Hearing of the Military Personnel Subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee - Sexual Assaults in the Military: Victim Support and Advocacy

Hearing of the Military Personnel Subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee - Sexual Assaults in the Military: Victim Support and Advocacy

Copyright ©2009 by Federal News Service, Inc., Ste. 500, 1000 Vermont Ave, Washington, DC 20005 USA. Federal News Service is a private firm not affiliated with the federal government. No portion of this transcript may be copied, sold or retransmitted without the written authority of Federal News Service, Inc. Copyright is not claimed as to any part of the original work prepared by a United States government officer or employee as a part of that person's official duties. For information on subscribing to the FNS Internet Service at www.fednews.com, please email Carina Nyberg at cnyberg@fednews.com or call 1-202-216-2706.

REP. SUSAN A. DAVIS (D-CA): Good morning everybody. We're delighted to be here this morning, and to have you all here.

Before we get started, I just wanted to introduce the members of the personnel subcommittee, this is our first meeting, and we wanted to give you a chance to get to know them.

I'm Susan Davis, I represent the area of San Diego, California, and our next ranking member is Dr. Vic Snyder, Vic is from Arkansas, Loretta Sanchez from California, Madeleine Bordallo from Guam, Carol Shea-Porter, New Hampshire, Dave Loebsack, Iowa, and Niki Tsongas from Massachusetts. And Joe Wilson, who is the ranking chair on the committee, will introduce the republican members.

REP. JOE WILSON (R-SC): Thank you Madame Chairwoman, and it's an honor to be here with you, and I look forward to working with you on behalf of the soldiers, and sailors, and Marines, airman, in our military, the men and women who indeed make it possible for us to have the freedoms that we enjoy.

I'm grateful to be here with fellow members. With me is Congressman Walter Jones of North Carolina. Congressman Jones has very extensive military facilities in his district. Tom Rooney is our rookie freshman, we're very grateful to have him on board. Mary Fallin, the former lieutenant governor of Oklahoma, I want to thank her for her impending service on this committee, and we have a visitor, who is here today, Mike Turner. Mike is the former mayor of Dayton, Ohio.

And I'd like to point out that I'm very grateful that I represent the second district of South Carolina, which includes Fort Jackson, includes Parris Island, the Beaufort Marine Air Station, also Beaufort Naval Hospital. But I have to tell you that my greatest appreciation, is that I have four sons serving in the military, so I appreciate seeing these uniforms in front of us today.

Thank you very much.

REP. DAVIS: Thank you, and I also wanted to ask unanimous consent. We will have a few members joining us. I wanted to ask unanimous consent then for the non-committee members, who are participating; they will also be asking questions.

Without objection? Hearing none, okay. Thank you.

Today's hearing will be the first of a series of hearings the subcommittee will hold this year looking at sexual assault in the military.

Sexual assault is a complex problem, where most, if not all aspects are interrelated. Such a topic does not lend itself to a single hearing. And so as a result, we've chosen to hold multiple hearings on discrete topics, so that the members and witnesses can have in-depth discussions about various issues to build towards a comprehensive understanding of the problem. This will help guide our deliberations of what can, and what should be done next.

Today we will be focusing on victim advocacy and support. Our next hearing will look at current and planned department of defense programs to prevent sexual assault.

I would like to say that we are encouraged by the level of commitment, the resources, and expertise that the services are applying to prevention programs to educate service members and change cultural norms.

And finally, we will hold a hearing to examine how sexual assaults are prosecuted by the military.

No one can deny our responsibility to ensure that victims of a sexual assault receive all of the support that can be provided following an attack. The Department of Defense has made significant improvement in recent years to the depth and breadth of services available after an assault, since the implementation of a new policy in 2005.

But the question we need to ask is, has enough been done? What more can be done? This hearing will look at how the Department of Defense currently handles victim advocacy. We are very fortunate to have an impressive first panel. These are individuals who deal with the very real needs of victims of sexual assault.

Our first witness is Laura Waterson. In 2001 Laura was an airman on active duty when she was assaulted by a fellow service member. She will tell her story of what she had to endure, usually by herself, after the assault.

Laura, we thank you very much for your willingness to share your experience with us. We are humbled by your courage that you've displayed by coming forward. We know it's not easy, and many victims do not feel comfortable doing that. Thank you.

Next, we have three witnesses from the services. These are not policy wonks. These are people who have helped individual victims in the aftermath of an assault. I would like to thank the services for dispensing with their usual policies and procedures regarding rank and vetting to make these service members available to this subcommittee.

Their participation--your participation, will add greatly to our understanding of what victim advocates do on a daily basis, and what resources they need to do even more.

Daniel Katka the Sexual Assault Response Coordinator, or SARC, from the Air Force. He has worked as a SARC both in the United States and while deployed overseas for both operational and training units.

Sergeant and First Class Horwath has served as both a unit victim advocate and is a SARC in the Army, both here, and while deployed. While serving in Iraq he found himself performing the duties of both a SARC and as a first responding unit victim advocate.

And Chief Petty Officer Tonya McKennie has served as a sexual assault victim intervention advocate for the Navy, both in the United States and while deployed.

Again, thank you all for being part of this hearing.

Our second panel will include two witnesses from the Department of Defense's Sexual Assault Prevention Response office, Dr. Kaye Whitley, and Ms. Teresa Scalzo, as well as Robert Coombs, the Public Affairs Director of the California Coalition Against Sexual Assault. And I'll make more introductions later.

I want to reiterate that the purpose of this hearing is to focus on victim advocacy and support. Other issues, will of course, come up, but I would like to save in-depth discussions on prevention programs and prosecution for our later hearings, so that we can give each of the topics the attention, and the discussion that they deserve.

Mr. Wilson, would you like to add a few words?

REP. JOE WILSON (R-SC): Thank you, Chairwoman Davis, and as we have begun we have been joined by another subcommittee member, Councilman John Kline of Minnesota. Councilman Kline is retired, but of course he still is a Marine Colonel, and very proud of it as you can tell from his pin.

Today's hearing continues the work this subcommittee started several years ago to address the problem of sexual assault within the military. We begin our efforts during Chairman John McHugh's tenure in response to increased reports of sexual assault at our military academies.

In 2004, we required the Department of Defense to establish a task force to examine sexual harassment and violence at the United States Military Academy, and the United States Naval Academy. We also asked for an assessment of the effectiveness of the corrective actions taken to address sexual harassment at the United States Air Force Academy.

We followed these initial steps by expanding the mission of the task force on sexual harassment and violence at the military service academies to include all of our armed forces. We've then focused our attention on strategies to improve the Pentagon's response to sexual assault. As a result, we required the Department of Defense to implement a comprehensive policy for the prevention in response to sexual assaults involving members of the armed forces.

In response to concerns we received from the field over the length of time it took to process forensic evidence, we required DOD to eliminate the back log of the processing of forensic evidence, collection kits, and ensure that an adequate supply of rape kits are available for all military installations.

We also made sure that military personnel, who used forensic evidence collection kits, receive training to ensure evidence is collected properly.

Finally, working with the Congresswoman from California, Ms. Loretta Sanchez, we took an unprecedented, and bold step to reform the uniform code of military justice, to establish a comprehensive, and modern sexual assault law based on other federal laws and regulations that effectively address sexual assault. These legislative actions point to this committee's consistent, thoughtful, and aggressive approach to addressing the issue of sexual assault in the military.

Throughout this process, we have looked to the experts to help us find the right solutions, and we've worked with the Department of Defense to put in place policies that address both prevention and support for victims of this devastating crime

This has not been an easy task, but our commitment to protecting the health and welfare of our service members is unwavering. To that end, it is my understanding that the purpose of today's hearing is to focus on the support provided by the military to victims of sexual assault, and to assess whether DOD's programs meet the needs of the victims or not.

I sincerely appreciate the willingness of Ms. Waterson, who was a victim of sexual assault, to testify today. Although your experience took place prior to DOD's new comprehensive policy, I hope you can give us your assessment of whether the current policies and programs would have helped you, and where there still may be gaps.

I continue to hear in media reports, and from various individual assertions, that this system isn't working well enough. I look forward to the views of the members of the second panel. How do you measure the program's success? How, or where does the system fall short? Have you identified areas that need improvement? How can we help?

I hope that our discussions today will be informative, and productive. My purpose today is to continue the dialogue towards improving the support services, and care available for military victims of sexual assault.

With that I would like to welcome our witnesses, and thank them for participating in the hearing today. I look forward to your testimony.

REP. DAVIS: Thank you very much. Mr. Wilson, I want to mention that we've been joined by Mr. Patrick Murphy of Pennsylvania, who was part of the committee last year, have an esteem military career. And also Ms. Jane Harman of California, who's been very passionate, and interested in this issue. Thank you.

And now Ms. Laura Waterson would you please start?

Again, welcome. We're delighted that you're here.

MS. WATERSON: Thanks.

I'll just start off, this is very difficult. I don't usually come out of my bedroom, so coming all the way to D.C. is a little —- well freaking me out. But, however, uncomfortable, I may be, I think it is more important that I be here, instead of worrying about my own problems, because this really needs to be done. When I entered the--

REP. DAVIS: Ms. Waterson, if you could just get a little closer to the mike, that would be very helpful.

MS. WATERSON: Is that good?

REP. DAVIS: That's better. Thank you.

MS. WATERSON: When I entered the Air Force I seriously considered making it a career for myself. I wanted to travel, and I wanted to have a stable life, and career. After I was assaulted, I no longer trusted anyone on base, and my career was no longer an option for me.

This is my MST and PTSD that resulted from it. I was forced to move in with my mother at the age of 30, because I could not take care of myself, keep a job, or feel safe outside, even in my own apartment.

I lived on cereal and microwavable dinners so that I did not end up causing a fire, because I forgot that I was cooking something. I was so depressed that I actually quit smoking, because the task of actually picking up a cigarette, and lighting it, was just too much. Of course my doctors were happy about that.

I had crying fits that were so powerful, I could not even get my head off of wherever it landed, because of the exhaustion. One time my head landed in my shoe, and it would leave me hoarse for three days, from crying so hard. I have gained over 60 pounds, and I would go into violent rages. One time I ransacked the house to find every present I had ever given my mother, smashed them to bits, and set them on her bed. I would swear at her, and throw things at her as if I had Tourette syndrome.

Any attempt at communication with me, I would just flip her off. This behavior was -- I have never treated my mother like this before. I didn't understand why this was happening, and it ruined my self- esteem that much further.

I have missed most family functions since being in the Air Force, because I'm unable to be around many people, especially people who are asking a lot of personal questions--like, oh, how's life, what are you up to, what are you doing? Yeah, that kind of brings the family celebration down a little.

It has been only recently that I would even leave my bedroom. I used to have very good credit, and I was proud of that. Because of not being able to pay my bills, or because I couldn't keep a job, just recently I had an attempt to have my wages garnished. I was too afraid to wear anything at all inviting, i.e. I would wear men's clothing, usually in all black, and several sizes too big. I didn't want anyone to find me approachable. I'm afraid of being assaulted again.

I used to have my hair, and makeup, and nails match every day, no matter what I was wearing -- for years. Now, with the exception of today, I would only wear ChapStick, and stick my hair up in a bun. I rarely, if ever even painted my nails. I don't have the energy to look good due to depression.

I have had meltdowns in the supermarket, because if I saw someone, especially if it was a man, I knew they were stalking me, and I would run from the grocery store.

My marriage to a man, who I am still friends with, ended due to my PTSD symptoms. I didn't realize why I was acting the way I was, and neither did he. Nonetheless, it ruined our marriage. That's probably the hardest part.

Excuse me.

I began therapy at the VA because I had lost everything as a result. I began to see patterns, and I realized that I needed to get my life back. I realized that there are many other people who need to be helped get back on track as well, and that is also why I am a Veteran Advocate myself -- out of my bedroom, and out of my own pocket. Part of my wellness is testifying today, forcing me to get out, and do things that are challenging, because they're more important. I'll leave here today, but hopefully my message will not leave.

If I had a caring SARC representative, I believe that I would not have ended up in the mess that I have ended up in. I was never given a representative. When I called to have some assistance, no one came. It got to the point that I called the 15th Air Force Commander, who was in charge of the entire western half of the United States, and whose name was also in all of the sexual assault booklets, and leaflets, and since basic training we had all been taught the same thing, I trusted in that.

I also trusted, because I had friends before I went in, aren't you afraid of the sexual harassment, like the whole Tailhook thing? I was like, no. With all this media, why would they, you know, they must be really careful about it now.

The 15th Air Force Commander said, well, why don't you just keep it on base and have, have them take care of it? They wouldn't. I reported it as I was supposed to, to my supervisor, as well as his, they said it would be taken care of, and I trusted that.

Two weeks later, I was at work, and everyone was asked to stand up, because there was going to be a pinning on ceremony. That pinning on ceremony was for the man who assaulted me, to now outrank me, and become my supervisor. He was rewarded. This is when I got very angry. After fighting and calling everyone I could possibly think of, my commander finally called me into his office, with my supervisor here -- the guy who assaulted me, my chair, and then his supervisor. So, I was not even close to my supervisor, or the one who should be protecting me, or making me feel safe.

I was told by my commander that I need to understand that different people have different personal levels. For example, when you go to England, sometimes when you meet people over there, and you shake their hand, they like to hold onto your hand while they are speaking. And as Americans, because we don't do that, it's uncomfortable for us, and that is how he told me that I needed to get over what had happened.

That is when I became —- I started drinking obscene amounts, again not knowing anything about PTSD, and starting having -— yelling at my husband over the stupidest things and having absolute fits of rage. And again, this is not me.

After this meeting I had with my commander, my SARC, or whatever he was called at the time, offered me therapy. I asked if it was going to be from someone on base, or if it was going to be civilian. He told me it was going to be from someone on base. And from the treatment that I had gotten so far, to try and help me, there's no way I was going to trust another military member, to tell them how I felt, and what was going on. So, when I refused help, they had me sign a waiver saying that because I refused treatment, I was not going to be eligible for any VA treatment, or benefits. I, of course, did not realize that that was a load of malarkey, until several years later when I had to go to the VA, because I couldn't handle my own life.

I was also told that punishment of my perpetrator was not my business. I think that is -- I don't know for sure what the rule is about that now, but it is definitely (someone's?) business, because I trusted them in the first place to take care of it. And promoting him two weeks later is not promoting it, or sorry, fixing it. All of the evidence that had been in my files about this was sanitized. This is the normal, and way too often thing that happens with files. Things that are important, that would have something to do with a claim, are taken out of your files, so when you request them, over half of your file is no longer there. So, trying to fight the VA to get benefits is next to impossible, because there is no proof anymore. Even if you reported it to the on-base police, even if you reported it to like anybody who would listen, like I did nothing. This again makes us trust the government even less.

I would be afraid, even when the phone rang -- that could make me cry. A few months ago I was at a friend's house, and her washing machine turned on, and I had a panic attack from that—I don't know why. I have panic attacks all of the time for the oddest reasons, I'm sure as I get further in my treatment I will figure out why certain things trigger me.

I believe that there are some good SARCs, but not enough. SARCs need to be on top of their game. A victim is not going to seek out help, they're going to go do what I did, they're going to stay in their room, and drink—they're not going to trust anybody else to go help them.

I also believe that a SARC should not be a dependant of the military member, because the way that they would run their case maybe far too influenced on their fear, that if they go against the way the command is saying things should be done, that it could be detrimental to their spouse's career.

Excuse me just a second.

The SARC also needs to be able to have complete confidentiality with things that a victim says, and does, with their SARC -- needs to be completely confidential. It (has been?) maybe a month or two ago, that a victim's SARC was subpoenaed to testify against their own victim, and of course they had no choice. Just like you're doing now, let the MST victims be involved in the training of SARC personnel. They know how it feels, they know what needs to be changed, and commanders also need to be accountable when it comes to the rapist.

We have plenty of rules that are not worth the paper that they are printed on. For example, if somebody is, has done a sexual assault, it is supposed to stay in their record, they are supposed to sign up as a -- I'm sorry I'm blanking out the name, but whatever the civilian thing is that a sex offender has to register under, that's a rule.

I have very little —- in fact, I don't think I've ever seen that done, now that I'm even doing advocacy work for people that are still in the next phase they go to, that file does not follow them. So the next command does not know that they have done it. They're put in the same situation, and they know that they can get away with it. I do not believe a lot of the rumors, and the little two-bit ideas that most people have about, well, the alcohol, well, then maybe women shouldn't be in the military, well, well, well.

I believe it is due to the consistent and rewarded attitudes of misogyny, thinking that women, and also men -— there's plenty of men who have been sexually assaulted that I have worked with as well. They need to be able to be safe, feel like they have been taken care of, and when you find out that a person, who has sexually assaulted you, did it at the last base, where is the safety? I felt like I was entering the band of brothers, as their sister. I was then an outcast; alone, and (then ?) challenged on everything I did.

There is also the Troops to Teachers Act, so a person who has sexually assaulted a member, when they get out of the Air Force, or any Coast Guard-- whatever, so they get to go be Troops to Teachers, and their file does not follow them, because they have not registered as a sex offender. So they get to be in schools with children as a sex offender.

More often than not, the reason —

(Buzzer sounds.)

--Is that for me?

REP. DAVIS: No, keep going.

MS. WATERSON: Oh, okay. I'm like, am I talking too long?

REP. DAVIS: If you can try and summarize that would be helpful, because we will talk to the other witnesses, and we may have a vote coming up, as well.

MS. WATERSON: Oh, okay. Sorry.

REP. DAVIS: But that's all right, we really are anxious to hear all that you have to say. Go ahead.

MS. WATERSON: Okay. I'll quit now for then and let somebody else speak.

I'll answer any questions you may have.

REP. DAVIS: All right. Thank you so much for your presentation.

We will have some questions and I think also what we want to do is have a chance to really engage together to understand what's different today, what of that that's different works and that which doesn't, how you can add to that discussion we'll be very happy to hear about that.

Thank you again.

Captain Katka, will you and the other witnesses want to introduce yourselves and tell us a little bit about your experience with sexual assault program that would be very helpful. I understand that you don't have a long testimony but you would like to just let us know where you fit into all these pieces.

MR. DANIEL KATKA: Yes, ma'am. Thank you.

REP. DAVIS: Thank you.

MR. KATKA: Good morning and thank you Chairwoman Davis and the subcommittee members for your interest in the issue of sexual assault. My name is as stated Captain Daniel Katka, and I'm stationed at Lackland Air Force Base in San Antonio, Texas and where I am honored to have the opportunity to be a Sexual Assault Response Coordinator.

I've been privileged to be in the Air Force for 20 years now. I enlisted in 1988 and commissioned in 2002. I've served as a Squadron Section Commander for large units and as a Military Training Flight Commander for over 1,500 personnel. And in those duties I dealt with numerous personnel issues to include sexual assault. Those experiences led to my desire to become directly involved in the care and advocacy of sexual assault survivors for courageous people like Ms. Waterson. Thank you for sharing. In 2007, I was honored to be chosen as one of Lackland's two SARC.

Supporting Lackland's sexual assault survivors is my top priority. Air Force SARCs report directly to the installation Vice Wing Commander. Reporting to the vice commander ensures top level support and immediate access when needed. I also work directly with a Sexual Assault Response Team, or the SART, comprised of first responders from the chaplaincy, investigators, the JAG, and the medical communities. The SART team meets monthly to review cases and discuss ways to improve response procedures. I recruit, screen, train, and supervise 70 Victim Advocates who are military and DoD civilian volunteers.

Air Force Victim Advocates receive 40 hours of training to provide immediate and ongoing survivor support. Victim Advocates and SART members are trained to understand restricted and unrestricted reporting options. The local San Antonio civilian community is also involved in supporting Lackland's survivors. The local Rape Crisis Center works with survivors who prefer to receive one-on-one or group counseling off base. We also have an outstanding partnership with a local civilian hospital for survivors who desire a sexual assault forensic exam. When utilizing the Rape Crisis Center or the local hospital, survivors' restricted reporting option is still protected. The majority of the reports made at Lackland are from trainees, which encompass the Air Force's youngest demographic.

Training is essential to informing Lackland's nearly 50,000 personnel about sexual assault. Lackland is the Air Force's largest training base with the only Air Force basic military training center and numerous technical training schools. Every basic trainee receives a four-hour Sexual Assault awareness class. Airmen are presented an additional two-hour follow on class during the introductory week of their technical school. To ensure our permanent party personnel receive necessary sexual assault training, Lackland has over 200 Sexual Assault Prevention and Outreach representatives who conduct briefings and distribute awareness products. The annual Sexual Assault Awareness Month also presents an opportunity to educate the base. We've had numerous activities to heighten awareness: walks and runs, base walk/runs targeting the younger population; leadership luncheons; Take Back the Night vigils; banner campaigns at base entrances; and strategically placed information booths at highly frequented locations such as the Base Exchange. The experiences I've had at Lackland prepared me for the SARC mission abroad as well.

One of the most rewarding opportunities I had was to deploy as a SARC in support of Operations Iraqi and Enduring Freedom at Al Udeid Air Base, Qatar. Most Air Force SARCs are DoD civilians, but to ensure contingency and deployment capability, 30 are military members. In the AOR, it is vital to have a robust sexual assault training and awareness program to ensure all know, regardless of military branch, that the SARC is there to support them. With strong base leadership support, I provided SAPR information at weekly in-processing briefings, reinvigorated monthly case review meetings, trained new SART members, and started new awareness campaigns using base organizations such as the Airman's Group, First Sergeants Associations, and the Desert Chiefs Group. I also supported Al Udeid's geographically separated unit, Eskan Village in Saudi Arabia.

It is a profound privilege for me to be here today, Chairwoman Davis and it's very important that we have this kind of hearings to keep our most important resource in the forefront of our minds and that's our human resource.

Thank you very much for this opportunity.

REP. DAVIS: Thank you very much, Captain. And if we can, as quickly as possible because we do have a vote up and we want to hear from both of you quickly and then we'll come back and have the questions.

Yes.

SGT. MICHAEL HORWATH: Good morning, Chairwoman Davis, Congressman Wilson, subcommittee members, I'm Sergeant First Class Michael Horwath. I've been in the Army 22 years, currently assigned to Fort Hood, Texas with Fourth Infantry Division Fourth Combat Aviation Brigade. I've been working with the Sexual Assault Program with the Army since 2004 after graduating from the Defense Equal Opportunity Manager's Institute, I was assigned to Fort Hood as an equal opportunity advisor. At that time, the program manager had mandated that all equal opportunity advisors would become a part of this program, either as a victim advocate or a sexual assault response coordinator. Having had close ties to a victim of sexual assault and having a teenage daughter at the time I was more than happy to step up and become a part of this community.

We spent most of 2004 coming up with programs to push awareness to the soldiers. We're using a draft copy of the Army Regulations 600-20 Chapter 8, Army Command Guidance. We pushed that as hard as we could, got the soldiers aware of the program, we did a lot of sexual assault surveys to find out what the awareness levels of the soldiers were.

2005 I deployed to Camp Taji, Iraq where I was assigned as the camp sexual assault response coordinator. I was responsible for four brigades, 52 tenant agencies, it was a double duty for me because most of the tenant agencies didn't have victim advocates so I was required to respond as their victim advocate. I was also required to respond for any sexual assault on camp that was reported to an alternate agency.

Upon redeployment back to Fort Hood in November of 2006, I started working hand in hand with the contracted civilian sexual assault response team, I would fill in for them when they needed SARC help, I would fill in form them when they needed trainers and I would work with them as a liaison between the military commands and themselves.

2007 I was selected as the first sergeant to redeploy to Camp Taji, Iraq, continued my collateral duty as a SARC while I was over there this last time, returned in November of this year, and have continued working hand in hand with the civilian team that works the Fort Hood sexual assault response since then.

I have a 21-year old daughter and a 19-year old son, both who are active duty Army, both deployed right now. And I'm comforted and confident that this program is there for them, that if something as traumatic as a sexual assault was ever to happen in their life, that this program that I've been a part of for the last four years would be there to see them through to help them overcome the trauma that would take place in their life and get them back to their day to day business of being soldiers.

I want to thank you all for allowing me to be here today to share my observations of how this program has evolved and grown over the past four years. I'm extremely proud of the contributions I've been able to make with it, and I think that it's just going to continue to become a better and better thing to make soldiers' lives easier when something as horrible as this happens.

REP. DAVIS: Thank you very much.

Chief McKennie. And if we could ask you, I'm sorry to, we will come back to you of course after we come back, but if you'd give us a brief introduction that would be great.

CPO. TONYA MCKENNIE: Good morning Chairwoman Davis, Ranking Member Wilson, and distinguished members of the Military Personnel Subcommittee, I am Navy Chief Petty Officer Tonya McKennie. I enlisted in the Navy in 1988, and my rating is aviation electronics technician. I am qualified as both an air warfare and surface warfare specialist, and I am also married to a Navy chief, and we reside with our son Jeffrey Devonte in Chula Vista, California.

I currently serve as my command's training leading chief petty officer for fleet logistics support squadron 30 at Naval Air Station North Island, California. I also serve as the command sexual assault victim intervention advocate.

The program that we use in the Navy is called SAVI it's spelled S-A-V-I and it stands for sexual assault victim intervention. Throughout my 20 year Navy career, I have been assigned at several duty stations, ranging from Florida, Maine, California, Japan, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and I've deployed to Italy with a VP squadron, VP-11. My sea duty assignments include Persian Gulf deployments onboard the USS Kitty hawk and USS Carl Vincent. In 2004, I reported to the USS Ronald Reagan where I not only served as a production control maintenance chief for 350 technicians but also a sexual assault victim intervention advocate.

After two successful deployments during Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom aboard the Ronald Reagan, I reported to my current command. And I must say that as I've continued to work with SAVI, it has been one of the most rewarding aspects of my Navy career. My work as a victim advocate has been absolutely awesome and I plan to continue this as long as I can. I thank you for the opportunity to share my experiences with you today and I look forward to your questions.

REP. DAVIS: Thank you very much. I appreciate all of you being here. We will return in probably about, we just have one vote, so within 10 minutes. Thank you very much.

(Recess.)

REP. DAVIS: I want to start the rest of the hearing. I want to thank you all again for being here. We're going to go on the clock essentially, the members we have five minutes to ask a question and also to hear from you. And if possible we may have an opportunity to get into some exchange really and I would invite you all to chime in when you think it's appropriate.

Ms. Waterson, clearly the system did not keep you safe. And I know that you believe that it doesn't keep other members of the military safe today either. But the time that we are talking about, it was prior to some new policies that had been in place. And with the work that you've done and your advocacy, I wonder if you could speak to few instances, perhaps, where you think the system today would have served you better; and in those cases when you don't think anything that's been done would really have made a difference. I think you eluded to some of that in your testimony, but if you could go back and talk to us a little bit about that, that would be very helpful.

MS. WATERSON: Well one big thing is the confidentiality so that the victims do feel safe and being able to tell them that, you know, I have insomnia, you know, I'm throwing up all the time, I'm drinking a bottle of Jack Daniels a night, you know, all that kind of stuff. They need to be able to feel safe that they can tell someone about that so that they can go get treatment. And in my experience with working with active duty and also working with veterans recently, there is a big problem with many, many, many bases and commanders who have tried to brush off what the mandates and the laws are that have already been put in place.

There's one commander in, for example, who treated me like I was an absolute idiot. He was completely cocky about the whole thing and I read off the mandates like this is what you need to be doing for your troops and you're not doing it at all. And you're allowing other people -- for example I had one that was a male victim MST and they were not protecting him as well. They were allowing people to walk by him and call him a fag. They were allowing people to beat him up because they were saying that he was a fag. He was being administered psychiatric drugs by his peers and not a medical professional, it was his peers. He was still in training. It wasn't basic training but the training for his job, that was where he was.

And it was disgusting and it has been, I've had to call the IG like and I asked these troops some things like, "Have you talked to your IG yet?" What's an IG? "Well have you talked to your SARC yet." I don't think so. And a lot of the SARCs they have the initial meet and how are you doing and da-da-da, and that's it. They don't call to check up and see how you're doing or let's make sure you get into the hospital and make sure your meds are correct. Basically to take care of them makes them feel like they have someone because most of them their families are very far away. And especially in training, they probably don't have any friends, either. But that is a large thing.

The SARC needs to be able to have enough power to fight the commander when the commanders are ignoring and basically mocking the system that supposedly has been put in place. That's a huge, huge problem.

REP. DAVIS: Thank you. I'd like to actually to turn to our folks here as well and see could you respond and help us with that as well because I think there is a big question of whether the SARC comes to a commander and says listen, we've got a problem here and nothing happens. What kind of authority do you have to follow up?

CAPT. KATKA: Yes, ma'am. We report directly at my base, we report directly and in the Air Force to the vice wing commander, essentially the second on the base, which helps tremendously by the way. And so we are able to kind of go and interact with commanders, of course not tell them what they must do, but recommend highly with the vice -- their understanding that the vice wing commander is who we report to. So it helps us tremendously in advocating for the survivor and whatever her or his needs are.

SGT. HARWORTH: We're very similar, ma'am, we do a monthly sexual assault review board and we report everything that goes on that's involved in the program goes to the senior movement commander of whatever installation we happen to be on, for me that happens to be the division commander. And it is reported up through there and if there were ever any instances of anything like that going on, it would immediately come down. There's a lot of focus on command emphasis right now.

REP. DAVIS: Quickly, Chief McKennie, I know I'm out of time, but I just wanted to get your response quickly.

CPO. MCKENNIE: Oh, in the Navy where I'm affiliated in San Diego all of our SARCs are civilian personnel, so they are not normally subject to military intimidation and have free reign and have a lot of leeway in being able to deal with any commanding officers or military personnel. So in my experience, we do not have that problem.

REP. DAVIS: Okay. Thank you. I think we'll want to follow up with that a little bit more too and see, you know, how we might be able to hold them accountable in a career sense as well. Thank you.

Mr. Wilson.

REP. JOE WILSON (R-SC): Thank you, Madame Chairwoman, and thank you all for your service and past service.

Chief Petty Officer McKennie, I understand that the option for restricted reporting of sexual assault may be encouraging victims to come forward who in the past have been reluctant to report. From your experience, do victims often change from a restricted to an unrestricted report and what factors would enter in?

CPO. MCKENNIE: Ranking Member Wilson, sir, I have not had any experience in dealing with any of the victims that did desire a restricted report. However, for some individuals to come out of a restricted series to an unrestricted series, they have a year to decide, by policy, to come from restricted to unrestricted. And any evidence that has been gathered for them on their behalf during that time would be available, sir.

REP. WILSON: And again, thank you for your personal service and it was very inspiring.

Sergeant Horwath, please walk us through how a victim advocate and a sexual assault response coordinator provides assistance to a victim once a victim requests help.

SGT. HORWATH: Sir, once we receive the initial report, it'll come up to the sexual assault response coordinator. We immediately take the victim in. If they need immediate medical attention we take them to the medical care provider. Once we get them there, the victim advocates will show up. We work it so that the victim advocate in the Army, at least in my brigade and in the division, we ensure that the victim advocate is not from the same battalion as the victim in case they do want to go restricted.

Once we've got them through the portion where they would make their choices of whether they want to continue on with it and do forensic exam and so on, then it's a matter of the victim advocate is there to be that person's go to, the victim's go to person. We ensure that they go to their appointments. We ensure that they have that battle buddy to get them where they need to be. And from there it's just a matter of ensuring that they get the counseling and the treatment that they need. And we stay with them through it until they come to us and ask us to no longer participate.

REP. WILSON: And persons know how to access you and the --

SGT. HORWATH: Yes, sir, we've made a point -- in the deployed environment, we make a point of doing large campaigns. We will put up posters with the sexual assault response teams photos on it, it'll have the SARC, it'll have all the victim advocates. We put them up in the dining facilities. We put them up in the laundry. They're basically all over the camp. So the folks know how to get to us if they need to.

REP. WILSON: Thank you very much. And Captain Katka, you were deployed as a sexual assault response coordinator. How did you ensure that the victim advocates available were trained in your AOR?

CAPT. KATKA: Yes, sir, in the Air Force, if you go through victim advocacy training, you receive what's called a special experience identifier in your personnel record or better known as an SEI. So when a deployed person goes overseas or a SARC goes overseas, they can request that a personnel record is run on the people on the base and those who have had that special experience identifier in their record will be noted, and so then that SARC will know that that person is a trained VA.

Additionally, when a SARC goes into the AOR or at least in my experience, I also put out a bulletin to the base if there are any experienced VAs here, trained VAs, please come see me if you'd like to serve, for some reason if their experience identifier didn't get updated in the system.

REP. WILSON: And as a former JAG officer myself in the National Guard for 31 years, I'm impressed at the ability to have restricted and unrestricted reports. How do you find that system working?

CAPT. KATKA: It's working fantastic, sir, in my opinion. Last FY '08 we received 43 percent in Lackland, now not in the AOR, I had 43 percent of our cases were restricted reporting cases. In AOR I had eight cases in four months and three of those were restricted. It worked fantastic to be able to speak to a survivor and say you think about what you'd like to do, and he or she was very, it brought them solace.

REP. WILSON: I think it's very impressive to protect the privacy of individuals and so I want to commend you on your helping promote the policy and educate and inform the personnel of the availability. And so again I'm very grateful and respecting the Chairwoman's five minutes strict rule, I yield back.

REP. DAVIS: Thank you. Dr. Snyder.

REP. VIC SNYDER (D-AR): Thank you, Ms. Davis.

Ms. Waterson I missed, I think, the year the date of the incident that led to all the problems that you've had that you've described for us today.

MS. WATERSON: What was the last part you said, I'm sorry?

REP. SNYDER: I missed the date of the incident that led to the discussion that you gave us. What was the year or date of the assault?

MS. WATERSON: Oh, of my assault?

REP. SNYDER: Yeah.

MS. WATERSON: I just remember it was in 2001.

REP. SNYDER: 2001. Okay.

MS. WATERSON: And I only remember that because it happened before September 11th. It was a good year.

REP. SNYDER: Thank you. Thank you.

Sergeant First Class Horwath, you've mentioned Taji and it's been several years since I've been there but it's a bit like a boom town, all kinds of personnel coming through, multiple services, even different nationalities and services, lots of private contractors, civilian local workers, how does this system work with that kind of environment?

SGT. HORWATH: The system, as for how well it works, it works fantastic. The process of the system is the report comes in, goes to the sexual assault response coordinator, is delegated down to a victim advocate for the advocacy portion. The SARC would then report up to the next level, which for me at Taji would have been multinational division Bagdad and then goes to multinational forces Iraq where it is put into the database.

REP. SNYDER: Can an Air Force personnel end up with an Army advocate?

SGT. HORWATH: It's possible, sir. I would not turn anyone down for advocacy. I've advocated for civilians, military, male, female, contractors.

REP. SNYDER: Tell me about the contractors. How does that work?

SGT. HORWATH: With the contractors, the way we work it sir, and this is just from my personal experience, was we gave them advocacy services, got them to the counselors because they fall under the program for all medical and processing while they're over there.

REP. SNYDER: Something happened to them at Taji?

SGT. HORWATH: Yes, sir.

REP. SNYDER: Okay. So they come see you or one of the --

SGT. HORWATH: Yes, sir. They'll come to us, we were fortunate in that the agency they were contracted through also had a program internally, so we achieved the advocacy portion for the victim and then the contractor processed it once the victim was comfortable with going back.

REP. SNYDER: Have you ever been aware of situations where a higher ranking officer than the three of you sent down word of change your normal kind of process or procedure with regard to a specific individual who makes an allegation of sexual assault?

SGT. HORWATH: No, sir, I am not.

REP. SNYDER: Does your system as it's working now which you say it's working very well, does it have those kinds of protections in if you got some kind of, somebody have the ability to order you --

SGT. HORWATH: Yes.

REP. SNYDER: -- to back off?

SGT. HORWATH: There are at each echelon brigade, well starting at the division up to the corps, at each echelon there's a program manager. If I felt I was being pressured in any way by a senior level commander, I would go to the program manager and it would be pushed up to the next echelon as high as it needed to go, sir.

REP. SNYDER: Captain, Chief Petty Officer, you all want to respond to that question?

CAPT. KATKA: Yes, sir, I would, I have not received any pressure to reveal any kind of information or change procedures from a command. I think the closest I could maybe give an example of is one time a colonel was wondering about a case and I said sir, do you have the need to know? And he goes you know what, you're right, I don't, I don't need to know. So he, it was simply that he knew exactly what the policy was.

CPO. MCKENNIE: I can also comment on the same sir, I have not received any pressure. I have had an incident where I was asked for information and I immediately responded it was, they were not on the need to know list and I immediately talked with my sexual assault response coordinator and received no other problems after that.

REP. SNYDER: Thank you, Madame Chair.

REP. DAVIS: Thank you. Mr. Jones.

Ms. Bordallo?

REP. MADELEINE BORDALLO(D-GU): Thank you very much, Madame Chairwoman. And I appreciate your leadership and I look forward to working with you on this subcommittee this term.

I want to say that I appreciate the testimony from all of our witnesses this morning, particularly you, Ms. Waterson. It takes a great deal of courage to come to testify before members of the U.S. Congress on a situation like you went through. And I don't think -- and I want to thank you for your advocacy work. There is no better advocacy experience than to be a victim yourself. And I'm sure you'll find that out as you go along your way in this direction.

I'd like to direct my question to anyone of the sexual assault response coordinators. I believe that you are all active duty, but I am wondering how this system of coordinators works for members of the National Guard. Have you heard any stories from colleagues about implementation in the National Guard? Often times these support systems are designed for active duty without thought of the Guard. So I'll begin with you, Captain.

CAPT. KATKA: Well ma'am, I can't speak for the Air Force, of course. I do know that if a survivor -- if someone is in the National Guard and they're on orders say in the AOR, they receive all of the same exact care in regards to restrictive reporting that a active duty member would there on orders. But in terms of the Guard and what their way ahead is and things like that, I don't know if I can speak officially to that, other than to say that I believe, and you may qualify this in future panel with future leaders, I believe that there is a Guard, a separate Guard SARC course for, to respond to those.

REP. BORDALLO: Sergeant?

SGT. HORWATH: Ma'am, I have personally been involved with training the National Guard SARC at Fort Hood a couple of times when they come in to process through for deployment. They go through the exact same sexual assault response coordinator's course and even the victim advocates course that active duty soldiers do.

REP. BORDALLO: And Chief Petty Officer?

CPO. MCKENNIE: I have not had any personal experience with working with National Guards. There is a community solution -- a civilian component available in California that I could refer them to if I could not provide any assistance to them.

REP. BORDALLO: Well, I feel that if there are any rules and regulations in place at this current time that we have to include the National Guard. They are out there fighting with us shoulder to shoulder so I'd be interested to hear about programs and see that they're getting the same treatment.

To all of the witnesses, from your experiences what lessons learned can and should be applied to improve sexual assault victim support in the military? Are all the rules now from -- Ms. Waterson, from the time she was in apparently there weren't all these rules and regulations. Now many new ones are in place. Is it enough or do you see anything that should be in?

CAPT. KATKA: Well, ma'am, there's always room for improvement to be sure, and although we -- we've come a long way from the time of Ms. Patterson (ph) we do have, I believe, work to do, perhaps. And this is just from my experience. The -- and again, just maybe future panels may be able to answer this better than a layman's position in regards to the legal issues. When a victim comes forward in a unrestricted setting where he or she says, you know what, I want to go forward -- I want an investigation or whatever, they sign the paper.

Unfortunately, it's tough, as we all know, for a survivor to come forward and go through the litany of interviews. It's estimated that 25 to 35 times from start to finish through courts and such you'll have to tell your story. That's extremely draining and perhaps retraumatizing, revictimizing. In those -- in that setting right now it's difficult once that ball gets rolling for that survivor to say, you know what, I want to stop -- I'm tired -- I'm -- I don't want to do this. Family issues, as we've heard from Ms. Patterson, or what have you, and again, I don't -- and I wish I had a solution.

You know, we're taught in the military come with a problem and a solution and this, again, may be at other panels with -- in regards to legal. So that can be an issue because there have been times in my personal experience where an individual originally had signed unrestricted and then later on as they go through it it's just tough on them. They're saying, I really wish I could put the brakes on this, and it can be difficult.

REP. BORDALLO: So that's understandable. You know, this happens not just in the military but other cases as well.

CAPT. KATKA: Yes, ma'am.

REP. BORDALLO: But you do feel there -- there could be improvements. Sergeant, do you have any comments to make to that?

SGT. HORWATH: Ma'am, I believe that it's an ever evolving thing that we're working with the Army. In my personal experience, a lot of programs focus and refocus. This program will do the same and it will continue to do that and focus in the areas as I've seen it do already. When we find something that's lacking we change focus and attack that also, and I believe this program will continue to do the same.

REP. BORDALLO: Chief Petty --

CPO. MCKENNIE: The sexual assault victim intervention program of the Navy has afforded me a great opportunity to be very successful in supplying support and guidance for those victims that I've dealt with. It is a -- it is a good solid program but as other programs it's always evolving and there are more things to come, and I'm sure of that. But as in use right now it has really afforded me a great opportunity to -- and the resources that are available under this program have been supreme in the recovery and restoration of many victims that I've worked with.

REP. BORDALLO: Thank you. Well, I thank you very much and I hope as we go forward and the rules and regulations are in place that we perform them in the strictest way. Thank you.

REP. DAVIS: Mr. Rooney?

REP. TOM ROONEY (R-FL): First of all, I want to say to Ms. Waterson, you know, I was nervous for you when you were testifying. I think you showed a lot of courage, and as a former prosecutor at the federal level and at the state level in Florida and as a former judge advocate your testimony here -- and I know everybody agrees with me and I know you've probably heard this a million times already today in coming up here -- but it is so vitally important that you continue to tell your story and, you know, try to pave the way for in the future so other victims don't have to deal with what you're having to deal with.

So I thank you for that and I really appreciate your testimony here today. My question, as a former judge advocate in the First Cavalry division out at Fort Hood, Texas, what is the process just for the good of the group here with regard to a situation like Ms. Waterson went through and coordination with the MPs and with the judge advocates -- to have a judge advocate and -- and sort of looking at the other end of this spectrum, what is supposed to happen to the person who commits the assault?

And I know in your story obviously it wasn't -- didn't work the way it was supposed to work. But with regard to the branches sitting at the table what coordination do you all do with the military police and/or the staff judge advocate in a normal case?

CPO. MCKENNIE: Yes, sir, that's a very good question, Congressman Rooney. In the Navy, as an -- as an advocate when I'm dealing with a victim my first and sole courtesy, of course, is to advocate for the victim. So the only interaction that I would ever have on behalf of the victim is to just be there for support and guidance while they're doing any interviews or going through the process -- the legal process that they need to go through. So my interaction is solely focused on the victim themselves. So no dealings with the perp -- not my concern. My concern is that victim and that's who I'm there for.

SGT. HORWATH: Speaking from personal experience with the -- as a victim advocate, again, same -- same thing as CPO. McKennie said. I focus on the victim. As the sexual assault response coordinator it is my job to have coordination with the JAG, the MPs. It's a point of the training that I go through. It's a point of something that I have to do every time I set up a new sexual assault response team.

I have to make those contacts and I have to be able to receive that information and I will be the one as the sexual assault response coordinator who will back brief the victim on any information that is passed back to me through the JAG office, the CID office, the MP office. And it all comes through me as the SARC, and will go directly to the victim from there. And I've never had any -- any contention whatsoever with any of the agencies that I've worked with.

CAPT. KATKA: In the law enforcement realm, there are checklists. If a survivor would present themselves or a case would be, you know, investigated there's a checklist for the investigator (OSR ?) security forces to call the SARC. We are actually on the top line. They would call us. We -- we would ask them to not interview that survivor until our victim advocate gets there so that they can have -- so as to know that somebody is there with them.

In terms of the -- the legal side of it, the Air Force assigns what's called a Victim-Witness Assistance Program representative. That person is a liaison to tell that survivor everything that's going to happen should this go to court, or if it doesn't, what would it look like if the commander is going to assign judgment or punishment to the perpetrator or what have you. And so that person is assigned to that survivor specifically, and myself as the coordinator are -- is intimately involved with that Victim-Witness Assistance Program representative.

So we kind of form this kind of hug, if you will, around that survivor so that he or she is fully aware of everything that's going on.

REP. DAVIS: Ms. Sanchez?

REP. SANCHEZ: Thank you, Madame Chair. As you know, we've been working on this issue for so many years now and I think a lot of the task forces and the changes in the law, I hope, are helping. But I continue to receive information from victims and from people on the forefront that with respect to having somebody there in the field with everybody that it's different between the services. For example, with respect to the Navy I think you all sort of move around in a group. You get on a ship and you're there for however many days, 90 days, three months, what have you.

So everybody sort of understands who the person is that's kind of in charge of taking care of things if some victims should emerge and everybody knows who to go to and you have the support system to help with that. But, for example, with the Army, in particular, if someone is in combat -- in a combat zone -- let's say, Iraq -- we are filling positions with Reservists, with National Guard, with pieces of volunteers from other units, that it's not necessarily true that an advocate is stationed or in a zone with a particular person.

It's not that well known who that person would be or there's not that much emphasis placed on it because you're in a war zone and other things are going on.

So I would like get some comment in particular from you, the Army, as to what are the challenges with respect to having these special advocates or special counselors assigned? What is the commitment to that? What could we do better to ensure that if someone is in Iraq, because we've had I think now -- I want to say almost 600 reported assaults in Iraq or more at this point the last number I checked. Given the difficulties of Afghanistan or Iraq in particular, how are you coping with that and what are the mechanisms or the procedures you'd use to identify that in fact there are -- there is somebody to turn to if an assault takes place?

SGT. HORWATH: Ma'am, I can only speak from my personal experience as working with the Fourth Infantry division. We have the process. The policy is in place. There will be two unit victim advocates per battalion and a SARC for every brigade. When we deploy out, the SARC is the one who oversees the program.

I've had several small units that have detached and gone to different FOBs where they were away. I make it a point of my job as the SARC to contact whatever group is running that and find out who their victim advocate is and making sure that the chain of command and the soldiers are aware of it. Again, we do poster campaigns. We put it out as much as we possibly can. I can't make a soldier come forward and report but I can definitely throw it in their face that there's someone available for them.

REP. SANCHEZ: Do you -- what's been going on with respect to the Air Force in this because, again, I think I'm more familiar with the Navy as more stable in a sense with respect to that? What -- what do you see in the Air Force happening?

CAPT. KATKA: With respect to advocacy in the AOR, ma'am?

REP. SANCHEZ: Yes. Down all the way to the soldiers -- to the airmen or airwoman that might be involved.

CAPT. KATKA: Yes, ma'am. There is a challenge, I'll admit to you, in these forward operating bases, the GSUs -- the geographically separated units -- and I'll -- and I'll speak to that experience.

REP. SANCHEZ: And that's what I would like to hear about and any comments you might have as to how we make it better.

CAPT. KATKA: I'll try. Yes, ma'am. In the base I was at we had victim advocates without a problem because it was such a large installation but I also supported a geographically separated unit in Saudi Arabia. I think perhaps about 300 airmen were on that Army installation and so victim advocacy -- the spirit behind the VA program is volunteerism, all right -- to keep people who really have a passion for this program to ensure that those are the people that are serving us, not for a performance report rating or what have you. So when we set up the GSU or when the GSU is there if we don't have a volunteer victim advocate it can be difficult to fill that VA slot over there. We don't assign -- we don't make people be VAs in the Air Force.

What I did when I was over there before I left is I found out a month or two prior to me leaving who was going to be coming in to that GSU, and I found out the people's names, very frankly, and I called back to those bases and I asked the -- or I asked them or asked the SARC, "Could you ask those people if they would like to volunteer to be a victim advocate in that arena?" Fortunately, it worked out. We got three or four victim advocates for that -- that GSU in the next rotation and I made up a continuity binder for my predecessor to understand this is what I did -- I highly encourage you do the same, and that's how we began to tackle it.

REP. SANCHEZ: And then -- and the last question, do you see that the volunteers -- because this is based on volunteer.

CAPT. KATKA: Yes, ma'am.

REP. SANCHEZ: Do you see that it's mostly women stepping forward to volunteer --

CAPT. KATKA: Yes.

REP. SANCHEZ: -- for these slots?

CAPT. KATKA: At Lackland, at my main base, we have approximately 65 to 70 VAs. We have about 15 that are male.

REP. DAVIS: Thank you.

REP. SANCHEZ: Thank you, Madame Chair.

REP. DAVIS: Thank you, Ms. Sanchez. Ms. Fallin?

REP. MARY FALLIN (R-OK): Thank you, Madame Chair, and I too appreciate all of you coming today to testify. It's been very interesting, and Madame Chair and I we're co-chairs of the Women in Military Task Force for Women's Caucus so we appreciate having another hearing on this important issue. Ms. Wasserman, I -- is it Waterson?

MS. WATERSON: Yes.

REP. FALLIN: I appreciate your testimony today and I know it's very difficult to come forward but just would like to encourage you to keep telling your story so you can help other women as they go through this process. Hopefully, you'll -- your healing will continue to carry forth. I had a question for you. After listening to all the testimony today by our various officials and our victims advocates, do you feel like since your incident in 2001 that we have made progress in the military in establishing procedures and advocates and programs that you would find today more helpful than what was available to you back then?

MS. WATERSON: To be honest, no. I've seen a lot of new mandates and a lot of new, you know, whatever. But the fact is that the majority of what I've seen and dealt with and heard from other survivors is that nothing has changed. They are still using the McDowell checklist to -- which basically they can turn it around and make it look like the person is lying, and so someone who comes forward and wants to report it could be charged with conduct unbecoming, filing false charges, and if either the victim or the rapist or assaulter is married they can be charged with adultery.

That is a big reason why people do not come forward, and other women will see what happens to one woman about what happens -- about them basically getting their lives torn apart just because they went forward and asked for help. They get stalked by the friends of the perpetrator. It's -- I don't -- I don't see any change.

REP. FALLIN: I --

MS. WATERSON: Some -- sorry.

REP. FALLIN: I appreciate those comments and I hope the men and lady here will listen to those comments and maybe make improvements upon that. But from what I've been listening to I feel like there has been a progress made and I appreciate the steps that -- that you have taken in your various division. But I do want to ask about some of the things that she brought up earlier today, and she talked about if -- if someone has been accused of a sexual assault or rape that they might be moved to another military base. Is that what I was understanding you to say earlier?

MS. WATERSON: They have the option of either changing jobs, changing bases, and they also have the ability to get out of the military on an administrative discharge.

REP. FALLIN: And you were saying that the files do not follow them. If I could ask you to comment on that, on your procedures -- that if someone is accused of assault and if there has been something that has happened do you move them to another base? Does their files follow them or what is the real procedure in that?

CPO. MCKENNIE: In -- yes, Congresswoman Fallin. In the cases that I've dealt with victims there has been an opportunity for either to be moved. In some cases that I've dealt with as a victim advocate when I've made the needs and wants of the victim that I've been dealing with known they've had an opportunity to be moved to a different department or division away from the perpetrator. In other instances, the perpetrator has been moved off the facility completely.

It is always -- in my experience in dealing with the victims I've worked with it's always been the command's intent to make the victim as comfortable and be supportive as they possibly could.

REP. FALLIN: Let me ask you about that real quick. So you're saying that the victim can request to be moved during the process of determining guilt or --

CPO. MCKENNIE: They could --

REP. FALLIN: -- or the other person accused could be moved.

CPO. MCKENNIE: I apologize, ma'am. I make those needs and wants made available to the sexual assault response coordinator and they make a recommendation to the command. It is an opportunity for them available. However, the command does have final approval over who will be moved.

REP. FALLIN: Okay. So it is optional, and the reason why I ask -- and I see the Lauterbachs here. I've had the opportunity to meet with Mrs. Lauterbach on her daughter's case where she lost her life. She and her accuser were kept in the same battalion if I remember right and wasn't moved and she ended up losing her life. And so it is an important point that we do all that we can to separate the victim and the accuser and I know everybody has the right to due process -- to be found guilty or not guilty.

But if there is a situation where the accused feels like their life's at threat, the accused -- the victim, I should say -- then they should have those options of being moved. Now, let me ask you about the sexual assault. Do you keep an assault --

REP. DAVIS: I'm sorry. Ms. Fallin?

REP. FALLIN: -- registry?

REP. DAVIS: Your time is up. We're going to come back and have another round.

REP. FALLIN: Okay.

REP. DAVIS: Thank you very much. Ms. Shea-Porter?

REP. CAROL SHEA-PORTER (D-NH): Thank you, Madame Chair. I wanted to follow up on that very question that the congresswoman asked because when I was hearing about what was happening to the victims I kept wondering what was happening to the alleged perpetrators, and so what I just heard on that testimony told me that it's not necessarily so that the alleged perpetrator is removed, and I also wonder about the damage for a victim losing -- having to be the one to request the transfer, losing the friends, the security, the comfort of the job, the familiarity of the routine, and allowing the perpetrator to stay in place.

So I wanted to ask that question also. Is this something that the commander must do or is it still optional? I know that, you know, you probably recommend that they be separated but I didn't quite understand what actually does happen. Is there something in stone -- something codified this is what they have to do -- they have to be separated? And who leaves?

Is it up to the victim about whether he or she stays and the alleged perpetrator has to leave or could you go a little bit further on that, and I think maybe, Captain, if you could tell me what happens in the Air Force please.

CAPT. KATKA: Yes, ma'am. Let me speak to a recent case. Recently -- and I won't speak in specifics because it's still going on -- a young lady presented and she asked that she be -- as the survivor, she's the survivor. As the sexual assault response coordinator in concert with the mental health provider we were both able to write letters recommending to her functional community that she go to a base of her choice to be around family members for support.

And so she got what was called a humanitarian reassignment and it was all predicated on the fact that -- of her assault. Now, in other instances -- I work at a training base and so there are training at the training units where men and women obviously are together, and if there is an assault, and we'll use a male-female -- a male assaulting a lady -- there will be a no -- automatic no-contact order given. Now, as a SARC I can't -- I am not an authority in terms of this is what will happen.

I'm only a recommender. I am a liaison to the command. I help the command understand the survivor's situation -- their mental well- being and what's important. And so I recommend to them the no-contact order, but it's just automatic that the survivor, or excuse me, the offender will be moved from that squadron into another squadron. It's hard to move perpetrators because they need to stay often to be brought up on charges, so on and so forth, at the base that they're assigned to. And quite honestly, in my -- in my experience the victims have always wanted to be the ones to be moved in terms of the (permanent ?) party (injured ?) so they can be around family members at other CONUS locations. I hope that helps.

REP. SHEA-PORTER: Okay. Well, I figured somebody had to be disrupted but -- but ultimately it still is not a rule. It is -- it's recommendation and then you hope they act upon your recommendation.

CAPT. KATKA: Ultimately, but future panels may help you understand that better.

REP. SHEA-PORTER: Okay. Thank you. I appreciate it. And Sergeant, do you have anything to add to that? What is your experience where you are, please?

SGT. HORWATH: Ma'am, for the Army there is an automatic flag placed on the perpetrator which means they cannot move just because of the difficulty it would make in forward -- going forward with the prosecution if you move the perpetrator around. It is optional for the victim if they would like to be moved. We work with them. We work with the command as much as possible and we'll move them around.

I've never been refused to move a victim. It's always been made available. With the exception of redeployment, we will move them within theater if they're -- if they are over in Iraq or Afghanistan. They move them around but they don't redeploy them automatically. But the flag stands for the perpetrator to ensure that the individual is there to be investigated -- put through the processes that have to come forward.

REP. SHEA-PORTER: And Sergeant, I wanted to ask you why -- I realize that, you know, you have different sets of circumstances but the rate of rape continues, at least reported rape, continues to climb in spite of these programs and the Army has a much more significant problem than, say, the Navy does, and to what do you attribute that and can you tell me that when recruits come into the Army are they allowed to have anything on their record whatsoever that would suggest that he or she could be a risk to other troops?

SGT. HORWATH: Ma'am, never having been a recruiter I'm not aware of anything that would be looked at. I have no knowledge of that. My personal belief on the reason that you're seeing higher numbers of reports is because the program is working. The soldiers are being made aware of the program. They're -- they know that we're there to help them and they're coming forward in higher numbers and reporting situations that may have gone unreported for -- for many years.

REP. SHEA-PORTER: Would that be what you would think -- that it was higher reporting rates, Captain?

CAPT. KATKA: Yes, ma'am. I think it -- it may sound contradictory but I think it can be -- it is a good news story. I think the higher our rates go up it's -- we hope, and it's anecdotal of course, but we hope it's because young men and women are fearing more -- feeling more comfortable to come forward. So obviously the result would be the numbers would be higher.

REP. SHEA-PORTER: Thank you, and the same to you, Chief Petty Officer?

CPO. MCKENNIE: I -- yes, ma'am. I believe that the training that the Navy provides and the continuous training that we do every year it does instill a confidence in our sailors to come forward and report any type of sexual assault.

REP. SHEA-PORTER: And Ms. Waterson do you feel the same? And let me thank you for being here and sharing your story. Do you agree with that -- that we just have better reporting now?

MS. WATERSON: From what I've seen and what I've dealt with, honestly, I don't think so. I don't -- I just don't think so. The purpose of the --

REP. SHEA-PORTER: (Cross talk) -- keep looking. Thank you.

REP. DAVIS: Thank you, Ms. Shea-Porter.

Ms. Tsongas?

REP. NIKI TSONGAS (D-MA): Thank you all and I appreciate very much your testimony, Ms. Waterson. As others have said, it's taken great courage and we learned very much from it. Among other things, I think it reminds us one, that the assault in and of itself is horrible, but that our response to it can really aggravate that circumstance, and to how important it is as we go forward that we recognize our obligation to put in place mechanisms that have real teeth.

One of the things that as I listened and I'm concerned about the chain of command structure in the military works to our advantage in many instances but it seems to me that in this area it's one really which works against our being able to respond in a way that is truly meaningful. So I have just a couple of questions. In terms of the reported assaults, do you keep any track of how often the assault is by a superior, somebody -- I know that in the military academies, for instance, we were -- we heard reports of just one upperclassman one -- one class up could make a difference in a woman's willingness to report it, take it on in some way. So do you keep track, you know, keep records of how often it is a superior of any kind that is involved in an assault as a -- as a perpetrator?

CAPT. KATKA: Yes, ma'am. We have in our tracking database ranks of both the subject and the survivor. So we know exactly who -- what the rank breakout is.

REP. TSONGAS: Can you quantify percentages at all?

CAPT. KATKA: I would say approximately the -- the survivor status is -- 73 percent of the survivors are about -- are E-1s through E-3s and then the offender status rank is 54 percent E-1 through E-3. So obviously the leftover would obviously be of the higher rank than E-3.

REP. TSONGAS: So that would be how much? My math isn't great.

CAPT. KATKA: I'm not good at public math either, be honest with you.

REP. TSONGAS: How about for -- for you?

SGT. HORWATH: Ma'am, the Army uses a sexual assault reporting system. All sexual assaults that are reported go into this one database so they do have it available. It does have the rank of -- of the alleged victim and of the perpetrator so it is tracked throughout the Army. As far as statistics I do not have any available.

REP. TSONGAS: I'd like to see those if possible. How about in the Navy?

CPO. MCKENNIE: As an advocate I do not track numbers, ma'am. The sexual assault response coordinators track and keep files of any victims that happen in our area and I'm not aware of any formula or percentage data that they have available to them.

REP. TSONGAS: If there's any way of getting that data I would appreciate it. The other question I have is I happened to attend a session last year at -- for some -- those who were returning -- wounded warriors who were returning, and happened to go over to speak to some of the women, several of whom had been victims of sexual assault, although that was not why they were in this setting. And one of them did comment to me that as she was in Iraq she felt more afraid of her fellow soldiers than she did of the enemy.

So that told me that we have a serious problem, especially in the theater of war, and that whatever we're doing clearly to deal with the victim -- those who are victimized -- we really haven't put in place sufficient mechanisms to sort of alert women, help them figure out self-defense mechanisms, to empower them in some way as we go forward, and I think that's particularly important in the chain of command context. That's just a statement. I'm wondering what you all have as leverage with your commanders if they refuse to take action after you've gone up the chain of command in reporting, what you think should be appropriate action. They do nothing, what can you do?

CAPT. KATKA (?): Could you explain the nothing -- nothing against the perpetrator, nothing to help the survivor -- maybe if you could just be a little bit more --

REP. TSONGAS: Maybe against the perpetrator. So, for example, the story of the soldier who gets promoted in the face of your reporting, but how -- what you can do to have a commander take this very seriously.

CAPT. KATKA (?): Sure. What we could do is what we would do; we would interact with commander and obviously, that commander would be aware of what happened.

Now, I should point out that the interaction with commanders for a sexual assault response (coordinator ?) is going to be with the survivor's commander primarily; it wouldn't be with the perpetrator's. We are very survivor centric, victim centric. So, everything that is supports her that's what we would take care of.

In terms of the perpetrator's commander, admittedly very little interaction, but to help the survivor obviously we would ensure that we would talk with our vice wing commander if necessary -- that's base level commander -- and we would bring it to his attention to see if he needed more mentoring, if you will, from one commander to another.

I hope that helps.

REP. TSONGAS: I don't know what my time is --

REP. DAVIS: Thank you. Your time is up.

Mr. Johnson.

We're going to finish up with all the subcommittee members and then we'll go to other members.

REP. HANK JOHNSON (D-GA): Thank you, Madame Chair. I applaud you for holding this hearing today on this very important subject and Ms. Waterson I want convey to you my deep respect for having the courage to take on this kind of cause and to share your experience publically. Every one of you at the table, I want to thank you for your service to the nation.

I will say being a -- my background is in law. I practiced law for 27 years; most of that time, I was a criminal defense lawyer, but also for 12 years of that time, I was a magistrate court judge. I find that it's bad when we have a culture in the military, a boys will be boys kind of -- so there's not a real serious investigatory effort.

I know that that culture is changing, as it should, but I would hope that we would also keep in mind that some complaints of sexual assault are unmerited; therefore, when we talk in terms of the victim, the perpetrator, the survivor, depending on what phase of the process that we are in -- pre-trial or pre-disposition -- I think probably a better language would be the accused and the accuser, instead of assuming that the accused is guilty by calling him or her the perpetrator.

Now, aside from that, I do think that in the civilian world, a deterrent for people committing sexual assault crimes is a vigorous law enforcement approach, which begins of course when there's a call to the law enforcement agency. Most law enforcement agencies in the civilian world in a large department will have a sexual assault investigatory team and I think I would like to know whether or not when a complaint is made, is it an MP untrained in sexual assault investigation techniques that is brought to the scene or is it someone who has been trained specifically to investigate these kinds of issues -- collect evidence, crime scene unit, how do we do that, protocols for doctors, are medical doctors trained to investigate from a medical perspective and preserve evidence and document things.

Is that something that people are trained in and in terms of chain of custody issues of the rape kit? Are there protocols for passing those on up the chain?

If we have a vigorous, well trained enforcement and investigatory apparatus -- what is your opinion as to that issue? I know you all get the cases after the -- you get the case at some point after a complaint is made. Tell me how you get that case, how does it come to you?

Captain Katka, you mentioned something about you asked that no one talk to the survivor first without you being the one, or your office being the one, to speak with the complainant. Can you explain the reason why and, whether or not that includes the police investigating the matter first, with exposure to the complainant?

CAPT. KATKA: Yes sir. The reason that we want to ensure that we get to speak with the survivor first is first of all, remember the restricted and unrestricted reporting option. We don't know what he or she had said at this point, so to preserve his or her privacy to help them understand the reporting option is key.

REP. DAVIS: Captain Katka I'm sorry. I'm going to have to cut you off because I have been cutting everybody else off after five minutes.

Mr. Johnson, we'll come back on another round and we'll some more time.

Thank you. Mr. Turner.

REP. TURNER: Thank you, Madame Chair. Ms. Waterson, I also what to, as everyone has, thank you so much for what you have done.

Coming forward I know has to be incredibly difficult. Your story is very moving, but what is important is that you're bringing light, really, to an issue of a process that's really about people. It's about people like yourself and we can't make it right if we don't know what the problems are. You're doing that makes a difference for others and hopefully it makes a difference for you too.

I have with me today -- I want to tell you, Ms. Waterson, that we don't have it right yet. It is not fixed and that is why this committee -- and I want to thank our Chair for undertaking this issue. We know that this did not just happen in 2001, but as many members have said, this is an ongoing issue and we don't have it right.

I have with me today, Mary Lauterbach, who is in the corner here. She is the mother of Maria Lauterbach who was a Marine who, upon coming forward with an allegation of rape, was subsequently murdered; that was in 2007. In working with the Lauterbach family, we've basically seen that there are two different types of issues we have to deal with.

There's the cultural issue and it's a very strong cultural issue that needs to be addressed in the military; the issue of this being acceptable, the issue of the treatment -- how sexual assault victims are treated. The second is our rules and regulations. What are the processes that we go through and there are things that we find along the way that need to be changed?

For example, from the Lauterbach case, two things that we just changed in the National Defense Authorization Act applied to protective orders. In Maria Lauterbach's case, her protective order was allowed to lapse, so we changed that in the last law so that they now will be permanent.

Also, the local authorities knew nothing of the protective order so that when she was off base, they had no idea that there was an issue that was ongoing and that has been changed in the last act that we did.

We need to learn more of these things that need to be changed and more culturally. I want to thank Madame Chair for undertaking this, she's met with Mary Lauterbach and I want to thank Jane Harmon for her work on this. She's met with Mary Lauterbach and we really appreciate your advocacy on this.

Now, getting to that issue of -- we have two; we have culture and we have rules and regulations -- I have two separate sets of questions for our representatives from the military. I want to set this up by telling you that after Mary Lauterbach came forward and she had the detailed report from the base as to their description of what had happened to Maria, the family was very concerned because it appeared that the base was saying that we had no knowledge that there was any risk to Maria. In fact, because there was no knowledge there was no protection that needed to occur.

So, from my office I inquired asking the Marines to explain to me how they could have no notice that someone is at risk when they are coming forth with an allegation of rape. I know you all are very familiar that the safety of the victim is important and I want to read to you part of the response that I got because I want to get your thoughts on it because it was very repugnant to me.

When I got this response from the Marines, I thought it went right to the culture. This letter is dated March 31, 2008 and it is from Lt. General Kramlich. I asked this question: Doesn't a rape accusation inherently contain an element of force or threat? They go on in their answer to relate that according to their information, there were two sexual contacts; one being alleged rape, one being consent.

Then they write this sentence, which I'd like you three to respond to: "Lauterbach never alleged any violence or threat of violence in either sexual encounter." Now, I don't know how there could be a rape where there is not an allegation of violence or threat of violence and that was my reaction, and it's been the reaction to members that I have read this to.

I'm certain that as you advocate for victims, you run into cultural issues and responses like this, which I happen to have from the Marines in writing. Could you each please respond to what your thoughts are when you hear someone say that there was never alleged any violence or threat of violence in relationship to a rape?

Captain?

REP. DAVIS (?): And sir, this is to your personal experience. You're not representing the services (and we understand ?).

CAPT. KATKA: If I'm understanding correctly, that just because there was no physical force then there was not a rape, is that a simple way of saying it?

REP. TURNER: No. They are acknowledging that there was a rape. The question that we had is that there was a rape and, that we believe, that the victim, Maria Lauterbach, was therefore at risk for future violence. She came forward with the allegation of rape and so we were inquiring of -- because there was a rape, didn't you know that there was a threat of violence?

They wrote back and said that Lauterbach never alleged any violence or threat of violence in either sexual encounter, meaning of course referring to the rape itself; that the rape itself did not include an allegation of violence or threat of violence. That's just so shocking to me and I would think it would be in your experience.

Again, this is dated March 31, 2008 from Lt. General Kramlich, U.S. Marine Corps. What are your thoughts?

CAPT. KATKA: Well, in regards to -- and I notice the time going down Ma'am --

REP. DAVIS: Right, your time is essentially out, but can you quickly respond to his question?

CAPT. KATKA: That astonishes me too. I don't know how much quicker I need to be.

REP. TURNER (?): Astonished that someone would make that remark.

MS. : It is an unfortunate remark and a victim of sexual assault is a victim of sexual assault, regardless of what anyone thinks; as an advocate, and that's what I advocate for -- that victim.

REP. TURNER: Thank you for the extra time for them to finish.

REP. DAVIS: Thank you.

Ms. Harman (ph).

REP. JANE HARMAN (D-CA) (?): I thank you, Madame Chair, and the members of the committee for welcoming me back. As you know, I served on this committee for six years. One of the members at the time was Pete Geren from Texas, who is now the Secretary of the Army and who was taking an extraordinary leadership role on this issue. I want to commend him in absentia, but also commend the Army's representative for what you're trying to do.

I want to repeat something from Ms. Waterson's testimony. I don't think it was in her written testimony. She said, "Where is the safety? I felt as though I was entering a band of brothers. I was then an outcast, virtually alone." I can't imagine a better summary and I just want to say to you, Ms. Waterson, and I certainly want to say to the Lauterbach family, America failed you, the military failed you and Congress failed you.

It is past time to get this right. This is an epidemic. A woman in the military is more likely to be raped by a fellow soldier than killed by enemy fire in Iraq. I've said this before, it is still true. I'm glad that we're working on victim care, but what we need to work on more is prevention; that is why Mr. Turner and I reintroduced our joint resolution and that is why I hope, Madame Chair, that this committee will move on to adopt this resolution, which calls on the military to develop an effective strategy for investigation and persecution of these crimes.

These are not just crimes against individuals; these are crimes that impair our national security. So I hope in the 30 seconds that I have left, that I can just make the point that I don't want anymore women or men who were victims of these crimes to be virtually alone, to feel that they're outcasts, to feel afraid to come out of their bedrooms and have horrific personal consequences for this.

I just would conclude by saying America's failed and I hope that this committee -- a great committee with a great tradition of defending soldiers who sign up to serve their country -- will take this issue very seriously, pass this joint resolution and do as much as we can to stop this epidemic.

Thank you, Madame Chair, I yield back.

MS. : Can I say one little itty bitty thing?

With all the victims that I have worked with, at least 90 percent said that the way that they were treated after the assault was far worse than the actual assault and far more devastating. And this is still with all the new rules and the new regulations -- I just wanted to make that point.

REP. DAVIS: Thank you, Ms. (Harman ?). I appreciate that because I wanted to come back to you. I mean, that is a stunning statement and what we're trying to do is to figure out where the gaps are, are there different tools -- we have some wonderful examples of some SARCs here, people that have a great commitment and a passion for serving the people that you're working with.

You mentioned at one point in your testimony that you have concerns that there should be more sexual abuse help and support to victims from outside the system, not from inside the system. You mentioned spouses that they have a special problem in terms of nevertheless being independent in their assessment and independent, I think, in their advocacy, which means going all the way up the chain as well.

Is that part of the problem as you see it; that we need people from outside the system because we also could suggest that that could be a problem, certainly in theatre; in a combat theater that would be an issue? Where is that piece that you're looking for as you've seen it now and worked with other advocates? Is that still critical in your estimation or is it more the training of the people who choose to select because it's a self selection process in many ways -- people who volunteer?

Again, we have some wonderful examples of people who are choosing to do that. How can we fix this part of it?

MS. : Right; I'm not saying its every SARC or every base, but the reasoning that I'm saying that it needs to be civilian and people that are not, say dependant of someone in the military, is because it will make -- first of all, it will make the victim feel more secure with actually telling the whole truth, talking about their symptoms, thinking that someone's actually on their side. They are far less likely to come forward to another military member since they were just assaulted by another military member.

The other reason is because there's too much room for intimidation and with several SARCs that I have had to basically do their job for them because they were not doing their job for the victim. They don't have enough power to say, "What are you doing" to the command, you're not following the rules, the regulations, all the mandates and all these rules that have come up.

There's just far too much intimidation factor. They don't want to lose their job or they want to endanger the job of their spouse, etc.

REP. DAVIS: Could I ask the rest of you to speak to that? because one of the things that you said, I believe Captain Katka, is that you or a SARC has no real link to the accused -- in the words of my colleague -- and that you're not able to necessarily track what happens in those cases and to find that there's some way, some accountability there for people acting appropriately -- not just within the rules but acting to be certain that that doesn't happen again; certainly not with that accused but within the unit as well.

What do you see then? Is there a tool there that would be helpful? Whether its -- Ms. Sanchez and I talked earlier about career advancement; is that an issue? What is it?

CAPT. KATKA: Perhaps I also misspoke earlier to say that there is no tracking of the perpetrator for the accuser, because we do. We do bring updates to the survivor, continually working with the legal system. There is that and maybe I didn't communicate that good enough.

Although we don't have authority -- not authority -- but we don't have decision making power to do thus, and so with the perpetrator, please understand that the vice wing commander -- reporting to the vice wing commander is essential and we feel as though because we have that vice wing commander's -- the person that we're subject to -- it helps tremendously and I've seen case after case where we were able to use that authority to help us get things done on behalf of the survivor and understand what's going on with the perpetrator as such.

REP. DAVIS: Any other follow up comments quickly?

SGT. HORWATH (?): We run the same program basically and the legal system tracks the alleged perpetrator and we get updates to give to the victim. We have no say in what happens to them, but we're not a part of the investigatory process either. We're there to be victim focused, almost solely.

CPO. MCKENNIE: One of the great things about the Navy, especially in the Southwest Region where I'm affiliated, being an advocate for the victim, they do receive updates periodically from NCIS or from the detectives that are handling their cases. It is their right and they are aware of that when I first come on scene.

One of the tools that we do in the Southwest Region to prevent intimidation, or at least alleviate it as much as possible as an advocate, I am never in uniform so they do not know my rank. I always address myself by my civilian name so they have no idea who I am except that I am their advocate; that tool works extremely well for us in the Navy. Having civilian SARCs who are not normally intimidated by military personnel is also another balance that we use as part of our Navy program in the Southwest Region.

REP. DAVIS: Thank you.

Mr. Jones, we're going to go back to you.

REP. JONES: Madame Chairman, thank you and I want to apologize if any of my questions might be repetitive; I had to be out for almost an hour and I didn't hear the questions from my colleagues.

I'm very taken back by the testimony. I want to say to you, Ms. Waterson, that I regret what happened to you and I'm sure other members have said that as well, for a multitude of reasons.

I got a call three or four years ago -- Camp Lejeune is in my district -- and I never will forget a lady from Alabama who thought that her daughter had been raped. I actually ended up meeting with the mom -- she came to North Carolina from Alabama and I also met with the daughter.

I guess, just to get to the point of what I'm trying to ask based on your testimony, Ms. Waterson, do you -- in the Navy, Army, Air Force -- is the compassion there? From you, yes, I understand that. But, when I heard this testimony -- and I'll go back thinking of the lady that came up from Alabama -- when I hear this testimony, somewhere in the process the pain and hurt of the victim, it doesn't seem that up the chain, so to speak -- and I'm not trying to point my finger at anybody; you're the experts I'm not. I'm here just trying to learn, trying to do what's right.

Somewhere along the way, what happened to Ms. Waterson should never have happened. Why would that change where the person who committed the crime, if he in this situation -- and I don't know the case, I do appreciate and understand your testimony; I believe everything you said -- but has it improved that the victim is treated as a human being or is because the military has the structure that it has.

I will never forget with Secretary England, who I thought the world of, being down at Camp Lejeune in 2004, 2005 and 2006. One of the companies returned from Iraq and the Secretary England's comment we want to help you with PTSD and these kind of illnesses, and I promise you when this one Marine stepped out, I thought the Colonel was going to faint, because the Marine is not to show that he has a problem.

Has it changed -- what year did you say this attack happened to you?

MS. WATERSON: I'm sorry?

REP. JONES: What year did you say this attack happened?

MS. WATERSON: 2001

REP. JONES: Can women be assured now -- and maybe in a few cases men, I don't know -- but can women be assured now that if it happens today, in 2008, that the system has changed such that the percentage of those who will be hurt like this woman has been hurt is being reduced?

CPO. MCKENNIE: Congressman Jones, I can't guarantee and say to you that all women in the Navy will be assured or all men will be assured that are victims, because as long as there are evil people out in the world who what to perpetrate this crime, its going to continue.

But, as an advocate, what I guarantee from me, as an advocate, is that any victim that I deal with will receive as much guidance and support as I can physically muster for the entire time that I am their advocate. Because people are different in our society and they are from different backgrounds, and there are some that are more compassionate than others, I understand that I will run into someone that is not compassionate to the victim that I am advocating for and that will increase my motivation to advocate for them even more.

I will do all that I can to ensure that as long as I am their advocate, that they will get the support and guidance that they need. Whatever requirements we need to do, whatever steps we need to make to make sure that they get that. We're going to do that and its not going to stop as long as I'm their advocate.

REP. JONES: I want you to explain to me how skilled the sergeant or the captain -- again, I apologize; I should have been here but I couldn't help that -- but do you feel that --

I was watching Ms. Waterson shake her head when a couple of the comments I was making -- do you feel that in 2009 compared to 2007 or 2005, 2001, that the number of instances of rape that are being reported are up, down or still things happening that are not being reported. Obviously, you don't -- do you feel better about the fact that those who are victims are coming forward and that they are being supported by the chain of command in comparison to what, maybe, it used to be?

CPO. MCKENNIE: I've been an advocate since 2005 and in that time, my cases have increased. I am confident that because of the training that we are providing in the Navy, because of the awareness that we are providing in the Navy, the tools that we are giving people to come forth, that that has helped increase the reporting and I'm glad to see that those numbers are rising because that's more people who are no longer hiding with that pain and shame and that they can get the help and guidance that they need.

REP. JONES: Thank you, Madame Chair.

REP. DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Jones.

We have two votes we should be back in about 20 minutes, I think. If I could beg your indulgence, we will finish this round with all of you and then we'll go on to our next panel. Are you all able to stay? Alright, great. Thank you very much and I hope every member will return as quickly as they can.

(Recess.)

REP. DAVIS: Thank you everyone for waiting. We're going to return to the panel. We have few members who are coming back, we want to finish up this round and then we will move to the second panel.

Ms. Sanchez.

REP. SANCHEZ: Thank you, Madame Chair, and once again, thank you to all the panel for being here.

I have just one question, because in the 12 years that I have been on this committee and in the Congress, we have had this problem. I believe it's a major problem. When we are volunteer forces particular and when we are looking at 50 percent of Americans being women and the fact that we need to draw the talents from that pool, just as we do from the men and I believe women should be in the military and that this problem is continuing to happen and has for so many years, it drives me crazy.

were able to pass, as you know, a new UCMJ section that dealt with this, and I hear back from the prosecutors that they love using this new law and that they are more effectively using it to get the prosecutions they need. But I have always that there are three things that we need to do. One, change the culture; two, change the law so that we do prosecute and we can prosecute; and three, work well with those who -- the victims who have had this happen and make sure that they don't lose their lives.

So let's go back to the first one, change the culture, because this shouldn't be happening at all. I have zilch, zero tolerance for this. And it seem to me that no matter what we try, no matter how many rules we put on and how many administrative issues and everything, it all comes down to how the top is handling this, how the commander handles this, and whatever -- wherever it is, whether it's Iraq or whether it's an Air Force academy or whether it's a base in Camp Pendleton in California, wherever it might be. That it's really about how the chain of command deals with this, because they don't seem to deal with it very well.

And so my question is to Ms. Waterson who so bravely came forward today, and I thank you for that, because believe it or not, I personally know how difficult it is. It's been my contention that the only way we're going to make the command understand how important this issue is, is that it's actually a section on every promotion that they receive. That in order for them to be promoted they have to deal with what did you do about this?

How much of this has happened under you? How come you were ineffective about this? And that they don't get promoted if they don't take this seriously. Now, that runs counter to so many people saying oh, we just care about making fighting machines. Ms. Waterson, do you think that if these people in command that you go to thought that if they didn't handle this correctly or didn't make an attempt to handle it -- if they thought that they would lose their ability to be promoted that they might have taken this more seriously for you?

MS. WATERSON: Yeah. (Laughing.) That sounds like an excellent idea, that way they're held accountable.

REP. SANCHEZ: Because they're not held accountable. This is an accountability issue for the people in uniform. Some do it well. Some don't do it very well. Some say oh, the handshake was just a little too long or take care of it yourself or you're a big girl. And these are all things that I have heard from so many women who have been put in this spot. So do you think that that would make a difference if they thought that they wouldn't get promoted if they just told you to handle it yourself?

MS. WATERSON: I think that would be a great incentive. I think that part of it should also be interview or contact with whoever the victim was and ask them how they were treated and if they think that everything was done fairly -- (crosstalk).

REP. SANCHEZ: Well, that would be part of it. I mean, the way we would judge whether this person, whoever was in command, actually really took care of it is that there would be some input from those who had suffered the acts and had been treated one way or the other by this person. What about the rest of you? What do you think, because you have probably come across some commanders who really care about this thing and really do something right away about it? And you've probably come across people who sort of move the pieces on the checkerboard around. What do you all think? Captain.

CAPT. KATKA: Well, ma'am in the 10 seconds we have, a culture change -- I would love to see it be genuine. Disingenuous -- using people as ranks and things like that perhaps would promote disingenuous culture change rather than real culture change, completely in my opinion. But I understand where you're going. And then the criteria issue, I mean, what would you put in that promotion? What would be the criteria for that promotion, the statistics? If statistics are up, is that good on the commander, or is that bad on the commander? So there's a lot of questions that I just immediately have that we probably don't have time even to get into.

REP. SANCHEZ: Thank you. Chief.

SGT. HORWATH: I agree, ma'am, that if it were done right it would be an effective way of pushing the program forward.

REP. SANCHEZ: That it would not or would be?

SGT. HORWATH: That it would.

REP. SANCHEZ: That it would.

SGT. HORWATH: But again, then it would be a threat, and that's my opinion. But it would be --

REP. SANCHEZ: I'm just asking your opinion.

SGT. HORWATH: -- threats against someone -- (crosstalk) --

REP. SANCHEZ: It's not threats. It's sort of like, hey, this is important enough for us -- for you to be graded on. I mean, when you go to a class in college, you -- if you're a smart student, you understand what the professor wants and what they're going to grade you on. And you tend to work on those issues that are going to get you the A, if you care about the grade.

SGT. HORWATH: I can see it being effective. We have blocks on the Army's NCOERs for equal opportunity and things of that nature. So why not? I can see that a soldier may look at that as being more important if they see it officially in their paperwork, sure.

REP. SANCHEZ: Thank you, chief.

REP. DAVIS: Thank you, Ms. Sanchez. Can you respond really quickly?

OFCR. MCKENNIE: I can. I believe that it would be effective, but it would also take training as well in combination with that, so that it would be genuine and effective.

REP. SANCHEZ: Thank you. Thank you, Madame Chair.

REP. DAVIS: Thank you, Ms. Sanchez. And I think that we've had a chance to just sort of brainstorm now a little bit in some of the down sides to it, up sides. One of the questions that I would just ask in trying to close this out, there obviously is some uniformity within the service that you're in, although there are certainly differences in the way people respond. But there's not a lot of uniformity across the services. Do you think that there should be? Is this an issue that all the services ought to have very, very similar policies? Or is there enough uniqueness in the way people respond within that service that you think there ought to be true differences?

CPO. MCKENNIE: Chairman, Chair or Ms. Davis, I believe that each of the services that have been represented today, in my opinion, because of the unique missions that we have in our each -- in all of our services, that the programs that we have in place have shown effective in the experiences of each of the advocates. I do believe that we can learn from each other, and there are high points to each program that could be adopted into other service programs. But I do believe that part of the reason, in my opinion and as an advocate, that there are some differences in our programs is because of the missions that we serve.

I deploy -- as a sailor, I deploy six months at a time on a ship. And some of the parameters that are inherent in their programs might not be effective for us in what we do. Most of their brothers and sisters in arms are in Iraq. Most of our sailors are not. We do have some, but the majority of us are on ships or shore facilities. So I do think that we are unique in itself and that our program, in the missions that we serve, have been effective enough so far and more improvements to come to be of great service to our brothers and sisters in arms.

CAPT. KATKA: I agree with her, ma'am, that I believe the uniqueness of each of our services requires a different program. But I also -- my personal belief is that there is enough of a sense of one that if I had a soldier who was based on an Air Force base that there would never be an issue with them taking care of the situation for me. There is a closeness enough with the program that the base is the same. It's about taking care of the victim and making sure that the process is moved forward.

SGT. HORWATH: On a large level, yes, ma'am. In our joint environment, I think it's imperative, like many of our programs kind of marry. And so we can give survivor support no matter what the branch of service, of which we've done. On a smaller level, at a base to base, for instance, my base -- Lackland Air Force Base -- is the only basic military training. A large portion of the individuals that we help in my office are those that were assaulted prior to even coming into the military. That's different. That's unique to our base alone. So there may be supplements or those kind of things that need to be addressed at my base. And as my colleagues just pointed out, there's differences there as well.

REP. DAVIS: Thank you. Ms. Waterson, I want to just give you the last word, because we are so supportive of your coming forward. And I want you to have a sense of how important your testimony has been. I can tell from several things that you've said that it doesn't all resonate with you in terms of where we go from here in trying to deepen our commitment in this regard and having the kind of objectives and follow through that's important. Do you have a last thought or concern that you'd like us to be thinking about in the next few months that might change the environment that you see for men and women today?

MS. WATERSON: To wrap it all up, this conversation that we're having right now, I think is a very, very good start. I think that the SAPRO is -- those are all the main rules and then little intricacies, depending on what's going on. But I think that representatives, like several from each service, should -- there should be more meetings like this with survivors, with other SARCs, with whoever. But it needs to be like this where we're all talking and can figure out what's best for everybody and then kind of trickle down into the little points that, like say he was mentioning, that are important at his base. So I think this is an excellent start, and I thank you very much.

REP. DAVIS: Thank you. Thank you all for being here. We certainly appreciate if you can stay for the next panel. We're going to have not so much long statements initially, but we're going to ask them if they can respond a little bit to some of the things that they've heard here today.

So if you'd like to stay, we certainly welcome that. And could the next panel please come forward? Thank you again, very much, for being here.

All right, thank you all. For our second panel, we're pleased to have two witnesses from the Department of Defense's Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office and one from the California Coalition Against Sexual Assault. Dr. Kaye Whitley is the Director of the Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office, what we all have been saying, SAPRO. She holds a doctorate in counseling and human development. I also believe that this is her first appearance before our subcommittee, welcome.

And also from the Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office is Teresa Scalzo. Scalzo is the Senior Policy Advisor for the office and is a former director of the National Center for the Prosecution of Violence Against Women. Her purpose here today is to provide her subject matter expertise on the Department of Defense's policy of restricted reporting.

And finally, we were supposed to have Suzanne Brown-McBride, Executive Director of the California Coalition Against Sexual Assault. However, Mother Nature was working against her, and she wasn't able to fly into D.C. last night. But we're very fortunate to have Robert Coombs, who did manage to arrive before the bad weather. Mr. Coombs is the Director of Public Affairs for the California Coalition Against Sexual Assault. Mr. Coombs will offer Ms. McBride's testimony -- Brown-McBride's testimony -- and will be available for questioning. We thank you very much for stepping in, Mr. Brown.

In the interest of disclosure, it's also important to note that while the California Coalition Against Sexual Assault is here to provide an outside perspective on the Department of Defense's Victim Support and Advocacy Program, they have, and I believe, continue to work with the department on a number of areas related to sexual assault. But we're very happy to have you and look forward to your testimony.

Now, I mentioned earlier that we were going to ask you if you could share with us, perhaps initially comments from your testimony, but if you wouldn't mind doing that with the group, your response to what you heard today. I know that certainly we have some wonderful advocates for victims, and they spoke very passionately, I think, about the work that they're doing. On the other hand, we had a survivor who continues to work with victims and would like to see more done. And I think everybody seeks improvement, no question about that. But could you share with us a little bit about your thoughts on what you heard today and help us by starting in that way? Dr. Whitley.

MS. WHITLEY: Thank you, Chairwoman Davis, and Ranking Member, Wilson. We appreciate the opportunity to be here today, and I do want to thank Ms. Waterson, because we all know -- all of us who work with victims know -- that this is a really difficult thing for them to do. We also think she's a perfect example of why we needed our policy and why we needed our programs.

I do have some concerns, because I felt when we were talking about the new programs she thinks that there are still some things out there that are still going wrong, through her work with victim advocates. So I have offered to meet with her to see if I can get some more concrete examples of what's happening to some of the victims and where it's happening so that we can follow up on it.

I'd also like to say I think you saw today the caliber of the people we have that are working in this program. I can't speak highly enough of the SARCs and VAs and their passion, and that's what we find when go out to installations and when we work in the field and work with the services. I'm also happy to share the panel with one of our civilian partners. They are in the business of victim advocacy, where we are a policy office. And we consult with the California Coalition Against Sexual Assault and other state coalitions as we develop our programs, because we do believe that in the civilian world there are some best practices. And in planning our program and policy, we've worked very hard to use those best practices.

Is there anything specifically you would like --

REP. DAVIS: No, I think that's fine. We'll continue.

MS. WHITLEY: Yeah.

REP. DAVIS: Ms. Scalzo.

MS. SCALZO: I have nothing additional to add to what Dr. Whitley said.

REP. DAVIS: Mr. Coombs.

MR. COOMBS: Yes. Well, first and foremost, I want to acknowledge that I come here as a victim advocate from my corps. That's where I operate. I happen to have a professional background in working in media and policy. And so when I'm working with folks like the Department Defense, I have very little interest in defending problems that they've had but rather seeking solutions. We've had a fantastic collaboration with the SAPRO office in particular. I've been working with them for -- since about 2006, have met with hundreds of SARCs and have done trainings for SARCs, worked with the Department of Defense office on prevention policy.

And I think that the testimony that you've heard earlier today is absolutely essential to understand the magnitude of the problem. But it's also important to remember that every single victim and survivor of sexual assault has a unique experience, and that for as much work is being done within the Department of Defense within each of the branches, we always will have room to grow in this area. We do as civilians. We do when we look to the military. And so I'm heartened to see the great work that has been done and really tremendous progress, more than I ever expected to see, but I also know we have a lot of work ahead.

REP. DAVIS: Thank you. One of the areas that has made a big difference, I think -- and I'll go on the clock at this time. One of the areas that has made a big difference is the restricted reporting. And yes, we know -- yet, we know that there are some loopholes essentially in the law that creates some problems around that. One issue Ms. Sanchez mentioned, how it might be used for career advancement. And yet, if there's restricted reporting, there are a number of cases that we might not be able to track. And so that's essential that there's a comfort level around that.

There is also an example if a victim reported to a friend that they had been raped and in fact that friend told the commander who then had to go and -- that changes. That changes, and the victim essentially loses control over that issue and over the decision about whether or not one is going to have it be unrestricted at that point. Could you talk to us a little bit more about that issue of restrictive and unrestrictive reporting and what you see is sort of the next generation of that law? What ought to be included in any changes that are made around it?

MS. WHITLEY: I'll let Teresa address that. But first I'd like to say that when the policy began in 2005 -- well, since it's begun, we've 1,896 victims come forward with a restrictive report. That tells me that it is a good thing, and that tells me that that's 1,896 people who came forward and got help and the care that they needed, which is one of the things that we're trying to do in the department, to get victims access to care.

REP. DAVIS: And perhaps, Ms. Scalzo, if you can just, for the sake of our audience, you might want to just explain that probably better than I could.

MS. SCALZO: The department has two reporting options, restricted reporting and unrestricted reporting. Restricted reporting is, quite simply, confidential reporting where command and law enforcement are not involved. It was quite controversial and very novel when it was created, and it wasn't introduced until six months after our policy was initially passed. In the military, it's a culture where commanders need to know, and they do know, everything that's going on underneath them. It was difficult to construct a system where we could protect victims' privacy but yet give them just a little bit of information, Jane Doe information -- non-identifying information, if you will -- that would enable them to keep the community safe.

We know that there's some challenges. And you mentioned if a victim reports to a friend and that friend then reports to the commander. The victim loses control of their restricted report, and it is no longer confidential.

That's actually one of our priority issues for addressing with respect to policy in the coming year. That's something that we believe is a policy issue, although there are pieces of it that are controlled by the UCMJ. In particular, commanders have a duty to report to law enforcement. And that's something we are working with the lawyers to figure out what the exact parameters are.

However, I can tell you that some of our biggest challenges from restricted reporting come from the civilian community and from civilian laws. For example, there are state mandatory reporting laws in the State of California that make it completely impossible to make a restricted report should the victim choose to seek medical care. And those are some of the more challenging issues we face because they're not within our control.

REP. DAVIS: Mr. Coombs, did you want to comment on that from California's perspective.

MR. COOMBS: Absolutely. And California has the dubious distinction, perhaps, of being one of the only places on the planet where unrestricted reporting doesn't work for service members, and that's specifically because of our adult mandated reporting laws coming from medical service providers. It's something that we're trying to address, and there's a handful of significant obstacles in trying to change that. We see unrestricted reporting as a very progressive move coming from the military. It's something that I think absolutely you're going to see an increase in the number of folks that come forward with unrestricted reports.

You heard earlier folks were talking about that an increase in the number of reports, whether restricted or unrestricted, is a good thing. And from the perspective of victim advocates -- I work with 85 rape crisis center throughout the State of California, and we've served over 26,000 victims just last year alone -- we think that's a good thing. When those numbers are going up, those are fundamentally a positive move, because it means that number one, those folks are getting services. Number two, it means that there's an atmosphere and environment in which people believe that they can come forward, that they're safe in doing so.

And so if restricted reporting enhances that, we're absolutely all for it. If there's other things that we can do, I think some of that could include some of the things that you were hearing earlier from the SARCs, better training, better communications coming from leadership saying this is something that we prioritize. And we want to make sure that you feel safe in coming forward with these things. I think that those are some of the areas of growth to look towards.

REP. DAVIS: Thank you. Maybe just to follow up really quickly, if I might, just the process of someone becoming a SARC, should that be more rigorous, less rigorous in terms of people actually volunteering, essentially, to be part of that?

MR. COOMBS: From my perspective, I believe that this morning you heard from excellent examples of folks that are working out in the field. I think a couple of things that are very difficult for recruiting and training SARCs include when you have that as collateral duty on top of other types of duties. This is something that, for many of us, this is our primary duty. This is our primary function. And when you add that on top of other jobs, it's really hard for them to have the services and the support really to go on to that. I've seen tremendous growth from folks in supporting those positions.

REP. DAVIS: Thank you. Mr. Wilson.

REP. WILSON: Thank you, Madame Chairwoman, and thank you all three of you for being here today. And I appreciate your efforts to prevent sexual assaults. I, Dr. Whitley, am very interested in your program. How is the Department of Defense evaluating the effectiveness of the program? And what criteria are you using to determine success or failure in order to make improvements to the program?

MS. WHITLEY: Well, we do an annual report to Congress in which we convey to you the aggregate numbers from all the services. That does give us some information. We also, in terms of measures of compliance, is basically what we do know. We go out to check to ensure the policy is being followed. We can measure victim care and victim services; are they getting the services they need. But one of the hardest things to measure is if we are preventing it. And as Mr. Coombs is talking about numbers, when we have numbers we don't really know is that a good number or a bad number, because we don't know how many sexual assaults are out there.

But one of the things that we are doing now in the Department of Defense, we are developing more measures and repeating those measures. We have two surveys, two gender relation surveys, that we do every two years. One is for the active duty force, and one is for the reserve component. That survey asks the respondents, have you ever experienced unwanted sexual conduct? What we are finding is our number of reports are way lower than the number of people who are saying on the survey they've experienced that.

So now we do have a measure, and we can look at the gap between the number of people that are saying they experienced to the number of people that are reporting. And our goal now is to reduce that gap, to get those victims to come forward and to get them the care and the help that they need. We also are evaluated consistently through different outside organizations. As we always have oversight from the HASC staff, of course, but the GAO recently did a study on our program. The DOD IG has investigated our program. We've had more than one task force, and there's one that's currently ongoing right now that will be bringing back recommendations for us. In terms of measuring success of the sexual assault program, that's very difficult to do, especially the prevention aspect.

REP. WILSON: Thank you very much. And I agree with Mr. Coombs that the persons we saw in uniform were professional. They were competent, capable. It makes you so proud of the American military.

Ms. Scalzo, with American forces deployed in very remote areas of the world, how is the program being adapted to say smaller units in remote areas?

MS. SCALZO: The services work individually to whatever particular challenges that they're facing in that area. They work -- the SARC's job is to figure out how to adapt. I can tell that at a policy level one of the issues that we're looking at is what happens in joint environments, such as those deployed environments. And we're in the process of drafting policy modifications to make it a little bit clearer as to who is responsible for what to improve that situation.

REP. WILSON: And with isolated units, whether they be in military facilities in Djibouti, on ships, in the Persian Gulf, Indian Ocean, how in the world do you make this work?

MS. SCALZO: Well, and certainly it's very complicated, and that's a very good question. It is complicated; it's challenging. And we do our best to make sure that somehow victims have access to those services in remote locations. It may take a few days to get them to where they need to go to get those services, but we work to make them available. But I can't tell you that it's not complicated, because it is.

REP. WILSON: Well again, thank you for your efforts. And Dr. Whitley, as we have the DOD program before us, again, is there any recommendation on any legislative change that you feel we should perform?

DR. WHITLEY: There's nothing at this time. We are still trying to make sure that we got the policy right. We're still examining gaps. So at this time, I don't have any recommendations for legislation.

REP. WILSON: And again, thank all of you for being here today.

REP. DAVIS: Thank you.

Dr. Snyder?

REP. SNYDER: Thank you, Madame Chair.

Dr. Whitley, at the end of your written statement -- we didn't give you time to talk about it today -- you do talk about what we call four challenges. It would seem to me that some of them may have some legislative possible solutions, and I don't want to ask you about those now, but maybe before we're done, we can have you amplify on those four challenges.

I wanted to ask about one of them being this issue of the civilian, adult mandated reporting statutes, and maybe I'll ask you, Mr. Coombs, how does that work in California? Do military doctors -- are they required to report under California law, or is it civilian doctors that see military personnel that are required to report?

MR. COOMBS: As far as military doctors staying on-base, I'd have to defer to my colleagues on that.

REP. SNYDER: They required to report?

MS. SCALZO: Yes, sir, they are. Doctors are licensed in a state, and they -- if they're -- they have to abide by the state laws, in addition to --

REP. SNYDER: Wait, are you telling me that any time a doctor is transferred to another base, they have to go through state licensing requirements --

MS. SCALZO: No, sir.

REP. SNYDER: -- in that state?

MS. SCALZO: No, sir. But the opinion we've gotten from our Office of General Counsel is that because the State of California has that law, that on-base, our doctors -- many of whom are licensed in California -- are not comfortable with complying with restrictive reporting because it violates California state law. In addition, there are a number of bases that have concurrent jurisdiction, in which state law would apply, as well. So the only time that the military doctors would be exempted possibly would be if it's an exclusively federal jurisdiction on that base.

REP. SNYDER: It seems like -- I mean, here we have a California advocate who's saying this is not helping sexual assault victims. I don't know what's going on in California. I was a family doctor in the olden days, and I would suspect there's just a lot of lying that goes on, you know, nudge, nudge, wink, wink.

A woman comes in who has been sexually assaulted or hurt in some way. Who knows that if she says what happened, it'll be reported. And so they kind of say, "Oh, you fell down the stairs again?" I mean -- and then, if you actually get to a criminal case, you then have a note in a chart that says "The woman said she fell down the stairs." I just don't see what good comes from this, but we're not hearing the other side of that today. But we do have the option, legislatively, I would think, if we chose to, of preempting that California statute, but that may not be the solution because it really does seem to work against the goals that you have with the restrictive reporting requirement.

Would you -- Dr. Whitley or Ms. Scalzo, will you describe for me the "need to know" concept, how that works with a commanding officer or commander?

DR. WHITLEY: Well, as we said earlier, it was a really hard sell to the commanders because they needed -- they need to know everything that's going on. One of the things that we said to the commanders when we were putting this policy out is, there are sexual assaults that are going on in your command right now that you don't know about. Wouldn't you at least like to know if one occurred and where it occurred so you could take actions to protect your troops? And that helped us somewhat with them.

And so when there is a sexual assault, our policy says the command is supposed to be notified that a sexual assault took place and whatever details that they can give that would not give away the identity of the victim. And so that way, if there -- if it's happening in a barracks, maybe they put more senior leadership in the barracks. It gives them other options to address the protection of their troops.

REP. SNYDER: I wanted to ask you, Dr. Whitley, on page 11 of your written statement, you talk about -- quite a bit about prevention.

DR. WHITLEY: Uh-huh.

REP. SNYDER: And it seems -- I don't want to say it's idealistic. I appreciate it's a very laudatory goal, and it reminded me of the time I -- some years ago, I was touring housing on a military base, and the VRs were smaller and the houses had smaller square footage, and -- but the personnel said, "But we don't need as big because we trust the people that live next door to us. Our kids can run in the yard next door. It's like they have a big yard because we're an Air Force family."

And it seems to me what you're trying to do is augment that whole concept that we are a family and take care of each other. You have this one statement here, you say, "There is some research that suggests that by educating military members when and how to act, we may be able to turn bystanders into actors who can prevent sexual assault." Would you amplify what that means, please?

DR. WHITLEY: Absolutely. And I have to say that the -- most of the services do have programs or bystander intervention programs in place. Most of our assaults that -- the numbers that report to Congress, they are not stranger assaults. They are not this guy jumping out of the bushes with the ski mask and a weapon. The majority of the assaults are between 18 and 24-year-olds. They are -- usually alcohol is involved. Our numbers tell us about a third. We believe it's more than that.

So what we're trying to do is to teach young people, if they see predator-type behavior, to intervene because we do know that there are predators that will use alcohol as a weapon to reduce a woman's defenses in order to complete a sexual assault. So one of the things we're trying to do is to make young people aware. If somebody's mixing really strong drinks for a young girl, stop it. Intervene. Or if they walk out together and they think it just doesn't look like a good idea, they should take care of each other and maybe say, "Let's -- we need to go in this direction. Let's not go home with him tonight or walk out with him tonight."

So we're trying to give them some warning signs so they can see if there's anything they can do to step in and, certainly, to help them that if something does occur, that they know exactly what process. If someone crosses the line, they need to go to see a SARC. Does that answer your question?

It's very -- it's a very interesting concept to get people to intervene, and we think that it's going to be possible in the military because of that same concept that you watch out for your battle buddy or your wingman.

REP. SNYDER: Thank you.

REP. DAVIS: Thank you, Dr. Snyder.

Ms. Tsongas.

REP. TSONGAS: Yes, thank you very much for your testimony. And I have to say, you're just -- those comments you just made were as encouraging as I have heard in the course of this day.

I'd like to go back to the issue of restricted versus unrestricted, and you said that in 2005, 1,896 reports were made under this process. Is that -- is that --

DR. WHITLEY: Well, have come forward and reported. I'm -- some of those may have converted to unrestricted, but that was the initial report.

REP. TSONGAS: And so my question is, other than -- this is a wonderful process for the victim. It allows them to give -- get access to the kind of help that they need. But short of those who don't convert to an unrestricted, it means a significant number of people who have committed these assaults are not accountable.

DR. WHITLEY: You want me to comment?

I think -- and I'll ask our victim advocate to quote, too. But we -- it's a tough call. I mean, we have to balance taking care of a victim and holding offenders accountable.

I think in the situation that we're in, if we can do anything to get a victim to get care, I mean, that -- I don't have to repeat things that you all have heard over and over and over about what sexual assault does to a military unit. It renders them not ready, and it can just tear a unit apart and just tears at the very fabric of what the military is made of.

So if a sexual assault occurs, we want to get that victim in there. We also knows there's research that shows early intervention after any trauma can prevent PTSD. So we're doing everything we can to get that victim to come forward so they can access care.

We do hope that they convert. We hope we're making them so comfortable and have so much confidence in our system that they will convert, so that -- to an unrestricted report so we can go after the offender.

REP. TSONGAS: The question I have -- and I think that's a worthy goal for the victim. On the other hand, you have new women coming into the military, who have no real understanding of the threat that might exist. And I'm just wondering if there's a way in which we can collect data or have some understanding of the numbers. I don't know what the answer is, but we're focusing on the victim. At the same time, we have many young people coming into the services we want to protect. And how we find the balance and how we collect data do something to help either move the victim into an unrestricted category or have some other mechanism to deal with those that are committing the assaults, and I welcome your input on that.

DR. WHITLEY: Well, hopefully, if they're entering the service, they're getting sexual assault awareness training very early on, so that's one step, through training. Another thing that we do, even if they do have an unrestricted report, it's difficult to get victims to stay with the military criminal justice process. You heard early testimony that when they tell their story, by the time -- if they go unrestricted, they may tell their story 25, 30 times. It's very painful, and they drop out. So we have taken some measures, too, in terms of training SARCs to support victims throughout the military criminal justice process to get them to stay with it, so we can hold the offender accountable.

REP. TSONGAS: Thank you.

REP. DAVIS: Thank you.

Mr. Turner.

REP. TURNER: Thank you, Madame Chair. And Dr. Whitley, thank you so much for your testimony and for the others. But also, Dr. Whitley, I -- it's just so great to hear you with your commitment and your really heartfelt work on this.

You know, it -- I serve on the Government Reform Committee, as you know, and so I was there for your testimony there and also the time when you were directed by your supervisor not to appear as a result of a subpoena that was given. I know you regret that, and I just want you to know that -- so many times when something like that happens, when the actual individual comes forward and testifies, their testimony is colored by that past -- and it's somewhat indicating that perhaps they don't have something to say. But you do, and I just appreciate that you're telling the story because I know that you're here to help us, also, to find out what's right, and you're also dedicated to your program. So thank you for continuing to do it and to tell your story.

One of the things that we heard from Ms. Waterson when she told her story was the sense of what happened after, being such a violation, in addition to the sexual assault. And the last time you were in my office, we talked about the Lauterbach case, and you informed me that the Inspector General had been requested to take a look at that case about what happened after the fact. Your principal -- the undersecretary who was your supervisor had requested that IG investigation, and we understand that it is ongoing.

We have not heard anything from them, and neither has the family, and that is of a concern to us because, you know, as we -- part of their independence, of course, should be that they hear from all sides and not that we just have a report handed to us. And we have concerns that are continuing, not just what has happened up to the time where Maria was murdered. For example, I have two news articles that, with the Chairwoman's consent, I would like to enter into the record, where we know that just recently, the Marines approved the alleged murderer and sexual assault --

REP. DAVIS: Without objection.

REP. TURNER: Thank you. Went to Mexico to visit the individual who was the murderer and -- you know, we would like the Inspector General to look at the issue of why did the Marines approve this. Because basically, we have the Marine wife, who was a material witness, leaving the country to visit her husband, who is AWOL, who is a Marine, who is the alleged rapist/murderer who's fighting extradition in an unsupervised visit, where the prosecutors in these articles indicate that perhaps it was for a conjugal visit because under Mexican law, on their birthday, apparently, the accused can have visits from their spouses. And there's concerns by the prosecutor of, you know, what that would do to her willingness and interest in testifying.

So we would like to ask them of that -- you know, to include things like that. Is it your experience, where the IG has been asked to look at a case -- if you're aware of any other cases -- where they would conduct their whole investigation and never speak to the family members?

DR. WHITLEY: I don't really -- I don't know. I don't have a response to that. That sounds unusual to me.

REP. TURNER: That's what I would think. Well, we're -- we've got a letter that I've sent today to the IG, requesting that they engage, and any thoughts that you have even after this hearing that would be helpful, I would appreciate it.

DR. WHITLEY: But I have to tell you, sir, that the DOD IG has been directed to stand down, and they are not investigating this case. The -- they believe it could have undue command influence, so that investigation has been stopped.

REP. TURNER: Okay. Well, once again, it's the first -- I'm only hearing information from you because I have correspondence to my office that, in fact, the IG had accepted the case and was going forward, and I have no communication --

DR. WHITLEY: They did accept it, and I think they started forward with that case, and then they were advised by the lawyers to stand down.

REP. TURNER: See, Dr. Whitley, this goes right to that issue that I talk about the culture and the military. How is it that, you know, a member of Congress, I've requested -- I had requested that they begin an investigation. Your supervisor requested it. I get a letter confirming that they've -- had undertaken the investigation, and then you relate to us that it's not going forward.

DR. WHITLEY: And I know --

REP. TURNER: It's very concerning.

DR. WHITLEY: I know it doesn't sound palatable, but what we're told by the lawyers, even though this is a civilian case, if, God forbid, anything went wrong and there was a mistrial declared or anything -- that it ever got kicked back to us as a military case, anything that we had done could have undue command influence. And so that was one of the reasons, I believe.

REP. TURNER: Well, that's --

DR. WHITLEY: I'm sorry that you were not -- I'm -- I assumed you had --

REP. TURNER: No, I have not been informed of that.

DR. WHITLEY: -- notified of that.

REP. TURNER: That's astonishing. Thank you, Dr. Whitley, for informing me.

And if I could have just a few more minutes.

One of the things that the Lauterbach family has been concerned about in this whole process is that, you know, the victim advocates perhaps are just really victim listeners, that they don't have any real authority, real ability to affect the process. Do you have some concerns about the lack of authority in the process?

DR. WHITLEY: Well, the program is still very new, and we are still implementing training for all of the victim advocates and the SARCs. The victim advocate should work directly for a SARC, and the SARC has a lot of power, if you will, to have access to a commander to intervene, and that was the way the program was set up.

You know, I can't speak to each and every SARC. I mean, we have two million people, including the Guard and Reserves, that are taken care of by our SARCs and victim advocates, and I can't speak to each and every case. I hope and believe in my heart of hearts that most are like the ones that you saw today.

REP. TURNER: Thank you. Thank you, Madame Chair.

REP. DAVIS: Dr. Snyder, did you want to ask a question?

REP. SNYDER: Yeah. Dr. Whitley, would you take some time and amplify that -- your four challenges at the end, and -- you hadn't really talked about those, what you describe as your four challenges.

DR. WHITLEY: Okay. Whenever you talk about things that are lawyerly, I bring a lawyer. I'm going to ask Ms. Scalzo because as my senior policy advisor, she heads up a subcommittee that works under the sexual assault advisory council, which is headed by the undersecretary for defense. He established committees to look at some of these issues. The committees have members from all of the services, as well as some of our federal partners and civilian partners. Teresa heads that committee, and these are some of the issues that they have identified that they're currently working on, and she can speak in great detail about each of them.

MS. SCALZO: Thank you, Representative Snyder.

REP. SNYDER: All the great detail you can do in four minutes.

MS. SCALZO: Okay. Well, the first challenge was the state mandatory reporting laws we've already discussed. The second would be jurisdictional challenges. Our SARCs and victim advocates have to collaborate with civilians. As you know, the military does not always control the prosecution. For example, it could be a civilian perpetrator, or if the case happened off base, the civilian could have the first option to prosecute that case. In those sort of circumstances, we are constrained by what's going on the civilian world, and frankly, it's not always perfect.

I come from a background of being a civilian prosecutor and training civilian prosecutors across the country. One example that we use to illustrate that would be a case that happened in the Metro D.C. area, where D.C. had primary jurisdiction. Our victim was at Bethesda, waiting to have a sexual assault forensic exam, but because D.C. had a rule that their SAFE exams had to be performed within D.C., our victim had to be transported to D.C., had to then wait approximately eight hours to be served, and then in the end, D.C. refused to prosecute the case, so we ended up picking it up.

SARCS and victim advocates have to work to coordinate that, and they do, but we raise that so that you understand some of the jurisdictional complications that we face that are enhanced when you're dealing with federal/military state collaboration.

The second issue is the Line of Duty issue. If a Guard or Reserve member is assaulted while they're in active status or in active-duty training and then seeks care when they are no longer in that activated status, they need to get what's called a Line of Duty in order to get care and treatment. That's not consistent with the restricted reporting policy, simply because it's a process. It's a public process where the command is involved, and there needs to be an investigation. What we have done is, we've modified our policies to require the services to rewrite their policies to ensure that Line of Duty can be accessed for sexual assault victims in a private manner -- just a limited Line of Duty, just for care for victims of sexual assault.

And the fine piece is the investigation and prosecution of sexual assault, which I understand there'll be an entirely separate hearing on, but the challenge there that we've been looking at is, are investigators and prosecutors trained well enough. We're working with our legal community to take a look at that, and we do what we can at SAPRO, although the UCMJ provides the JAG, the judge advocate general, the complete authority over the legal piece of the process. We at SAPRO do try to interface with them, try to make sure that they're being as sensitive to victim practices as possible, make sure that we support them and that they are supporting victims as much as we're able to do.

REP. SNYDER: I'm confused on the Line of Duty issue. If a person who's activated -- say they're -- or they're on their two-week training in the summertime, an incident occurs on the last -- at the last night going-away party, they very clearly know that they -- I mean, everyone knows -- when did the incident occur? 1:00 a.m., May 3rd. Why is there any big whoop-de-doo if -- should it not be just based on when the incident occurred?

MS. SCALZO: Thank you for asking that question. It is based on when the incident occurred. The challenge is, if they report when they're not in an active status, they are not eligible for medical benefits at that time. They're not eligible for treatment. Our policy makes them eligible for care and treatment, but because of the way the Guard and Reserves work, if they're not in an active status, they need that Line of Duty finding to get care. So it's a method of getting them care when they're not under the insurance of the Guard and Reserves.

REP. SNYDER: That would seem like something that would be pretty easily corrected.

MS. SCALZO: You would think. The challenge is that our policy controls sexual assault, and within the Department of Defense, as you know, there's many different directives that control different pieces of things. Line of Duty is a separate policy. So in order to have it rewritten, we had to follow the bureaucratic steps of getting our policy rewritten to have them rewrite their policy. So we're in the process of getting that done. It took a while, actually, just to identify and solve how to figure it out because it is such an unusual idea, the concept that you can report something privately. Restricted reporting is just so out of the box that sometimes these complexities arise, and that's a perfect example.

REP. SNYDER: Thank you. Thank you, Madam.

REP. DAVIS: Thanks so much. I think we're going to wind up. I'm just going to take the prerogative of the Chair and ask one or two more questions. The -- and I understand that there aren't any more that my colleagues have.

I'm looking at the Government Accountability Office report of 2008, and in that, it talks about the fact that military services haven't really provided the data that would facilitate oversight and enable the DOD for -- to conduct trend analyses. And I know in the last authorizing bill, we included language to move that collection of that forward. Where is that? And we are waiting to get more information about it. What can you tell us?

DR. WHITLEY: We recently sent the plan for that database to Congress. We had a working group, and it was composed of the services and a member of my staff, to design a database that would do what we need it to do. It's -- we have the money for it. It's going to take us about a year to get it up and running.

I think one of the issues I'd like to talk about as far as data, when our program first stood up, we were required to report aggregate numbers, and that we've been doing. But as the program has grown, we realize we need the ability to look at this data in a lot of different ways because it gives us information that has policy implications. For example, by installation. I often would get questions from the Hill -- how many military sexual assaults took place at Training Brigades in CONUS?

And I could not slice and dice data that way. I would have to go back to the services. I could get it, but it was like almost a stubby pencil technique to get that type of data. Hopefully, when this database is up and running, we'll be able to look at the data in a lot of different ways. But we were reporting just aggregate numbers of reports.

And that paper has been sent with the -- explaining the plan of setting that up.

REP. DAVIS: Once we have this -- the database, do you believe that we will be able to, in as transparent a way as possible, understand the effectiveness of programs that we have undertaken?

DR. WHITLEY: I think it'll be very helpful, and it's also -- and I go back to what I said earlier about the surveys that we have that are telling us how many people are reporting anonymously on surveys about experiences, and we'll be able to look at that and compare that the number of report, and that's going to tell us if we're reaching the population. It's going to -- it's really hard to measure, I guess you would call it, prevalence versus incidence. And so this will give us a better idea of that.

REP. DAVIS: Thank you.

Mr. Coombs, quickly, from your perspective in California, how are -- how is the military doing, in terms of other victim support and advocacy programs? How does it compare?

MR. COOMBS: Well, I -- as I was listening to all of these questions, I started thinking about what it would look like if you had me up here talking on behalf of rape crisis centers and what it -- and all of these questions that you're asking are questions that we would also ask of civilians. And frankly, there are some of the same problems in the civilian world. We have some of the same battles over jurisdiction. We have some of the same trouble with lack of training for certain victim advocates and the folks that they work with.

I think that when you compare our movement -- the sexual assault prevention and intervention movement, our field -- and you look at the 30 years -- the 30-plus years that they have been working on this, to see the progress that's been made in the military in five years is outstanding. I mean, they have really done an outstanding job.

That being said, I think that there has to be ongoing collaboration between the military and civilian communities that every single day, civilian victim advocates are learning more about how we do this work, how we provide the very best services for victims and survivors, and also, frankly, how it is that we do better work with sex offender management. And so that learning experience is something that's going on in the civilian world right now. We want to make sure that we continue that collaboration so that we can share that information, we can create new policies, we can enhance the same types of services in the military.

REP. DAVIS: Thank you. I appreciate that. One of the things that I know is happening in all the services -- although I reference the Army for a second -- in trying to provide better expertise, you know, really using the resources that are at all, and there is a sense that we haven't done that, that perhaps we haven't sought out those folks who are really at the top of their game in this, and that we're doing that now, and that's starting to move forward.

I think the other piece, which we'll hear about at another hearing, is just the education one. I mean, the idea here, it seems to me, is to prevent all this. We obviously mirror society, so we're not going to wipe this out entirely, but having the kind of educational programs as people enter the services, the kind of screening that's appropriate, and to really lay down the law in many ways that this is not acceptable, absolutely not acceptable, and that everybody has to be a partner in making certain that people are kept safe in all places when they're devoting their lives to keeping the country safe.

We have people who are not feeling safe in the services, and so I think more needs to be done in that area. And the greatest thing would be to throw you all out of business eventually. We're probably not going to do that, but that would be something that would be very positive.

Dr. Snyder has a question, quickly.

REP. SNYDER: Regarding getting the restricted reporting requirement, I assume that there is an age of minority below which the restricted reporting requirement would not apply.

DR. WHITLEY: Under the sexual assault policy, at this point in time, only service members are eligible for restricted reporting.

REP. SNYDER: Family members are not?

DR. WHITLEY: There is a domestic violence policy which the family advocacy program has oversight over which does give restricted reporting to family members. I'm not an expert on that. My understanding is that it's only for adults, and it comes in conflict with -- it would come in conflict with --

REP. SNYDER: The mandatory reporting requirements for children.

DR. WHITLEY: Right.

REP. SNYDER: Yeah, yeah.

DR. WHITLEY: For purposes of sexual assault, under (STAFROS ?) policy --

REP. SNYDER: Right.

DR. WHITLEY: -- it's just service member victims.

REP. SNYDER: Thank you.

REP. DAVIS: Thank you.

Just want to give you a moment. Is there anything in your introductory remarks that you might have said that you wanted to be sure that we heard before we close down?

Everybody okay? Great. Thank you so much. We appreciate your being here and especially responding to our first panel. Thank you very much.

END.

Source