    [House Hearing, 116 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                              [H.A.S.C. No. 116-4]

                          MILITARY SERVICE ACADEMIES'

                          ACTION PLANS TO ADDRESS THE

                           RESULTS OF SEXUAL ASSAULT

                           AND VIOLENCE REPORT AT THE

                           MILITARY SERVICE ACADEMIES

                                   __________

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                       SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILITARY PERSONNEL

                                     OF THE

                          COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                         ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                                  HEARING HELD

                               FEBRUARY 13, 2019

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                   __________

                        U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    35-337                     WASHINGTON : 2020

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                       SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILITARY PERSONNEL

                     JACKIE SPEIER, California, Chairwoman

    SUSAN A. DAVIS, California           TRENT KELLY, Mississippi
    RUBEN GALLEGO, Arizona               RALPH LEE ABRAHAM, Louisiana
    GILBERT RAY CISNEROS, Jr.,           LIZ CHENEY, Wyoming
        California, Vice Chair           PAUL MITCHELL, Michigan
    VERONICA ESCOBAR, Texas              JACK BERGMAN, Michigan
    DEBRA A. HAALAND, New Mexico         MATT GAETZ, Florida
    LORI TRAHAN, Massachusetts
    ELAINE G. LURIA, Virginia
                     Jamie Jackson, Deputy General Counsel
                              Dan Sennott, Counsel
                             Danielle Steitz, Clerk

                               C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

                  STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS

    Kelly, Hon. Trent, a Representative from Mississippi, Ranking
      Member, Subcommittee on Military Personnel.....................     4
    Speier, Hon. Jackie, a Representative from California,
      Chairwoman, Subcommittee on Military Personnel.................     1

                                   WITNESSES

    Carter VADM Walter E., Jr., USN, Superintendent, United States
      Naval Academy..................................................    30
    Christensen, Col Don, USAF (Ret.), President, Protect Our
      Defenders......................................................     5
    Morris, COL Lawrence J., USA (Ret.), Chief of Staff, The Catholic
      University of America..........................................     6
    Silveria, Lt Gen Jay B., USAF, Superintendent, United States Air
      Force Academy..................................................    31
    Van Winkle, Dr. Elizabeth P., Executive Director, Office of Force
      Resiliency, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for
      Personnel and Readiness........................................    26
    Williams, LTG Darryl A., USA, Superintendent, United States
      Military Academy...............................................    28

                                    APPENDIX

    Prepared Statements:

        Carter VADM Walter E., Jr....................................    89
        Christensen, Col Don.........................................    60
        Morris, COL Lawrence J.......................................    64
        Silveria, Lt Gen Jay B.......................................   100
        Speier, Hon. Jackie..........................................    57
        Van Winkle, Dr. Elizabeth P..................................    68
        Williams, LTG Darryl A.......................................    74

    Documents Submitted for the Record:

        Air Force Academy email submitted by Ms. Speier..............   123

    Witness Responses to Questions Asked During the Hearing:

        Dr. Abraham..................................................   127

    Questions Submitted by Members Post Hearing:

        Mr. Bergman..................................................   134
        Ms. Escobar..................................................   132
        Ms. Speier...................................................   131

                    MILITARY SERVICE ACADEMIES' ACTION PLANS

                    TO ADDRESS THE RESULTS OF SEXUAL ASSAULT

                      AND VIOLENCE REPORT AT THE MILITARY

                               SERVICE ACADEMIES

                                  ----------

                      House of Representatives,
                           Committee on Armed Services,
                            Subcommittee on Military Personnel,
                          Washington, DC, Wednesday, February 13, 2019.
        The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:13 p.m., in
    room 2212, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Jackie Speier
    (chairwoman of the subcommittee) presiding.

    OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JACKIE SPEIER, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM
       CALIFORNIA, CHAIRWOMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILITARY PERSONNEL

        Ms. Speier. Welcome, everyone. We are somewhat late in
    starting this hearing because all the women of the House and
    Senate take a picture every year to draw attention to women's
    heart health, and that is why we are all dressed in red today.
    So if you see members who are of the distaff version coming in,
    that is because that picture is still being taken right now.
        But I think, without any objection, we will start with them
    in absentia, and move forward. So this meeting will come to
    order. My name is Jackie Speier, I am the chair of the
    Subcommittee on Military Personnel, and I welcome all of you
    who are here today, those who are witnesses, and those as
    members of the audience.
        I was profoundly disturbed when I read the Annual Report on
    Sexual Harassment and Violence at the Military Service
    Academies. The results show that after a decade-plus of
    concerted efforts to address sexual harassment and assault, the
    problem has only grown worse. I believe we all appreciate how
    alarming these numbers are. I cannot stress enough that this
    survey is among the best measures of the prevalence of unwanted
    sexual contact and harassment at any university, company, or
    organization.
        The survey has been administered for over a decade with the
    same questions and an expert-approved measurement. Sixty-eight
    percent of the students participated. This isn't a blip, a
    #MeToo bump, or some accident. It is a clear illustration of a
    destructive trend and a systemic problem.
        The report says that in 4 years, occurrences of unwanted
    sexual contact increased from 327 to 747, more than doubling
    the number of sexual assaults at the military academies. Now,
    the term ``unwanted sexual contact'' is being defined in the
    survey by asking very specific questions, which I am going to
    read now, lest any of us think that this is some mild tap on
    the buttocks.
        The questions are: Sexually touched--the question is:
    Unwanted sexual contact behavior. Sexually touched you, for
    example, intentionally touching of genitalia, buttocks, breasts
    if you are a woman, or made you sexually touch them. Attempted
    to make you have sexual intercourse but was not successful.
    Made you have sexual intercourse. Attempted to make you perform
    or receive oral sex, anal sex, or penetration by a finger or
    object, but was not successful. Made you perform or receive
    oral sex, anal sex, or penetration by a finger or object.
        Those were the questions asked and the answers to those in
    questions doubled from 327 to 747. What makes this even more
    disturbing is that the number of reported sexual assaults
    occurring at the academies remained stagnant. That means the
    numbers went up dramatically, but the numbers who actually
    reported stayed the same.
        Only 12 percent of assaulted individuals formally reported.
    So we have to ask the question: Why is it that only 12 percent
    of those who have been sexually assaulted, in the terms that I
    have just spoken, did not come forward? Low report should be no
    surprise given that half of those who did report were
    retaliated against.
        Thirty-seven percent of those who reported experienced
    social ostracism, reflecting a culture defined by victim-
    blaming. Out of these 747-plus assaults and 69 unrestricted
    reports, the academies only convicted 4 perpetrators. Victims
    report at their own peril. That is the message that is being
    sent, because they are more likely to face consequences than
    their perpetrators.
        The case of Ariana Ballard and Stephanie Gross, former West
    Point students who are presently--who had previously appeared
    before this subcommittee, demonstrate the problem. Ariana, a
    top swimming recruit was ostracized by her peers when she
    reported that fellow swim team members had sexually harassed
    her as a freshman. So who was punished? She was. She had to
    train alone.
        Stephanie was violently raped the same year, and an
    investigation found insufficient evidence to bring charges
    against her rapist. After Stephanie was raped again, she
    considered not reporting, fearing that, again, no one would
    believe her. Stephanie reported anyway and her attacker was
    convicted of assault, but not sexual assault.
        Stephanie and Ariana faced mounting retaliation in the form
    of mental fitness and drug tests until they chose to leave the
    academy. This type of treatment for the brave few that do
    report deters the rest. Meanwhile, half of all women at the
    academies reported being pervasively or severely sexually
    harassed in the 2017-2018 academic year.
        Think about that for a minute. One-half of the women cadets
    and midshipmen reported being sexually harassed. That is 1,622
    future officers who start their careers being harassed by their
    peers. None of them reported formally, not one. Sex harassment
    can be a precursor to assault. We need to appreciate that.
        The survey also found that only 56 percent of the cadets
    and midshipmen think their peer leaders make honest and
    reasonable efforts to stop assault. So if the peer leaders are
    not people you can trust, it shouldn't surprise us that they
    are not reporting.
        And despite the Department touting relatively high trust in
    uniformed leadership, that number of 70 percent is worse than
    it was 2 years ago. To live, study, and learn in an environment
    where harassment is so pervasive, expected, and accepted, that
    half of all women are harassed and none report is a stunning
    rebuke in the confidence of the system and a stunning example
    of perseverance by the young women.
        My colleagues and I have had the privilege to appoint high
    school seniors for admission to the academies. That is one of
    the great privileges we have as Members of Congress. They are
    consistently among the best, brightest, and most accomplished
    young people in our communities. They are earnest, respectful,
    and dedicated, and then they go away to school and we get this.
    I wonder if we are missing something when we recommend them, if
    we should be looking more closely at their moral fitness, or if
    the culture at these schools is that corrupting. Perhaps it is
    a little bit of both.
        I do know this: Three out of the four high school seniors
    that I recommended for admission this year are women. Women
    will continue to attend the academies and serve our country.
    All three academies' freshman class have at least 24 percent.
    And I understand that next year, the numbers will grow. So the
    number of women coming to the academies is only going to grow,
    and that is why it is essential that we fix this problem.
        These results don't call for tweaks and adjustments. The
    superintendents have been touting incremental fixes made after
    this survey were administered, but there is no reason we should
    expect adjustments to change the overall trend. This report is
    a scathing indictment of the academies' culture. We need to
    expand our toolbox and use both carrots and sticks to hold
    perpetrators accountable, and to deter others through serious
    repercussions.
        Academy leaders must promote a strong culture of dignity,
    respect, educate students on right and wrong, and have zero
    tolerance for violations. The superintendents have said they
    are doing much of this, but the problem has gotten worse.
    Leaders must earn students' trust by making good on promises to
    impose severe penalties on predators. They must treat survivors
    uniformly, modeling best practices from other academies. And
    they must address the issues that stem from over 25 percent of
    the students self-identifying as being problematic drinkers.
        I guess my message really is quite simple. I am putting the
    academies on notice. We are putting all of you in the situation
    where it is time for us to recognize that this is a crisis, and
    I intend to watch it like a hawk. You know, it is time for us
    to elevate the brave women, and some men, who come forward, and
    knowing full well that retaliation is likely, and instead, take
    the kinds of actions against perpetrators that will finally rid
    us of this rot.
        Today we have two panels. During the first panel we will
    have the opportunity to hear from outside experts who have
    dedicated their careers to these sensitive issues. During the
    second panel, the Department of Defense and the superintendents
    of our military service academies will explain why their
    current approach to this problem have failed, and how we can
    rethink our approaches to sexual violence at our academies.
        I look forward to hearing from all of you today. But before
    I introduce our first panel, let me offer Ranking Member Kelly
    an opportunity to make some opening remarks.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Speier can be found in the
    Appendix on page 57.]

         STATEMENT OF HON. TRENT KELLY, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM
         MISSISSIPPI, RANKING MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILITARY
                               PERSONNEL.

        Mr. Kelly. Thank you to the Chair. First, I want to
    congratulate Representative Speier on becoming the chairwoman
    of this very important subcommittee on the very important Armed
    Services Committee. I want to welcome our fellow members of the
    subcommittee on both sides. I look forward to working with each
    of you on all the issues impacting our service members and
    their families.
        I also am very troubled by the results of this year's
    Annual Report on Sexual Harassment and Violence at the Military
    Service Academies. Just as the nation continues to struggle
    with an increase in sexual violence, it is clear that the
    military and our service academies are not immune from this
    crisis. Every cadet and midshipman is told from day one that
    they must rely on each other in order to succeed at the
    academy.
        The vast majority of cadets and midshipmen treat each other
    with dignity and respect and go on to distinguished careers in
    the military. However, when a cadet or midshipman preys on
    another through sexual assault or harassment, the betrayal is
    profound and shakes the institution to its core.
        These horrific crimes not only deeply impact the victim,
    they do wide-ranging damage to the entire academy and to our
    society as a whole. The academies have put enormous resources
    and attention towards improving sexual assault prevention and
    response; nonetheless, the problem seems to be getting worse.
    While this is a multifaceted and difficult issue, one thing is
    clear: The results of this survey are unacceptable, and the
    leadership of the military service academies must redouble
    their efforts in order to fix this immediately.
        Therefore, I look forward to hearing from both of our
    panels today about how to improve sexual assault prevention and
    response. I am particularly interested to hear from the
    superintendents about their plans to address this increase in
    prevalence. I am interested to hear more about the efforts to
    enhance preadmission screening in order to accurately identify
    candidates who have character issues that may preclude their
    admissions. I would also like to hear more about how the
    academies are improving prevention and intervention efforts to
    ensure they resonate with young cadets and midshipmen.
        Finally, as a former district attorney who has prosecuted
    sex crimes, I would like to learn more about how the academies
    use the judicial and administrative authorities they have to
    hold perpetrators accountable. One case of sexual assault,
    violence, or harassment is one too many. And one case of sexual
    assault that is not reported because of systemic problems is
    unacceptable.
        I want to hear how each of the service academies is
    proceeding to address this critical issue. With that, I look
    forward to hearing from both of our panels, and I yield back.
    Thank you, Ms. Speier.
        Ms. Speier. Thank you, Ranking Member Kelly. Each witness
    will have the opportunity to present his or her testimony, and
    each member will have an opportunity to question the witnesses
    for 5 minutes. We respectfully ask the witnesses to summarize
    their testimony in 5 minutes. Your written comments and
    statements will be made part of the record.
        So now we will welcome our first panel. First, Retired
    Colonel Don Christensen, United States Air Force, who is
    president of Protect our Defenders. And, second, Retired
    Colonel Lawrence Morris of the U.S. Army, Chief of Staff now to
    The Catholic University of America. Welcome to both of you.
        And, Colonel Christensen, you can begin.

       STATEMENT OF COL DON CHRISTENSEN, USAF (RET.), PRESIDENT,
                         PROTECT OUR DEFENDERS

        Colonel Christensen. Chairwoman Speier and Ranking Member
    Kelly, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you on
    this vitally important topic for our nation's security. As a
    brief introduction, I retired after 23 years' service as an Air
    Force JAG [judge advocate general]. During that time, I served
    twice as a defense counsel, multiple times as a prosecutor,
    including as the chief prosecutor for Europe and Southwest
    Asia, and as the chief prosecutor for the United States Air
    Force. I have served as a trial judge, and I had been selected
    to serve as an appellate judge when I elected to retire.
        For the last 4 years I have been the president of Protect
    our Defenders, a human rights organization dedicated to
    advocating for victims of military sexual trauma. We provide
    attorneys free of charge, and I, myself, represent clients who
    are going through the often hostile military justice process.
    During this time, I have talked with hundreds of survivors,
    including those from all the service academies.
        As Congresswoman Speier has very succinctly and very
    correctly identified, there is a huge problem with sexual
    assault at the academies. The one thing that I really think
    needs to be brought to this committee's attention is these
    rates compared to the Active Duty force. Sixteen percent, just
    about 16 percent of the women at the academies are sexually
    assaulted. That is four times the rate of the Active Duty
    force. For men, 2.4 percent. That is three times the rate of
    the Active Duty force. These are sobering estimates, especially
    when we compare to the Active Duty force.
        Yet accountability for perpetrators is almost nonexistent.
    Last year, only four offenders were convicted at a court
    martial for their offenses, and a tiny handful were discharged.
    This should be a wake-up call for academy leadership. The
    failure to weed out perpetrators means that hundreds of sex
    offenders are commissioned into the Active Force every year.
    That should be very sobering. Every year, hundreds of sex
    offenders are commissioned into the Active Force.
        We can only imagine the impact this has on the military's
    ability to address sexual assault and harassment throughout the
    services. A service academy commission undoubtedly gives an
    officer an advantage for the competition for promotions,
    command, and ultimately the attainment of general and flag
    rank.
        The last three Chiefs of Staff of the Air Force and five of
    the last seven have been Air Force Academy grads. The current
    Chief of Naval Operations is a Naval Academy grad. The
    academies have an impact on the Active Force much greater than
    the actual numbers of their graduates. It is for this very
    reason that Congress, the President, and the American people
    must demand solutions to what is going on.
        However, I fear the reality of the rampant epidemic of
    sexual harassment and assault is not being accepted by
    leadership. I also fear that leadership does not understand the
    level of distrust that the survivors have of the chain of
    command. When I talked to academy survivors, the constant I
    hear is the fear of leadership: the fear that leadership won't
    believe them; the fear that leadership will not hold the
    offender accountable; the fear that leadership will drive them
    from the academies if they report, and the numbers bear witness
    to that.
        Thirty-one percent of the Air Force Academy women, and 32
    percent of the women at the Naval Academy, do not believe that
    senior leadership is making honest and reasonable efforts to
    stop sexual assault. Almost a third of the women attending
    those two institutions do not trust senior leadership. Is it
    any wonder that women are reluctant to report when they are
    more likely to be forced out of the academies and then end up
    paying hundreds of thousands of dollars in tuition than they
    are to see their perpetrator held accountable?
        Despite sexual assault being up 50 percent from 2 years,
    and over double from 4 years ago, report rates as a percentage
    have plummeted. Unrestricted reports, the kind of report that
    allows us to prosecute a case, are actually down to 8 percent;
    92 percent of the victims do not report in a way that can
    result in an investigation.
        We cannot solve this crisis if men and women are afraid to
    report. And, again, what does this mean? That the perpetrators
    are commissioned officers and future leaders on our Active
    Force. Leadership controls every aspect of the discipline
    process. It is time for them to acknowledge that this is in
    their control, and it is time for them to ask, and for you to
    ask, What tool have they not had for the last 20 years that
    they need now? And what promise are they going to make that
    they are actually going to carry out?
        Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Colonel Christensen can be found
    in the Appendix on page 60.]
        Ms. Speier. Thank you, Colonel Christensen.
        Colonel Morris.

       STATEMENT OF COL LAWRENCE J. MORRIS, USA (RET.), CHIEF OF
               STAFF, THE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF AMERICA

        Colonel Morris. Thanks, Chairwoman Speier and members. I
    will just try to highlight a couple of things from my prepared
    remarks. It was my great honor to serve 30 years in uniform, 27
    of them as an Active Duty judge advocate and 3 as a reservist
    tanker in Milwaukee while I was in law school. I had a pretty
    typical Army career, trying cases all over the world, later
    supervising people who tried cases in normal installations and
    in Bosnia, Southwest Asia. I had the privilege of advising
    commanders, and later on, supervising counsel on both sides of
    the courtroom, including when I served as the Army's chief
    defense counsel, the one job that I did seek during my career.
        I also was the chief prosecutor at Guantanamo Bay, and the
    SJA [staff judge advocate] or general counsel at West Point. I
    helped initiate the Army's training program regarding sexual
    assault for prosecutors and defense counsel after I left the
    Army, and then I have been at Catholic University since then.
        I also served on the Response Systems panel from 2012 to
    2014. I am the son and father of West Pointers, and the father
    of a Marine. Today, I am just here giving my own opinions.
        The four matters I would like to mention--and, first off, I
    expect that I differ little in my biases and expectations from
    Colonel Christensen. We had parallel careers in many respects,
    starting from the same law school in Wisconsin, and I think we
    both have a particular affection for and loyalty to people who
    serve.
        The first point about data. I am not an expert in looking
    at the data that has been produced, and think at least it has
    to be taken for the idea that there is an intractability to
    this problem. It is not unique to the military, it is not
    unique to the academies, but it is stark in the way it presents
    itself, and poses the question of how to care for, make people
    feel protected and confident in the system.
        It caught my eye, though, that also there is a relatively
    high level of confidence by the cadets and midshipmen in their
    senior leaders. So we do expect more of the academies--but that
    was a notable contrast.
        Second, on training. The training is not a panacea, but it
    does work and is part of the solution. I think in the military
    we have what is sometimes considered the conceit that we can
    train out of anything, and train to most any standard and
    ambition or behavior. Tougher to do. Sexual behavior is harder
    to train out of than, let's say, smoking or drug and alcohol
    abuse and those sorts of things. And, in addition, society's
    messages regarding sexuality are not always clear or consistent
    to the emerging adult, and our students at the service
    academies come from that same culture. Still, training plus
    accountability is part of the approach.
        Third point, on administering discipline. Where the
    military is unique and particularly well-suited to the range of
    sexual offenses because it has a uniquely rich range of
    administrative and disciplinary options, it gives the
    opportunity, rightly exercised, to snuff out the sort of
    precursor behavior and hold somebody accountable, and send a
    message of accountability to survivors and observers, besides
    the person himself who sees the system against him.
        I am sure as well, though, that my experience isn't unique
    in having taken to trial in military courts cases that civilian
    authorities would not pursue.
        Last points on some fundamentals of the system and some
    cautions. It seems that one of the key questions you are
    tangling with is whether and how much to trust commanders and
    their counsel to rightly exercise the considerable justice-
    based instruments available to them. If you think commanders
    are unsuited by training, not being lawyers, or perspective--
    considering they might be self-protective or, for some reason,
    disinclined to attack sexual misconduct--then you might want
    another system or a great change to the current system.
        My sense is that commanders are pledged to care for,
    enforce good order and discipline, and that uniting of command
    authority with discipline authority leavened by the required
    and appropriate involvement of judge advocates along the way,
    is appropriate to the requirements of the service and the
    expectations of command. So disassociating that authority would
    reduce accountability, and not enhance discipline in general,
    nor in the realm of sexual misconduct in particular.
        Last point, defending soldiers and coaching and training
    defense counsel was the hardest and most rewarding work I did
    in my career. I am also aware of the risks of unlawful command
    influence, and believe, unlike our appellate courts, there is
    such a thing as they call command influence in the air, that
    some participants in the system might be inclined to convict or
    adjudicate harsher punishment based on a perception of a
    commander's predilections.
        So in fixing the system, it is important still to take care
    to preserve the integrity of that system for all participants.
        Finally, we should be cautious in seeking justice-related
    metrics such as preferral rates, conviction rates, average
    sentences. They might provide some insight into the workings of
    the system, but alone shouldn't be the major indicators of
    success in combating sexual assault.
        Thanks for the opportunity to be here.
        [The prepared statement of Colonel Morris can be found in
    the Appendix on page 64.]
        Ms. Speier. Thank you, Colonel Morris.
        Colonel Christensen, what is stunning to me about this
    report is that we see the increase in sexual assault go up
    100--I mean, 50 percent. And we see the incidents of
    retaliation being such a factor in the unwillingness to report.
    Why, in your estimation, has the prevalence of assault at the
    academies gone up so much?
        Colonel Christensen. Well, from my conversations with
    cadets at the academy, there is a perception among many that
    senior leadership does not care. And as you see, there is such
    a lack of accountability. So for perpetrators, they understand
    that the odds of them ever being punished are almost zero. They
    probably have a better chance of being struck by lightning.
        So there is absolutely nothing to dissuade those who would
    commit a sexual assault from doing so. And then you have the
    problem of trust. When the women and the men do not feel that
    they can come forward and report without them suffering more
    consequences than their perpetrator suffers, they won't come
    forward.
        Last, I believe 2 weeks ago, the Air Force Academy finally
    got a conviction of a cadet for digitally penetrating another
    cadet without her consent. He got a whole whopping 75 days of
    confinement, while facing 30 years of confinement. So we have a
    process that doesn't deliver a sentence that deters. And then
    after this happened, from several sources at the academy,
    cadets who have contacted me and said that there is a rampant
    social media campaign shaming the victims. And that is the kind
    of stuff that has to stop.
        And it has to be an acceptance by leadership that this is
    going on. I think one of the biggest problems is, is that
    leadership hears these numbers but they truly do not
    internalize them as a problem. And I am not necessarily talking
    about the superintendents, I am talking about the people in
    between the superintendents and the cadets.
        I had an opportunity to meet with the vice commandant of
    cadets at the Air Force Academy last year. I was representing a
    young cadet that they were talking about kicking out after she
    reported. I asked him, have you ever talked to a survivor when
    it wasn't an adversarial process? And he said, I don't have
    time for that. And to me, that was such the wrong answer,
    because you will never know what survivors are going through if
    the only time you talk to them is when you are trying to kick
    them out of the institution.
        So I think that those people that are in the middle need to
    accept that there is a problem, and they need to be willing to
    ferret out those who are shaming victims.
        Ms. Speier. One of the issues that comes to my mind, having
    spent time with all of the superintendents over the last few
    days, is that there is really a difference that exists in how
    they handle the cases. For instance, in some of the academies,
    a victim can take a sabbatical. In others, they cannot. Some
    may want to transfer to another academy, and that hasn't been
    an opportunity made available to them. Some have wanted to--in
    some situations, there is going to be recoupment, not just at
    the junior and senior level, but at the freshman and sophomore
    level where a cadet is found to have sexually assaulted.
        Do you have any thoughts on whether it is time for us to
    make sure that all the academies follow a similar process in
    terms of the kinds of resources that are available to the
    victim survivors?
        Colonel Christensen. Absolutely. I think it is time for
    them to have a unified front. That cadets and midshipmen
    understand that they are going to be treated the same no matter
    where they are going to school. You know, this has been a
    complex issue that they have taken individually versus in a
    unified manner. So therefore, you know, I don't think there is
    enough of an effort to see what is working at West Point. Is
    that going to work at Annapolis? Is that going to work at the
    Air Force Academy?
        I also, you know, one of the difficulties that we face in
    the military is we have what we call the uniform military code
    of justice, and the ``uniform'' doesn't mean what we are
    wearing, it means that it is supposed to be the same. And each
    service has their own way of doing things that often pull apart
    what is actually supposed to be uniform. And I think there
    would be great benefit for, especially in the academies, each
    one of them, focusing on how do we do this jointly.
        Ms. Speier. Thank you. Ranking Member Kelly.
        Mr. Kelly. Thank you again, Chairwoman Speier. I am of the
    view that we need to fully acknowledge the problem, and we have
    a problem, and I think we are doing that. But we need to get to
    work on fixing it immediately.
        Mr. Christensen, what are some of the specific things that
    service academies are not doing that they had should be doing
    to reduce sexual assault and sexual harassment, from your
    perspective?
        Colonel Christensen. Well, I think the number one thing is
    trust, and that trust results in reports. So, for example, in
    the Air Force Academy last year, they had 29 reports of sexual
    assault out of over 200 actual cases. Of those 29, 20 of them
    are restricted reports, which for those, if you don't
    understand, that means they can't be prosecuted. That means
    only 9 people out of over 200 actually reported. And what did
    that get? Well, it finally got one conviction.
        I think that there is a definite value to training, I am
    not anti-training, I just don't think it is the panacea. And I
    think one of those things, as a prosecutor talking to a
    prosecutor, is to acknowledge that prosecution is one way to
    deter crime. Prosecution is another way to send a message to
    survivors that we are going to take you seriously.
        The second thing I would say is that I think this is a
    problem across both the Active Force and at the academies, is
    experience levels of the people who are acting as investigators
    and acting as the prosecutors. The services have to commit to
    making sure that we have the most experienced and best people
    doing those jobs. We have a ton of talent in the military, but
    they often get rotated out of those jobs very quickly.
        And as a prosecutor I think you would agree with this, that
    90 percent of the case is won or lost before it ever reaches
    you by the great work done by investigators. And if they don't
    uncover what you need, it is kind of tough to finish it up at
    trial. So we need to make sure we have the best investigators
    possible. And again, this isn't a slam on the people who are
    doing it, they are very dedicated, very hardworking, but they
    don't stay in those positions long enough to become the experts
    they should be.
        Mr. Kelly. Thank you very much. You know, as a former
    commander who has administered UCMJ [Uniform Code of Military
    Justice] up to the brigade level, and also as a former district
    attorney and has seen the inside of both the grand jury and a
    courtroom, I think that is very important to look at--how do we
    collect the facts? How do we get the evidence? Because the case
    is only as strong--so very good point, Colonel Christensen.
        Mr. Morris, you have experience in dealing with these
    issues in both the service academy setting and a civilian
    university setting. What are the differences between how
    civilian universities handle sexual assault and harassment
    claims versus service academies? And are there any best
    practices that civilian universities are using that we can
    adopt?
        Colonel Morris. The way in which they are differing is the
    adjudicative process, the way in which they are similar and
    should be--I am the rookie here.
        There is similarity in prevention and education, and the
    great difference is in adjudication. So I don't think there is
    much difference in the way you have to smother your student
    population with information about sexual assault and about
    prevention and about dignity and respect and all of those
    factors that contribute to somebody's behavior.
        And as I mentioned before, you are taking a product of
    society, and to some degree, reorienting those individuals. In
    the adjudicative process, though, a great difference. Under
    title 10, of course, there is the expectation since the ``Dear
    Colleague'' letter produced by the Obama administration in
    2011, to essentially set up amateur informal court systems,
    adjudicative systems, and they have proved to be really tough
    to manage. All coming from the right impulse of attacking this
    behavior and having a system that has enough credibility that
    it cares for the survivor and sends a message to the other
    students that this process has the possibility of bringing
    about justice. That it stings enough to correct that person's
    behavior, hold that person accountable, and deter others.
        The difficulty there is it is really quasi in being quasi-
    judicial. You know, you are allowed to have counsel there, but
    they can't speak. There is not direct cross-examination. All of
    the things that are limited because they are just--they are
    created and kind of cooked out of the university's processes.
        So the contrast is the military system, of course, has that
    full range of administrative and nonjudicial options and
    corrective training and all that available to it, besides the
    cases that are appropriate to get to a court-martial.
        Mr. Kelly. I agree with Mr. Christensen that training
    alone--we just can't train ourselves out of this crisis. But I
    am at a loss to see how removing the commander and the
    authority of a commander, which has many more tools than--I can
    tell you as a former district attorney and prosecutor, has many
    more tools available than just a prosecution side.
        I am at a loss to see--do you know any way, Mr. Morris, in
    which removing the commander from sexual assault prosecutions
    improves this situation?
        Colonel Morris. I think I understand where the impulse is
    coming from, because it comes from a point of frustration of
    feeling like we are many years into this and haven't been able
    to crack it. While understanding that, my sense is almost to go
    more in the other direction, to hold commanders more
    accountable, to be still more demanding on those leaders to
    turn this around, and to use all of the levers that are
    available to them.
        So the removal of them then makes them less accountable,
    disincentivizes them, as opposed to providing extra incentives
    and the appropriate pressure that the system can bring.
        Mr. Kelly. Then my final question, Chairwoman Speier, and
    this one I think is really important. Meeting with all the
    service academy superintendents over the last week, one of the
    things that--and DOD [Department of Defense], senior DOD
    officials. One of the things that is apparent is you have got
    dual competing chains of leadership, of leaders. You have,
    number one, the superintendents and all the cadre that are
    professional officers and soldiers and should conduct
    themselves that way. And then you have the peer chain of
    command and the peer pressure from a group. And having three
    children of my own, I understand sometimes the peer pressure
    can be greater than parental or teacher pressure.
        And so what can we do to reduce the amount of peer pressure
    so that they feel comfortable among their peers reporting, and
    also feel that same peer pressure to keep them from doing
    sexual assaults or harassment. And that is to both--to Mr.
    Morris also, I guess.
        Colonel Morris. I mean, one of the unhappy results of this
    long-term struggle at all institutes of higher education is
    that there is a pretty well-understood set of best practices in
    terms of education and prevention. You can vary from school to
    school, but there is an understanding of hitting them--I mean,
    at our school, you have to do some online training before you
    walk into class your first day of school in August. And then
    they have mandatory training all along the way. There is this
    thought of what the industry calls booster shots at each year.
    So that as their perspectives on their world change, you are
    catching them again, and you are trying to reinforce the right
    behavior.
        So it is the sustained aspect of it more than anything
    else.
        Mr. Kelly. Thank you, Chairwoman Speier, and I yield back.
        Ms. Speier. Thank you. Mr. Cisneros.
        Mr. Cisneros. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Colonel
    Christensen, could you explain to me just the difference
    between restricted and unrestricted reports?
        Colonel Christensen. Sure, I would be happy to. So about
    2004-2005 timeframe, Congress looked at the reporting problems,
    and one of the problems was that many victims were looking for
    mental health treatment or medical treatment, talk to an
    attorney, talk to a chaplain or something. But when they did
    that, because we don't have, for example, medical privilege in
    the military, they would go to the ER [emergency room], say, I
    was just raped, I just want treatment, I am not looking for an
    investigation, but they had to be reported.
        So Congress said, Hey, we need to do something about that.
    So they gave the option of restricted reporting. And so
    restricted reporting allows the survivor to go to mental
    health, go to medical, go to the SARC [Sexual Assault Response
    Coordinator], go to a victim advocate, go to an attorney, go to
    the chaplain, and get whatever service they believe they need
    without it starting a corresponding investigation.
        An unrestricted report is if the military finds out in any
    other way that there has been a sexual assault, by law that
    must result in an investigation, and by law that investigation
    must be done by one of the criminal investigative services,
    NCIS [Naval Criminal Investigative Service], CID [Army Criminal
    Investigation Command], OSI [Air Force Office of Special
    Investigations]. And so, if a survivor tells her commander,
    that is unrestricted. If a survivor tells a friend, that is
    unrestricted. If a survivor tells OSI, that is unrestricted.
        Ms. Speier. But that victim also still gets services as
    well?
        Colonel Christensen. Yes. Yes.
        Mr. Cisneros. So you just kind of said--can you go through
    that again? Who are mandatory reports? If a victim comes to an
    individual there at the academy, or even the military, who is
    required to report that sexual assault?
        Colonel Christensen. Anybody other than--anybody who is
    wearing a uniform, other than the SARC, the victim advocate,
    attorney, such as a special victims attorney, medical, mental
    health, chaplain. So if they tell anyone else, that is a
    mandatory report.
        Mr. Cisneros. So according to this report and according to
    your statement, 92 percent of the victims are choosing to do a
    restricted report rather than to go and tell somebody who would
    have to then report it?
        Colonel Christensen. Well, what--actually 92 percent aren't
    telling anyone.
        Mr. Cisneros. Okay.
        Colonel Christensen. About 4 percent, depending on which
    academy you are at, about 4 to 8 percent are doing restricted
    reports, and somewhere around 6 to 8 percent are doing
    unrestricted reports.
        Mr. Cisneros. Okay. Colonel Morris, with your experience at
    a university--a civilian university, if somebody came to an
    individual or doctor there at the university, would that
    doctor, physician, counselor, be required to report that
    assault?
        Colonel Morris. They would not, only under the narrow areas
    in the law where there is mandatory reporting, and of course,
    that is mainly of minors.
        Mr. Cisneros. Okay. All right. So one of the problems I
    see, and I understand the concern of the victim, right? We want
    to take care of the victim and have their privacy, but if the
    numbers are continuing to increase where they don't feel
    comfortable to where they can report it and it is going to be--
    people are going to go and be held accountable for their
    actions, we are in a situation now, like you said, where sexual
    harassers, people who commit sexual assault are going out into
    the military service now, more or less maybe with the
    opportunity to do it again and commit that crime again.
        What recommendation would you have to get around this to
    where we can go and make the victim feel comfortable where they
    can do an unrestricted report?
        Colonel Christensen. Number one is understand what a
    survivor is going through. You know, somebody who has been
    sexually assaulted is usually suffering from PTSD [post-
    traumatic stress disorder], PTSD that is going to affect their
    ability to succeed. A lot of times it can result in minor
    misconduct. It can also result in counterintuitive behavior and
    destructive behavior.
        What we see too often is that the academies turn that
    natural impulse from being a survivor into a reason to kick you
    out, and that is the message that is being sent. The second
    thing I would say is making sure survivors understand that if
    they choose to want to pursue justice through a court-martial,
    that that is something that if the evidence is there, it is
    going to be taken seriously and done.
        I think commanders have a role, regardless of who makes the
    ultimate decision to prosecute. I just think that the person
    who makes the ultimate decision to prosecute should be a very
    experienced, seasoned JAG, not a commander. What needs to be
    understood is that within the military there are 14,000 or so
    commanders. There are only about 400 of them that have general
    court-martial convening authority, and only about 140 of them
    actually use it.
        So commanders have a role every day that comes short of
    prosecution. And when we talk about non-judicial punishment, we
    talk about administrative actions that Colonel Morris talked
    about, those all still exist. But a member--but a survivor has
    to have faith. There was a survey done by the Iraq-Afghanistan
    Veterans of America that was just released a couple weeks ago,
    and they asked thousands of veterans and Active Duty members,
    would you be more likely to report if a prosecutor made the
    decision than a commander? Over 50 percent said yes, only 3
    percent said no.
        So I think professionalizing the justice system would go a
    long ways to doing that.
        Ms. Speier. All right. Your time has expired.
        Mr. Cisneros. I yield back my time.
        Ms. Speier. Mr. Abraham.
        Dr. Abraham. Thank you, Madam Chair. As a medical doctor, I
    can tell you it takes extreme courage to--when you are an
    assault victim and survivor to step out of the shadows and tell
    your story. So I agree. This question is for both of you
    gentlemen.
        I do believe the academies are trying to work this out and
    find the right solution. Specifically, for both of you, what
    programs have you seen that work? And what programs would you
    change to help allow that survivor, that victim to step out?
        Colonel Morris. I don't have a program as such to
    recommend, I just have watched programs now, particularly when
    I served at West Point, and then watching it in the civilian
    world. The greatest thing is to make no assumptions about the
    experience or perspective of these 17-, 18-, and 19-year-olds
    as they come through the door. And to work from a standpoint
    kind of institutional humility on information they would need
    to make right decisions.
        We have a little more freedom at a private Catholic school
    to fully bring out issues of how those choices are made and
    framed. But the biggest thing is to have a plan that isn't
    perceived by the students as sort of this obligatory burst of
    stuff, and then they don't hear about it again or then there
    is, you know, a display or something later in the year.
        It is a, you know, prepared, planned out, sustained program
    that grows as the student works its way through the school, is
    the greatest part, because you don't lose them. And then they
    have a sense that they really must take this seriously, they
    are talking to me about this again.
        Dr. Abraham. So a continuing education----
        Colonel Morris. Certainly.
        Dr. Abraham [continuing]. So to speak. Colonel Christensen,
    do you have any comments?
        Colonel Christensen. Well, this isn't unique to the
    academies, but I think one of the most important things that
    has been done, and this is, again, a result of the action by
    Congress, was the creation of Special Victims Counsel, Victims
    Legal Counsel program. I think that is the most ground-changing
    legislation that has been passed concerning military justice.
    It is a game-changer for survivors because they have somebody
    in their corner. And beyond that--I will give General Silveria
    credit, he speaks passionately. I think those words need to be
    heard.
        One of the problems, though, with command being in charge
    is if General Silveria speaks too passionately, speaks
    critically of certain processes, or any of the other
    superintendents do, as Colonel Morris rightfully talked about,
    that creates the perception of unlawful command influence. And
    it is one additional reason why I think commanders need to be
    freed to be advocates for change without having the burden that
    if they talk too much as a commander, too much as somebody who
    says this is unacceptable, that it creates unlawful command
    influence ideas.
        Dr. Abraham. Okay. And the second question, but again, to
    both of you, the way I understand it, most of the retaliation
    is from the peers. What can we do to prevent that? Colonel
    Morris, I will start with you.
        Colonel Morris. And I don't have a particular perspective
    on that other than in my prep for this, that really struck me,
    that there seems to be a substantial amount of that, plus you
    see the great contrast in the statistics between the cadet
    trust of their peers and the cadet trust of the leaders, a
    really high level, 80 percent, more or less, I guess, 70--in
    the 70s and 80s of leaders, and in the 40s and 50s of their
    peers. So as you are looking at how do we direct things, the
    peers always have the greatest influence. And in the academies,
    more so, because your life--you don't have much volition in how
    you live.
        So just looking at it as somebody who once served there and
    looking at the new data, if I were to look where to
    concentrate, it would be on building that trust and changing
    whatever is afoot there that makes the peers not a trusted
    source of support and encouragement and deterrence.
        Dr. Abraham. Colonel Christensen, do you have a comment?
        Colonel Christensen. I would say that there needs to be
    greater attention to social media and the impact of social
    media on shaming of victims. From the clients I talked to, that
    is a huge problem is the social media bullying. I know that is
    not necessarily easy for the academy to follow, but I think
    they should make efforts to see what is going, and then when
    they see that that is happening, for example, the people
    shaming the victims in the case last week, that they need to
    speak out about it--leadership needs to speak up.
        Dr. Abraham. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Ms. Speier. For the new members, let me just point out that
    when the plebes come to the academies, they are overseen by the
    senior leadership of the institution. As they matriculate into
    the sophomore and junior years, they are overseen by senior
    leaders within the actual military academy, who are also
    cadets. So it is cadet leadership that is overseeing
    sophomores, juniors, and seniors for that matter.
        All right. We will now go to Ms. Haaland.
        Ms. Haaland. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you both for
    being here today. And what roles and responsibilities do senior
    academy leaders have in preventing and responding to
    occurrences of sexual assault and sexual harassment at military
    service academies? And, second, how do you believe senior
    leaders should be held accountable for continued increased
    rates of the USC [unwanted sexual contact] at those academies?
        Colonel Christensen. Well, I think the role is the central
    focus of each academy, what can the superintendent do? They are
    the voice. For those who haven't served in the military, I know
    many of you have, when you are a cadet, people like General
    Silveria and the other superintendents are gods, and their
    words matter.
        And so being that vocal person, holding people accountable,
    whether it is people on their staff who are retaliating,
    holding cadets accountable who retaliate. I think retaliation
    is just one of those huge problems that they really need to
    tackle.
        And I am sorry, your second question was?
        Ms. Haaland. Excuse me. How do you believe senior leaders
    should be held accountable for a continued increase in rates?
        Colonel Christensen. Well, I say this mindful that they are
    sitting next to me. I would say that there are certain times,
    you know, we need to let people go, move them on if they aren't
    getting the job done. There seems to be, institutionally now in
    the military, a reluctance to hold senior leaders accountable.
    You know, General Eisenhower during World War II fired, I
    think, half his generals over the war.
        It is almost rare--it is exceptionally rare that a general
    is ever told now, you are just not getting the job done, time
    to move on. And I think that is it. You know, how many times do
    you get to fail before you are fired?
        Ms. Haaland. Thank you.
        Colonel Morris. I agree. I don't have much to add other
    than the superintendents are just phenomenally in charge of
    those institutions, even in some ways greater than a division
    commander or some equivalent in the field. So they are able to
    marshal all of that authority and prominence in constructive
    ways.
        When I was the staff judge advocate at West Point, one of
    the things our superintendent did was went to a lot of women's
    sports games more than he went to men's, just one micro piece
    of making clear that we really all are part of the same team.
    But it then requires at times to leverage that prominence and
    that power to potentially be unpopular by being just inflexible
    on matters like sexuality in particular, and driving home in
    all of the ways you can with those peer and near-peer levels.
    And accountability, same thing. The traditional Army military
    methods of holding senior leaders accountable is, sure, an
    appropriate outcome.
        Ms. Haaland. Thank you so much. Madam Chair, I yield my
    time.
        Ms. Speier. Thank you. Mr. Bergman.
        Mr. Bergman. Thank you, Madam Chair. And thanks to both
    you, Colonel Christensen and Colonel Morris, for your decades
    of service, because as SJAs, and as legal advice to commanders,
    good commanders rely on you for good sage advice to make wise
    decisions on behalf of whatever unit they are in command of.
    That is not easy, and it is not exact.
        Colonel Christensen, you mentioned--you used statistics
    comparing academy to Active Duty. Did your Active Duty
    statistics include a breakdown of officer and enlisted?
        Colonel Christensen. It does, although I could not, off the
    top of the head, tell you what it does or what those are.
    Obviously, in the Active Force crime rates are higher among the
    young----
        Mr. Bergman. The point is, you enter the academy at the age
    of roughly 18?
        Colonel Christensen. Right.
        Mr. Bergman. You are coming out of high school. There is a
    pretty good chance you are going to enter the enlisted ranks at
    the age of 18 or fairly close?
        Colonel Christensen. Correct.
        Mr. Bergman. And if you are going into an officer program,
    you know, you are going to enter--as you become an officer, it
    is going to be, you know, you are going to be 22, 23.
        Okay. Mr. Christensen, in your testimony you said that
    Congress needs to either, quote, ``Empower military prosecutors
    to lead the process and decide whether to prosecute cases, or
    if necessary, turn over all academy cases to the relevant
    civilian justice systems,'' end quote. However, back when you
    were on Active Duty you successfully prosecuted many cases that
    civilian jurisdictions simply refused to.
        And my understanding is that the services still prosecute
    sex-related offenses that would never be taken to trial by
    civilian prosecutors. What is the basis then for believing, at
    this point, that the civilian system would be better?
        Colonel Christensen. Well, yes, I have prosecuted many
    cases, and I have prosecuted cases that were declined by
    civilian systems. I think to remember, too, is that there are
    cases being prosecuted right now in the civilian system that
    the military would not have prosecuted.
        Mr. Bergman. What precipitated the change, because you were
    on one side and you were successful. Is there some tool or
    whatever that you used or the folks on your team used to
    successfully do these that no longer exists in the military
    side?
        Colonel Christensen. There is no tool that--the difference,
    but what we are looking at is a systemic failure at the
    academies, and I did mention that----
        Mr. Bergman. So what you are--what I hear you saying then
    is that we have a long-term systemic failure that has now
    fallen outside the realm of the services' ability, in this
    case, the academies' ability to utilize the UCMJ effectively?
        Colonel Christensen. Well, it is clearly not being used
    effectively, if you only have four convictions. There were
    about 70 actual reports that were unrestricted, only 4 result
    in a conviction. That tells me we are not doing a good job of
    that. I am not----
        Mr. Bergman. What has changed?
        Colonel Christensen. What has changed since when?
        Mr. Bergman. Well, what caused the change?
        Colonel Christensen. I am sorry.
        Mr. Bergman. Well, if you were successful but now we are
    not being successful, what has changed?
        Colonel Christensen. Well, I can arrogantly say that I am
    not there anymore, but----
        Mr. Bergman. That is a fair assessment. Any good commander
    has good faith in their own ability.
        Colonel Christensen [continuing]. That is not the case.
        Mr. Bergman. Well, I will tell you what, before we run out
    because my time is--Mr. Morris, do you have any comments on
    that particular situation?
        Colonel Morris. On the issue of----
        Mr. Bergman. Of basically transitioning the cases to
    civilian as opposed to under, you know, under the UCMJ as we
    would do it now.
        Colonel Morris. I do, just because I have thought about it
    a lot, and it is the thing that all of us discussed and argued
    about among ourselves as we worked our way through the system
    from both sides. So I have a pretty strong sense that a system
    that reinforces the authority of commanders in military justice
    is appropriate to the expectations we have of commanders. That
    you have to unite the responsibility, you know, the
    comprehensive responsibility that a commander has for his or
    her people is like nothing else in society. And to extract the
    ability to bring discipline from that makes that commander less
    effective.
        And it is not to say all commanders are the perfect fonts
    of wisdom or anything. It is not a solitary undertaking. It is
    understood to be, in most respects, with the counsel of a judge
    advocate, and you know, the rules for court-martial require
    that a judge advocate certify that there is sufficient evidence
    to go forward in a case to begin with.
        Mr. Bergman. Thank you. I see my time has expired, and I
    yield back.
        Ms. Speier. Thank you.
        Mrs. Davis.
        Mrs. Davis. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
        And thanks to you all for being here as well. Nice to see
    you, Colonel Christensen, again. I know we were working on
    these issues for many, many years, and rather than go back and
    review some of that, there are a few more specific questions I
    had.
        One is, Colonel Christensen, you mentioned that one of the
    good stories out of this is the special victims' advocate, and
    I would agree with that. I think that we have at least had good
    reports coming back from time to time, that the training and
    the ability to actually testify on behalf of a victim was
    very--made a big difference really in the way that the victim
    was seen, I think, and understood.
        Do you feel that that is so in the academies, that the role
    of that Special Victims' Counsel is one that you see reflected
    even for Active Duty the same, or is there a difference?
        Colonel Christensen. I think they are probably similar.
    Going back to what I talked about before though, what I see is
    a lack of experience. Special Victims' Counsel, all the ones I
    have dealt with, are very dedicated, fighting very hard for
    their clients. But for many of them, the first survivor they
    ever talked to is when they were Special Victims' Counsel, and
    they never talked to one before.
        I can't specifically speak to all the Special Victims'
    Counsels and VLCs [Victims' Legal Counsel] at all three
    institutions, but the ones I deal with are trying. But what I
    have seen, my experience with them, is that mistakes made by a
    lack of experience that have resulted in less justice than I
    think could have been.
        Mrs. Davis. Okay. Thank you. I wanted to double-check with
    that.
        And, Colonel Morris, I know that you have had that regular
    university experience. It is a Catholic university, perhaps
    there are some different expectations there as well. But could
    you speak to really the differences that you see, because we
    would think it would be cultural, perhaps.
        I am particularly concerned that as sophomores, there is a
    difference at the academies in the rate of reporting that we
    have seen. One can suggest that perhaps the pressure on
    students is different as freshmen. As sophomores there is a
    little bit more freedom.
        What do you think is different? Because I am wondering
    whether--if you were to look at all that goes on in the
    academies, is there any difference, you think, between the
    pressure that young people are under? We know that it is tough,
    academically it is tough, socially it is tough, physically it
    is tough. I mean, there are differences in--how do you compare
    that to university?
        Colonel Morris. I think, no doubt, there is an intensity at
    the academies that there isn't an equivalent to in many
    civilian universities. The harder question out of that is then
    what out of that entire package of, you know, heavy
    regimentation, you know, a literal regimentation on so many
    parts of your life, is there any correlation between all of
    that and what looks to be some reluctance, or some lack of
    confidence to report?
        You know, does it relate to how we are running the academy?
    Does it relate to always being in a minority, right? No matter
    how high the numbers are, you still have three-quarters, 80
    percent, 20 percent split. And when you are looking at all the
    peer relationships, which seems to be such an ongoing concern,
    it is both with the men, but also with other women. You know,
    and are there aspects of even energizing that subpopulation of
    upper-class women to help to fix that----
        Mrs. Davis. Do you see any reluctance to take a look at
    that on the part of the academies, on the part of others who
    deal with this issue? I mean, how central is it? I am not
    suggesting that that alone is something that we need to be
    aware of, but I am just raising that question as we look at
    those statistics.
        You know, it is interesting to note the difference between
    freshmen and sophomores and going onto juniors. So perhaps that
    is something that--and I hope our superintendents are going to
    address that in a little while.
        What--my time is running out. What--any last-minute thought
    about that?
        Colonel Morris. I am outside my competence on current
    academy operations.
        Mrs. Davis. Okay.
        Colonel Morris. But, you know, in--we have looked at--we
    had, for a while, a declining order of confidence as people got
    to be--as women got to be juniors and seniors. We expected it
    to be otherwise. And what it reflected at that time was they
    had kind of a legacy perspective of a not very strong reporting
    culture.
        And then we saw that change with the next wave who worked
    through, which just reinforced the idea that a continued drum
    beat, then we ended up with juniors and seniors, previously
    with less faith, then increasing the faith through all 4 years,
    increasing their trust in the system through those years.
        Mrs. Davis. Okay. Thank you. I think my time is up, Madam
    Chair.
        Ms. Speier. Your time is expired. I would say, Mrs. Davis,
    that one of the things we should look at, though, with the
    Special Victims' Counsel, is how they are being utilized,
    because with one of the victims that I spoke with, she only
    ever talked to her Special Victims' Counsel by phone, so we
    might want to evaluate the actual exchanges that take place and
    whether we need more resources there.
        Ms. Cheney, you are next.
        Ms. Cheney. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman, and
    thank you for holding this important hearing. I commend you and
    our witnesses for being here today.
        This is an incredibly difficult set of issues that both of
    our witnesses, I think, have pointed to the fact that it is
    something we are dealing with across the nation, certainly at
    our service academies but at, you know, probably every single
    institute of higher learning. And looking for ways that we can
    address the issue, that we can effectively address the issue,
    and that we can reduce the numbers is a priority for every one
    of us.
        I wanted to ask a couple of questions. Colonel Christensen,
    you began talking about the issue of restricted reporting
    versus unrestricted reporting. And it sounded to me like you
    were saying that the numbers, in terms of cases that are
    brought to prosecution, are clearly affected by the fact that
    some of the reports are restricted. Can you address that?
        And I think we all share the view that it is very important
    for victims to be able to get help and support without telling
    them they must absolutely go public. But it sounds to me like
    you were suggesting that the restricted reporting is some sort
    of a difficulty or a challenge.
        Colonel Christensen. Yes. As a prosecutor, you are
    frustrated by a restricted report because you know that there
    is a crime out there that you can't address. And it is not
    without controversy, restricted reporting versus unrestricted.
        Ms. Cheney. But are you advocating changing that?
        Colonel Christensen. No. No. And the reason I am not is
    because for survivors, they tell us it is very important.
        Ms. Cheney. Exactly. Thank you. I appreciate that.
        And then, one of the topics that we haven't addressed yet,
    and I would like to hear both of the witnesses' perspective on
    this, is the issue of alcohol. And I think any conversation
    about sexual harassment, sexual assault on college campuses,
    including at the service academies, has to get into this issue
    of alcohol. And I would be interested to hear both of your
    perspectives on what we can better do at our academies on that
    issue in particular, as it relates to these set of attacks?
        Colonel Christensen. Yeah. I think that is a great
    question, Representative Cheney. Obviously, alcohol is a
    factor. I think it is too easy to look at as a panacea, if we
    get rid of alcohol, it goes away. Well----
        Ms. Cheney. No, there is certainly no panacea on that.
        Colonel Christensen. Yeah, it won't go away.
        I do think de-glamorization of alcohol is important, you
    know. And I think at the academies, it is particularly
    important, because we are talking in a college atmosphere. And
    I think that is where a lot of this responsibility goes on the
    seniors at these academies, who are the legal drinking age, to
    ensure that they are setting the right example.
        So, for example, I have, you know, talked to academy grads
    who have said, Yeah, I remember when I was a first-year being
    ordered by the senior to find alcohol for him. And my job was
    to bring him a case of alcohol, you know, and you were supposed
    to leave it in the staircase. Okay. That is something that
    needs to be rooted out. You can't have a culture that allows
    that.
        So, you know, getting at alcohol clearly is something that
    reduces a risk factor for sexual assault.
        Ms. Cheney. Thank you.
        Colonel Morris.
        Colonel Morris. I think you can't emphasize that enough.
    Alcohol plus youth plus first-time unsupervised, there is a
    giant correlation, and I think an indisputable one. And it is
    both the formal stuff, how do you keep it away, the informal of
    managing it even if a person is going to drink, and then
    letting other things go on.
        You know, there used to be a discussion at West Point
    about, you know, when the Firstie Club would close and the
    seniors would stream their way back to the barracks, not all of
    them sober. You know, we always talk about the harder right. Is
    the harder right some serious crackdown that makes clear to
    those peer leaders that you don't, you know, take the guys to
    New York City to drink underage, but you really do step up and
    provide an example, you know, an unpopular, constructive
    example that has an impact on things like the rates of assault
    that you see.
        Ms. Cheney. Thank you. And I think, again, I am sure all of
    us on this panel agree that we need to do better across the
    board. But I would like, Colonel Morris, to get your
    perspective on, you know, as we are looking for ways to do
    better and to improve the system, and we look at what is going
    on in the civilian world and we are looking at the possibility
    of removing these cases from the command authority, is there
    something that you see in the civilian world, particularly on
    our college campuses, that would make you think that would
    somehow be more effective?
        Colonel Morris. No. And we have had a lot of--we have a
    good relationship with the MPD [Metropolitan Police Department]
    here in Washington. But, of course, of course, there is a
    reluctance to try the marginal case in the military. And I am
    generalizing from my experience, but just not my personal one,
    but of my time serving, is much more willing to try the close
    case, willing to take a chance and lose the close case for the
    collateral benefit of serious solidarity with the victim and a
    person knowing you are still brought through the court martial
    process, even if you escape un--not convicted. You have
    exercised the process in a way that has an impact on those who
    observe it, and not just the principals involved in that case.
        Ms. Cheney. Thank you very much. My time is expired.
        Ms. Speier. It is expired.
        Mrs. Luria.
        Mrs. Luria. Didn't the bell ring for votes?
        Ms. Speier. They have called for votes, but there is 10
    minutes left and we are going to continue until about 5 minutes
    before, because we want to try and finish this panel before we
    bring the superintendents in.
        So Mrs. Luria.
        Mrs. Luria. Okay. Well, thank you very much for being here
    today and talking about this important issue.
        I just wanted to quote back Mr.--or, Colonel Morris, a
    comment that you made in your opening remarks that you were not
    an expert in looking at the data. And I just wanted to note
    from my review of the data that there seemed to be some sharp
    disparities in the data.
        It seems that, you know, the number of women that the
    academies over time--we just passed the 40-year mark of having
    women at the academies. Myself, I am a graduate from
    approximately 20 years ago. Are we normalizing this data at all
    as the number of women at the service academies grows, based
    off of the number of women in the population at the service
    academies?
        Colonel Morris. I can't answer that for you.
        Mrs. Luria. Okay. And there was a reference by both of you
    early on in your remarks that we have seen a 50 percent
    increase over the last year. And I am looking at the data and I
    am looking at, you know, first, the number of reports for West
    Point, for the Military Academy, went from 43 to 48 reports.
        And then--well, the way that it is estimated, so cadet--
    this is the blue dots on the chart--cadets estimated to have
    experienced unwanted sexual contact based on the survey
    prevalence rates. The best I can tell is that this is an
    extrapolation from the number of reports to correlate to the
    number of incidents that happened.
        And if you look at that from the 2015-2016 academic year to
    the 2017-2018 academic year at the Military Academy, for
    example, it looks as though this jumped from 129 to 273, which
    is an alarming amount. However, if you are basing it off the
    number of reports, which more than doubled themselves, could
    this not indicate that we have an improved reporting rate
    versus an increased number of actual incidents?
        It is very unclear the way the methodology of the report is
    written and analyzing the data, you know, how such a
    significant jump can take place in those--that 2-year period,
    and to discount the fact that actually reporting has gone up,
    because reading the comments of what the superintendents at
    each academy has done, it actually shows that they have taken a
    lot of creative measures to improve reporting.
        And I did have the opportunity to sit down with the
    superintendent from the Naval Academy earlier this week, and
    just the simple effect of, you know, having moved the location
    of the person that you go report to to a more out-of-the-way
    spot that was not as visible, you know, when midshipmen wanted
    to go report, had a significant impact on their, you know,
    willingness to report in what they felt to be a more
    confidential way.
        And also during the earlier remarks, I heard you say that
    senior leaders trust, so trust in senior leadership that people
    would report, was an issue. And I read the report, and, you
    know, I was actually quite pleased that at the Military Academy
    it says 85 percent; at the Naval Academy, 76 percent; and at
    the Air Force Academy, 80 percent have confidence that their
    leadership is taking correct action in order to prevent these
    types of incidents.
        So, you know, I am hearing one tone in your remarks, but
    that is not matching the data that is indicated here. Can you
    explain the difference?
        Colonel Christensen. So, first, on the data you just talked
    about, so what I broke that down to was the women. And so the
    overall academy rate, for example, might be 80 percent, but at
    West Point and at--excuse me, at Annapolis and at Colorado
    Springs, what you see is among women, who have the higher
    sexual assault rate, their satisfaction rate or confidence rate
    was about 60--or, excuse me, 70 percent.
        So, now, you can say, wow, that is great, 70 percent think
    you are doing good. When I was chief prosecutor, I had 20
    prosecutors working for me. If a third of my prosecutors
    thought I wasn't doing a good job, I would think I was failing.
    I don't think those are really good numbers, you know, glass
    half full, glass half empty.
        As for actual----
        Mrs. Luria. Okay. I think I understand your point on that
    topic, that we disagree on the numbers of confidence that we
    are reporting back----
        Colonel Christensen. Right.
        Mrs. Luria [continuing]. From the midshipmen. And there is
    a difference based off of gender, which, you know, could be
    expected, based off of people interpreting the question
    differently or having had different life experiences.
        Colonel Morris, you also said, quote/unquote, ``I am
    outside my competence in current academy operations.'' So I am
    curious as to when the last time is you visited the academies
    and spoke directly to leadership there, at either the
    midshipmen leadership level, the company officer level, the
    brigade officer level, or the senior leadership, superintendent
    or commandant level to have an assessment from their
    perspective on the effectiveness of these measures that they
    are implementing.
        Colonel Morris. None at all. No formal contact. I have been
    up there a lot because I found people who have been there----
        Mrs. Luria. Okay. Thank you. I yield the balance of my
    time. Thank you.
        Ms. Speier. There is 6 minutes left in the vote. Mrs.
    Trahan, you can go ahead if you would like or we can--no. Go
    right ahead.
        Mrs. Trahan. Thank you.
        Thank you so much for your service, and thanks for being
    here today.
        The survey indicates that there are far more instances of
    unwanted sexual contact than there are actual reports,
    restricted or otherwise. And as you noted, it does seem clear
    that accountability must be clear and consistent to make real
    change. Men and women must feel as though they will be safe and
    the perpetrators dealt justice if they are going to come out of
    the shadows.
        But you spoke about training being a constant over the
    years while sexual assault numbers continue to rise. I am
    curious to understand if you see any merit in the training
    programs as they are designed today, and what other steps we
    should be taking.
        Colonel Christensen. Sure. I am not an expert on training.
    I have sat through many of the trainings. I do think trainings
    have important part of this. I think it aware--brings awareness
    to issues. It makes people see things in a different way.
        I leave it to what I believe are very dedicated experts in
    the SAPR [Sexual Assault Prevention and Response] programs to
    develop that training. I am not critical to training. I am just
    saying, it is not going to end what we are doing. And so, I
    think the right mix of training, how that is done, is left to
    the experts, which I am not an expert on training.
        As far as, you know, accountability and where we are and
    things like that, you know, going back to the question earlier
    about when--what has changed, well, when we talk about
    accountability at the academies, it has never been good.
        You know, in the 2003 crisis at the Air Force Academy, I
    believe there were, like, 139 women who said they were sexually
    assaulted, and zero had a prosecution out of it. So when we are
    talking about differences, it is just a decades-long problem
    that hasn't changed. And the question is, how many times are
    you going to say, Well, we are going to change the program, and
    we will get a different result.
        Mrs. Trahan. Then, I guess, my only other question in terms
    of, you know, culture often reinforces training, what cultural
    factors at the service academies are at play in allowing these
    crimes to continue?
        Colonel Christensen. Well, I think one of the cultures we
    have talked about is alcohol. I think another culture is there
    is definitely perception there is a different accountability
    level for athletes than there are for the rank-and-file
    members.
        There was a West Point, I think it was the starting
    quarterback for West Point who had alcohol violations,
    allegations of sexual assault. And, you know, he led West Point
    to a game over--a victory over Navy. I know that is a big deal
    for them.
        And Navy felt--excuse me, Army failed to tout his virtues
    as a cadet. He had some pretty serious misconduct in his
    background, and so, when you look at victims who are being
    forced out because of what is really minor misconduct, for them
    it is very difficult to understand why there is this cultural
    divide.
        Mrs. Trahan. Great. Thank you. I yield back.
        Ms. Speier. Thank you.
        Ms. Escobar, there is still about 250 to 300 votes that
    have not been recorded, so we still have time. So please go.
        Ms. Escobar. Madam Chairwoman, thank you so much for having
    this hearing. This is such an important topic.
        And, gentlemen, thank you for your testimony here today.
        You know, I--the military, obviously, is a very different
    institution than any other institution, but are there other
    male-dominated institutions that could offer some best
    practices? I know, you know, training you mentioned, we are not
    going to get ourselves out of this through training. But are
    there some best practices that have not yet been embraced,
    adopted, utilized as a way to try to attack the problem?
        Colonel Christensen. If I were the superintendents, I would
    have Terry Crews at my academies next week. They need to hear a
    voice from somebody like him. He comes from the sports and
    entertainment industry. He has been a survivor. What an amazing
    human being.
        I think the most important things for people to hear is
    actual voices of survivors. And the difficulty is, it is very
    difficult for a cadet survivor to stand up and talk to the
    cadet wing, because of what they go through. But if you can
    bring in somebody who has instant credibility--and if Terry
    Crews can be sexually assaulted, anybody in the world can be
    sexually assaulted--and so that--leaders like him, who can
    speak powerfully to the issue.
        Colonel Morris. Nothing to add, other than to--once you
    have a sense of a program in place leave it in place long
    enough to evaluate it. You know, there is always a lagging
    indicator from any kind of training and any kind of
    consciousness raising on most any behavior.
        You know, the military saw it and attacked it with unusual
    success, with drugs and alcohol and fitness and other things.
    Sex is harder to do anyway. You know, it is not just subject to
    sort of the solitary self-discipline that some of those other
    behaviors relate to.
        But there is no lack of really excellent programs that have
    worked at places. But, you know, put it in place, have a set
    of, you know, reliable metrics and monitors, and then let it
    work long enough that you know you are evaluating a system that
    has given you, you know, replicable results.
        Ms. Escobar. You know, the other aspect that was mentioned
    earlier that is very troubling is the sort of social media
    bullying that happens as part of the retaliation, and that is
    something that is obviously prevalent, you know, in every
    aspect of our lives. I mean, you know, kids, middle school kids
    deal with a lot of that in a way that my generation never did.
    My children have had to deal with that in a way that my
    generation never did.
        But one of the things that I tried to teach my kids was
    about being witnesses. When they witness something, when they
    sense something, you know, about being an advocate. And many
    times that is very, very difficult because then the advocate
    himself or herself faces the same retaliation or similar, or
    sometimes maybe even worse retaliation.
        But is that a component of the training so that, you know,
    individuals who are witnesses, either through what is happening
    on social media, or witnesses to retaliation or bullying, that
    they have an obligation to stand up and, you know, show that
    strong moral character to speak out and act out?
        Colonel Christensen. Yeah, absolutely. And to the academy
    credit, all academies, I think they have emphasized very
    strongly bystander training and the importance of bystander
    intervention. The surveys indicate that the self-report of
    people who are bystanders, that they do become involved.
    Obviously, a lot of sexual assault doesn't incur in front of
    somebody else. If it did, it would make it a lot easier to
    prosecute. But, yes, I think, you know, stepping in----
        Ms. Escobar. But the retaliation----
        Colonel Christensen. Yeah.
        Ms. Escobar [continuing]. Sometimes is--many times is not
    in secret, especially on social media.
        Colonel Christensen. Right. Right. And then I--and then
    they have to feel comfortable that when they come forward to
    leadership, say, I saw this--Boss, I saw this on whatever
    social media site. This is what they are saying about cadet so-
    and-so and bring that to them. And I don't know if they have
    that confidence level.
        Ms. Escobar. Anything to add?
        Colonel Morris. Same thing. Social media has been a big and
    recent part of the emphasis, because both of the chatter as
    well as the sharing of images and that kind of stuff. And then
    bystander, same thing. It seems to be one of the most tried and
    true. You know, we show movies about, you know, accidentally
    spilling a drink on somebody to just break the situation, so
    the students then talk about that and realize that is
    appropriate to them and a legitimate expectation of them as a
    fellow student.
        Ms. Escobar. I yield my time.
        Ms. Speier. All right. Your time is expired.
        And we are going to thank both Colonel Christensen and
    Colonel Morris for their participation.
        We are going to take about a half-hour break so everyone
    can go vote, and then we will be joined by the Director of the
    Department of Defense, Dr. Van Winkle, and the three
    superintendents. Thank you. We are in recess.
        [Recess.]
        Ms. Speier. Welcome back, everyone. We are returning to our
    second panel today, and I want to introduce each of them. I
    know them well and have a great deal of respect for them as
    individuals. And hopefully, this will be a very valuable
    opportunity for all of us to get a new perspective on how we
    can address this problem.
        First on our panel is Dr. Elizabeth Van Winkle. She is the
    Executive Director, Force Resiliency, at the Office of Under
    Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness.
        Our second panelist is Lieutenant General Darryl Williams,
    the Superintendent at the United States Military Academy.
        Third, Vice Admiral Walter Carter, who is the
    Superintendent of the Naval Academy.
        Finally, Lieutenant General Jay Silveria, who is the
    Superintendent of the U.S. Air Force Academy.
        We welcome each of you now to make your opening statements.

     STATEMENT OF DR. ELIZABETH P. VAN WINKLE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
     OFFICE OF FORCE RESILIENCY, OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY OF
                  DEFENSE FOR PERSONNEL AND READINESS

        Dr. Van Winkle. Thank you. Madam Chair, Ranking Member
    Kelly, and other distinguished members of the subcommittee,
    thank you for having me here today to discuss the results of
    the DOD Annual Report on Sexual Harassment and Violence at the
    Military Service Academies.
        Two years ago I sat before you and pledged we would do more
    to end sexual assault at our academies. Two years ago, I told
    you how we were committed to promoting an environment where all
    were treated with dignity and respect. I vowed we would work to
    reinvigorate our prevention approaches.
        I meant what I said, yet I sit before you and deliver news
    too similar to what I reported 2 years ago. Sexual assault is
    on the rise again at the academies. While each of the academies
    developed and implemented action plans that were not yet fully
    in place for the current assessment, Department leadership was
    not complacent waiting for implementation, and therefore,
    another increase in rates is simply unacceptable.
        Preventing criminal behavior and other misconduct,
    providing care for service members, and holding offenders
    appropriately accountable, have been and continue to be top
    priorities. And yet our most recent data indicates we have far
    to go to eliminate this abhorrent crime.
        It is devastating to be sitting here again to deliver this
    most unwelcome report. Our data tells us that rates of unwanted
    sexual contact increased by varying degrees across the
    academies, all too high. Rates of sexual harassment also varied
    among the academies, but are also unacceptably high,
    particularly among women.
        The data also indicated that across the three academies a
    large majority of students think their senior leaders are
    making honest and reasonable efforts to address these
    behaviors, but not all do. These same students rate the efforts
    of their peer leaders much lower, and additional data showed
    declining rates for students watching out for each other to
    prevent these crimes.
        This tells us that despite our hard work, some cadets and
    midshipmen still feel empowered to disrespect and victimize
    others. And equally challenging, there are some who feel
    neither empowered nor responsible in their daily peer
    interactions to hold each other accountable.
        The vast majority of cadets and midshipmen are good people
    and will become the strong leaders our nation needs. Yet we
    must show them how to leverage their moral courage to create an
    environment where all can serve with dignity and respect.
        There is no single fix for this. We cannot blame our way
    out. We cannot train our way out. The Department, Congress, and
    our nation as a whole, has been challenged to crack the code on
    how to change behavior regarding sexual misconduct. But the
    Department of Defense, we are the ones who have been entrusted
    by the country to lead the way. We must lead, and we are
    working to do just that.
        We will change our approach. What we have done in the past
    may not be abandoned, but we must determine what needs to be
    done differently, what needs to be adjusted, and what needs to
    be implemented anew. We are analyzing the breadth of data we
    have, and we will continue to partner and collaborate with
    other experts in this field who have found strategies that show
    promise.
        We have already taken some steps. We have hired prevention
    specialists from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
    to inform our efforts and assessments. We are enhancing
    reporting procedures that will be available throughout the
    Armed Forces but geared towards the unique concern of our
    cadets and midshipmen and aim to address repeat offenders.
        We will refocus our efforts and look at the full life cycle
    of cadets and midshipmen from selection through to graduation,
    and work to target our approaches accordingly. Our focus will
    be to not only achieve progress, but to sustain it over time. I
    am optimistic our new direction will render intended results,
    and I sit before you today frustrated but resolved.
        I have been working in this field for over 20 years, 10 in
    the civilian sector and nearly 10 with the military. I left the
    civilian sector because I felt I was spending too much of my
    time fighting a system that seemed impervious to influence.
        I am committed to stay with the Department of Defense
    because I have the support of my leadership, and because I have
    witnessed our system make changes over the past decade to
    produce an infrastructure of policies, programs, and resources
    that have benefited our military members and are not found in
    the civilian sector.
        We are not there yet, but we are committed. No one has
    solved this, and if there were a single solution to eliminate
    sexual assault, we would have done it already. We are
    responsible for behavior change. We take individuals and we
    mold them, we instill courage where there may have been none,
    we impart discipline where there may have otherwise been
    disorder, we create lethal global warriors from young women and
    men who may have never even left their local communities.
        Eliminating sexual misconduct from the ranks remains a
    challenge, but one we refuse to run from. We will not tolerate
    it, and we will not stop until we get this right. We appreciate
    your concern and support as we work to protect the people who
    volunteer to keep our nation safe.
        Thank you for the opportunity to come and speak with you
    today, and I look forward to your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Dr. Van Winkle can be found in
    the Appendix on page 68.]
        Ms. Speier. Thank you, Dr. Van Winkle.
        Next, Lieutenant General Williams.

       STATEMENT OF LTG DARRYL A. WILLIAMS, USA, SUPERINTENDENT,
                     UNITED STATES MILITARY ACADEMY

        General Williams. Madam Chair, Ranking Member Kelly, and
    distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
    opportunity today to talk about the very serious problem of
    sexual assault and sexual harassment at the United States
    Military Academy.
        I wish I were here to tell you how we have solved this
    problem at West Point, but I am not. Instead, I am here today
    because this abhorrent behavior continues to manifest itself
    within our ranks. Any case of unwanted sexual contact or sexual
    harassment is unacceptable.
        Our mission is to develop leaders of character for the Army
    who will fight and win our nation's land conflicts, and who are
    ready to lead in the crucible of ground combat. The issues I
    will discuss today have a direct impact on Army readiness.
    Sexual assault and harassment erode readiness and our ability
    to accomplish the mission.
        I am personally committed to preventing sexual assault and
    harassment, and I am resolute in my commitment to continue to
    seek solutions at West Point.
        While I am here to talk to you about West Point, I
    recognize this problem is not isolated to West Point and the
    Army. The increase in the number of cadets experiencing
    unwanted sexual conduct is unacceptable and troubles me
    greatly.
        These acts erode trust, are contrary to our Army's core
    values, and impact readiness. These are situations that no one
    should ever have to experience. As leaders, we must protect the
    welfare of the victims who trusted us, while at the same time
    holding the perpetrators accountable and appropriate for their
    actions in--as appropriate for their actions in accordance with
    due process of law.
        As we continuously improve our program, we must also focus
    on changing the culture to prevent these acts from occurring in
    the first place. To that end, we are open and welcome to forums
    such as these to find ideas we may not yet have considered.
    While much of what we see within the survey is troubling, some
    of the results are encouraging, and indicate our efforts so far
    having some effect on trust in our organization.
        Eighty-five percent of cadets surveyed indicated they
    believe the academy senior leaders are taking honest and
    reasonable efforts to stop sexual assault. The fact that cadets
    trust their leadership is a direct result of our continued
    efforts to address this problem. More troubling, though, is the
    lack of trust they have in their peer leaders. This is a
    cultural problem that we must address.
        When cadets first report to West Point, they bring with
    them a set of values developed over their past 18 years. Our
    job is to take these young men and women and mold them into
    leaders with the character that aligns with the ideals of West
    Point and the values of our Army.
        We frequently talk about our leader development program as
    a 47-month developmental experience. But when it comes to
    sexual harassment and sexual assault, we don't have 4 years to
    shape their behavior and attitudes. We must prioritize our
    prevention efforts early on in their cadet experience.
        Moving forward, we will strengthen our education efforts to
    provide cadets the knowledge and skills needed to define and
    address the behaviors that are occurring. We will also continue
    to address cultural challenges, like social media, and access
    to illicit materials that impact our population, with the goal
    of helping cadets think more critically about themselves and
    their relationships.
        Success in our prevention and education efforts must
    permeate throughout the entire West Point community. Every
    individual working or living at West Point needs to recognize
    his or her role in contributing to this cultural change. Thank
    you for the opportunity to share our work with the committee.
        I appreciate your feedback and helping us find a solution
    as we are in the business of developing leaders of character
    for our Army and nation. We must set and continue to enforce
    the highest of standards. I look forward to answering your
    questions.
        [The prepared statement of General Williams can be found in
    the Appendix on page 74.]
        Ms. Speier. Admiral Carter.

     STATEMENT OF VADM WALTER E. CARTER JR., USN, SUPERINTENDENT,
                      UNITED STATES NAVAL ACADEMY

        Admiral Carter. Madam Chair, Ranking Member Kelly, and
    distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
    opportunity to appear before you today on behalf of the United
    States Naval Academy.
        Our mission is to develop midshipmen morally, mentally, and
    physically, and to imbue them with the highest ideals of duty,
    honor, and loyalty. We have a responsibility to ensure that the
    brigade of midshipmen has the opportunity to develop
    professionally in an environment that fosters dignity and
    respect.
        Despite dedicated efforts by the Naval Academy leadership
    and the brigade, we continue to experience incidents of
    unwanted sexual contact within our ranks. I and the rest of my
    leadership team have actively sought out professional advice
    from the experts on the best strategies to reduce this scourge
    within our student body. While we have made some productive
    improvements, we must do better.
        We initiated our plan of action this past summer. It is a
    comprehensive approach from admission to graduation and
    includes the following four primary components.
        First, we continue our rigorous preadmission screening
    process, which relies on required teacher recommendations and
    police record checks to identify potential character challenges
    of those applying to the Naval Academy.
        Second, we continue to hone our sexual assault prevention
    programs. In addition to updating our student-led training
    program, this past year we launched an interdisciplinary
    evaluation of the entire 4-year leadership curriculum, pulling
    together all themes addressing life skills. This effort more
    closely aligned all programs and resulted in publishing a life
    skills handbook.
        Third, we have launched several initiatives to promote
    responsible alcohol choices, as we understand the strong
    correlation between alcohol use and unwanted sexual contact.
    Since we put these new initiatives into effect, we have
    experienced a 49 percent fewer alcohol-related incidents.
        Finally, we must continue to hold perpetrators
    appropriately accountable. All allegations of sexual assault
    are thoroughly investigated by the Naval Criminal Investigative
    Service and receive careful legal review prior to me deciding
    on a disposition.
        We are not where I want us to be, nor where the Navy needs
    us to be. The Naval Academy must produce leaders that not only
    treat others with dignity and respect, but also demand the same
    of those they lead.
        Thank you for your time today. I am prepared to address
    your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Admiral Carter can be found in
    the Appendix on page 89.]
        Ms. Speier. Thank you, Vice Admiral.
        Lieutenant General Jay Silveria.

      STATEMENT OF LT GEN JAY B. SILVERIA, USAF, SUPERINTENDENT,
                    UNITED STATES AIR FORCE ACADEMY

        General Silveria. Madam Chair, Ranking Member Kelly, and
    other distinguished members of the committee, I appreciate the
    opportunity today to discuss an issue that is fundamental to
    the health and safety of our cadets at the United States Air
    Force Academy, and of grave importance to our national
    security.
        Thank you for your dedication to confronting sexual
    harassment and sexual assault, misconduct that has no place at
    our academies or in our military, and for your concern about
    the well-being of our cadets and cadet candidates. I can assure
    you that these are concerns shared not only by myself and also
    by our dedicated staff, faculty leadership, and most
    importantly, the cadets.
        As Superintendent of the Air Force Academy, I am here on
    behalf of our 4,281 cadets and 203 preparatory school cadet
    candidates, as well as the faculty and staff that are
    developing them into the future of leaders of our Air Force.
    But I am also here as an academy graduate, as a leader of
    airmen privileged to wear this uniform for more than 33 years,
    and as a father of two young members of this same generation we
    are training and educating.
        From each of these perspectives, the results of the recent
    survey are disgusting. They do not reflect the standards we
    hold ourselves to as leaders. They do not reflect the core
    values of the United States Air Force or our academy, and we
    are committed to addressing these issues head on, to be an
    example for the Air Force, Department of Defense, and society.
        It is clear our past efforts have not had the effects we
    intended or expected. These results are unacceptable. There is
    no question, even one instance of sexual assault or sexual
    harassment at our academy is a problem. Far too many of our
    cadets have had experiences along this spectrum of harmful
    behaviors from sexual harassment to sexual assault.
        The survey data shows that our cadets have been harmed, and
    that too many feel they can't come forward for help and
    support. It shows that cadets have harmed the peers they intend
    to serve alongside in defense of our nation. The data does not
    show us exactly why these egregious acts occurred, but we know
    that these are people, not statistics, and that leadership is
    the solution.
        I am frustrated and angered by the results, but I will not
    rest in my leadership until we get this right. In addition to
    implementing direction from the Department of Defense and
    Department of the Air Force, we are taking action with several
    current and future programs I have highlighted in my written
    testimony that we can elaborate on today and provide detailed
    information on as requested.
        Holding perpetrators of these crimes appropriately
    accountable is key to our efforts. When a victim makes an
    unrestricted report of sexual assault, we make sure the victim
    is getting necessary care and support, and the Air Force Office
    of Special Investigations begins to investigate.
        In addition to courts-martial and administrative discipline
    tools, we have a cadet discipline system that allows me to
    disenroll cadets for misconduct, as well as boards of inquiry,
    typically used for officer discharges. For those victims who
    are hesitant to testify publicly, these processes give them a
    voice in a nonpublic setting while affording those accused of
    crimes their due process rights.
        In recent years, this committee has heard testimony from
    our academies' superintendents, from experts, and from
    survivors on our progress, or really lack thereof, on this very
    topic. I appreciate your continued vigilance on a serious
    problem that requires steadfast attention. Your oversight is
    rooted in a care for our cadets and our military that I
    wholeheartedly share.
        I also share your frustration, impatience, and anger that
    you may have for the results we have seen this year. I have
    personally met with many survivors, both men and women, one on
    one that come to me voluntarily. I have learned and will
    continue to learn a great deal about their survivor
    experiences. As a commander, leader, airman, and father, their
    stories and their faces rock me to the core. And my motivation
    to change this culture--and they are my motivation to change
    this culture and stop this crime.
        We invite you to come visit our campus, see our programs
    firsthand, please, and speak with faculty, staff, and cadets,
    who hope that through these interactions, we can work together
    towards improvements.
        Thank you for this opportunity to discuss a topic so vital
    to the future success of our academy and our military and to
    the health and safety of our cadets. I look forward to your
    questions.
        [The prepared statement of General Silveria can be found in
    the Appendix on page 100.]
        Ms. Speier. Thank you, General Silveria.
        I would like to begin by asking Dr. Van Winkle a general
    question. You have been in this area for a very long time. You
    have done a lot of research. You do a lot of analysis. In your
    experience, what percentage of victims are telling the truth?
        Dr. Van Winkle. Based on the data that we have, and this is
    Active Duty and at the service academies, we see about 2
    percent of the reports of sexual assault to be unfounded, which
    means that there is evidence that the crime did not occur. So
    it is a vast minority.
        Ms. Speier. So vast minority. It is 98 percent of those
    that are coming forward are telling the truth?
        Dr. Van Winkle. Well, what we know is there is a larger
    proportion where we have an unsubstantiated report, and that
    means there wasn't enough evidence to move forward with a case
    of sexual assault, but that is very different than a false
    report. That false report, meaning that the crime did not
    occur, is at that 2 percent.
        Ms. Speier. So one of the issues that I think we have to
    address moving forward is the fact that there are so many
    restricted reports, and they are restricted because of this
    fear of retaliation. I think that if we get to a place where
    that information is shared, maybe online with Callisto or some
    other company that provides that kind of benefit so that the
    victim can go online, put down information about their
    experience, photographs if they want, identify the perpetrator,
    and then if they see that that perpetrator is, in fact,
    responsible for conducting himself or herself in the same
    manner with others, they are more motivated either to come
    forward in an unrestricted report and hopefully rid the
    military of the predator.
        Let me ask the three superintendents: Have each of you
    spoken to your cadets and midshipmen about this report? Have
    you had an actual information setting in which you have
    provided them with this information?
        General Williams. Yes, ma'am, I have electronically through
    the whole corps. My commandant in the last week has. And I--we
    are doing a full West Point stand-down. There will be no
    classes. There will be no sports. There will be nothing but me
    talking to the cadets on the 25th of February. I plan to shut
    down everything and do what we call a stand-down.
        So I have not had the opportunity to talk to the cadets,
    but my commandant has in the last week. And I have talked and
    sent a note to--immediately after the report came out, I sent a
    note electronically to every single one of my cadets.
        Ms. Speier. Vice Admiral Carter.
        Admiral Carter. Madam Chair, I have. I have addressed the
    entire brigade upon their reformation after holiday break. And
    I rarely have the whole brigade together where I do not cover
    this topic. But we covered this topic based on this report, and
    they have heard the details of this report. And to be quite
    frank, the reaction from the brigade was also the same reaction
    that all of us have. It was one of shock. So I don't take that
    as anything that changes that, except the brigade was surprised
    by the results.
        Ms. Speier. General Silveria.
        General Silveria. Yes, ma'am. I have addressed the cadet
    wing about this report, and part of that, I told them that I
    was planning on discussing with them. Next week, I have
    sessions planned with all of the classes to discuss this
    testimony. Additionally, I opened up to all of them after I
    explained the report to send me emails, and at this point, I
    have so many that I can't get through.
        Ms. Speier. General Silveria, I am in receipt of an email
    from the vice commandant, which I would like to ask unanimous
    consent that we submit for the record. And I think the copy has
    been made available to you? Do you have it there?
        General Silveria. Yes, ma'am, I have it here.
        [The information referred to can be found in the Appendix
    on page 123.]
        Ms. Speier. So what troubles me about this email is it
    appears that there has been a crest that has been stolen at the
    academy, and I guess it is one of those pranks that happens not
    all that rarely.
        But the essence of the complaints, I guess, that have been
    visited on Colonel Campbell is that there is more interest in
    the concern about returning the class crest than in talking
    about the results of the survey of sexual harassment and sexual
    assault.
        The one part of this email that is deeply troubling to me
    that I want to read and get your comments on, is the last
    paragraph, in which he says, ``you cadet leaders''--``Your
    cadet leaders are not at fault for the information flow; I am.
    If you want a target, it is me. They have no control over--on
    this topic. If you are that passionate, my door is open. Come
    on in and we can discuss.
        ``If you want to attack from a platform or medium of
    anonymity, then have at it. You are a coward and we aren't
    listening. If you have a problem, bring a solution. There is no
    room in our Air Force for those not willing to own their
    opinions or positions.
        ``If you don't like this idea, you are free to leave. I
    will happily expedite your transition to the civilian world. We
    hold higher standards here. If you don't like them, move on.
    You don't deserve to lead our incredible airmen.''
        Do you have a comment about that?
        General Silveria. Yes, ma'am. If I can add some context,
    yes, it was a prank where the cadets, the freshmen, the fourth
    classmen had stolen the crest.
        Ms. Speier. I am not concerned about the crest.
        General Silveria. Yes, ma'am. And so in the effort to
    recover the crest, the cadet leadership was trying to find
    through where--who had taken the crest. And in that, there was
    a lot of conversation about the crest, and it was beginning to
    take over a lot of the conversation among the cadet wing.
        And so at the same time was the moment that I stepped in,
    and I addressed the cadet wing about these results and told
    them that I was going to testify. And so Colonel Campbell was
    very concerned that the cadets perceive that there was a
    perception that the crest was more important than the results
    that I had discussed.
        Ms. Speier. I understand all that, General. My concern is,
    one of the issues that we are dealing with is this fear of
    retaliation. And anonymity is often offered to these cadets in
    a restricted report because of their fear of retaliation.
        And the way I read that last paragraph, he is mocking those
    who are commenting about the fact that there is more interest
    and concern about the crest being stolen than about talking
    about this issue of sexual assault and sexual harassment in the
    academies. And the tone of that email is hostile.
        And for anyone--if I was a cadet at the Air Force Academy,
    which I would never have gotten into, but if I had--if I was a
    cadet, and I read that paragraph, I would know full well the
    last thing I would ever do is report a sexual assault.
        General Silveria. Ma'am, in this case, the anonymity that
    he is referring to is using anonymity to use it as a platform
    to criticize. And that cyberbullying is what was going on that
    he was addressing directly. We all have--at all of our
    academies, we all have social media platforms that are
    anonymous, and they continue to be a problem. There is all
    sorts of different versions of them.
        And so this anonymous platform was being used to be very
    critical, very negative, and in his view, very cowardice. It
    was not about the fact that they were--that they wouldn't have
    a chance to report something anonymous. It was about the fact
    that they were anonymously criticizing about that fact. Ma'am,
    we fully support the idea of the restricted report. We fully
    support the idea of Callisto and others to give cadets that
    opportunity to report anonymously.
        Ms. Speier. Okay. I don't know that I fully agree with you
    in terms of the evaluation of that paragraph, but let's move
    on.
        I want to see uniformity of benefits for the victims. I
    want to be able to say to each appointee that I make to the
    academies that you are all going to be treated alike if you are
    sexually assaulted or sexually harassed.
        So let me ask you this: Would each of you offer to a cadet
    or a midshipmen who has been sexually assaulted, either
    restricted or unrestricted, either confirmed or unconfirmed,
    the ability to take a sabbatical year? Lieutenant General
    Williams, just go down the line, if you would.
        General Williams. Madam Chair, I would. In fact, we do. We
    do that now. It is called a medical leave of absence.
        Ms. Speier. I don't know that we need to call it a medical
    leave of absence, but I think a sabbatical is something that
    doesn't take--carry with it a spin one way or the other.
        Yes, Admiral.
        Admiral Carter. Yes, ma'am. We initiated that program a
    number of years ago, and it is alive and well.
        General Silveria. Yes, ma'am. We have had it for a number
    of years and it functions very well, 6 months and for a year.
        Ms. Speier. And it is automatic if it is requested?
        General Silveria. Yes, ma'am.
        Ms. Speier. All right. How about a transfer to another
    academy, General Williams?
        General Williams. Ma'am, if it would help the victim and
    help them heal in this process, I would support it, yes, ma'am.
        Ms. Speier. But you don't have it presently, correct?
        General Williams. We do not, Madam Chair.
        Ms. Speier. Admiral.
        Admiral Carter. We have not gathered our thoughts together
    on the mechanism to do it. I am not opposed to it as
    Superintendent of the Naval Academy. I do think that we would
    have to understand that that would extend somebody's academic
    time, but if it benefited them to get through the undergraduate
    program at any of the service academies, I don't think any of
    us would have an issue with it.
        Ms. Speier. Thank you.
        General.
        General Silveria. Ma'am, I completely agree. If it
    benefited a victim, we don't have that mechanism in place right
    now, but if it benefited the victim, then I would fully
    support.
        Ms. Speier. All right. And how about--I know at least one
    of the academies have taken a public position that you will
    not--there will be no action taken against you for collateral
    violations if you want to file a sexual assault or sexual
    harassment report. Is that true for all of you?
        General Williams. Yes, Madam Chair.
        Ms. Speier. Has it been made public to all of the cadets?
        General Williams. Yes, Madam Chair.
        Ms. Speier. Admiral.
        Admiral Carter. Madam Chair, we have the same program and
    we--this is one of those events where collaborating and seeing
    how the Air Force did it presented a much better idea than how
    we were doing it. So we have incorporated their program and it
    has been announced to our brigade.
        Ms. Speier. So this is the first year it will be
    operational?
        Admiral Carter. Well, it is a slight difference. We don't
    hold any of the victims to collateral misconduct during the
    course of the investigation. But in light of the way we see how
    Air Force did it, if the knowledge of misconduct comes up
    during the course of the investigation, never be held against
    the victim at all. We have been previously revisiting some
    misconduct after adjudication, but not to a separation level. I
    like the way I saw the Air Force Academy was doing it better,
    and we have just instituted that.
        Ms. Speier. All right.
        General.
        General Silveria. Ma'am, we did start that, initiate that,
    as we call it, a safe-to-report policy that ensures that--no
    collateral misconduct, that there is--no charges would be
    brought or any, you know, any retribution in any way for some
    misconduct if they were a sexual assault victim.
        Ms. Speier. And, finally, I think one of the admirals--one
    of the superintendents that I have spoken to in the last few
    days indicated that you are about to implement recoupment from
    first- or second-year cadets or midshipmen. Historically, it
    has only been juniors or seniors. And I want to know to what
    extent we can make that something that is going to be used in
    each of the academies across the board where there is a
    conviction.
        General Silveria. Ma'am, I will start. That was me. We, as
    you know, all of us seek recoupment for the last 2 years, but,
    yes, we have changed that. So in the first 2 years, if you
    commit serious misconduct, in this case, sexual assault or, you
    know, drug offense or something, that you are disenrolled for
    serious misconduct, then we will seek recoupment.
        Ms. Speier. Admiral.
        Admiral Carter. We have not explored that possibility. We
    are now aware of it and we are very interested in understanding
    how it works exactly. It should be the same. And as you know,
    it is a recommendation by us to our Secretary of the Navy or
    our service secretaries for that eventual decision. But I am in
    full support of that option.
        General Williams. Madam Chair, I would be open to that as
    well, but we have not currently been in that space.
        Ms. Speier. All right. And, finally, Dr. Van Winkle, having
    gone over those various services for the--and benefits for the
    victims, do you have any comments that you would like to make
    about them?
        Dr. Van Winkle. No. I would just say that at the--on the
    OSD [Office of the Secretary of Defense] side, we obviously
    understand that each of the academies have unique cultures and
    may have some differences in their policies and protocols. But
    where there is a promising practice, we support standardization
    across the academies.
        Ms. Speier. All right. Thank you.
        Mr. Kelly.
        Mr. Kelly. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        The best way to prevent these crimes from happening is to
    prevent those with character issues from entering the academies
    to begin with. If each of you, starting with you, Dr. Van
    Winkle, can tell me how we can improve the nomination process
    as Members, and you as the academies who is overseeing them, to
    ensure we have a good assessment of the candidate's character.
        Dr. Van Winkle. Thank you for the question.
        As you heard in my opening statement, we are looking at the
    entire life cycle of the cadets and midshipmen, including
    selection into the academies. This is not to say that the
    current selection criteria is inadequate. What we are looking
    at, and we are still in the infancy stages of evaluation on
    this, is whether there are additional metrics that we could use
    that get to that moral development and moral character that we
    are looking for.
        So we are, right now, just in the evaluation stage of the
    data and what we are looking for and what metrics might be
    feasible. But, again, it is important to note that we are in no
    way saying that the selection criteria be changed. It would be
    more of an enhancement.
        General Williams. Thanks, Ranking Member Kelly.
        I think this is a place where we owe you a better model.
    Currently, when we admit cadets to West Point we know very well
    their academic potential based on their academic performance,
    their SATs, ACTs. We require them to take a physical readiness
    aspect.
        What is missing, in my humble opinion in 7 months as the
    superintendent, is more there. We owe you a better template. We
    ask principals, teachers to write essays about cadet X, Y. I
    think it is okay, but I think it could be more robust with more
    rigor in that space.
        Mr. Kelly. Admiral.
        Admiral Carter. Sir, this is a tough problem to figure out,
    but I will tell you what we are currently doing, where I think
    we could maybe do a little bit more. We put a great deal of
    stock in the teacher evaluations of prospective midshipmen. We
    often pick out nuggets within those evaluations that are very
    worthy for us to look at.
        The interviews that we do, we have Blue and Gold
    representatives. They represent me in the admission process
    and, of course, interviews that either you or your staff do for
    your prospective candidates from your voting districts. We look
    at police records.
        I would like to be able to tell you we have the access to
    look at everybody's social media background. We certainly do
    that for a number of the midshipmen that come to the Naval
    Academy, but it is not 100 percent. That is a space that could
    probably be looked at more.
        And I will share with you that on occasion, we get an
    anonymous letter about something that might have happened. And
    when that happens, we take that very seriously, and we set up a
    character review board on that individual. So, again, we are
    doing as much as we can right now, but I think we could still
    do a little bit more.
        Mr. Kelly. And, General, real quickly.
        General Silveria. Yes, sir. Sir, I think I would agree that
    we owe you a better--that we need to work together better on
    that with your staffs and with your nomination processes. That
    all of us need to focus on qualities as opposed to
    qualifications of an individual. And just like Admiral Carter
    points out, we all look for the slightest hints and clues from
    teachers, from coaches, from recommendation letters, we look
    for the slightest, and we pursue those, whether it is social
    media, police, you know, we pursue any slightest lead that we
    have if there is any concern.
        Mr. Kelly. The only thing I will say, and I know we already
    have issues with this resource-wise and getting security
    clearances for enough people, but that is much more in depth
    and they are much better qualified. So I don't know if we can
    morph that into something else or do something a little
    different, but sometimes those folks, having gone through a
    security clearance, may be able to do a similar thing that goes
    beyond what just the teachers say.
        As a former district attorney, I am aware how challenging
    sexual assault offenses can be to prosecute. There are a litany
    of reasons why victims don't come forward, some are
    retaliatory, some are a whole different range of options of why
    they don't come forward.
        Can you explain the current options you have available to
    hold the offenders accountable? And I will start with you,
    General. What can you do as a commandant to hold a potential
    offender--an offender accountable?
        General Williams. Ranking Member Kelly, thank you. The
    Uniform Code of Military Justice, as we spoke earlier, gives me
    the options and tools I need as a commander. Short of that, you
    have nonjudicial punishment. I have administrative actions I
    can take as well, as well as working at echelon with my
    commanders.
        So the chain of command in this space is very valuable in
    setting the right tone. Commanders set tone and expectations in
    a command, and that is the tools that I most cherish in this
    space.
        Mr. Kelly. And I would also just encourage--encourage you
    to understand that there is a code of moral and ethics and
    honor at each of the academies, and sometimes you may not be
    able to prove an unsubstantiated report against an offender,
    but other things they are doing makes them unfit to serve as an
    officer in the military service. And I would just encourage
    you, when you have that opportunity, you can still have that
    person go away if they have a course of conduct that you can't
    substantiate the sexual assault, you maybe can do that
    otherwise.
        Developing morally and ethically strong officers is the
    primary mission of all the service academies. Trust is
    tantamount to good military orders, and especially among
    leaders. How do you incorporate character development into the
    curriculum at the academies, and if you can real quickly just
    tell me that. Character in the curriculum.
        General Williams. Ranking Member Kelly, we have the West
    Point leader development system, which is focused primarily on
    character. It is ingrained in all things we do, whether it is
    in academics, whether it is in sports. Character is my number
    one line of effort at the United States Military Academy. So we
    do that both in terms of curriculum, in terms of pedagogy, but
    also in terms of practically how we do it day-to-day from a
    practitioner standpoint as well.
        Admiral Carter. Sir, we have it embedded in our leadership
    curriculum, but recently, just over the last couple of years,
    it has taken us about 2 years, that we have completely revamped
    our aptitude measuring system, which now encompasses everything
    except academic performance and physical education performance
    so that we can look at the character development specifically
    of our midshipmen. They actually get a discrete grade in a very
    subjective system that uses everything from peer ranking to
    rankings by others that are in their sports teams, their clubs,
    and ultimately the officer that is directly over them. So this
    is relatively new and we find good progress.
        General Silveria. Sir, we have a center for creative
    leadership--a Center for Character and Leadership Development,
    and we use that as an integrating function for character
    elements across the curriculum, across the military training,
    and across the athletic department so that it is integrated
    everywhere that a cadet interacts; there is character
    development and there is leadership responsibilities.
        Mr. Kelly. And the final question, and I will start with
    you, Dr. Van Winkle, but I want to preface this with a
    statement. You guys are accountable to get this right and to
    make this the right thing. Our job is to make sure you have
    every tool available to you to make sure that we take care of
    each and every soldier and so that we don't have one sexual
    assault, especially not a sexual assault that is not reported.
        So, Dr. Van Winkle, and each member, what tool can we give
    you that will help you do that? And if you need to do that in
    writing later, I am fine. But what tool can we give you as
    Congress that helps you to do this mission?
        Dr. Van Winkle. I can respond right now generally that your
    partnership is extremely important. I do feel from the data
    that we see that our infrastructure is sound. We have some
    evidence that when somebody does make that courageous decision
    to report, that our systems that are in place are good systems.
    Eighty-one percent of the service academy students who came
    forward to make a report said that they would make the same
    decision again.
        However, we have too few people reporting, and we have an
    issue in terms of our culture and climate, and that we need to
    look at our strategies. And we certainly appreciate your
    feedback on that as our partners in this space.
        General Williams. Ranking Member Kelly, 273 young men and
    women spoke to us on this survey. You have given us what we
    need, you have given us the resources. It is my responsibility
    as the superintendent at West Point to take care of the sons
    and daughters that you have given us. You have given us what we
    need. We need to get an action plan and come back to you and
    talk to you how we are going to fix this.
        Admiral Carter. Sir, we are developing a multifaceted plan.
    I don't know that I need to ask for more resources or more
    capability in terms of us owning it, which we need to do. And I
    think that is what you are hearing from us today. I have been
    the superintendent for 5 years, and I have testified in front
    of this committee before. And as Dr. Van Winkle said, I
    committed myself to trying to improve in this.
        I am frustrated. And I think that we can't educate our way
    out of it, we can't train our way out of it. The accountability
    piece is what is going to move the needle on this. And I am
    committed to getting that part better and more right. I think I
    have the resources to do that. But if we come up with something
    that we could ask you for, we are going to send you a note,
    sir.
        General Silveria. Sir, I have the same sentiment. I have
    the resources. I have the policy that I need. What I need is to
    continue to build on the culture that I own and I am
    responsible for as the leader. And it is clear from the survey,
    one of the major areas that we have to work on is the peer-to-
    peer relationship. And we are going to take that on. We already
    have some plans to do that, and I will come back to you if I
    need resources. But right now, sir, I have the resources I
    need, but it is my responsibility as the leader to execute
    this, and I do own this.
        Mr. Kelly. Madam Chairman, I yield back.
        Ms. Speier. Thank you, Ranking Member.
        Since you have indicated that you have a resource issue
    with reviewing the social media of applicants, why not ask the
    Blue and Gold Officers to do that as they are spending time
    interviewing the potential candidates?
        Admiral Carter. I think we could certainly incorporate
    that. In certain districts, it is just going to be a little
    more time consuming, and I don't think there is anything that
    prevents us from doing that. I don't think there is any legal
    reason why we can't do that, so we will explore that.
        Ms. Speier. All right. Mrs. Davis.
        Mrs. Davis. Thank you, Madam Chair. And going to the social
    media situation, and I know that--I think, Dr. Van Winkle, you
    mentioned this as well. I remember a hearing that we held
    several years ago actually, and General Neller was there, and
    we asked that question basically. Are you monitoring Facebook
    and Twitter, every possible account that a student has? And at
    that time, quite honestly, they weren't.
        And I know I had a discussion with the general just
    recently about this, and it still sounds to me like they are
    not doing as much as they could be doing in general recruiting,
    and so I think when it comes to the academies as well. I am not
    suggesting that that is a panacea here. But on the other hand,
    I think even from a sense of entitlement that somebody might be
    expressing on Twitter, which isn't blatant, I guess I would
    read that and I would, you know, want to know a little bit
    more.
        And so I am really hopeful that if there are problems, if
    there are barriers, let's address them, let's figure it out. I
    can assure you that we don't have a barrier when we hire
    someone in our office. We let them know that we are going to
    take a look at their accounts.
        And I just think that is important. I think it is important
    for young people to know that for their future it is better,
    and then not engage in that kind of behavior, even if they
    think it is, you know, just cool. So I hope you do that. And
    that, you know, could be helpful.
        I also wanted to ask, I believe Admiral Carter, you
    mentioned that you thought you were getting at the alcohol
    problem or you were seeing improvements. Is that right, sir?
    What are you doing, specifically?
        Admiral Carter. Yes, ma'am. What we have done is, again, a
    multifaceted approach. We went on this campaign in front of the
    whole brigade to make them understand that this is part of
    their professional life. We went to health and comfort
    inspections in the large dormitory that they all live in called
    Bancroft Hall. We have made sure that there is no alcohol
    inside the dormitory. And there is a very well-stated policy
    that if you are found with alcohol in your room, it is a
    dismissal, meaning you will be separated from the Naval
    Academy.
        We put together a joint task force that actually helped in
    putting together the education programs to show midshipmen why
    responsible use of alcohol was needed. We put together a
    program called the Midnight Teachable Moments, where we
    actually use alcohol under controlled circumstances to show
    midshipmen exactly what the results of those are.
        So those are just some of the things that we have done. The
    midshipmen themselves created a Guardian Angel program, these
    are the seniors. So they go out in downtown Annapolis, which is
    walking distance from our campus----
        Mrs. Davis. Right, I've heard of that.
        Admiral Carter [continuing]. And they are preventing things
    before they happen. Now, I will share one example with you. We
    had an incident a couple weeks ago where a midshipman got out
    of hand with alcohol and got into a little bit of an engagement
    with one of these Guardian Angels. We secured liberty for the
    entire brigade of midshipmen for 2 weeks. So one alcohol
    incident was now treated to punish the entire brigade. I can
    tell you, the brigade got that message very quickly. They had a
    hard time understanding it. But we are now enforcing that type
    of part of the program. And then, of course----
        Mrs. Davis. And do you think--I am sorry to sort of
    interrupt, but do you think that that is being heard in sort of
    the same context for men and women?
        Admiral Carter. I don't have the breakout between men and
    women. I know men at the Naval Academy have a higher tendency
    to be involved in binge drinking than women. But in our case,
    72 percent of all--this is by survey--of all of our unwanted
    sexual contact has involved alcohol. I am not blaming alcohol
    or saying if you take it away completely that these things
    won't happen, but I know reducing that will have an impact.
        Mrs. Davis. It does have--uh-huh. And the ``Safe to
    Report'' that you mentioned--because I think that--my
    understanding is that there are a number of women who feel that
    they are held accountable if they had a few drinks, and
    therefore, they will not report a sexual assault or harassment
    because they are then transferred or something happens to them
    that is negative. So the ``Safe to Report'' allows them to
    report without that, is that correct, in terms of drinking?
        Admiral Carter. Ma'am, I have never separated a female
    victim for collateral misconduct.
        Mrs. Davis. Okay. And, finally, we talk about peer leaders
    and how important they are. Are we doing the same kind of
    climate assessments of their leadership, so that if it is
    determined that in fact they are not leading well, that their
    advancement is hampered--called into question? How actively are
    you doing that? How much--do they know you are doing that? And
    how many people have you stopped in their career ladder because
    of that behavior?
        Admiral Carter. This is exactly why we created this new
    aptitude measuring system. Part of that is to measure their
    leadership capability, whether they are a junior or a senior. I
    want to make sure that I didn't have anybody flying under the
    radar that was meeting all the minimums academically and
    physically and everything else looked okay because they didn't
    have a conduct record.
        This is a chance to have their peers and those that know
    them best tell us about them. And I suspect, even though this
    is relatively new, we are going to be putting midshipmen in
    front of us that have problems that might not have shown up
    before. So I am optimistic about this new approach for how to
    look at that measuring system.
        Mrs. Davis. Right. Thank you. Because sometimes people are
    achieving, but that doesn't mean that they are acting
    appropriately. Thank you.
        Ms. Speier. Thank you.
        I just want to make a point here that I think is important.
    We are talking about alcohol, and we would be amiss if we
    somehow want to place the blame on alcohol, because in the
    actual survey, at West Point 45 percent of the women indicated
    that the alleged offender had been drinking alcohol. So almost
    half, but not a significant majority of cases.
        At the Naval Academy it wasn't broken out quite the same
    way, it just said nearly two-thirds. Sixty-four percent
    indicated that they or their alleged offender had been drinking
    alcohol. And then at the Air Force Academy it was 53 percent
    who indicated the alleged offender had been drinking, and 51
    percent indicated that they had been drinking. So maybe it is
    half, but it is not 65, 75, 85 percent. So I don't want us to
    lose sight of that fact in looking at this issue.
        Mr. Abraham.
        Dr. Abraham. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Admiral, back to you and Mrs. Davis' exchange, the Navy has
    been recognized for its prevention program in sexual assault
    and sexual prevention. It is evidently doing some good stuff.
    Was some of that that you mentioned some of the highlights of
    that program, or would you wish to elaborate on maybe a couple
    more that the committee could learn from?
        Admiral Carter. The program that we have at the Naval
    Academy is called SHAPE, it is Sexual Harassment and Assault
    Prevention [Education]. It is evidence-based education that has
    been developed by experts, we have been working on it for 12
    years. It is 20 hours of education and training across 4 years,
    it starts on induction day. It is peer-led, small-group session
    with fleet mentors and it has been updated. We have peer
    educators. We have well over 130 that apply for 80 positions,
    including varsity athletes, leaders within the brigade. They
    receive an extensive 2-week program, and they lead nine
    syllabus sessions during the course of each year.
        We also have guides that are part of this program. These
    are midshipmen embedded into each of the 30 companies, each
    company is about 150 midshipmen, 2 per company, and they are
    that resource that knows when somebody is having a problem, can
    say, hey, here is where the resource is where you can get
    counseling or make a report. They also receive an extensive 2-
    week training program, and typically we have about 130
    applicants for that. So that is just a thumbnail of what that
    education program looks like.
        Dr. Abraham. And, General Silveria, is your HRT [Healthy
    Relationship Training] and CHiPS [Cadet Healthy Interpersonal
    Skills] program similar to that? Give me a little G2
    [intelligence] on that.
        General Silveria. Sir, very similar in the elements that
    they have in that we all know at this point that small group in
    this subject matter works best. While initially when our cadets
    and our midshipmen arrive, we need to get a lot of information
    out quickly. But we move to--CHiPS is the Cadet Healthy
    Interpersonal Skills, and it was recognized as a best practice
    to the committee. And we have shown with evidence informed of
    how that is beginning to change behavior in surveys after they
    have had some of that.
        Healthy Relationship Training, sir, is--a lot of the
    programs that we have done in the past have been about what not
    to do. And so we tell someone that they can't do this and they
    can't touch this and they can't do that and they can't do it
    without consent. Healthy Relationship Training takes a
    different approach. It teaches them how to have a healthy
    relationship between two people. What consent is, what
    boundaries are. So it is an approach of how to, what to, how to
    have a healthy relationship. So those are a little bit
    different, sir.
        Dr. Abraham. Dr. Van Winkle, I will take this for the
    record, if you need, you can certainly answer it if you can.
    But I was looking at your resume and it is quite impressive,
    but you have a Ph.D. in applied experimental psychology. On
    these predators, or whatever we want to call these people that
    do these terrible things to these survivors, have you
    analyzed--is there a blip on the radar screen in something they
    have done in a personality previously? Just that marker that
    won't certainly definitely say that they are going to go this
    particular way, but maybe they might?
        Dr. Van Winkle. I would have to take that for the record.
    It is not within my area of expertise, and certainly there is
    research to predict offending behaviors. It is certainly not a
    settled science, but I can take that for the record and get you
    the information we do have on that.
        [The information referred to can be found in the Appendix
    on page 127.]
        Dr. Abraham. I would appreciate that. As a physician, it
    would be interesting.
        And my last question, and, General Williams, I will send it
    to you, and we can certainly get the others' involvement. On
    the last panel, Mr. Christensen mentioned in the last--one of
    his talking points, if I understood that right, that athletes
    are not held to the same level of accountability as other
    cadets. Now, is that true?
        General Williams. Congressman, that is not true. All
    athletes, cadets, are handed the same standard at West Point,
    and I am sure the other academies as well. There is no
    sanctuary for athletes at the United States Military Academy.
        Dr. Abraham. I understand. I see the others nod.
        Madam Chair, I yield back.
        Ms. Speier. All right. Mrs. Luria, you are next. Is it that
    you would like to postpone?
        Mrs. Luria. I will--I don't----
        Ms. Speier. All right. Let's then move on to Ms. Escobar.
        Ms. Escobar. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Dr. Van Winkle, so in the report, one of the reasons why
    women did not choose to report was, quote, that they would take
    care of the problem themselves. Does this indicate that there
    is a problem in the actual reporting process or that it is
    cumbersome or that--what are your thoughts about that? Why--or
    just a sense that it is, you know, too painful to go through
    the process.
        Dr. Van Winkle. I appreciate the question. The data doesn't
    get at exactly what they mean by when they say that they took
    care of the problem themselves, either by avoiding or
    confronting the person. We know a few things, though, from our
    focus groups. We do go out every other year to talk to the
    cadets and midshipmen. We talk to them about the survey
    results. We ask them questions about it. And often what we see
    in our data is the reasons for not reporting are often very
    personal reasons, less to do with the system in place, but much
    more to do with wanting to forget about it and move on.
        We also have concerns within the academy about gossiping
    and peer response, which again, speaks to what we are trying to
    do when we are engaging the cadets and midshipmen themselves.
    And it also looks a little different than what we see in the
    Active Duty.
        What we hear in the focus groups is freshmen and sophomores
    often say they would hesitate to report because they don't want
    that to define them. They are only there for 4 years. Juniors
    and seniors often say they don't want to report because they
    don't want the investigation to follow them into the Active
    Duty or be defined as they move into the Active Duty by this
    report.
        And all of them talk more about concerns about peer
    reaction than, again, barriers in the actual system that is in
    place. And I mentioned the data point that when we do get folks
    to come forward and report, from our survey data, 81 percent
    said that they would make the same decision again. It is
    getting them to come forward and report. That is a challenge we
    are trying to address.
        Ms. Escobar. That peer reaction, that is very interesting.
    And I feel like that is where we as a society, whether it be in
    the military or in the private sector or public sector, where
    people need to feel accommodated and supported by their peers,
    or that their peers will stand up to that retaliation. So we
    have clearly still got a long way to go on that front in the
    military. Thank you so much.
        To the superintendents, so the four focus areas were
    mentioned, the promoting responsible alcohol choices,
    reinvigorating the prevention of sexual assault, and the third
    one I am very curious about, enhancing a culture of respect.
    Could each one of the superintendents just briefly tell me how
    you are doing that?
        General Williams. Congresswoman, yes. So as my colleague
    mentioned, we have a Simon Center for Professional Military
    Ethic as well. So I have an organization within the West Point
    that is charged with designing character in this space about
    trust. But the folks that really are going to get at this daily
    are the cadets, our tactical officers, each company. We are
    organized at West Point into company teams. In each one of the
    companies there is a captain, a commissioned officer, and a
    senior noncommissioned officer with that company, and then our
    coaches and also our rotating faculty.
        So all of those folks emulate what it means to be--what
    respect looks like, what it means to be an officer or a cadet
    in good standing. So by being good role models. But more
    importantly, they have real conversations.
        Last week, and it wasn't because of a result of this panel,
    but I witnessed a--we had 119 classes last Wednesday during the
    commandant's hour, what is called a Leader Challenge three,
    where we had cadets, the company tactical officers, the
    academic professors, led by the cadet leadership. Well, they
    were talking about real issues. They were talking about sex and
    healthy relationships that was mentioned earlier.
        And so what is important is you get the cadets, the
    faculty, the coaches, all of them pulling the same way in this
    area. It can't be just the cadre, it can't be the cadets doing
    this. It requires a comprehensive approach across the academy.
        Admiral Carter. I will just briefly give two examples. One
    is this life skills handbook that I mentioned in my verbal
    testimony that we have now initiated. It not only dives down
    into this understanding of what dignity or respect means from a
    midshipman perspective, it also helps redefine that for all of
    our influencers. So our coaches, our faculty, our staff, our
    sponsor parents. I think it is really critical. And that is
    built into our in-classroom curriculum.
        And, finally, Sheryl Sandberg came and spoke to the Naval
    Academy in 2013, and it is where she coined the phrase ``lean
    in.'' And the Naval Academy has taken on ``lean-in circles,''
    and it is really starting to grow even more. There are
    approximately 200 midshipmen that meet in 12 different circles,
    and they cover every tough topic of what it means to be a
    professional. Some of them are all women, some of the circles
    are all men, some of them are mixed. I think this is a
    grassroots growth program that we can continue to cultivate.
    And, by the way, we have fleet mentors in there, so they are
    helping them guide the conversation.
        General Silveria. Ma'am----
        Ms. Escobar. My time has expired. Thank you very much.
        Ms. Speier. General, you can respond.
        General Silveria. Ma'am, for us what that means is that we
    are looking about the whole person here. It is not just about
    dignity and respect regarding another gender in the area of
    sexual harassment or sexual assault, because what we have to
    teach is that discrimination in all manners, whether it is
    race, religion, background, sexuality, any discrimination in
    any way takes away and degrades at that dignity and respect.
        So we go out of our way to support and encourage a number
    of affinity groups in the areas of LGB [lesbian, gay, bisexual]
    and a number of race groups and ethnic groups that allow them
    and the cadets interact in that way. I mean, just Friday night,
    a couple weeks ago, I was with the Jewish cadets, as an
    example. And so we have to continue to show that richness of
    diversity. And I have spoken a lot about that to my cadets,
    specifically about that richness of diversity.
        We all have remarkably diverse campuses and remarkably
    diverse student bodies that are continuing to grow that more.
    That is what we are referring to.
        Ms. Escobar. Thank you.
        Ms. Speier. Thank you.
        Mr. Bergman, you are next.
        Mr. Bergman. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        General Williams, I want to make sure I got this right.
    Cadets lack trust in peer leaders? Did I get--could you just
    expound on that for me, please?
        General Williams. Congressman, thank you. Yes. The survey
    suggests that cadets do not have the same respect or trust, and
    this is about accountability. Part of being a professional,
    whether it be an airman or--is about stewardship. And so they
    are struggling with, depending on what their class is,
    ownership for each other. This is a part of what we do in our
    military--the ethos of our culture, the Army culture.
        So the cadets work very hard in their 47-month experience.
    They understand General Williams or Captain Smith, who is their
    company tactical officer, but as they develop and are learning
    to take ownership for their profession, they have a hard time
    sometimes holding each other accountable.
        Mr. Bergman. Is that something that has happened over time,
    or because of their high school experience they are used to--
    they are not used to the hierarchy that maybe some of us who
    are older and went to high school, you know, decades earlier,
    where now everybody feels as though they--you know, the
    participation trophy mentality?
        General Williams. Congressman, I think that is part of it.
    We are taking folks from all over America, and it is a tough
    transition for some. Some need 47 months, some need a little
    longer than 47 months to make that transition.
        Mr. Bergman. So since we are talking about--we got Blue and
    Gold. Do we have black and gold? And what does the Air Force
    have?
        General Silveria. Prop and Wings Officers, sir.
        Mr. Bergman. Okay. So the point is, could any or all of you
    just describe the--is this Blue and Gold or black and gold or,
    you know, Prop? Is that a volunteer position? Is it a paid
    position? Tell us a little bit about who these people are and
    how much time they have to devote to, if you will, digging into
    the background of an applicant?
        Admiral Carter. Sir, I will answer first. Our Blue and Gold
    Officers are representatives of the superintendent but work
    through our admissions department. They are volunteers. They
    are not always Naval Academy graduates. They are in every
    voting district throughout the country. They are over 2,000
    strong. And they are the eyes on, they are the validation of
    who we are looking at, beyond just what we see on paper, the
    personal statement, the teacher recommendations, the grades,
    all of it.
        Mr. Bergman. Yeah, I don't want to dwell on this, but the
    idea is they are volunteers?
        Admiral Carter. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Bergman. So their time--they are working probably a
    full-time career doing something else, and because of their
    passion for the service academies, they have volunteered their
    time to interview, to interact with, et cetera, et cetera, and
    to advise potential----
        Admiral Carter. And they are required to get training every
    periodic moment--or every period of time, about 5 years, so
    they understand what we are looking for.
        Mr. Bergman. Okay. And then one final question that any or
    all of you can answer. Is there any--or maybe, Dr. Van Winkle,
    is there any comparative data to other nonmilitary, your basic
    public, private colleges and universities, as to the type of
    behavior, the type of at-risk behavior, if you will, that the
    18- to 20-year-olds who are in those first couple of years, I
    mean, is there comparative data out there that says the service
    academies have more of a problem than XYZ college or
    university?
        Dr. Van Winkle. I can speak to that in general terms. We
    don't typically have a good comparison point in civilian
    colleges and universities, nor do we compare ourselves with
    them. Certainly our mission space is different, our
    expectations are different, our selection criteria is
    different.
        Mr. Bergman. But if we were just, you know--and I know my
    time is going short here. The idea is, two friends graduate
    from high school together, one goes to an academy, one goes to,
    you know, some other school. They come in, they are matched
    ideally, if you will, in their experience, their outlook, their
    education, everything, they are a match, but then they split
    and go down two different educational paths.
        I am wondering, is the behavior of the individual who
    chooses something other than a service academy, are we--do we
    know, are there differences?
        Dr. Van Winkle. What we do know in looking at colleges and
    universities comes from a 2015 study sponsored by the American
    Association of Universities, which looked at 27 colleges and
    universities across the country. Looking at those rates,
    comparing them to ours now, which again are slightly apples and
    oranges in terms of metrics and scientific methods behind it,
    we are about on par. But as I mentioned, we certainly hold
    ourselves to a higher standard.
        Mr. Bergman. Well, thank you very much. And I yield back.
        Ms. Speier. All right. Dr. Van Winkle, you had indicated
    that of those that do come forward, 80 percent of them are
    happy with the way they were treated. Is that correct? Is that
    how you put it?
        Dr. Van Winkle. No. For clarification, I would say that 81
    percent--and this is from the survey, so this is an estimate--
    --
        Ms. Speier. Right.
        Dr. Van Winkle. [continuing]. Of those who came forward and
    reported would make the same decision to report again.
        Ms. Speier. Thank you for that clarification.
        What I think is important for us to point to, and it is
    true in each of the academies, it is probably most true at the
    Air Force Academy, is that women who have not come forward to
    report do not have a high confidence that they will be
    protected.
        At the Military Academy, 55 percent of the women indicated
    they would trust the academy to a large extent to ensure their
    safety. At the Naval Academy, it was 46 percent. At the Air
    Force Academy, it was 39 percent. So that would suggest to us
    that there is not the confidence in the academy leadership that
    their safety will be ensured if only half or less than half
    have confidence in it. So that is something we should drill
    down about later.
        Mrs. Luria.
        Mrs. Luria. Okay. Thank you for being here to testify
    today. And I am trying to go through, you know, some of the
    comments that have been made and rectify these, you know, in my
    mind versus my personal experience, being that, you know, I
    attended the Naval Academy and also spent 20 years in the
    fleet, and as a commanding officer having to deal with these
    types of situations for sailors who worked for me.
        And there are several comments that have been made, but,
    you know, I wanted to kind of touch on this in the setting of
    the hearing because Admiral Carter and I discussed it in my
    office earlier this week was, you know, how does this compare
    relative to the fleet or to our Active Forces? And then, you
    know, are there any lessons that have been done more
    effectively within the fleet that we think we should be
    transferring back to the academy setting?
        And I will start with you, Admiral Carter, since we already
    touched on that.
        Admiral Carter. I certainly think there are things to learn
    from the two living conditions and the demographics and the age
    group. I think we could take ourselves down a dangerous path if
    we think that the 17- to 21-year-old demographic of the fleet
    is the exact same representative of what we see at the Naval
    Academy.
        Mrs. Luria. But, I mean, myself in command, and I know
    yesterday when we spoke, you said you had been in command in
    some capacity since 1999, and then you were the XO [executive
    officer] when we served together on Truman shortly after that.
    That is the demographic, at least from my experience, where
    most recently these reports come in as far as fleet sailors as
    well. So why do you consider there to be a difference?
        Admiral Carter. The enlisted sailors that are coming in,
    and that would be the demographic we are looking at, they are
    changing, very different than when you and I served on Harry S.
    Truman 20 years ago. They are better educated. Many more of
    them are married, they live a different lifestyle. And then, of
    course, once we send them out on a ship or on a deployment with
    an air squad or on a submarine, they live in a very, very close
    environment where they are controlled and they are watched in
    their work environment, and there is no alcohol involved in
    that.
        So, you know, over the course of that time in that
    environment, you are going to see a whole lot less of these
    unwanted sexual contact data, and I am confident of that. The
    midshipmen still are in an academic setting, even though they
    are in a very controlled academic setting, and that is not to
    make a pass for, you know, the type of lifestyle they have at
    the Naval Academy, but it is just a different environment, as
    you recall, living there.
        But I think we can still look for best practices that come
    from the fleet and see if they can apply to what we do at the
    Naval Academy.
        Mrs. Luria. Well, thank you.
        And so out of all the comments that were made today, there
    were a couple things that, you know, popped out, because I
    think we are all scratching our head, these are not the results
    that we wanted to hear. And something that did come up in the
    earlier testimony was that, you know, the Victims' Legal
    Counsels, for example, didn't have a lot of experience in
    dealing with victims. So that is just a point of maybe an area
    that we could look at what type of training they get.
        And then, you know, on the side of medical professionals
    and the faith community, with how they fit into the whole
    picture of developing midshipmen morally, mentally, and
    physically, that they tie into that picture with, you know,
    dealing with the victims.
        And, you know, I think my frustration as a commanding
    officer in the fleet when I had sailors who dealt with this was
    that I felt that the reticence of people to report was because
    they thought nothing was going to ever happen. And the nothing
    that was ever going to happen was not because the chain of
    command didn't take it seriously, because we took it very
    seriously, but it was more so that the process took so long for
    anything to happen, it moved at a glacial speed.
        And like you said, Dr. Van Winkle, you know, people are
    worried about this in their second class midshipmen, so junior
    year following through with them to the fleet. And so I don't
    know how to crack that nut of, you know, a more expeditious
    process to make sure that, you know, it is being handled, but
    people know it is being handled, and, you know, what the
    results are because----
        You know, Admiral Carter, as we spoke the other day, you
    said accountability was the biggest issue. But if someone
    reports something and nothing happens for 18 months or 2 years,
    that is hard to draw the accountability back, because people's
    memories are actually short. So I don't know if anyone has any
    comments on that topic.
        Admiral Carter. I will just say one brief thing. The Victim
    Legal Counsel was brought on during my tenure here at the Naval
    Academy. I thought it actually would change and really make a
    difference for those that had stepped forward. And quite
    honestly, I did not see more female victims actually go through
    with the investigation or go through with the preliminary
    hearing office. I didn't see that change.
        That Victim Legal Counsel does not work for me. They are
    independently assigned to the Naval Academy. They are
    permanent. I found them to be very experienced, it is not their
    first legal job. And they do meet with their survivors or
    victims in person.
        Mrs. Luria. Okay. Well, thank you for sharing that. That
    was different than what was mentioned earlier.
        I yield back my time. Thank you.
        Ms. Speier. Ms. Cheney.
        Ms. Cheney. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman. I wanted
    to--and I appreciate that the chairwoman read or submitted for
    the record the entire email from Colonel Campbell, but I wanted
    to mention a couple of things that were not read.
        In the first paragraph of the email, the colonel says that
    the SAGR [Service Academy Gender Relations] report is, quote,
    exceptionally important. In the second paragraph he says,
    sexual assault and gender relations, the report is absolutely a
    command priority. In the third paragraph, he says, don't for a
    minute think we believe the class crest is more important than
    sexual assault. And the paragraph that the chairwoman did read
    has absolutely nothing to do with victim anonymity. And I think
    it is very important that the record reflect that that is not a
    conversation at all about victim anonymity.
        And I think, in fact, victim anonymity is crucial, and I
    think that it is very important that we not look towards
    increasing the number of unrestricted reports as our only
    measure of success here. I think, as Dr. Van Winkle mentioned,
    there are a number of reasons why people don't report, a number
    of reasons why they want to be able to report in a restricted
    fashion, including that they don't want to have this follow
    them for their life. They don't want to be known as a victim.
    And I think that is very important. And I think that we need to
    keep in mind that compassion for survivors and for victims, and
    not look as though we are forcing everyone into a public
    reporting setting.
        Secondly, I would say that while it is true that the report
    shows that alcohol was a factor in at least half of these
    incidents that were reported, that is a huge issue. And I think
    it would be reckless and irresponsible for us if we did not
    address the issue of alcohol. It is not a silver bullet, it is
    not a panacea, but when we have something that we know is
    present in approximately half, in some cases a little over half
    of these incidents that we know of, we have got to address it.
        And so I would like to ask each of the superintendents if
    you could talk specifically about the programs that you have in
    place, the programs that you think you need to put in place, at
    each of the academies to deal with this issue of alcohol abuse.
        General Williams. Congresswoman, we have a long way to go
    in this space. We have done everything from a cadet who has
    created--or had some sort of misconduct and alcohol. We put him
    in the alcohol substance abuse program. It was mentioned
    earlier about the leader development program, if a cadet
    commits some act in this space, he gets an F. He gets an
    academic grade, F, it is part of his GPA [grade point average].
    So those are sort of one end of the spectrum.
        The other end of the spectrum is every week they work this,
    our TAC [company tactical officer] and TAC-NCOs [tactical non-
    commissioned officers] work this really, really hard. Before
    special events, before every weekend, they do briefings with
    the cadets. But I am not satisfied where we are in terms of--I
    am having my commandant look at all of our policies in term of
    how long. We have a number of places on West Point where
    cadets, if they are of age, they can't be underage, if they are
    of age, where they can drink alcohol.
        I am relooking at all our current policies. And so we are
    looking at doing some changes in that respect. So we are doing
    a lot right now, but we are not doing enough, and I am
    relooking the whole thing.
        Ms. Cheney. Thank you.
        Admiral Carter.
        Admiral Carter. Ma'am, I started to talk about some of our
    programs, such as the Guardian Angel program, the Midnight
    Teachable Moments, the task force that we stood up. I would
    also tell you that accountability at this lower level of
    problem before it turns into a potential assault. When you take
    away the alcohol piece, as I said, won't take them all away,
    but for us we think it has a significant part. We are
    redefining what those are.
        So, for example, if you get a DUI [driving under the
    influence] at the Naval Academy, you will be separated from the
    Naval Academy. Two alcohol-related incidents, whether they
    happened plebe year and senior year, you will also be
    dismissed. A failure from an alcohol treatment program will
    also be cause for dismissal. A higher penalty for underage
    drinking, even though it is not a zero-defect mentality, it is
    one that we have to continue to go after.
        And as we are hearing--as you are hearing us today, we all
    meet and talk about our best practices and how we are doing it,
    so that we can get to some more common themes so that we are
    all doing it about the same way.
        Ms. Cheney. Thank you.
        General Silveria.
        General Silveria. Yes, ma'am. After I arrived, I didn't
    like the way that a lot of the alcohol was available and the
    way that it was handled within the cadet wing, and so I made a
    number of changes last year in the availability, how it was
    served. And I made a number of changes increasing supervision,
    both at events inside the academy and outside the academy with
    supervision.
        The other thing that we have done is we have created a
    training program for our third classmen, our sophomores,
    because that is the age when they become of age, for most of
    them. So we have created a training program that focuses on
    prevention of alcohol-related incidents. And all of the
    commanders have availability, and they use it. If they get a
    risk factor where they see that somebody has used it, they can
    put someone in that prevention program, whether they are a
    three-degree or not. So we are training and then the increased
    supervision.
        Ms. Cheney. Thank you very much. My time has expired.
        Ms. Speier. All right. That brings us to the end of the
    hearing.
        Let me thank you very much for your participation today. I
    really believe that you want to do the right thing. I also
    worry that we have not found the formula that is going to
    reduce the numbers. They can't keep going up.
        And, Dr. Van Winkle, I am very heartened to hear you say
    that we are not going to be able to train ourselves out of this
    problem. We have got to recognize that there is something more
    that needs to be done.
        I do know, and in talking to a couple of the
    superintendents, that you have also realized that once there is
    a conviction or once someone is identified, some of these
    cadets have turned into predators, where it wasn't just a once,
    it was to a number of cadets that they had either sexually
    harassed or sexually assaulted. So it is a very serious
    problem, and these are our leaders for the next generation. We
    have a responsibility.
        So thank you for being here. Thank you for your commitment.
    And I am hopeful that we will make a number of trips to the
    academies over the course of the next year to work with you.
        With that, we will stand adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 6:13 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

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

                                A P P E N D I X

                               February 13, 2019

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

                  PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

                               February 13, 2019

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

        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

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

                       DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

                               February 13, 2019

    =======================================================================
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

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

                  WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING

                                  THE HEARING

                               February 13, 2019

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

                 RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY DR. ABRAHAM

        Dr. Van Winkle. This is a very complex issue; however, the research
    available to date is summarized as follows: Research with civilians
    shows a significant minority of men perpetrate sexual violence. Most
    men who use coercive tactics to obtain sex use those tactics repeatedly
    over time; however, most rape perpetration occurs over a more limited
    time frame. Hundreds of studies have examined risk factors for sexual
    violence perpetration. Risk factors are behaviors, experiences,
    attitudes, or cultural norms that are statistically associated with
    self-reported sexual violence in research studies. Consistently
    supported factors include: history of experiencing child abuse, a peer
    group that supports forced sex, peer pressure to engage in sexual
    activity, relationship conflict, sexual risk behaviors (early
    initiation of sex, sexual promiscuity, casual sex), hostile views of
    women, and attitudes supporting the use of violence. Studies have found
    that a combination of risk factors expressed over time is more
    predictive of sexual violence than single risk factors. Many risk
    factors can be modified or mitigated, which facilitates reduction of
    sexual violence. Multiple military studies have found that military
    sexual violence perpetrators reflect similar risk factors and offending
    patterns as civilian perpetrators. Similarities between sexual violence
    perpetrated by military members and civilians suggests that civilian
    research can be used to inform prevention approaches implemented in
    military settings. The Department will continue to use this literature
    to guide prevention planning and execution.   [See page 43.]

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

                  QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING

                               February 13, 2019

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

                       QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MS. SPEIER

        Ms. Speier. In at least 2016, the Academies and DOD considered
    replacing the measure of unwanted sexual contact used in the Academy
    survey with the UCMJ-linked measurement used in the active force
    workplace and gender relations survey. The Academies and DOD reportedly
    pushed back against adopting the active force measure. Why did the
    Academies push back against the active force measurement? Why is the
    unwanted sexual contact measure preferable?
        Dr. Van Winkle. The Department determined that the Unwanted Sexual
    Contact (USC) measure was a better fit for victim privacy and survey
    administration considerations at the Academies. To better align with
    language describing the sexual assault crimes defined in Article 120 of
    the Uniform Code of Military Justice--and as part of its review and
    administration of the Department's active duty sexual assault
    prevalence survey in 2014--the RAND Corporation compared responses to
    the existing USC measure to responses to the new sexual assault measure
    it designed. RAND's comparison found no statistically significant
    difference in how either measure estimated past-year prevalence of
    sexual assault at the top-line. However, RAND's measure offered certain
    advantages in conducting follow-on analysis of responses. In 2015, the
    Department worked with the Academies to assess whether RAND's new
    measure would be appropriate for administration of the Service Academy
    Gender Relations (SAGR) survey. This assessment involved review of the
    measure by Academy victim assistance staff and a small group of
    selected cadets and midshipmen. Feedback obtained through this process
    indicated that the new RAND measure was more explicit in language and
    took much longer to complete than the USC measure. These observations
    made use of the new RAND measure on the SAGR survey problematic in two
    ways: 1. Administration time. The SAGR survey is administered in person
    in a room with several hundred cadets and midshipmen at once. This is
    done to keep response rates in the 70 to 80 percent range, as computer
    administration has been associated with markedly lower response rates.
    Students who may have experienced a past-year sexual assault would
    spend a considerably longer time taking a survey with the RAND sexual
    assault measure survey than a survey with the USC measure. The
    Department concluded that increased administration time would likely
    expose students taking a longer time with the survey to unwanted
    scrutiny and/or assumptions about whether they were a victim of sexual
    assault, which ultimately might impact a student's willingness to
    disclose victimization on the survey. 2. Administration method. The
    SAGR Survey is administered via paper and pencil rather than the
    computer administration employed in the active and reserve components.
    Again, by employing the in-person method, the Department has achieved
    high response rates from cadets and midshipman on the SAGR Survey.
    Active duty and reserve component members completing the survey via
    computer can take a break and come back to it should the experience of
    answering the RAND measure's very detailed questions become stressful
    or troubling. However, similar breaks are not possible given the in-
    person administration employed with the SAGR survey. Given the
    anonymity of responses, there is no way for a student to take a break,
    come back later, and finish the survey. The Department subsequently
    asked the Academy Superintendents for their input on which measure the
    SAGR should use to estimate past-year prevalence of sexual assault. The
    Academy Superintendents unanimously requested the SAGR continue to
    employ the USC measure to address not only survey administration time
    and method concerns, but also consistency of their prevalence trend
    information since 2006. Given this input, the DOD Sexual Assault
    Prevention and Response Office and the Office of People Analytics
    decided to keep the USC measure as the means for estimating past-year
    prevalence of sexual assault on the SAGR Survey. The academy survey
    continues to utilize the shorter unwanted sexual contact measure with
    the scientific assurance that both measures yield similar, accurate
    estimates of sexual assault prevalence.
        Ms. Speier. In at least 2016, the Academies and DOD considered
    replacing the measure of unwanted sexual contact used in the Academy
    survey with the UCMJ-linked measurement used in the active force
    workplace and gender relations survey. The Academies and DOD reportedly
    pushed back against adopting the active force measure. Why did the
    Academies push back against the active force measurement? Why is the
    unwanted sexual contact measure preferable?
        General Williams. USMA does not have record of ``pushing back''
    against the measures in the DOD survey. We understand these questions
    mirror language from the UCMJ and we have no issues with them as
    presented. Further, we do not have an opinion at this time if unwanted
    sexual contact is the more preferable measure. As this is a DOD wide
    policy, we believe it would be more appropriate for OSD to respond to
    this question.
        Ms. Speier. In at least 2016, the Academies and DOD considered
    replacing the measure of unwanted sexual contact used in the Academy
    survey with the UCMJ-linked measurement used in the active force
    workplace and gender relations survey. The Academies and DOD reportedly
    pushed back against adopting the active force measure. Why did the
    Academies push back against the active force measurement? Why is the
    unwanted sexual contact measure preferable?
        Admiral Carter. USNA did not push back on the language or standards
    used to measure USC in the survey. However, in considering any future
    changes, it is important to consider consistency in language and
    standards over a long period of time to better establish reliable
    trends and keep historical data relevant to contemporary data.
        Ms. Speier. In at least 2016, the Academies and DOD considered
    replacing the measure of unwanted sexual contact used in the Academy
    survey with the UCMJ-linked measurement used in the active force
    workplace and gender relations survey. The Academies and DOD reportedly
    pushed back against adopting the active force measure. Why did the
    Academies push back against the active force measurement? Why is the
    unwanted sexual contact measure preferable?
        General Silveria. The Service Academy Gender Relations (SAGR)
    survey is conducted every even numbered year at all the service
    academies and reported with the release of the SH&V report. The SAGR
    reveals data specific to sexual harassment and sexual assault at each
    of the Military Service Academies including the U.S Air Force Academy
    (USAFA). This survey has been conducted for over a decade which allows
    for analysis and tracking of trends and patterns. During the previous
    discussions regarding the questions related to ``Unwanted Sexual
    Contact,'' the justification for not changing the definitions to match
    the active duty force instrument was that it would adversely impact the
    ability to make longitudinal comparisons. In other words, changing the
    questions would prevent the services and Congress from being able to
    accurately compare future data with past data. Certainly, there are
    valid arguments to be made regarding the use of an active force measure
    that allows more accurate comparisons be made between the Academies and
    active duty force; however, at the time of the discussions, it was
    viewed as more beneficial to be able to make longitudinal comparisons
    amongst the Service Academies. As such, this is one of the longest
    existing surveys on a college campus of its kind which can allow for
    data driven strategies and operations.
                                     ______

                       QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MS. ESCOBAR
        Ms. Escobar. Dr. Van Winkle, what would you say contributed to the
    nearly 50% increase in sexual harassment and sexual assault detailed in
    the 2017-2018 Annual Report on Sexual Harassment and Violence at the
    Military Service Academies?
        Dr. Van Winkle. Survey results capture the experience of large
    numbers of people with great scientific reliability and validity, but
    they cannot isolate the causes behind those experiences or perceptions.
    That said, the data indicate that academy approaches have not prevented
    disrespectful, interpersonal conduct between cadets and midshipmen,
    which is a driving force behind challenges in sustaining progress.
    First, estimated rates of sexual harassment maintain at consistently
    high rates, with 51 percent of academy women and 16 percent of academy
    men indicating a past-year experience in APY 2017-2018. Second, marks
    for confidence in the efforts of cadets and midshipmen peer leadership
    continue to hover at relatively low rates. Finally, rates of alcohol
    use among students continue to be a concern: More than half of sexual
    assault incidents involved alcohol, and about 15 percent of women and
    32 percent of men acknowledged heavy drinking in the past year.
    However, the survey also found that most cadets and midshipmen believed
    that Academy leadership make honest and reasonable efforts to stop
    sexual assault and harassment. While the Department acknowledges the
    high marks in Academy leadership, we recognize that this important
    achievement is not by itself sufficient to combat these crimes.
        To address unsatisfactory results, each of the Military Service
    Academies have developed a plan of action that focuses on four key
    lines of effort to address sexual assault and sexual harassment:
    reinvigorating prevention efforts, improving sexual assault and
    harassment reporting, enhancing a culture of respect, and promoting a
    disciplined force. These plans will proactively engage with cadets and
    midshipmen, especially at the student leadership level, and include:
          Implementing policies, programs, and practices that
    target and reduce sexual harassment and other forms of misconduct
    between peers.
          Focusing initiatives on improving cadet and midshipmen
    leadership (e.g., selection criteria, how we train our student leaders
    on sexual assault and harassment, how we hold student leaders
    accountable).
        In conjunction with these efforts, the Secretaries of the Military
    Departments hosted a national university and college and US Academies
    summit in April 2019 at the Naval Academy in Annapolis, Md., focused on
    preventing sexual assault and sexual harassment.
        Ms. Escobar. Dr. Van Winkle, in your opinion, what type of support
    or resources do military service academies need from Congress to ensure
    that students feel comfortable reporting sexual assault and harassment?
        Dr. Van Winkle. The Military Service Academies (MSA) have developed
    programs to provide students a professional response to all reported
    allegations of sexual assault and sexual harassment. Upon making a
    report of sexual assault, students may obtain victim assistance and
    advocacy, healthcare, spiritual support, and confidential legal
    counsel. The Department requires that Service leadership provide fully
    resourced programs and oversight to ensure sexual assault prevention
    and response programs function as designed. Likewise, students
    reporting sexual harassment have a variety of services and support
    options available to help them resolve complaints informally or
    formally with direct command investigation and action. Should
    legislative barriers arise, we would submit proposed legislative
    remedies through the Department's legislative proposal process.
        Ms. Escobar. Dr. Van Winkle, are victims aware of the variety of
    support services available to them? Are there barriers in getting this
    information out that Congress should be aware of?
        Dr. Van Winkle. Students at each academy receive annual, mandatory
    sexual assault training where they learn of the resources available to
    them should they ever experience a sexual assault. During this
    training, the academies introduce students to the sexual assault
    response coordinator (SARC) as the single point of contact who can
    provide information about the wide variety of resources available to
    students who experience a sexual assault incident. In the event a
    student experiences a sexual assault and files a report, the SARC
    explains the options of both Restricted and Unrestricted reporting, as
    well as the complete range of support services that are available to
    the victim. DOD surveys indicate that there is a relatively high level
    of fluency in the basic provisions of the Sexual Assault Prevention and
    Response Program. There are no systemic barriers within the Department
    to providing the sexual assault training and access to support
    services.
        Ms. Escobar. To the superintendents, what are the unique
    circumstances of each academy that may have contributed to the dramatic
    increase in sexual harassment and sexual assault?
        General Williams. Based on the available data, USMA is unable to
    identify any unique circumstances which would explain the increase in
    prevalence or reporting at West Point during APY 17-18. We have
    maintained vigilance over this and did not expect these results. We
    have in fact noticed that the measures we took that were different than
    previous years may have contributed to victim willingness to
    anonymously report more incidents on the SAGR and for more victims to
    report their incidents to SHARP personnel. Some of these actions
    include (1) a deliberate focus on education to ensure our Cadets
    understood the components of the crime itself, (2) creating the
    conditions for victims to believe their voices mattered and needed to
    be heard, and (3) to create safety and support for those willing to
    come forward. In a very deliberate and focused manner, we examined the
    following areas within our training and education program:
        --The crime of sexual assault as it occurs in college settings
        --Exploring the nuances of consent and the impact of alcohol in
    relationship decision making
        --Presenting information on male sexual assault, to destigmatize
    this issue and create a common language and support to empower male
    victims to report
        --Breaking down the impact of victim blaming, to increase empathy
    and support for victims
        These actions are a few of the programmatic efforts and constitute
    some measure of our continued efforts to create an integrated and
    synchronized effort to create a culture of respect among our community.
        Ms. Escobar. To the superintendents, what are the unique
    circumstances of each academy that may have contributed to the dramatic
    increase in sexual harassment and sexual assault?
        Admiral Carter. While the United States Naval Academy did not
    experience dramatic increases in sexual harassment and sexual assault
    in the most recent survey, the survey demonstrates we have more work to
    do. We are committed to eliminating sexual assault and sexual
    harassment at the Naval Academy and we will continue to do all we can
    to achieve that goal. USNA is unique among the Military Service
    Academies in that it is physically located in a busy town with many
    establishments serving alcohol and promoting a much more relaxed social
    atmosphere than the professional atmosphere of our campus. The
    immediate vicinity and easy access presents leadership challenges
    different from West Point or Colorado Springs where there is a greater
    distance and less interaction with immediate outside influences.
    Historically, most of our incidents of USC and harassment occur off
    campus and involve the use of alcohol.
        Ms. Escobar. To the superintendents, what are the unique
    circumstances of each academy that may have contributed to the dramatic
    increase in sexual harassment and sexual assault?
        General Silveria. When analyzing estimated sexual assault
    prevalence data across the last decade, similar patterns emerge between
    the service academies. In 2018 all academies had a significant increase
    in estimated prevalence of sexual assault (women at US Naval Academy
    (USNA) and USAFA and men at USNA). And in 2014 a significant drop in
    estimated prevalence occurred across the three academies. When similar
    patterns occur between institutions, particularly those that are
    separated geographically and culturally, there likely other factors
    that are impacting the data collected. We cannot rule out social
    factors that go beyond each installation's gates. Numerous factors
    including high profile military and civilian cases, leadership
    turnover, and socio-cultural differences can influence estimated
    prevalence and reporting data and impact our cadets' willingness to
    exercise their voice, even on anonymous surveys. Examining general
    trends over time between the academies supports the idea that something
    larger than just what is occurring on the academy grounds may impact
    the estimated sexual assault prevalence data. This is not to excuse us
    from working on the solution or being responsible for what occurs on
    our grounds, but does challenge us to open the aperture of what
    prevention looks like. Determining the root cause of behavior is
    challenging. We know that the specific population of college students
    has a higher estimated rate of sexual assault. This year we saw an
    increase in the instances of alcohol use by either or both the offender
    and victim. Alcohol use and misuse is another factor within this aged
    population that impacts estimated prevalence of sexual assault. USAFA
    saw an increase in the number of cadets who enter into the academy
    having already experienced sexual assault in their past. There is a
    higher risk of re-victimization by those who have a past experience of
    victimization. Additionally, cultural indicators such as victim blaming
    beliefs increased this year according to the data from the SAGR survey.
    These data points, though not specifically unique to USAFA, may all
    impact the estimated prevalence of harassment and assault at USAFA.
    Further analysis is needed and programs based on such analysis are
    required to impact estimated rates of prevalence and related issues at
    USAFA.
                                     ______

                       QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. BERGMAN
        Mr. Bergman. Mr. Christensen, in the hearing, you recounted a
    conversation you had with the Vice Commandant of Cadets at the Air
    Force Academy and that the Vice Commandant said he didn't have time to
    meet with victims of sexual assault. I have since been made aware that
    that particular conversation did not happen in the way you have
    suggested. Could you please clarify your statement?
        Colonel Christensen. You have asked about a conversation I
    referenced during my testimony with the Vice Commandant of Cadets.
    Contrary to the inference in the QFR, my testimony accurately reflected
    my conversation. The conversation occurred as prelude to the Vice
    Commandant meeting with my client in a hearing that could lead to her
    being removed from the Academy. Based on my conversation with my
    client, as well as many other survivors, I was and am concerned that
    commanders rarely speak with survivors in other than adversarial
    settings. I believe this colors their understanding of the impact of
    trauma on victims. Very early during my meeting, I asked the Vice
    Commandant if he had ever met with a victim in a non-adversarial
    setting. He responded, as I testified, he had 4000 cadets and did not
    have time to do that. After my testimony, the Vice Cadet reached out to
    me to discuss my testimony, and I agreed to talk with him. After our
    conversation I told him I would write a letter to the Chairwoman and
    Ranking member. The Vice Commandant did not ask me to do this. I
    drafted the letter and sent it to the Vice Commandant to see if he
    thought it was fair. He agreed that it was. As I said in my letter, our
    conversation was very productive and professional. We left the
    conversation in a much better place than our previous meeting. We did
    not reach an agreement on the words the Vice Commandant used; however,
    my prior testimony accurately reflects my memory of the exchange, and I
    stand by it. I did not send the letter to correct or diminish the words
    I used in my testimony. Instead, I sent the letter because after our
    most recent conversation I did not believe it was the Vice Commandant's
    intent to indicate he did not have time to meet with victims. After
    this conversation, I believed it was necessary to bring this to the
    attention of the subcommittee to provide context.

                                      [all]