[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                                   

                         [H.A.S.C. No. 117-55]

                    THE FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

                       OF THE INDEPENDENT REVIEW

              COMMISSION ON SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE MILITARY

                               __________

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                   SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILITARY PERSONNEL

                                 OF THE

                      COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                              HEARING HELD

                             JULY 20, 2021

                                     
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                               __________

                                
                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE                    
50-381                    WASHINGTON : 2023                    
          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------  
 
                   SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILITARY PERSONNEL

                 JACKIE SPEIER, California, Chairwoman

ANDY KIM, New Jersey                 MIKE GALLAGHER, Wisconsin
CHRISSY HOULAHAN, Pennsylvania       STEPHANIE I. BICE, Oklahoma
VERONICA ESCOBAR, Texas, Vice Chair  LISA C. McCLAIN, Michigan
SARA JACOBS, California              RONNY JACKSON, Texas
MARILYN STRICKLAND, Washington       JERRY L. CARL, Alabama
MARC A. VEASEY, Texas                PAT FALLON, Texas

                        Hannah Kaufman, Counsel
                       Forrest McConnell, Counsel
                           Sidney Faix, Clerk
                           
                           
                           C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page

              STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS

Gallagher, Hon. Mike, a Representative from Wisconsin, Ranking 
  Member, Subcommittee on Military Personnel.....................     3
Rogers, Hon. Mike, a Representative from Alabama, Ranking Member, 
  Committee on Armed Services....................................     4
Speier, Hon. Jackie, a Representative from California, 
  Chairwoman, Subcommittee on Military Personnel.................     1

                               WITNESSES

Hicks, Kathleen H., Deputy Secretary of Defense, Department of 
  Defense........................................................     5
Rosenthal, Lynn, Chair, Independent Review Commission on Sexual 
  Assault in the Military; accompanied by Commission Members Maj 
  Gen (Ret.) James Johnson, Dr. Kyleanne Hunter, Kristina Rose, 
  and Meghan Tokash..............................................    28

                                APPENDIX

Prepared Statements:

    Hicks, Kathleen H............................................    56
    Rosenthal, Lynn..............................................    60
    Speier, Hon. Jackie..........................................    53

Documents Submitted for the Record:

    1952 The New Republic Article, ``Military Civil Rights: A 
      Report''...................................................    77

Witness Responses to Questions Asked During the Hearing:

    [The information was not available at the time of printing.]

Questions Submitted by Members Post Hearing:

    Ms. Strickland...............................................    85
                 
                 
                 THE FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF

  THE INDEPENDENT REVIEW COMMISSION ON SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE MILITARY

                              ----------                              

                  House of Representatives,
                       Committee on Armed Services,
                        Subcommittee on Military Personnel,
                            Washington, DC, Tuesday, July 20, 2021.
    The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:02 p.m., in 
Room 2118, 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. The Military Personnel Subcommittee will come 
to order.
    I want to welcome everyone to this hybrid hearing on ``The 
Findings and Recommendations of the Independent Review 
Commission on Sexual Assault in the Military.''
    We will have two panels today. First, we will receive 
testimony from the Honorable Dr. Kathleen Hicks, Deputy 
Secretary of Defense, who will discuss the formation of the 
Independent Review Commission and how the Department of Defense 
intends to implement these recommendations. Second, we will 
hear from a panel including Chair Lynn Rosenthal and members of 
the Independent Review Commission [IRC] so they can share their 
recommendations.
    The toll sexual assault and sexual harassment has taken on 
our military is devastating and incalculable. We do know the 
numbers, but behind the numbers are lives destroyed and 
scarred.
    Since 2010, the Department of Defense [DOD] estimates that 
roughly 135,000 Active Duty service members--65,400 women and 
69,600 men--have been sexually assaulted and about 509,000 
Active Duty service members--223,000 women and 286,000 men--
have experienced sexual harassment.
    One in four service women and 1 in 16 service men 
experience sexual harassment. One in sixteen service women and 
1 in 143 service men experience sexual assault.
    Service members who do not identify as heterosexual, who 
encompass 12 percent of the Active Component force, accounted 
for 43 percent of all sexually assaulted service members in 
2018.
    But these women and men are not just data points on a 
PowerPoint slide; they tell harrowing stories of sexual 
violence, of careless commanders, of indifferent commanders, of 
a system and culture that fails to protect them.
    Their voices are all too familiar. One said, ``I could've 
been a great Army nurse if I had a chance. Maybe I shouldn't 
have reported it.'' Another shared, ``I told him who had done 
it, and he says, `He's a good sailor. Do you really want to 
ruin his career?' I looked at my commander, and I was like, `I 
guess not.' I guess I don't matter.'' Yet another confided, ``I 
was told not to have a Marine who confided in me file a 
complaint by my commanding officer. He felt the girl was 
promiscuous and drunk.''
    And there are more than 135,000 voices like those since DOD 
started keeping track. There are countless more voices we will 
never hear from.
    But, for over 10 years, I have heard your deafening 
silence, and the tides are finally turning. Others are hearing 
you too.
    Secretary Austin is committed to implementing many of the 
Independent Review Commission's recommendations. And he and 
Chairman Milley are committed to removing from the chain of 
command prosecution decisions for sexual assault, sexual 
harassment, and other special-victims crimes.
    That is simply the beginning, the first step on a road with 
twists and turns. We must ensure not only that the prosecutors 
who are entrusted to bring justice are properly trained and 
focused but also that the military criminal investigators have 
the right expertise and experience when it comes to 
investigating sexual assault.
    We must keep working to ensure survivors can petition a 
military judge for a protective order that keeps them safe on 
post and, more importantly, off post too; and that sexual 
harassment complaints are investigated outside the chain of 
command by trained and experienced investigators.
    My pledge to all the survivors of military sexual violence, 
to those who reported and were ostracized, to those who 
reported and felt let down by the military justice system, and 
to all those who were afraid to report and may be suffering 
alone: We will keep fighting for you. We will keep fighting to 
change the culture, to increase and accept diversity, to 
professionalize military justice.
    I want to thank the IRC members for their extraordinary 
contribution to our shared goals of protecting our service 
members from sexual harassment and sexual assault and to hold 
accountable those who violate their brothers and sisters in 
arms. I greatly appreciate IRC's outreach early in the process 
and its partnership with Congress to achieve meaningful, 
lasting change.
    I understand that the commission's scope was limited to 
sexual assault and related offenses, such as sexual harassment 
and domestic violence. I believe the commission's rationale for 
removing sexual assault prosecution decisions from the chain of 
command also applies to other felony-level offenses that are 
non-military-specific. Crimes like murder, arson, and robbery 
are complex to investigate and prosecute, and commanders who 
are not attorneys do not have the expertise or experience to 
make high-quality prosecution decisions. And victims and their 
loved ones may perceive a conflict of interest that discourages 
reporting.
    Additionally, I worry about the consistency and 
effectiveness of a system that treats differently the victims 
of the worst crimes imaginable. For example, under the 
Department's proposal, Specialist Vanessa Guillen would have 
been split in the prosecution of that case between a special 
victims prosecutor who would have made a charging decision on 
the sexual harassment allegation, while a commander would have 
made a charging decision in the murder case. This doesn't make 
sense to me, and I think we should improve the Department's 
legislative proposal at markup.
    I also think it is important to remember that a 2020 GAO 
[Government Accountability Office] study found that service 
members who are Black or Latino are two-and-a-half times to 
one-and-a-half times more likely to be charged in a court 
martial than their White brothers and sisters for the same 
crime. I appreciate the importance of making sure that 
diversity is one that we embrace in its entirety.
    I appreciate your assurances that my efforts to remove all 
felony crimes from the chain of command are complementary to 
the IRC's recommendations. And we will continue to fight for 
this key reform to deliver accountability and justice for all 
victims of these horrible crimes.
    Thank you again for your efforts in making our military 
safe--safe for everyone who serves there.
    I now will turn it over to Ranking Member Gallagher for his 
opening remarks.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Speier can be found in the 
Appendix on page 53.]

    STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE GALLAGHER, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM 
 WISCONSIN, RANKING MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILITARY PERSONNEL

    Mr. Gallagher. Thank you, Chairwoman Speier.
    I look forward to hearing from our panels today about how 
the Department of Defense will approach sexual assault and 
sexual harassment in the future.
    I think we all agree that these are crimes that have 
absolutely no place in the United States military. As a Marine 
Corps officer, I quickly learned that sexual assault and 
related crimes can erode good order and discipline and unit 
cohesion if not dealt with swiftly and decisively.
    Our service members deserve an environment where they feel 
safe, a culture where they know sexual harassment will not be 
tolerated, and a military justice system that is accountable 
and responsive.
    I know we are going to focus a lot of the discussion today 
on the accountability line of effort. The IRC is recommending a 
tailored approach to changing the UCMJ [Uniform Code of 
Military Justice], and I am sure that will receive plenty of 
attention today and healthy debate. But changing behavior and 
prevention is the key ingredient to addressing adverse behavior 
before it becomes unlawful behavior.
    I understand that the prevention line of effort is 
interested in identifying and amplifying the most effective 
prevention measures. I am interested in how DOD and the IRC 
view our current prevention efforts and what tools work most 
effectively.
    The climate and culture line of effort does give me some 
pause. More data on the command climate is helpful, but I want 
to fully understand how the IRC recommendations fit with our 
existing command tools.
    The IRC recommended additional qualitative and narrative 
tools for officer performance evaluation. That recommendation 
focuses on the need to have officers who elevate, quote, 
``transformational leaders.'' I would hope that this desire for 
transformational leadership goes beyond the social acumen cited 
in the report and also reflects credibly on a variety of 
effective leadership styles. Empathy is important, but so is 
competence and lethality.
    Dr. Hicks, I am very interested in the implementation 
timeline you are proposing and the resources that might be 
needed for some of these reforms to happen.
    And on panel two, I am looking to get more detail on the 
process and data used to develop the IRC's findings and 
recommendations. I also look forward to discussing some of the 
specific recommendations in each line of effort.
    And, with that, I thank you, and I yield back.
    Ms. Speier. Thank you, Mr. Gallagher.
    I see the presence of our ranking member with us.
    Mr. Rogers, would you like to make some opening remarks?

 STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE ROGERS, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM ALABAMA, 
          RANKING MEMBER, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

    Mr. Rogers. Yeah. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    And, Dr. Hicks, it is good to have you with us. And 
congratulations on your post. I know you are going to do a 
great job. You are a very capable individual.
    Having said that, I look forward to hearing from the 
Department and the Independent Review Commission about this new 
set of recommendations to better address sexual assault in the 
military. The issue is important and complex.
    Early on, service members are taught the importance of 
mutual respect for their fellow soldiers, airmen, sailors, 
guardians, and Marines. Strong leaders setting clear 
expectations is essential at preventing destructive behavior 
and sexual assault.
    But when sexual assault does happen, the response must be 
timely and thorough, and it must be backed by professional 
investigations. These are complex cases. The investigation and 
court-martial process can be long, complicated, and extremely 
difficult for victims.
    The Fort Hood Commission looked at 3 years of court-
martials, including 65 trials involving sexual assault charges. 
Those cases, unfortunately, had a conviction rate of only 22 
percent.
    Both victims and the accused deserve better. I agree that 
the time has come to move the prosecution of rape and sexual 
assault and related crimes to dedicated uniformed special 
prosecutors outside the chain of command. Military criminal 
investigations also need to improve, especially at Army CID 
[Criminal Investigation Division].
    I think these changes will drive stronger cases. 
Prosecution rates may decline as seasoned prosecutors take 
harder looks at cases, but, in the end, it should bring higher 
overall conviction rates and increased trust in the military 
justice process and leadership.
    That said, I still believe the commanders need full 
visibility into the process. I strongly believe that commanders 
must retain full authority over all other offenses.
    I look forward to hearing from our witness today and the 
questions. And thank you, I yield back.
    Ms. Speier. I thank the ranking member.
    Now each witness will provide a brief statement. Each 
member will have the 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 hearing record.
    I ask unanimous consent that non-subcommittee members be 
allowed to participate and ask questions after all subcommittee 
members have had the opportunity to ask questions.
    Without objection, so ordered.
    Now let me welcome our first panel: Dr. Kathleen Hicks, the 
Deputy Secretary of Defense for the Department of Defense.
    Thank you for being here today.

 STATEMENT OF KATHLEEN H. HICKS, DEPUTY SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, 
                     DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

    Dr. Hicks. Thank you so much. And good afternoon, 
Chairwoman Speier, Ranking Member Gallagher, and all committee 
members. A special ``thank you'' to Chairwoman Speier for her 
leadership on this issue over the past decade.
    I am here to describe the Department of Defense's efforts 
to counter the scourge of sexual assault and sexual harassment 
in our military.
    Sexual assault and sexual harassment remain serious 
problems in our force, with lethal consequences for our service 
members and harmful effects on our combat readiness. This 
administration has placed a high, even unprecedented, priority 
on this challenge set, and we have moved quickly and 
deliberatively to address it.
    One day after being sworn in, Secretary Austin issued a 
memorandum to senior DOD leadership tasking them with reporting 
on data pertaining to sexual assault and sexual harassment.
    With information in hand, on February 26, Secretary Austin 
detailed three immediate actions. He directed the Secretaries 
of the military departments to ensure full compliance with 
existing sexual assault and sexual harassment policies. He 
directed a series of onsite installation evaluations, requiring 
quarterly reports on installations and units of greatest 
concern as well as those that show promise. And he required the 
Secretaries of the military departments to identify and 
resource dedicated personnel for prevention of interpersonal 
violence and self-harm.
    On that same day, President Biden directed Secretary Austin 
to establish the 90-day Independent Review Commission, which I 
am going to refer to going forward as the ``IRC.''
    On June 21, the IRC provided its findings and 
recommendations to Secretary Austin. Its report was 
comprehensive, evidence-based, stakeholder-informed, and 
solution-oriented. Its 82 recommendations spanned 4 lines of 
effort: accountability, prevention, climate and culture, and 
victim care and support.
    On July 2, 2021, less than 6 months after stating his 
intent to lead DOD in countering sexual assault and sexual 
harassment, Secretary Austin directed an implementation way 
ahead.
    Regarding accountability, the Secretary is seeking 
legislative help where needed and directing departmental action 
directly where it is within its purview.
    He is seeking reforms to the Uniform Code of Military 
Justice. Of note, we request removing sexual assault and 
related crimes from the military chain of command and adding 
sexual harassment as an offense.
    Given the uniqueness of each service, we seek to establish 
special prosecutors within each military department, reporting 
directly to each military department Secretary.
    The Secretary of Defense would set standards that govern 
the prosecutor framework. And, in our legislative proposal, we 
seek a fail-safe provision that would allow the Secretary of 
Defense to centralize oversight in OSD [Office of the Secretary 
of Defense] where the military departments fail to meet any 
requisite milestones.
    Secretary Austin also directed several accountability 
reforms that do not require legislation. These include 
standardizing nonjudicial punishment across all services, 
establishing a process to initiate separation for service 
members against whom there are substantiated sexual harassment 
claims, and professionalizing career tracks for lawyers and 
investigators in these areas.
    I am taking a phased approach to developing comprehensive 
implementation plans across all of these recommendations. 
Although we are on a fast timeline, our approach is methodical 
and deliberate.
    The Department of Defense is the largest enterprise in the 
United States, with approximately 2.9 million service members 
and civilians spread out across 4,800 sites in over 160 
countries. This issue set will require substantial leadership 
at all levels to ensure changes that challenge us in culture, 
resources, and time--to ensure are effective and enduring. We 
have no intention of rushing to failure and risking the loss of 
faith from those who have trusted us and to lose the trust of 
another generation of service members.
    Once we have our roadmap in place, our efforts will be 
consistently monitored by me and the Department's senior-most 
leadership via the Deputy's Workforce Council. The Secretary 
and I are committed to ensuring sustained attention to drive 
these changes as effectively and expeditiously as possible.
    The President, the Secretary, and I have prioritized 
countering sexual assault and sexual harassment, acting quickly 
and decisively. And we have a plan of action for effective 
implementation of needed reforms, and we will see to it that 
every corner of the Department implements these changes in 
letter and in spirit. Our service members deserve no less, and 
our combat effectiveness depends on our success.
    Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Dr. Hicks can be found in the 
Appendix on page 56.]
    Ms. Speier. Thank you, Dr. Hicks.
    I recognize myself for 5 minutes and in so doing would also 
like to recognize the presence of Vanessa Guillen's sister, 
Mayra Guillen, and attorney, Natalie Khawam. They have been 
articulate, powerful, passionate in their efforts to try and 
make sure that Vanessa's death and murder was not in vain.
    So I appreciate you being here today.
    Dr. Hicks, the IRC recommended that sexual harassment be 
investigated by trained investigators outside the chain of 
command. I didn't see that recommendation included in the 
Department's legislative proposal.
    Does the DOD plan to implement independent sexual 
harassment investigations? And how do they intend to do that if 
the answer is yes?
    Dr. Hicks. Yes, Chairwoman Speier, we do. And we believe 
that is within our purview. It is not under the list of 
legislative items that I have mentioned.
    We do, however, have a full set of the 82 recommendations 
from the IRC. I have, from the Secretary, until the end of the 
summer to go through all of those with the team inside across 
the Department, looking at the staffing, resourcing, 
organizational changes, synchronizing we would need to do.
    But, as the Secretary made clear, he is moving forward with 
a general disposition toward accepting the recommendations of 
the IRC. We are scrubbing all those now, but I can assure you 
that is one where we absolutely plan to move forward.
    Ms. Speier. All right.
    In Secretary Austin's February memo, he outlined a number 
of steps, including establishing a violence prevention 
workforce and reviewing the command climate at high-risk 
installations.
    What work has been completed so far on these steps? And 
what has the Department found from its high-risk installation 
reviews so far? And how will these existing efforts mesh with 
the Department's implementation of [IRC] recommendations?
    Dr. Hicks. Thank you very much.
    To your last point, what we found is that the IRC 
recommendations and the immediate actions we were already 
moving on mesh very, very well. So part of what we are doing in 
implementation right now is making sure we understand any 
slight differences that might exist in how we proceed.
    On your question on the Violence Prevention Workforce, we 
have put in some additional funding requests in fiscal year 
2022 that are in our proposed budget that were in advance of 
the IRC recommendations. So those relate, generally speaking, 
to building out our Under Secretariat for Personnel and 
Readiness's capability in this area, as well as providing some 
additional resources inside the services--in the military 
departments, that is--in order to ensure that they can build 
out that capability.
    That said, we saw that as a first step as the IRC 
recommendations were pending. Going into the fall, we hope to 
be able to provide Congress in the early fall a sense of how 
much more we believe needs to be done, both with regard to the 
fiscal year 2022 budget but then moving forward.
    The onsite installation process, the climate review process 
there, is ongoing now. We have selected those installations 
that we believe require a deeper dive either because they are 
potential models or because we have seen some early findings 
that make us think that we need to do deeper dives.
    So we have teams already set to go out. With apologies, 
they may actually already have gone out, but that would have 
begun in the last several weeks, if they have begun that. But 
we are already moving out on that onsite installation process 
now.
    Ms. Speier. Would you make the committee aware of what 
installations are in that particular group?
    Because I am looking at the RAND study on ``Organizational 
Characteristics Associated with Risk of Assault and Sexual 
Harassment in the Army,'' and they point out the five highest 
total risk installations: Fort Hood, Fort Bliss, Korea, Fort 
Carson, and some small foreign bases. And I am just curious to 
what extent you have reviewed this in making the assessment as 
to which bases to move to first.
    Dr. Hicks. We would be happy to provide the list of 
installations.
    I would just say, what we are doing is on top of what the 
military departments are already doing. And the Department of 
Army had already accepted all the recommendations of the Fort 
Hood Independent Review Commission, which, itself, included an 
onsite installation review process. So I do believe the 
Department of Army has already moved out on that.
    So we will give you both lists, both ours on top of that 
and what the military departments are doing.
    Ms. Speier. And then, finally, the climate surveys. 
Certainly, the Fort Hood review committee came up with some 
startling results as to how climate surveys, as extensive as 
they are, as expensive as they are, are not properly reviewed 
and not considered as part of the performance evaluation for 
officers and NCOs [noncommissioned officers].
    To what extent has the Department committed to implementing 
those changes, and how soon will we see results?
    Dr. Hicks. So we have already begun the revamping of those 
climate survey approaches. The Fort Hood report actually was 
very insightful in terms of their findings of the way in which 
the Department--in that case, the Army--but the Department in 
general has been doing those climate surveys.
    So we have been working to update the climate review 
process that we use. Those onsite inspections I referenced, the 
first wave of those that is going out will use a new approach, 
a new set of questions, if you will, and evaluative criteria. 
So we have that process ongoing now.
    Again, our expectation in this phased approach is, now that 
we have the IRC's full recommendations, we see very much 
validated in their findings the importance of climate and 
culture to the solution set and a wide set of recommendations 
from them. We will be trying to prioritize the order in which 
we will pursue these items and the resources required.
    Ms. Speier. Thank you.
    Mr. Gallagher, you are recognized for 6 minutes.
    Mr. Gallagher. Thank you.
    Dr. Hicks, what current crime-prevention tools do you 
believe are most effective? Do you believe that there are IRC 
recommendations that would enhance those tools?
    Dr. Hicks. The second line of effort from the IRC was this 
prevention line of effort, and they will be in front of you 
soon here, and let them speak for themselves. But what struck 
me in their report is the degree to which they believe the 
Department has underinvested in prevention over the years, both 
at the individual and the unit level, what they would call the 
community level.
    And what I think really stands out to me is just thinking 
of--whether you are thinking about suicide or you are thinking 
about, you know, self-harm or harm to others and sexual 
violence, it really is this public health approach of trying to 
understand how to help individuals who may be, you know, 
subject to being victims or who may be subject to being 
perpetrators; the underinvestment we have had in understanding 
perpetrators, which was a key finding, I think, from the IRC; 
and then that unit or community approach of understanding, you 
know, as part of holistic readiness, how are you pulling 
together your unit and making sure that it can cohere, that you 
understand your soldier, sailor, airmen, Marine, guardian, what 
they are doing in their time, and how they are working together 
with others. I think that was a huge piece of that prevention 
effort.
    Mr. Gallagher. You know, I think related to that, or at 
least part of the set of recommendations to improve leadership 
within certain commands, is this idea that the IRC talks about 
for more narrative feedback for officer and leader evaluations.
    How can that type of feedback be used to evaluate different 
leadership tools? How will you ensure balance between 
leadership in the deployed unit and the IRC's emphasis on 
empathy, in other words?
    Dr. Hicks. If you think about the way in which we do 
feedback right now, whatever service you are in, your review, 
let's say it is your OER [officer evaluation report]--each 
service uses slightly different lingo--those are qualitative 
narratives. And I think, really, what the IRC is pointing to 
and where we are seeing we need to put more emphasis is really 
the types of inputs that shape those narratives.
    We want to give tools to commanders at all levels so that 
they are best equipped to meet--when they are having those 
narratives written up, they have the capabilities and the 
qualities, the traits that are being sought, and then they are 
being held accountable against those traits.
    So I think the key traits, to my mind--I am not sure I 
would use the term ``empathy'' exactly. I think it is really 
leadership skills. How do you ensure that your unit is as ready 
as possible in a holistic sense? Is their equipment ready? Are 
they cohering as a unit? Is each member individually ready in 
all senses? And are they able to respect one another in a way 
that, when they are downrange, they are out there to protect 
each other and they have that sort of warrior culture of how 
they cohere as a unit? I think that is the kind of ethos that 
we are trying to build in to how they think about leadership.
    Mr. Gallagher. And as I think about this problem or set of 
problems, for me, at least, personally, probably the thorniest 
part or the hardest part to solve is just the issue of initial 
reporting. And I am struck by some of the statistics in our 
overall committee hearing about--I think in 2018, 20,000 cases 
in a survey, but only 8,000 of those were reported. I mean, 
that is a stunning discrepancy. And we could all have our own 
theory for why that is--a fear of retaliation, complexities 
within the particular command itself.
    I would just be curious as you think about how to get at 
that issue, creating an environment in which victims feel like 
they can report a crime safely. Are there any solutions that 
jump out to you?
    Dr. Hicks. Absolutely. And I think this is where, you know, 
Vanessa Guillen's case is so striking, that she was harassed 
and went to her mother and didn't feel she could tell, you 
know, without the consequences, clearly, someone else. We 
never, ever want that. That should never happen to another 
person in service.
    So several of the things I think we are doing, you know, 
thinking ahead to the implementation plan. The IRC team uses 
this phrase, ``no wrong door,'' which I think is so important, 
which is the idea that, no matter what base you are at, what 
facility, whatever door you walk in, whether it is the family 
services center, whether you are actually seeing a sexual 
assault and sexual harassment specialist/victim advocate, 
whether you are walking into the clinic, someone is there to 
listen to you and to talk to you and, if you will, intake that, 
again, from a public health perspective, is ready to talk to 
you.
    The second is the basic trust issue, which has been so at 
the center of the conversation around accountability, but back 
to command climate. This idea that there is a quality 
prevention workforce, that you have a command climate that is 
supportive of you, and that you have these resources and victim 
care. Those are sort of those other three lines of effort that 
we are really trying to emphasize.
    And I think, you know, there were some smaller things we 
are trying out already now, in terms of being able to move--you 
know, having the ability to choose a different unit, even 
potentially a different installation. There are efforts like 
that already underway that we are able to assess the degree to 
which they are successful and perhaps grow that use across the 
force.
    Mr. Gallagher. Thank you.
    I yield my 5 seconds back.
    Ms. Speier. I thank the ranking member.
    Our next speaker will be Mr. Kim for 5 minutes.
    You are recognized.
    Mr. Kim. Thank you, Chairwoman.
    And thank you, Secretary, for joining and having this 
opportunity to speak with us.
    The IRC recommends removing the commander from the 
prosecution of what they deem as special-victims crimes and 
referring special alleged crimes to a special-victims 
prosecutor or some kind of individual outside the chain of 
command who has a depth of expertise in sensitive crimes. My 
understanding is that this would include sexual assault but 
also include crimes based in relationship or the vulnerability 
of the victim, such as domestic abuse, child abuse, hate 
crimes, or hazing.
    So I wanted to ask you for additional information in terms 
of what was the IRC's rationale in terms of defining these 
particular categories.
    Dr. Hicks. I would really prefer, Congressman Kim, to defer 
to the IRC to describe its rationale.
    What I can say is that the Department of Defense's approach 
has seven articles related to sexual misconduct or retaliation 
and sexual harassment in the UCMJ reforms that we recommend.
    Mr. Kim. Well, let's look at those seven, then, that you 
are talking about there. I guess a question I am having is, you 
know, kind of building off of what the chairwoman said in her 
opening remarks about what is it that we understand about this 
particular problem set, but also how does this help us 
understand potential other reforms or changes that we should be 
considering.
    So I guess my question to you is, with those seven 
categories that you talked about, is there any reason that this 
approach that you are discussing and presenting would not be 
useful or successful for other crimes, including felony crimes, 
as the chairwoman stated? Is that something that you think 
would also provide a roadmap for how we address those other 
types of crimes?
    Dr. Hicks. We took a problem-centric approach to this issue 
and began with the problem scope around sexual harassment, 
sexual assault, and related sexual misconduct. And I think what 
we did here is a very good model for how we should approach 
other major challenges, particularly people challenges, but any 
challenges in the Department.
    We obviously brought in outside experts, we have had a very 
evidence-based approach, and we engaged stakeholders throughout 
the Department. And, at the end of the day, we were able to 
bring to a leadership decision from the highest levels--the 
Secretary, the Chairman, brought the chiefs in, the service 
secretaries, et cetera. And we are dedicated to pushing change 
that moves fast and delivers for victims of sexual assault and 
sexual harassment and for the next generation of service 
members.
    So why do I explain all that? I think that is the approach 
you have to take, beginning with the problem and trying to 
identify for that problem, any of these complex problems, what 
moves the needle. And, you know, that is what we have promised 
to do here, is move the needle.
    I don't currently have evidence, as I do in this case, that 
there is a specific issue around trust of the commander that 
weighs in the balance. At the same time, we scoped this 
particular approach in our legislation understanding that good 
order and discipline, that faith and trust between commander 
and commanded is absolutely vital to military readiness.
    So we are trying to make sure we take an approach that 
reinforces that trust, that addresses a specific problem in an 
evidence-based way, and that we can implement to deliver real 
changes in a system that needs this change to deliver for 
sexual assault and sexual harassment victims.
    That, to me, is the way we should address any other types 
of challenges, whether it is about military justice or anything 
else in the Department.
    Mr. Kim. Well, I appreciate that. And I do have to say, I 
admire the approach that was taken and the thoughtfulness and, 
you know, the intensity and focus with which you approach this.
    So I guess my question there is, you know, we have had 
Members of Congress and others raise concerns about other types 
of crimes. Is the DOD currently planning, either now or down 
the road, to have an IRC-type review on handling other felony-
level crimes?
    Dr. Hicks. We don't currently have that. We are happy to 
work with Congress to pursue that. I certainly have no 
objection to looking at that issue down the line, but that has 
not been something that has been raised either by Congress or 
others, GAO. I have looked through all GAO--et cetera. That has 
not come up yet, but we are happy to pursue that.
    And I think the key is to frame the problem question right 
so we are as responsive as possible to what the question is.
    Mr. Kim. Well, I appreciate it.
    I yield back, Chairwoman.
    Ms. Speier. The gentleman yields.
    Deputy Secretary, you are aware, of course, that many other 
countries have included nonmilitary felonies and it has not 
impacted good order and discipline or unit cohesion, including 
the U.K. [United Kingdom], Canada, Germany, Israel, correct?
    Dr. Hicks. I am aware that other systems use that approach. 
I am not--could not say to you today what the outcome-based 
view is from military justice experts on those outcomes. 
Without prejudice, I say that.
    Ms. Speier. All right.
    Now, Mrs. McClain, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
    I don't see you on the screen. Are you with us?
    Well, we will come back to you.
    Mr. Jackson, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Dr. Jackson. Thank you, Chairwoman Speier and Ranking 
Member Gallagher, for having this hearing today.
    I also want to thank Dr. Hicks for being here.
    From my time in the military, I know that it is possible 
for there to be a gap that exists between senior leaders, what 
they believe is happening under their commands, and what junior 
enlisted service members are actually experiencing. While this 
is not exclusive to any one aspect of the military, that 
disconnect can be highlighted when we discuss sexual assault 
and other special-victims crimes.
    We come here each week to discuss modernization efforts and 
ways to improve readiness, but the most important thing we do 
is to take care of the service members. So, again, I do 
appreciate the chairwoman holding this hearing today.
    Thank you, ma'am.
    As a husband, a father, and a retired flag officer, I 
firmly believe that even one instance of sexual assault is far 
too many. While we work together on a bipartisan basis to find 
solutions, I want to ensure that it is not lost on us that we 
have commanders in our military who do things the right way and 
lead courageously to address these issues.
    I believe that it is important that a commander is engaged 
in all aspects of his or her unit so that he or she has the 
entire picture when making decisions. Making informed decisions 
is a key component of being a leader.
    By relegating commanders to a lesser role in military 
justice, I feel it could undermine the foundation of a unit. 
Commanders would have all the accountability for crimes 
committed in their unit but would not have the authority to 
fully discipline certain conduct.
    Dr. Hicks, I have concerns that, by removing the 
prosecution of these crimes from the chain of command, that we 
will inadvertently reduce the overall effectiveness of a 
commander. Do you share these concerns? And, if so, why? And, 
if not, why not?
    Dr. Hicks. Congressman Jackson, I think the way I would 
frame this from our perspective, having looked so hard at 
exactly this issue, is: We have identified in this class, this 
category of cases, a very specific concern, evidenced concern, 
around trust in command, and we believe that the price we are 
paying for that lack of trust is not acceptable.
    We do have concerns about ensuring, as I have said before 
here, that the quality of readiness, that quality of connection 
between commander and commanded is retained. So we don't just 
simply take something out of the chain of command. That is 
looking past, I think, the whole of what we are trying to do 
here.
    What we are trying to do is build trust in the system, 
build tools--build tools for victims, build tools in the 
prevention force, but build tools for commanders so that they 
are in a stronger position to stay connected even as we make 
this class of cases, if you will, this class of offenses, 
something that is pulled out, which is a best-in-class practice 
in the civilian sector, to have this set of sexual-misconduct 
efforts be a separate prosecutorial approach. So we are 
following best practice, we think, there.
    Dr. Jackson. Yes, ma'am. Thank you. I agree that what we 
are doing now is not working, so I thank you.
    There are many factors that are involved when looking at 
any given case. Dr. Hicks, once again--I would just ask one 
more question. What percentage of substantiated cases are not 
prosecuted due to issues with evidence or reluctance from the 
victim? And how did the Independent Review Commission's 
recommendations or changes to the UCMJ address these 
fundamental issues?
    Dr. Hicks. Congressman, I would have to take that for the 
record. I don't have that data in front of me. And the IRC may 
have better data in their panel.
    [The information referred to was not available at the time 
of printing.]
    Dr. Jackson. Okay. Thank you, ma'am.
    Dr. Hicks. Thank you.
    Dr. Jackson. I appreciate that.
    Thank you for your thoughtful response. I take this issue 
very seriously, but I do want to ensure that we look at all of 
the implications as we move forward on this year's NDAA 
[National Defense Authorization Act]. I look forward to working 
with you and my colleagues here on the committee and the 
subcommittee to take care of the men and women who are serving 
our country.
    And, with that, Madam Chair, I yield back. Thank you.
    Ms. Speier. The gentleman yields back.
    The gentlelady from Texas is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Escobar. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    And thank you so much, Dr. Hicks, for your testimony and 
for your work on this issue.
    I represent El Paso, Texas, which is home to Fort Bliss, 
one of the installations listed, one of the installations of 
concern.
    And one of the things that I would like to share with my 
colleagues and with you, as I have learned more about this 
issue, especially with what has transpired at the military 
installation that I have the incredible privilege of 
representing, is that sexual assault frequently is not isolated 
in its impact and it is frequently not the only thing that is 
occurring around that woman--because most frequently it is a 
woman who is assaulted, although obviously men are as well--but 
what I have found is that there are other facets of this--
suicide, drug use, alcohol use, harassment, all sorts of other 
components.
    Which is why I feel very strongly that, in terms of 
removing felonies from the chain of command and putting them 
outside of the chain, that addresses and acknowledges the 
complexity around the kind of criminal activity that leads to 
or includes sexual assault.
    So I wanted to share that with you and with my colleagues 
just so that you know the lens through which I am looking at 
much of this. And it has been shaped by what has happened at 
Fort Bliss.
    I am very curious--I would like to learn more about the 
deeper dive that you were talking about with the onsite 
installation process. What is the general timeline for that? 
What are you all looking at? What are the parameters for 
review? When you do have the final results of that deeper dive, 
when can Congress expect to see it, especially those of us who 
represent installations that are in the top five?
    So I would love to hear from you on those details.
    Dr. Hicks. Great. Thank you very much.
    I do want to point out that our legislation does include 
very high overlap areas, like domestic violence, which is a 
huge one, harassment, et cetera. So I just don't want it to be 
thought that we have scoped it so narrowly that those 
continuum-of-harm issues are outside our scope.
    On the onsite installation process, as I said, it is 
underway now. We would be happy to come back, even in the fall 
timeframe, to give you a sense of what the--because those teams 
will be through their initial first drive through that first 
set by end of summer, roughly. So we would be able to come back 
in the fall and provide information on that process, what was 
used for evaluation and what the findings were.
    I will say the way--I think you asked me the way we will 
use it going forward. And the idea here is, of course, that we 
can target--if we understand what is working well at certain 
installations, we can learn things. Where we have the 
installations where there is a problem or maybe there is a unit 
on the installation where there is a problem, we could start to 
target resources there.
    When you look across the whole of what we are trying to do 
here to counter sexual assault and sexual harassment and 
related crimes, it will be very resource- and leadership-
intensive. So the more we can understand where to target those 
resources, that will really help us, and exactly how to do it.
    So that is around the type of prevention resources that are 
there, what is in the civilian sector, maybe outside, off-
installation, what are those capacities and capabilities that 
we could liaise with, better leverage. You know, anything on 
command climate and those areas, those are the types of things 
we are looking for.
    Ms. Escobar. And, speaking to the command climate, 
obviously there are changes in command that have happened. Will 
the deeper dive take a look at a predecessor, for example, and 
what happened under a predecessor, what changes have been made 
currently? Or is it just a deeper dive into what is happening 
there currently?
    Dr. Hicks. It will be able to assess all the dynamics, 
including things that may have happened in the past that shape 
the current environment. So that would certainly be something 
they would take into account.
    Ms. Escobar. Okay. And it would--the deeper dive would 
include a broad look at all of the continuum of harm, as you 
described it?
    Dr. Hicks. That is exactly right.
    Ms. Escobar. Okay.
    Dr. Hicks. That is exactly right.
    Ms. Escobar. All right. Thank you so much.
    Dr. Hicks. Absolutely.
    Ms. Escobar. I look forward to the results and the 
information that comes from that deeper dive, especially as it 
pertains to Fort Bliss.
    Madam Chair, I yield back.
    Ms. Speier. The gentlelady yields back.
    Dr. Hicks, I won't ask you to comment on this, but I would 
just like you to file this away.
    When Vanessa Guillen's murder took place at Fort Hood, the 
inspector general went down within a short period of time, came 
back, and reported that everything was just fine. And it was 
then-Secretary Ryan [McCarthy], who stood up this independent 
review committee, who then went down and, in the course of a 
very few months and really not a high expense of money, was 
able to come back with a really robust and comprehensive 
review.
    I am just concerned that the independence that we saw in 
the Fort Hood review may be lost by having persons within the 
military doing this special review of these various 
installations. So we can talk further about that later.
    We will now hear from Mr. Fallon, who is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Fallon. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    And thank you, Dr. Hicks.
    So, just full disclosure, having been a military member--
not an admiral, but--I initially was hesitant to remove 
prosecutorial authority from the chain of command, but, as 
admiral and doctor and Congressman Ronny Jackson was saying, 
what we are doing now is not working.
    So I have a few questions. The Independent Review 
Commission was stood up for about--was it roughly 4 months? Is 
that accurate?
    Dr. Hicks. Ninety days.
    Mr. Fallon. Okay, so 3 months--to assess the sexual assault 
issue in the military. And their findings came back, and they 
wanted to remove sexual assault cases from the chain of 
command, but also--and correct me if I am mistaken here--but 
also domestic violence, distribution of intimate images, 
stalking, child abuse, and retaliation. Is that accurate?
    Dr. Hicks. Yes, that is accurate.
    Mr. Fallon. Do you know why they included those other 
issues?
    Dr. Hicks. We do as well, Congressman. They are related 
crimes. It is considered a continuum of harm. And there is an 
ability in the science and in the social science to be able to 
see how they connect and lead up to actual sexual assault.
    Mr. Fallon. Okay.
    And so, after the 90 days, you recommended that, but 
recommended that all other felonies stay in the chain of 
command.
    Dr. Hicks. We did not make any recommendations other than 
inside sexual assault and----
    Mr. Fallon. Right.
    Dr. Hicks [continuing]. Sexual harassment.
    Mr. Fallon. So you didn't touch the other felonies.
    Dr. Hicks. We did not touch that.
    Mr. Fallon. So that would be status quo, and that would 
remain in the command of command----
    Dr. Hicks. Correct.
    Mr. Fallon [continuing]. If your recommendations were 
followed.
    Dr. Hicks. Correct.
    Mr. Fallon. Okay.
    So are you aware that there was no studies done that were--
no serious discussions about the impact of moving all felonies? 
Because there are some folks in Congress that want to remove 
all felonies from the chain of command.
    Dr. Hicks. Yeah, I am aware of one study that is the result 
of an NDAA direction, which I have somewhere here, but I am 
only aware of one that the Department or Department-related 
bodies have been asked to undertake. That particular study did 
not recommend moving forward. But that is the only study I am 
aware of.
    Mr. Fallon. Because, if I recall correctly, Secretary 
Austin also wanted a narrow scope, as far as removing the 
felonies from the chain of command?
    Dr. Hicks. That is correct.
    Mr. Fallon. And so, if there was--if we were going to vote 
on something like that, like removing all felonies, how long 
would that take to properly study the impact that that could 
have on the military?
    Dr. Hicks. I couldn't give you an exact timeline. But I 
think if the Congress directed further study from the 
Department--you probably want some outside experts to study it 
as well, but from the Department, we would undertake to do that 
as quickly as Congress asked us to do it. But I would think we 
would probably need 6 months.
    Mr. Fallon. Okay. Yeah, because I seem to recall that some 
of the--on offline conversations, it was 6 months, a year, 
something like that. So I think any kind of vote on something 
of that magnitude would be premature until you all could come 
back with us with that information to give us the best ability 
to make the correct decisions moving forward.
    So thank you very much.
    And, Madam Chair, I yield back.
    Ms. Speier. The gentleman yields back.
    The gentlewoman from Pennsylvania, Ms. Houlahan, is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Houlahan. Thank you, Madam Chair. I am just confirming 
that you can hear me?
    Ms. Speier. We can. You are very loud, actually.
    Ms. Houlahan. Okay. Then I will try and lower it a little 
bit.
    My first question has to do with a followup from 
Representative Escobar.
    You talked a little bit about the timeframe for 
implementation after you develop your roadmap. But I have a 
little bit of a question regarding the fact that, as we all 
know, there are a lot of positions in the DOD and in the Office 
of the Secretary of Defense that are political appointee 
positions. So are you planning on having also a recommendation 
or a process for continuity of implementation for the DOD 
beyond potentially this current administration, were that to be 
a reality?
    Dr. Hicks. Yes, Congresswoman, in particular, with the 
prevention workforce, which is where I think we will end up 
finding--we are still doing the analysis now, but where we will 
end up finding, there and in the victim care, the most need for 
dedicated personnel.
    I would anticipate that change from today to that future 
will look like career civilian--a lot more career civilian 
framing than either a transitory political appointee or even 
necessarily more use of military personnel. So that is where I 
think you would find the enduring connection with the 
recommendations.
    Ms. Houlahan. Thanks. And I would encourage that we think 
about that. From my experience, having been a member of the 
service myself and also growing up in the military, there is 
quite a lot of rotation and churn and burn not just within the 
administration-appointed positions but in other positions as 
well. So making sure that we think about that is important.
    For you as well, my other question has to do with the most 
recent question which proceeded me, which had to do with a 
timeline were we to look into bringing everything under the 
umbrella of this piece of legislation or this vote. And you 
mentioned that something 6 months to a year might be the 
timeline.
    Can you comment on why, if it could be, in fact, done in 6 
months to a year, the fact that this particular sexual assault 
and other ancillary and related crimes took the better part of 
a decade to be able to understand the data around? And why 
should this be any different?
    Dr. Hicks. Yeah. Thank you so much for that.
    I think the major difference, I have to say, is leadership 
and direction. As I tried to make clear, it really did take 
leadership from Congress in a bipartisan way, quite frankly, 
alongside, of course, direction from the President of the 
United States and the Secretary of Defense.
    That is a tremendous amount of, you know, positive momentum 
to the system. And I think you would want to see something like 
that in order to move as quickly and as decisively.
    We won't be done when legislation is done in this case. We 
have a lot of work to do to make sure that leadership at every 
level of the Department is actually moving forward and putting 
in the time and resources, investing in the future of this 
prevention and climate and culture and accountability and 
victim-care framework.
    We would expect the same thing would have to happen, I 
think--if we wanted to move on a fast timeline elsewhere, we 
would need that same leadership.
    I will say one thing I said before but I feel it bears 
repeating: The problem has to be well-defined as well. And 
here, in sexual assault and sexual harassment, the problem is 
very well-defined. We have spent many years, as you pointed 
out, with many studies on it, and we have a lot of data. So 
that helps jump-start everything. And the better and more 
clearly we can define the problem we are solving, I think that 
will help propel, give us some added momentum to move quickly.
    Ms. Houlahan. My final question relates to that. And if you 
could share--aside from the fact that you feel as though you 
might need better problem-set definition or more time, can you 
share with the panel any other opposition that the DOD has to 
the Vanessa Guillen Military Justice Improvement and Increasing 
Prevention Act that we could appreciate and understand?
    Dr. Hicks. Congresswoman, I can't speak specifically to 
that piece of legislation.
    If the question is around the scope of the set of offenses 
that would move outside the chain of command--which is, at 
once, a very large issue and, at the same time, not really 
related to the sexual assault/sexual harassment scope that we 
are trying to push--I think the biggest challenge we face is 
making sure we can effectuate positive change on sexual assault 
and sexual harassment in a timely manner that builds faith back 
into the system.
    When we have made this scoping recommendation, we are 
thinking ahead to how we effectively execute on this in order 
to show results and to build trust. So we----
    Ms. Houlahan. Okay.
    Dr. Hicks [continuing]. Do have a concern that, at once, we 
are trying----
    Ms. Houlahan. Thank you.
    Dr. Hicks [continuing]. To accomplish this important goal 
on sexual assault and sexual harassment, we would be swamping 
it and diffusing our efforts with other goals.
    Ms. Houlahan. Thank you. I am afraid I have run out of 
time.
    I yield back.
    Ms. Speier. The gentlewoman's time has expired.
    The gentlewoman from Oklahoma, Mrs. Bice, is recognized for 
5 minutes.
    Mrs. Bice. Well, first, thank you, Madam Chair, for holding 
this very important hearing.
    And, Deputy Secretary Hicks, thank you for being here 
today.
    One of the findings in the IRC's report was that many 
female service members report being treated differently than 
their male counterparts and that some female service members 
described being the subject of regular sexist comments.
    The report noted that less than 18 percent of the total 
workforce is female. The question I have for you is, are we 
doing enough to address the retention and recruitment of women 
into the service? And if not, how are we going to address that 
moving forward?
    Dr. Hicks. Congresswoman, we are not doing enough to 
address recruitment and retention of women in the workforce. We 
know that women are an increasing percent of the Nation's 
overall workforce. We know that, as we look ahead to the next 
5, 10, 15 years, in order to get the high-quality force, both 
civilian and military, we rely upon, we have to be able to tap, 
really, all segments of American society effectively to do 
that.
    We have underway a diversity, equity, and inclusion set of 
efforts that are run through bringing in all the service--
uniformed military and civilian--leadership, the Deputy's 
Workforce Council that I chair alongside the Joint Staff 
counterpart, the Vice Chairman. And that is one of the areas we 
are looking very closely at.
    We are looking at everything from what our incentive 
structures are, how we move people through the system, if you 
will, in terms of promotions, how we think about the different 
pathways to promotion but also the unit types that are most 
likely to be promoted and making sure we can get more women and 
other representatives of a diverse Nation into those portions 
of the workforce.
    So that is work that is ongoing. It builds on work that was 
done in the last administration on the same basic pathway. So 
we try to emphasize all the time that it is a nonpartisan 
approach. It is simply smart business to make sure you can get 
that workforce you need for the future.
    Mrs. Bice. A followup. How do you ensure, though, that 
women that are joining our military feel valued and respected 
and included, given the circumstances that surround sexual 
harassment and sexual assault?
    I think it is a detriment, to many women, for consideration 
of the military, because they do not feel that this issue has 
been addressed effectively.
    Dr. Hicks. Yes. So I think this gets back to what is the 
kind of ethos--what is that warrior ethos that we are 
instilling in the military. And a lot of the work around 
command climate that we are focused on with regard to sexual 
violence bears out in terms of how you look holistically at the 
force, including women in service. And that is to say that, you 
know, leadership and command is about creating cohesion in your 
unit. It is about valuing and respecting the membership of 
those units. It is not about denigrating any particular type of 
person, such as women, in your unit.
    That is something the Commandant of the Marine Corps has 
spoken very, I think, eloquently on, on this idea of 
subcultures of denigration. And that is the type of--we need to 
counter that with command-climate-focused approaches that make 
clear that, to succeed in our military, you have to actually 
build up your force, not tear it down.
    Mrs. Bice. Thank you. Thank you for your testimony today.
    Madam Chair, I yield back.
    Ms. Speier. The gentlewoman yields back.
    The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Veasey, is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Veasey. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    I want to really--I think it is very important that we are 
doing these panels and talking about this today. Obviously, 
this is a topic that I think most of the country really thinks 
is important, that we finally get to the bottom of addressing 
this.
    It was amazing when we took our CODEL [congressional 
delegation] to Fort Hood and listened to so many female 
soldiers and other soldiers talk about just how important it 
was for their voices to finally, you know, start to be heard on 
these issues and how it was really critical for them to finally 
start to see change. And that is one of the reasons why I am 
very supportive of the Vanessa Guillen Military Justice 
Improvement and Increasing Prevention Act.
    I know that there have been some concerns that some people 
have talked and expressed to you about separating the cases, 
and so I wanted to specifically ask you about that.
    What are your thoughts on how to make sure that we don't 
stigmatize sexual assault further by pulling it into a separate 
category based on the IRC recommendations?
    Dr. Hicks. Thank you, Congressman. And I have also been 
down to Fort Hood, and your comments really resonate with me.
    The approach that we are taking is similar to the best-in-
class approach taken in the civilian sector, where there are 
special prosecutors who are--you know, they specialize in 
sexual misconduct, sexual assault, sexual harassment, sexual 
misconduct, because that is the way to deliver the best quality 
outcome.
    That is the model that we followed. So it is just that--you 
know, that is a different way of looking at the problem than a 
holistic rewrite of the approach to military justice for 
felonies.
    I think that approach helps us best on countering sexual 
assault and sexual harassment and related crimes quickly and 
effectively, and we will deliver real outcomes that grow trust 
in that military justice system overall at the same time that 
we are working on these other elements, these other lines of 
effort that are relevant to that problem.
    Mr. Veasey. So, in addition to tackling the issue of sexual 
assault in the military, I know that another area that we heard 
from service members, too, was around issues around race and 
discrimination.
    Black and Hispanic service members are far more likely than 
White members to be tried in general and special court-martials 
in all military services, even when controlling for attributes 
such as rank and education. This is across every military 
service.
    I wanted to ask you, taking in the recommendations from 
this report, can DOD utilize these recommendations to help in 
these areas? And could this help with the potential disparity 
within race in the military justice system? And are there other 
areas where we can use these recommendations?
    Dr. Hicks. My answer is, I don't know.
    Mr. Veasey. Uh-huh.
    Dr. Hicks. I think the problem set is an important one, 
that you are citing the GAO study that speaks very--well, first 
of all, one of their first findings is the data isn't good. So 
the Department has a challenge to get better data that links 
race and outcomes in the military justice system.
    But even getting beyond the data question and taking the 
GAO data, where we have it, what GAO points to is they don't--
there is no assessment yet on why that is the outcome. What 
they point to is that there may be points in the process that 
are leading to this, but they don't come to any findings on 
what those are.
    So the answer is, I think we would have to do that work. We 
should do that work. We owe it to those members in uniform, 
especially if there is, in fact, proven out through the data, 
racial disparity in the military justice system. I think we 
need to take that problem-centric approach, get the experts 
involved, look at the data. It doesn't need to take 10 years. 
We need to get after that problem, with leadership at the top.
    But whether it gets you to the same kind of solutions, I 
have no way to know that. I don't think it is an issue we just 
tack on to sexual assault and sexual harassment. I think it is 
an issue that deserves to be understood in its fullness. And I 
just don't have those answers today.
    Mr. Veasey. Okay. Yeah, no, I appreciate your candor on 
that.
    Madam Chair, I yield back.
    Ms. Speier. The gentleman yields back.
    The gentlewoman from California, Ms. Jacobs, is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Jacobs. Well, thank you, Madam Chair.
    And good to see you, Deputy Secretary. And, most 
importantly, nice to be able to call you ``Deputy Secretary.''
    I want to thank you and Secretary Austin for all of the 
work you are doing on this issue.
    I represent a huge military community, and I talk to 
families all the time who are concerned about their family 
members. And yet I also have some concern that, outside of your 
office and the Secretary and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, we have 
heard from military leadership who kind of make clear that they 
don't support this kind of systemic reform.
    And so, even if we implement all of the recommendations in 
some capacity, what concrete steps will you take to ensure 
compliance and widespread support of the changes within the 
leadership and then through the chain of command?
    Dr. Hicks. First of all, it is nice to see you too, 
Congresswoman, and nice to call you that.
    I have concerns, I have significant concerns about our 
ability to drive this kind of change. The administration, you 
know, has, potentially, you know, short periods of time here to 
make these changes happen. It is going to take a lot of effort.
    But what I think you can count on is, the President and the 
Secretary and I are here, and we are here to put in that 
effort, and we will work closely with those throughout the 
Department.
    We have had good conversations already at the senior-most 
levels, including the uniformed levels, of the Department. 
There is certainly an understanding that this is the direction 
we are going in. The Secretary has been very clear in his 
direction to the Department.
    A couple of specific things I would point to. We put in 
what I called this fail-safe approach, which is that, even 
though the military departments in our legislative proposal 
would be directed to have these special prosecutors working 
directly to the service secretaries, we also have this fail 
safe to pull that back to OSD, which was the IRC's original 
recommendation, should that be deemed necessary by the 
Secretary.
    So that is a very clear sword of Damocles, if you will, 
hanging over those military departments to ensure--they would 
far prefer to have it moving on the military department level, 
so we think that is a good incentive for them to get it right.
    And I think the big concern we have seen in the Department 
since we have come to the Secretary's direction in early July 
is concern around resources and implementation timelines. And 
that is where I have my homework to do by the end of summer for 
the Secretary, to really lay out what that looks like, and then 
to come back to Congress in the early fall with any requests 
that we have around resources.
    Ms. Jacobs. Well, thank you. And please do let us know what 
we can do to help make sure that all these things get 
implemented.
    I wanted to follow up on something my colleagues talked 
about earlier around underreporting of sexual assault. Despite 
all of the efforts that have been made to foster a culture of 
trust, which you note is key to enabling victims to come 
forward, a RAND study showed that 1 in 4 Active Duty women 
reported experiencing sexual harassment but the Department only 
received 1,781 reports.
    So, while sweeping reforms are necessary, I wanted to know 
what work you will do to make sure that, as those reforms are 
taking place, they are communicated clearly in order to foster 
greater confidence in any new reporting systems.
    Dr. Hicks. I will share an anecdote that the IRC has in its 
own report. I hope I am not stealing their thunder, but they 
give an example of where prevention--you know, one example they 
saw was considered to be a good expenditure of resources on 
prevention was water bottles with a phone number on it. Or you 
can pick your favorite example like that.
    It takes a lot more than that, to your point, to actually 
create that trust in the system to ensure folks know where they 
are supposed to go. It is a lot of training, and it is that--I 
just will say one thing--it is that high-quality prevention 
workforce.
    If there is one thing, I think, that I really took away 
from my visits to Fort Hood, my meetings with the Guillen 
family, and other like endeavors of reading the Fort Hood 
report, it is the importance of that prevention--having that 
professional, specialized prevention workforce.
    So I think that is a lot of what we can do to ensure folks 
actually feel comfortable reporting, they know where to report, 
and if they are a little wrong about where to report, they are 
still going to get the outcome, they are still going to get 
response.
    Ms. Jacobs. Thank you.
    And my time is running short, so I will send the actual 
question for the record, but just wanted to note that, you 
know, it has been over a decade since Don't Ask, Don't Tell was 
repealed, and yet I hear all the time from LGBTQ+ [lesbian, 
gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and other] members of the 
military who continue to face unparalleled levels of 
harassment. And so, just want to make sure that that issue 
doesn't get lost as we focus so rightly on the women in the 
force as well.
    Madam Chair, I yield back.
    Ms. Speier. The gentlewoman's time has expired, and she 
yields.
    To underscore that point, a recent RAND study, as I am sure 
you are aware, Dr. Hicks, indicates that 40 percent of the 
victims of sexual assault are LGBTQ members. So it is an area 
we need to spend a lot of time on.
    We will now have the gentleman from Maryland--is Ms. 
Strickland--has she returned?
    Ms. Strickland. I am here.
    Ms. Speier. We can't see you.
    There you are. We can see you now.
    All right. The gentlewoman from Washington is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Strickland. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Deputy Secretary Hicks, an issue that has been identified 
in a series of reports, including the IRC report, is the 
problems with data collection across the services when it comes 
to identifying racial disparities in the administration of 
military justice.
    The IRC reportedly said--said it clearly: Racial 
disparities in the military justice system are inherently tied 
to sexual harassment and sexual assault.
    Given that this problem is across all the services, can you 
describe how the Department is working to standardize data 
collection so that we get a complete picture on the scope of 
the problem?
    Dr. Hicks. Congresswoman, I would owe you a fuller response 
for the record. What I would say is, to your very point, it was 
made clear in the GAO reporting that data collection is a major 
challenge and that we owe greater accountability around that.
    It is my understanding that, beginning late last year, we 
have begun stronger data collection, but I want to give you a 
fuller response to that.
    [The information referred to was not available at the time 
of printing.]
    Ms. Strickland. All right. Thank you.
    And then one other question I have as well. 
Underrepresented groups are especially vulnerable to sexual 
assault and harassment, potentially because of harmful effects 
of attitudes on gender, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, 
and gender identity.
    Lesbian, gay, and bisexual service members are much more 
likely to be sexually assaulted than their heterosexual peers. 
And racial and ethnic minority women may experience both racial 
harassment and gender-based violence simultaneously, perhaps 
making it more difficult to detect or report.
    This indicates that we have a lot of work to do to ensure 
that we have a force that is inclusive and a command climate 
that maintains good order and good discipline.
    Could you please talk more about why having an inclusive 
force is important for maintaining readiness [inaudible]? And 
for the second part of that question, tell me how the 
Department is planning to address these harmful beliefs.
    Dr. Hicks. Certainly, Congresswoman.
    I really appreciate the several of you culminating here who 
have raised this issue that those who are affected by sexual 
harassment, sexual assault, first of all, are not just women, 
and, second of all, the disproportionate percent who are 
LGBTQ+--representative of LG--I can't do it again, I am sorry--
LGBTQ+ community.
    So I think one of the key things we are doing in terms of 
inclusion, really, is this diversity, equity, and inclusion 
initiative set that we have underway for the Deputy's Workforce 
Council that I chair. And that is, itself, a whole set of 
initiatives looking significantly around training and 
education, around recruitment and retention.
    And promotion is a significant piece of that. We see major 
drop-off in non-White-male populations as we move up through--
particularly, obviously, in the general and flag officer ranks, 
but even as we move up through the senior NCO ranks and then in 
the officer ranks as you move up. So we are trying to get after 
how to change some of those dynamics.
    And, by the way, that is controlling for factors. I just 
want to make that clear. That is controlling for all kinds of 
factors, so you can really start to see that it really does 
appear to be a distinguisher only with regard to somebody's 
ethnic or racial background or gender.
    So we are looking at those issues at the same time that we 
are looking through the prism of sexual harassment, sexual 
assault, looking at the set of prevention and climate and 
victim-care approaches that we think can raise the boats, if 
you will, for many other issues--all the ones you have just 
mentioned, but I will also say regarding self-harm, so things 
like suicide and other outcomes, violence outcomes, that occur 
to people who are in these underrepresented communities.
    Ms. Strickland. Right. Well, thank you very much for that. 
And we know that sexual assault is often about power and 
control, and some of the disparities we see with regard to race 
is often conscious or unconscious bias.
    So thank you so much for your thoughtful answers, and thank 
you for taking accountability for this.
    Madam Chair, I yield back.
    Ms. Speier. The gentlewoman yields back.
    The gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Brown, is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Brown. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I thank the 
committee for allowing me to waive on for the purpose of this 
hearing.
    Good afternoon, Dr. Hicks.
    Madam Chair, first, I ask for unanimous consent to enter 
two items into the record. I think committee staff should have 
them. One is a 1952 article regarding military opposition to 
desegregation of the Armed Forces. And the other is a 1972 
report from President Nixon's task force on racial disparities 
in the military.
    Ms. Speier. Without objection, so ordered.
    [The 1952 article can be found in the Appendix on page 77.]
    [The 1972 task force report is retained in subcommittee 
files.]
    Mr. Brown. Thank you.
    Dr. Hicks, under the Vanessa Guillen Act that has been 
introduced--and let me preface by saying, you know, I have 
served as a commander in the Army at two levels. I served as a 
JAG [Judge Advocate General's Corps]. I have advised commanders 
with court-martial convening authority. I understand the 
importance of the punitive articles and the procedures, 
nonjudicial punishment, in the Uniform Code of Military Justice 
as an important tool to maintain good order and discipline.
    In this Act, the commanders retain the authority to issue 
nonjudicial punishment; they retain authority over military-
specific crimes--dereliction of duty, AWOL [absent without 
leave], malingering, insubordination, the list goes on--and 
they also retain the ability to refer charges to special court-
martial--for example, simple assault, right? The dining 
facility fight.
    Can you explain the Department's thinking, why those are 
not sufficient tools to maintain good order and discipline for 
a commander?
    Dr. Hicks. Congressman Brown, we have not looked--as I 
said, we have not looked at this issue set. We looked very 
broadly and then very deeply on sexual assault and sexual 
harassment. We have not taken on, and there aren't studies 
other than the one I mentioned that the Department or 
Department-related bodies have done, looking at what it would 
take or what the implications would be.
    What I will tell you is, our focus right now, as I sit 
before you right now, is making sure we get it right on the 
sexual harassment, sexual assault, and related crimes----
    Mr. Brown. Then let me ask you a followup on that.
    Dr. Hicks. Yep. Please do.
    Mr. Brown. And I appreciate that.
    So the DOD, the Department's proposal for reform only 
partially implements the recommendations of the IRC. Notably--
and correct me if I am wrong--notably, the Department only 
establishes one of the recommended three special-victims 
categories. I think one of them is, which the Department 
accepts, are the specified offenses, but does not accept the 
trait of victim, category number two, and category number three 
is intent of offender.
    Now, you have acknowledged and the Department has 
acknowledged the complexity of these cases, the need to follow 
best practices, special-victims units, which we see in DAs' 
[district attorneys'] offices around the country. And they do 
that so they can take on all three categories as recommended by 
the IRC. The IRC also recommended that there be judge-ordered 
military protective orders.
    So I guess my question is: The Department, after, you know, 
decades, has resisted change. I think a 60-day or 90-day review 
by the IRC--very comprehensive, very capable and knowledgeable 
people. They have come back with robust recommendations to 
address sexual assault. Why is the Department not accepting 
their recommendations in their entirety?
    Dr. Hicks. The Department is looking ahead not just at the 
legal piece of this but at the change implementation and 
management side of it. And, in doing that, in weighing the 
advice inside the Department, outside experts like the IRC, the 
approach really is this balance of how do we implement change 
that has real effect quickly, meaningfully, and that can 
withstand challenge.
    I am sure you know, the UCMJ--changes to the UCMJ are 
frequently challenged in court. We saw the Australians, when 
they moved to an outside system, that actually was thrown out 
by the Australian Supreme Court, and so they had to restart.
    Mr. Brown. But we also know that in----
    Dr. Hicks. So we are trying to shape the----
    Mr. Brown. Let me just say, in this country, the courts 
have deferred tremendously to both the executive branch and 
Congress in implementing the rules that regulate the Armed 
Forces. I mean, they really have.
    So I am just really concerned, because, for example, in 
that category two, trait of victim, you could have a scenario 
where you have intimate partners and where one partner is 
stealing from the other partner as a form of abuse. And I am 
not sure if just following category one, specified offenses, 
that that would qualify as an offense that would be now under 
this new system. So, yeah.
    Dr. Hicks. Congressman, I completely understand. The same 
thing will happen if you make a 1-year differentiation, so 
there----
    Mr. Brown. Well, the reason why I beg to differ, again, 
going to best practices--and if you would just indulge me, 
Madam Chair--you know, I do believe in best practices. And when 
you look at the best practices in U.S. Attorneys' offices and 
in DAs, they have felony divisions and they have misdemeanor 
divisions, and there is overlap in those divisions. Within 
felony divisions, you have special-victims units, and those 
special-victims units are much more comprehensive than what the 
Department is willing to accept from the IRC.
    You took members with a tremendous amount of experience, 
created an IRC, yet are coming back and only embracing a much 
narrow subset of what they are recommending. And that is on the 
special-victims piece, not the felony misdemeanor piece. So 
that is my concern. I have been hearing a lot about best 
practices, but yet I am not really hearing the adoption of best 
practices.
    And if I can just complete on this point, Madam Chair, I 
have heard a lot about solving the problem. For 10 years, we 
have brought this problem. Commanders have it, commanders have 
it, commanders have it. Finally, after a 90-day review, 
commanders didn't have it, we recognize. And why? It really 
comes down to a data set, that soldiers, sailors, airmen, 
Marines, and guardians don't trust commanders. That is the 
primary data set here, the lack of trust. And that is why we 
are taking it away from the commanders.
    I put into the record a 1972 study. What they found was a 
lack of trust, Black and Brown service members, in commanders. 
This issue has been around for a long time.
    The problem can be simplified. It is not a simple problem. 
It is an underprosecution of sexual assault and an 
overprosecution of Black and Brown people. We know the problem. 
There is a lack of trust between Black and Brown and commanders 
in the military justice system.
    And there is an opportunity to address that. Just like we 
believe removing from the commanders referral of charges, 
sexual assaults, to solve this lack-of-trust problem, we can do 
the same thing with a broader set of offenses, because--and I 
heard someone from the Department recently say, well, sexual 
assault, it is a pressing problem right now. And nobody will 
disagree with that. But the overprosecution of Black and Brown 
people in the military justice system, and when capital 
punishment was issued in the military justice system, 
overrepresentation of Black men being prosecuted and found 
guilty of capital punishment in the military, that is a 
pressing problem.
    And yet we have an opportunity here to begin addressing it. 
And what I haven't heard from the Department is, ``Well, we 
don't want to do the sweeping reform, but can you at least give 
us some more tools?'' And all I am hearing is, ``We will fix 
it.'' And that is what we have heard for 10 years for sexual 
assault.
    Thank you, Madam Chair. I yield back.
    Ms. Speier. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Dr. Hicks, we have a vote on, and I think we are going to 
conclude this part of the hearing. We want to thank you very 
much for the swift action with which you have undertaken the 
request by the Secretary and the President. And we are deeply 
indebted to you for the professionalism that you have shown and 
that the commission has shown as well.
    I am going to just ask you this question for the record, 
and then if you can respond to us.
    The prevention portion of the IRC's report calls for a 
major expansion of prevention workforce. And I would like to 
know what the timeline is to execute on that, how many people 
you are anticipating hiring, are they civilian, are they 
military, and what are their roles going to be. So if you could 
provide that to us for the record.
    [The information referred to was not available at the time 
of printing.]
    Ms. Speier. All right. And, with that, we will stand in 
recess for about an hour, because we have three votes.
    Thank you.
    [Recess.]
    Ms. Speier. The Military Personnel Subcommittee will return 
from its recess now, and we are going to welcome our second 
panel.
    We are joined by the chair of the Independent Review 
Commission on Sexual Assault in the Military, Ms. Lynn 
Rosenthal, welcome. Major General James Johnson, retired, also 
a member of the Independent Review Commission on Sexual Assault 
in the Military; Dr. Kyleanne Hunter, also a member of the 
Independent Review Commission; and Ms. Kristina Rose, another 
member of the commission; and Ms. Meghan Tokash, who is not in 
my notes here, but welcome as well.
    I understand you all have submitted a joint statement and 
Ms. Rosenthal will speak on behalf of the IRC.
    After Ms. Rosenthal's statement, each member will have an 
opportunity to question the witnesses for 5 minutes.
    We respectfully ask that witnesses summarize their 
testimony in 5 minutes. Your written comments and statements 
will be made part of the hearing record.
    And, with that, Ms. Rosenthal, we welcome you.

    STATEMENT OF LYNN ROSENTHAL, CHAIR, INDEPENDENT REVIEW 
 COMMISSION ON SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE MILITARY; ACCOMPANIED BY 
 COMMISSION MEMBERS MAJ GEN (RET.) JAMES JOHNSON, DR. KYLEANNE 
            HUNTER, KRISTINA ROSE, AND MEGHAN TOKASH

    Ms. Rosenthal. Thank you, Congresswoman, and thank you for 
your leadership over all these many years. Ranking Member 
Gallagher and other distinguished members of the subcommittee, 
thank you for the opportunity to present the findings and 
recommendations of the Independent Review Commission on Sexual 
Assault in the Military.
    I also want to recognize the leadership of Secretary Austin 
and Dr. Hicks and the service leaders who met with the IRC and 
shared their views.
    The IRC was comprised of 12 highly qualified experts from 
outside the Department of Defense, three of whom are with me 
today. Five of the IRC's members were former military 
commanders, and two served as judge advocates.
    As you know, the IRC made 82 recommendations across 4 lines 
of effort: accountability, prevention, climate and culture, and 
victim care and support. Because leadership is at the heart of 
military culture and unit climate, these recommendations target 
leaders at all levels.
    For decades, as you all know, service leaders have said 
that there is no tolerance for sexual harassment and that 
sexual assault has no place in our military. And yet, in the 
daily lives of service members, sexual harassment goes 
unchecked and sexual assault is poorly handled. This has 
resulted in broken trust between service members and 
commanders.
    This damaged trust has consequences for the military 
justice system, which the IRC found is ill-equipped to handle 
crimes like sexual assault. The current system puts legal 
decisions about these complex cases in the hands of commanders 
whose leadership is better suited to other aspects of sexual 
assault prevention and response.
    Sexual assault and related crimes can be retraumatizing for 
victims and create the perception of conflict of interest for 
commanders. They require greater specialization and sensitivity 
to the complex dynamics that are often present.
    For these reasons, the IRC has recommended shifting 
decisions about sexual assault and related criminal 
prosecutions to experienced special-victims prosecutors outside 
the chain of command. We recommend that these special-victim 
prosecutors have civilian oversight within the Department of 
Defense.
    The IRC emphasizes, however, that making changes to the 
military justice system alone will not reduce sexual assault. 
Investing in prevention, improving command climates, and 
enhancing victim care are equally necessary.
    The IRC's climate and culture experts identified outdated 
social and gender norms that contribute to a culture of 
hostility toward women, increasing the risk of sexual 
harassment and assault.
    We also found that the cyber domain can be as strong an 
influence on unit climate as real-time interactions and that 
leaders are poorly equipped to deal with this ever-changing 
environment.
    We have made a series of recommendations to improve unit 
climate, including better methods to select, develop, and 
evaluate leaders.
    The IRC found critical deficiencies throughout the 
workforce charged with responding to sexual harassment and 
assault. These deficiencies have multiple causes, including 
frequent rotations of service members in essential positions 
and underfunded mandates.
    This is particularly apparent in victim care, where there 
are thousands of collateral-duty victim advocates, many of whom 
are ``voluntold'' to serve as their unit's advocate in the off-
hours. This practice results in poor care for victims.
    In the military justice system, the lack of dedicated 
career tracks and billets for prosecutors, investigators, and 
special-victims counsel results in a critical lack of 
experience. One survivor told us that, over the course of her 
case, she had two different prosecution teams and four 
different special-victims counsel.
    These workforce deficiencies also extend to prevention. 
These activities, or prevention responsibilities, are often 
assigned to personnel who lack the capacity to design, 
implement, and evaluate science-based prevention initiatives. 
The military requires the resources to make long-term 
investments in a prevention workforce if we want to move the 
needle.
    It is also in the best interest of DOD and the services to 
learn more about the risk they take in recruiting members to 
the force. And this includes studying and piloting 
compatibility assessments.
    And, alarmingly, the IRC found critical failings in victim 
care and support. Every survivor that we interviewed told us 
that they regretted making a report, whether restricted or 
unrestricted. Nearly all the survivors who we heard from had 
contemplated or attempted suicide.
    Recommendations to improve victim care include: shifting 
sexual assault response coordinators out of the command 
structure, and victim advocates as well; largely eliminating 
collateral-duty victim advocates; and expanding access to 
behavioral health services. And we have a number of 
recommendations in that regard.
    Because of the IRC's urgent concern for victim safety and 
well-being, we recommend that this area be prioritized for 
immediate action.
    We also identified the related need to improve the response 
to domestic violence, which is inherently linked to sexual 
assault.
    The IRC recognizes that our report presents a challenging 
picture, but we believe that with leadership and resources, 
significant progress can and will be made.
    And I am joined by Meghan Tokash from our accountability 
line of effort, Ky Hunter from our climate and culture line of 
effort, and James Johnson from our prevention line of effort. 
And, as you noted, Kris Rose is also here with us today from 
the victim care and support. So we are happy to answer 
questions.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Rosenthal can be found in 
the Appendix on page 60.]
    Ms. Speier. Thank you, Ms. Rosenthal.
    I must say that, in reading this report, I was so impressed 
and clear that you all, in a very short period of time, got it. 
And it is just reassuring to those of us who have been working 
in this issue area for so long that we weren't going crazy, 
that, in fact, there were those professionals who could come in 
and look at the problem and recognize the issues.
    Let me start by asking you this, Chairwoman: Protective 
orders. Two-thirds of our service members live off base, one-
third on base. And the protective orders that exist right now 
are from the commander. They don't carry any weight outside of 
the base. And there is a growing need to create these military 
protective orders that are issued by a military judge.
    You recommend that in your report. It is not in the 
Department's recommendations. Can you explain why it is so 
important to change this in the system?
    Ms. Rosenthal. I will have Meghan----
    Ms. Speier. Yes. Meghan Tokash, we welcome you.
    Ms. Tokash. Thank you, ma'am.
    Every county, Tribe, and territory in the United States of 
America has complied with the Full Faith and Credit Clause of 
the United States Constitution. The IRC believes that the 
military can and should do the same.
    This is something that is not controversial. Creating 
judge-issued military protective orders is--its time has come 
in the military. Just as you said, ma'am, over 60 percent of 
service members live off of installations, and to be able to 
have military protective orders that are enforceable both on 
and off military installations is critical.
    This is a victim-facing issue, it is a safety issue, and is 
one that needs to be addressed now.
    Ms. Speier. Thank you.
    Dr. Hunter, the command climate surveys, we found, from the 
Fort Hood Independent Review Committee were not even being 
reviewed. Tell us what the commission's recommendations are on 
climate surveys, and how is that going to change the dynamic?
    Dr. Hunter. Yes. Thank you so much, ma'am, for that 
question.
    As you noted, the command climate surveys, particularly 
DEOCS [Defense Organizational Climate Survey], which are done 
once a year, do have a very important role, but there are over 
100 questions on them, they are often not released in a timely 
fashion, and there is no accountability mechanism to hold 
commanders accountable for addressing what those deficiencies 
are.
    So our recommendation here centers around, one, a study to 
look at what tools would be effective for commanders, but, more 
than that, the introduction of pulse surveys, which would be 
quick, three to five questions, done on regular intervals. And 
that is really up to services and installations to determine 
what that interval is.
    But they provide real-time, actionable, and easy-to-
understand information for the commanders. Because commanders 
can't fix what they don't know is happening there. And time and 
time again, we heard from commanders that they just didn't know 
how big or bad issues were there.
    So this is an essential tool. We saw this implemented in 
Fort Hood by the Fort Hood IRC, and it provided incredible 
information to commands there as to, really, the depth and 
breadth of the problem.
    Ms. Speier. I think the VA [U.S. Department of Veterans 
Affairs] is using that system now.
    Dr. Hunter. Yes, they are, ma'am. And they are a very 
important best practice to look at when we look at what 
oversight to actually implement this would be.
    Ms. Speier. Doctor, would you restate the story you just 
told me that actually made my heart sink about the service 
member in--I guess in----
    Dr. Hunter. In Iraq? Yes, ma'am. PFC Johnson. She was found 
in her tent in 2005, Iraq, dead. Her death was ruled a suicide. 
However, autopsy report revealed rape and battery had occurred. 
And yet they closed the case; they said no more. Her family is 
continuing to press for answers, and the Army isn't reopening 
or addressing her case.
    And so, when we really think about getting at the depth of 
issues on campus--and there are--she has huge intersectional 
issues when you look at the impact of racial discrimination, 
ethnic discrimination, some of the MOS [military occupational 
service] discrimination that exists. And so giving commanders 
tools to actually understand the depth of what is going on in 
their commands is absolutely essential.
    Ms. Speier. Thank you.
    Ms. Tokash, I worked for a period of time on the issue of 
sexual harassment in Congress. And, as a result of that effort, 
we passed a House rule that requires Members--actually, it is 
an Act--requires Members, if they are found to have sexually 
harassed or they settled in a sexual harassment case, that the 
settlement would not come from the taxpayers but would come 
from the Members' pockets. And I thought that was a way of 
establishing accountability and hopefully to discourage that 
kind of behavior.
    I am trying to grapple with how do we compensate the 
victims of sexual harassment and sexual assault in the military 
where there has been negligence by the command in not providing 
the care and justice and how to we hold the perpetrators 
accountable as well. Do you have any thoughts on that?
    Ms. Tokash. Yes, ma'am. Under the current construct, there 
is no civil avenue of recourse in the military for military 
service members who experience sexual harassment to be able to 
seek compensation from other military members.
    One of the recommendations, however, that we made as an IRC 
was, we believe deeply that there should be a mandatory 
restitution provision for victims of sexual harassment and 
sexual assault within the military context that mirrors the 
Mandatory Victims Restitution Act of 1996.
    It is really a matter of equity, when you think about it. 
Just because you are sexually harassed or sexually assaulted in 
the military should not be a bar to be able to seek a form of 
restitution.
    So that is why we made that recommendation. And we left it 
up to the Department to understand how and what that would look 
like. But we, as a commission, felt very strongly that, again, 
as a matter of equity, members who are sexually harassed in the 
military or sexually assaulted in the military should have 
equal access to justice in the form of restitution.
    Ms. Speier. Thank you.
    My colleague Mr. Gallagher is recognized for 7 minutes.
    Mr. Gallagher. Thank you.
    Online harassment is mentioned throughout your report. And, 
Ms. Rosenthal, I appreciated very much your comments about the 
importance and salience of prevention in this space.
    But I would be curious, sort of with prevention in mind and 
the complexities of online harassment in mind, I mean, what 
preventative tools work well in that space? And what do you 
think commanders and leaders are missing about online 
harassment?
    Ms. Rosenthal. I am going to turn first to Ky Hunter, 
because this is her area of expertise, and then to James 
Johnson to talk about prevention.
    Mr. Gallagher. Thank you.
    Dr. Hunter. Thank you so much, sir, for this question.
    You know, as you noted, online harassment is a huge 
problem. And one of the biggest findings from the commission--
and it is something that you are all well aware of from your 
oversight hearings as well--is that there is a huge gulf 
between what the most senior leaders in our military know and 
have experienced in the online community and what our junior--
especially junior enlisted service members know and experience 
in the online community, primarily with the idea of just being 
digital natives.
    To our junior enlisted service members, our junior young 
officers, what happens in the online world is real, and it has 
just as big an impact on them as what happens in face-to-face 
interactions.
    So one of the first things that [is] needed--and this goes 
back to the ideas of surveys and climate surveys--is deliberate 
effort in actually tracking the prevalence of online 
harassment. We know that there is a continuum and that, often, 
what starts as harassment in the online world extends into the 
physical world, especially when we start talking about cyber 
stalking.
    We know from the one survey that has been done of this, 30 
percent of service members who had been harassed said it was 
online. So this is real. So one is, first, being deliberate and 
getting that information out there.
    The next is, when we think about command and preparing 
people for command, as part of our overall understanding of 
that care and welfare for our service members, we need to also 
extend that to what happens online. You know, we talk a lot 
about what it is to take care of our people in the physical 
space. That training needs to extend into the online space.
    As well as when we start to look at social media policies 
that are out there. This isn't just about putting out 
classified information about troop movements, which is where 
our big focus is, but is, what do those interactions that are 
part of good order and discipline mean?
    I mean, stories that we got from focus groups on this 
where, you know, junior E-2, E-3s were getting friended or 
followed on Facebook by their staff sergeants and gunnies, and 
then they start to get confused as to, well, what is an order 
when they comment on something, essentially, what are they 
being directed to do, versus what is sort of friendly online 
banter; how that then extended into how they were treated in 
their workplace and isolated for not liking the right type of 
pictures or being judged for what they wore when they were on 
vacation when they come back to work.
    So that needs to be part of, too, when we look at what it 
is as a commander to maintain that good order and discipline, 
we really need to be thinking about the cyber world, too, and 
how social media plays into those day-to-day interactions.
    And I will turn it over now to James to talk about the 
specific prevention side of it.
    General Johnson. Thank you. Thanks for the question, 
Congressman.
    I think for prevention, for the line of effort that I was 
fortunate to work with Deb Houry from the CDC and Mr. Neil 
Irvin from Men Can Stop Rape, what we would tell you is that 
there are a couple of touchpoints.
    One, leadership. And we found a void in the ability for 
leaders to really lead in prevention. So that is the first one.
    And it was really leadership at every level. So, 
oftentimes, when we say leadership, somebody might think about 
a leader at the installation level, you know, a commander. We 
are talking at every level, from the Secretary of Defense all 
the way down to that first line, that line supervisor, NCO, and 
where they are engaging with the members who might be engaged 
in this kind of activity, and actually giving them the 
competencies to engage with those members in a way that builds 
a protective environment and lowers the risk factors.
    So that is one touchpoint, I would say, is leadership and 
developing the competencies in our leaders that don't exist 
today.
    As we engaged with--in every engagement that this line of 
effort had--and we engaged at the strategic, operational, and 
tactical level--we talked with four-star level down to the 
newest members who had just been, you know, in their units for 
maybe a year or two. And, in every engagement, they all 
recognized: Leaders want to lead; they don't know how to lead 
in prevention. And it is because they don't have those specific 
competencies. That is one touchpoint.
    The other touchpoint, I would say, is research. And we 
found there is this dearth in the, kind of, research capability 
that the Department really needs to be able to have to attack 
these kinds of issues in a very comprehensive way. Today, it is 
a little bit of a pickup game when it comes to exploring an 
agenda-driven research agenda that would get after something 
like you are talking about. And so I think that is one.
    The other touchpoint would be actual strategies. So, in the 
report we talk about community-focused interventions, and this 
would fall into, kind of, promoting healthy social norms. And 
so I would say it would be in that realm, with leaders who have 
the competencies and with the research that tells you exactly 
what works and what doesn't work, and then using interventions 
appropriately. I think that is a place we would find more 
success.
    Mr. Gallagher. Yeah.
    And then in the short period of time I have, Ms. Rosenthal, 
I believe you mentioned a number of comorbidities in your 
opening statements on sexual assault and suicide. And I would 
just be curious, when it comes to that question, how do we get 
after these comorbidities so we can really make a lasting 
change for service members and their families?
    Ms. Rosenthal. Well, there are two very critical issues. 
One is to professionalize the victim advocacy workforce, 
largely eliminate collateral-duty victim advocates, and expand 
access to behavioral healthcare.
    So, for example, Active Duty, Guard, and Reserve members 
can, by Federal law, seek behavioral health services through 
the VA, but, in current implementation at the DOD level, the 
number of providers is limited to 300 providers, when there are 
actually 1,000 VA facilities that could receive those referrals 
or not. The law allows for victims to seek that care even 
without a referral and to receive it confidentially.
    Mr. Gallagher. Thank you.
    I yield back.
    Ms. Speier. The gentleman yields back.
    Dr. Hunter, when you were talking about the confusion that 
young soldiers have, I remember a young airman at Lackland Air 
Force Base who, when her military training instructor told her 
to meet him in the storage room, she says, ``There was no 
question mark at the end of that sentence.'' And that stayed 
with me all these years.
    Now, the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Kim, is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Kim. Thank you. Thank you, Chairwoman.
    I wanted to just pick up on a thread that I had raised 
before with the Deputy Secretary. I had asked her about the IRC 
recommendations talking about, you know, the special-victims 
crimes and referring certain alleged crimes to a special-
victims prosecutor. And our understanding of this is that this 
would include sexual assault but also other crimes based on 
relationships and vulnerability of the victim--domestic abuse, 
child abuse, hate crimes, hazing.
    I wanted to just kind of get a better sense for the IRC's 
rationale in defining these categories in the way that they 
did. So I wanted to just kind of hear a little bit more from 
you about how that was constructed and why you felt like that 
was the best way to frame these buckets.
    Ms. Tokash. Thank you, sir.
    The IRC found that these crimes tend to be interpersonal in 
nature and that victims who have to navigate through the 
military justice process often experience retraumatization 
because of their experiences going through that process.
    The IRC came up with three categories that comprise the 
special-victims scheme, and the first one is very plain on its 
face; it is those categories of crimes that are inherently 
special-victims crimes, so rape, sexual assault, et cetera.
    The second was based on the trait of the victim or, more 
importantly, the perceived trait of the victim and why those 
particular victims might be targeted by a certain perpetrator. 
So it may be their perception that they are gay, or it may be 
their perception, you know, that they are of a certain 
religion.
    The third category that the IRC identified was based on the 
motivation of the offender. And we arrived at and landed on 
hazing and bullying as well, which we know is very prevalent in 
the military.
    So, based on what we heard from hundreds of survivors, 
hundreds of military justice practitioners and academics with 
whom we spoke and interacted over the course of 90 days, as an 
IRC, we landed on these three categories that comprise the 
special-victims context, again, mainly because of the 
interpersonal nature of these crimes and the penchant for 
victims to be retraumatized through the military justice 
process.
    Mr. Kim. Thank you. That is helpful. That was helpful to 
hear, both in terms of how you are framing when it comes to the 
victims but, also, as you said, there was an element in terms 
of the offender, and the perpetrator.
    And, you know, I think when I kind of look at the 
situations when it comes to sexual assault prevention, you 
know, for a long time there has been so much focused on the 
victim, rightfully so, and one of the most interesting findings 
in the IRC is just how little we understand about the actual 
perpetrators.
    So I guess I wanted to just follow up with this question 
there about, what kind of resources do you think we need to 
have to better understand how to identify perpetrators? And how 
can we screen for these signs before the perpetrator were to 
take actions? How are we trying to understand how to be able to 
do that and then also be able to find ways to retrain and 
redirect this behavior? So I wanted to just get a little bit 
more of a sense of that.
    Ms. Rosenthal. James. This is an area that the prevention 
line of effort looked at very closely.
    General Johnson. Thank you. Thank you for the question.
    It really does--a lot of it falls into that research 
recommendation that we made on the compatibility assessment. 
And we recognize that today the Department assumes risk because 
they don't know, you know, what the attitudes and behaviors are 
for those people that they are recruiting and accessing into 
the military.
    And so one of the services has developed a compatibility 
assessment that we recommended the Secretary approve for 
operational testing within the MEPS [Military Entrance 
Processing Station] to start to at least learn more about the 
attitudes and behaviors of individuals they are accessing.
    And that would inform potential interventions that could 
kind of run the gamut of what, you know, the outcomes could be 
from those interventions, but it would be the starting point.
    Thank you.
    Mr. Kim. Thank you.
    Chairwoman, I yield back. Thank you.
    Ms. Speier. The gentleman yields back.
    Mrs. McClain from Michigan is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mrs. McClain. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    And I want to thank all the witnesses for being here today.
    As a freshman Member of Congress and, obviously, a freshman 
member on this committee, it saddens me to talk about what we 
are talking about today and to know that our brave men and 
women in the military are experiencing this. It is 
unacceptable, and, quite frankly, it is embarrassing. So I 
applaud everyone in their efforts to try and figure out the 
root cause and fix it.
    In layman's terms, what I am trying to understand is the 
actual process. So, if we take it out of the commanders' or the 
military's hands, would it look exactly like it would look as 
if you were a civilian? So I guess my question simply is, can 
you explain what the process would look like in layman's terms?
    Ms. Tokash. Yes. So, even if you took the decision to 
prefer--that is, indict--or refer--that is, to send that 
indictment to trial--out of the hands of commanders and place 
that decision squarely in the hands of military lawyers, the 
system will still look somewhat different from the civilian 
system, because there are certain aspects of military justice 
that are just inherently different than the civilian system of 
justice.
    For example, where I practice in Federal district court in 
the Western District of New York, I take my cases before a 
grand jury. The grand jury decides by vote whether I have a 
bill and whether that case will actually be indicted. There is 
no equal procedure in the military. There is no grand-jury 
mechanism in military justice.
    So I just say that as a preface, that there are going to be 
certain things that still will not make them directly 
analogous.
    So, to answer your question, all that is going to happen by 
virtue of our recommendation that the decision to prefer--that 
is, indict--or refer--that is, to send charges to a general or 
special court-martial--is that a military lawyer will be making 
those decisions in the sexual harassment and sexual assault 
context versus a military commander.
    Now, to be fair, a military commander just does not make 
this decision in a vacuum. A military commander is advised by 
senior staff judge advocates. However, the IRC's concern was 
that these senior staff judge advocates are so far removed from 
the practice of trial law that their advice to the convening 
authority, in a very short period of time when they sit knee-
to-knee with that convening authority to determine one of 
several military justice matters, does not do that particular 
case justice.
    Mrs. McClain. So I think I understand that piece, that the 
lawyer would indict, so to speak, to use your term. But there 
is also another--if I heard you correctly, and I just want to 
make sure I did, there is also another piece that we need to 
make sure that we are focusing on, which is, there has to be--
after due process, of course, but there has to be a consequence 
to the action, right?
    So I know you have the preventative end, which it sounds 
like we are trying, at least, to put things in place and it 
looks like we are on the right path. It looks like we are 
trying to do the indictment end, so to speak. What are we doing 
for the consequence end? Because it seems like that piece might 
be missing a little bit as well. And I don't know if I heard 
you correctly, but I didn't hear the talk of, you know, the 
consequence end.
    Ms. Tokash. Yes. So there are two avenues of approach in 
the military. The first is the judicial approach, and the 
second is the nonjudicial approach, both approaches which 
currently are in the hands of military commanders today.
    Our recommendation is that the judicial approach in sexual 
harassment and sexual assault cases be taken away from 
commanders and placed into the hands of military lawyers, 
independent military lawyers.
    Mrs. McClain. So on the consequence end, as well?
    Ms. Tokash. So, on the consequence end, in the judicial 
sector, the punishment, if there is a conviction at court-
martial, would be meted out by either a military judge or 
military court-martial panel members.
    Mrs. McClain. So is that changing? No.
    Ms. Tokash. That would not change----
    Mrs. McClain. Okay.
    Ms. Tokash [continuing]. Though we did recommend--we did 
make a recommendation that military judges alone decide the 
punishment phase. And we have detailed reasons for that in our 
report.
    But the second sector, if you will--that is, nonjudicial 
punishment--will, under the IRC construct, remain in the hands 
of commanders. And, as a commission, we found that this is very 
important, especially in the prevention and response context, 
because the IRC wants commanders to remain involved. We want 
commanders to be involved in the system so that their troops 
that they lead can see that they have skin in the game, that 
they care.
    The nonjudicial punishment sector, if you will, for lack of 
better term, also has punishment that can be attached to it 
too, including loss of rank and loss of pay and restriction and 
those sorts of things. The punishments at the nonjudicial end 
are not as severe as punishment at a court-martial.
    So, currently, the commander has two different avenues of 
approach, judicial and nonjudicial punishment, both of which 
have punishment mechanisms in place.
    Mrs. McClain. I am out of time. I appreciate your patience. 
Thank you very much.
    Ms. Tokash. Of course.
    Ms. Speier. Well, it is an important topic.
    I think it is important to point out that, if they go to 
court-martial and are convicted, they can be jailed, they can 
be separated from the military, they can lose rank. There is a 
whole series of actions that can take place.
    One of the areas--and I don't know if you looked at it--
that I continue to be concerned about is that many of these 
individuals are sexual predators and should, then, be on the 
registry, civilian sex offender registries, and they are not 
being communicated by the military to that registry. And so 
they then go out of the military and then conduct themselves in 
a similar fashion.
    So, I don't think you addressed that in your report, did 
you?
    Ms. Rosenthal. We didn't address that specific issue, but 
we did note a low number of registrants on the sexual offense 
registry.
    And one of the other pieces that is important about what 
Meghan said is that, with our specialized special-victims 
prosecutor, well-trained cadre without these constant 
rotations, we anticipate that, over time, we will see increased 
convictions, leading to greater accountability.
    There is a problem in the military justice system--it has 
been called the Achilles' heel of the military justice system--
and that is inexperienced, although well-intended, prosecutors 
who don't have the real ability to try these cases effectively.
    Ms. Speier. The gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. Escobar, is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Escobar. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    And I am so grateful to all of you for your work, your 
recommendations, and for your advocacy. You have provided us 
such important, critical information, and I am very grateful.
    I represent El Paso, Texas, and Fort Bliss is the military 
installation--one of those that has been identified for its 
rate of women who are vulnerable to--or victims, rather, who 
are vulnerable to sexual assault and sexual harassment.
    You know, one of the things that--many of the lessons that 
I have learned have come from mostly women who have told me 
stories or cases that I have learned about through Fort Bliss, 
through what has happened at Fort Bliss.
    In one case, the perpetrator had assaulted multiple women 
before there was a soldier who came forward and filed a 
complaint. And we know that perpetrators who harass frequently 
harass multiple people, it is not a one-time offense, until 
they are finally held accountable. And, you know, these are 
people who display a pattern, and the pattern generally doesn't 
stop.
    And one of the things that I am wondering, especially after 
Representative Kim noted that there is so little that we know 
about perpetrators, I have been very curious about repeat 
offenders and, you know, the way that they are able to operate 
until they are finally held accountable.
    Did you all at all study or look into that, to repeat 
offenses?
    Ms. Rosenthal. We recommend that the CATCH [Catch a Serial 
Offender] Program be expanded. So this is where somebody who 
has not made an unrestricted report is able to note the name of 
the offender and see if there is a match with other entries in 
that same system. And we recommend that this system be expanded 
so that it includes sexual harassment, because these serial 
sexual harassers can also be your serial assaulters, and also 
that we make a number of improvements so that victims can more 
readily enter information into that system.
    So we felt that that was one way to get to this issue of 
serial offenders.
    Ms. Escobar. Great. Thank you.
    And, Ms. Rosenthal, you mentioned earlier, and it is in the 
report, and it is incredibly heartbreaking, but that women 
regretted reporting. Can you expand a little bit more on why?
    Ms. Rosenthal. Women regret--and victims, not just women 
but men as well, regret reporting because they are treated so 
poorly when they do so. They are bullied or ostracized by their 
peers. And the commanders don't step in and take action to 
prevent that from happening. Even when they are not being 
bullied by their commanders specifically, their commanders are 
not taking action against that pattern.
    They are not treated with the kind of dignity and respect 
that we would think they deserve. They are not given time off 
to go to their medical or their legal appointments.
    And they are not believed, and things are said to them by 
command and by peers that they are lying, that they are trying 
to ruin someone's career. I cannot tell you how many times we 
heard that. ``You are out to hurt this person.'' There is this 
great myth at all levels of the service that victims are not 
telling the truth, that they have some other kind of agenda. 
And, of course, we did not find that to be true, and we know 
that rates of false reporting are quite low.
    So that is part of it. And the second piece and what makes 
this different than the civilian society, where sexual assault 
is of course very traumatic for all victims, is the 24-hour 
nature of military life. So there is nothing they can do, if 
policies are not being followed, for example, if they are not 
getting an expedited transfer when they want one, then they 
don't have a way to remedy the situation for themselves. They 
can't leave. They can't just leave. And so they feel trapped. 
And because they feel so trapped, they regret that they ever 
came forward in the first place.
    So many women said, ``When I saw what this victim went 
through, I will tell you that I, myself, would never make a 
report.'' And that is heartbreaking.
    Ms. Escobar. Thank you so much.
    And I am quickly running out of time. I want to just point 
something else out, because I think we need to think through 
this, and not sure if you all have, but in the case of Vanessa 
Guillen, as an example, she had reached out to her family to 
let them know what had happened to her.
    There is a case at Fort Bliss of a young woman who 
committed suicide recently, and she had reached out to her 
family, an alleged sexual assault as well. There is no other 
information attached to it.
    But I just keep thinking that there are so many families 
who probably need tools on how they can help as well, 
especially younger soldiers. I think--you know, I am a mother. 
If my children reached out to me and told me they were victims 
and they were in the military, I don't know what I would do. 
And so I think that is another area for us to explore.
    I know I am out of time. Thank you so much, Madam Chair.
    Ms. Speier. Would you like to respond?
    Ms. Rosenthal. I think you have raised an interesting piece 
about our ``no wrong door'' approach. And when we think of ``no 
wrong door,'' we think about it for victims themselves and 
that, wherever they go, they should be able to get help. But I 
really like the way you framed this question: What is it we can 
do for families? Because sexual assault affects the entire 
family. It affects spouses. It affects everyone. So I think it 
is a really excellent question for us to consider.
    Ms. Speier. The gentlewoman yields back.
    The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Jackson, is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Dr. Jackson. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    I think, Ms. Tokash, you actually answered most of my 
questions a while ago in previous ones, so I will be brief 
here. But what I want to say is, you know, a sexual assault 
report is one of the most sensitive issues that a commander 
would have to deal with, and I will be honest with you, I think 
it is a double-edged sword. I think, even though most 
commanders don't want to relinquish any of the authority they 
have as commanders, a lot of them would be kind of relieved to 
pass some of this on, you know, to someone else. It is just not 
something that they want to be confronted with. It is kind of a 
no-win situation, a lot of times, for them as well, I think.
    But you were talking about the way this progresses. And 
most commanders, a lot of them I guess, have their own JAG 
officers that are in their chain of command. Many of them 
don't. But the ones that do have a JAG as part of their chain 
of command, I am assuming they utilize their own judge 
advocates in doing this. And the ones that don't, I guess, are 
forced to go outside if they want to get advice from the judge 
advocate.
    Do most commanders going through this process, do they seek 
out information from the JAG officer, and do they follow that 
information?
    Ms. Tokash. So the IRC heard, sir, from certain commanders, 
both past and present, that they actually would be relieved to 
relinquish the prosecutorial responsibilities and have those 
responsibilities kept with a military prosecutor.
    Most of the commanders that we spoke with also said that 
they do seek the advice of their lawyer. However, our 
commission was very much informed by the Defense Advisory 
Committee on Sexual Assault in the Military's 2017 data that 
highlighted 73 cases where a judicial officer found no probable 
cause to believe a crime existed, yet, nonetheless, that senior 
JAG advised that senior commander that the case should be sent 
forward to trial.
    Now, probable cause is a constitutional threshold issue in 
the United States of America. Sending a case to trial where a 
preliminary hearing officer found no probable cause does not 
serve victims of sexual assault and does not serve those who 
are suspected of sexual assault.
    And, interestingly enough, out of those 73 cases, 71 ended 
in acquittal. And, of the two that didn't end in acquittal, one 
of the two of them were overturned on appeal.
    So that is part of the broken trust that the IRC found as 
it pertains to command having prosecutorial decision-making.
    Dr. Jackson. Yeah, I would tend to agree with that a little 
bit too, as well, because I think a lot of it is--if you are a 
commander, a lot of your attitude is just kind of a CYA [cover 
your ass] attitude, and that is probably not good for anybody 
in the long run.
    So I was going to ask--so it looks like the plan is to 
remove this from the chain of command, keep it within the 
military but put it in a separate chain. Is there any talk 
about removing this completely and completely civilianizing 
this process? And, you know, I don't think that is a good idea, 
in my personal opinion, but is that being discussed, and what 
would be the issue there?
    Ms. Tokash. Sir, the IRC's recommendation was that there 
would be civilian oversight, in terms of a senior civilian who 
would fall underneath the Secretary of Defense. Now, the 
Department disagreed with us. They have that as a backup plan 
in the leg. prop. [legislative proposal] that came over to the 
Hill.
    So we felt strongly, as a commission, that the civilian 
oversight was important as a control function, but also that 
the civilian not only have civilian experience but prior 
military justice experience.
    This whole worldview or complete picture is very important, 
because another finding we made as an IRC under recommendation 
1.4 is that resistance to change among senior leaders in the 
JAG Corps is both historic and entrenched. So we were very 
informed by those who we spoke with, including services' TJAGs 
[The Judge Advocates General], who we sat face-to-face with and 
they told us what their opinion was of specializing their JAG 
Corps, and the resistance to change was very apparent.
    So that is why we felt very strongly that civilian 
oversight--not absolute control, but oversight--was important.
    And it is also important to note that the IRC construct, 
this concept of the Office of the Special Victim Prosecutor, 
capitalizes on using existing billets. So we are not talking 
about creating a brand-new bureaucracy or an unwieldy 
bureaucracy. These billets already exist. There are already 
special-victim prosecutors among the services' JAG Corps.
    The IRC recommends just rebranding them, appointing a head 
special-victim prosecutor, one or two for each of the services 
depending on what the needs of the services are, and that that 
office be supervised by a civilian SES [Senior Executive 
Service] with OSD oversight.
    Dr. Jackson. Thank you, ma'am. I appreciate that.
    Ms. Tokash. Thank you, sir.
    Dr. Jackson. I think I am out of time. Thank you.
    Ms. Speier. The gentleman's time has expired.
    The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Veasey, is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Veasey. Madam Chair, thank you very much.
    We had a very interesting--with the chairwoman, we had a 
very interesting visit to Fort Hood to talk about some of the 
issues around sexual, racial harassment on military bases. And 
I wanted to just ask you about, you know, some of the off-the-
record conversations that we had with officers and enlistees 
about some of the microaggressions.
    Because I notice in the report that there was a section in 
here just on the climate and culture. And, you know, there 
really does seem to be a problem in that area. And I think that 
they are trying to address that and take it more seriously. But 
was just curious, like, how you think some of these changes 
will help in those areas.
    I think that one of the areas where we have a lot of issues 
are the, sort of, everyday, you know, slights that women face, 
that minorities face, that really just come secondhand to so 
many people and they don't really realize that they are making 
those--you know, that they are doing things like that.
    Like, for instance, one officer, you know, told us that, 
you know, ``Oh, you look nice today,'' but, ``Oh, you can't say 
that,'' you know, ``We may get in trouble if we say something 
like that.''
    Can you talk about how you just think that some of these 
changes might help in those areas? Because I think that that is 
a really, really big deal and should be a big concern.
    Ms. Rosenthal. I want to turn to Ky Hunter for this 
question.
    Mr. Veasey. Please. Yeah.
    Dr. Hunter. Yes. Thank you so much, sir, for highlighting 
this.
    You know, I think across the board in the entire commission 
and, in particular, in the climate and culture line of effort, 
we found that these lingering attitudes, beliefs, behaviors 
didn't just hurt individuals but have a real, meaningful, and, 
in my opinion, you know, terrifying impact on our national 
security.
    If we think just about the sexual harassment side of this 
and these smaller slights, a recent study found that the 
military loses over 16,000 manpower hours a year because of 
people leaving because of these things. And so it is a real 
national security issue.
    We also see that, in the most recent OPA's [Office of 
People Analytics] data on propensity to serve, that young women 
have half of the propensity to serve of men of similar 
demographics there because of fear of being harassed. And that 
is their rationale, that I am afraid of this. So we are losing 
out on key recruitment and retention at a time in our history 
where it is critical that we are able to recruit and retain 
from the entire force population.
    So, when you look at our recommendations--and I think, in 
particular, the recommendations that we have around selecting 
the right leaders and using real, qualitative data to back up 
the quantitative data that is there is going to have a big 
impact not just on addressing sexual harassment and assault but 
on addressing so many of these everyday microaggressions that 
you are talking about here and there.
    Because harassment, hate, assault all exist on a continuum. 
Someone who is, you know, a sexual predator likely holds other 
damaging beliefs, as well, that are there.
    So, when we think about selecting these right leaders, what 
we are basing this on is the fact that people fight our wars 
and that, without the ability to recruit and retain those 
talented young women and men that we have there, it doesn't 
matter how tactically competent you are as a commander, you are 
failing our country [inaudible] and you are failing these brave 
women and men who signed up.
    So we really do believe that using a more comprehensive 
selection mechanism, using these climate surveys that are going 
to give real-time feedback to commanders and actionable, 
understandable information there, equipping them with the 
knowledge and skills based on their level that is there, is not 
only going to address sexual harassment and assault but will 
have these cascading impacts that you are talking about.
    Mr. Veasey. Yeah. And that was one thing that we, you know, 
heard from several people, was that your decision whether or 
not you are going to re-up depends on what sort of support you 
have with your NCO or your CO [commanding officer]. And that 
was made very clear to us.
    One other thing that I was concerned about when we were on 
our visit: mental health. So, if someone reports a sexual 
harassment/sexual assault claim, how will you make sure that, 
if they need to seek mental health services, that it won't 
impact them losing their security clearance or gaining a higher 
security clearance?
    I know that was one area that people were very concerned 
about. And, obviously, if you have experienced something like a 
sexual assault or any sort of assault on your person, that 
could obviously also have a mental trauma.
    So can you address how you would, you know, work out that 
very, you know, delicate situation?
    Ms. Rosenthal. We did not assess the security clearance 
issue, which I know has been a long-term project of the 
Department, and some efforts have been made. And, in the past, 
sexual assault reports were not--sexual assault treatment was 
not required to be reported in that question. I know that there 
has been a lot of effort to try to better address that security 
clearance question.
    But we did look at access to mental and behavioral health 
services to ensure that it is accessible and that it can be 
obtained confidentially.
    Mr. Veasey. Thank you very much.
    Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Ms. Speier. The gentleman's time has expired.
    The gentlewoman from California, Ms. Jacobs, is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Jacobs. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    And thank you all for being here and for all of your hard 
work on this topic. I know it is not an easy thing to be 
working on day in and day out, and we really, really appreciate 
it.
    General Johnson, I wanted to follow up on some points 
raised earlier around the importance of prevention.
    In your report, a senior leader is quoted saying, ``Right 
now, it is easier to hold the commander accountable for an 
incident than the environment before the incident.''
    And I think all of us here today are grateful that we are 
finally moving forward on ways to hold people accountable when 
there is an incident, but what more can we do to make sure that 
the commanding officers who permit such an environment of 
impunity to exist in the first place are also being 
disciplined?
    In your earlier answer, you stated that too many COs lack 
the competencies to create an environment in which sexual 
harassment and assault are simply not tolerated. And I guess I 
am just wondering how that is possible, given the very, very 
many years this committee has focused on this problem.
    General Johnson. Thank you very much for that question, 
Congresswoman.
    I would say that our focus was all primary prevention. So 
everything we looked at was before the event. So 
accountability, any of that--separate.
    But, when we looked at before the event, it was very clear 
to us that leaders really require these competencies that are 
based on an understanding of public health, behavioral health, 
social sciences, sociology that doesn't exist today. And so our 
recommendation was that the Department determine, what are 
those--define those specific competencies.
    And you would have to look at the social-ecological model 
in the report that was designed with the DOD in mind, right? 
So, depending on where you are in that model as a leader, 
whether you are a frontline leader or, again, the most senior 
leaders in the services or in the Department, you would 
recognize that you have a role in that model.
    And then it would be a matter of how you develop those 
competencies. And then, so once the Department designs the 
model, the services would then develop those competencies in 
individuals at every level.
    Then--this is the key--it has to be evaluated. This is your 
point. It has to be evaluated. Some of this crosses over into 
what the culture and climate has looked at in terms of ensuring 
that, you know, you have processes for evaluating and selecting 
the right leaders. That ties into this. But you would actually 
have leaders talking to their subordinate leaders about 
prevention in a more meaningful way than exists today.
    Ms. Jacobs. Thank you.
    And it is my understanding that on these panels there are 
actually very few women--we are now at the full accountability 
on the prevention piece--and, in part, because they are 
systematically removed from juries for cause, as part of the 
voir dire process.
    I was just wondering, Ms. Rosenthal, did you analyze the 
fairness and representativeness of the jury selection process? 
What conclusions did you reach? If it was not part of the 
review, why not? And do you agree that systemic removal of 
women and victims' advocates would be deemed unacceptable, 
perhaps even unconstitutional, in civilian courts?
    Ms. Rosenthal. We did look at the jury pool issue, and I 
want to turn to Meghan to address that question.
    Ms. Tokash. Yes. So we did look at that issue with respect 
to the jury pool, and that was why one of our recommendations 
is that especially sentencing should be taken out of the hands 
of military panels and placed squarely in the hands of military 
judges and judges alone.
    We didn't do an in-depth dive on the voir dire process and 
the ``how'' or ``why'' women might be eliminated. Of course, 
counsel could always issue a challenge as to why opposing 
counsel struck a woman from the court-martial panel. But we did 
not go into the in-depth details, court-martial by court-
martial.
    And, quite frankly, I would be surprised if data even 
exists in the Armed Forces analyzing jury selection. I think it 
would be fascinating. I think that it is an area that is really 
ripe for some discovery of what is going on, with respect to 
the selection of panel members. But it is just not something 
that we were able to do a deep analysis of.
    Ms. Jacobs. Okay.
    Well, maybe, Madam Chair, that is something we can ask DOD 
about.
    I will yield back now.
    Ms. Speier. I thank the gentlelady.
    We had recommended randomizing the jury selection. Did you 
not recommend that in your IRC recommendations?
    Ms. Tokash. Yes, ma'am. We also heard from the services 
that randomized selection is going through a pilot program 
currently.
    So the IRC liked that idea, which is why our recommendation 
to keep the logistical process of convening a court-martial 
with the command--because we felt confident that, with the 
randomized selection of juries and with counsels' voir dire 
process, we would be able to overcome the perception that 
commanders are handpicking the juries that they want to be able 
to achieve a particular result.
    The IRC was persuaded by the services, who told us that the 
commander is in the best position to make, again, very 
logistical decisions about availability. So, for example, is 
this particular service member on maternity leave or paternity 
leave? Is this member within my charge on deployment?
    So we felt compelled and persuaded by this argument that 
the logistical mechanism of convening the court-martial was 
best kept with the commander, because it was just that--a 
purely logistical function.
    We felt very secure in the fact that the use of randomized 
selection for juries is a step in the right direction, coupled 
with individual counsel voir dire process, were protections 
enough to make sure that commanders weren't, quote, ``stacking 
the juries,'' unquote, to achieve a particular result.
    Ms. Speier. Thank you.
    Mr. Brown from Maryland is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Brown. Thank you, Madam Chair. And, again, thank you to 
you and the committee for allowing me to waive on to the 
committee.
    To the panelists and members of the IRC, I am truly 
grateful for your work. Like the cavalry, just in time. And so 
I really, really appreciate your work.
    So, as I asked earlier with Dr. Hicks, and others have 
identified some areas where the DOD is not accepting some of 
the recommendations, the one that seems to trouble me the most 
has to do with the special-victim categories. And the IRC, you 
had three categories. One was offenses; the second was the 
trait of victim; and number three was the intent of the 
offender.
    It is my understanding that the Department is willing to 
accept category one and only category one. Is that accurate?
    Ms. Tokash. Yes. That is our understanding, sir.
    Mr. Brown. So, I mean, this is the scenario that would 
bother me, and tell me if it bothers you or not. If you have an 
intimate partner who chooses to embezzle their partner, to 
otherwise commit some form of theft against their partner, 
would that be covered by category one?
    Ms. Tokash. So it wouldn't be covered by category one per 
se, because embezzlement is not an inherently special-victim 
crime. But the crime as you described it would be covered under 
the IRC-recommended construct because of the interpersonal 
nature and relationship that you just spoke of.
    Mr. Brown. So that is only if you accept category two, 
then.
    Ms. Tokash. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Brown. Right. So that is my concern. I mean, you have 
got what I think is a very comprehensive, thoughtful approach: 
best practice, evidence-based, you know, special-victims units 
created like we have in U.S. Attorneys' offices and State's 
Attorneys' offices. The Department is coming in and saying, 
yes, 60-day, 90-day, excellent work, we are adopting--but not 
everything.
    So I think there are some real concerns here and that what 
ends up happening is you have this pink court, and if it is 
cases that look purely sexual in nature, great, you will get 
the special, you know, independent trial counsel making 
decisions about referral to court-martial, but everything else, 
it stays with the commander. That is my fundamental concern.
    Ms. Tokash. You are not wrong. The IRC believes strongly in 
the fact that the case as you described it in your hypothetical 
would be a special-victims case.
    Mr. Brown. And they are real, because it happens all the 
time.
    Ms. Tokash. Absolutely.
    Mr. Brown. So, Ms. Rosenthal, the commission found that, 
due to the breadth and depth of the lack of trust by junior 
enlisted service members in commanders, it was determined that 
the status quo or any variation of the status quo that retained 
commanders as disposition authorities in sexual harassment and 
sexual assault and related cases would fail to offer the change 
required to restore confidence in the system.
    As I am hearing testimony, as I have heard from the 
Department, as I read the report, I mean, trust is huge here. 
That seems to be--and correct me if I am wrong--not the only 
but perhaps one of the most motivating factors in what is a 
significant reform of court-martial referrals: trust, the lack 
of. I mean, is that accurate?
    Ms. Rosenthal. That is correct. That is our top finding. 
And it is part of this chasm between what senior leaders say 
about the problem, that there is no tolerance for sexual 
assault and harassment, and what junior enlisted members 
experience, which is 100 percent tolerance in some cases. That 
chasm is what creates the lack of trust. The lack of trust is 
our key finding.
    It doesn't only apply to the accountability line of effort, 
however. It applies to having a victim advocacy workforce that 
is qualified to meet the needs of victims. It applies to how 
victims are handled and treated across the board.
    What we see this reluctance to report has to do in this, 
when someone who has experienced sexual assault sees how their 
peer is handled when they, too, experience sexual assault, and 
they see the bullying and the ostracism, that commanders are 
not stepping in and taking charge of----
    Mr. Brown. And let me just----
    Ms. Rosenthal [continuing]. All of that----
    Mr. Brown. And I appreciate that. Let me just jump in. I 
think that lack of trust--I know it wasn't in the scope. I 
think that lack of trust spills over in a huge way when it 
comes to race and ethnicity, underprosecution for sexual 
assaults, overprosecution of Black and Brown service members.
    Ms. Tokash, in your personal opinion, do you think that 
removing all felony offenses or treating them the same way that 
the commission recommends we treat sexual assault cases, do you 
think that would make sense?
    Ms. Tokash. So, to be clear, I came onto this commission, 
and I had to, from a place of neutrality. Obviously, I had 
former military service as a special-victim prosecutor in the 
Army, and I am a current Assistant United States Attorney, so a 
career prosecutor by trade. I had to come to this commission 
from a place of neutrality because the task required nothing 
less.
    Our charter was very, very narrowly focused. If we had 
another 90 days, we could maybe examine whether all felonies--
if there is even a problem that exists with that. With all 
felonies--uttering false checks, larceny, homicide--that was 
just not in our charter. And what we were focused on were 
sexual harassment and sexual assault.
    And so, as we focused on that, that is how we landed on 
this lack of trust in the system.
    And, again, I think to your initial point, Congressman 
Brown, is that it is because these crimes are so interpersonal 
in nature, it is what makes them so complex and requires 
independent, highly trained special-victim prosecutors.
    Because these crimes are unique. They are different. They 
are not uttering a false check. They are not, you know, a 
homicide with no other motives. They are not a larceny, a 
barracks larceny. These are crimes that are so interpersonal in 
nature that they demand and they should have the specialization 
of special-victim prosecutors and other specialized, trained 
investigators and victim advocates to be able to champion these 
cases through the military justice system.
    Ms. Speier. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Mr. Brown. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Ms. Speier. Let me just follow up with that briefly, Ms. 
Tokash. In the case of the tragic death of Vanessa Guillen, 
under the DOD proposal, that case would not come under the 
aegis of this special-victims unit, correct?
    Ms. Tokash. Correct. It would come under the special-victim 
prosecutor construct that the IRC has recommended, and the IRC 
would have taken Ms. Guillen's case.
    And we would have taken it because, during the course of 
the homicide investigation, when investigators learned that Ms. 
Guillen was previously sexually harassed, that trained military 
criminal investigator would have contacted the special-victim 
prosecutor, who then would have moved to action and addressed 
the sexual harassment case.
    But what we know from fiscal year 2019 data and the Fort 
Hood report as it pertained to Army CID, 92 percent of the 
criminal investigators at Fort Hood, Texas, during the Vanessa 
Guillen investigation were not even properly credentialed.
    Ms. Speier. They were apprentices, weren't they?
    Ms. Tokash. They were. And so that phone call was never 
made. And that is a tragedy.
    That is why this commission feels so deeply about the three 
categories that define the special-victim construct.
    And so, you know, we are here to say that we would have 
taken your family's case. Absolutely.
    Ms. Speier. The other issue that is plaguing me, as well, 
is child abuse. Under what the Department of Defense has 
recommended, child abuse would not come under the special-
victims review. Therefore, the child would be subject to, I 
think, undue challenges in terms of testifying and the like as 
well.
    What are your thoughts on that?
    Ms. Tokash. There may be no more special victim greater 
than a child, for a whole host of reasons. And that is also why 
the IRC included children and also the elderly in our special-
victims construct.
    Ms. Speier. All right. I think we have covered everything.
    Mr. Gallagher, do you have any final questions or comments?
    Mr. Gallagher. I do not, but I just want to thank our 
witnesses for not only being here today but just for all the 
work and energy they put into this report. This was a very 
fruitful discussion. Thank you.
    Ms. Speier. Thank you, Congressman.
    I just want to say on behalf of all of us how deeply 
grateful we are for your professionalism, for the deep 
understanding that you had prior to or as a result of your work 
that brought a product to this committee that is worthy of our 
not just review but implementation on every level. I really 
believe that.
    And I look forward to more opportunities to engage with all 
of you. And I want to thank you again on behalf of the American 
people and the Congress of the United States.
    We stand adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 5:38 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
      
=======================================================================

                            A P P E N D I X

                             July 20, 2021
      
=======================================================================


              PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

                             July 20, 2021

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

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


                   DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

                             July 20, 2021

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


              QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING

                             July 20, 2021

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

      

                 QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MS. STRICKLAND

    Ms. Strickland. Sexual harassment and sexual assault are among the 
most underreported crimes. Every year, more than 20,000 service members 
are the victims of sexual assault (13,000 women and 7,500 men). Fewer 
than 8,000 per year reported that assault, according to the 
Department's own data. There are also significant myths both in society 
but especially in the military that false reporting is rampant despite 
significant research that false reports are extremely rare. Can you 
talk more about how we can work to dispel these myths?
    Ms. Rosenthal. The IRC was confronted with the challenges posed by 
stubborn gender stereotypes in listening sessions with junior enlisted 
Service members. These stereotypes include beliefs that women always 
lie and are vindictive towards men, and that because women cannot meet 
the standards for military service, they make false accusations of 
sexual assault. In Army sessions, we heard men express concern about 
being ``Sharped'' by women in their units. While empirical findings 
demonstrate that false accusations of sexual assault are rare, junior 
enlisted members expressed the opposite perception.
    In these sessions, the IRC learned of the profound disconnect 
between the lessons that sexual assault and sexual harassment trainings 
seek to teach, and the behaviors, attitudes, and beliefs of junior 
enlisted Service members towards SAPR/SHARP. The IRC listened to many 
survivors who directly bore the burden of myths around false reporting. 
Victims were often shunned and ostracized afterwards by their peers and 
leaders. Bias and rape myths pervaded their interactions. Some victims 
told the IRC about being accused of lying to harm someone's career or 
get out of work.
    Given the significance of these challenges, the military needs a 
deeper understanding of Service member belief systems, sustained by 
long-term research and social marketing strategies, to reduce 
resistance to sexual violence prevention messaging. The IRC's line of 
effort on prevention addresses this issue in several recommendations, 
including commissioning research on gender and masculinities to develop 
effective social marketing strategies to facilitate primary prevention 
efforts (Rec 2.6d). The role of leaders in prevention cannot be 
overstated. The IRC recommended equipping leaders to develop and 
deliver informed prevention messaging in formal and informal settings 
(Rec 2.1c).
    Ms. Strickland. In your report, you stated that there isn't enough 
research on perpetration and the unique risk factors that drive some 
service members to sexually harass or assault others. There is also 
little to no research on sexual harassment prevention within the 
Department. Can you please expand on how you believe the Department 
should study this issue?
    Ms. Rosenthal. The most effective way to stop sexual harassment and 
sexual assault is to prevent perpetration, but the Department lacks 
sufficient data to make evidence-based decisions in this domain. The 
bulk of research on sexual violence in the military has focused on 
victims; however, without complementary research on perpetration--and 
the unique risk factors that drive some Service members to sexually 
harass or assault others--the military lacks half of the total 
information needed to paint the full picture of how and why sexual 
violence occurs.
    This lack of insight regarding the motivation, predictive 
behaviors, and impact of prevention programs on perpetrators is 
especially concerning because some efforts may actually cause harm, if 
not implemented with care. For example, a growing body of research 
indicates that some men who hold hostile attitudes towards women may 
endorse increased sexual aggression after exposure to anti-violence 
messaging (see: Malamuth, N.M., Huppin, M., & Linz, D. (2018). Sexual 
assault interventions may be doing more harm than good with high-risk 
males. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 41: 20-24. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.avb.2018.05.010).
    Given the complexity of these issues, the IRC recommended that DOD 
establish a dedicated research center for primary prevention (Rec 2.6 
a). This new research center would be singularly dedicated to 
prevention and adopt innovative methodologies from diverse academic 
fields to gain a deeper understanding of prevention science in the 
military context. The Center would address the cross-cutting nature of 
primary prevention, not only incorporating sexual harassment and sexual 
assault but also suicide, substance misuse, and intimate partner 
violence.
    Additionally, DOD and the Services must understand the risks they 
incur every day as they admit new members. An accessions compatibility 
instrument administered prior to Military Service entry could provide 
DOD with an understanding of the nature, magnitude, risk, and 
protective factors for Service members who perpetrate behaviors on the 
continuum of harm against other Service members, civilians, and family 
members.
    The Air Force Compatibility Assessment (AFCA) is already in 
development and needs approval from senior leaders. The IRC recommends 
DOD authorize testing AFCA as a pilot with a cross-Service pre-
accession sample to better understand the characteristics of new 
accessions for two key purposes: 1) to inform the future development of 
an evidence-based accessions instrument; and, 2) to inform DOD and the 
Services about risk factors among the military population, to guide the 
selection, adaptation, or development of prevention approaches (Rec. 
2.6c).
    Ms. Strickland. Sexual harassment and sexual assault are among the 
most underreported crimes. Every year, more than 20,000 servicemembers 
are the victims of sexual assault (13,000 women and 7,500 men). Fewer 
than 8,000 per year reported that assault, according to the 
Department's own data. There are also significant myths both in society 
but especially in the military that false reporting is rampant despite 
significant research that false reports are extremely rare. Can you 
talk more about how we can work to dispel these myths?
    General Johnson. [No answer was available at the time of printing.]
    Ms. Strickland. In your report, you stated that there isn't enough 
research on perpetration and the unique risk factors that drive some 
servicemembers to sexually harass or assault others. There is also 
little to no research on sexual harassment prevention within the 
Department. Can you please expand on how you believe the Department 
should study this issue?
    General Johnson. [No answer was available at the time of printing.]
    Ms. Strickland. Sexual harassment and sexual assault are among the 
most underreported crimes. Every year, more than 20,000 servicemembers 
are the victims of sexual assault (13,000 women and 7,500 men). Fewer 
than 8,000 per year reported that assault, according to the 
Department's own data. There are also significant myths both in society 
but especially in the military that false reporting is rampant despite 
significant research that false reports are extremely rare. Can you 
talk more about how we can work to dispel these myths?
    Dr. Hunter. Military culture, as well as unit climate, contribute 
significantly to many of the rape myths that are barriers to reporting. 
The historic masculine character of the military has created a ``boys 
will be boys'' attitude that has allowed stereotypes about women's 
roles (subordinate to men as the `main effort'), the oversexualization 
of women, and displays of masculinity being equated with military 
success. While culture contributes to rape myths, changing culture and 
supporting a healthy military climate can help to dispel rape myths. 
There are three primary ways climate and culture can be addressed to 
dispel rape myths:
    1. Select and Equip the Right Leaders
    a. Ensuring that social acumen is part of leadership and command 
selection criteria will help ensure that leaders who understand 
interpersonal dynamics are in command. The job of commanders is to take 
care of their people--making this a key part of the selection will help 
to create a climate that dispels rape myths. It will also arm 
commanders with the tools to address these myths and create a climate 
that fosters dignity and respect.
    2. Address the Cyber Domain
    a. The difference in understanding between junior service members 
and commanders about the digital environment is a primary contributor 
to rape myths. For junior service members, the digital world is often 
more ``real'' than the physical world. Evidence suggests that cyber 
harassment is increasingly a precursor to physical harassment and 
assault. Many commanders did not grow up with the same access to the 
digital world as their junior service members. Deliberate education 
about the digital world will help commanders understand the impact of 
the digital world on perpetuating rape myths, and obtain the tools to 
combat it.
    3. Operational Metrics
    a. Sexual harassment and assault is often considered a ``women's 
issue'' that is removed from the operational considerations of a unit. 
This allows for myths to continue unchecked. Elevating these issues to 
the operational considerations of units will help ensure that the 
appropriate resources are put towards addressing harassment.
    Ms. Strickland. In your report, you stated that there isn't enough 
research on perpetration and the unique risk factors that drive some 
servicemembers to sexually harass or assault others. There is also 
little to no research on sexual harassment prevention within the 
Department. Can you please expand on how you believe the Department 
should study this issue?
    Dr. Hunter. One way the Department should study this is by 
revamping how climate surveys are done. More frequent surveys that are 
targeted at sexual harassment and assault will paint a bigger picture 
about how culture and climate impact perpetration. Additionally, there 
needs to be deliberate research not just on individual factors, but how 
deep seeded norms contribute to perpetration.
    Ms. Strickland. Sexual harassment and sexual assault are among the 
most underreported crimes. Every year, more than 20,000 servicemembers 
are the victims of sexual assault (13,000 women and 7,500 men). Fewer 
than 8,000 per year reported that assault, according to the 
Department's own data. There are also significant myths both in society 
but especially in the military that false reporting is rampant despite 
significant research that false reports are extremely rare. Can you 
talk more about how we can work to dispel these myths?
    Ms. Tokash. Rape myths can be dispelled in one aspect by 
professionalizing the JAG Corps. Highly trained and specialized 
prosecutors are better positioned to promote the reasoned exercise of 
prosecutorial authority and contribute to the fair, evenhanded 
administration of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. A determination 
to prosecute represents a policy judgement that the fundamental 
interests of society require the application of criminal law to a 
particular set of circumstances--recognizing both that serious 
violations of military law must be prosecuted, and that prosecution 
entails profound consequences for the accused, crime victims, and their 
families whether or not a conviction ultimately results.
    That the Department of Defense (DOD) and Service Departments lack 
specialized prosecutors who adhere to uniform principles of prosecution 
may contribute to irregularity and unwarranted disparity in case 
outcomes--including the high rates of acquittal in the military courts-
martial system. These abysmal case outcomes can ultimately lead to the 
perception that victims are lying or filed a false report. Therefore, 
in the context of accountability and prosecution, to ameliorate these 
myths, the Services must allow Judge Advocates to specialize as career 
prosecutors and the DOD must establish uniform standards of prosecution 
across the Services to ensure the fair and effective exercise of 
prosecutorial discretion and promote confidence on the part of the 
public that important prosecutorial decisions will be made rationally 
and objectively on the merits of each case.
    Ms. Strickland. In your report, you stated that there isn't enough 
research on perpetration and the unique risk factors that drive some 
servicemembers to sexually harass or assault others. There is also 
little to no research on sexual harassment prevention within the 
Department. Can you please expand on how you believe the Department 
should study this issue?
    Ms. Tokash. The majority of research and data collection on sexual 
harassment in the military is from the perspective of victims. While 
this information is essential, DOD and the Services should further 
study, and pilot, new processes for accessing new Service members into 
the force. More focused screening methods to identify incoming Service 
members with harmful attitudes and beliefs towards women, or high 
adherence to rape myths, can help DOD and the Services to better target 
prevention efforts, and direct interventions towards those at the 
highest risk of perpetrating sexual harassment or assault.
    Additionally, from an accountability perspective, the DOD should 
immediately require the Services to do two things: (1) track case 
disposition data to see how often military prosecutors are charging 
subjects with sexual harassment; and (2) collect data on repeat 
offenders, i.e., previous Article 15s or verbal admonitions for 
precursor behavior that indicates risk for reoffending.

                                  [all]