. 
Personal coaches did not know, and I also did not know that Larry 
Nassar was abusing gymnasts. This is due, in part, to the lack of 
education on sexual assault in the greater gymnastics community. The 
community is currently ill-equipped to identify victims or perpetrators 
of sexual assault. Through education and training, our community should 
be given the tools to identify and prevent sexual assault so that no 
child is ever subjected to the abuse Larry Nassar inflicted.
    USA Gymnastics and USOC should implement mandatory annual trainings 
for all stakeholders for the elite teams, including personal coaches, 
parents, athletes, medical staff, administrative staff, officials, and 
the National Team Coordinator. Any person who will encounter our 
athletes at competitions or otherwise should be required to submit to 
this training and to sign a certification acknowledging his 
understanding and agreement with the sexual assault prevention rules. 
This training will enable key stakeholders, including the National Team 
Coordinator, to identify and stop grooming and other inappropriate 
behavior. The trainings will also empower the athletes to understand 
when they encounter inappropriate conduct. Predators should not be 
permitted to prey on the innocence of children.
    My second recommendation is the implementation of USA Gymnastics-
assigned chaperones. Each gymnast should have a chaperone present with 
them at the national training camps and competitions. While each 
gymnast was required to travel with their personal coach to the 
national training camps, a neutral chaperone, responsible solely for 
the safety and wellbeing of each gymnast, would help create a safe 
space for gymnasts to voice concerns outside of their athletic 
training. This chaperone should also be required to accompany each 
gymnast on any medical treatments or sessions, whether formal or 
informal. A gymnast should never be alone with another adult who is not 
her parent without her chaperone present at a national training camp or 
a USA Gymnastics or USOC-sanctioned competition.
    I am encouraged that Congress and the gymnastics community are 
taking steps to prevent abuse in the future. Thank you for allowing me 
to submit this written statement.
            Sincerely,
                                            Martha Karolyi.
                               Exhibit A
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                 ______
                                 
           Prepared Statement of Scott Blackmun, Former CEO, 
                    United States Olympic Committee
I. Introduction
    Chairman Thune, Subcommittee Chairman Moran, Ranking Member 
Blumenthal, and distinguished members of the Subcommittee, thank you 
for the opportunity to submit this written testimony for the 
Subcommittee's hearing on ``Preventing Abuse in Olympic and Amateur 
Athletics: Ensuring a Safe and Secure Environment for Our Athletes.'' 
Unfortunately, because of circumstances related to my health, I will 
not be appearing to testify in person.
    I served as the CEO of the United States Olympic Committee (the 
``USOC'') from January 2010 through February 2018. In addition to my 
eight years as CEO, from 1999 through late 2001 I was employed by the 
USOC in a variety of capacities, including general counsel, deputy 
executive director, chief of sport and acting executive director. From 
1992 to 1998, I represented the USOC on commercial matters as a lawyer 
in private practice.
    As human beings, we should all be ashamed of the existence of 
sexual abuse. It is abhorrent in any setting. But the case of Larry 
Nassar is especially abhorrent. He had hundreds of victims and his 
victims included children. His abuse went undetected not just for 
years, but for decades. The abuse happened in sports, which are meant 
to bring out the best in us, not the worst. And perhaps most abhorrent, 
within the community of his victims, he occupied a position of the 
highest possible trust. He wore a badge of trust given to him by 
everyone who licensed him, hired him or credentialed him.
    I am deeply sorry for those who were harmed and horrified that this 
happened on my watch. The suffering and brave testimony of the victims 
and their families will be a painful memory for the rest of my days. 
Like millions of others, I applaud the courage of the athletes who have 
come forward. I believe the USOC is responsible for leading the efforts 
of our National Governing Bodies (``NGBs'') to protect their athletes 
from abuse, efforts which failed in this case. I am profoundly sorry 
for this failure, and I am grateful to the Committee for addressing 
this problem and considering additional steps that can be taken to 
ensure the safety of America's Olympic and Paralympic athletes and 
hopefuls.
    In this testimony, I would like to address three issues. First, I 
believe it is important to understand the relationship between the USOC 
and its NGBs, which oversee each sport and have direct relationships 
with the athletes and coaches. Second, I will discuss the significant 
programmatic changes that the USOC made both before and after anyone 
was made aware of the extent of Nassar's crimes. Third, I will address 
questions that have been raised regarding the USOC's knowledge and 
actions relating to USA Gymnastics and Nassar.
II. The USOC and the NGBs
    Under the Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sports Act (the ``Act''), 
the U.S. Olympic Committee is tasked with overall governance and 
coordination of Olympic sports in the United States. As part of its 
responsibilities, the USOC is authorized to designate a National 
Governing Body for each sport on the program of the Olympic and Pan 
American Games. The USOC is also one of only four National Olympic 
Committees in the world that oversees Paralympic sport in its country. 
The USOC takes that role very seriously and extends the same safe sport 
protections to Olympic and Paralympic athletes alike.
    The USOC also has the authority to establish responsibilities and 
obligations that must be met by an NGB as a condition of being 
designated as an NGB. The NGBs are independent entities with their own 
missions and their own governance and management structures. They not 
only need to satisfy requirements established by the USOC, but they 
need to abide by responsibilities and obligations established by the 
respective international federations that oversee each sport. The USOC 
does not have the right to direct or control the day-to-day management 
and affairs of an NGB. Although the USOC can exert influence on NGB 
decisions, it does not have the legal authority to fire the CEO of an 
NGB or to require an NGB to fire or suspend a coach. Unlike 
professional leagues and the NCAA, it does not have the authority to 
suspend coaches, teams or athletes and does not have the authority to 
fine wrongdoers. Unlike teams in professional leagues, which exist only 
in order to compete in the league, NGBs have a reason for being that is 
completely independent of the USOC, and their priorities may have 
nothing to do with the Olympic games or the Olympic movement.
    Both in the United States and in the rest of the world, NGBs exist 
to oversee and grow their sports in their countries. In the United 
States, there are currently 49 separate NGBs, for sports ranging from 
gymnastics, swimming and skiing to curling and team handball. Seven of 
the NGBs are responsible for sports that are part of the Pan American 
Games but not the Olympic Games. Each NGB is an independent non-profit 
organization established under state law. The resources and 
capabilities of the NGBs vary significantly. Some have budgets of less 
than $1 million; others have budgets that exceed the USOC's. Some NGBs 
have more than a million members who participate in their sport; others 
have fewer than 1000. Some NGBs care deeply about the Olympic Games and 
regard it as their most important competition; others regard the 
Olympic Games as less important and not of competitive or strategic 
importance.
    Each NGB seeks to promote participation in its sport and is 
responsible for selecting and training national teams which compete in 
international competition. Some of those teams train at the two USOC-
controlled facilities (Colorado Springs and Lake Placid), but most do 
not. Olympic athletes in each sport are chosen based upon criteria 
established by the individual NGB and approved by the USOC. The U.S. 
Olympic Committee has a role in credentialing NGB athletes and coaches 
who are members of the Olympic Team, but only during the two-week 
period of the Olympic Games every four years. The U.S. Olympic 
Committee does not employ individual-sport coaches or physicians. But 
at its training centers it does have multi-sport coaches and physicians 
on its staff (strength and conditioning experts, nutrition experts, 
etc.), who are made available to NGBs.
    Unlike most countries, the United States does not have a sports 
ministry that provides financial and other support for elite sport. The 
USOC's budget of approximately $250 million per year is funded 
privately from broadcast rights income, sponsorship income and 
philanthropy. A substantial majority of the USOC's expense budget is 
dedicated to direct financial support of NGBs and American athletes 
(grants) and to sports programming for the benefit of American athletes 
(Olympic training centers, sports medicine resources, sport science 
resources, nutrition resources, strength and conditioning resources). 
One of the USOC's priorities is to help American athletes win medals at 
the Olympic and Paralympic Games, and its sports performance resources 
are allocated with that in mind. But the USOC also invests 
substantially in programs that are not related to medal counts, but 
instead exist to protect and support athletes (e.g., safe sport, 
athlete career and education services, and media). The administration 
costs of the USOC are less than 7 percent of its budget.
    The USOC has gone back and forth for years over how to balance its 
oversight and support of the 49 NGBs. The USOC regularly conducts 
audits of NGBs to ensure compliance with the requirements of the Act 
and the USOC's bylaws, including requirements related to programs to 
combat sex abuse. When the USOC becomes aware of noncompliance, whether 
through the audits or otherwise, it does not have the statutory or 
other authority to mandate operational changes. Other than its powers 
of influence and persuasion, it has only two levers: take away an NGB's 
designation as an NGB or, for those NGB's that receive USOC funding, 
withhold funding. Both options have potentially serious negative 
consequences for the athletes participating in the sport, and for that 
reason the USOC has exercised those options only rarely. Specifically, 
decertification could leave a successor NGB with no sponsors, no 
donors, no member database, no volunteer database, and no membership in 
the applicable International Federation, yet with no assurance that the 
same coaches and administrators would not inhabit the new organization. 
Decertification does not generally fix problems. There is not a bullpen 
of qualified organizations waiting to take over the responsibilities of 
a National Governing Body. Finally, I should note that it is not only 
the USOC that has the right to bring an action for decertification. 
Under the USOC's bylaws, third parties have the right to initiate those 
proceedings as well.
    The bottom line is that, because of the structure of the Olympic 
Movement, the USOC did not employ Nassar, nor did it have any regular 
contact with the athletes whom he abused. Leaving aside the millions of 
Olympic-sport athletes who are not at the national team or elite level, 
there are thousands of national team athletes in the United States who 
are supported by thousands of coaches, physicians and trainers. The 
USOC has a number of important duties, but it does not directly screen 
or manage NGB staff and volunteers. What the USOC does do is:

   Generate revenue from broadcast rights, sponsorship and 
        private donations.

   Make financial grants to American NGBs and athletes in 
        support of its mission.

   Manage sport and non-sport programs to support American NGBs 
        and athletes, including programs targeted at abuse.

   Manage the U.S. delegations at the Olympic, Paralympic and 
        Pan American Games.

   Establish requirements and standards that must be met by 
        NGBs, including requirements and standards related to anti-
        abuse programs.

   Seek to enforce NGB compliance with those requirements and 
        standards.
III. The Safe Sport Program and the U.S. Center for Safe Sport
    I took over as CEO of the USOC in January of 2010. During my first 
three months on the job, we were consumed with the Vancouver Games. 
When we left Vancouver after the 2010 Paralympic Winter Games, we 
returned to national news reports of coaches abusing athletes in 
swimming. It was apparent that fighting sexual abuse had not been a 
programmatic priority for the USOC. Since that time, however, anti-
abuse programming has been one of the USOC's highest priorities, having 
been addressed at almost every meeting, if not every meeting, of the 
USOC's board of directors in my tenure.
    In the spring of 2010, I formed a working group to develop 
recommendations regarding sexual and other abuse in sports. The working 
group consisted of ten people, including athletes, representatives of 
law enforcement and child welfare experts. The working group was 
chaired by Nina Kemppel, a four-time Olympian and member of the USOC's 
board of directors. The working group first presented its 21-page 
report to the USOC's board of directors on September 28, 2010. The 
board adopted all six of the working group's recommendations at its 
next meeting in December of 2010.
    In April 2011, the USOC hired a director of safe sport to develop a 
prevention and education program providing information, training and 
resources. In the spring of 2012, the U.S. Olympic Committee launched 
its Safe Sport program, providing all of the resources recommended by 
the 2010 working group, including training and sample anti-abuse 
policies for NGBs to implement.
    At this point, though, the best practices recommendations developed 
by the program were just that, recommendations, and not requirements. 
In December of 2012, the USOC's board adopted a new policy requiring 
all NGBs, if they wanted to continue to be recognized by the USOC, to 
adopt an athlete safety program that prohibited all forms of abuse and 
misconduct, to conduct criminal background checks, to provide education 
on abuse issues, and to establish reporting and enforcement mechanisms. 
NGBs were given one year to adopt these policies and procedures only 
because the changes required member approval in most cases and the 
members often only meet once per year.
    In the meantime, a number of NGBs were expressing concerns about 
whether they had the expertise, independence and resources to properly 
investigate and adjudicate allegations of sexual abuse. In 2013, the 
USOC convened a second working group to evaluate options for case 
management. The 2013 working group recommended, and in June 2014 the 
USOC board approved, the creation of an independent entity to 
investigate and resolve complaints of abuse. The idea was to model this 
new entity on the U.S Anti-Doping Agency, which has been a success in 
addressing problems of performance-enhancing drugs. This became the 
U.S. Center for Safe Sport (the ``Center'').
    The Center did not get up and running as quickly as I would have 
liked. There were a number of issues that the USOC's board had to 
address, and that the Center's board had to address after it first got 
up and running in January of 2016. These included sources of funding, 
whether the Center would deal with all types of abuse or just sexual 
abuse, what the balance would be between enforcement and education, 
whether the new entity should be wholly independent or under USOC board 
oversight, and whether liability insurance would be available.
    Another issue, which survives today, is whether a program like the 
Center should cover all youth sport programs, or just those under the 
USOC's mandate. Abuse exists everywhere. It exists in Olympic sports 
organizations and non-Olympic sports organizations. The USOC's 
preference would have been to support, financially and otherwise, an 
independent entity that had jurisdiction over all youth sports, not 
just those programs falling under the USOC's jurisdiction. But pursuing 
that option would have required Federal legislation. It is a direction 
that I hope will be explored further.
    Once the Center was created as a legal entity in 2015, the Center's 
independent board of directors had to be populated. It had its first 
meeting in January of 2016. And then the Center's board needed to hire 
a CEO, adopt a budget and finalize the terms of its jurisdiction and 
funding. The Center opened in March of 2017. I believe that its 
creation has significantly strengthened the Olympic community's ability 
to prevent abuse and to investigate and take enforcement action if 
abuse occurs. The ability to find adequate funding sources will be 
critical to the Center's continuing efforts to protect athletes. I know 
the USOC has already doubled its financial commitment to the Center.
    The horrific reports of abuse by Nassar should not obscure the 
commitment that the USOC made to safe sport in 2010, the steady 
progress that has been made since then, and the significant reforms 
that have been implemented for the protection of athletes. The Center, 
which was approved but was not operational before Nassar, is a game 
changer that will only get stronger over time as more is learned and 
more resources are committed.
IV. USA Gymnastics
    The Nassar situation was first brought to my attention in July 
2015, through a phone call from Steve Penny, who was then the CEO of 
USA Gymnastics. I cannot recall whether Mr. Penny told me Nassar's name 
during that call, or whether he just referred to him as the team 
doctor. Mr. Penny told me that after interviewing three athletes and 
the team doctor, they were concerned the doctor's ``treatments'' were 
not legitimate. Mr. Penny said that he was going to report this to law 
enforcement, a decision I fully supported. Mr. Penny also told me that 
the doctor would no longer have contact with athletes. I spoke to the 
USOC's safe sport staff after talking to Mr. Penny. My understanding 
was that reporting the doctor to law enforcement was the most 
aggressive thing that could be done. I also understood that once it was 
reported, the issue should be left in the hands of law enforcement--we 
did not want to interfere with their investigation in any way.
    In August and September of 2016, the Indianapolis Star published 
its articles about Nassar. I believe that those articles, along with 
additional contact by USA Gymnastics with the FBI, spurred the 
investigation along.
    The new information about the scope of the problem made it clear to 
the USOC's board of directors that USA Gymnastics needed to take a new 
direction. Our board contacted the board of USA Gymnastics and 
requested that it ask Mr. Penny to resign. The USA Gymnastics board 
agreed, and Mr. Penny resigned in March 2017.
    The Deborah Daniels report, issued in June 2017, found that there 
were significant cultural issues within USA Gymnastics. In January 
2018, I wrote to the board of USA Gymnastics, detailing the additional 
governance reform steps that USA Gymnastics needed to take, including 
resignation of the entire USAG board. We also offered assistance to USA 
Gymnastics in implementing the necessary reforms.
    In addition, we launched an independent investigation by a national 
law firm to examine how an abuse of this proportion could have gone on 
for so long, who knew and who should have known of the reports of 
abuse, why they were not investigated sooner, and what systemic 
failures may have contributed to the failure to report. When the 
investigation is completed, the U.S. Olympic Committee will make its 
results public.
IV. Conclusion
    During my tenure as CEO of the U.S. Olympic Committee, the USOC 
made anti-abuse programming an organization-wide priority. For the 
first time, the USOC established minimum compliance standards for NGBs 
in the area of sexual abuse and created dedicated staff resources to 
combat sexual abuse. The USOC made free education resources, as well as 
sample policies, available for use by NGBs and other sports 
organizations. The USOC created an independent entity, modeled after 
the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency, to investigate and adjudicate claims of 
abuse within NGBs. And as Ms. Pfohl described in her testimony to the 
House Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations on May 23, the 
Center has already seen over 800 cases, trained hundreds of thousands 
of people, issued 169 sanctions and imposed 142 permanent bans.
    Unfortunately, these programs came too late to have any effect on 
Nassar's abuse. And no program can guarantee that there will never be 
misconduct. I have no doubt that the USOC will continue to work to 
build and improve programs that are designed to prevent abuse. I 
appreciate the Committee's efforts to shine light on this problem and 
to look at ways to enhance the protections for America's Olympic and 
Paralympic athletes.
    I will be happy to respond to any questions members of the 
Committee may have.

    Senator Moran. The hearing record will remain open for two 
weeks. During this time, Senators are asked to submit any 
questions for the record. Upon receipt, this is a request of 
you as the witnesses, the witness are to submit their written 
answers to those Committee members' questions to you as soon as 
possible but no later than July 6, 2018.
    This concludes our hearing for today.
    Senator Blumenthal.
    Senator Blumenthal. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to 
emphasize the point that you made so well, that we're going to 
pursue action. Apologies are not enough, as heartfelt as they 
may be, and this remark is not directed at our two witnesses. 
It's directed at the world. Apologies are not enough.
    We have to honor those survivors with real actions and my 
hope is that we will continue the very bipartisan work that we 
have begun here, I know we will, and I want to thank the 
Chairman for this hearing.
    Senator Moran. I thank the Senator from----
    Senator Blumenthal. Connecticut.
    Senator Moran. The Senator from Connecticut.
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Moran. I have no script. I should know your home 
state, Senator.
    Thank the Senator from Connecticut for his cooperation and 
our ability to work together as a committee.
    And this does conclude the hearing, and I thank our 
witnesses for appearing today and appreciate the cooperation of 
all the Committee members in today's hearing.
    The hearing is now adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 5:40 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]

                            A P P E N D I X

    Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Jerry Moran to 
                              Rhonda Faehn
    Question 1. During your testimony before the Subcommittee on June 
5, 2018, you stated that a current employee of USA Gymnastics, Amy 
White, removed records from the Karolyi Ranch in Texas. Regarding that 
testimony, please answer the following questions to the best of your 
knowledge: Who specifically ordered Ms. White to remove those records?
    Answer. Amy White told me she was ordered by Steve Penny to remove 
the records and bring them back to Indianapolis. However, I have no 
personal knowledge of whether this is true.

    Question 2. When did this occur?
    Answer. I do not know the knowledge of this.

    Question 3. Why were the records removed?
    Answer. I have no firsthand knowledge of this, only that I became 
aware of removal of records in March of 2018 and shared this 
information with Kerry Perry.

    Question 4. What types of documents were removed from the Karolyi 
Ranch?
    Answer. I have no firsthand knowledge of this.

    Question 5. Did the records contain documents relating to Larry 
Nassar's visits to the Karolyi Ranch?
    Answer. I have no knowledge of what the records contained.

    Question 6. Did the records contain any parental consent forms that 
gymnasts were required to sign before attending training at the Karolyi 
Ranch?
    Answer. I have no knowledge of what the records contained.

    Question 7. Were the records moved to specific location at USAG 
Headquarters in Indianapolis?
    Answer. I have no firsthand knowledge of what happened to the 
records.

    Question 8. Are you aware of any records being purposely destroyed 
by USAG staff?
    Answer. No.

    Question 9. Were you aware of any communications between USAG and 
USOC regarding the allegations of sexual abuse and the internal 
investigation of Larry Nassar in 2015? If so, who were the parties 
involved and what were the results of those communications if any? Did 
you have any direct communications with USOC staff regarding these 
matters?
    Answer. No, I was not aware of any communications with the USOC nor 
did I have any direct communications with the USOC regarding the 
allegations or the investigation.
                                 ______
                                 
     Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Todd Young to 
                              Rhonda Faehn
    Question 1. Ms. Faegn, in your testimony you indicated that medical 
records were moved from the USA Gymnastics National Team Training 
Center at Karolyi Ranch (the ``Karolyi Ranch'') to Indianapolis, 
Indiana. You also indicate that Amy White was the USA Gymnastics 
employee that removed those records from the Karolyi Ranch.
    When you indicate that those records were moved to Indianapolis, 
were those records taken to USA Gymnastics headquarters located in 
Indianapolis, IN (``USA Gymnastics Indianapolis'')?
    Answer. I was told in March 2018 by Amy White that she was ordered 
by Steve Penny to take the records to USA Gymnastics headquarters. I 
then shared this information with Kerry Perry.

    Question 2. What was Amy White's role in USA Gymnastics at the time 
she retained medical records at the Karolyi Ranch?
    Answer. I believe Amy White is the Program Travel manager/National 
teams manager as well as the Acrobatic gymnastics Program manager.

    Question 3. To your knowledge, does Amy White still work at USA 
Gymnastics?
    Answer. Yes.

    Question 4. If still employed, what is Amy White's current role at 
USA Gymnastics?
    Answer. I believe Amy White is the Program Travel manager/National 
teams manager as well as the Acrobatic gymnastics Program manager.

    Question 5. Who directed Amy White to retrieve medical records from 
the Karolyi Ranch?
    Answer. I was told by Amy White that Steve Penny ordered her to 
remove records from the Karolyi Ranch.

    Question 6. On what date did Amy White retain medical records from 
the Karolyi Ranch?
    Answer. I do not have knowledge of that information.

    Question 7. On what date did Amy White deliver the medical records 
to USA Gymnastics Indianapolis?
    Answer. I do not have knowledge of that information.

    Question 8. If you are unsure of an exact date, what month and year 
did Amy White retrieve medical records from the Karolyi Ranch?
    Answer. I do not have knowledge of that information.

    Question 9. How many individual athletes' medical records were 
moved from the Karolyi Ranch to USA Gymnastics Indianapolis?
    Answer. I do not have knowledge of this information.

    Question 10. Were all medical records removed from the Karolyi 
Ranch?
    Answer. I do not have knowledge of that information.

    Question 11. Please describe the nature of the medical records 
(i.e., electronic, paper, or a combination).
    Answer. I do not have knowledge of that information.

    Question 12. Please describe the volume of medical records removed 
from the Karolyi Ranch.
    Answer. I was told by Amy White that it was a large suitcase and 2 
large boxes.

    Question 13. Were athletes notified that their medical records were 
moved from the Karolyi Ranch to Indianapolis?
    Answer. I do not have knowledge of that information.

    Question 14. If not, why were they not notified?
    Answer. I do not have knowledge of that information.

    Question 15. Who controlled the medical records at the Karolyi 
Ranch?
    Answer. I do not have knowledge of that information.

    Question 16. Who controlled the medical records at USA Gymnastics 
Indianapolis?
    Answer. I do not have knowledge of that information.

    Question 17. During your tenure, how many times were USA Gymnastics 
employees sent to retain medical records from training facilities?
    Answer. I do not have knowledge of that information.

    Question 18. Did USA Gymnastics employees travel to any other 
training facility to retain any medical records?
    Answer. I do not have knowledge of this.

    Question 19. Ms. Faehn, according to your testimony, in late 2016 
or early 2017 you required young female gymnasts who traveled abroad to 
be accompanied by a chaperone vetted and hired by USAG, and also 
suggested that USAG pay for the parents to accompany them abroad. You 
also state that you were surprised to receive resistance to these 
common sense reforms from within USAG.
    Answer. Yes, this is correct.

    Question 20. Who within USA Gymnastics resisted the implementation 
of a chaperone program? Are they still at USAG?
    Answer. The resistance was more from the challenges that came from 
having 6 different disciplines attempting to have the Safe Sport 
Director create one policy . . . as well as financial concerns for 
programs that did not have the budget. No one person or persons 
resisted.

    Question 21. What were their stated reasons for resisting such a 
program?
    Answer. The resistance was more from the challenges that came from 
having 6 different disciplines attempting to have the Safe Sport 
Director create one policy . . . as well as financial concerns for 
programs that did not have the budget. No one person resisted.

    Question 22. Do you have confidence that the current leadership at 
USA Gymnastics will develop a robust chaperone program?
    Answer. Because I am no longer at USAG, I have no ability to 
evaluate this.

    Question 23. What specific guidelines would you suggest for a 
robust chaperone program that ensures athletes are protected when 
they're traveling abroad?
    Answer. Creation of a chaperone program that would require 
credentialing or licensing. Utilize a licensing authority that would 
carry out an enhanced background check of all individuals applying to 
be approved as a chaperone; the application should be supported by two 
verifiable references from people who are not known solely to the 
applicant through USA Gymnastics for which they wish to become a 
chaperone; the applicant should be interviewed by the local authority 
as a means to assess their suitability and competency for the role but 
also so that the local authority may explain the expectations of being 
a local authority approved chaperone. A structured training program and 
guidelines could be determined by the local authority concerned. Local 
authorities should provide training for new applicants. This training 
could be delivered through local authority managed training sessions, 
through manuals, DVDs or online training videos. The key elements of 
basic training should at least include consideration of the legal 
requirements, the role of the chaperone--what is expected of the 
chaperone and their purpose. The International Gymnastics Federation 
and the USOC would be essential in helping work together to provide 
appropriate credentials and credentialing access for chaperones at the 
International competitions.

    Question 24. Ms. Faehn, much has been made recently of cutting ties 
with the Karolyi Ranch in Texas where much of the abuse occurred by 
Larry Nassar. More recently, USA Gymnastic officials didn't believe it 
was right to have athletes return to a place that housed so much trauma 
and abuse for these athletes. But the most recent agreement with the 
Karolyi Ranch had been renewed in April of 2017, long after you and 
others at USA Gymnastics had cut ties with Larry Nassar.
    Given all of this, how could USA Gymnastics renew their 
relationship with the Karolyi Ranch in 2017?
    Answer. I had no role in this decision and thus cannot answer this 
question.

    Question 25. Were you involved in the decision to renew the 
relationship with the Karolyi Ranch?
    Answer. No.

    Question 26. Who else at USA Gymnastics was involved in the 
decision to renew the relationship in 2017?
    Answer. I do not know.
 Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Richard Blumenthal to 
                              Rhonda Faehn
    Question 1. In an e-mail included in your testimony, you wrote to 
Mr. Penny on July 1, 2015, ``Sarah Jantzi came to me yesterday and said 
she knew she wasn't supposed to talk about Larry. . . .'' Did you 
instruct Sarah Jantzi to not talk with other gymnasts or athletes about 
Larry Nassar? Who instructed you to tell Sarah Jantzi not to speak 
about Larry Nassar? If not, why did she say she knew she wasn't 
supposed to talk about Larry Nassar?
    Answer. I did not instruct Jantzi to not talk about Nassar. Jantzi 
told me that the instruction came from Penny.

    Question 2. Why didn't you just contact law enforcement 
immediately, as required by mandatory reporting laws, when Sarah Jantzi 
told you about what she had overheard?
    Answer. Mrs. Jantzi shared with me concerns about her athlete being 
uncomfortable with a medical treatment. I then reported this concern 
immediately to the President of USA Gymnastics. I was told by Renee 
Jameson, Director of Administration at USAG, after my hiring at USAG, 
that only two individuals within USA Gymnastics, Steve Penny and her, 
were authorized to handle complaints. I reported the concerns 
immediately to the President, Penny, who was one of the two authorized.
    Under Indiana's reporting law, IC 31-33-5-1, et. seq., my duty was 
to report potential child abuse or neglect to my superior, Mr. Penny, 
and it was then his duty to report to authorities. Indiana's reporting 
law does not direct me to report directly to authorities. Penny had 
assured me that he was reporting it to the proper authorities and I 
believed a report had been made.

    Question 3. Did you at any time during this investigation notify 
the local or Federal authorities?
    Answer. No. I immediately reported the concerns to Penny, the 
President of USAG. I was told by Penny that he had reported the 
concerns to the proper authorities, and I believed that he did so.

    Question 4. Ms. Faehn, it has come to our attention that you USA 
Gymnastics' Chief Legal Officer Christopher J. Tebo sent a letter to 
your attorney on June 8, 2018 regarding your improper deletion and 
resetting of her work devices prior to her separation from employment. 
As described in the letter, you ``without USA Gymnastics' knowledge or 
permission, reset both [an Apple iPhone and Apple laptop computer] to 
their ``factory setting'' prior to returning them. Her decision to do 
so had the effect of deleting and/or rendering all data including 
texts, e-mails and documents which were present on the phone or laptop, 
inaccessible. Notwithstanding this action, which you stated Ms. Faehn 
undertook without your knowledge and on her own volition, you stated 
you believed, but could not confirm, that Ms. Faehn may have made 
backup copies of the data contained on each device.'' Mr. Tebo proceeds 
to say, ``Ms. Faehn's decision to reset the devices appears on its face 
to be a deliberate attempt to prevent not only USA Gymnastics, but all 
other interested parties from obtaining access to the data . . . 
including the subcommittee before which Ms. Faehn testified on June 5, 
2018 . . .'' The letter further notes that your actions are in 
violation of at least two ``Legal Hold'' requests from USA Gymnastics 
that all employee technology and data be preserved. Please see letter 
addressed to Tebo. Why did you reset your work phone and laptop?
    Answer. I made sure to preserve all data from my laptop and cell 
phone to hard drives, prior to resetting the equipment. I reset the 
equipment to protect my personal, private and sensitive information, 
including personal passwords, paycheck and banking information, and 
also to prepare the equipment for the next employee who would use it. 
My attorney explained all of this to Mr. Tebo in a letter to him dated 
June 12, 2018. My attorney then delivered a portable hard drive with 
all of the above-described data to Mr. Tebo on June 18, 2018, as 
reflected in my attorney's letter to Tebo of the same date.

    Question 5. Was your intent to prevent our Subcommittee's access to 
data that may be contained on your phone or laptop? Please explain.
    Answer. No. I have preserved the data and provided it all on a hard 
drive to USAG as reflected in my prior response. My attorney's letters 
to Tebo are submitted with these responses.

    Question 6. Do you have back-ups of data that was on your phone and 
laptop? If yes, what was the date of the last back-up? Are you 
committed to providing these materials to USAG and other entities that 
may be investigating your involvement?
    Answer. Yes, I made back up hard drives preserving all data and 
provided one to USA Gymnastics as stated in my prior responses and as 
reflected in the letters submitted with these responses. I also met 
with Ropes and Gray and the House committee to continue to be 
forthright in any and all investigations.

    Question 7. On May 17, 2018, Kerry Perry, the current President of 
USAG summarily fired you without warning. USAG then subsequently 
published a statement that you were no longer employed because of a 
personnel issue. Were you asked to resign or were you fired by USAG? Do 
you know why? Do you have any updates regarding why your employment was 
terminated?
    Answer. I was originally asked to resign on May 17, 2018 without 
warning. I called Kerry Perry from our National team camp in Tennessee. 
During the call, I shared with Kerry that I had received an e-mail from 
the USAG attorney in DC that if I did not agree to testify before the 
senate, they would issue a subpoena. Mrs. Perry then said, ``wait, I 
didn't know this and let me get Chris.'' She then came back on the 
phone with Mr. Tebo and she then asked me to return to Indianapolis 
that evening. I explained that we were in the middle of an active 
National team camp and that I couldn't abandon the National team 
athletes. She insisted that I return to Indianapolis immediately and I 
asked out of respect, please tell me why. Mr. Tebo, then asked for my 
resignation. When I asked why I was being asked to resign, Mrs Perry 
said that the organization could not move forward while I was still 
there. I respectfully said that I felt I had actually tried to keep the 
women's program together while we didn't have a president for 8 months 
or a National Team Coordinator for the last 4 months. She then said, 
``your name is out there, and we cannot move forward.'' Chris Tebo then 
said no one person is bigger than the needs of the organization. I 
again said that I could not abandon the National team athletes and they 
said they respected that and would allow me to stay as long as I could 
``keep it together'' and not talk about it. I tried to keep my emotions 
together but started to cry in front of one coach. I found out the next 
morning from a press statement by USAG that I was no longer an 
employee. I was confused especially because I had never had a 
discussion with Kerry Perry in the 6 months of her starting as 
President that was negative and in fact, I had received a text message 
from Kerry Perry on April 8, 2018 saying she appreciated the things I 
was doing to continue moving down a positive path. After reading about 
my termination on the internet, I didn't hear anything from USAG on May 
18th and I texted Ron Galimore to ask if I was supposed to receive a 
letter or information. On May 19, I received an e-mail from Mark 
McCreary sharing an e-mail of a separation agreement that said 
Severance and PTO will be paid upon receipt of all property belonging 
to USAG is returned and the severance and PTO would be deposited on 
June 1, 2018. I returned all property to USAG. I did not hear response 
on June 1 and I did not receive severance payment, even though I did 
find out every other terminated employee received their severance. I 
then received letter from Mr. Tebo on June 8, 2018 . . . stating that I 
would not receive the severance because I returned the computer and 
cell phone at factory setting. I made sure to copy my computer files 
and cell phone to hard drives prior to getting the computer and cell 
ready for the next USAG employee, and to protect my personal passwords 
and banking information that was previously on the computer. (please 
see my attorney's letters submitted with these responses). I was also 
aware of another Director of USAG terminated on the same day, returned 
his computer at factory setting and received severance. My attorney did 
send the hard drive with the computer files, e-mails, documents and 
downloads as well as cell phone information. Mr. Tebo then stated I 
wasn't receiving my severance now because USAG felt that during my 
Senate testimony, I misrepresented USAG and the interactions with Kerry 
Perry and Chris Tebo, regarding their request for my resignation and 
termination. I was honest and truthful in my testimony. I have not 
received the severance stated in the USAG separation letter and I had 
spent countless hours with USAG attorneys at every request, as well as 
Ropes and Gray because I want to be honest and forthright.

    Question 8. In Aly Raisman's book Fierce, Ms. Raisman writes, ``So 
I called a USA Gymnastics official and I told her everything that I was 
remembering, the things I would have told Fran if I hadn't been in 
shock. Hours later, I got a text back from someone, saying that I 
needed to stop speaking about Larry. I was warned that there is a 
process in place and that staying clear of the process would protect me 
and the others [emphasis added].''
    Ms. Faehn, are you that ``USA Gymnastics official'' that Aly is 
referring to? Is Mr. Steve Penny the ``someone'' in the ``text back 
from someone''? Did you tell Mr. Penny that Ms. Raisman had contacted 
you? What did you say?
    Answer. Yes, I am the official Aly is referring to in her book. I 
do not know who the someone is that texted her back. Yes, I told Mr. 
Penny immediately what Aly had shared with me. I made contemporaneous 
notes of the conversation with Aly that were included in my testimony.

    Question 9. Did you do anything to facilitate a follow-up 
conversation for Ms. Raisman with Ms. Sepler, as Ms. Raisman had 
requested?
    Answer. I reported the conversation I had with Aly to Steve Penny. 
I only knew of the person Aly spoke with as the ``investigator'' and 
did not know who it was. I have never had any communication with Ms. 
Sepler.

    Question 10. Did Ms. Raisman know why Ms. Sepler was interviewing 
her before her interview?
    Answer. I do not know the answer to this.

    Question 11. Did you do anything to make sure Ms. Raisman's parents 
were present during this interview, or were aware this interview was 
taking place?
    Answer. I was not involved in, nor aware of the arrangements or 
communications regarding this matter.

    Question 12. Ms. Faehn, were you told or instructed by Mr. Penny to 
disregard any additional complaints from athletes? As VP of the Women's 
Program, wasn't it part of your job to keep gymnasts safe?
    Answer. I was not told to disregard additional complaints. I was 
told by Mr. Penny that he had reported the complaints to the proper 
authorities. I was and always will be completely committed to helping 
provide the safest possible environment for the athletes.

    Question 13. Do you think there was something about the Karolyi 
Ranch that enabled or facilitated the widespread sexual abuse that took 
place?
    Answer. I cannot speak to or speculate on program decisions that 
happened prior to my employment with USAG.

    Question 14. What was your role in USAG's decision to purchase the 
Karolyi Ranch in 2016? Did you have any regrets about that decision?
    Answer. I had no role in the decision, other than to give my 
opinion that I had concerns over the remoteness of the facility to 
healthcare, continued difficulties with telephone and Internet services 
and over the cleanliness of the facility.

    Question 15. There appears to have been numerous red flags about 
Nassar that, if properly addressed when they occurred, could have 
prevented a countless number of his criminal atrocities. As you know, 
one of these red flags involved Nassar's excessive photographing during 
competition and training sessions.
    Did you ever have any concerns about Nassar taking photographs of 
gymnasts? Did you ever act on these concerns?
    Answer. I cannot speak to events that predated my time as an 
employee of USAG. I never saw Nassar at any competitions and never saw 
him take pictures.

    Question 16. Why was Nassar allowed to take so many photographs of 
underage gymnasts during events without a parent or legal guardian's 
consent?
    Answer. This did not happen while I was employed with USAG. I 
cannot speak to events that predated my time as an employee of USAG.

    Question 17. After your June 2015 complaint about Larry Nassar, 
were you confident that Larry Nassar should or could be trusted with 
athletes? Especially minor athletes?
    Answer. After I reported the concern of Nassar's medical treatment 
to Steve Penny and was told by Steve Penny that he had reported Nassar 
to the appropriate authorities, I believed that he was under 
investigation by some type of law enforcement, and while under 
investigation, he was not allowed to be at events or to communicate 
with anyone.

    Question 18. How many times did you see Larry Nassar between when 
you first heard allegations from Sarah Jantzi and when he publicly 
announced he was resigning on Facebook, on September 27, 2015? Did he 
treat any gymnasts during these times?
    Answer. Zero times. I am not aware what Nassar did during this 
time, only that he was under an active investigation and that I was 
instructed by Steve Penny to not discuss it or I could impede the 
investigation.

    Question 19. Were you aware that Larry Nassar also worked at 
Michigan State University? Did you ever report the allegations to MSU? 
Did Mr. Penny ever tell you that he would pass along the allegations to 
MSU? Did you believe that MSU was already aware?
    Answer. I was aware that Larry Nassar worked at MSU years earlier, 
when I was working at the University of Florida. I coached an athlete 
that knew Nassar and she requested a second opinion on her injury and 
asked the UF medical staff to facilitate a second opinion in 2010, I 
believe. When I first started at USAG in May of 2015, I was not aware 
of what clinics, high schools, or places that Larry Nassar was working 
and his communications with myself, Martha Karolyi, Debbie Van Horn and 
others via e-mail, used a Gmail account.
    Penny never told me he would pass along allegations to MSU. Mr. 
Penny only told me that he had reported it to the appropriate 
authorities and that everything was handled properly. I do not have the 
knowledge of who was made aware by the authorities. I was only told by 
Mr. Penny that he had reported to the appropriate authorities and that 
they were handling the investigation.

    Question 20. Ms. Faehn, do you think USAG policies may 
inappropriately tip off alleged sexual predators that they are subject 
to law enforcement investigation? How so? Did you witness this in Larry 
Nassar's case?
    Answer. I don't know if the policies tip off predators.

    Question 21. Could this enable to inappropriate destruction of 
evidence?
    Answer. I am not knowledgeable on this subject.

    Question 22. Is there any sexual abuse have not previously reported 
to law enforcement that you think you should, regarding any of the 
currently suspended members or any other members? Please explain.
    Answer. No.

    Question 23. To the best of your ability, please describe your view 
of Larry Nassar's relationship with Steve Penny.
    Answer. I do not know what their relationship was.

    Question 24. To the best of your ability, please describe your view 
of Larry Nassar's relationship with Martha Karolyi.
    Answer. I do not know what their relationship was.

    Question 25. Do you understand what a ``mandatory reporter'' is?
    Answer. Yes.

    Question 26. If so, please explain your understanding of that term.
    Answer. A person that is required by law to report suspected cases 
of abuse and neglect.

    Question 27. Have you ever received any mandatory reporter training 
from the USOC, USAG, or any other entity?
    Answer. I received training along with the employees at USAG in 
November of 2015. I did receive mandatory reporter training while an 
employee of the University of Florida prior to hosting youth summer 
camps.

    Question 28. What did you do in your respective roles to make sure 
that organization officials understood their legal duties under 
mandatory reporting laws? How successful do you think you were at 
accomplishing this?
    Answer. This was not part of my role at USAG.

    Question 29. Do you have any expertise or training in sexual 
assault victim assistance or advocate training, crisis intervention 
services, or experience working in law enforcement?
    Answer. No.

    Question 30. When did the SafeSport training courses first become 
available? Have you taken all three courses? When did you first take 
these courses? How many times have you taken these courses?
    Answer. The USA Gymnastics Safety and Risk management course is a 
requirement that must be renewed every four years. I renewed the USA 
Gymnastics safety and risk management course on Sept 26, 2017. I also 
completed the USOC SafeSport U110 course on April 26, 2017. This 
included a course covering sexual-misconduct related content, grooming 
behaviors and reporting misconduct. I have also completed Stewards of 
Children ``Darkness to Light'' child abuse prevention training program 
on November 12, 2015 and again March 31, 2018.

    Question 31. Have you ever received any kind of training regarding 
how to detect signs of grooming, sexual abuse, or sexual assault? Who 
provided this training? Was it mandatory or voluntary?
    Answer. Please see my response to Question 26. Also, I was required 
to complete the Safety Risk Management Course (U101) as a professional 
member of USAG. Also, in November 2015, employees were required to 
attend Darkness to Light's ``Stewards of Children'' at USAG offices. I 
also completed the required U110 USOC SafeSport course in April 2017. I 
voluntarily took the Aly Raisman's Flip the Switch Steward of Children 
course again March 31,2018.

    Question 32. What in particular qualifies you to make decisions 
regarding the investigation of abuse allegations, or communications 
between victims and the accused?
    Answer. Nothing.

    Question 33. As Senior VP of the Women's Program, did you ever 
require sexual abuse education for all USAG members? Why didn't you?
    Answer. This was not my role at USAG.

    Question 34. In Martha Karolyi's testimony, Ms. Karolyi recommends 
mandatory education and training on sexual assault prevention for all 
stakeholders involved in USA Gymnastics. Did Ms. Karolyi ever 
articulate this recommendation for mandatory sexual assault prevention 
training to you?
    Answer. No, she did not.

    Question 35. USAG's current Code of Ethical Conduct, last updated 
in April of 2016, contains language suggesting that complaints 
submitted to USAG must be signed and written. USAG's code of ethical 
conduct is referenced in USAG's SafeSport policy as ``USA Gymnastics' 
Additional Safe Sport Measures.'' This Code of Ethical Conduct says 
(emphasis added):

        ``Any Member (`Complainant') who believes that another Member 
        of USA Gymnastics has failed to meet such Member's obligations 
        under this Code is, under all but the most egregious 
        circumstances, encouraged to first address that concern 
        directly to that Member. If that action does not result in a 
        satisfactory resolution, the Complainant may file a written 
        complaint with the President, program director or other 
        appropriate staff member of USA Gymnastics. That complaint must 
        be signed and state specifically the nature of the alleged 
        misconduct.''

    Are you familiar with USAG's SafeSport Policy? Are you familiar 
with USAG's Code of Ethical Conduct?
    Answer.Yes.

    Question 36. Do you believe that this policy--specifically, the 
excerpt highlighted above--is fair to victims? Do you believe that it 
is fair to place the burden of proof on the victim? Do you believe it 
is safe for a minor to confront their sexual abuser, as this Code 
suggests?
    Answer. I am not qualified to render an opinion on the fairness of 
such policies. All sexual misconduct complaints are directed to and at 
the jurisdiction of the Center for Safe Sport (since March 2017) and no 
longer within USA Gymnastics' jurisdiction.

    Question 37. Why does the code of ethical conduct require signed, 
written statements--a rigorous requirement which USAG officials appear 
to interpret as also requiring ``corroboration''--before USAG will 
investigate allegations of misconduct?
    Answer. I do not have the knowledge of the creation or decisions in 
the creation of the code of ethical conduct as this was created in 1994 
and updated in 2009. I was not employed until 2015.

    Question 38. Why, during your respective tenures, did you not seek 
revisions to the code of ethical conduct to be consistent with 
mandatory reporting requirements? Or, at the very least, shouldn't they 
mention mandatory reporting requirements?
    Answer. Others at USAG were tasked with the creation and 
modification of such code, and this was not my role at USAG. However, I 
absolutely agree that the code of ethical conduct is confusing and not 
consistent with the SafeSport policy. Revisions of the code of ethical 
conduct, I believe, are under the direction of the President, the 
SafeSport Director and the Board of Directors.

    Question 39. Are you aware that USAG ethics code requires written, 
signed under oath, and corroborated statements to commence an 
investigation? Do you think such a policy places a higher than usual 
and incredibly rigorous burden of proof on victims simply to commence 
an investigation?
    Answer. See my response to Question 39.

    Question 40. Are you aware that during investigations of abuse, 
USOC and USAG often accept character witness statements from parents 
and athletes that defend the accused? Do you see any conflict of 
interest in that policy? Do you think that such a policy could 
potentially further isolate victims by enabling parents and teammates 
to choose sides and judge the veracity of a victim's claims?
    Answer. I am not aware of the investigation process utilized by 
USOC and USAG.

    Question 41. According to reporting by the Washington Post 
published on November 24, 2017, some Olympic sports organizations keep 
lists of banned coaches confidential. USA Volleyball and USA Wrestling 
both acknowledged they keep lists of adults banned for transgressions 
including sexual misconduct, but they do not make those lists public. 
Eleven NGBs, including USA Gymnastics and USA Swimming, make these 
lists public. Another 17 NGBs did not respond to the Washington Post's 
investigation.
    Do you think lists of permanently ineligible members (also known as 
``lists of banned coaches'') and temporarily suspended members should 
be made public?
    Answer. Yes, I do.

    Question 42. What did you do to require NGBs to make these lists 
public? Why didn't you require these lists to be public? If something 
prevented you from requiring these lists be made public, please 
explain.
    Answer. I would have no role in or ability to require that such 
lists be made public.

    Question 43. Would you recommend your successor to make these lists 
public?
    Answer. To my knowledge, the lists are already available to the 
public.

    Question 44. How else can these lists be made more useful? For 
example, should they include dates or reason for suspension or ban?
    Answer. I do believe having the date and reason for ban or 
suspension would be helpful. I also feel permanently ineligible 
members, prior to 2012, should include date and reason.

    Question 45. Regarding USAG's Suspended Members page, there is not 
a lot of information regarding the nature of their suspension on the 
website.
    John Geddert is on USAG's list of suspended members. I understand 
he ran the local gym in Michigan--Twistars--where Nassar had been 
treating patients since the 90s. During the Dateline interview of 
McKayla Maroney, a survivor of Nassar's horrific abuse, claims that she 
talked about Nassar's abuse and John Geddert was there, but that he 
didn't say anything. Ms. Faehn, are you familiar with the allegations 
against him? What you can share?
    Answer. I am only familiar with the allegations through watching 
the Dateline interview. I was not an employee of USAG until May of 2015 
and do not have knowledge or information on this matter.

    Question 46. Dr. George Drew is also on the list, former program 
director of the trampoline and tumbling program. As reported by 
Deadspin, Dr. Drew was accused drugging athletes, overprescribing 
painkillers, and masturbating in front of another gymnast. He resigned 
on June 22, 2017, and USAG celebrated Dr. Drew's retirement with a 
quote from Ron Galimore, current COO of USAG, commending Dr. Drew for 
his work. Ms. Faehn, Are you familiar with the allegations against Dr. 
Drew? What can you share?
    Answer. I was not aware of the allegations until reading the 
article on Deadspin. I have met Dr. Drew only on limited occasions as 
he did not work out of the Indianapolis office.

    Question 47. Was Larry Nassar not being placed on the ``Permanently 
Ineligible Member'' list in 2015 indicative of the way that other 
accused coaches' cases are handled?
    Answer. I was not informed of how cases were handled.

    Question 48. Was Larry Nassar placed on the ``Suspended Members'' 
list in 2015? For example, are you aware of other coaches that are told 
to resign or no longer be affiliated with USA Gymnastics that did not 
immediately appear on this list?
    Answer. I was not informed of how cases were handled.

    Question 49. What is the difference from being ``Suspended'' and 
being ``Permanently Ineligible for Membership''? Why isn't there a date 
on when members were suspended or more information about why they were 
suspended?
    Answer. This information is determined by the Safe Sport Department 
at USAG and the Center for SafeSport. My position was not involved in 
any decision-making process, nor was any information shared with me, 
regarding members until members were suspended or ineligible.

    Question 50. How long do suspended members typically stay on this 
list before they are moved to the ``Permanently Ineligible for 
Membership'' list--where Nassar is today?
    Answer. This information is determined by the Safe Sport Department 
at USAG and the Center for SafeSport. I do not have the answer to this. 
Nassar is on the permanently ineligible list.
                                 ______
                                 
   Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Maria Cantwell to 
                              Rhonda Faehn
    Question 1. The ability for people, especially those who are given 
a badge of trust and a position of power, to violate children must be 
eliminated. Sports safety protections needs to be top of mind for 
United States Olympic Committee. How can Congress aid USOC in fighting 
sexual abuse?
    Answer. Require greater oversight and accountability with 
significant penalties for violations.

    Question 2. What are the safe guards you have in place to prevent 
these abuses? What more are you planning on doing now that light has 
been shed about Larry Nassar's abuses?
    Answer. My employment with USAG was terminated on May 18, 2018. My 
desire is to continue to support and promote a safe, healthy and 
positive environment for gymnasts.

    Question 3. Are there any regulator barriers hindering USOC from 
protecting their athletes from sexual abuse?
    Answer. I do not have knowledge of this.
                                 ______
                                 
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Catherine Cortez Masto 
                            to Rhonda Faehn
    Question 1. In your opinion, was there anyone in USA Gymnastics 
whose sole responsibility was to monitor the health, safety, and well-
being of gymnasts?
    Answer. Not to my knowledge.

    Question 2. Did your job description include any formal 
responsibility for the health, safety, and well-being of athletes in 
USA Gymnastics programs?
    Answer. No. Please see my online job description: https://
www.usagym.org/docs/Home/employment/13_vpwomen.pdf

    Question 3. Do you believe that you had any legal, moral, or 
ethical responsibility for ensuring that gymnasts could train in a safe 
environment, free from abuse or harassment?
    Answer. I am completely committed to promoting a safe and positive 
environment. I tried to meet this responsibility at all times.

    Question 4. Did you receive bonuses as part of your compensation 
during your respective tenures with USA Gymnastics? If so, please 
describe, to the best of your ability, the criteria that determined 
your bonus eligibility.
    Answer. Bonus structure for USAG administrative staff was at the 
direction of the President. It was not based on medal bonus or athlete 
performance. Each employee completed a yearly review and we were then 
notified what bonus we would receive.

    Question 5. Was your bonus eligibility dependent on the performance 
of the athletes or the national team, including medal counts?
    Answer. No.

    Question 6. Do you believe that your bonus eligibility would have 
been negatively impacted by negative press attention for USA 
Gymnastics?
    Answer. As stated in the USAG employee handbook, bonus eligibility 
and salary increases were reviewed after annual evaluations and granted 
based on merit and the financial status of USA Gymnastics, at the 
discretion of the President.

    Question 7. Did you feel that your job responsibilities included 
protecting the reputation of USA Gymnastics and the U.S. Olympic 
Committee?
    Answer. No.
                                 ______
                                 
     Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Jerry Moran to 
                             Lou Anna Simon
    Question. In several media reports and in your testimony on June 5, 
2018, you stated, ``I was informed that a sports medicine doctor was 
under investigation,'' regarding the Title IX investigation of Larry 
Nassar in 2014. You have also provided statements that you were made 
aware of Dean William Strampel's inappropriate behavior while you were 
MSU Provost and University President. To what extent should a 
University President be held accountable for the acts committed by 
those who report to them, even if they did not know about those acts?
    Answer. As I testified, I deeply regret that Nassar's crimes 
happened during my tenure as President of MSU, and there is not a day 
that goes by that I do not wish that Nassar had been caught and 
punished sooner. Likewise, there is not a day that goes by that I do 
not feel sadness as a result of the abuse that the survivors of Nassar 
suffered, the pain it caused, and the pain it continues to cause today. 
However, I did not know of Nassar's horrific abuses until August 2016. 
Had I known that Nassar was sexually abusing young women earlier, I 
would have taken immediate action to prevent him from preying on 
additional survivors by terminating his employment and reporting him to 
the police--just as was done in 2016 when his criminal conduct was 
discovered.
    I would also point out that shortly after the allegations about 
Nassar surfaced in 2016, we retained two of the country's most 
respected law firms--Skadden Arps and Miller Canfield--to facilitate 
MSU's cooperation with law enforcement and to provide advice and 
assistance in connection with anticipated litigation. MSU directed 
these firms that, if in the course of their representation, they found 
any evidence that anyone at MSU, other than Nassar, knew of his 
criminal behavior and did anything to conceal or facilitate it, then 
that evidence of criminal conduct should be reported immediately to the 
MSU administration, the Board of Trustees, and the appropriate law 
enforcement agencies. It is my understanding that no such conduct has 
been identified, and Skadden Arps wrote to the Michigan Attorney 
General last December, concluding that ``we believe the evidence will 
show that no MSU official believed that Nassar committed sexual abuse 
prior to newspaper reports in late summer 2016.''
    Although I did not know of Nassar's abuse until 2016, and neither 
Nassar nor Strampel directly reported to me, I do feel I was held 
accountable. Even though I devoted my entire professional life to MSU, 
I resigned as President due to my deep regret of what happened during 
my tenure and to facilitate healing by the survivors and the University 
community.
                                 ______
                                 
 Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Richard Blumenthal to 
                             Lou Anna Simon
    Question 1. Were you aware that Larry Nassar's job there included 
working with and treating young athletes?
    Answer. I was aware that Nassar treated athletes at MSU but was not 
aware of his job duties. I never worked with Nassar and did not know 
him personally. I only knew him by reputation.

    Question 2. Did you believe it was your responsibility to protect 
all athletes impacted by Larry Nassar, or just those under USAG 
control?
    Answer. I did not supervise Nassar, I did not work directly with 
Nassar, and I did not even know him, other than by reputation. 
Moreover, I did not have any knowledge of the horrendous abuses 
committed by Nassar. Had I known, I would have taken immediate action 
to prevent him from preying on additional survivors, including 
terminating his employment and reporting him to the police--as was done 
in 2016 when his criminal conduct was discovered.

    Question 3. Why did you ignore three separate reports since 2004 
from colleagues of William Strampel, Dean of MSU's College of 
Osteopathic Medicine, regarding his inappropriate sexual comments 
toward students?
    Answer. I did not ignore reports of William Strampel's 
inappropriate sexual comments toward students. I received a memo 
regarding inappropriate comments made by Strampel at the end of 2004 as 
I was transitioning from Provost to President of the University. I 
directed the memo for the Interim Provost to handle since the Provost 
is responsible for monitoring and supervising the deans. Under MSU's 
procedures, the Provost, not the President, would conduct reviews of 
the deans and would have access to all of the materials related to such 
reviews. Therefore, I did not read the anonymous reports of comments by 
Strampel that were part of those reviews.

    Question 4. What failures at MSU do you think allowed Larry Nassar 
to prey on his victims for so long? Who allowed Nassar to continue his 
abuse?
    Answer. As I testified, not a day goes by without me wishing that 
Nassar had been caught and punished sooner. And not a day goes by 
without me wondering what we missed and what could have been done to 
detect his evil before a former youth gymnast filed her criminal 
complaint in 2016.
    Before 2016, the only complaint to reach MSU officials was by an 
adult patient in April 2014, who, I now understand, did not allege that 
Nassar digitally penetrated her but that his examination made her 
uncomfortable. The physician in MSU's Sports Medicine Clinic who 
received that complaint immediately reported the matter to MSU's Office 
of Inclusion and Intercultural Initiatives (``I3''). It is my 
understanding that I3 promptly opened an investigation and reported the 
matter to the MSU Police Department. I3 concluded that, based on the 
evidence presented and consultation with other medical professionals, 
no violation of MSU's sexual harassment policy had occurred. The MSU 
Police Department turned its findings over to the Ingham County 
Prosecutor's Office, which did not file charges following its review.
    The criminal nature of Nassar's conduct was ultimately discovered 
by MSU only after the 2016 criminal complaint by a former youth gymnast 
who last saw him many years prior. On August 29, 2016, the MSU Police 
Department notified the University that it had received the complaint, 
which was different in nature than the 2014 compliant in that the 2016 
criminal complaint alleged digital penetration during the examination. 
Nassar was immediately removed from clinical practice, and the MSU 
Police Department commenced its investigation. After confronting him 
with the allegations related to his practice, MSU fired Nassar on 
September 20, 2016.
    Since then, MSU has taken numerous steps to set even higher 
standards for patient care and safety, to prevent relationship violence 
and sexual misconduct, and to support survivors and respond to reports 
of such incidents. I initiated certain of these improvements during my 
tenure as President; others have been undertaken by Interim President 
John Engler, who succeeded me.

    Question 5. Are Title IX complaints serious, in your opinion?
    Answer. Yes. Title IX complaints are absolutely serious in my 
opinion and are taken seriously by MSU. As I testified, following the 
discovery of Nassar's conduct, we commissioned a comprehensive 
independent review of our Title IX program by a respected law firm, 
Husch Blackwell. The firm concluded that MSU's ``policies and 
procedures are among the most comprehensive and robust we have seen.'' 
The firm also found that ``MSU policies and procedures comply with 
current legal requirements and agency guidance'' and ``also contained a 
number of leading-edge practices that other schools would do well to 
consider as models for their own programs.''

    Question 6. Did you ever read the 2014 Title IX investigation 
against Nassar? Why didn't you? Who did read it?
    Answer. I did not read the Title IX report regarding its 2014 
investigation of Nassar until 2016 when the criminal conduct of Nassar 
became known. Under established protocol, I was not given the report in 
2014. Typically, such reports are shared with the Office of General 
Counsel and the responsible unit administrators. In this instance, with 
respect to an academic appointment, the unit administrator was Dean 
Strampel, and a copy was also given to the Associate Provost for 
Academic Human Resources.

    Question 7. Do you consider yourself personally responsible for 
what happened at the hands of Dr. Stampel and Nassar?
    Answer. As I testified, I deeply regret that Nassar's crimes 
happened during my tenure as President of MSU, and there is not a day 
that goes by that I do not wish that Nassar had been caught and 
punished sooner. Likewise, there is not a day that goes by that I do 
not feel sadness as a result of the abuse that the survivors of Nassar 
suffered, the pain it caused, and the pain it continues to cause today. 
However, I did not know of Nassar's horrific abuses until August 2016. 
Had I known that Nassar was sexually abusing young women earlier, I 
would have taken immediate action to prevent him from preying on 
additional survivors by terminating his employment and reporting him to 
the police--just as was done in 2016 when his criminal conduct was 
discovered.
    I would also point out that shortly after the allegations about 
Nassar surfaced in 2016, we retained two of the country's most 
respected law firms--Skadden Arps and Miller Canfield--to facilitate 
MSU's cooperation with law enforcement and to provide advice and 
assistance in connection with anticipated litigation. MSU directed 
these firms that, if in the course of their representation, they found 
any evidence that anyone at MSU, other than Nassar, knew of his 
criminal behavior and did anything to conceal or facilitate it, then 
that evidence of criminal conduct should be reported immediately to the 
MSU administration, the Board of Trustees, and the appropriate law 
enforcement agencies. It is my understanding that no such conduct has 
been identified, and Skadden Arps wrote to the Michigan Attorney 
General last December, concluding that ``we believe the evidence will 
show that no MSU official believed that Nassar committed sexual abuse 
prior to newspaper reports in late summer 2016.''
    Although I did not know of Nassar's abuse until 2016, and neither 
Nassar nor Strampel directly reported to me, I do feel I was held 
accountable. Even though I devoted my entire professional life to MSU, 
I resigned as President due to my deep regret of what happened during 
my tenure and to facilitate healing by the survivors and the University 
community.

    Question 8. As President, how many direct reports do you have?
    Answer. During my last full year as President in 2017, the number 
of individuals for which I was responsible for annual salary reviews 
was 26. However, not all of those individuals reported to me on a 
regular basis, and many of those individuals did not report to me 
directly on all matters under their purview.

    Question 9. Is it correct that the police chief and athletic 
director reported directly to you?
    Answer. Yes--both individuals reported to me, but as above, they 
did not report to me on all matters under their purview.

    Question 10. The ``Healing Assistance Fund'' was launched in 
December 2017--over a year after the Indianapolis Star report came out. 
What took so long? Why didn't you offer support to Nassar's victims 
earlier?
    Answer. I do wish we had been able to launch the Healing Assistance 
Fund earlier, but a variety of support services were made available to 
the survivors as soon as Nassar's crimes became known. The Special 
Victims Unit of the MSU Police Department, which helped build the 
criminal case against Nassar, utilizes a victim-centered approach, 
which focuses on the needs and concerns of each survivor. Ten trained 
Special Victims Unit investigators were assigned to the Nassar case. In 
addition, the MSU Police Department maintains partnerships with local 
organizations that are specific to sexual abuse and child abuse. In 
addition, MSU provides numerous services to survivors under the 
university's Relationship Violence and Sexual Misconduct Policy, which 
includes health, counseling, and psychiatric services.

    Question 11. Do you think John Engler, MSU's interim president, 
should resign for his inappropriate comments, behavior, and 
interactions with survivors of Nassar's abuse?
    Answer. I have not discussed with Interim President Engler the 
allegations of inappropriate comments, behavior, and interactions with 
survivors. Moreover, it would be improper for me, as his predecessor in 
the job, to criticize him without any personal knowledge of his 
actions. I was pleased to see that he apologized and that he completed 
successfully the meditation process and agreed to a settlement to 
resolve the civil litigation and provide significant monetary 
compensation to the survivors, which I hope will help them with their 
healing and recovery.
                                 ______
                                 
   Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Maria Cantwell to 
                             Lou Anna Simon
    Question 1. The ability for people, especially those who are given 
a badge of trust and a position of power, to violate children must be 
eliminated. Sports safety protections needs to be top of mind for 
United States Olympic Committee. How can Congress aid USOC in fighting 
sexual abuse?
    Answer. I am not familiar with the details of the Olympic 
Committee's efforts to combat sexual abuse, but I commend the 
establishment of and support for the U.S. Center for SafeSport.

    Question 2. What are the safe guards you have in place to prevent 
these abuses? What more are you planning on doing now that light has 
been shed about Larry Nassar's abuses?
    Answer. MSU has always taken seriously its obligations under Title 
IX to combat sexual misconduct. As I testified, following the discovery 
of Nassar's conduct, we commissioned a comprehensive independent review 
of our Title IX program by a respected law firm, Husch Blackwell. The 
firm concluded that MSU's ``policies and procedures are among the most 
comprehensive and robust we have seen.'' The firm also found that ``MSU 
policies and procedures comply with current legal requirements and 
agency guidance'' and ``also contained a number of leading-edge 
practices that other schools would do well to consider as models for 
their own programs.''
    After Nassar's conduct was discovered, MSU has taken numerous steps 
to set higher standards for patient care and safety, to prevent 
relationship violence and sexual misconduct, and to support survivors 
and respond to reports of such incidents. I initiated certain of these 
improvements during my tenure as President; others have been undertaken 
by Interim President John Engler, who succeeded me.
    For example, even before the Nassar investigations were completed, 
we changed the supervision of Sports Medicine, where Nassar practiced, 
moving it to the HealthTeam. The MSU HealthTeam is the multi-specialty 
group practice comprised of teaching faculty, which are actively 
engaged in teaching, research, and direct patient care. MSU 
subsequently reorganized completely the university's health colleges, 
clinical practices, and student wellness programs; created the MSU 
Relationship Violence and Sexual Misconduct Expert Advisory Workgroup; 
added to MSU's already strong mandatory reporting obligations for 
employees; and hired an independent, third-party investigative firm to 
assist with investigations and reduce the response time for complaints.

    Question 3. Are there any regulator barriers hindering USOC from 
protecting their athletes from sexual abuse?
    Answer. I do not have sufficient knowledge of the regulatory 
framework of the U.S. Olympic Committee to be able to answer.
                                 ______
                                 
 Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Richard Blumenthal to 
                             Martha Karolyi
    Question 1. The Ranch is an hour outside of Houston in the Sam 
Houston National Forest, and has famously poor cellular reception. Why 
was the site for the Ranch originally chosen? Did anyone from USAG have 
any concerns with the site--perhaps that it is secluded and remote?
    Answer. Bela and I purchased the raw land for the Ranch in 1983 
because it was Bela's dream to build a training facility there for the 
gymnasts we worked with personally and for summer camps. The first USAG 
national training camp was held at the Ranch around 2001. USAG chose 
the site because of the excellent facilities, which are accessible from 
all parts of the country; gymnasts can fly in from all over and arrive 
at the Ranch only an hour from the Houston airport. No one at USAG 
indicated any concern about the Ranch being remote. The Ranch is a 25-
minute drive to Huntsville, where there is a hospital in case of any 
emergencies.

    Question 2. Was there any type of security system on the Ranch? If 
so, what did that system include? Who was in charge of security at the 
Ranch?
    Answer. Please see the conclusions of the Walker County District 
Attorney and Texas Rangers, attached as Exhibit A. To view the full 
press conference, please visit https://www.facebook.com/News4SA/videos/
10156517868292445/.
    Bela's and my responsibility at the Ranch was as lessors/managers 
of BMK Training Facilities, Ltd, the lessor to USAG. As such, we 
provided the training facilities, lodging facilities and housekeeping, 
and arranged for catered food for the USAG camps. In my official 
capacity as National Training Coordinator, my responsibilities were 
limited to the performance of the gymnasts. The lessee, USAG, was 
responsible for security.
    USAG representative Gary Warren, who was Director of the National 
Team Training Camp, was in charge of security. I have no specific 
knowledge of what the security consisted of. At one point, USAG 
installed some cameras on the premises, but I am not sure when. Gary 
Warren monitored those cameras.

    Question 3. Was there any type of mechanism to ensure that only 
authorized persons could access certain buildings on campus? What 
adults were authorized to be in the gymnast's living and sleeping 
quarters? Why were these adults authorized?
    Answer. Please see my response to question no. 2, which is 
incorporated here. Access and authorization was within the purview of 
USAG.
    Kathy Kelly, the USAG V.P. of the Women's Program, stated 
repeatedly in meetings with coaches and with the gymnasts that no male 
coaches or adults should visit gymnasts in their living quarters. I do 
not know about any kind of mechanism to ensure only authorized persons 
could access certain buildings on campus.

    Question 4. Did the athletes use a key fob or swipe card to access 
their cabins, the gyms, or any other buildings on campus? If so, were 
athletes' locations or behavior ever monitored with these, or any other 
access devices?
    Answer. There were no access devices, such as a key fob or swipe 
card, but the gymnasts could lock their rooms from the inside. Gymnasts 
were not monitored with any access devices.

    Question 5. Did you or Bela Karolyi, BMK Partners, or USAG ever 
contract with a third party security system to monitor the Ranch or the 
gymnast cabins? Who was in charge of the safety of the gymnasts in the 
evenings when they went to their cabins?
    Answer. Please see my response to question no. 2, which is 
incorporated here.
    USAG was responsible for security and in charge of the security 
system, and I do not know if USAG contracted a third party. I do not 
know who specifically was in charge of the safety of the gymnasts; this 
was in USAG's purview.

    Question 6. As opposed to coaching, training, or providing medical 
treatment, did the Karolyi Ranch have any adults whose responsibilities 
were to solely look after the children?
    Answer. Please see my response to question no. 2, which is 
incorporated here.
    USAG hired chaperones for younger gymnasts for younger age group 
programs that USAG ran at the Karolyi Ranch. I am not aware of this 
chaperone system for the national team camps at the Karolyi Ranch.

    Question 7. Did Kathy Kelly ever have a conversation with you or 
Bela about the safety of the gymnasts on the Ranch? If so, when did 
this conversation take place? What, to the best of your memory, was the 
conversation related to? Was there a specific issue, person, or policy 
that she was attempting to address?
    Answer. We assume ``safety'' in this question refers to protection 
from Larry Nassar or Debbie Van Horn. Bela and I have no memory of any 
conversations about the safety of the gymnasts on the Ranch with Kathy 
Kelly or anyone else.

    Question 8. Did Steve Penny ever have a conversation with you or 
Bela about the safety of the gymnasts on the Ranch? If so, when did 
this conversation take place? What, to the best of your memory, was the 
conversation related to? Was there a specific issue, person, or policy 
that he was attempting to address?
    Answer. Please see my response to question no. 7, which is 
incorporated here.

    Question 9. What level of control did USAG have in determining 
policy and best practices related to safety on the Ranch? Did USAG ever 
dictate or change any safety policies that were used on the Ranch?
    Answer. USAG had full control of policies and practices related to 
the safety of the Ranch.

    Question 10. During the time that gymnasts trained--in any 
capacity--on the Karolyi Ranch, did you ever have any concerns, or were 
alarmed by the behavior of any staff members who lived, worked, or 
interacted with the athletes on the Ranch?
    If so, please describe which staff member related to USAG or the 
Ranch caused concern, and what caused said concern. Please describe how 
you resolved or mitigated these concerns.
    Answer. No, I never had any concerns or suspicions related to the 
behavior of any staff members connected to the Karolyi Ranch.

    Question 11. At the Karolyi Ranch, and more generally as to the USA 
Gymnastics' Women's National Team, what were the requirements for 
medical staff training?
    Were they required by USAG to be licensed in the jurisdiction in 
which they were giving treatment? If so, how was this checked and 
confirmed?
    Answer. Please see my response to question no. 2, which is 
incorporated here. USAG hired and controlled the medical staff. I had 
no input and could not set policies or rules for them.

    Question 12. Did the United States Olympic Committee have to 
approve of USA Gymnastics' medical staff and their training?
    Answer. I do not know the answer to this question.

    Question 13. While at the Ranch, what was the process for gymnasts 
contacting their parents? Were calls or communications made by gymnasts 
ever monitored? Was the time that the gymnasts were allotted to call 
home ever restricted?
    Answer. The gymnasts could call their parents at any time, except 
training time from 8:30 a.m.-12:00 p.m. and 4:00-7:00 p.m. The calls 
were never monitored or restricted. Gymnasts used their own cell phones 
and could use the office phone in the event of an emergency.

    Question 14. Were parents ever allowed to attend National Training 
Camps or other training events at the camp? Why or why not? Was this 
policy enacted by you or USAG? Were there ever times that parents would 
attempt to attend, despite this policy? What were the concerns of these 
parents?
    Answer. USAG had an understanding with me that parents were not 
allowed to attend National Training Camps or other training events at 
the Ranch. The thinking was that gymnasts should be able to focus on 
their training, free from the distraction of parents watching and 
criticizing them. As far as I know, no parents requested to come.

    Question 15. How many meals were the gymnasts allotted per day when 
training at the ranch during a National Camp event or other training 
event?
    Answer. Please see my response question no 2, which is incorporated 
here. The gymnasts were allotted three balanced meals per day served 
regularly during training at the Ranch. In collaboration with Andrea 
Wise, a former licensed dietician, Bela and I created a balanced menu.

    Question 16. Were athletes allowed to bring outside food into camp? 
Why or why not? Were bags ever searched for contraband when athletes 
entered the campus?
    Answer. Yes, athletes were allowed to bring outside food to the 
Ranch, and the gymnasts regularly stopped and shopped at Kroger in 
Willis, Texas on the way to the Ranch. As one example, I recall once 
that the whole team was prepared to depart for an international trip 
from the Ranch. We all waited in the parking lot because McKayla 
Maroney could not find her passport. We later found it at the Kroger, 
where she left it when she had stopped to buy snacks before the camp. 
This same scenario played out again with McKayla for a different 
competition.
    Bela and I did not go down to the living quarters and never 
searched bags for contraband when athletes entered the campus.

    Question 17. At any time during your coaching career, have you 
restricted the intake of food of an athlete? If yes, why? Have you ever 
restricted an athlete's intake of food as a means of punishment for 
behavior or performance, or enforcement of discipline? During your time 
as USA Gymnastics National Team Coordinator, have you ever taken away 
food from an athlete because of poor performance?
    Answer. I never restricted food intake or took food away, including 
for punishment, behavior, performance, or discipline.

    Question 18. Who was in charge of the food program for gymnasts at 
the Ranch? Did you or USAG ever consult, contract with, or employ a 
Registered Dietician Nutritionist or Certified Nutrition Specialist to 
create dietary plans, menus, or nutrition policy for gymnasts while at 
the Ranch or while competing?
    Answer. Please see my response to question no. 15, which is 
incorporated here. Bela and I were responsible for procuring catered 
food as part of the lease with USAG. Bela and I hired a catering 
company, Wise Events and Catering, Inc., owned by our daughter Andrea 
Wise and her husband Paul Wise, to provide the food at the Ranch. The 
menu was based on the dietary needs of the gymnasts and controlled by 
Andrea Wise, who was a licensed dietitian until 2010. I personally 
requested input from USOC on the menu, and they sent a nutritionist to 
the Ranch to discuss in detail the diet and pre-competition foods and 
snacks before oddly-timed competitions.

    Question 19. Some former athletes have accused your training 
methods of being ``oppressive and emotionally abusive.'' Did you ever 
use coaching tactics of intimidation to instill discipline in your 
gymnasts?
    Answer. Bela and I were strict disciplinarians during training. As 
a result, we produced numerous Olympic champions and Olympic champion 
teams. My mantra was: ``We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence is not 
an act, but a habit.'' I occasionally said this phrase to the gymnasts. 
Bela and I trained our girls to be prepared for the pressure they would 
face in international competitions. We never intended to intimidate any 
of the girls.
    We always tried to instill in our gymnasts the desire to perform 
based on their best ability and to believe in their strengths based on 
consistent training. This enabled them to become very confident and 
successful. We used consistent and serious training, through numerous 
repetitions, to create successful gymnasts.

    Question 20. In the character witness letters submitted as part of 
her testimony, an anecdote from Don McPherson stands out. In it, Mr. 
McPherson describes Faehn's role in incurring a .05 deduction for the 
U.S. team in 1988 after she had, upon Bela's instruction, attempted to 
move a springboard out of the way for her teammate. Faehn and others 
charge that after the incident, you blamed Faehn for costing the bronze 
medal for the U.S. This story had some striking parallels with Mattie 
Larson's experience in 2010, who, after making two significant errors 
at World Championships, was blamed for the team loss and shunned by the 
coaches after the competition. Is it true that coaches--including 
yourself--have scapegoated, blamed and shunned athletes after the team 
experiences a less than desirable outcome, or when a gymnast makes a 
mistake? Do you believe that such a culture creates a healthy 
environment for young athletes?
    Answer. The gymnasts and coaches were disappointed when the half-
point deduction was applied to our score, and we lost the bronze medal. 
Our alternate, Rhonda Faehn, removed the springboard used to mount her 
teammate onto the uneven bars--so her teammate would not trip or land 
on it--and stayed on the podium during her teammate's routine, which 
was common practice amongst gymnasts from other countries as well. But, 
the President of the rules committee for the International Gymnastics 
Federation, Ellen Berger, applied the half-point deduction to us 
because she was East German. With the half-point deduction, the East 
German team was able to pull in front of the U.S. overall, narrowly 
taking the bronze medal. The U.S. took fourth place, and we were all 
very sad about the loss. I did not have any kind of confrontation with 
the team and absolutely did not blame Rhonda.
    No one is happy when these sorts of mistakes are made, but I never 
blamed them or pointed out that the team lost because of that mistake. 
I do not believe that would create a healthy environment for young 
athletes.

    Question 21. You and Bela are known for your ``tough'' training. 
What coaching techniques or tactics did you use to push an athlete to 
perform? What methods were the most successful?
    Answer. Please see my response to question no. 19, which is 
incorporated here.

    Question 22. Did you ever raise your voice in anger to gymnasts to 
get them to perform? Have you ever slapped, hit, or used physical 
aggression to gymnasts when their performance was substandard? How did 
you treat athletes who performed poorly at the Ranch? How did you treat 
athletes who performed poorly in competition?
    Answer. I did not yell in anger at my gymnasts. I never slapped, 
hit, or was physically aggressive towards any of the gymnasts. Instead, 
I tried to instill in them the desire to become the best they could be. 
When athletes did not perform well, I would talk to the gymnasts and 
remind them that we appreciate their efforts when they try their best. 
My approach was based on self-motivation, and the gymnasts knew that.

    Question 23. During your time as National Team Coordinator, did you 
ever tell gymnasts to ``tough it out'' or ``suck it up''--whether it be 
in regards to their feelings or physical pain to be successful as an 
elite gymnast?
    Answer. I always encouraged gymnasts to stay focused. I never told 
gymnasts to ``tough it out'' or ``suck it up.''

    Question 24. Did any of your athletes, or the parents of any of 
your athletes ever make issue, or have concerns with your tough 
training, policies, or demeanor?
    Answer. No one ever questioned us or complained about our training 
methods.

    Question 25. There appears to have been numerous red flags about 
Nassar that, if properly addressed when they occurred, could have 
prevented a countless number of his criminal atrocities. As you know, 
one of these red flags involved Nassar's excessive photographing during 
competition and training sessions.
    Did you ever have any concerns about Nassar taking photographs of 
gymnasts? Did you ever act on these concerns?
    Answer. Please see my response to question no. 2, which is 
incorporated here. The only time that I saw Larry Nassar taking 
pictures was in the arena after competitions or in training facilities, 
when he and others would take photographs. I never saw him taking 
inappropriate pictures, and I did not have concerns about the 
photographs I saw him take. I am heartsick about what I have since 
learned about Larry Nassar's abuse of gymnasts, many of whom I loved 
and worked closely with for years.

    Question 26. Why was Nassar allowed to take so many photographs of 
underage gymnasts during events without a parent or legal guardian's 
consent?
    Answer. Please see my response to question no. 2, which is 
incorporated here. As Larry Nassar worked for USAG, I do not know the 
answer to this question.

    Question 27. After your June 2015 complaint about Larry Nassar, 
were you confident that Larry Nassar should or could be trusted with 
athletes? Especially minor athletes?
    Answer. I do not understand the reference in the question to my 
``June 2015 complaint about Larry Nassar,'' as I did not make any 
``June 2015 complaint'' about Larry Nassar. I am heartsick about what I 
have since learned about Larry Nassar's abuse of gymnasts, many of whom 
I loved and worked closely with for years.

    Question 28. How many times did you see Larry Nassar between when 
you first heard allegations from Sarah Jantzi and when he publicly 
announced he was resigning on Facebook, on September 27, 2015 \1\? Did 
he treat any gymnasts during these times?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3100632-Nassar-Sept-
2015.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Answer. I never talked to Sarah Jantzi about these allegations. The 
last time I saw Larry Nassar was before June of 2015; I believe Nassar 
was last at my Ranch in February 2015 at the training camp. I have no 
knowledge about whether Nassar treated any gymnasts after June 2015, 
but he never returned to the Ranch or any competition for USAG after 
June 2015.

    Question 29. Were you aware that Larry Nassar also worked at 
Michigan State University? Did you ever report the allegations to MSU? 
Did Mr. Penny ever tell you that he would pass along the allegations to 
MSU? Did you believe that MSU was already aware?
    Answer. Please see the conclusions of the Walker County District 
Attorney and Texas Rangers, attached as Exhibit A.
    Yes, I knew that Nassar had a full-time job at MSU. Steve Penny 
told me that USAG was responding to the allegations and that Nassar 
would not be working with USAG anymore. Penny told me not to talk about 
it.

    Question 30. Ms. Faehn, do you think USAG policies may 
inappropriately tip off alleged sexual predators that they are subject 
to law enforcement investigation? How so? Did you witness this in Larry 
Nassar's case? Could this enable to inappropriate destruction of 
evidence?
    Answer. This question appears to be directed at Ms. Faehn.

    Question 31. Is there any sexual abuse you have not previously 
reported to law enforcement that you think you should, regarding any of 
the currently suspended members or any other members? Please explain.
    Answer. No.

    Question 32. To the best of your ability, please describe your view 
of Larry Nassar's relationship with Steve Penny.
    Answer. I do not have a concrete basis to recount the relationship 
between Larry Nassar and Steve Penny.

    Question 33. To the best of your ability, please describe your view 
of Larry Nassar's relationship with Rhonda Faehn and her predecessors, 
Kathy Kelly, and Luan Peszek.
    Answer. Kathy Kelly and Luan Peszek had a very good relationship 
and were very friendly with Larry Nassar. Larry Nassar was fired 
shortly after Rhonda Faehn came in, so I do not know about their 
relationship.

    Question 34. Do you understand what a ``mandatory reporter'' is? If 
so, please explain your understanding of that term. Have you ever 
received any mandatory reporter training from the USOC, USAG, or any 
other entity?
    Answer. Please see the conclusions of the Walker County District 
Attorney and Texas Rangers, attached as Exhibit A.
    I did not receive any mandatory reporter training from USOC, USAG, 
or any other entity.

    Question 35. What did you do in your respective roles to make sure 
that organization officials understood their legal duties under 
mandatory reporting laws? How successful do you think you were at 
accomplishing this?
    Answer. Please see my response to question no. 2, which is 
incorporated here. It was not our responsibility to set such policies, 
nor were we entitled to set such policies for USAG.

    Question 36. Do you have any expertise or training in sexual 
assault victim assistance or advocate training, crisis intervention 
services, or experience working in law enforcement?
    Answer. No, I do not, and I wish that I had been trained in sexual 
assault victim assistance, available crisis intervention services, and 
sexual assault prevention and recognition.

    Question 37. When did the SafeSport training courses first become 
available? Have you taken all three courses? When did you first take 
these courses? How many times have you taken these courses?
    Answer. USAG implemented the policy regarding mandatory SafeSport 
courses after I retired, so I have not taken any of the courses. I 
retired after the Rio de Janeiro Olympics in 2016.

    Question 38. Have you ever received any kind of training regarding 
how to detect signs of grooming, sexual abuse, or sexual assault? Who 
provided this training? Was it mandatory or voluntary?
    Answer. No, I did not, and I now think that type of training is an 
absolute necessity.

    Question 39. What in particular qualifies you to make decisions 
regarding the investigation of abuse allegations, or communications 
between victims and the accused?
    Answer. Nothing, and this was never my role.

    Question 40. According to reporting by the Washington Post 
published on November 24, 2017, some Olympic sports organizations keep 
lists of banned coaches confidential.\2\ USA Volleyball and USA 
Wrestling both acknowledged they keep lists of adults banned for 
transgressions including sexual misconduct, but they do not make those 
lists public. Eleven NGBs, including USA Gymnastics and USA Swimming, 
make these lists public. Another 17 NGBs did not respond to the 
Washington Post's investigation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/some-olympic-sports-
organizations-keep-lists-of-banned-coaches-confidential/2017/11/22/
c20a65dc-c029-11e7-97d9-bdab5a0ab381_story.html?utm_term=.65f648d88f3e
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Do you think lists of permanently ineligible members (also known as 
``lists of banned coaches'') and temporarily suspended members should 
be made public?
    Answer. Yes, these lists of banned coaches should be public in 
order to protect potential victims.

    Question 41. What did you do to require NGBs to make these lists 
public? Why didn't you require these lists to be public? If something 
prevented you from requiring these lists be made public, please 
explain.
    Answer. I had no authority to dictate policy to USAG, let alone 
other NGBs, regarding the lists of banned coaches. Furthermore, as you 
noted, USAG already has a public list of banned coaches.

    Question 42. Would you recommend your successor to make these lists 
public?
    Answer. USAG has already done this.

    Question 43. How else can these lists be made more useful? For 
example, should they include dates or reason for suspension or ban?
    Answer. These lists should have sufficient information so that an 
interested person reviewing the list can determine why a particular 
person is banned.
                               Attachment
                               Exhibit A

7/6/2018 USA Gymnastics a `total failure,' according to probe of famed 
                                 ranch

 USA Gymnastics a `total failure,' according to investigation of famed 
                             Karolyi ranch

Nancy Armour and Rachel Axon, USA TODAY Published 4:11 p m ET June 29, 
               2018 / Updated 10:17 p.m. ET June 29, 2018

    Martha and Bela Karolyi were cleared of criminal wrongdoing by 
Texas law-enforcement officials, who instead blamed USA Gymnastics for 
a ``total failure'' to protect gymnasts from being sexually abused by 
Larry Nassar at the famed coaches' ranch.

    In announcing new charges against the longtime USA Gymnastics 
physician Friday afternoon, Walker County assistant district attorney 
Stephanie Stroud said her office had also considered whether others 
``could or should be charged.'' But the statute of limitations for 
failure to report, a misdemeanor, had already passed, Stroud said.

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    (Photo: Dave Einsel, USA TODAY Sports)

    ``We are bound by the law, but that in no way means there was no 
wrongdoing at the ranch or within the ranks of USAG,'' Stroud said at a 
news conference. ``It is our belief that there was a total failure by 
USAG to protect the athletes that were part of their program, and to 
take appropriate action once they were made aware of Dr. Nassar's 
actions.''

More: Martha and Bela Karolyi sue USA Gymnastics, USOC over failed 
ranch sale, lawsuits (http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/olympics/
2018/05/01/martha-bela-karolyi-sue-usa-gymnastics-usoc-over-failed-
ranch-sale-lawsuits/570699002/)

More: Larry Nassar survivors are right: Michigan State president John 
Engler must go (http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/columnist/
nancyarmour/2018/06/20/larry-nassar-survivors-right-michigan-state-
president-must-go/715765002/)

    Olympic champions Simone Biles, Aly Raisman, McKayla Maroney, Gabby 
Douglas and Jordyn Wieber are among the more than 300 women who said 
Nassar abused them under the guise of medical treatment.

    USA Gymnastics first became aware in June 2015 that gymnasts were 
uncomfortable with Nassar's treatment but waited five weeks while it 
conducted its own investigation before reporting Nassar to the FBI. USA 
Gymnastics did not publicize the reason for Nassar's departure nor tell 
Michigan State, where he also worked, saying it had been instructed not 
to by the FBI.

    Nassar's abuse would not become public until September 2016, when 
Rachael Denhollander contacted The Indianapolis Star, a member of the 
USA TODAY Network.

    ``There were so many chances for something to be done that 
wasn't,'' said David Weeks, the Walker County district attorney. In a 
statement, USA Gymnastics said it was ``sorry that any athlete was 
harmed.''

    ``USA Gymnastics supports and is fully cooperating with the 
investigations by the Texas Rangers, Congress and others, and we will 
continue do so,'' the statement added.

    A month after Denhollander went public, Michigan officials alerted 
the Walker County sheriff's office to allegations of abuse at the 
ranch. Two cases were turned over to Michigan officials to be 
considered during Nassar's sentencing hearing.
    But after the hearing, which including searing testimony by more 
than 150 women, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott asked the Texas Rangers to see 
if anyone else was culpable for Nassar's actions at the ranch.

    Several gymnasts have sued the Karolyis, alleging they fostered a 
culture of fear and intimidation that allowed Nassar to thrive. Bela 
Karolyi was hired in late 1999 to be the first women's national team 
coordinator, and Martha replaced him in 2001 and served until after the 
Rio Olympics in 2016.

    Monthly training camps were held at their ranch from 2000 until 
earlier this year. USA Gymnastics leased the property from the Karolyis 
and initially planned to buy it after Martha Karolyi retired, but 
backed out after it became known some of Nassar's abuse had occurred 
there.

    Stroud said the Karolyis were interviewed at length, but officials 
found ``no corroborated evidence of criminal conduct.''

    ``Nassar did not work for them,'' Weeks said. ``The people who had 
control over him failed. Simple as that.''

    The new charges against Nassar are six counts of sexual assault of 
a child, a second-degree felony. Also charged is Debbie Van Horn, a 
longtime trainer who gymnast Mattie Larson said was in the room when 
Nassar abused her. Van Horn, who worked for USA Gymnastics until 
January of this year, faces one count of sexual assault of a child.

    Though Nassar will spend the rest of his life in prison after 
pleading guilty to Federal child pornography charges and seven charges 
in Michigan of sexually assaulting girls, Weeks defended the decision 
to file the new charges.

    ``It's the right thing to do,'' he said. ``Because these victims 
deserve to be heard. Because they deserve justice.''

    The investigation into Nassar's abuse at the ranch remains open, 
too. Weeks said his office has asked USA Gymnastics for records and 
documents, and is still waiting for those.

    ``If we get other information and we gain access to records and 
things,'' Stroud said, ``there may be other charges.''
                                 ______
                                 
                                   Cohen Garelick & Glazier
                                    Indianapolis, IN, June 12, 2018

VIA EMAIL ([email protected])
Christopher Tebo, Chief Legal Officer
USA GYMNASTICS
Indianapolis, Indiana

Re: Rhonda Faehn

Dear Christopher:

    In response to your letter of June 8, 2018, please be advised that 
Ms. Faehn has indeed preserved the electronic data that resided on her 
USAG laptop and cell phone, all in accordance with the memos you 
reference in your letter. Those memos required only that the data be 
preserved, which Rhonda has done, and neither the memos nor the 
termination letter from Mr. McCreary instructs Rhonda not to return her 
equipment to factory status, ready for the use of other USAG employees. 
In fact, USAG accepted the return of its former Director of 
Communications' equipment after it was returned to factory status, and 
paid him his severance compensation without further condition or delay.
    Further, Rhonda cooperated with lawyers representing USAG and her, 
and provided them with copies of every pertinent e-mail, text message 
and document she had in her possession concerning Larry Nasser. She 
spent hours answering their questions and meeting with them at USAG's 
request. We therefore interpret USAG's refusal to pay Rhonda the 
severance it promised her once she returned USAG's property to be 
disingenuous.
    Rhonda is also very concerned about not receiving her personal 
property as promised by USAG. She is transferring an archived copy of 
the data that resided on her USAG laptop and cell phone to a jump drive 
or other form of media for delivery to USAG. We are prepared to deliver 
this media to you, along with Rhonda's username and password to access 
it. However, we want assurance from you that immediately upon delivery 
of the media to you, she will be paid her severance and her property 
will be delivered to her. Please provide the assurance, and I will 
arrange an exchange with you.
    By delivering the data to you, accepting the payment of the 
severance and accepting delivery of Rhonda's property, Rhonda is in no 
way waiving her rights or remedies in any way, and she is expressly 
preserving all such rights and remedies. Please respond immediately. 
Thank you.
            Very truly yours,
                                           Steven M. Crell,
                                              Cohen Garelick & Glazier.
SMC/tb
Enclosures
cc: Rhonda Faehn (via e-mail)
                                 ______
                                 
                                     Cohen Garelick Glazier
                                    Indianapolis, IN, June 18, 2018

VIA COURIER
Christopher Tebo, Chief Legal Officer
USA GYMNASTICS
Indianapolis, Indiana

Re: Rhonda Faehn

Dear Christopher:

    As a follow up to my June 12, 2018 letter, enclosed is a 1-Terabyte 
Seagate Backup Plus Portable Drive containing electronic copies of 
Rhonda's Outlook files, documents, text messages and all other 
electronic data that was previously stored on her USAG laptop and cell 
phone. We have tested access to the data using a Mac book laptop, and 
we are indeed able to read all of the files on the enclosed portable 
drive.
    Rhonda has yet to receive her personal property and her severance 
that was promised by USAG. If the property and severance is not 
received by Rhonda prior to the close of business on Thursday, June 21, 
2018, legal action will be initiated against USAG without further 
notice.
            Very truly yours,
                                           Steven M. Crell,
                                              Cohen Garelick & Glazier.
SMC/tb
Enclosure
cc: Rhonda Faehn (wo/encl.)
                                 ______
                                 
   Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Maria Cantwell to 
                             Martha Karolyi
    Question 1. The ability for people, especially those who are given 
a badge of trust and a position of power, to violate children must be 
eliminated. Sports safety protections needs to be top of mind for 
United States Olympic Committee. How can Congress aid USOC in fighting 
sexual abuse?
    Answer. Congress can aid in fighting sexual abuse in Olympic sports 
by mandating that USOC and national governing bodies institute policies 
to help avoid sexual abuse, including better training and education for 
all involved in Olympic sports. Congress can also provide USOC and the 
national governing bodies additional funding for such training in 
sexual abuse recognition and prevention and for chaperones to travel 
with underage gymnasts for camps and competitions.

    Question 2. What are the safe guards you have in place to prevent 
these abuses? What more are you planning on doing now that light has 
been shed about Larry Nassar's abuses?
    Answer. I have been retired since just after the Rio de Janeiro 
Olympics in 2016, and, as National Team Coordinator, I never had 
authority to set any policies to prevent abuse. Given my age and 
retirement, I no longer have an active role, but I do hope USAG will 
improve policies and provide education to prevent future abuse.

    Question 3. Are there any regulator barriers hindering USOC from 
protecting their athletes from sexual abuse?
    Answer. Because I am not now, and never was, part of USOC, I do not 
know the answer.
                                 ______
                                 
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Catherine Cortez Masto 
                           to Martha Karolyi
    Question 1. In your opinion, was there anyone in USA Gymnastics 
whose sole responsibility was to monitor the health, safety, and well-
being of gymnasts?
    Answer. I do not know who was specifically assigned to this role, 
but the USAG V.P. of the Women's Program was present at every training 
camp and all the competitions. USAG was responsible for setting 
policies outside of the gym.

    Question 2. Did your job description include any formal 
responsibility for the health, safety, and well-being of athletes in 
USA Gymnastics programs?
    Answer. No, it did not.

    Question 3. Do you believe that you had any legal, moral, or 
ethical responsibility for ensuring that gymnasts could train in a safe 
environment, free from abuse or harassment?
    Answer. Please see the conclusions of the Walker County District 
Attorney and Texas Rangers, attached as Exhibit A. To view the full 
press conference, please visit https://www.facebook.com/News4SA/videos/
10156517868292445/.
    Bela's and my responsibility at the Ranch was as lessors/managers 
of BMK Training Facilities, Ltd., the lessor to USAG. As such, we 
provided the training facilities, lodging facilities and housekeeping, 
and arranged for catered food for the USAG camps. In my official 
capacity as National Training Coordinator, my responsibilities were 
limited to the performance of the gymnasts. The lessee, USAG, was 
responsible for safety and security.
    I always cared about my gymnasts, but I never imagined the doctor 
hired by USAG would commit such evil crimes. I am heartsick about what 
I have since learned about Larry Nassar's abuse of gymnasts, many of 
whom I loved and worked closely with for years.

    Question 4. Did you receive bonuses as part of your compensation 
during your respective tenures with USA Gymnastics? If so, please 
describe, to the best of your ability, the criteria that determined 
your bonus eligibility.
    Answer. Yes, I was eligible for bonuses based on the medal count. I 
do not recall the details of the bonuses.

    Question 5. Was your bonus eligibility dependent on the performance 
of the athletes or the national team, including medal counts?
    Answer. Yes, it was based on the medal count.

    Question 6. Do you believe that your bonus eligibility would have 
been negatively impacted by negative press attention for USA 
Gymnastics?
    Answer. I do not think my bonus eligibility would have been 
affected by negative press.

    Question 7. Did you feel that your job responsibilities included 
protecting the reputation of USA Gymnastics and the U.S. Olympic 
Committee?
    Answer. Yes, I did feel that responsibility.
                                 ______
                                 
    Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Jerry Moran to 
                             Scott Blackmun
    Question 1. As I stated in my written testimony, I am no longer 
employed by the USOC. My last day with the USOC was March 2, 2018. 
These responses are provided to the best of my recollection, knowledge 
and belief.
    The Subcommittee has reviewed several documents and media reports 
regarding communication between USA Gymnastics and the U.S. Olympic 
Committee during the summer of 2015. Specifically, what did former USAG 
President Steve Penny convey to you regarding the allegations of sexual 
abuse by Larry Nassar, the status of the investigation regarding Nassar 
and whether he (Penny) reported it to law enforcement, Michigan State 
or any other entities currently employing Nassar? What was your 
response and what actions if any did USOC take?
    Answer. As I recall it, on July 25 Mr. Penny conveyed that three 
members of the Women's National Team had recently expressed concerns 
about the team physician's treatments. He told me that USA Gymnastics 
had conducted a preliminary investigation, that the allegations 
appeared to have merit and that they were going to report the 
allegations to the FBI on the following business day (July 27). He also 
told me that the physician would immediately be suspended from his 
duties at USA Gymnastics and would not have further contact with USA 
Gymnastics athletes. My response was that he was doing the right thing 
by reporting it to law enforcement and that he really had no choice--he 
had to do the right thing.

    Question 2. Did you or anyone from USOC communicate, recommend and/
or directly hire Ms. Fran Sepler to investigate sexual abuse committed 
by Larry Nassar while at USAG?
    Answer. I did not, and I am not aware of anyone else at the USOC 
having done so.

    Question 3. The Subcommittee has reviewed e-mail correspondence 
between former USA Gymnastics President Steve Penny and USOC Chief 
Security Officer Larry Buendorf. On September 25, 2015, Steve Penny e-
mailed Larry Buendorf regarding USAG's handling of Larry Nassar and the 
work that was done by the investigator in July of 2015. Specifically, 
what was conveyed to you regarding the discussion that occurred between 
Mr. Penny and your subordinate Larry Buendorf? Were documents from the 
USAG investigator forwarded to USOC for review? What action did USOC 
take as a result of this discussion in September of 2015?
    Answer. It was conveyed to me that USA Gymnastics did in fact 
report the allegations regarding the physician to the FBI. I do not 
know what documents were forwarded to the USOC, although I later became 
aware that the September 25, 2015 e-mail from Mr. Penny to Mr. Buendorf 
attached a confidential memo summarizing the chronology of events 
relating to the athletes' reports of abuse in the summer of 2015 and 
the actions taken by USA Gymnastics, including its engagement with the 
FBI.

    Question 4. What actions could USOC have taken under its charter 
and oversight responsibilities once allegations of sexual abuse at USAG 
were first reported to USOC in July of 2015 and again in September 
2015?
    Answer. We could have opened a case under the Act and the USOC's 
Bylaws to decertify USA Gymnastics as an NGB. Based on what we knew at 
the time, I do not believe that response would have been appropriate. 
It appeared that USA Gymnastics was pursuing the case in an appropriate 
fashion by having turned it over to the FBI and suspending the 
physician.

    Question 5. On January 25, 2018, you sent a letter to the USA 
Gymnastics Board of Directors which specifically laid out six 
requirements to complete in order for USAG to retain its status as a 
National Governing Body (NGB). If USAG did not comply with the 
requirements, what was USOC's plan to proceed with decertification? 
Specifically, what actions could USOC have taken to complete 
decertification? What organizational structure would be put in its 
place during the decertification process? How would that directly 
affect current members of USAG, athletes, and employees?
    Answer. The USOC's plan was to proceed under the Act and the USOC's 
Bylaws to decertify USA Gymnastics. Based on our discussions with the 
CEO of USA Gymnastics, we fully expected that USA Gymnastics would use 
its best efforts to comply with the requirements. The USOC has 
developed an outline of the support that will need to be provided in 
the event of the decertification of an NGB. The USOC was prepared to 
step in and provide as much of that support as it could, but there is 
no question that decertification would present operational challenges. 
Specifically, there is no automatic transitioning of physical and 
intellectual property, contract rights (including sponsors), employment 
relationships, relationships with members, clubs and coaches, etc. It 
would require a complicated organization to be built from the bottom 
up, and there is no question that the functionality and effectiveness 
of the NGB would suffer during a transitional phase.
                                 ______
                                 
 Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Richard Blumenthal to 
                             Scott Blackmun
    As I stated in my written testimony, I am no longer employed by the 
USOC. My last day with the USOC was March 2, 2018. These responses are 
provided to the best of my recollection, knowledge and belief.

    Question 1. What were the 2017 revenues from USA Gymnastics? What 
were the 2017 revenues for USOC? Have the revenues been impacted by the 
Larry Nassar scandal?
    Answer. To my knowledge, the USOC did not have any revenue from USA 
Gymnastics. The USOC did, however, provide high performance funding and 
in-kind support to USA Gymnastics, the exact amount of which can be 
provided by the USOC. When I left the USOC in early March 2018, the 
financial report for 2017 was not finalized. According to the USOC's 
2016 Annual Report, the 2016 revenue was approximately $339 million. As 
of my departure from the USOC in March 2018, the USOC was forecasting 
revenue of slightly less than $200 million for 2017. It is important to 
remember that there is substantial variation in the USOC's revenue and 
expenses from year to year because both revenue and expenses are higher 
in even-numbered years because the Olympic and Paralympic Games are 
held in even-numbered years. Because of that, the USOC looks at its 
budget in four-year cycles, each of which is referred to as a 
``quadrennium,'' to manage revenue and expenses. I am not aware of any 
USOC sponsors having terminated their relationship with the USOC as a 
result of Nassar's criminal activity. I am aware of one donor who cited 
Nassar as one of the reasons for his decision not to renew his support 
of the USOC.

    Question 2. Michigan State University settled with the victims of 
Larry Nassar's sex abuse for half a billion dollars. What is the 
contingency plan, if any, for USOC and USAG to withstand the cost of 
legal action filed against them?
    Answer. My last day with the USOC was March 2, 2018. I was on 
medical leave for most of the period from January 26, 2018 through 
March 2, 2018. I am not aware of how the USOC or USA Gymnastics are 
currently assessing the possible impact of litigation related to 
Nassar's criminal activity.

    Question 3. In May 2010, according to its 2016 990, USA Gymnastics 
took financial control as a fiscal agent of all of the bank accounts 
women's and men's state and regional chapters. The state and regional 
account balances are now listed under the nonprofit's Schedule D 
section under ``Escrow and Custodial Arrangements.'' If USAG falls 
under the weight of pending litigation, are the funds of these state 
and regional chapters vulnerable? How would the loss of these funds 
endanger the grassroots activities of these chapters, and therein, 
local gymnasts?
    Answer. I am not familiar with the financial arrangements in place 
between USA Gymnastics and its state and regional chapters. This 
question therefore may be best answered by USA Gymnastics.

    Question 4. Do you think the smaller NGBs have sufficient 
management, funding, personnel, and resources to protect athletes 
against sexual abuse?
    Answer. There are 49 National Governing Bodies. Each one is very 
different in terms of its resources and capabilities. Some NGBs, 
particularly the smaller ones, struggle to marshal the resources 
necessary for them to function effectively. That is one of the primary 
reasons that the USOC created an independent agency, the U.S. Center 
for Safe Sport, to try to ensure safe training environments for 
athletes. Working collectively, the USOC, the NGBs and the AAC agreed 
that we would be better able to protect athletes if the NGBs ceded 
authority and responsibility to an independent entity.

    Question 5. What role did you have in encouraging USOC to take a 
``hands-off'' approach to NGBs--thereby letting athletes fend for 
themselves, especially within NGBs unprepared or unequipped to handle 
that challenge?
    Answer. Respectfully, I do not agree that the USOC took a hands off 
approach to NGBs. We regularly audited the NGBs for compliance with the 
Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sports Act (the ``Act'') and the USOC's 
Bylaws. Those audits are available to you if you do not already have 
them. The audit schedule is reviewed and approved by the Audit 
Committee of the USOC's Board of Directors. The Audit Committee also 
reviews the individual audits and the NGB's responses thereto.
    Sometime before I became CEO in 2010, the USOC started a division 
that was dedicated to improving the resources and effectiveness of the 
NGBs (NGB Organizational Development). We increased our investment in 
that division after I arrived. We held and funded best practices 
gatherings for the NGBs on an annual or biannual basis. Those NGBs who 
receive high performance funding are required to demonstrate compliance 
with the Act and the USOC's Bylaws as a condition of receiving that 
funding. We established a dashboard system to evaluate each NGB's 
performance against a set of expectations, including safe sport and 
diversity. With that said, and as I explained in my written testimony, 
the USOC does not have the authority to intervene in the day to day 
operations of an NGB. What the USOC can do is establish requirements 
and standards, and it can decertify an NGB if those standards are not 
met. But that decision needs to be taken carefully, because 
decertification may well create more problems than it solves, and may 
end up harming the athletes rather than creating a functional NGB.
    In 2017, and in order to try to create a more effective toolbox 
with which to manage the NGBs, the USOC formed a board working group 
called the NGB Compliance Working Group, which developed a set of 
interim measures that have only recently been put in place. It is too 
early to comment on their effectiveness.

    Question 6. It's been reported that two former Chairs of the USOC 
Athletes' Advisory Council, Micki King (Diving, '68 and '72) and Ed 
Williams (Biathlon, '68), meet [sic] with you in Colorado Springs, 
along with John Ruger, the Athlete Ombudsman and Debra Yoshimura, 
Director of the USOC Audit Division. Their message was that the USOC's 
in-house oversight and review of NGB compliance by the USOC's 
Membership Working Group was not working; NGBs were out of compliance, 
to the detriment of athletes. King and Williams suggest that the USOC's 
compliance functions mandated by the Sports Act be taken over by the 
Audit Division of the USOC. What did you do to consider their 
recommendations?
    Answer. The question of how we manage the NGBs to higher levels of 
functionality, and ensure compliance with the Act and the USOC's 
Bylaws, has been debated within the Audit Committee and the full Board 
of Directors since I rejoined the USOC in 2010. It was also a frequent 
subject of discussion within the USOC management team.
    It was my opinion at the time that our ability to improve the 
effectiveness of our NGBs was better served by a multi-disciplinary 
team reporting to management rather than a single division with dual 
reporting obligations (to management and to the Audit Committee of the 
USOC). The Audit Division is not set up, nor does it have the resources 
and expertise, to meaningfully support the NGBs in the functional areas 
identified by the Act.

    Question 7. Malia Arrington has repeatedly asserted, in sworn 
depositions, this premise that USOC didn't have the power to do 
anything in response to sexual abuse allegations.\3\ Many believe she 
has failed in her duty to protect athletes. Did she have any prior 
experience working with victims of sexual abuse? Why did you hire 
Arrington to be the Director of SafeSport in 2011? Do you think she was 
sufficiently qualified? Do you think she is independent?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ https://thinkprogress.org/usoc-leaders-knew-about-sex-abuse-in-
olympic-sports-and-did-nothing-86064a61cef8/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Answer. The job that Ms. Arrington was hired for was Director of 
Ethics and Safe Sport--it was not a job limited to anti-abuse 
programming. I do not think Ms. Arrington had personal experience 
working with abuse victims when we hired her. I think Ms. Arrington, 
more than anyone else, is responsible for the creation and empowerment 
of the U.S. Center for Safe Sport (the ``Center''). She saw how 
difficult it would be for the smaller NGBs to dedicate the resources 
necessary to give safe sport the priority it needed and deserved. She 
recommended the creation of the second safe sport working group, and it 
was that working group, under her leadership, that recommended an 
independent entity to manage investigations and adjudication. With Rick 
Adams and me, she successfully pitched that notion to the USOC Board of 
Directors. As to her ``independence,'' I do not think that her prior 
service to the USOC should disqualify her from serving in the Center.

    Question 8. In October 2011, the Orange County Register wrote an 
investigative piece on sexual abuse within USA Gymnastics. It found 
that even coaches that were banned by USA Gymnastics continued to coach 
children. What did you do in response to that article?
    Answer. As I stated in my written testimony, it was clear in 2010 
that the USOC needed to do more to protect athletes from abuse. By 
October of 2011, we were well on our way to implementing the 
recommendations of the first working group. We were using the 
recommendations of the working group to guide our strategies. I do not 
recall a specific discussion around the Orange County Register article.

    Question 9. Colorado specifically requires Sport Governing Bodies 
to report sexual abuse.\4\ Why didn't you report Gitelman, the Lopez 
brothers, or Larry Nassar to law enforcement after you were given 
reports of rape and abuse? What did you do to make the Olympic NGBs 
that were located in Colorado aware of their duties to report to 
authorities under this Colorado statute?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ http://codes.findlaw.com/co/title-19-childrens-code/co-rev-st-
sect-19-3-304.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Answer. I believe each state has its own laws that pertain to the 
reporting of sexual abuse.The USOC has in-house legal counsel to try to 
ensure that it complies with state and Federal law. It also has 
employees with specific responsibilities to address allegations of 
abuse and to assist NGBs in enhancing their own governance and 
management. Whenever issues of abuse came to my attention, I would rely 
on those employees who had the specific responsibility within the 
organization to take appropriate action. In the case of Larry Nassar, 
when Steve Penny called me directly to bring to my attention 
allegations of Nassar's abuse of gymnasts, I was clear with him that 
his decision to report the allegations to law enforcement was the right 
decision.

    Question 10. Congress amended the Sports Act to provide for an 
Athlete Ombudsman, because the legislature could see that athletes were 
easily abused by the USOC system. Their website says, ``Our purpose is 
to serve athletes by offering cost-free, confidential and independent 
advice regarding opportunities and rights to participate in protected 
competition, and the various policies and procedures associated with 
participating in sport at an elite level.'' Is the Office of the 
Ombudsman a part of USOC? How often would you interact with the Office 
of the Ombudsman? What role did you have in shaping or determining how 
the Office handled athletes' complaints and concerns?
    Answer. Under the Ted Stevens Act, the USOC is required to hire and 
fund an ombudsman to provide independent advice, mediate disputes, and 
report to the Athletes' Advisory Council. It is my opinion, and I 
believe it was the opinion of the 2013-2016 Chair of the Athletes' 
Advisory Council, that it is useful for the Ombudsman to participate as 
a member of the USOC senior staff and to report jointly to the CEO of 
the USOC and the Chair of the Athletes' Advisory Council (``AAC''). 
During my tenure, the Ombudsman's performance review was always 
delivered jointly from the CEO and the AAC Chair.
    I think it helps the USOC senior staff to have the athletes' 
perspective, as seen through the Ombudsman, as they go about their 
jobs. For that reason, I included the Ombudsman in senior staff 
meetings. I also think the senior staff has been a good resource for 
the Ombudsman--her discussions with NGBs are more persuasive when the 
NGBs know that she has the support and trust of the USOC.
    With that said, some believe that the Ombudsman should not be a 
part of the USOC or its senior staff because it creates a conflict of 
interest. Although I disagree with that point of view, I understand it. 
Ultmately, I think the AAC should decide which structure they think is 
best. In my tenure at the USOC, the Board of Directors and staff were 
focused on athlete safety and welfare as their number one priority. 
They care deeply about the athletes.

    Question 11. How would you handle situations in which USOC's 
corporate, economic interests were at odds with the AAC athletes' 
interests? How would you protect the athlete in such instances?
    Answer. I believe we can serve both the athletes' interests and the 
USOC's interests. In issues involving athlete health and safety, we 
prioritize health and safety. If the issue is economic, we have to 
balance the interests of the athletes collectively with the interests 
of athletes individually. As an example, there is an ongoing issue 
regarding when the USOC or an NGB can use an athlete's image and 
likeness in sponsor advertising. We are careful to protect the right of 
individual athletes to have their own sponsors, and prohibit NGBs from 
allowing their sponsors to use an individual athlete's image without 
their consent.

    Question 12. Who paid for the U.S. Speed skaters' lawyers in their 
Section 10 Complaint? Should the Sports Act be amended to pay for the 
attorney's fees if the athlete's cause ``substantially prevails on the 
merits''? Like any other cause of action?
    Answer. I do not know who paid for the athletes' lawyer. The normal 
rule in the United States is that the parties bear their own legal 
fees, regardless who prevails. Whether the Sports Act should be amended 
to provide for attorney's fees if the athlete's cause substantially 
prevails on the merits is a policy question, and I would want to 
consider all of the arguments.

    Question 13. When it was reported that USA Gymnastics had a 62 
percent over-use injury rate--that is, injuries that result from 
repetitive stress, rather than a fall from a beam or a mistimed vault--
with the threshold being that the injury was either a broken bone or 
required either [sic] surgery, why didn't the USOC see that as a bright 
red flag that the sport was out of control? When all injuries were 
recorded, the injury rate was 92 percent, similar to the NFL, despite 
it not being a contact sport. What did you do in response to this 
revelation? Do you think an athlete could tell Martha Karolyi ``no'' 
and not risk USA Team membership?
    Answer. I do not recall seeing this report. I do agree that fear of 
losing Team USA membership, fear on the part of both athletes and their 
parents, is a factor in reporting injuries and a factor in reporting 
abuse. I hope that enhanced education and awareness, and an independent 
place to report--both are now provided by the Center--will 
substantially improve athlete safety.

    Question 14. At what point was USOC aware--and were you aware--that 
USA Gymnastics had a problem with sexual abuse? What other NGBs do you 
believe have a particularly big problem with sexual abuse? Explain why 
you think that is so for each and what you did to address the issues 
within individual NGBs.
    Answer. I believe that abuse is a problem everywhere, not just in 
sports, and not just in some sports. I believe the possibility for 
abuse is increased where there is unsupervised adult-child contact, 
whether it is in sports or elsewhere. I believe that the possibility 
for abuse is also greater where speaking up is discouraged, whether it 
is in sports or elsewhere.
    I became aware that the USOC needed to do more to reduce risks of 
abuse in 2010 when the reports of abuse by swimming coaches surfaced. 
We tried to reduce those risks for all NGBs, not just those where there 
were reports of abuse.

    Question 15. Why did you stop your plans for opening the Center for 
SafeSport in 2014? Why did it take so long to open the Center for 
SafeSport?
    Answer. We did not stop our plans for the Center. It was a first-
of-its-kind endeavor, and for the reasons stated in my written 
statement, it took longer than I would have liked.

    Question 16. Under your leadership, did USOC believe that sexual 
abuse was an isolated problem or a widespread problem?
    Answer. We believed it was a problem throughout society, and that 
sports created its own set of risks that needed to be addressed.

    Question 17. What policy changes, if any, did USOC make to address 
the apparent scourge of sexual assault across various NGBs?
    Answer. I believe this is covered in my written testimony.

    Question 18. Has USOC ever sought out sexual violence or victim 
assistance experts or stakeholder groups for feedback on its sexual 
assault investigation policies? Please describe.
    Answer. Yes. We included experts on our working group that 
developed our baseline recommendations in 2010, and the working group 
spoke with additional experts. I believe the USOC also retained experts 
to advise it between 2011 and 2017, when the Center was launched.

    Question 19. USAG's landing page for SafeSport has a link to a 
website that says, ``Individuals with relevant information are 
encouraged to speak with independent USOC investigator'' Ropes & 
Gray.\5\ Do you think individuals with relevant information should also 
be encouraged to speak with law enforcement? Why isn't there 
information regarding how to do so?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ https://www.usagym.org/pages/education/safesport/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Answer. I do agree that people should be encouraged to speak with 
law enforcement. I believe that USA Gymnastics' SafeSport website links 
to the SafeSport Code, policies, and procedures, which require 
reporting to law enforcement.

    Question 20. What were the requirements for USOC Sports Medicine 
staff and volunteers?
    Answer. That question is best answered by the USOC medical affairs 
staff. I know that the physicians that are a part of the USOC's team at 
USOC-controlled facilities and that operate under the USOC's guidance 
and direction at international events are screened. I refer you to the 
USOC for the specific requirements that must be met.

    Question 21. Was medical staff required by USAG or USOC to be 
licensed in the jurisdiction in which they were giving treatment? If 
so, how was this checked and confirmed?
    Answer. This question can best be answered by USOC's Chief Medical 
Officer, Bill Moreau.

    Question 22. What role did USOC have in approving medical staff and 
their training and credentials?
    Answer. The USOC has a screening process for its medical staff and 
medical staff selected by an NGB to participate in an Olympic Games. I 
have spoken with the USOC's Chief Medical Officer about it but will 
need to refer you to him for specifics. We do not have a role in 
approving the medical staff hired or otherwise retained by NGBs.

    Question 23. What was your role in increasing executive 
compensation at USOC and NGBs?
    Answer. For USOC personnel, we set base salaries and bonuses based 
upon industry benchmarks which are reviewed every two years based upon 
available industry data. The benchmark targets and actual USOC 
compensation levels are reviewed by the Compensation Committeee of the 
USOC Board, which includes an athlete representative and an NGB 
representative. The USOC does not have a role in NGB compensation 
structures.

    Question 24. Your salary was benchmarked 25 percent based on other 
non-profits, 25 percent based on other sports bodies, like the NFL, and 
50 percent based on for-profit companies. Do you think this kind of 
executive compensation was appropriate? Who determined this 
compensation formula?
    Answer. I am not sure that is right. I believe my salary was based 
50 percent on comparable nonprofits, 25 percent on sport and 25 percent 
on for-profit companies. That formula was determined by the 
Compensation Committee, and is subject to modification in individual 
cases. As an example, I believe our Chief Marketing Officer has a 
slightly higher percentage allocated to sport because that is the 
market from which we think we need to draw our CMO, this owing to the 
fact that we compete with the professional leagues and teams for 
sponsorship dollars and sponsorship dollars are the USOC's largest 
source of revenue.

    Question 25. Deloitte has been a sponsor of the U.S. Olympic 
Committee since 2009. Its website regarding this partnerships says, 
``As a trusted advisor, Deloitte has worked to shape long-term strategy 
and improve operational efficiency for Team USA.'' Did Deloitte provide 
consulting services regarding executive compensation? Please describe. 
Do you think Deloitte may have had a conflict of interest in enabling 
the inflation of your salaries?
    Answer. I believe that Deloitte helped the USOC develop 
benchmarking data. I do not believe it would be a conflict of interest 
for Deloitte to provide advice to the Compensation Committee, and I 
believe if either Deloitte or the Compensation Committee had felt that 
there was a conflict of interest, the Compensation Committee would not 
have sought and Deloitte would not have offered advice on executive 
compensation.

    Question 26. What percent of USOC expenses go toward Administration 
and Fundraising?
    Answer. Of the USOC's total budget, less than 7 percent, probably 
closer to 6 percent, is spent on general and administrative expenses. 
Because the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Foundation is relatively new 
and is ramping up, our cost per dollar raised in USOC's fundraising 
efforts is high compared to other institutions and compared to where 
the USOC expects it to be by 2020. I believe the USOC's marketing costs 
are approximately 7 percent and that the costs of fundraising are 
approximately 8 percent, but the USOC can provide more up-to-date and 
accurate information on that.

    Question 27. Do you think athletes across NGBs are adequately and 
fairly compensated -particularly in comparison to executive 
compensation at NGBs and USOC?
    Answer. Very generally, the USOC allocates its budget among the 
following categories:

   Cash and cash equivalents to NGBs and athletes.

   Programs that support medal performance at the Olympic and 
        Paralympic Games (e.g., Games Travel & Support, Olympic 
        Training Centers, Sport Science, Sports Medicine and Nutrition)

   Programs that are important but don't directly relate to 
        medal performance (e.g., Safe Sport, Athlete Careers & 
        Education, Diversity & Inclusion, NGB Organizational 
        Development, International Relations, Ombudsman)

   Administration

   Marketing

   Fundraising

    For spending in the first two categories, the USOC is focused on 
medal performance over the short term and long term. One of the 
elements of the USOC's mission is medal performance, and the USOC 
allocates its high performance funding to the sports and the athletes 
that are medal capable--they want to enable as many Americans as 
possible to win a medal at the Games. Programs in the third category 
are important to athlete safety, athlete development and the 
effectiveness of the USOC and its NGBs. The last three budget 
categories represent the cost of doing business.
    The USOC could certainly expand its mission to include athlete 
compensation. The USOC constantly strives to be more efficient and to 
be good stewards of the dollars that are raised. Executive compensation 
is an element of each of the budget categories. The USOC's philosophy 
is to pay people based on the market--what the same people would earn 
in comparable organizations with comparable job duties, authority and 
responsibilities. The process occurs at the direction of the 
Compensation Committee.
    I think it is time to explore taking a portion of the overall 
revenue generated by the Olympic Movement and dedicating it not only 
for the benefit of athletes, but directly to the athletes. I think the 
athletes themselves should decide whether it is allocated to all 
Olympic athletes or to Olympic medalists. Strong arguments can be made 
for both.

    Question 28. How many employees does the USOC have? How many 
athletes does the USOC send to the Winter Games? The Summer Games? As 
you know, athletes rarely get the posh treatment of first-class travel, 
elite hotels, fine dining, and travel expenses paid for spouses--
treatment that the USOC executives gives themselves. Do you think that 
this concentration of benefits to the staff--rather than the athletes 
and grassroots programming--is appropriate?
    Answer. The USOC has approximately 325 full time employees. 
Approximately 300 U.S. athletes go to the Olympic and Paralympic Winter 
Games, approximately 800 U.S. athletes go to the Olympic Games and 
Paralympic Games and approximately 800 athletes go to the Pan American 
Games and Para Pan American Games. The USOC has a travel policy which 
allows a very limited number of staff to fly business class if certain 
conditions are met. I do not think the travel policy is unreasonable.

    Question 29. Why did you allow Andy Gabel to serve on the 
organizing committee for the Salt Lake City Winter Olympics, despite 
advised years earlier of his sexual abuse of young speed skaters, 
including Bridie Farrell?
    Answer. The USOC does not have the right to designate who is on the 
board of an organizing committee. The Salt Lake City Winter Olympics 
took place in 2002. I was not aware that Andy Gabel served on the board 
of directors of the Salt Lake Olympic Organizing Committee, and 
certainly as of the time of the Salt Lake City Winter Olympics, there 
had been no reports of abuse by Mr. Gabel. I believe it was in 2013 
that Bridie Farrell first alleged that she had been abused by Mr. 
Gabel.

    Question 30. In response to a Question for the Record regarding 
reactions to her efforts to remove her abuser Andy Gabel from the U.S. 
Speed Skating Hall of Fame following this Subcommittee's April hearing, 
Speed skater Bridie Farrell said, ``Scott Blackmun, former CEO of the 
USOC, specifically said he could not aid me in revoking Gabel's 
membership from a NGB. Blackmun also stated the USOC could not 
influence the Hall of Fame Membership.'' Do you still believe you would 
have no influence regarding Andy Gabel being included in the U.S. Speed 
Skating Hall of Fame?
    Answer. NGB membership and Hall of Fame decisions are handled by 
each NGB. The USOC can exercise influence in that process by 
establishing a policy or rule applicable to all NGBs, such as 
prohibiting membership under certain conditions. This is the same view 
that I expressed to Ms. Farrell.

    Question 31. Did you represent USOC, any NGBs or NGB members while 
a partner at Bryan Cave? Please describe.
    Answer. I represented the USOC on commercial matters while at Bryan 
Cave in 1992 and 1993. To the best of my recollection, I did not do any 
work for any NGB while at Bryan Cave.

    Question 32. When did you first become aware of the complaints 
against the Lopez brothers? Why did it take USOC so long to ban Jean 
Lopez? Why did it take so long for USA Taekwondo to temporarily suspend 
Steve Lopez, under similar allegations?
    Answer. I do not believe the USOC banned Jean Lopez--the USOC does 
not ban coaches or athletes other than in connection with participation 
in the Olympic Games. I am not familiar with the specifics of the Lopez 
cases other than from media reports. I believe that the USOC's 
oversight of those matters was handled by Rick Adams and Malia 
Arrington.

    Question 33. Did you ever say that you could not ban the Lopez 
brothers? Is that because of the lucrative endorsements they brought 
in?
    Answer. I do not recall making any statements like that, although 
it is true that neither the USOC nor I had the authority to ban the 
Lopez brothers. That authority rested with the NGB, in this case USA 
Taekwondo. I am not aware of the USOC or USA Taekwondo getting any 
revenue whatsoever related to athlete endorsements, whether related to 
the Lopez brothers or otherwise. In any event, I do not believe that 
financial considerations should play a role in any action I would make 
in response to claims of abuse.

    Question 34. In 2013, three female taekwondo athletes notified USOC 
that they had been sexually abused by USA Taekwondo coach Marc 
Gitelman. He was not banned until 2015, when he was criminally 
convicted for lewd conduct with a child. Why did this take so long? Do 
you think you could have done more at the time? What could you have 
done?
    Answer. I was generally not involved in managing specific cases 
involving sex abuse, but I do remember speaking with USOC staff about 
this case. Based on those discussions, my understanding of the facts is 
as follows. I believe the USOC was first notified of Gitelman by a 
blogger in March of 2014. USA Taekwondo had already provisionally 
suspended Gitelman prior to that time. Gitelman did not coach between 
the time the USOC was notified and the time of his permanent ban in 
September 2015.

    Question 35. According to ``USA TAEKWONDO BOD MINUTES 13 MARCH 
2013'': ``After much discussion, the BOD voted 7-1 to suspend Coach 
Jean Lopez' membership for not less than 2 years.'' Curiously, they 
also wanted to have these reports made directly to the ethics committee 
as opposed to the CEO where they get buried. Lopez wrote a letter to 
you, asking for your assistance shortly thereafter, is that correct? 
Shortly after these minutes were released, the decision to dismiss 
Lopez disappeared, and he continued to compete. What role did you have 
in the decision to dismiss complaints against Lopez?
    Answer. I have no recollection of this case. My normal practice 
would have been to refer the letter and the case to Rick Adams and 
Malia Arrington.

    Question 36. Why didn't you ever remove Chuck Wielgus from his 
leadership position at USA Swimming? Do you wish you had?
    Answer. I did not have the authority to remove Chuck Wielgus from 
his position. I cannot speak for Mr. Wielgus' actions before I joined 
the USOC as CEO, but I would describe him as a safe sport advocate 
during my tenure.

    Question 37. In 2014, former Olympian and civil rights lawyer Nancy 
Hogshead-Makar represented 19 swimmers who had been sexually abused by 
their coaches, in an effort to remove Chuck Wielgus, the former 
disgraced USA Swimming CEO who had failed to protect these women, from 
the International Swimming Hall of Fame. How did you react to this 
effort? Do you have any regrets regarding how you responded?
    Answer. When I saw the petition that was being circulated, I was 
very concerned because the allegations were serious. I asked our 
General Counsel at the time, Rana Dershowitz, to meet with USA Swimming 
to understand their point of view regarding the allegations in the 
petition. Ms. Hogshead Makar was an officer of the Womens Sports 
Foundation. I spoke with the Foundation's CEO, Kathryn Olson, to 
reiterate our support of them and their mission and to tell her that we 
are genuinely committed to upping our game in the safe sport area. I 
invited her to call me at any time if it appears otherwise to her from 
our actions or omissions. I told her that we were not sure that the 
petition was fair to Mr. Wielgus or the Olympic Movement, and I 
encouraged her to meet with USA Swimming to make her own determination 
on that front.

    Question 38. What role did you play in the retaliation against Mike 
Saltzstein, former USA Swimming board member who wrote an op-ed in the 
Los Angeles Times detailing the organization's persistent failure to 
address sexual abuse?
    Answer. I do not recall any conversations or correspondence about 
Mike Saltzstein.

    Question 39. Did you read the letter written by elite gymnasts in 
April 20, 2012, laying out a detailed plan to protect athletes from 
abuse? Why wasn't action taken?
    Answer. I do not recall seeing the letter, and I believe that the 
USOC has no record of ever having received it.

    Question 40. In 2012, USOC requires athletes to sign forms 
requiring them to accept medical treatment from the medical staff 
provided by the USOC. Why was this? What was your role in this policy 
change? Is there any mechanism for athletes to choose their physician?
    Answer. I have no recollection of this policy change.

    Question 41. In December 2012, the USOC board adopted a policy 
prohibiting NGB coaches from having sexual and romantic relationships 
with their athletes, for the first time. Did you support this change in 
policy at the time? If you did not support this policy change at the 
time, do you support the policy change now? What has changed?
    Answer. Yes, I supported this change to give more strength to an 
existing provision in the Coaching Code of Ethics. Since 1997, the 
USOC's Coaching Code of Ethics has prohibited sexual relationships 
between athletes and coaches. The policy change was submitted for 
consideration by by the USOC Board of Directors by Malia Arrington, who 
was a part of my staff.

    Question 42. Please describe your relationship with leadership at 
the Center for Safe Sport (including Malia Arrington) and the Office of 
the Ombudsman. When were you notified of complaints? Did you ask to be 
kept apprised of complaints? Do you think they were independent 
entities?
    Answer. I know two employees at the Center for Safe Sport, the CEO 
(Shellie Pfohl) and the COO (Malia Arrington). I was on the board of 
directors of the Foundation for the President's Council on Fitness, 
Sports and Nutrition at a time when Ms. Pfohl was, I believe, the 
Executive Director of the Council. Ms. Arrington was hired as the 
USOC's first Director of Ethics and Safe Sport, and after the Center 
for Safe Sport was established, she moved to the position of COO. The 
Center is independent of the USOC. I believed our working relationships 
were good while I was at the USOC. I was generally not involved in 
individual abuse cases at the Center. Safe Sport was the responsibility 
of Rick Adams, so he would have been the contact person between the 
Center and USOC. I would get briefed as needed.
    My relationship with the USOC Ombudsman was also good. Under the 
USOC bylaws, the Ombudsman's communications are privileged and 
confidential. She did not inform me as complaints were filed, nor did 
she inform me about individual cases other than when they came to my 
attention through other means (e.g., NGB or athlete calling me) or 
involved issues of policy.

    Question 43. Why didn't you act on allegations of sexual abuse by 
former U.S. Olympic Speedskating Coach Mike Crowe?
    Answer. I do not recall this case.

    Question 44. Why did you fire Jon Ruger, the Athlete Ombudsman, in 
August 2014?
    Answer. This is an employment matter that involves the USOC, and I 
believe the USOC may be subject to legal or privacy obligations 
regarding what is appropriate to disclose. As I am no longer employed 
by the USOC, I do not believe it would be appropriate for me to 
volunteer information about Mr. Ruger's departure from the USOC.

    Question 45. Have you ever retaliated against a member or NGB? 
Please describe.
    Answer. No, although I have taken actions to address problems, such 
as pushing for the resignation of Steve Penny, requiring the USA 
Gymnastics board to resign, and pushing for reforms within various NGBs 
through probation, suspensions, and similar actions.

    Question 46. Is there anyone you'd like to apologize to? In 
addition to victims and survivors of abuse, are there any advocates 
you'd like to apologize to or whom you think deserve more credit?
    Answer. I believe my original written statement is quite clear 
about my personal feelings, that I was deeply and profoundly sorry 
about the harm to the victims of Nassar's sexual abuse and horrified 
that it happened on my watch. I wish to add that that I am especially 
grateful for the work of the Indianapolis Star. I think the work they 
did uncovering Nassar's abuse was extremely impactful and important.

    Question 47. Shortly after successfully moving to block the 
induction of Mr. Wielgus into the International Hall of Fame and 
bringing national attention to the issue of sexual abuse in the Olympic 
movement, Ms. Nancy Hogshead-Makar was asked to sign a new contract 
with the Women's Sport Foundation (``WSF'') to renew her consulting 
relationship, that would have prohibited her from discussing sexual 
abuse in any context. What was the purpose of this gag order?
    Answer. I was not aware of this, was not involved in this, and 
therefore do not know the purpose.

    Question 48. When Ms. Hogshead-Makar refused to sign the gag order, 
the Women Sports Foundation again tried to silence her by presenting 
her with a severance package that would have prohibited her from 
referring to any of the materials she had produced during her 30 years 
of Advocacy with the Women's Sports Foundation. What role did you play 
in facilitating WSF's efforts to silence Ms. Hogshead-Makar and her 
advocacy regarding sexual abuse and sexual assault?
    Answer. No role. As noted above, I told Ms. Olsen that I thought 
she should make her own inquiry into the accuracy of the allegations in 
the petition against Mr. Wielgus.

    Question 49. Did you threaten or imply that the USOC could withhold 
Olympic athletes or USOC patronage to their annual dinner--the event 
that funds to [sic] WSF's work?
    Answer. We have no ability to withhold Olympic athletes. I did tell 
Ms. Olsen that we should either work constructively and collaboratively 
on the goals we share, or agree that we are not going to work together. 
I believe the record will show that we supported the Womens Sports 
Foundation during each year of my tenure.

    Question 50. Was Benita Fitzgerald Mosley, your senior staffer and 
also a member of the WSF board, a part of your retaliation against Ms. 
Hogshead-Makar?
    Answer. I did not take any action to retaliate against Ms. 
Hogshead-Makar or anyone else. Ms. Olsen had someone working for her 
who authored a document that I thought was inaccurate. I took the most 
direct route possible and explained my concerns. I told her she should 
make her own judgments.

    Question 51. Did you ever threaten to withhold funds and Olympic 
athletes at WSF's annual dinner when Donna Lopiano was the CEO of the 
WSF?
    Answer. The question of whether we should continue to support the 
WSF at such a high level, at least what for us was a high level, was 
discussed at the senior staff level whenever it came time to renew our 
support. I might well have shared that fact with the CEO of the WSF, 
whether Ms. Lopiano or someone else.

    Question 52. Do you understand what a ``mandatory reporter'' is? If 
so, please explain your understanding of that term. Have you ever 
received any mandatory reporter training from the USOC, USAG, or any 
other entity?
    Answer. My understanding is that state law governs who is deemed to 
be a ``mandatory reporter.'' If someone is deemed to be a mandatory 
reporter, I understand that if that person becomes aware of facts 
suggesting that sexual abuse with a minor has occurred, he or she has a 
legal obligation to report that to law enforcement. I have not had 
training dedicated solely to mandatory reporting, but it has been 
addressed in the safe sport training I have taken.

    Question 53. What did you do in your respective roles to make sure 
that organization officials understood their legal duties under 
mandatory reporting laws? How successful do you think you were at 
accomplishing this?
    Answer. I did not take personal responsibility for this important 
work. I relied on my safe sport team to make sure the right information 
and training was happening.

    Question 54. Do you have any expertise or training in sexual 
assault victim assistance or advocate training, crisis intervention 
services, or experience working in law enforcement?
    Answer. I do not.

    Question 55. When did the SafeSport training courses first become 
available? Have you taken all three courses? When did you first take 
these courses? How many times have you taken these courses?
    Answer. I do not recall exactly when the USOC started requiring 
safe sport training--it was years ago. I have taken all the courses on 
the basis prescribed by USOC policy--I believe I have taken three 
courses but it may be two. We require them to be taken every two years 
I believe.

    Question 56. Have you ever received any kind of training regarding 
how to detect signs of grooming, sexual abuse, or sexual assault? Who 
provided this training? Was it mandatory or voluntary?
    Answer. Yes--it was embedded in our safe sport training. It was 
mandatory for everyone who holds a position of leadership in the 
organization or who comes into contact with athletes.

    Question 57. What in particular qualifies you to make decisions 
regarding the investigation of abuse allegations, or communications 
between victims and the accused?
    Answer. I do not believe that I have expertise or special 
qualifications regarding sexual abuse or the conduct of a criminal 
investigation.

    Question 58. USAG's current Code of Ethical Conduct,\6\ last 
updated in April of 2016, contains language suggesting that complaints 
submitted to USAG must be signed and written. USAG's code of ethical 
conduct is referenced in USAG's SafeSport policy \7\ as ``USA 
Gymnastics' Additional Safe Sport Measures.'' This Code of Ethical 
Conduct says (emphasis added):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ https://www.usagym.org/pages/aboutus/pages/code_of_ethics.html
    \7\ https://www.usagym.org/PDFs/About%20USA%20Gymnastics/
safesportpolicy_032318.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    ``Any Member (`Complainant') who believes that another Member of 
USA Gymnastics has failed to meet such Member's obligations under this 
Code is, under all but the most egregious circumstances, encouraged to 
first address that concern directly to that Member. If that action does 
not result in a satisfactory resolution, the Complainant may file a 
written complaint with the President, program director or other 
appropriate staff member of USA Gymnastics. That complaint must be 
signed and state specifically the nature of the alleged misconduct.''
    Answer. Question 58 does not include a question.

    Question 59. Are you familiar with USAG's SafeSport Policy? Are you 
familiar with USAG's Code of Ethical Conduct?
    Answer. I am not familiar with the safe sport policies of each NGB. 
They have the flexibility to customize them within the limits 
established by the USOC. I am also not familiar with their Code of 
Ethical Conduct.

    Question 60. Do you believe that this policy--specifically, the 
excerpt highlighted above--is fair to victims? Do you believe that it 
is fair to place the burden of proof on the victim? Do you believe it 
is safe for a minor to confront their sexual abuser, as this Code 
suggests?
    Answer. I am familiar with the SafeSport Code, which requires 
mandatory reporting of issues of abuse to both the Center and law 
enforcement. I am not familiar with Gymnastics' ethics code, but to the 
extent that it appears inconsistent with the SafeSport Code, I believe 
it should be revised and clarified.

    Question 61. Why does the code of ethical conduct require signed, 
written statements--a rigorous requirement which USAG officials appear 
to interpret as also requiring `corroboration'--before USAG will 
investigate allegations of misconduct?
    Answer. I cannot answer that as I was not involved in its creation.

    Question 62. Why, during your respective tenures, did you not seek 
revisions to the code of ethical conduct to be consistent with 
mandatory reporting requirements? Or, at the very least, shouldn't they 
mention mandatory reporting requirements?
    Answer. I was not aware of the provision.

    Question 63. Are you aware that USAG ethics code requires written, 
signed under oath, and corroborated statements to commence an 
investigation? Do you think such a policy places a higher than usual 
and incredibly rigorous burden of proof on victims simply to commence 
an investigation?
    Answer. I am not familiar with Gymnastics' ethics code. I am 
familiar with the SafeSport Code, which USA Gymnastics has adopted, and 
it does not contain such a requirement.

    Question 64. Are you aware that during investigations of abuse, 
USOC and USAG often accept character witness statements from parents 
and athletes that defend the accused? Do you see any conflict of 
interest in that policy? Do you think that such a policy could 
potentially further isolate victims by enabling parents and teammates 
to choose sides and judge the veracity of a victim's claims?
    Answer. I was not aware and I do not have an opinion on this 
issue--it is a very valid question for experts in abuse to consider, 
however.

    Question 65. According to reporting by the Washington Post 
published on November 24, 2017, some Olympic sports organizations keep 
lists of banned coaches confidential.\8\ USA Volleyball and USA 
Wrestling both acknowledged they keep lists of adults banned for 
transgressions including sexual misconduct, but they do not make those 
lists public. Eleven NGBs, including USA Gymnastics and USA Swimming, 
make these lists public. Another 17 NGBs did not respond to the 
Washington Post's investigation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/some-olympic-sports-
organizations-keep-lists-of-banned-coaches-confidential/2017/11/22/
c20a65dc-c029-11e7-97d9-bdab5a0ab381_story.html?utm_term=.65f648d88f3e
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Do you think lists of permanently ineligible members (also known as 
``lists of banned coaches'') and temporarily suspended members should 
be made public?
    Answer. I do not have an opinion on this issue, but it is a valid 
issue for abuse experts to consider.

    Question 66. What did you do to require NGBs to make these lists 
public? Why didn't you require these lists to be public? If something 
prevented you from requiring these lists be made public, please 
explain.
    Answer. This was an issue that our safe sport working groups 
elected to leave to the NGBs on a case by case basis. I do not have the 
expertise to have an informed opinion on it.

    Question 67. Would you recommend your successor to make these lists 
public?
    Answer. I would recommend that my successor get the input of people 
on both sides of the issue.

    Question 68. How else can these lists be made more useful? For 
example, should they include dates or reason for suspension or ban?
    Answer. I am not a safe sport expert and would recommend getting 
the input of people who are.

    Question 69. Regarding USAG's Suspended Members page \9\, there is 
not a lot of information regarding the nature of their suspension on 
the website.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\ https://usagym.org/pages/aboutus/pages/suspended_members.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Was Larry Nassar not being placed on the ``Permanently Ineligible 
Member'' list in 2015 indicative of the way that other accused coaches' 
cases are handled? Was Larry Nassar placed on the ``Suspended Members'' 
list in 2015? For example, are you aware of other coaches that are told 
to resign or no longer be affiliated with USA Gymnastics that did not 
immediately appear on this list?
    Answer. I do not know the answers to these questions. It may be 
that they are best answered by USA Gymnastics.

    Question 70. What is the difference from being ``Suspended'' and 
being ``Permanently Ineligible for Membership''? Why isn't there a date 
on when members were suspended or more information about why they were 
suspended?
    Answer. I do not know.

    Question 71. How long do suspended members typically stay on this 
list before they are moved to the ``Permanently Ineligible for 
Membership'' list--where Nassar is today?
    Answer. I do not know.

    Question 72. What role did you have in determining when a member of 
an NGB is placed on a ``Suspended Members'' or ``Permanently Ineligible 
Members'' list? When was Larry Nassar placed on the ``Suspended 
Members'' list? When was Larry Nassar added to the ``Permanently 
Ineligible Members'' list? Would the CEO of USOC have any kind of veto 
authority? Would the CEO of USOC be able to expedite investigations?
    Answer. Those decisions are made by the NGB and the CEO of the USOC 
would not have veto authority. I do not have the expertise or access to 
the facts of the investigation.
                                 ______
                                 
   Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Maria Cantwell to 
                             Scott Blackmun
    As I stated in my written testimony, I am no longer employed by the 
USOC. My last day with the USOC was March 2, 2018. These responses are 
provided to the best of my recollection, knowledge and belief.
    Question 1. The ability for people, especially those who are given 
a badge of trust and a position of power, to violate children must be 
eliminated. Sports safety protections needs to be top of mind for 
United States Olympic Committee. How can Congress aid USOC in fighting 
sexual abuse?
    Answer. Congress, and particularly the Senate Commerce Committee, 
has been very supportive of the U.S. Olympic Movement. I think it is 
critical that both Congress and the USOC support the newly created and 
independent United States Center for Safe Sport (the ``Center'') . I 
think the Center's education and awareness programs, in particular, 
might have allowed for earlier detection of Nassar's crimes. It is also 
important, however, to remember that there are millions of children 
participating in youth sports in the United States other than under the 
auspices of U.S. National Governing Bodies, and those children should 
be protected as well.

    Question 2. What are the safe guards you have in place to prevent 
these abuses? What more are you planning on doing now that light has 
been shed about Larry Nassar's abuses?
    Answer. In terms of USOC programming, I believe that this question 
was answered in my written statement, which is part of the record. I 
believe the USOC has developed a sound anti-abuse program that will 
only get better as the Center acquires more experience and resources. 
Unfortunately that program was developed too late to prevent Nassar's 
abuse. In terms of what the USOC is planning to do, I am no longer with 
the USOC but I believe that there are a number of programmatic changes 
that should be considered by the USOC in consultation with abuse 
experts. These include mandatory publication of banned lists and rules 
against unsupervised contact.

    Question 3. Are there any regulator barriers hindering USOC from 
protecting their athletes from sexual abuse?
    Answer. As I explained in my statement, the USOC itself has limited 
contact with the athletes, with supervisory authority over coaches and 
service providers like physicians only during the two week period of 
the Olympic Games and at facilities owned by the USOC (e.g., its 
Training Centers in Lake Placid and Colorado Springs). The vast 
majority of Olympic athletes do not train at USOC-owned facilities. The 
National Governing Bodies have to take the leadership role in making 
the day to day decisions that impact athlete safety. The USOC oversees 
the system; it can (a) establish minimum standards for anti-abuse 
programming, and (b) address failures to comply with those standards. 
The USOC has long debated how to address noncompliant NGBs, but there 
is no easy answer. Decertification of an NGB could well harm more than 
help the athletes in a given sport.
                                 ______
                                 
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Catherine Cortez Masto 
                           to Scott Blackmun
    As I stated in my written testimony, I am no longer employed by the 
USOC. My last day with the USOC was March 2, 2018. These responses are 
provided to the best of my recollection, knowledge and belief.
    Question 1. In your opinion, was there anyone in USA Gymnastics 
whose sole responsibility was to monitor the health, safety, and well-
being of gymnasts?
    Answer. No, I do not believe there was. I think a number of NGBs 
now have athlete safety officers, or safe sport officers, whose job it 
is to do just that.

    Question 2. Did your job description include any formal 
responsibility for the health, safety, and well-being of athletes in 
USA Gymnastics programs?
    Answer. I do not recall if it was in my job description. Within 
months of returning to the USOC, I recognized the need to increase our 
athlete safety programs, and for the remainder of my tenure I 
considered athlete safety to be an important and significant part of my 
responsibilities.

    Question 3. Do you believe that you had any legal, moral, or 
ethical responsibility for ensuring that gymnasts could train in a safe 
environment, free from abuse or harassment?
    Answer. Yes, I believe that everybody who oversees athlete programs 
should take all reasonable actions to prevent abuse.

    Question 4. Did you receive bonuses as part of your compensation 
during your respective tenures with USA Gymnastics? If so, please 
describe, to the best of your ability, the criteria that determined 
your bonus eligibility.
    Answer. I never worked for USA Gymnastics. I was eligible for a 
bonus at the USOC. That bonus was dependent upon meeting sport goals, 
financial goals and operating plan goals. The operating plan contained 
deliverables related to safe sport.

    Question 5. Was your bonus eligibility dependent on the performance 
of the athletes or the national team, including medal counts?
    Answer. Yes, 25 percent of my bonus was dependent on the 
organization meeting sport-related goals, and 75 percent of my bonus 
was dependent on other factors. Putting it in terms of total 
compensation, approximately 8 percent of my total compensation was 
dependent on meeting sports-related goals, and approximately 92 percent 
was not.

    Question 6. Do you believe that your bonus eligibility would have 
been negatively impacted by negative press attention for USA 
Gymnastics?
    Answer. I don't know the answer to that question.

    Question 7. Did you feel that your job responsibilities included 
protecting the reputation of USA Gymnastics and the U.S. Olympic 
Committee?
    Answer. Yes. The strength of our brand and the brand of each of our 
49 National Governing Bodies impacts the popularity of Olympic sports 
in the United States and our ability to secure financial support, so it 
is important.

                                  [all]