```

[Senate Hearing 115-886]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                        S. Hrg. 115-886

                   PROTECTING U.S. AMATEUR ATHLETES:
                   EXAMINING ABUSE PREVENTION EFFORTS
                      ACROSS THE OLYMPIC MOVEMENT

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

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

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

                                 OF THE

                         COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,
                      SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
                          UNITED STATES SENATE

                     ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION
                               __________

                            OCTOBER 3, 2018
                               __________

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

                  [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                Available online: http://www.govinfo.gov
                               __________

                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
                    
57-907 PDF                WASHINGTON : 2025  

       SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION

                     ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION

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

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

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

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page
Hearing held on October 3, 2018..................................     1
Statement of Senator Moran.......................................     1
Statement of Senator Blumenthal..................................     3
Statement of Senator Nelson......................................     5
    Prepared statement...........................................     5
Statement of Senator Cortez Masto................................    30
Statement of Senator Capito......................................    33
Statement of Senator Hassan......................................    37

                               Witnesses

Phil Andrews, Chief Executive Officer and General Secretary, USA 
  Weightlifting..................................................     6
    Prepared statement...........................................     8
Anne Cammett, President, U.S. Figure Skating.....................    12
    Prepared statement...........................................    14
Timothy Hinchey III, President and Chief Executive Officer, USA 
  Swimming.......................................................    15
    Prepared statement...........................................    16
Darrin Steele, Chief Executive Officer, USA Bobsled and Skeleton.    28
    Prepared statement...........................................    29

                                Appendix

Stephen McNally, Executive Director, USA Taekwondo, prepared 
  statement......................................................    49
Report dated September 19, 2018 entitled ``Recommendations to 
  Congress: Reforming the U.S. Olympic Committee to Ensure Health 
  and Livelihood of Athletes'' by Olympians Rising...............    50
Response to written questions submitted to Phil Andrews by:
    Hon. Jerry Moran.............................................    58
    Hon. Dean Heller.............................................    61
    Hon. Richard Blumenthal......................................    61
    Hon. Catherine Cortez Masto..................................    70
Response to written questions submitted to Anne Cammett by:
    Hon. Jerry Moran.............................................    75
    Hon. Dean Heller.............................................    76
    Hon. Richard Blumenthal......................................    77
    Hon. Tammy Duckworth.........................................    85
    Hon. Catherine Cortez Masto..................................    85
Response to written questions submitted to Timothy Hinchey III 
  by:
    Hon. Jerry Moran.............................................    89
    Hon. Dean Heller.............................................    90
    Hon. Richard Blumenthal......................................    91
    Hon. Catherine Cortez Masto..................................   104
Response to written questions submitted to Darrin Steele by:
    Hon. Jerry Moran.............................................   108
    Hon. Dean Heller.............................................   109
    Hon. Richard Blumenthal......................................   109
    Hon. Catherine Cortez Masto..................................   121
Response to written questions submitted to Stephen McNally by:
    Hon. Jerry Moran.............................................   123
    Hon. Dean Heller.............................................   124
    Hon. Catherine Cortez Masto..................................   125

 
                   PROTECTING U.S. AMATEUR ATHLETES:
                   EXAMINING ABUSE PREVENTION EFFORTS
                      ACROSS THE OLYMPIC MOVEMENT

                              ----------                              

                       WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 3, 2018

                               U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on Consumer Protection, Product Safety, Insurance, and 
                                                  Data Security,   
        Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:34 p.m. in 
room SR-253, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Jerry Moran, 
Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding.
    Present: Senators Moran [presiding], Fischer, Capito, 
Young, Blumenthal, Nelson, Duckworth, Hassan, and Cortez Masto.

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

    Senator Moran. Our Subcommittee will come to order.
    Thank you to my colleagues for joining us. I know we have 
others who will later.
    I have two apologies to express at the moment. One is that 
we are a few minutes late in starting, and I apologize for 
that.
    The second is that my opening statement is longer than 
usual, but I think it is useful for us to put a bit of story 
behind how we got to the point we are today.
    So I will begin with my opening statement. We will 
recognize the Ranking Member, and then we will turn to our 
witnesses.
    This Subcommittee, which exercises jurisdiction over the 
U.S. Olympic Committee and amateur sports at large, is fully 
committed to ensuring the health and safety of all American 
athletes, and today marks our fourth hearing in our ongoing 
investigation.
    In January, this Subcommittee launched an investigation to 
examine cultural and systemic issues regarding abuse in the 
Olympics brought on by horrific revelations that former USA 
Gymnastics team doctor Larry Nassar sexually abused and 
assaulted hundreds of athletes over a span of two decades, well 
after numerous survivors alerted authorities about his actions. 
We are proud of the courage and bravery demonstrated by the 
many current and former athletes we have listened to and spoken 
with over the past 10 months as they have shared their stories 
with this Committee.
    The Subcommittee's investigation has expanded to include 
all national governing bodies which govern each of the Olympic 
sports and the role of the U.S. Olympic Committee in providing 
guidance and oversight to better protect athletes.
    Our conversations with leaders of these organizations have 
focused on reforms that were part of the recently enacted 
Protecting Young Victims from Sexual Abuse and Safe Sport 
Authorization Act and how each of their organizations have 
implemented these important protections. I am grateful for the 
leadership demonstrated by Commerce Committee Chairman Thune 
and Senator Feinstein during our work to pass this bipartisan 
law. Through this, we have provided tools to help protect 
amateur athletes, and this Committee will continue our 
bipartisan effort to bolster this work.
    I speak for the entire Subcommittee when I say that the 
brave actions and testimonies of our young athletes have 
inspired and motivated us. This Committee is committed to 
making positive change for these and all athletes, and the 
survivors we have been working with over the past several 
months are truly drivers of this much needed cultural change.
    I apologize. My third apology of the afternoon. I apologize 
I was unable to attend the event earlier today with survivors 
from a number of sports sharing their stories and ideas for 
improvements. There are a number of those survivors with us at 
this hearing today, and I join Senator Blumenthal in asking 
that you please stand and be recognized.
    [Applause.]
    Senator Moran. Thank you very much. We are honored and 
pleased by your presence.
    Since initiating our bipartisan investigation--and I 
appreciate the working relationship that Senator Blumenthal and 
I have--this Subcommittee has held three hearings in which 
members of the Committee and the American public heard from 
distinct witness panels on their experiences related to 
procedural missteps and collective inaction experienced within 
these misled Olympic organizations.
    Additionally, we have heard from current executive 
leadership within the Olympic movement on steps they are taking 
to address concerns that were identified by the Subcommittee 
and highlighted by numerous survivors.
    In the first hearing, we heard testimony from four 
survivors of abuse across different Olympic sports who shared 
personal experiences about the systemic practices that have 
safeguarded perpetrators--not victims, perpetrators--inhibited 
victims from coming forward and prevented victims' reports from 
coming to light.
    In the second hearing, we brought in leaders from USA 
Gymnastics and Michigan State University to provide testimony 
and answer questions as to how the rampant abuse by Dr. Nassar 
was able to perpetuate for as long as it did. Scott Blackmun, 
the former President of the U.S. Olympic Committee, and Martha 
Karolyi, the former National Team Coordinator for USA 
Gymnastics, were invited to attend but declined for medical 
reasons.
    Critical topics were covered in that hearing, including USA 
Gymnastics' mishandling of critical medical records, failed 
communications to and within Michigan State University related 
to sexual abuse reports against their employee, and most 
important, the complete lack of cooperation demonstrated by Mr. 
Penny in his refusal to answer questions.
    In the third hearing, we heard from current leaders of the 
same troubled organizations regarding which aspects of their 
systems and culture had changed and how they planned to 
implement serious reforms moving forward.
    Specifically, we were joined by Mr. John Engler, Interim 
President of Michigan State University; Ms. Susanne Lyons, 
Acting CEO of the U.S. Olympic Committee; Ms. Kerry Perry, 
recently the former President and CEO of USA Gymnastics; and 
Mr. Han Xiao, Chairman of the U.S. Olympic Committee's Athlete 
Advisory Council. I appreciated their updates in the hearing 
and continue to monitor the work that their organizations are 
doing to empower amateur athletes and prevent abuse.
    It is my belief that hearing from a variety of national 
governing bodies of different sizes, resources, and challenges 
is necessary to make policy recommendations as we move forward.
    As such, joining us today is Mr. Phil Andrews, the CEO of 
USA Weightlifting; Ms. Anne Cammett, President of USA Figure 
Skating; Mr. Tim Hinchey III, President and CEO of USA 
Swimming; and Mr. Darrin Steele, CEO of USA Bobsled & Skeleton.
    We have also received written testimony and expect 
responses to questions from Mr. Steve McNally, the Executive 
Director of USA Taekwondo.
    I will conclude my opening remarks by reiterating the 
bipartisan approach that this Subcommittee has taken in its 
comprehensive investigation. We are in consultation with law 
enforcement, with survivors and advocates. We have worked 
closely together to identify meaningful reforms in the best 
interests of athletes and their families.
    With that, I will turn the Ranking Member, Senator 
Blumenthal, for his opening statement.
    Senator Blumenthal.

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

    Senator Blumenthal. And I too have an apology which is, I 
think, at 3:15 we are going to have a vote. So we will have to 
interrupt at that point.
    Senator Moran. True.
    Senator Blumenthal. But I am glad that we are beginning, 
and I want to thank everyone for being here, our witnesses and 
most especially the courageous and strong survivors who are 
with us in the hearing room. I am grateful to Senator Moran for 
his leadership and our partnership in these hearings and this 
effort to really achieve systemic change, not just awareness 
and education but real change. And I want to join in thanking 
Chairman Thune and Ranking Member Nelson for their support in 
this effort.
    The survivors are really the heroes here. They are the 
profiles in courage that inspire us to move forward. In the 
last couple of weeks, we have seen many come forward and 
demonstrate the bravery that it has taken for men and women to 
brave the nightmare of public shaming and character 
assassination and threats, potential retaliation, all of the 
deterrents that cause only a fraction of the survivors to 
report sexual abuse. So my thanks to them again, and we will be 
thanking you repeatedly I am sure.
    But let us remember that Larry Nassar's image in an orange 
jumpsuit followed years, literally years, when his crimes were 
disregarded or ignored. Predators succeed with their crimes 
because they are skilled at grooming, and they are masters of 
deception. Monsters are often hiding in plain sight, and they 
are often aided and abetted by people who turn the other way, 
who fail to report or take action in the face of this criminal 
action.
    I have lengthy remarks, which I am going to put in the 
record, but I want to say that today we are going to hear from 
leadership at NGBs, some large and others small, winter, 
summer, outdoor and indoor, team and individual, emphasizing 
that the predatory crimes here go well beyond just gymnastics. 
That is point number one.
    Present here today are heads of the national team for 
swimming, figure skating, weightlifting, bobsled and skeleton. 
Some of the NGBs have to answer for their own troubling 
malfeasance in resolving sexual misconduct cases. Others are 
currently struggling to find the finances to make the systemic 
changes needed.
    The head of USA Taekwondo and the Multi-Sport Organization 
Council, MSOC, have also agreed to respond to written 
questions. I look forward to asking Steve McNally at USA 
Taekwondo what courage was needed to ban Gene Lopez despite the 
Center for SafeSport lifting its permanent ban on him because 
his accusers, understandably overwhelmed emotionally by 
depositions needing to be taken at the same time, asked that 
arbitration proceedings be postponed.
    With respect to MSOC, I look forward to examining the 
partnership between the USOC and a number of community-based 
organizations like the YMCA, the Police Athletic League, the 
Boys and Girls Club, the pipeline for many young athletes into 
Olympic sports.
    The feedback we receive today from the witnesses who are 
here will enable us to craft bipartisan legislation to amend 
the Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sports Act to better 
safeguard athletes.
    Much of the work needs to be done to address the gaping 
failures at the USOC, the Center for SafeSport and the NGBs to 
protect athletes. If these hearings and the events of last week 
when we saw some of those survivors come forward taught us 
anything, it is the desperate need for a complete cultural 
shift, a real teaching moment for America on how we view sexual 
abuse in this country and more than just a cultural shift, more 
than just a focus of rhetoric, specific action.
    And a couple ideas that I think have to be on the table: an 
athlete advocate within the USOC, an inspector general in that 
same organization, possible revision, even revocation of tax 
exemptions and antitrust exemptions in the event the USOC fails 
to be responsive, athlete representatives on NGB boards and on 
the USOC boards, and improved transparency on NGB banned list 
reporting so that there are more thorough background checks to 
stop predators from relocating and harming new athletes, and 
finally, making sure that the USOC itself is held to a higher 
standard of accountability.
    Those ideas are suggestions for a beginning not an end, and 
I hope that we will, in fact, move forward against misconduct 
to honor the survivors and all who have been affected, their 
families as well, by this scourge in our Olympic sports 
community and beyond.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Moran. Senator Blumenthal, thank you very much for 
your opening statement.
    And I would like to recognize the Senator from Florida, the 
Ranking Member of the Full Committee. Senator Nelson, thank you 
for your leadership in conjunction with Chairman Thune. The 
Full Committee has given us a great opportunity to pursue these 
issues, and we are grateful for that. And you have been an 
active participant in this Subcommittee, and we appreciate your 
presence.
    Senator Nelson.

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

    Senator Nelson. Well, Mr. Chairman, I think it is worth 
noting this is the fourth hearing on this subject between the 
Subcommittee and the Full Committee. And it bears repeating 
what has been said. We failed the athletes. The system failed 
them. Responsible adults turned a blind eye and allowed 
predators to commit unspeakable crimes. And it was not just 
gymnastics, as Senator Blumenthal has just said. Everything 
from swimming to taekwondo; the whole range suffered terrible 
abuse at the hands of trusted coaches.
    Last January, Congress passed the Protecting Young Victims 
from Sexual Abuse and Safe Sport Authorization Act, and it will 
go a long way toward preventing similar abuse from happening in 
the future. Chairman Thune of the full committee and I authored 
the provisions in the new law that formally authorizes the 
creation of the U.S. Center for SafeSport. And that center in 
the law is tasked with investigating allegations of abuse and 
developing policies and safeguards that youth sports 
organizations must adopt to protect young athletes. For 
instance, sports organizations must enforce policies that 
minimize one-on-one interactions between adults and children.
    And the new law also makes clear the core mission of the 
U.S. Olympic Committee is to prioritize the safety and welfare 
of the youth athletes in Olympic sports. And the idea of this 
law is to try to make a positive difference in the lives of 
young athletes all across this country.
    I want to thank the Chairman of the Full Committee, 
Chairman Thune, as well as Senator Feinstein, as well as the 
leadership of this subcommittee for working, all of us 
together, on this important law.
    But there is more that can be done. I am looking forward to 
the witnesses so that we can keep on top of this issue.
    [The prepared statement of Senator Nelson follows:]

   Prepared Statement of Hon. Bill Nelson, U.S. Senator from Florida
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will keep my remarks brief so that we 
can get to our witnesses.
    Today is the fourth hearing that we have conducted on this matter, 
and I will repeat what I said at previous hearings: We failed the 
athletes who were abused. The system failed them. Responsible adults 
turned a blind eye and allowed predators to commit unspeakable crimes. 
And it wasn't just gymnastics. As we will discuss today, athletes in 
sports as diverse as swimming and ty-kwon-do also suffered terrible 
abuse at the hands of trusted coaches.
    Last January, Congress passed the Protecting Young Victims from 
Sexual Abuse and Safe Sport Authorization Act, which will go a long way 
towards preventing similar abuse from happening again. Chairman Thune 
and I authored the provisions in the new law that formally authorizes 
the creation of the U.S. Center for Safe Sport. The center is tasked 
with investigating allegations of abuse and developing policies and 
safeguards that youth sports organizations must adopt to protect youth 
athletes. For instance, sports organizations must enforce policies that 
minimize one-on-one interactions between adults and children.
    The new law also makes clear that a core mission of the United 
States Olympics Committee is to prioritize the safety and welfare of 
youth athletes in Olympic sports. Together, these provisions will make 
a huge, positive difference in the lives of young athletes across this 
Nation. I want to thank Chairman Thune, as well as Senator Feinstein, 
for working with me on this important law.
    Having said that, we know more can be done. I look forward to 
hearing from our witnesses today and working with all of the members of 
this committee on continuing efforts to protect youth athletes from 
unnecessary harm.

    Senator Moran. Thank you, Ranking Member.
    We will now hear from those witnesses. My expectation is 
that we will hear from all four witnesses. We will break, be on 
the floor in time to cast a 3:15 vote, and then return 
immediately to pursue questions and discussion.
    I have already introduced the members of the panelists. We 
will begin with Mr. Andrews and take testimony across the 
table. Mr. Andrews, you are recognized.

STATEMENT OF PHIL ANDREWS, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND GENERAL 
                  SECRETARY, USA WEIGHTLIFTING

    Mr. Andrews. Thank you, Chairman Moran, Ranking Member 
Blumenthal, and members of the Subcommittee. Good afternoon. 
Thank you for the opportunity to speak today and thank you for 
your action to assist the Olympic and Paralympic movement 
during this time, particularly in the passage of the Protection 
of Young Athletes Act.
    I would like to open with an unreserved apology to anyone 
who suffered at the hands of abuse within the course of their 
sport participation. I agree with the Senators who have spoken 
today when they say the system failed them. We must do more to 
protect those athletes in the future. Sport is about enjoyment. 
I am so sorry especially to those here in the room but to those 
who have faced abuse in sport everywhere for what they have 
faced.
    My full written testimony is available on the 
Subcommittee's website, but I will address some key issues 
here.
    In common with some of my Olympic and Paralympic 
colleagues, our NGB has taken significant steps in the athlete 
protection area in recent times. Our NGB also features 
participation from many athletes who had previous participation 
in another sport. To that end, we have made available 
counseling and mental health tools to anyone who has faced 
abuse in any sport that is now participating in weightlifting, 
whether that be physical, emotional, or sexual abuse. That 
action came out directly from the feedback of a survivor of 
abuse in sport. By the end of 2018, we are working currently 
with individuals to make pro bono facilities available to all 
members who are athletes within USA Weightlifting.
    The rest of my testimony--I will briefly address one of the 
issues raised by members of this committee with me previously. 
Creating an athlete-focused culture should be at the heart of 
every NGB. We are not alone in our desire to create an athlete-
focused culture. I would like to recognize USA Swimming whose 
national team and the members of their athletic community spoke 
to all NGBs about their positive culture just two days ago.
    Culture is complex, but its heart is about listening and 
creating trust. I was pleased to hear, in common with USA 
Swimming, we make nothing mandatory for our athletes. And in 
our case, our athletes have the final say on things like 
selection procedures, making the athletes truly at the heart of 
what we do.
    Since 2016, we have tried to make incremental changes and 
build opportunities for listening and learning from our 
athletes, both elite and non-elite, to implement further 
changes, to which I can go into further detail if wished.
    Some practical measures that we have also introduced. We 
have an independent ethics and judicial committee, including 
Federal prosecutors, former inspector generals, and former 
State-level judges.
    We have implemented sport-specific measures, including the 
removal of the need to weigh in the nude. Weigh-in in our sport 
can now be done within a singlet, therefore fully clothed. That 
has also been suggested to our international federation who 
will be discussing that in less than one month.
    We have made our reporting easier: by having up our 
telephone tree when you call USA Weightlifting, by having links 
immediately on the front page of our website, and making, again 
at the suggestion of former survivors, immediate information 
available very clearly and very prominently at each and every 
one of our events. We are open to further improvement and we 
are open to further ideas.
    The U.S. Center for SafeSport is a key measure that was 
taken by the Olympic movement and the Paralympic movement and 
together with the acts aforementioned to create a new and 
independent body to investigate the area of sexual abuse. While 
the center is in the need for more resources, to that end, the 
USA Weightlifting quadrupled our funding in common with our 
NGBs as a whole doubling our funding for the center to meet the 
needs of investigations across the country.
    We have developed a great and independent relationship with 
the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency which benefits from significant 
Federal funding to support its independent work. I call upon 
Members of Congress to support the center likewise and further 
the independent nature of the center by giving it the support 
it truly needs to do the job that we all would like it to do.
    Moving on to our leadership with a new Olympic movement, 
the U.S. Olympic Committee, I would like to say that winning is 
not a bad thing. America's public, when we go to the games, 
expects us to win. We all cheer when we see the heroes of the 
Olympic movement who are there and speak to the need to 
participate in sport and speak to athletes and inspire other 
athletes to participate in sport. That might be just at the 
local level, but it is about doing it the right way. And I 
think that that is where we are moving toward now, winning in 
the right way, winning in an athlete-focused manner.
    I commend the appointment of Susanne Lyons to be the 
President of the U.S. Olympic Committee. Susanne has shown a 
commitment to our athletes, a willingness to listen to both 
national governing bodies, athletes most importantly, and other 
stakeholders in the Olympic movement.
    I applaud the USOC for raising expectations of the U.S. 
national governing bodies. Doing so will allow us and, in turn, 
encourage us to have raised the expectations of those that we 
endorse as clubs.
    I also commend the USOC for bringing into place an athlete 
services division and diverting money toward that need within 
the Olympic movement.
    Looking for ideas on how Congress might best support us and 
look for areas of improvement, I have already mentioned funding 
of the center. I have already mentioned the need for support of 
that center in both non-financial and financial senses, in 
common with the action the Federal Government has around USADA. 
Continued interest and attention to this matter I think would 
best allow the Olympic movement to further improve.
    Oversight of youth sport--it is important to recognize that 
individuals participate in youth sport inside and outside of 
the Olympic and Paralympic movement, and it is equally 
important that they are supported and protected outside of the 
Paralympic movement, as well as within that movement.
    And finally, in cooperation with law enforcement to ensure 
that no matter where an issue comes up, be that domestic or 
abroad, that issue can be dealt with in the right and proper 
manner by law enforcement.
    Thank you for your time, and I am happy to take any 
questions you may have.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Andrews follows:]

Prepared Statement of Phil Andrews, Chief Executive Officer and General 
                      Secretary, USA Weightlifting
    Good afternoon Chairman Moran, Ranking Member Blumenthal, and 
Senators of the Subcommittee.
    Thank you for the opportunity to give evidence before this 
Subcommittee, and for the action and interest you are taking in the 
Olympic & Paralympic movement.
    By way of introduction, USA Weightlifting is the National Governing 
Body (NGB), responsible for the Olympic Sport of Weightlifting. We have 
approximately 27,000 members and an annual budget in the region of $6m, 
as of today 2.9 percent of that funding is derived from U.S. Olympic 
Committee funds while the remainder is derived from USA Weightlifting 
generated funding. Of our athlete membership, our gender split is 53 
percent/47 percent towards the male population.
    I would like to open with an apology. To those athletes within our 
sport--including those who came to Weightlifting from somewhere else--
that suffered at the hands of sexual, emotional or physical abuse--I am 
sorry. We, as the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic movement have failed you. 
This should not have happened, and when it did, the response should 
have been immediate and impactful. If this did not happen, I am sorry. 
We, as the Olympic and Paralympic movement, can and will do better.
    At its very core, before a medal is won or the Olympic flame is 
lit, sport is about right to enjoyment. No athlete should have that 
right taken away.
    Our NGB (National Governing Body), along with others in the Olympic 
movement, has taken significant steps to deter abuse, and will continue 
to look for more ways to improve. While we can never guarantee abuse 
will not happen in Olympic & Paralympic Sport, we can do more to 
protect our athletes, and that is exceptionally important.
    To that end, our NGB has made confidential mental health and 
recovery tools available to our athletes who suffered abuse, including 
those who suffered abuse in another sport. By the end of 2018, that 
counselling and mental health network, dealing not only with abuse and 
trauma but with other areas of mental health relevant to our athlete 
population, will be made available to our entire athlete population 
within the sport of Weightlifting.
    In the rest of my testimony, I have tried to cover several subjects 
raised over the last year with us by either members of the Committee, 
or their staff.
Pro-active measures taken by USA Weightlifting
    USA Weightlifting has tried to take pro-active measures to remain 
at the forefront of integrity issues, covering Abuse, Ethics and Doping 
issues in sport.
    As part of a governance review of the organization in 2017, USA 
Weightlifting implemented the first and only independent Ethics and 
Judicial Committees among the Olympic & Paralympic NGBs. This group of 
volunteer individuals is selected from outside of the sport with 
relevant expertise in the space including a former Inspector General, 
Federal Prosecutors, Title IX Investigators and those serving in 
Fortune 500 Chief of Ethics positions. Our athlete population is 
represented on these committees by Elite Athletes both within and 
outside of our sport.
    Having this independent model allows us to deal appropriately with 
cases that fall under our Code of Ethics, which is reviewed annually by 
the same group, as well as outside counsel, our Athlete Advisory 
Council and Board of Directors. This model also gives our organization 
the ability to adjudicate fairly, cases the U.S. Center for SafeSport 
chose not to take, including claims in the areas of Emotional and 
Physical Abuse.
    USA Weightlifting, in partnership with the U.S. Center for 
SafeSport has made changes to how abuse is able to be reported. We now 
have buttons right on the front of our website to report abuse, ethical 
issues as well as doping offences. These methods to report are also 
repeated on social media and during our national events across the 
country. A full list of measures can be found via our website, under 
the SafeSport tab.
    Our organization has taken proactive measures to ensure that any 
individual with direct athlete contact must pass a comprehensive 
criminal background check and complete education provided by the U.S. 
Center for SafeSport before contact with an athlete. This is in line 
with other National Governing Bodies.
    Within our sport, we are the only Weightlifting federation 
worldwide to allow the weigh-in within the singlet. This sport specific 
measure allows athletes over 18 to choose to wear the singlet rather 
than strip down during the weigh in process. Athletes under the age 18 
are required to weigh-in wearing a singlet. We have also offered sport 
specific guidance to the appropriate way to coach an athlete, 
especially about the appropriate way to coach an athlete while 
minimizing touch during competition.
    In the area of Sports Medicine, USA Weightlifting has a specific 
Sports Medicine policy including a process to sign off on an individual 
before the opportunity arises to work with our athletes. This policy 
includes the rotation of professionals to balance the need for 
familiarity with athletes and the protection of athletes by rotating 
medical professionals to reduce the opportunity for abuse. All USA 
Weightlifting Sports Medicine members are reviewed and recommended by 
their peers ensuring there is a level of accountability to the Sports 
Medicine area. At all times, Sports Medicine treatment must be given in 
the most public forum possible.
    But our work is not done. USA Weightlifting is keen to continue to 
learn and put in place proactive measures to ensure athletes can 
participate in our sport with as little risk as possible.
Building an athlete-centric culture
    There is a strong need to have an athlete-centric culture within 
the U.S. Olympic & Paralympic Movement, and perhaps in the wider 
International Olympic Movement too. We set out to create this within 
USA Weightlifting in 2016. Through feedback from our athletes, we are 
seeing some success, but our work cannot stop.
    Culture is made up of a great deal of areas, and the work to create 
a positive and athlete-focused culture continues. But at its core, our 
culture is built by proactive collaboration and communication within 
the athlete population. Since the service of athletes is at our core, 
listening intently to them is how we changed our culture at its heart. 
For example, we handed power to our athletes regarding selection 
procedures giving our Athlete Advisory Council the right to approve, 
disapprove or amend our process as they as athletes believe it ought to 
be. We have also involved directly our athlete population, often beyond 
our elite athletes, in designing our athlete remuneration program, and 
in designing our anti-doping program.
    Proactive communication with athletes means two-way focused 
communication with elite, emerging and non-elite athletes alike. Those 
are different audiences with different needs. But by putting our own 
biases aside, and actually hearing athletes' concerns and what they 
wanted from us, we were able to transform our organization.
    Recently, along with other National Governing Bodies, we had the 
opportunity to attend the Olympic & Paralympic Assembly. It was clear 
that the U.S. Olympic Committee has taken and continues to take 
proactive steps towards a focus on putting athletes first. In the words 
of our own athlete representative at the Assembly, there is reason for 
optimism towards the steps being taken by the U.S. Olympic Committee, 
including a new Athlete Services division, a renewed focus on winning 
in the right way, and an increased commitment to the ACE program.
The U.S. Center for SafeSport
    The U.S. Center for SafeSport opened in 2017 with a mission to 
educate and investigate items related to abuse in sport.
    The concept of the U.S. Center for SafeSport closely resembles that 
of the United States Anti-Doping Agency, set up in 2001. The U.S. Anti-
Doping Agency is recognized worldwide as among the leading National 
Anti-Doping Organizations (NADOs) on the planet.
    Both of these agencies stand independent of the National Governing 
Bodies, and both were started by the U.S. Olympic Committee in response 
to a significant issue of the day.
    One strong difference between the U.S. Center for SafeSport and the 
U.S. Anti-Doping Agency is the amount of funding from the Federal 
Government.
    This, in turn, leads the Center to have a need for fundraising from 
private donors. While this theoretically makes sense, many of the 
traditional fundraising sources are not available to the center. For 
example, while organizations in the Olympic movement typically have 
membership income, event income, sponsorships and corporate partners, 
experience has shown that corporations are not terribly anxious to 
become sponsors of the Center, and the Center does not have the ability 
to provide significant exposure to a sponsor, which is a key element of 
a corporate partnership. Additionally, donor income is a typical 
resource generation tool for Olympic & Paralympic movement 
organizations, and similarly experience has shown this type of 
organization not only will struggle to attract funds to support these 
initiatives in this manner but this distracts from the core mission of 
the Center.
    By contrast, the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency receives more than $10 
million in Federal funding on an annual basis. The U.S. Government is 
also the leading contributor to the World Anti-Doping Agency.
    This funding allows the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency to concentrate on 
its task of leading the charge for Clean Sport within our borders while 
providing a strong and independent voice abroad.
    In many nations, an inherent conflict is created when a Federal 
Government financially supports and endorses a Ministry of Sport. In 
turn that Ministry funds both an Olympic and/or Paralympic Committee 
tasked with winning medals as its' primary goal while the very same 
ministry supports a National Anti-Doping Agency to police the Nation's 
sporting culture.
    Therefore, the Federal funding given to the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency 
fundamentally upholds its ability to hold the U.S. Olympic Committee, 
U.S. National Governing Bodies and even International Federations to 
account while at the same time working proactively on additional doping 
control projects with those same organizations. It also provides for an 
ultimate accountability to the Federal Government.
    I believe additional funding from the Federal Government, like what 
has happened with the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency, will allow the Center to 
better carry out its goals of eliminating abuse in sport, while acting 
independently and holding the entire Olympic and Paralympic movement to 
account.
    For the part of the Olympic & Paralympic movement, the National 
Governing Body Council committed to double the amount of funding for 
the Center in 2019 compared to 2018 and have showed a willingness to do 
so again. So too, the U.S. Olympic Committee has committed over $6 
million in funding to the Center for the calendar year in 2019, while 
the NGBs are providing a combined $2 million, including a commitment 
from our National Governing Body to quadruple our commitment.
    With that said, the headcount and quality of investigative team is 
still insufficient at the Center. It is clear the Center requires 
additional human and financial resources to ensure its operation 
processes capability are equal of that of a much more mature 
organization such as the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency, and that its 
independence is unquestioned.
    The addition of further resources from the Federal Government would 
thus assist the Center in a number of ways to truly serve the athlete 
population in the way that is desired by all. One thing that I am 
confident we all agree on--the Center MUST succeed. We need a strong 
and vibrant Center that can take predatory individuals out of our 
sports for good, serve as a deterrent for those who might commit 
heinous acts, and to educate the sports community and the general 
public.
    I do want to commend the Center for the outstanding job that the 
Center is doing in the area of Education. The challenge of managing a 
mass education program across a diverse community like the Olympic and 
Paralympic movement is indeed a large one. While there is space for 
specialist education tools which the Center are currently developing 
which specifically face athletes and parents, the overall collaboration 
and educational partnership with the Center has been outstanding.
3. The USA Weightlifting collaboration with the U.S. Anti-Doping 
        Agency.
    In order that we protect the rights of the clean athlete, USA 
Weightlifting has developed a proactive relationship with the U.S. 
Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) which respects the independence of the 
organization. We also participate in additional partnership 
opportunities to protect clean athletes on the podium. Some of these 
initiatives may provide some practices that could be applied in the 
area of athlete safety, and to a degree supports how we have designed 
our athlete safety programs within USA Weightlifting.
    In 2017, USA Weightlifting had 21 domestic positive tests, in 2018 
we have realized a much lower number so far.
    Some proactive measures we have taken include a collaboration with 
USADA to ensure that important information on anti-doping is easy to 
obtain, easy to report and easy to use. We have also strategically 
collaborated with USADA to provide anti-doping education as a required 
element to all of our members before they are able to take part in an 
event. I believe we are the only National Sporting Federation worldwide 
to do so. More recently, we've worked with USADA and the International 
Weightlifting Federation to take this approach to the World level.
    We also implemented the Lift Clean program, where we fund USADA to 
test additional USA Weightlifting athletes in and out of competition 
with no notice to the athlete. This ensures that the anti-doping 
culture is implemented at the local level. It is critically important 
to note, USA Weightlifting does not have final say on who is tested, 
and we have no involvement in the results management of cases, 
therefore maintaining the independence of the process despite USA 
Weightlifting acting as a funding partner. USA Cycling has a similar 
program with similar degrees of success.
    Our exceptional work with USADA shows that it is possible for an 
agency to work as an independent enforcement body while strategically 
collaborating with the National Governing Bodies and to be regarded as 
the Gold Standards by our athletes.
4. Cultural Changes within the U.S. Olympic Committee & U.S. Olympic 
        Movement
    The recent news that Susanne Lyons will become the President of the 
U.S. Olympic Committee is outstanding. Ms. Lyons has shown to me 
personally that she is not afraid of the difficult conversations, she 
thinks of the athlete and ultimately that she is a good person. This 
need for a culture change at the USOC was clear when I was told by an 
Associate Director of the U.S. Olympic Committee with responsibility 
for National Governing Body relations that within the last three years 
that sponsor needs came before athlete needs. With Ms. Lyons at the 
helm, and the hiring of Sarah Hirshland as CEO, this directional 
leadership change is exceptional news.
    I want to be clear that winning is not a bad thing, but as a 
Movement, we need to win the right way. When Team USA shows up at the 
Olympic Games, we are expected by the American public to win, our 
athletes want to win, we want to support them to that winning 
position.. A comfortable, well served, confident athlete will 
ultimately perform better.
    I also want to be clear that there are many individuals within the 
U.S. Olympic Committee who work exceptionally hard to put athletes 
first, and at the heart of what they do.
    The U.S. Olympic Committee remains amongst the most respected and 
leading Olympic Committees worldwide, the only major Olympic Committee 
to be non-government funded and the only major Olympic Committee to be 
integrated with the National Paralympic Committee.
    There has been clear changes in the culture of the U.S. Olympic 
Committee over the last few months and while cultural work can never 
cease, it is clear to see that there is not only substantive changes 
occurring within the U.S. Olympic Committee but a strong desire to 
return to the core value of putting athletes at the heart of the 
movement.
    It is also clear that the U.S. Olympic Committee is raising the 
expectation upon National Governing Bodies in matters related both to 
athlete safety, athlete advocacy and culture. In turn, this leadership 
position has led to the National Governing Bodies taking a role in 
changing this at the state and local level.
The Role of Congress in improving the Olympic and Paralympic Movement 
        and Youth Sport
    USA Weightlifting appreciates the proactive role Congress and this 
subcommittee in particular has taken in helping the Olympic and 
Paralympic Movement move forward with the issues we have faced in 
recent times.
    With that said, Congress could take a more proactive approach in 
supporting the work of the U.S. Center of SafeSport especially in the 
area of funding. As I previously testified, currently, the funding for 
the Center is predominately coming from within the Olympic and 
Paralympic movement itself.
    Similarly, it is vital to recognize the risks that exist outside of 
the Olympic and Paralympic movement. While USA Weightlifting and our 
movement colleagues still have work to do, there is a concern that 
private sector and other organizations running Youth Sport activities 
in the United States are not necessarily holding themselves to as high 
a standard as we are striving to do so.
    Ultimately, we believe it is the goal of Congress to protect the 
youth athletes of the United States. To do so, the protections that 
have been put into place during this period in the Olympic & Paralympic 
Movement must be implemented in other youth sports organizations. 
Similarly, where best practices exist in the other organizations, we 
must ensure we learn from them.
    Thank you for your time, and I am happy to take any questions you 
might have.

    Senator Moran. Mr. Andrews, thank you. Thank you for your 
testimony and thank you for the conversation that we have had 
previously.
    Ms. Cammett.

             STATEMENT OF ANNE CAMMETT, PRESIDENT, 
                      U.S. FIGURE SKATING

    Ms. Cammett. Subcommittee Chairman Moran, Ranking Member 
Blumenthal, and distinguished members of the Subcommittee, my 
name is Anne Cammett and I am President of U.S. Figure Skating. 
I have been involved with figure skating since I was six years 
old, first as an athlete, then a volunteer official, committee 
member and committee chair. I have been a member of U.S. Figure 
Skating's board of directors since 2015. In May of this year, I 
was elected the President.
    With me today is our 2010 Olympian and U.S. Figure Skating 
Athlete Advisory Committee Chair, Mark Ladwig.
    U.S. Figure Skating is fully committed to providing a safe, 
healthy, and positive environment for all athletes, members, 
and volunteers. We strongly support the protecting Young 
Victims from Sexual Abuse and Safe Sport Authorization Act of 
2017. Like social welfare experts, we believe the best 
practices for protecting minor athletes from abuse are 
education and awareness training, required background checks 
for people who have frequent contact with minor athletes, and 
mandatory reporting requirements for alleged and suspected 
child abuse. U.S. Figure Skating incorporated these practices 
well before the passage of this Act.
    In April, this Committee heard testimony from Mr. Craig 
Maurizi, a U.S. Figure Skating member. During his testimony, 
Mr. Maurizi referred to his 1999 allegations of sexual 
misconduct against a former coach. It is true that Mr. 
Maurizi's complaint was time-barred under the organization's 
reporting rules in effect at that time. However, Mr. Maurizi's 
case prompted U.S. Figure Skating to examine its rules and 
procedures in the area of athlete safety. As a result, just 
months later, U.S. Figure Skating instituted its first ever 
harassment and abuse policy and mandatory reporting requirement 
for all its members.
    The following year, another new rule mandated publishing 
the identity of any banned or suspended members in SKATING 
magazine, later moving a detailed list to U.S. Figure Skating's 
official website where it still resides today. Since May 2000, 
U.S. Figure Skating has banned 16 members for sexual 
misconduct, six for financial irregularities, and two for 
ethical violations.
    U.S. Figure Skating has worked to strengthen its athlete 
protection rules and policies for the past two decades. In 
2008, U.S. Figure Skating mandated criminal background checks 
for all coaches requesting a credential for any U.S. Figure 
Skating-sanctioned event or activity. In 2011, that mandate was 
expanded to require a coach's continuing education component 
that included child protection education and awareness. In 
2013, as required by the U.S. Olympic Committee, we officially 
launched our SafeSport program, consolidating all athlete 
protection rules and policies into one place.
    When the U.S. Center for SafeSport opened in March 2017, 
U.S. Figure Skating aligned its programs with the center's 
requirements.
    We strongly support the U.S. Center for SafeSport, its 
mission, and all who are dedicated to doing everything possible 
to end abuse in sport. In order for the center and the national 
governing bodies to reach their potential in doing so, we 
respectfully suggest the following going forward.
    So number one, increase funding for the U.S. Center for 
SafeSport to provide more personnel in the areas of education, 
investigation, and adjudication. Fulfilling the center's role 
effectively during these formative years is the key to 
establishing credibility and long-term viability.
    Number two, create a coordinate SafeSport public awareness 
campaign that all national governing bodies can use and support 
in solidarity. This campaign should be created by experienced 
child welfare professionals with a goal to educate athletes, 
parents, coaches, and all who work with young athletes to be 
vigilant, informed, and reactive to all forms of abuse.
    Number three, provide a national database of banned and 
suspended persons, searchable by name, sport, State and region.
    Number four, amend the Protecting Young Victims from Sexual 
Abuse Act to give subpoena power to the U.S. Center for 
SafeSport to provide more effective investigations and 
enforcement.
    And number five, finally, at some point in the near future, 
expand the reach of the U.S. Center for SafeSport. Athletes 
within the jurisdiction of national governing bodies represent 
a small segment of youth sports participants in the U.S. A full 
commitment to ending abuse in sports must include children that 
participate outside the auspices of the U.S. Olympic movement.
    Thank you for the opportunity to speak here today.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Cammett follows:]

   Prepared Statement of Anne Cammett, President, U.S. Figure Skating
    Chairman Thune, Subcommittee Chairman Moran, Ranking Member 
Blumenthal, and distinguished members of the Subcommittee.
    My name is Anne Cammett and I am the President of U.S. Figure 
Skating. I have been involved with figure skating since I was six years 
old, first as an athlete, then a volunteer official, committee member 
and committee chair. I have been a member of U.S. Figure Skating's 
Board of Directors since 2015. In May of this year, I was elected 
President.
    U.S. Figure Skating is the national governing body for the sport of 
figure skating in the United States. U.S. Figure Skating is comprised 
of approximately 700 member clubs and 1000 Learn to Skate USA programs, 
representing more than 192,000 members nationwide. The mission of U.S. 
Figure Skating is to provide programs to encourage participation and 
achievement in the sport of figure skating. We are charged with the 
development of the sport on all levels, from those learning to skate 
through the athletes representing the United States on the World and 
Olympic teams. As the national governing body for the sport of figure 
skating, we have the jurisdiction to sanction competitions, test 
sessions and exhibitions; to establish the rules and guidelines by 
which the sport is governed; and to name and nominate the athletes who 
represent the United States in international competition.
    U.S. Figure Skating is fully committed to providing a safe, healthy 
and positive environment for all athletes, members and volunteers. We 
strongly support the Protecting Young Victims from Sexual Abuse and 
Safe Sport Authorization Act of 2017. Like social welfare experts, we 
believe the best practices for protecting minor athletes from abuse are 
education and awareness training, requiring background checks for 
people who have frequent contact with minor athletes, and mandatory 
reporting requirements for alleged and suspected child abuse. U.S. 
Figure Skating incorporated these practices well before the passage of 
the Protecting Young Victims from Sexual Abuse and Safe Sport 
Authorization Act of 2017.
    In April, this committee heard testimony from Mr. Craig Maurizi, a 
U.S. Figure Skating member. During his testimony, Mr. Maurizi referred 
to his 1999 allegations of sexual misconduct against a former coach. It 
is true that Mr. Maurizi's complaint was time-barred under the 
organization's reporting rules in effect at that time. However, Mr. 
Maurizi's case prompted U.S. Figure Skating to examine its rules and 
procedures in the area of Athlete Safety. As a result, just months 
later, U.S. Figure Skating instituted its first ever Harassment and 
Abuse Policy and a mandatory reporting requirement for all its members. 
In May of 2000, U.S. Figure Skating added to its official Rulebook that 
if any form of child abuse is observed or suspected by a member, the 
member must immediately contact local law enforcement or a public child 
welfare agency and make a report. In addition, the member must also 
make a report to U.S. Figure Skating's Ethics Chair. The following 
year, another new rule mandated publishing the identity of any banned 
or suspended members in SKATING magazine, later moving a detailed list 
to U.S. Figure Skating's official website, where it still resides 
today. U.S. Figure Skating has acted promptly on every incident 
reported to it of suspected sexual abuse or misconduct since the new 
policy was enacted in May 2000. Since May 2000, U.S. Figure Skating has 
banned 16 members for sexual misconduct, six for financial 
irregularities, and two for ethical violations.
    U.S. Figure Skating has worked to strengthen its Athlete Protection 
rules and policies for the past two decades. In 2008, U.S. Figure 
Skating mandated criminal background checks for all coaches requesting 
a credential for any U.S. Figure Skating-sanctioned event or activity. 
In 2011, that mandate was expanded to require a coaches' Continuing 
Education component that included child protection education and 
awareness. In 2013, as required by the U.S. Olympic Committee, U.S. 
Figure Skating officially launched its SafeSport Program, consolidating 
all Athlete Protection rules and policies into one place.
    When the U.S. Center for SafeSport opened in March 2017, U.S. 
Figure Skating aligned its program with the Center's requirements, 
including expanding the policy for those required to submit to 
background checks and mandated the SafeSport Training Program for 
required adults.
    U.S. Figure Skating strongly supports the U.S. Center for 
SafeSport, its mission and all who are dedicated to do everything 
possible to end abuse in sport. In order for the Center and national 
governing bodies to reach their potential in doing so, U.S. Figure 
Skating respectfully suggests the following going forward:

  1.  Increase funding for the U.S. Center for SafeSport to provide 
        more personnel in the areas of education, investigation and 
        adjudication. Fulfilling the Center's role effectively during 
        these formative years is the key to establishing credibility 
        and long-term viability.

  2.  Create a coordinated SafeSport public awareness campaign that all 
        national governing bodies can use and support in solidarity. 
        This campaign should be created by experienced child-welfare 
        professionals with a goal to educate athletes, parents, coaches 
        and all who work with young athletes to be vigilant, informed 
        and reactive to all forms of abuse.

  3.  Provide a national database of banned and suspended persons, 
        searchable by name, sport, state and region.

  4.  Amend the Protecting Young Victims from Sexual Abuse Act to give 
        subpoena power to the U.S. Center for SafeSport to provide more 
        effective investigations and enforcement.

  5.  Finally, at some point in the near future, expand the reach of 
        the U.S. Center for SafeSport. Athletes within the jurisdiction 
        of national governing bodies represent only a small segment of 
        youth sports participants in the United States. A full 
        commitment to ending abuse in sports must include children who 
        participate outside the auspices of the U.S. Olympic movement.

    Thank you for the opportunity to speak on this topic. I am happy to 
respond to any questions members of the Subcommittee may have.

    Senator Moran. Thank you for your testimony.
    Mr. Hinchey.

STATEMENT OF TIMOTHY HINCHEY III, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE 
                     OFFICER, USA SWIMMING

    Mr. Hinchey. Chairman Moran, Ranking Member Blumenthal, and 
members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to 
testify today.
    I would like to begin by acknowledging and apologizing for 
the abuse suffered by children, athletes, other participates in 
swimming programs. The organization as a whole and I personally 
deeply regret the experiences of some of our members that have 
included sexual, physical, or emotional misconduct. I am 
personally committed to doing whatever I can to prevent such 
abuse from happening in the future.
    On May 23 this year, I testified before the House of 
Representatives about the comprehensive abuse prevention and 
response program that USA Swimming has worked to create and 
develop since 2010. Today, I would like to describe more recent 
efforts that USA Swimming has made to demonstrate our continued 
commitment to providing safe and healthy environments for our 
swimmers.
    Over the past five months, efforts have included the USA 
Swimming board of directors voted to set aside $1.5 million to 
fund a reserve for SwimAssist costs. Established in 2014, 
SwimAssist is USA Swimming's survivor assistance fund. This 
approval will ensure that resources are available to meet the 
needs of those who suffered abuse in swimming.
    The SafeSport Committee, which is made up of a group of 
dedicated volunteers, including athletes, coaches, and parents, 
met and discussed various ways to enhance the organization's 
athlete protection efforts. I have also personally met with 
several survivors. Their input has been among the most 
powerful, compelling, and effective I have received.
    USA Swimming debuted its new Club Recognition Program. This 
program encourages local clubs to implement additional athlete 
protection education, policies, and practices.
    USA Swimming national team members and alums, including a 
survivor, created a public service announcement to take a stand 
against athlete abuse.
    Additionally, we are in preliminary discussions with our 
largest team management platform to push SafeSport content 
through local team websites to administrators and parents. Team 
websites help parents stay up to date for practices and meet 
information, and this is a tremendous opportunity to reach out 
to our parents.
    USA Swimming also recognizes the value in taking the 
smaller routine steps day in and day out, as well as partnering 
with other organizations that are experts and leaders in this 
space, both of which are further detailed in my written 
testimony.
    USA Swimming sits before you today as one member of the 
Olympic sports community. The United States Olympic Committee 
has indicated that there will be heightened expectations and 
greater oversight over national governing bodies with respect 
to abuse prevention and response, and we welcome that.
    The U.S. Center for SafeSport has indicated that national 
governing bodies must adopt the center's policies and use their 
education and training. We also welcome that.
    There is no pride of ownership when it comes to athlete 
protection. U.S. Swimming will lead in this space, but we will 
do so humbly, learning from those who are willing to teach.
    As we gather to discuss abuse prevention efforts across the 
Olympic movement, we acknowledge there is no simple solution. 
It will take Congress, the United States Olympic Committee, the 
U.S. Center for SafeSport, U.S. Swimming, and all 49 national 
governing bodies to work together to put together a 
comprehensive framework in place that creates safe 
environments, prevents abuse, responds effectively when it 
occurs, and achieves systemic change. There must be a 
comprehensive approach because anything else will be 
inadequate.
    As that collective effort progresses, USA Swimming is 
committed to the continued development of our own program. We 
have been busy enhancing our athlete protection efforts since I 
first testified five months ago, and we will stay busy. I have 
said before and I say it today and I will forever say that 
providing a safe and healthy environment to our children, 
athletes, and members is our top priority.
    I look forward to sharing our experiences, learning from 
our peers, and working with you to prevent abuse, including 
child sexual abuse, in sport.
    And I very much look forward to answering your questions 
today.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Hinchey follows:]

     Prepared Statement of Timothy Hinchey III, President and CEO, 
                              USA Swimming
    Chairman Moran, Ranking Member Blumenthal, and Members of the 
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today.
    Earlier this year, I testified before the U.S. House Committee on 
Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations 
regarding The Olympic Community's Ability to Protect Athletes from 
Sexual Abuse. Today, as then, I begin by acknowledging and apologizing 
for the abuse suffered by children, athletes, and other participants in 
swimming programs. The organization as a whole, and I personally, 
deeply regret the experiences of some of our members that included 
sexual, physical, or emotional misconduct.
    On May 23, I testified about the comprehensive abuse prevention and 
response program that USA Swimming has worked to create and develop 
since 2010. I have included for your reference a copy of my prepared 
testimony to the House of Representatives. Today, I would like to 
describe the efforts that USA Swimming has made over the past five 
months to highlight our continued commitment to providing safe and 
healthy environments to our swimmers and other members.
    From an employment perspective, immediately following my prior 
testimony, I held an all-staff meeting and reiterated the 
organization's commitment to athlete protection as its top priority. 
Anyone uncomfortable with that reality was advised to develop an exit 
strategy. USA Swimming then hired a Safe Sport Coordinator and 
Associate Counsel to enhance our operational capabilities. Their 
respective backgrounds include serving as a Sexual Assault Response 
Coordinator in the United States Army and a Deputy Prosecuting Attorney 
in the special victim's team sex crimes and child abuse unit, and their 
skill sets complement the other members of the Safe Sport staff, which 
now totals eight--four core and four support. These staff members work 
with countless other Safe Sport Champions, including a twelve-member 
Safe Sport Committee, four national Zone Safe Sport Coordinators, 59 
Local Swim Committee Safe Sport Coordinators, twelve Safe Sport Athlete 
Fellows, hundreds of Safe Sport Club Coordinators, and the 
organization's Board of Directors to foster a culture of athlete 
protection throughout the organization.
    Last week, USA Swimming participated in the U.S. Aquatics Sports 
Convention--a gathering of aquatics National Governing Bodies. I have 
included for your reference my 2018 State of the Sport report, which 
was distributed to all Convention attendees and published on USA 
Swimming's website.
    The Convention began with a USA Swimming Board of Directors meeting 
where the Board voted to designate $1.5 million dollars of reserves to 
fund SwimAssist costs that may exceed the operating budget. Established 
in 2014, SwimAssist is USA Swimming's victim assistance fund, and this 
approval will ensure that resources are available to meet the needs of 
those who suffered abuse in connection with their participation in 
swimming.
    I also attended a Safe Sport Committee meeting, where a group of 
dedicated volunteers, representing all facets of the organization, 
addressed various ways to enhance the organization's athlete protection 
efforts. They discussed, among others, the development of USA 
Swimming's Training the Trainers program, athlete-to-coach transition 
resources, communications strategies, and case trends. Immediately 
following the Committee meeting, USA Swimming Safe Sport staff 
previewed its new Club Recognition Program, which incentivizes member 
clubs to exceed the organization's Safe Sport minimum requirements by 
promoting additional athlete protection education, policies, and best 
practices.
    Also at the Convention, the One Love Foundation offered two in-
person training opportunities on healthy and unhealthy behaviors within 
power-based and peer relationships, after previously co-hosting a 
webinar with USA Swimming. According to its website, ``One Love is the 
national leader in educating young people about healthy and unhealthy 
relationships and galvanizing them as leaders of change.''
    USA Swimming recognizes the tremendous value in partnering with 
other organizations that are experts and leaders in this space and that 
can add a voice and perspective to what we develop and promote 
internally.
    To that end, USA Swimming has engaged Praesidium to review its Safe 
Sport educational content and provide feedback. Praesidium is a 
national leader in preventing sexual abuse within organizations. For 
over two decades, they have worked with 4,000 youth and vulnerable 
adult serving organizations and have a wealth of knowledge and 
experience to share. Moreover, this initiative was undertaken in direct 
response to feedback we received regarding our educational materials, 
including by survivors of sexual abuse within the sport. The input 
several survivors have provided over the past five months has been 
among the most powerful, compelling and effective I've received, and I 
will continue to solicit, listen to, and implement it.
    We are also in preliminary stages of discussions with one of our 
largest team management platforms to push Safe Sport content through 
team websites to team administrators and parents. This is a watershed 
opportunity for our athlete protection program, whose key audience is 
swim parents, even though parents are not typically members and 
therefore more challenging to reach.
    Finally, USA Swimming recognizes the value of its own athlete 
leaders and role models and has worked with a number of its National 
Team members and alums to create a public service announcement for 
national television and digital media distribution to take a stand 
against athlete abuse.
    These are some of the bigger initiatives that the organization has 
undertaken over the past five months, but there is also considerable 
value in taking the smaller, more routine steps, day-in and day-out.
    Such steps have included USA Swimming:

   Working with the U.S. Center for SafeSport to vet all of its 
        Board of Director candidates, Pan Pacific and Junior Pan 
        Pacific Championship coaches, and 2019 medical staff and 
        managers prior to nomination or appointment.

   Strengthening its internal policy regarding independent 
        contractors to ensure that those with direct contact with 
        athletes are subject to a criminal background check and 
        complete Safe Sport training.

   Updating its membership registration form to acknowledge the 
        mandatory reporting requirements of the Protecting Young 
        Victims from Sexual Abuse and Safe Sport Authorization Act.

   Distributing an all member communication regarding its 
        SwimAssist program as an initial step to ensure that this 
        resource is well known and utilized.

   Continuing to meet and engage with survivors and taking 
        preliminary steps to develop a survivor support network for 
        those who are interested.

   And, since May 28, 2018, USA Swimming has trained over 400 
        individuals--including coaches, athletes, and parents--in in-
        person workshops offered at member club visits to the Olympic 
        Training Center, Regional Coaches Clinics, and national 
        programs.

    USA Swimming sits before you today as one member of the U.S. 
Olympic sport community. The United States Olympic Committee has 
indicated that there will be heightened expectations and greater 
oversight over all National Governing Bodies with respect to abuse 
prevention and response. We welcome that. The U.S. Center for SafeSport 
has indicated that National Governing Bodies must adopt the Center's 
policies and utilize their education and training. We welcome that, 
too. There is no pride of ownership in athlete protection; USA Swimming 
will lead in this space, but we will do so humbly, learning from those 
who are willing and able to teach.
    Finally, USA Swimming recognizes that we are a member of a youth 
serving organizations community broader than just the Olympic Movement, 
and, as such, we have an obligation to learn from and to share with our 
peers. Since May 23, 2018, USA Swimming has attended the National 
Sexual Assault Conference co-hosted by the Pennsylvania Coalition 
Against Rape and the National Sexual Violence Resource Center. USA 
Swimming also contributed to programming at the Beyond Sport Summit put 
on as part of the International Safeguards for Children in Sport. USA 
Swimming staff serves as a working group lead within the International 
Safeguards for Children in Sport Initiative, organized through UNICEF. 
Later this year, USA Swimming will attend the 2018 International Youth 
Protection Symposium hosted by the Boy Scouts of America; abuse 
prevention programming related to aquatic facilities conducted during 
the World Aquatic Health Conference; and the Praesidium Guardian 
Program. Finally, USA Swimming will host its own Safe Sport Leadership 
Conference on January 31-February 1, 2019 and each of you are invited 
and encouraged to attend.
    As we gather to discuss Protecting U.S. Amateur Athletes: Examining 
Abuse Prevention Efforts Across the Olympic Movement, we acknowledge 
there is no simple solution. Even within one organization, there are 
different audiences that require different content through different 
medium and different factual circumstances that require different 
responses and different outcomes.
    It will take Congress, the United States Olympic Committee, the 
U.S. Center for SafeSport, USA Swimming, and the other forty-nine 
National Governing Bodies to work together to put a comprehensive 
framework in place that creates safe environments, prevents abuse, and 
responds effectively when it occurs. There must be a comprehensive 
approach because anything else would be inadequate.
    And as that collective effort progresses, USA Swimming is committed 
to the continued development of its own abuse prevention and response 
program. We have been busy enhancing our athlete protection efforts 
since I last testified five months ago, and we will stay busy. I have 
said before, I say today, and I will say forever, providing a safe and 
healthy environment to our children, athletes and members is my and the 
organization's top priority.
    I look forward to sharing our experiences, learning from our peers, 
and assisting you in any way we can to prevent abuse, including child 
sexual abuse, in sport.
                               Attachment
               Prepared Testimony of Timothy Hinchey III
Before the U.S. House Committee on Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on 
                      Oversight and Investigations
                              May 23, 2018
    Chairman Harper, Ranking Member DeGette, and Members of the 
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today.
    In 2010, long before Larry Nassar's prolific sexual abuse of minor 
gymnasts became known, USA Swimming faced its own reality that children 
and swimmers were being sexually abused in sport.
    First and foremost, USA Swimming acknowledges and deeply regrets 
the abuse suffered by children, athletes, and other participants in 
swimming programs. Participation in sport should offer physical, social 
and emotional benefits, but for some, it has resulted in abuse and 
trauma that will negatively impact the rest of their lives. That is 
inexcusable, and like those of you who sit before me, I am deeply 
committed to providing a safe and healthy environment for children to 
grow, play and compete.
    While recognizing that much work remains to be done, as this 
Subcommittee examines the Olympic Community's Ability to Protect 
Athletes from Sexual Abuse, let me describe steps that USA Swimming has 
taken.
    In 2010, USA Swimming established a comprehensive abuse prevention 
and response program called Safe Sport. However, USA Swimming's Safe 
Sport is not a novel program. It is based on six well-established 
pillars of youth-serving abuse prevention programs, including: (i) 
Policies & Guidelines; (ii) Screening & Selection; (iii) Training & 
Education; (iv) Monitoring & Supervision; (v) Recognizing, Responding & 
Reporting; and (vi) Grassroots Engagement & Feedback. USA Swimming 
partnered with the Child Welfare League of America and received 
guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the 
National Center for Missing and Exploited Children in its creation.
    In 2010, USA Swimming also hired an Athlete Protection Officer, the 
first position of its kind in the Olympic movement, and established a 
national Safe Sport Committee, charged with review of the 
organization's athlete protection policies, guidelines, educational 
programs, and reporting and adjudication procedures.
    Over the past eight years, the Safe Sport program has evolved:

   USA Swimming's Code of Conduct has been updated numerous 
        times to enhance athlete protection.

   Reporting policies and procedures have been broadened.

   Over ninety individuals have been banned from membership for 
        sexual misconduct and published on USA Swimming's banned list.

   Criminal background checks have been enhanced. Currently, we 
        conduct monthly recurring reports on our 50,000 non-athlete 
        members, resulting in approximately 600,000 annual checks of 
        the adults who have access to children.

   USA Swimming's Safe Sport champions have grown to two full-
        time staff, four additional support staff, a twelve-member Safe 
        Sport Committee, four national Zone Safe Sport Coordinators, 59 
        Local Swim Committee Safe Sport Coordinators, and twelve Safe 
        Sport Athlete Fellows, in addition to the organization's Board 
        of Directors.

   Educational initiatives have increased. Athlete Protection 
        Training is required for all non-athlete members and must be 
        renewed every other year, free Safe Sport training is available 
        to parents and athletes, and over 10,000 individuals have 
        received Safe Sport training in in-person workshops or 
        conferences.

   Finally, a victim's assistance fund, SwimAssist, was 
        established following the 2014 assessment of USA Swimming's 
        Safe Sport program by the Gundersen National Child Protection 
        Training Center.

    However, child sexual abuse still occurs in swimming. The 
organization can, should and will do more, and I will lead that effort. 
I am a father of six; three girls and three boys; ages 30 to 11, and I 
am a swimmer. I swam at the University of California--Irvine and I 
still participate in a Master's Swimming program. Upon assuming the 
role of President & CEO of USA Swimming in July 2017, I recognized Safe 
Sport's significance to the organization, and the opportunity to work 
with the Subcommittee in this investigation has only intensified my 
commitment to make protecting children and athletes USA Swimming's top 
priority. There will be no complacency on my watch.
    To that end, we have a number of new initiatives underway and are 
vetting even more. The Safe Sport recognized club program will enhance 
athlete protection efforts at the local level. The ``Training the 
Trainers'' program will increase the number of advocates spreading the 
Safe Sport message throughout the organization. And I have and will 
continue to meet and engage with survivors of abuse to ensure that we 
hear their voices and learn from their experiences.
    In addition to its own efforts, USA Swimming will continue to be a 
responsible leader, steward and member of the Olympic sport community. 
USA Swimming embraces its obligations under the Protecting Young 
Victims from Sexual Abuse and Safe Sport Authorization Act and already 
has policies in place which require reporting, prohibit retaliation, 
and limit one-on-one interactions between adults and children. Further, 
USA Swimming supports the U.S. Center for Safe Sport and is fully 
committed to its success. We will provide meaningful engagement and 
support to it in any way we can.
    While we cannot change the past, we will learn from it and do 
better. Our commitment to preventing child sexual abuse and providing a 
safe and healthy environment for our athletes is constant and long-
lasting.

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Senator Moran. Mr. Hinchey, thank you for your testimony 
today and our conversations previously.
    Mr. Steele.

   STATEMENT OF DARRIN STEELE, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, USA 
                      BOBSLED AND SKELETON

    Mr. Steele. Good afternoon, Chairman Moran, Ranking Member 
Blumenthal, Senators of the Subcommittee.
    In 2007, I accepted the position of CEO of the U.S. Bobsled 
and Skeleton Federation, now USA Bobsled & Skeleton. And I 
still had fond memories of competing in the 1998 and 2002 
Winter Olympic Games in bobsled. So I was excited about 
returning to that. But I also knew it would not be an easy 
role. The organization had just been restructured by the USOC 
due to a series of leadership mishaps, including mismanagement 
of sexual harassment allegations against one of the coaches in 
2005.
    That issue had been resolved by the time the new board 
hired me, but we still needed to establish a professional, 
performance-based culture. So through the USOC, I set up 
mandatory training for all staff and coaches on EEOC 
protections and workplace standards to ensure our people were 
trained and expectations were clear from the very start. But 
policies can only be effective if the leadership sets the 
example. This is part of our culture at USABS and we never 
compromise those values, particularly with the leadership team.
    Much has happened since then, including the creation of the 
U.S. Center for SafeSport. Although we have not needed to 
utilize the center for investigating claims, they have been 
incredibly valuable for offering training, awareness, policy 
guidance, and education to our athletes, coaches, and staff. We 
have adopted a SafeSport policy and updated our bylaws to 
reflect our commitment to protecting athletes.
    The recent abuses of our young athletes at the hands of 
those they trusted is beyond deplorable and we must do 
everything in our power to identify the root causes for why 
each and every abuse happened and what it will take to make 
sure similar abuses are not repeated in the future. USA Bobsled 
& Skeleton is fortunate. We have been able to protect our 
athletes thus far, but no organization is immune to the threat 
and we can never be complacent in our policies, rules, or 
standards of conduct. I say ``our athletes'' because 
collectively we all represent Olympic sport and when one 
organization fails to protect an athlete, we all have failed 
that athlete.
    We are not a large NGB and we have unique challenges. And 
that was one of the topics, the uniqueness of the NGB, so I am 
going to speak a little bit to that.
    Kids do not compete in bobsled and skeleton in high school 
and college. So we are responsible for finding them, 
introducing them to the sport, training all levels from 
beginner to Olympic medalist. We have to hire foreign coaches 
or develop coaches on our own. Our costs are high due to the 
importance of technology and high cost of shipping that 
technology around the world. We do not raise money from events 
or membership. So we rely on sponsors, donors, and the USOC for 
funding. And the USOC is the largest contributor to that 
funding.
    There are three key factors necessary to win a race in 
bobsled and skeleton: competitive pushing at the start, 
competitive driving down the hill, and a competitive sled. 
Between 1960 and 1998, the USA only had two of those three, and 
we experienced a 46-year medal drought.
    Prior to 1998, bobsled pilots were responsible for buying 
or building their own sleds, while other nations invested 
millions on sled technology. That changed when NASCAR driver 
Geoff Bodine came forward, and we began a partnership to build 
American sleds and provide them to the national team. We 
started a similar project with BMW North America in 2010. And 
because of those two programs, every single bobsled medal that 
has been earned by the U.S. after 1956 was either in a Bo-Dyn 
or BMW bobsled. In the past five winter games, 30 American 
athletes were standing on the medal podium at the Olympic Games 
thanks to our investment in technology. And without the modest 
but critical funding provided by the USOC, it simply would not 
be possible.
    The first part of our mission statement is to enable United 
States athletes to achieve sustained competitive excellence in 
Olympic competition. If we fail to protect athletes, that 
mission is not possible.
    And as we explore strategies for improving athlete 
protection, the uniqueness of the NGBs must be considered. We 
should also exercise caution when considering the massive 
changes that have been talked about within the USOC that will 
impact NGBs in drastically different ways, and we want to make 
sure those changes are actually improving the protection of 
athletes. We owe it to our athletes to both ensure they are 
protected and help them achieve their dreams of representing 
the United States in the Olympic Games.
    Thank you for the opportunity to address the important 
issues facing the Olympic family. And I will be happy to answer 
questions.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Steele follows:]

     Prepared Statement of Darrin Steele, Chief Executive Officer, 
                         USA Bobsled & Skeleton
    Good afternoon Chairman Moran, Ranking Member Blumenthal, and 
Senators of the Subcommittee. In 2007, I accepted the position of CEO 
of the U.S. Bobsled and Skeleton Federation (USBSF), now called USA 
Bobsled & Skeleton (USABS). I still had fond memories from competing in 
the 1998 and 2002 Winter Olympic Games in the sport of bobsled, and I 
was excited to return. But, I also knew it would not be an easy role. 
There had been a revolving door at the Executive Director level and the 
organization was being restructured by the USOC due to a series of 
missteps, including mismanagement of sexual harassment allegations 
against one of the coaches in 2005.
    Those issues had been resolved when I began my CEO role and a new 
board had been named. We needed to establish a professional, 
performance-based culture, so through the USOC, I set up mandatory 
training for all staff and coaches on EEOC protections and workplace 
standards to ensure our people were trained and expectations were clear 
from the very start. Policies are only effective if they are backed up 
with demonstrated behaviors of the leadership. This is part of our 
culture at USABS and we never compromise those values, particularly 
with the leadership team.
    The recent abuses of our young athletes that have been uncovered at 
the hands of those they trusted is beyond deplorable and we must do 
everything in our power to identify the root causes for why each and 
every abuse happened, and what it will take to make sure similar abuses 
do not happen to others in the future. USA Bobsled & Skeleton is 
fortunate to have been able to protect our athletes thus far, but no 
organization is immune to this threat and we can never be complacent in 
our policies, rules, or standards of conduct. I say, ``our young 
athletes'' because collectively, we all represent Olympic sport and 
when one organization fails to protect an athlete, we all have failed 
that athlete.
    We are not a large NGB and we have unique challenges. Our 
membership is small and although we have not needed to utilize the 
SafeSport organization for investigating claims, they have been 
incredibly valuable for offering training, awareness, policy guidance 
and education to our athletes, coaches, and staff. We have adopted a 
SafeSport policy and updated our bylaws to reflect our commitment to 
protecting athletes and supporting the SafeSport organization.
    Another way our NGB is unique is that we do not have a direct 
athlete pipeline from the university system, so we are responsible for 
finding athletes, introducing them to the sports, and training all 
levels from beginners to Olympic medalists. We are also responsible for 
developing coaches or hiring them away from our competitors. We do not 
generate revenue from events or membership, so we rely on sponsors, 
donors and the USOC for funding. The largest portion of that funding 
comes from the USOC. This is largely due to the importance technology 
plays in our sports and the high cost of shipping that technology 
around the world for international competitions.
    Prior to 1998, bobsled pilots were responsible for purchasing their 
own sleds and the U.S. fell far behind our competitors around the 
world. That is the single largest contributor to the 46-year medal 
drought we experienced prior to 2002. Geoff Bodine came forward after 
the 1992 Olympic Games and we began a partnership with the Bo-Dyn 
Bobsled Project to build American bobsleds that were owned by USBSF and 
provided to the National Team. We started a similar technology program 
focused on the 2-Man bobsled discipline in 2010 with our partners at 
BMW North America. Every bobsled medal that has been earned by the USA 
after 1956 was earned in either a Bo-Dyn bobsled or BMW bobsled. To put 
that in perspective, in the past five Winter Olympic Games, 30 American 
athletes were standing on a medal podium at the Olympic Games thanks to 
our investment in technology. Six of those thirty got to watch the 
American flag rise to the playing of the National Anthem. Our coaches 
and athletes were a big part of those programs, but without our 
technology partners and the modest, but critical funding provided by 
the USOC, it simply would not have been possible. That is the reality 
of our sport.
    The first part of our mission statement is to ``. . . enable United 
States athletes to achieve sustained competitive excellence in Olympic 
competition.'' That is only possible if we begin with, and maintain as 
our highest priority, their protection. The uniqueness of the NGBs must 
be considered as we explore strategies for improving athlete 
protection. Therefore, we must exercise caution against the temptation 
to paint well-run NGBs who are effectively protecting their athletes 
with the same broad brush used for NGBs that have failed to do the 
same. The same caution should be used when considering massive 
structural changes within the USOC that will impact the NGBs in 
drastically different ways. We owe it to our athletes to both ensure 
they are protected and help them to achieve their dreams of 
representing the United States in the Olympic Games.
    Thank you for the opportunity to address the important issues 
facing the Olympic family. We can never stop looking for gaps in the 
system or for ways to make our sports safer for athletes. I would be 
happy to answer your questions.

    Senator Moran. Mr. Steele, thank you very much.
    I am going to depart to go cast a vote, and I am going to 
ask Senator Capito to chair the hearing. I will be back in time 
to relieve her of those duties so that she can go vote. But 
that way we will continue our hearing without a pause or a 
recess. So I will return shortly. And thank you, Shelly.
    Senator Capito [presiding]. Thank you all very much. And we 
will start the questioning with Senator Cortez Masto.

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

    Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you. Thank you all for being 
here. I know this is the fourth hearing, and I so appreciate 
the chair and Ranking Member in continuing down this important 
discussion.
    And, Mr. Hinchey, I want to thank you for sitting down with 
me yesterday and talking with me.
    So the question I want to start for the panel that I have 
is to what extent are you personally and your leadership and 
staff actively engaging with both the Athletes Advisory 
Council, as well as victims of sexual abuse, to help direct 
your programming to stamp out the culture of abuse that has 
enabled what we have seen these predators to target athletes. 
Can you talk a little bit about that, what you are doing 
individually or within your organization? Mr. Andrews, please.
    Mr. Andrews. Thank you, Senator.
    We have tried to create a culture since 2016 of really 
putting athletes at the heart of everything we do. Ultimately 
athletes are who we serve first and foremost. They are the 
people who step on the platform and lift the heavy weights in 
our case, literally.
    To your questions, we have on our board a USOC Athlete 
Advisory Council representative who has an alternate. We have a 
second athlete on our board. We also have in common with, I 
suspect, every national governing body our own athlete advisory 
council, which we work with directly. As I mentioned in my 
opening remarks, that is the body that actually has the final 
approval as a whole on our selection procedures, for example.
    To your point, I mentioned in my opening remarks our 
specific actions that we have taken as a result of the feedback 
of victims of abuse, not just in our sport but in others. Plus, 
I make myself personally, as do my staff, available by phone, 
e-mail, and at events.
    Senator Cortez Masto. So let me make it a little easier 
because I appreciate that. And let me be more specific because 
this is an area I have worked in.
    Now we need to change the culture, and we need experts to 
come in and help. Normally I do. I think we all do when we are 
trying to address this issue.
    So what are you doing in general to change this culture? 
What have you put in place? What experts have you relied upon 
to come in to help with education, to help with training, to 
help with understanding how we change this culture? Is there 
anybody that you have reached out to in the professional field 
to address this issue?
    And I have only five minutes. So I am going to ask if you 
do not have anything like that, just please say so, then we can 
move on.
    Mr. Andrews. No. Our biggest experts on athletes are 
athletes.
    Senator Cortez Masto. OK. Thank you.
    Ms. Cammett.
    Ms. Cammett. Thank you. I appreciate the direction.
    What we have done is in the fall last year, we hired a 
SafeSport counsel who is in-taking all the information and has 
that expertise. We currently are looking for another position 
to hire which will address specifically education and training.
    Our AAC is very involved. Mark Ladwig, our AAC Chair, is 
here today with us. And we really have engaged our athletes to 
speak up and have a voice. We have a new campaign, if you will, 
called Your Voice, and it is the better known skaters more 
public facing to come into communities and work with children 
in that community to help them understand that they do have a 
voice and they can speak up. And then we have also worked on 
education and training after speaking to survivors so we could 
make it more focused.
    Senator Cortez Masto. OK. Thank you.
    Mr. Hinchey.
    Mr. Hinchey. We have several different--in the last 6 
months or so, we have had an opportunity to have several 
different groups of national team athletes that are at the 
Olympic Training Center. So we have invited them to lunch to 
speak to them directly and getting their feedback and asking 
them what they need more from us and how we can further engage.
    We are a large organization that has 3,000 member clubs. So 
our SafeSport department has an ability to get out to as many 
zone meetings, regional meetings, or invite ourselves to talk 
about curriculum and engage those athletes. Most recently, we 
started our first ever athlete leadership conference last April 
in Houston that I attended. I spoke to these athletes. These 
athletes are the 13 to 17-year-olds that are not necessarily 
going to be Olympic athletes but those that are at their local 
clubs that have an opportunity influence a greater number of 
their teammates than we can. So we have met with them and 
talked to them.
    And then from a content perspective, we have taken some 
criticism based on meeting with some survivors on our content. 
So we have halted that distribution. We have hired Praesidium 
to come in and audit that fully. We look forward to having that 
content improved and then listening to the athletes on the best 
possible methods to distribute that.
    And even last week at our convention, we met with some of 
our SafeSport fellows, which are again local club athletes, and 
they were very critical of the fact that we are not helping 
them with the right tools and specifically with social media 
communication. So that will be the next expertise we hire 
outside.
    Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you.
    Mr. Steele.
    Mr. Steele. Our AAC members are part of the board. We have 
regular communication with them. Getting feedback from the 
athletes is one of the most important things in identifying 
maybe some unknown issues that are out there. And so that is 
one of things that we do pretty much on an annual basis. I do a 
post-season survey for the athletes, and they are very candid 
about what they are happy about, what they are not happy about.
    In addition to that, we are doing culture training with the 
entire organization. It is not necessarily related to Safe 
Sport because that is not the primary issue or an issue that we 
have experienced really in quite a while. But culture training 
is important and that involves engaging with the athletes and 
finding out what gaps they see. So People Academy is the group 
that we are working with on that. And that is pretty much it.
    Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you.
    I noticed my time is up. Thank you

            STATEMENT OF HON. SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, 
                U.S. SENATOR FROM WEST VIRGINIA

    Senator Capito. Thank you.
    I thank all of you for being here today and thank you for 
working to enact the Sexual Abuse and Safe Sport Authorization 
Act that we passed here in the Congress.
    When we had the athletes in front of us two panels ago I 
believe, the question I asked was about mental health and 
sports psychologists. I was kind of surprised at the answer 
that I got, realizing these are elite athletes at the top of 
their sport and at the same time young, still formulating minds 
at the same time. I was surprised that none of them, as I 
recall, expressed the accessibility to any kind of mental 
health professional or sports counseling because a lot of 
sports have a very big mental aspect to them as well.
    So I am interested in knowing, how the NGB is maintaining 
mental health options for the young athletes? Are you providing 
those? How is that being provided for? Are you aware that there 
is any kind of professional, and are they aware of it? Is there 
something like that?
    I will start with you, Ms. Cammett, at figure skating.
    Ms. Cammett. Thank you.
    Yes, we do provide it for our lead athletes, and they are 
made aware of it. We have what is called an International 
Selection Pool (ISP), which includes top athletes from which we 
draw the names of kids or athletes that we send 
internationally. We then have Team USA, once you get to travel. 
Those individuals that are on our ISP they have these services 
available to them.
    Senator Capito. Are they using them, or do you know?
    Ms. Cammett. They are using them. Especially, when we get 
to the Olympic level. We definitely have ongoing providers that 
we use. Sometimes what happens is they start while they are in 
Colorado Springs. They meet with a USOC psychologist or mental 
health service provider. Then when they go back to their home, 
we follow up and make sure that there is a provider there. But 
even right after I became President, there was a request for 
it, and so I got to see firsthand what we do. We take it very 
seriously because as you mentioned, it is a huge component when 
you get to the elite level.
    Senator Capito. Does anybody else want to comment? Mr. 
Hinchey?
    Mr. Hinchey. Yes. Our national team services director, who 
manages our, currently, 60 athletes in our national team 
program, is in contact with the athletes individually and 
collectively about resources that we have at USA Swimming to 
provide mental health care in addition to other medical 
services. Our sports medicine director is also interacting with 
medical services people at the Olympic Training Center, as well 
as, other places that we travel. So we try to travel with 
somebody that has the ability to be supportive. We have a 
sports psychologist that also travels with us to our most 
important Olympic Gold level meets, which are international 
meets. It is something we are hearing a lot about from some of 
our most famous athletes and current national teamers. It is 
something that our national team director wants to do more.
    Senator Capito. Yes. I just saw actually a billboard with 
Michael Phelps talking about mental health.
    And I see it too not just to help them reach maximum 
performance, but also if there is a situation where a coach or 
a trusted individual in their life is abusing them in any way, 
that is another outlet for that person in the privacy of a 
medical professional to be able to speak more freely and more 
openly. So I am glad to know that that is going on.
    The other question I asked was about their medical records. 
Obviously, this involved the doctor in Michigan. It seemed that 
there again was a lot of, ``I do not really know where my 
medical records are.'' ``He gave me prescriptions.'' ``I do not 
know who kept track of all this.''
    What kind of things are you all doing? Do you all have 
access to medical records, or is that kept within the privacy 
of the individual? Do athletes and guardians have access to 
this when it is necessary? How do you work those kinds of 
privacy issues, along with oversight issues? Anybody want to 
start with that? Ms. Cammett?
    Ms. Cammett. Yes, I can.
    The skaters in our situation are trained individually. They 
decide who their coach should be and things like that. So they 
are distributed throughout the country. And so they have their 
own personal care provider, regular doctor they would see, or 
if they are training perhaps in Colorado Springs, then they 
would have a provider there.
    As officials and as President of U.S. Figure Skating, I do 
not have access to those records. They are HIPAA. We do have a 
centralized people group that, I should say, can have that 
knowledge when we are deciding to send our athletes because 
athletes do agree, when they are going to travel, that they are 
healthy.
    So does that address your question?
    Senator Capito. It does. It does. I just think, as anybody 
knows, if you have your own home provider and let us say you 
are over in Europe competing with your team and you are a young 
man or woman and you have a headache or something or you hurt 
yourself, you are administered some kind of prescription 
medication. You can see how the records could maybe not be 
updated as things happen such as in regular medical care. Even 
if you are staying in the same community, you might go to a 
specialist and a general practitioner. Getting your records 
centralized I think is important to better health care, but 
also to more transparency where young athletes might be more 
vulnerable to accepting medical advice. Nobody is really 
looking at what might be conflicting with other things and 
things of that nature.
    Ms. Cammett. But it is a good point. If I can also add, 
when the athlete is traveling and there is a medical 
professional, they fill out any prescription information that 
they are taking at the time when they go, and the doctor has 
that information. The doctor does fill out if anything was 
prescribed. We also have medical staff at our nationals, and 
that is always detailed in a report.
    Senator Capito. Well, since it is just the two of us and 
the Chairman is coming back, we could keep on. Did you have any 
additional question?
    Senator Cortez Masto. I do. Thank you. Thank you, Madam 
Chair.
    I have heard from a couple of you. And maybe this is to all 
of you right now, just a, Yes, question. Do you all agree that 
we should be adequately funding the U.S. Center for SafeSport 
to address education, investigation, and adjudication? And, Mr. 
Andrews, if you can just say, yes or no. Yes?
    Mr. Andrews. Yes.
    Ms. Cammett. Yes.
    Mr. Hinchey. Yes.
    Mr. Steele. Yes.
    Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you.
    And one of the recommendations, which you, Ms. Cammett, 
talked about was needing a national data base of banned people. 
Would you all agree that that is something that is necessary? 
Starting with Mr. Andrews, yes or no.
    Mr. Andrews. Yes.
    Ms. Cammett. Yes.
    Mr. Hinchey. Yes.
    Mr. Steele. Yes.
    Senator Cortez Masto. I am going to ask Mr. Hinchey, I do 
not want to put you on the spot, but I know we talked about 
this, and I agree we need to do something. What should we know 
about, or what should be addressed when we are talking about 
banning people? What have you learned? Is there anything that 
you have learned from that that we need to take into 
consideration?
    Mr. Hinchey. Well, I think right now for us with the change 
as it relates to initial reporting and adjudication of the 
Center for SafeSport, is our responses, unfortunately, are not 
as fast as they were when we were first handling it. So it goes 
back to your question as it relates to funding. Funding is 
significant, but at the same time, we need to hire the right 
amount of people that can be responsive to the needs of our 
athletes. Right now, we are finding the feedback for us, and 
what we are learning is that we are not getting to these as 
fast as we need to.
    Senator Cortez Masto. Let me also just put this out there. 
I hope this is not the case, but I hope you are not waiting for 
Congress to act to stand this up before we make the necessary 
changes to protect our athletes. Please tell me that you are 
still going to move forward to change that culture, to protect 
our athletes, to do what is necessary within your 
organizations, no matter what happens here. Is that correct? 
And can I start with Mr. Andrews?
    Mr. Andrews. Yes, absolutely.
    Ms. Cammett. Yes.
    Mr. Hinchey. Yes, and just further, we need to absolutely 
have a culture of reporting that is safe for everyone.
    Mr. Steele. Yes.
    Senator Cortez Masto. And then you talked a little bit 
about a campaign. I know we have talked to others, but tell me 
what kind of campaign are we talking about that would be 
necessary, Ms. Cammett?
    Ms. Cammett. So in this case, we are also working on 
educational materials that are age-adequate and all. We are 
waiting for the USOC to develop that.
    We have a campaign called Your Voice. Part of the problem 
when there is abuse, especially with young children, they do 
not know how to express that. They do not know what to say. I 
do not have any background in this, but my observation and 
experience is that there is a lot involved with being afraid to 
talk to someone about it. So this campaign is really to say you 
have a voice, and you need to express it and let people know 
when there is something not right either with you or if you 
observe it.
    Senator Cortez Masto. And is that a campaign that you are 
taking on through your organization, or you are hoping that 
U.S. SafeSport will take this on?
    Ms. Cammett. It is something that U.S. Figure Skating has 
done already. We have a T-shirt back here too.
    Senator Cortez Masto: OK. Thank you. I see it. Your Voice 
is Powerful. That is great. Thank you.
    Let me ask the dynamic now between the NGBs and the U.S. 
Olympic Committee. What is it that we need to know that is 
happening within that relationship? In other words, are they 
dictating, mandating certain things that can or should be done 
with the NGBs to address this culture? Is there more work that 
needs to be done? Is the interaction between the two working 
how it should? And I will leave that open to the Committee. Can 
you please address that for me?
    Mr. Andrews. I think yes, they are. They are mandating 
certain elements, especially with regard to our adherence to 
the U.S. Center for SafeSport. But ultimately it comes down to 
the NGB first to take the action to protect their own athletes, 
listen to their own athletes, and put into place actions that 
specifically protect athletes within that sport, and that is 
what we have done.
    Ms. Cammett. Well, I will just speak quickly that they are 
developing. It is continuing. It is evolving, and meanwhile we 
are also going ahead and doing it. But we do feel that it is 
important that if the USOC would have a collective program, 
then all the NGBs can benefit from it and have the same message 
and information getting out to all NGBs.
    Mr. Hinchey. It is absolutely a priority that is clear to 
them today and has been communicated to us.
    Having said that, and I have said this previously, we look 
at this as our problem. Although we have invested in a program 
that we think has been very strong over the past 8 years, it 
absolutely needs to get better for the survivors and the abuse 
that has occurred in swimming. I do not think we can rely upon 
anybody else. We owe this to our athletes. Therefore, I see 
this as our number one priority and for us to continue to be a 
priority, and if the USOC can help, we are willing to do that. 
We are willing to share and learn. But we feel like this is on 
us.
    Senator Cortez Masto. Anything to add, Mr. Steele?
    Mr. Steele. Just that that partnership has been crucial for 
our organization. We are smaller and so the resources that they 
have been able to offer up as far as helping us with guidance 
on the implementation, changes. And to circle back about the 
mental health question that was asked, that is something that 
is important to us. It does not come up that often, but when it 
does, you really need to have a resource for an athlete. Just 
recently it was announced to all of us that the USOC is going 
to be adding this as a resource for our athletes, and we were 
very excited to hear that.
    Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you.
    Senator Capito. Thank you.
    I am going to ask one more question before I go to Senator 
Hassan.
    Senator Cortez Masto mentioned the banned list, and you all 
seemed to be very much in support of that. I saw on the 
coaching and I know it could be something other than a coach, a 
physical therapist or something like that. Is that envisioned 
to be a public document? Yes, yes?
    Mr. Andrews. Yes.
    Mr. Hinchey. Yes.
    Senator Capito. And those names are gathered. How would you 
as an organization be forwarding these names to the Olympic 
Committee? Do they do an investigation, or how is that going to 
work? Does anybody know? Have they figured that out yet?
    Mr. Hinchey. Not to my knowledge. Our banned list is 
public. We are responsible for that. Now that the U.S. Center 
for SafeSport provides that adjudication, they would give us 
notice. We would take care of that list, and we would also 
contact the club.
    Senator Capito. So you all formulate your own list and then 
that becomes part of the U.S. Olympic Committee? That is the 
U.S. Olympic Committee list unless they have a list of their 
own they add on, which I guess is possible?
    I am just curious to know. How many individuals are on the 
banned list for U.S. Swimming?
    Mr. Hinchey. 163.
    Senator Capito. Wow. That is a lot.
    And how is that information disseminated to all of your 
member clubs and member organizations?
    Mr. Hinchey. It is public on our website, and on the 
individual occasion, someone is banned, we then communicate to 
that club.
    Senator Capito. Thank you.
    Senator Hassan.

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

    Senator Hassan. Thank you very much, Senator Capito.
    And good afternoon to all of you, and thank you for 
tolerating our in and out as we go vote.
    I do want to thank, not only the witnesses for being here, 
but for all of the survivors who are here today as well, we are 
grateful for your voices and for your strength. And we are 
working to make sure that, obviously, the personal safety and 
autonomy of athletes is just always paramount. So, again, I 
appreciate your willingness to be here.
    I wanted everybody on the panel to have a chance to answer 
a question that I think U.S. Swimming answered earlier. But as 
we have heard here today, Congress passed the Protecting Young 
Victims from Sexual Abuse and Safe Sport Authorization Act. The 
goal of the legislation is to protect athletes, facilitate 
reporting of suspected or alleged incidence of abuse, and 
ensure that a robust, impartial, and independent system exists 
to do just that.
    Obviously, an important part of this process is speaking 
with and really listening to survivors of sexual abuse and 
misconduct. And I think, Mr. Hinchey, you indicated that U.S. 
Swimming has. But for the other witnesses here, have your 
organizations met with survivors? Have you been talking with 
them to get their input about how to bring about lasting 
change? And why do we not start with you, Mr. Andrews?
    Mr. Andrews. Yes, we have both those who have suffered 
within our sport and those coming to our sport having 
previously suffered. We have put into place specific 
recommendations based off their feedback.
    Senator Hassan. Thank you.
    Ms. Cammett.
    Ms. Cammett. Yes, we also have, and we have incorporated 
information from them to make our training and education 
programs stronger.
    Senator Hassan. And Mr. Steele?
    Mr. Steele. Survivors, no, but we did have the SafeSport 
individuals come and speak with the athletes to make sure that 
they were aware of the policies and available resources.
    Senator Hassan. I would suggest that, as you have heard 
from your colleagues, it is a very important thing to do. And 
obviously, every situation is different, and survivors will 
make their own judgments about when and how they want to 
engage. But I think it is incredibly important that we do that 
as part of this process and make sure their voices are heard. 
So I hope very much you will consider it.
    Mr. Hinchey, I wanted to go back to USA Swimming a little 
bit. When we talk about sexual abuse in athletes, we typically 
think of the horrible abuses committed in USA Gymnastics at the 
hands of Larry Nassar, who has finally been brought to justice. 
But as you have acknowledged, USA Swimming has a particularly 
bad record as well.
    Among the allegations of USA Swimming is the failure to 
complete background checks for coaches which resulted in dozens 
of coaches being able to commit sexual abuse and engage in 
misconduct against their swimmers. In 2010, ABC News revealed 
that 36 coaches were banned for life by USA Swimming because of 
sexual misconduct. In a July 2018 report, NPR revealed that the 
banned list has grown, and it reported 150. You just said 163.
    It has also been reported that USA Swimming knew about 
sexual misconduct from its coaches but did nothing to protect 
its athletes. And as recently as last February, the Orange 
County Register reported that top USA Swimming officials 
covered up hundreds of sexual abuse cases spanning decades.
    This is in so many ways falling short of how we expect 
athletes in the United States of America to be treated.
    One of the concerns I have is that it appears that in some 
of the cases where coaches were not banned, it was because USA 
Swimming believed the coaches' contention that the relationship 
was consensual. And I just want to say it is not possible to 
have a truly consensual relationship given the power dynamics 
and the fact that coaches literally hold the key to an 
athlete's Olympic dream and their future.
    So I understand that USA Swimming now bans so-called 
consensual relationships. But given that, will you commit to 
revisiting the previous complaints of athletes who said they 
were sexually abused in a relationship the coach claims was 
consensual?
    Mr. Hinchey. Absolutely. This is my top priority since I 
have been at USA Swimming. We will continue to do that. There 
is nothing more important than the safety of our athletes. At 
the same time, we will also need to be working in conjunction 
with any new complaints because those will go to the U.S. 
Center for SafeSport. So again, we will need to be working 
together in order for us to make that happen. But I am 
certainly more than welcome to meet with any survivor.
    Senator Hassan. Thank you. The request is really for a 
commitment to revisit those cases where consideration of a 
coach's position that it was consensual kept the coach from 
being banned. So I would look forward to continuing to hear 
more about that.
    I see that the Chair and Ranking Member are back. I just 
wanted to close.
    Mr. Andrews, I appreciated your saying that it is possible 
to win and still keep athletes safe. And obviously, the two are 
not mutually exclusive, but obviously, an athlete's autonomy 
and safety comes first. And I think it is really important in 
this day and age that we acknowledge we can do both. Thank you 
very much.
    Senator Moran [presiding]. Senator Hassan, thank you very 
much.
    Let me ask a couple of questions and then we will turn to 
the Ranking Member.
    One of the things I am told I should be concerned about is 
with the U.S. Center for SafeSport. It is beginning to be up 
and running in a sense, but there is a slowness in the 
response? I would like to know whether that is true and what 
your experience has been. It is important for victims, for 
survivors to have the reality, as well as the impression, that 
they are being listened to. And that is one of the things we 
have heard from those survivors in numerous conversations. It 
was as if no one cared. So if we are going to create a culture 
in which athletes feel comfortable in reporting, in this case 
to the U.S. Center for SafeSport, they need to know there is a 
prompt and real interest in their wellbeing, that their story 
can be told and actions will follow.
    What is the experience that you have had in the timeliness 
of the U.S. Center for SafeSport responding to your athletes, 
or would you not know that because only the athletes know that? 
Mr. Andrews?
    Mr. Andrews. There are some for which we would not know 
because the report is made directly to the center, but I would 
say that your comments are accurate. The center has been 
overwhelmed with a volume of investigations it has been 
required to carry out and, as a result, does require more 
support from all of us financially and non-financially to both 
improve its processes and critically its timelines. In the case 
of emotional or physical abuse complaints, they are still dealt 
with at the national governing body level and are certainly 
able to be dealt with more quickly because simply we are less 
overwhelmed than the center is at this time.
    Senator Moran. Ms. Cammett, you were ready to speak. My 
question would be is that the experience, or does anyone have 
any specifics which they can provide today for our hearing 
record? Ms. Cammett?
    Ms. Cammett. We do not have specifics. I mean, similar to 
Mr. Andrews with weightlifting, we sometimes make the complaint 
for someone or we could tell something is going on because we 
have been asked if someone is a member. But bottom line, it 
does take a while, and again, I think it is because they are 
overwhelmed.
    Senator Moran. Anyone else?
    Mr. Hinchey. As recent as last week at our United States 
Aquatic Convention in Jacksonville, I sat in our SafeSport 
Committee meeting and we heard loud and clear that the 
responsiveness is taking too long. They are concerned because 
they are not getting any calls back regardless of what the 
complaint is.
    Senator Moran. That is a useful thing to know. A number of 
you have testified about additional taxpayer resources. You 
indicate that they are overwhelmed. I understand there is a 
volume in complaints, but overwhelmed because of process and 
procedure or overwhelmed because there are just not enough 
people to do the work? Or both?
    Mr. Andrews. I would say there is a degree of both. They 
are still new. They are still learning. And if you look at the 
history of the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency, now recognized as the 
gold standard around the world, they suffered from similar 
issues at the start of their life.
    We have a specific issue you asked for, Senator Moran. We 
had a sexual harassment of a child complaint, which we heard 
nothing for several months from the center, resulting in us 
taking a last minute interim measure against that individual as 
a national governing body.
    But I do believe it is both of the items that you said. It 
is both the need to employ even more investigators to ensure 
that the timeline is reduced and also additional expertise to 
continue to improve their processes as they become a more 
mature organization.
    Senator Moran. One of the processes that we could perhaps 
do is just the acknowledgement of the complaint of something 
being filed so that, again, there is knowledge that someone is 
paying attention.
    Let me ask this question. A number of you indicated, in 
particular, Mr. Steele, the importance of financial support 
from the USOC. Describe to me, all four of you have different 
NGB resources, different magnitude of your programs. What is it 
that the U.S. Olympic Committee does for you financially? By 
that, I in part mean, what kind of dollars are we talking 
about?
    Mr. Steele. It depends on the year of the quad because the 
percentage does change. But I would say on average probably 65, 
sometimes up to 70 percent of the total revenue that comes in 
is from the USOC. And we are talking about roughly $2 million a 
year.
    Senator Moran. And are those numbers that you indicated, 
change from year to year, but have they changed as a result of 
the new attention, focus on sexual abuse? You are talking about 
money that is utilized across the board, not just related to 
this issue. This $2 million is money that supports your 
governing body broadly?
    Mr. Steele. It is very specific to athlete programming. 
That is the only thing it is used for.
    Senator Moran. What does that mean?
    Mr. Steele. That means coaches, taking care of the team, 
traveling around the world, fielding teams, buying equipment. 
It has to be related to a sports program for the athletes.
    Senator Moran. And has that increased as a result of an 
effort by the USOC to deal with the issue that is the topic of 
this hearing?
    Mr. Steele. I do not believe so.
    Senator Moran. Anyone else?
    Mr. Hinchey. I would echo Darrin's statement. We get about 
15 percent, and it is direct athlete funding to our national 
team athletes so they have a chance to live and compete at the 
highest levels.
    Ms. Cammett. It is the same. It is not for this initiative.
    Mr. Andrews. We are at 2.7 percent, and again, it has not 
increased due to this initiative.
    Senator Moran. Thank you.
    Senator Blumenthal is recognized.
    Senator Blumenthal. Thank you. I have another meeting, so I 
am going to have to depart fairly soon, but I want to ask a few 
questions here.
    First of all, do any of you use what are called flagged 
lists? There was an AP report in 2010 that USA Swimming has a 
secret, in quotes, flagged list in addition to the public 
banned list. Do any of your organizations use a flagged list in 
addition to the banned list?
    Mr. Hinchey. We do not call it a flagged list. For those 
that have a criminal charge that we get to know about, then we 
certainly would flag their entry to membership, request for 
membership, and we would deny that membership at headquarters.
    Senator Blumenthal. Do others have the same practice?
    Ms. Cammett. No, we do not have that practice. And then 
also, we do the background checks on all coaches. It is 
required, and people that are in a position of power would have 
incidents flagged there too.
    Senator Blumenthal. So your practice is, Mr. Hinchey, that 
you use the flagged list relating to charges but a ban as to 
convictions. Is that correct?
    Mr. Hinchey. Could you restate your question? Sorry.
    Senator Blumenthal. I am sorry?
    Mr. Hinchey. Could you repeat your question? Sorry.
    Senator Blumenthal. You use the flagged list to include 
individuals who have been charged, but not convicted.
    Mr. Hinchey. So if they are currently not a member of our 
organization and they have a criminal charge, then we will 
denote that so that if there is a request for membership, we 
can deny that.
    Senator Blumenthal. And you ban individuals who are 
convicted. Is that the distinction?
    Mr. Hinchey. Anyone that has been a member first that goes 
through the process of a hearing or gets convicted, then we 
would ban them at that point.
    Senator Blumenthal. Have you taken action against Norm 
Havercroft, one of the individuals who sexually abused Jancy 
Thompson, who is in the audience today?
    Mr. Hinchey. I am not familiar with that case prior to my 
arrival at the USA Swimming, but I know that he is not a member 
of USA Swimming.
    Senator Blumenthal. Could you verify whether he has been 
banned?
    Mr. Hinchey. Not to my knowledge.
    Senator Blumenthal. What about Paul Bergen? He is a 
swimming coach who is not banned apparently but believed to be 
on the flagged list and who allegedly sexually abused Olympic 
swimmer Deena Deardruff beginning when she was 11 years old.
    Mr. Hinchey. I am not familiar with that case.
    Senator Blumenthal. Could you get back to me about this?
    Mr. Steele, my office has been told that a female athlete 
on the USA Bobsled & Skeleton team was exposed to the sexually 
explicit content of a male coach's photographs or other 
material. Subsequently, other athletes were exposed too. Could 
you tell me whether you were informed by the United States 
Olympic Committee AAC representative of these sexually explicit 
content incidents?
    Mr. Steele. I was not informed by the USOC about this, but 
I did hear about this.
    Senator Blumenthal. And what were you told?
    Mr. Steele. I was told basically what you just said 
occurred. And so immediately I started asking questions to find 
out what happened.
    Senator Blumenthal. Was disciplinary action taken?
    Mr. Steele. To the extent of a warning. It was a warning 
about procedure. The situation was not as it had first been 
described.
    Senator Blumenthal. There was more than one person is my 
understanding.
    Mr. Steele. Yes, because multiple athletes had the 
electronic device that had access to those images.
    Senator Blumenthal. So the athlete complaint procedures 
worked or not?
    Mr. Steele. Yes, they worked. It was dealt with.
    Senator Blumenthal. No action was taken.
    Mr. Steele. No, because of the circumstances.
    Senator Blumenthal. I do not have time to completely 
explore all the details, but I would appreciate a written 
account.
    Mr. Steele. I will provide that.
    Senator Blumenthal. Thank you.
    Would anyone here oppose establishing an Inspector General 
within the U.S. Olympic Committee?
    Mr. Andrews. No. I would encourage it.
    Senator Blumenthal. Well, let me ask the question a 
different way. Would you in fact encourage it?
    Mr. Andrews. Absolutely.
    Ms. Cammett. Yes.
    Mr. Hinchey. Yes.
    Senator Blumenthal. Thank you.
    Mr. Steele. Yes.
    Senator Blumenthal. Would you encourage establishing an 
athlete advocate within the U.S. Olympic Committee? All of you 
agree?
    Mr. Andrews. Yes.
    Mr. Hinchey. Yes.
    Senator Blumenthal. And would you voluntarily commit to 
increasing athlete representation to a majority on your boards 
and committees to ensure their voices and concerns are heard?
    Mr. Andrews. I would be happy to do that.
    Ms. Cammett. I think we would want to research so that it 
is not the majority. We could increase the minority.
    Senator Blumenthal. Well, it is 20 percent now. I am asking 
that you commit to increasing it to a majority.
    Ms. Cammett. We would not be able to do that at this time, 
a majority.
    Senator Blumenthal. Why?
    Ms. Cammett. I think part of what you have to look at--and 
this is some of my opinion, but also the learning and life 
experiences that come with developing from a young person to an 
adult. And we have many people that skated at a high level that 
are involved in that administration, but they have timed out 
for the 10-year maximum. And I think you need a good balance. 
You need that life experience, the knowledge that comes from--
--
    Senator Blumenthal. Well, how about 50 percent?
    Ms. Cammett. We can explore that, yes.
    Senator Blumenthal. I would like to hear back from you 
about that.
    Ms. Cammett. OK. Thank you, Senator.
    Senator Blumenthal. Others?
    Mr. Hinchey. Our board is made up of a house of delegates 
throughout the entire organization, the volunteer 
organizations. We need to work with those bylaws to do so, but 
we would be in favor in having more athletes.
    Mr. Steele. I would not be in favor of that.
    Senator Blumenthal. Why?
    Mr. Steele. Well, because it comes down to the competence 
of the board. We certainly want the athletes' voice. That is 
crucial but if athletes have not completed education. Our board 
members have to be successful in some other aspect of life, 
hopefully some specialty that we can use as almost a consulting 
situation.
    One of the issues that we do see with competing athletes 
that are on the board is the board has to look at long-term 
strategy for the organization. A competing athlete is looking 
at four-year increments, and it is difficult to think about 
long-term strategy when you are actually in the midst of 
competition. So the voice is important, but to the extent that 
they would be dictating the direction of the organization when 
they have got short-term strategies and not life experience----
    Senator Blumenthal. Well, let me make a suggestion. If you 
increase the age eligibility for athletes, you could include 
older athletes and maybe that would satisfy the concern that 
you have raised.
    I know this conversation is going to continue. I am going 
to be submitting a number of additional questions in writing, 
and I appreciate your being here today. And again, my thanks to 
the survivors who have been here and whose ideas and 
inspiration are very, very important, in fact, the most 
important factor. I hope to continue this conversation. And 
again, my thanks.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Moran. Senator Blumenthal, thank you very much. We 
will continue to work to see that we get a good result from 
this investigation and our series of hearings.
    I do have a few more questions before we conclude.
    Well, first of all, Senator Blumenthal raised the topic of 
lists, banned lists. Certainly who is on that list is important 
and how it is used within the NGB and within the Olympic 
community. But it seems to me one of the most difficult 
challenges we face is the club level. How we get that 
information to them, and whether or not they utilize that 
information in a way that protects the athletes. And at least 
in conversations that I have had, my understanding is that 
there are coaches and other professionals who are on the list, 
on a banned list, but still employed at the club level. Help me 
understand this problem, if it exists, and what a potential 
solution would look like?
    Mr. Andrews, we may have had a conversation like this. It 
seems to me we did.
    Mr. Andrews. We did. We spoke briefly on this subject.
    That problem does exist. There is a number of ways in which 
it exists. There is a responsibility of the NGB, and my 
colleagues and I here have outlined some of the ways in which 
we inform local level participants and local level clubs of 
those bans. For example, ourselves--each time we sanction an 
event, we send that banned list directly to that sanctioning 
individual in order to ensure it is enforced. That is just one 
example.
    I think the biggest issue is the fact at the club level, 
physically we are not in all these cities ourselves. Physically 
we are not there to investigate and to enforce these bans. And 
on occasion, we may share that building, in our case as an 
indoor sport, with more than one sport. In our case it could be 
crossfit. It could be gymnastics. It could be taekwondo, 
wrestling, or many non-Olympic sports. And there is an issue 
about whether they are banned from not just our sport but 
others.
    That carries with the SafeSport Center where a ban is 
recognized across the Olympic movement. Occasionally there is 
an issue where that is not recognized in other sports.
    We have been fortunate enough to work with two key non-
Olympic sports with whom we have a close relationship to 
recognize those bans, which has helped in that. But there 
remain issues to be worked on on the local level to ensure that 
an individual banned in one sport cannot participate in youth 
sport in either another organization that sanctions that sport 
or in another sport.
    Senator Moran. Others?
    Mr. Hinchey. I am currently not aware of any of our banned 
coaches that are still employed at a club.
    Senator Moran. What is your tool to make sure that is true 
or remains true?
    Mr. Hinchey. Again, we certainly obviously have this list 
up publicly on our website, but once a coach is banned, we do 
contact the club directly.
    Senator Moran. And your impression, your testimony is that 
then clubs honor that ban and would not hire or would then 
discharge one of those individuals?
    Mr. Hinchey. In order for them to be a head coach or a 
coach at one of these clubs, they have to be a member of USA 
Swimming. So once they are banned from membership, that club is 
prohibited from hiring them.
    Senator Moran. And the consequence to the club if they do 
not follow the ban that has to do with what? What is the 
result?
    Mr. Hinchey. I do not have the exact answer to that, so I 
would like to get back to you.
    Having said that, my speculation would be that we have the 
ability to throw them out as members of USA Swimming.
    Senator Moran. One of the questions that was suggested to 
me by my staff is related to this topic, and part of that 
question is if the club relinquishes or has their sponsorship 
removed, can they still operate without further repercussions?
    Mr. Hinchey. Not to my knowledge in USA Swimming. I am not 
sure if they can join a different swimming organization across 
the country, but certainly not USA Swimming.
    Senator Moran. Mr. Steele or Ms. Cammett?
    Ms. Cammett. We would have a similar process where they 
would be sanctioned from our official grievance process and 
would not be able to hold any events, U.S. Figure Skating 
events.
    Mr. Steele. We do not really have clubs that relate to 
this.
    Senator Moran. In talking about the banned employee coach/
trainer list, tell me how your NGB maintains that list, and how 
does it interact with the list at the Center for U.S. 
SafeSport?
    Mr. Andrews. In our case, we display it in our website and 
within e-mails to our membership. That covers not just 
SafeSport but also Anti-Doping and ethical violations, and it 
has a direct link to the center as well to view bans in other 
sports.
    Ms. Cammett. And we are similar. We have it on display on 
our website, and we have actually details of what rules were 
violated. And then we do have a connection to SafeSport to be 
able to look at the list there.
    Mr. Hinchey. Similar. We display it publicly and it is 
connected to the U.S. Center for SafeSport.
    Mr. Steele. In the event that we get a banned individual, 
we will do the same.
    Senator Moran. Tell me about any efforts to implement 
complete background checks. What is going on in your world in 
that regard?
    Mr. Hinchey. From the U.S. swimming perspective, we do 
monthly recurring background checks on all 50,000 non-athlete 
members. So that is roughly 600,000 checks a year.
    Ms. Cammett. And then all our professionals, those that 
each skating at our rinks and all--they undergo a yearly 
background check, and then also anyone that is in a position of 
authority, which could be our board, the staff at U.S. Figure 
Skating, our team leaders, our medical, our officials.
    Mr. Andrews. Very similar. We take a yearly recurring 
background check. You must have that background check before 
contact with athletes in our case, and that goes up to the 
board, the staff, the Committees, but also technical officials, 
as Ms. Cammett has orated.
    Mr. Steele. All new hires go through the background check 
and then on an annual basis, all employees.
    Senator Moran. In response to my questions, we have talked 
about the banned list and we have talked about background 
checks. How recent a development is those procedures in 
relationship to the Larry Nassar case? Are these things that 
have transpired since then?
    Mr. Andrews. In our case, no. We have had wide background 
checks--and I apologize since I was not here at the time--since 
either 2010 or 2011. We did expand them to include board 
members, committee members, staff, and other people in 2017. 
But at the sports medicine and coach level, they have been 
mandatory since that time.
    Ms. Cammett. And since 2008, we have required the 
professionals to have a background check, and just recently, we 
have expanded it to, as Mr. Andrews mentioned as well, the 
board, the staff, and other officials.
    Mr. Hinchey. This has all been in place at USA Swimming. 
SafeSport started in 2010, and then after a Victor Vieth 
independent report, many of these took place starting from 
2014.
    Mr. Steele. And we introduced just the annual recurring 
background checks as it related to the implementation of 
SafeSport.
    Senator Moran. How frequently does a background check 
result in the termination of an employee or a member of your 
board?
    Mr. Steele. It has not happened to us yet.
    Mr. Hinchey. I do not have the information, but I can get 
it for you, Senator.
    Senator Moran. Thank you.
    Ms. Cammett. I do not believe we have had any terminated, 
but I will get that information for you.
    Mr. Andrews. We have had one that failed a background check 
prior to employment who is no longer employed.
    Senator Moran. I think this may be my final question. I 
will see if there are suggestions from staff of something we 
need to cover before we conclude the hearing. But I have always 
made it a practice of asking the witnesses in front of our 
subcommittee if they have anything they want to relay to us 
that has not been asked or something they would like to further 
explain or correct, anything you want to make sure that we hear 
or that is included in the Committee's record.
    Mr. Hinchey. I would certainly echo the statements I think 
that Mr. Andrews discussed about is there an opportunity for 
us, as we gather everyone together, to make sure that our 
athletes are safe. Again, Congress to the national governing 
bodies, the USOC, the U.S. Center for SafeSport, is there an 
opportunity to look at a model like you saw that has made a 
real difference, and I know it took some years to get 
organized. And I can tell you we use USADA. They have been a 
fantastic, best-in-class organization for us to utilize for 
another important matter, which is anti-doping. So if there is 
a chance for us to work along those lines, I think that would 
be very useful.
    Mr. Andrews. I would just like to add and echo Mr. 
Hinchey's comments, but additionally the factor of looking at 
the way that law enforcement works with the particular 
challenges that come with Olympic sport. We compete all over 
the world. Incidents may happen, both interstate but also 
internationally. And it is important that law enforcement, as 
well as the U.S. Center for SafeSport, is able to respond to 
that.
    I think proactive measures--none of us in this room --we 
can never promise that sexual abuse will never happen again. It 
is impossible to promise that. What is critical is how we 
respond, how we respond to our athletes and how we respond to 
an individual coming forward with a report, and I think not 
only how we respond to that from an investigation standpoint 
but how we respond to that for the care of the athlete, namely 
what has already been mentioned by Senator Capito around mental 
health and counseling. Rather than sport psychology, counseling 
for those athletes is a very vital service that many NGBs and 
the U.S. Olympic Committee are now looking to implement.
    Senator Moran. Is it your belief that if an athlete 
reported to someone in authority, a coach, a trainer, a member 
of your board, to you, are you with a great deal of certainty 
convinced that it would result in further investigation and not 
be treated the way that the reports of victims or survivors had 
in regard to Dr. Nassar?
    Mr. Andrews. Yes, but I believe it is that we have to 
create a culture where they are willing to come forward to one, 
if not more than one, person within each of those organizations 
and take steps to ensure that more than one person is available 
to that individual.
    Senator Moran. Are you comfortable that that would be the 
truth in your case, Ms. Cammett?
    Ms. Cammett. Yes.
    Senator Moran. Mr. Hinchey?
    Mr. Hinchey. I would certainly speak yes to myself and 
members of--I would like to think most of the members of our 
board. Clearly having said that, it has not worked with 
coaches, clearly. So the center has to work. We need to have a 
culture of reporting. We need to find a place that people feel 
comfortable, and it does not have to be their coach. It needs 
to be an independent opportunity where they feel safe.
    Mr. Steele. Yes.
    Senator Moran. Has your world changed since the Nassar 
allegations and conviction?
    Ms. Cammett. Yes, it has. I mean, I think a lot of it is 
the awareness that this has brought and the ability to talk 
about it. You know, when I was young, it is not something you 
would talk about, and now the climate has changed and we have 
the ability to educate and let people know that they can come 
forward.
    Mr. Hinchey. It has changed for the better. We need to get 
on this.
    Senator Moran. I have said this in other hearings, but it 
is the most discouraging thing to me. I have always said I do 
not think I know anyone that if someone brought them an 
allegation, a report of sexual abuse who would not do something 
with that, even if they did not know the victim. And I am still 
trying to figure out how that occurred in so many instances in 
the Olympic community.
    I believe we are done with this hearing. I appreciate the 
testimony that you have provided today and the response to our 
questions. A number of committee members asked for a written 
response, and we will pursue that.
    I appreciate what was said about the courage, the 
awareness, the indication that there is a different awareness 
in today's world. That is only a result of the individuals in 
this room who are survivors who have been willing to report. 
And we have met a lot of those young men and women over the 
last 10 months. And I again appreciate their willingness to do 
what they did in order to protect others.
    I think the most compelling question that I have heard in 
my conversations and in these hearings is the question of why 
was there more than one, and that to me is the goal that we 
have in trying to change the culture, as you describe it, but 
also making certain that the laws that we create are 
appropriate and useful that prevent this behavior.
    This hearing record will remain open for two weeks. During 
the time, Senators are asked to submit any questions for the 
record. Upon receipt, the witnesses are requested to submit 
their written answers to the Committee.
    I conclude the hearing by once again thanking the witnesses 
for their appearance today, and I appreciate the cooperation of 
all my Committee members in today's hearing. And the hearing is 
now adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 4:08 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]

                            A P P E N D I X

      Prepared Statement of Stephen McNally, Executive Director, 
                             USA Taekwondo
    Chairman Thune, Subcommittee Chairman Moran, Ranking Member 
Blumenthal, Members of the Committee. My name is Stephen McNally. I am 
the Executive Director of USA Taekwondo, a member of the United States 
Olympic Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to provide written 
testimony to the Committee.
    It has been exactly a year since I was appointed as the new leader 
of USA Taekwondo, and I think it's fair to say that it has been perhaps 
the organization's toughest year since its incorporation in 2004. While 
we have faced fierce criticism, we have tried to be forthcoming, 
cooperative, and as transparent as possible regarding ongoing 
investigations and legal proceedings into historical allegations of 
abuse involving our team members.
    Today's testimony will outline the steps we have taken over the 
past twelve months, and the steps we intend to take in the near future. 
We will also propose solutions in areas where we think we need help 
from, and collaboration with outside bodies if we are to be successful 
in this endeavor to protect the Nation's amateur athletes from the 
devastating effects of abuse at the hands of their coaches and peers.
    I was fortunate that by the time of my appointment the U.S. Center 
for SafeSport was already in existence, and I am grateful to the U.S. 
Olympic Committee and the U.S. Senate for their work in making that 
happen. Where investigations are concerned, USA Taekwondo defers to the 
Center for SafeSport's expertise and exclusive jurisdiction. If we 
receive information regarding an allegation involving potential sexual 
misconduct, we do the following:

  (1)  Report the allegation to the U.S. Center for SafeSport for 
        response and resolution.

  (2)  If there is an allegation of criminal activity, report to the 
        relevant law enforcement agencies.

  (3)  If the alleged actions could place our community in danger we 
        immediately issue an interim suspension without presumption of 
        guilt, barring any further participation by the accused in USA 
        Taekwondo events or activities until such time as the U.S. 
        Center for SafeSport concludes its work.

    We follow this process in every case regardless of the amount of 
evidence--reporting everything from a complete, detailed and documented 
statement to the most general of third party reports--to the Center.
    USA Taekwondo is also working hard to educate and empower our 
community through our ``#notinmysport'' initiative, which continues to 
build momentum. Our hope is to see it evolve into an independent non-
profit organization of its own in the near future and be embraced by 
other NGBs and even other sporting organizations. Our partnership with 
the Fighting Spirit Safety group provides personal empowerment, safety 
information and training to athletes to help them build confidence and 
awareness of situations that could become dangerous--now mandatory 
training for all National Team members. Shortly we will create a new 
position of Head of Athlete Safety and take another important step 
forward. The position will be filled by a high-quality individual with 
a reputation for her no-nonsense attitude and passion for the wellbeing 
of athletes of all ages.
    We have increased the number of people who must undergo SafeSport 
training in order to be eligible to even attend our events, let alone 
participate, and we will shortly begin to make easily available the 
details of those coaches who have passed a background check and 
completed the SafeSport training through our CoachSafe initiative. This 
will be accompanied by a wide-ranging awareness campaign within 
taekwondo designed to educate parents on the importance of making sure 
that the coaches in their children's school are trained and cleared to 
coach. Although USA Taekwondo has no authority over non-member coaches, 
our hope is that this new program will nevertheless increase the number 
of SafeSport-trained coaches who have had their backgrounds checked.
    These initiatives should send a clear message to our community--
misconduct will simply not be tolerated within USA Taekwondo, and 
perpetrators will be removed without hesitation. For an NGB of our size 
these investments of time and resources demonstrate our strong 
commitment to community safety.
    While I am proud of the work the team at USA Taekwondo is 
undertaking in the area of athlete protection, our authority is limited 
to the removal of membership privileges within our own organization. I 
submit to you that where our authority ends is where the Committee can 
have the greatest impact.
    Taekwondo is a community of small business owners, and with just 
15,000 members USA Taekwondo has a sphere of influence that affects 
only a small percentage of the taekwondo practitioners in the United 
States.
    In prior testimony to Congress USA Taekwondo called for 
consideration of a National Amateur Athletic Coach licensing program 
and repeats that call again in this testimony to the Senate. If we are 
serious about protecting all athletes there must be an effective 
sanction to deter and punish sexual predators. As we are learning, the 
standard of proof required to remove an individual's right to 
membership is significantly lower (although still too high) than it is 
for a criminal prosecution. There is nothing to prevent someone who has 
had their USA Taekwondo membership removed because of sexual misconduct 
from going on to work with children whose parents may be completely 
unaware of their history.
    If licensing or certification was required for all amateur athletic 
coaches and administrators, anyone who was the subject of a license 
revocation or suspension would have a record that could make them 
ineligible to work with amateur athletes in any sport. This is a 
meaningful consequence. Potential loss of livelihood can and would be a 
powerful deterrent.
    Via licensing fees, this system could also provide vital financial 
resources and accompanying independence for the U.S. Center for 
SafeSport.
    Subjecting a business to any level of regulation is not to be 
undertaken lightly. However, the Nation abounds with professions that 
require practitioners to be licensed. Governments have already 
recognized the vital importance of child welfare where licensing or 
certifying daycare providers, physical education teachers, and school 
social workers is concerned. Coaches should be no different. Even a 
funeral director requires a license to care for the dead. Surely the 
dead are not more important than children.
    USA Taekwondo would very much like to be involved in the 
discussions around such a system. To be clear, we are not asking for 
any additional authority or opportunities to generate revenue. We 
envision a Federal effort to create a model system of licensing that 
could be adopted by states. With adequate information-sharing with the 
Center for SafeSport and other NGBs like USA Taekwondo, a better 
network of protection for athletes can emerge.
    While it is unlikely that any solution will be perfect, we believe 
such a system would be a truly effective response to the problem of 
sexual abuse of athletes. Licensing is a proven method that provides 
transparency, accountability, and community protection. We have reached 
a point in our national discussion about sexual abuse where we have to 
do more than express outrage and fire everyone who is in a leadership 
position.
    We would welcome the opportunity to answer any further questions 
for the record, and again thank the Committee for the opportunity to 
provide this written testimony.
                                 ______
                                 

                  Olympians Rising--September 19, 2018

 Recommendations to Congress: Reforming the U.S. Olympic Committee to 
                Ensure Health and Livelihood of Athletes

                           Executive Summary
    OlympiansRising is a non-profit organization founded by August 
Wolf, OLY. Our mission is to reform the United States Olympic Committee 
(USOC), the coordinating body for all Olympic sports in the U.S., to 
ensure that the health and livelihood of athletes are its top priority. 
Several Olympians actively support our work and mission including: Bode 
Miller, six-time Olympic Medalist in skiing; Caroline Lind, two-time 
Olympic Gold Medalist in rowing, 2008 and 2012; Kayla Harrison, two-
time Olympic Gold Medalist in Judo, 2012-2016; and Jimmy Pedro, two-
time Olympic Medalist in Judo, 1996 and 2004.
    In the wake of revelations about the sexual abuse of Olympic 
athletes, most notably by former USA Gymnastics team doctor Larry 
Nassar, it is essential to examine ways to reform the governance of 
Olympic sports, beginning with the USOC. Specifically, the lack of an 
external reviewing authority; insufficient athlete representation; and 
lax reporting requirements, all mean that the interests of athletes are 
not put first. This lack of accountability impacts athletes in all 
Olympic sports and directly affects their health, funding, and success.
    As a first step in addressing these underlying issues, we offer the 
following set of recommendations. As is the case with how regulators 
have tackled sexual assault in the military, we believe the culture of 
sexual abuse illustrates larger systemic problems within the 
organization. While there are additional issues not addressed here, we 
nonetheless believe these reforms would significantly improve athletes' 
lives and move to a system that prioritizes the interests of athletes. 
Our recommendations cover the following categories and are presented in 
an Issue:Solution format to maximize clarity:

        I. Athlete Protection, Representation, and Funding

        II. Corporate Governance of the USOC

        III. Giving SafeSport the Necessary Tools to be Effective

    Our recommendations related to sexual assault are derived in part 
from the June 2014 report of the Response Systems to Adult Sexual 
Assault Crimes Panel (``the Military Panel''), the Federal advisory 
committee within the Department of Defense (DoD) commissioned by 
Congress. Borrowing from the Military Panel's recommendations, we 
suggest the creation of a Special Victim Counsel program that would 
provide specially-trained legal advocates for athletes throughout the 
process of filing and litigating a claim. We also make recommendations 
for oversight of USOC based on the internal structure of executive 
agencies. Specifically, we recommend adopting term limits for members 
of the Board of directors and the creation of an Office of Inspector 
General with investigative and subpoena powers to augment board 
oversight. Additionally, we offer solutions to increase direct funding 
to athletes, ensuring they are treated equitably and able to pursue 
their dreams.
    OlympiansRising hopes to serve as a resource to Federal officials 
and to provide the perspective of athletes on these crucial topics. We 
urge Congress to continue holding hearings to review these findings and 
explore ways to improve USOC operations.
                    OlympiansRising Recommendations
I. Athlete Protection, Representation, and Funding
    a. Provide Robust Health Insurance: USOC should provide robust 
health insurance--physical and mental--to all athletes.

  i. Issue:

  1.  Olympians currently are forced to patch together a variety of 
        health care insurance options to meet their needs. The plan 
        benefits of USOC's much-touted ``Elite Athlete Health Insurance 
        Program'' (EAHI) are opaque and only appear to provide 
        Affordable Care Act (ACA)-required coverage to select, ``high-
        tier'' athletes, leaving many with very high deductible 
        plans.\1\,\2\ As of February 2018, about 925 elite 
        athletes were covered by EAHI. To put that in perspective, 
        around 1,000 athletes compete in the Olympic trials for Track 
        and Field alone.\3\ Limited EAHI slots for athletes are 
        distributed unevenly among the National Governing Boards 
        (NGBs), with eligibility and criteria for insurance coverage 
        varying by 
        sport.\4\,\5\,\6\,\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ See: ``Olympic Athletes Patch Together Elite Health Coverage,'' 
Bloomberg Law, February 9, 2018, here
    \2\ ``United States Olympic Committee: Elite Athlete Health 
Insurance Program and The Affordable Care Act--5/17/2015'' at Slide 4, 
https://assets.usarugby.org/docs/usoc/EAHI-Update-Pam-Sawyer.pdf
    \3\ See: https://goducks.com/news/2018/8/2/track-and-field-eugene-
to-host-2020-us-olympic-team-trials.aspx?path=track
    \4\ http://www.usashooting.org/library/Policies_and_Procedures/
Updates_12013/Direct_Athlete_Support_DAS_Paralympic-
_Stipends_EAHI_Medal_Incentives_01-30-13.pdf
    \5\ https://cdn.ymaws.com/www.americancanoe.org/resource/resmgr/
competition-documents/ACA_2018_Athlete_Criteria_Li.pdf
    \6\ http://www.usatf.org/usatf/files/1b/1b707878-346d-4aaa-aac3-
3268d77210cb.pdf
    \7\ http://www.usrowing.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/2017-2018-
EAHI-Criteria-2.pdf

    a.  Jill Pilgrim, executive director and general counsel for the 
            Track & Field Athletes Association, a trade association 
            representing track and field athletes, argues that even 
            successful athletes, albeit ones who are not podium 
            contenders, ``fall off a cliff'' when they age out of their 
            parents' health plans or graduate college. This is 
            particularly harmful for injured athletes who may be 
            prevented from competing since their medical bills may 
            reach tens of thousands of dollars.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ Bloomberg Law, Id.

  2.  USOC must also provide robust services for all athletes' mental 
        health, whether currently competing or retired, as ``[a]thletes 
        may be more predisposed [. . .] to depression. . . .'' \9\ 
        Michael Phelps has stated that 75-90 percent of Olympic 
        athletes experience ``post-Games depression'' but that very few 
        are willing to talk about it openly, possibly due to fear of 
        the associated stigma of weakness.\10\ USOC's Pivot Program 
        offers services such as a one-and-a-half day workshop to 
        retiring athletes to assist their transition to post-elite 
        competition careers; however, the program materials do not 
        mention ``mental health'' a single time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\ Mummery K. (2005). Essay: depression in sport. Lancet 366 S36-
S37. 10.1016/S0140-6736(05)67840-3.
    \10\ Boren, Cindy. `` `I straight wanted to die': Michael Phelps 
wants USOC to help athletes cope with depression.'' Washington Post, 
March 28, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/early-lead/wp/2018/03/28/
i-straight-wanted-to-die-michael-phelps-wants-usoc-to-help-athletes-
cope-with-depression/?utm_term=.0e65d65e1511

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
  ii. Solution:

  1.  Provide guaranteed, comprehensive health services to Olympic 
        athletes, and ensure mental health is integrated in athletes' 
        coaching and training. Other countries or sports entities have 
        taken a variety of approaches to providing comprehensive health 
        care to their athletes. We recommend consideration of these and 
        other models to ensure robust coverage.

    a.  At a minimum, expand the Elite Athlete Health Insurance plan to 
            cover all athletes in each sport. Explore additional 
            options to offer comprehensive health care to all Olympic 
            and aspiring Olympic athletes. NCAA athletic directors have 
            discussed an interesting solution where they would pool 
            their athletes in order to bargain for better insurance 
            policies and rates.\11\ This is a concept similar to state 
            health insurance purchasing cooperatives (HIPCs); while 
            traditional HIPCs have struggled to succeed, the model 
            could be more successful in this setting.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\ See: https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/ncaa-ads-
consider-pooling-athletes-for-cheaper-better-health-insurance/
    \12\ https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/fde0/
5f05e6e620f0d10d4b5b3fa511babdd77b8f.pdf

    b.  British scientists proposed a particularly innovative model: an 
            ``integrated performance health management and coaching 
            model'' where health care and specifically mental health 
            services are integrated directly in NGBs and athlete 
            management.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\ Dijkstra, Paul et al., ``Managing the health of the elite 
athlete: a new integrated performance health management and coaching 
model.'' Br J Sports Med. 2014 Apr; 48(7): 523-531

    c.  Another example comes from the Canadian Centre for Mental 
            Health and Sport, a project undertaken by University of 
            Ottawa psychologists described as ``a not-for-profit 
            organization supporting the mental health and performance 
            of competitive and high-performance athletes and coaches. 
            The CCMHS is the first Centre in Canada to offer 
            collaborative sport-focused mental health care services 
            designed to help athletes and coaches achieve their 
            performance goals while preserving their mental health and 
            well-being.''\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \14\ See: https://www.ccmhs-ccsms.ca/

    d.  Programs in both the UK and Canada to address mental health, 
            like those described above, are recent phenomena and signal 
            the beginning of broader efforts in both countries.\15\ If 
            the U.S. moves to improve access to mental health services 
            for its Olympic athletes, it could act as a model and 
            inspiration for other countries seeking to adopt more 
            comprehensive programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \15\ See: https://www.outsideonline.com/2306711/american-athletes-
need-better-mental-health
care

    b. Make the Athlete Ombudsman Independent and Accountable: Ensure 
that the Athlete Ombudsman independently represents athletes' interests 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
and promotes transparency in the USOC.

  i. Issue: The Athlete Ombudsman is not able to advocate for athletes, 
    and the person holding the position is accountable to the USOC.

  1.  The Athlete Ombudsman role is limited to ``offering advice,'' yet 
        as stated on the USOC website, the Ombudsman is only 
        independent with respect to the advice it gives.\16\ The 
        Ombudsman does not act as an advocate for athletes in any 
        proceedings, and since the position is funded by and housed 
        within the USOC executive committee, the Ombudsman's ability to 
        effectively address concerns about retribution or resources is 
        undermined.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \16\ See: https://www.teamusa.org/Athlete-Resources/Athlete-
Ombudsman
    \17\ Sexton, Steve. ``The U.S. Olympic Monopoly Needs 
Accountability.'' Wall Street Journal, March 29, 2018.

  2.  The lack of access to advocacy and counsel can have serious 
        consequences. Gymnast McKayla Maroney testified that she was 
        made to sign a non-disclosure and non-disparagement agreement 
        in a confidential settlement regarding the sexual abuse she 
        suffered from Larry Nassar.\18\ The presence of an effective 
        Athlete Ombudsman might have been able to intervene in this 
        process and more effectively advocate for athletes' rights.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \18\ See: https://www.sltrib.com/news/nation-world/2017/12/20/
gymnast-mckayla-maroney-says-settlement-covered-up-sex-abuse/

  ii. Solution: The Ombudsman should be housed within an external body. 
    Some have argued that the Ombudsman should be made accountable only 
    to the Athlete Council.\19\ The position could be strengthened by 
    placing it within the office of an Inspector General, which we 
    recommend creating at ``II.a.'' below. Additionally, Congress 
    should consider recommending that athlete advocates be assigned to 
    every NGB. A similar version of this last proposal was a key 
    recommendation of the Response Systems to Adult Sexual Assault 
    Crimes Panel (``the Military Panel''), which sought to ensure 
    victims' rights by urging the establishment of an Ombudsman, 
    mirroring how the Department of Justice handles complaints against 
    employees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \19\ Id.

  1.  Han Xiao, Chair of the Athlete Advisory Council, argues such a 
        position could ``directly represent the athletes involved, or 
        [. . .] assist the athletes in hiring competent 
        representation.'' \20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \20\ See: https://insurancenewsnet.com/oarticle/senate-commerce-
subcommittee-issues-testimony
-from-athletes-advisory-council#.W5_mLOhKiUk

    c. Establish a Special Victim Counsel Program: Create protections 
for athletes suffering from damage to their careers based on being a 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
victim of sexual assault.

  i. Issue: Sexual assault is destructive to athletes' careers and 
    lives. This is particularly true for young athletes who experience 
    abuse throughout their childhood/young adult life. Many have 
    suffered depression, PTSD, and panic attacks, and many have had 
    suicidal thoughts.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \21\ Hobson, Will. ``At Larry Nassar sentencing hearing, a parade 
of horror and catharsis.'' Washington Post, January 18, 2018. Online 
at: https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/olympics/at-larry-nassar-
sentencing-hearing-a-parade-of-horror-and-catharsis/2018/01/18/19bed832
-fc55-11e7-8f66-2df0b94bb98a_story.html?utm_term=.5f58fdeb313e

  ii. Solution: Establish a Special Victim Counsel Program. This is 
    based on a recommendation of the Military Panel and has been 
    adopted by the military. The Military Special Victim Counsel (SVC) 
    program assigns a specially-trained attorney to represent officers 
    throughout the process of creating and litigating a sexual assault 
    claim. Importantly, an SVC's duty is only to the client and to no 
    other person or entity. This would provide a unique service not 
    currently available to athletes: a legally-trained advocate with no 
    ties to other interests or organizations. The program was found to 
    be successful when studied in the Air Force; testimonials and 
    survey results lead DoD to expand the program to all five 
    services.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \22\ See: https://www.stripes.com/news/air-force-program-a-rare-
bright-spot-in-military-s-sex-assault-fight-1.269628

    d. Provide Athlete Stipends and Profit Sharing: Provide direct, 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
monthly stipends to athletes.

  i. Issue: USOC spends very little on direct athlete support. 
    According to 2016 IRS disclosure (the most recent available), while 
    just over $80 million, or 30 percent of USOC expenditures, went to 
    ``member support.'' Of the 30 percent that went to member support, 
    the vast majority of that funding, 84 percent, came in the form of 
    grants to NGBs.\23\ Grant funding feeds directly into the operating 
    budget of NGBs and is not earmarked for direct athlete support. 
    Although it is hard to determine exactly how many ``member 
    support'' dollars are passed through to athletes, available stipend 
    figures are discouraging. Most stipends range from $400 to $2,000 
    per month, barely equivalent to minimum wage, and many athletes 
    receive nothing at all.\24\ Even medal winners face insufficient 
    resources: Caroline Lind, a two-time gold medalist in rowing, 
    received just over $2,000 per month this past year.\25\ 
    Additionally, a Tax Policy Foundation estimate found, using 
    optimistic assumptions, that the funds USOC puts towards direct 
    athlete contributions would come to $14,000 per-athlete per-year, 
    well below minimum wage.\26\ In 2016, The Washington Post reported 
    that over 100 U.S. athletes created GoFundMe pages to cover 
    training expenses and travel for their families prior to the Rio 
    Olympics.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \23\ See: https://www.teamusa.org/footer/finance
    \24\ Gleckman, Howard. ``Why is the U.S. Olympic Committee Tax 
Exempt?'' Tax Policy Center, February 13, 2014. Online at: https://
www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxvox/why-us-olympic-committee-tax-exempt-0; 
also: https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/olympics/the-usoc-needs-a-
leader-who-cares-about-athletes-more-than-expense-accounts/2018/07/03/
9554ded8-7ae5-11e8-80be-6d32e182a3bc_story.html?utm_term=.4fbd23ab01b8
    \25\ See: https://www.npr.org/2018/08/17/639407681/calls-for-
widespread-change-challenge-incoming-head-of-u-s-olympic-committee
    \26\ See: https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxvox/why-us-olympic-
committee-tax-exempt-1
    \27\ See: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/inspired-life/wp/
2016/07/06/the-hardest-part-about-making-the-olympics-for-these-
americans-affording-it/?utm_term=.45d96e3d2311

  Even the bonuses USOC has paid to Olympic medalists through Operation 
    Gold have increased slowly since 2002: $37,500 for gold, $22,000 
    for silver, and $15,000 for bronze. This figure is low in absolute 
    terms but also in relative terms when compared to what other 
    countries allot for their medalists. For example, France provides 
    gold medalists $55,000, and Russia provides $61,000.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \28\ See: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/16/how-much-olympic-
athletes-get-paid.html

  Meanwhile, USOC executives are compensated handsomely. According to 
    the same 2016 IRS disclosure, former CEO Scott Blackburn earned 
    over $1 million annually, and eight other executives earned over 
    $250,000.\29\ USOC also appears to spend irresponsibly in other 
    areas; for example, it spent $1,600 and $1,800 per athlete on 
    clothing for the 2012 Olympic opening and closing ceremonies 
    respectively.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \29\ Id., this is justified via ``market-based pay,'' see: https://
www.forbes.com/sites/johnclarke/2012/05/22/guess-how-much-u-s-olympic-
committee-execs-make/#68d1d1c84539
    \30\ See: https://greatnonprofits.org/whitelabel/reviews/united-
states-olympic-committee

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
  ii. Solution:

  1.  USOC should determine the cost of fully supporting amateur 
        athletes from ages eight until retirement in all Olympic 
        disciplines. This assessment should be sent to Congress within 
        six months.

  2.  USOC should increase direct funding to athletes. At a minimum, 
        USOC should increase athlete stipends to ensure full-time 
        athletes are able to earn a living wage.\31\ In addition, USOC 
        should explore a profit-sharing agreement with Olympic 
        athletes. This would ensure that sufficient funds are directed 
        to athletes each year and establish a more equitable 
        distribution of funds between USOC and Olympic athletes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \31\ According to MIT estimates, a living wage in the U.S. is 
$15.12 per hour, see: http://livingwage.mit.edu/articles/19-new-data-
calculating-the-living-wage-for-u-s-states-counties-and-metro-areas

    a.  The closest analogue for Olympic profit sharing would be 
            proposals for profit sharing in NCAA sports. These 
            proposals would pool athletes in a particular school sport 
            program or, for our purposes, athletes within an NGB, and 
            allocate a portion of total profits to be distributed 
            amongst the pool. Some proposals would allocate a certain 
            percentage of profit to each athlete, rather than treating 
            them collectively. Under either system, NGBs would retain a 
            sufficient amount of money to spend on employee 
            compensation and other activities.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \32\ For a detailed discussion of such a proposal, see, Michael P. 
Acain, Revenue Sharing: A Simple Cure for the Exploitation of College 
Athletes, 18 Loy. L.A. Ent. L. Rev. 307 (1998).

    b.  Another option for direct support, adopted by Canada and many 
            European Countries, is a sports lottery. In these 
            countries, a certain percentage of national lottery 
            revenues are earmarked for sports and distributed directly 
            to athletes.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \33\ See: https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-2187052/
How-National-Lottery-tickets-funded-Britains-Olympics-success--Dianne-
Thompson-interview.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Corporate Governance: Addressing USOC Systemic Issues
    OlympiansRising has identified systemic issues in the governance of 
USOC owing in part to a lack of accountability and insufficient 
attention to the concerns of athletes. USOC's well-documented 
mismanagement harms the interests of both current and aspiring Olympic 
athletes and must be addressed. Specifically, the USOC Board lacks 
sufficient representation from current and recently retired athletes 
and is required to report to Congress only once every four years. This 
creates little incentive to be responsive to athletes' concerns, and 
results in funds being focused on promotions and advertising rather 
than direct athlete support.
    Recent revelations about the well-documented history of athlete 
sexual abuse provide some of the most compelling evidence yet of likely 
corporate governance problems within USOC. Despite being the 
organization responsible for overseeing all U.S. Olympic and Paralympic 
teams, USOC has deferred responsibility for the failure to respond to 
sexual assault. In a deposition over what he did and did not know about 
sexual assault in USA Taekwondo, USOC Associate General Counsel refused 
to refer to ``sexual abuse,'' ``sexual assault,'' or ``rape'' and 
merely stated ``USOC is concerned about SafeSport issues.'' \34\ USOC's 
apparent failure to sufficiently address sexual abuse has contributed 
to a perception among athletes that USOC is not serving their 
interests. 2012 Olympic Gold Medalist Jordan Wieber testified before 
the Senate Commerce Committee that:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \34\ Deposition of Gary Johansen, Superior Court of California, 
September 27th, 2016, pg. 51.

        Nobody was protecting us from being taken advantage of. Nobody 
        was even concerned whether or not we were being sexually 
        abused. I was not protected. My teammates were not protected. 
        My parents trusted USA gymnastics and Larry Nassar to take care 
        of me and we were betrayed by both. And now, the lack of 
        accountability from USAG, USOC, and Michigan State University, 
        have caused me and many other girls to remain shameful, 
        confused, and disappointed. \35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \35\ Testimony of Jordan Wieber before the Senate Commerce 
Committee hearing: ``Olympic Abuse: The Role of National Governing 
Bodies in Protecting Our Athletes,'' April 18, 2018. Online at: https:/
/www.commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/hearings?ID=B5D59828-1535-
498F-A429-A6F6CEDFD066

    In order to help remedy these issues, OlympiansRising proposes the 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
following recommendations to improve the corporate governance of USOC:

    a. Establish an Inspector General for USOC

  i. Issue: The USOC operates as a monopoly in the U.S., without 
    competition from other organizations and without regular 
    independent oversight.

  ii. Solution: An independent oversight body should be established to 
    routinely investigate claims of problems within the organization. 
    In the U.S. government, an Inspector General (IG) leads an office 
    charged with examining the actions of a government agency or 
    military organization. IGs ensure their respective organizations 
    adhere to established government policies, undertake audits, and 
    monitor for misconduct, waste, and fraud. There is precedent for 
    IGs in Congressionally-chartered not-for-profits. For example, the 
    Legal Services Corporation, a Congressionally-established 
    501(c)(3), has an Office of Inspector General.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \36\ See: https://www.oig.lsc.gov/

  1.  Han Xiao, Chair of the Athlete Advisory Council, stated in 
        testimony to the Senate that an IG would ``preserve the 
        anonymity of athletes, providing protection for 
        whistleblowers,'' allow for proactive investigations, and 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        reduce legal costs to all parties. Xiao stated:

      One potential model, for example, would have the Inspector 
            General appointed and removed by the Chair of a separate 
            Senate committee, most likely the Senate Judiciary 
            Committee, and require the Inspector General to report on 
            its operations to the Senate Commerce Committee on an 
            annual basis. \37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \37\ Xiao, Han. Testimony before the U.S. Senate Commerce Committee 
Subcommittee on Consumer Protection, Product Safety, Insurance, and 
Data Security, ON THE FUTURE OF ATHLETE SAFETY: ``Strengthening and 
Empowering U.S. Amateur Athletes: Moving Forward with Solutions'' July 
24, 2018.

  iii. This sort of oversight by Congress is not unprecedented and 
    would be similar to the creation of the United States Anti-Doping 
    Agency (USADA), which was created at the behest of Congress and the 
    Executive Branch to work alongside USOC.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \38\ See: https://www.usada.org/usada-recognized-as-official-anti-
doping-agency-by-u-s-congress/

    b. Manage Board Composition: Ensure athletes are sufficiently 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
represented on the USOC Board.

  i. Issue: The current Board lacks sufficient athlete representation 
    and only has two members who were active athletes in the past ten 
    years.

  ii. Solution:

  1.  Establish a streamlined role of Congress in nominating or/
        ratifying nominations.

    a.  One way for Congress to have a role could be to create an 
            application process for Board membership similar to the Air 
            Force Academy where an applicant needs a Congressional or 
            Vice-Presidential nomination for consideration.

    b.  This should apply to all Board seats, including the chair.

  2.  Establish a requirement for a minimum percentage of retired 
        athletes on the Board who are within ten years out of 
        retirement, as well as including athletes' parents on the 
        Board.

  3.  Other reforms could include a dual Board system, which has been 
        extensively studied, where one Board handles oversight and 
        conflict of interest issues and the other Board handling 
        business matters.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \39\ Blair, Margaret M. ``Reforming Corporate Governance: What 
History Can Teach Us.'' 1 Berkeley Bus. L.J. 1 (2004). Online at: 
https://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcon
tent.cgi?article=1000&context=bblj

    c. Strengthen Board Accountability: Currently, the USOC Board has 
no ultimate accountability.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \40\ See: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/09/sports/scott-blackmun-
usoc.html

  i. Issue: Board members stay on the Board. This can produce intense 
    status-quo bias in the face of reforms or new opportunities; it 
    does not allow for constant integration of different perspectives; 
    it can lead to general apathy on the part of Board members; and it 
    prevents the removal of members who are detrimental to the Board's 
    interests.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \41\ See: https://trust.guidestar.org/blog/2014/05/23/5-reasons-
why-every-npo-board-should-have-term-limits/

  ii. Solution: Adopt term limits. This approach has been proven by the 
    Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), the Commodity Futures 
    Trading Commission (CFTC), the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), and 
    others. One of the traditional markers of an independent government 
    agency is leadership with a limited number of fixed terms. These 
    agencies are able to apply incredible focus to their specific 
    duties.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \42\ Selin, Jennifer L. ``What Makes an Agency Independent?'' 
Vanderbilt University Working Paper, 2013. Online at: https://
www.vanderbilt.edu/csdi/research/CSDI_WP_08-2013.pdf

  1.  USOC reform legislation sponsored by Senator John McCain (R-AZ) 
        in 2003 would have created staggered, four-year terms, and 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        limit directors to six consecutive years of service.

  2.  Other federally-chartered entities, including the Tennessee 
        Valley Authority, require Board members to be confirmed by the 
        U.S. Senate, and limit terms to five years. Additionally, all 
        proceedings of their meetings are open to the public.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \43\ See: https://www.tva.gov/About-TVA/Our-Leadership/Board-of-
Directors

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    d. Evaluate Executive Compensation

  i. Issue: USOC executive compensation is disproportionately high in 
    relation to the funds that go to direct athlete support.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \44\ Jenkins Sally. ``Congress must fix the USOC, and that includes 
exorbitant executive spending.'' Washington Post, March 27, 2018. 
Online at: https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/olympics/congress-
must-fix-the-usoc-and-that-includes-exorbitant-executive-spending/2018/
03/26/a051c898-3128-11e8-94fa-
32d48460b955_story.html?utm_term=.348eeedb08dc

  ii. Solution: Undertake a review of USOC executive compensation. 
    Ensure that Board review of executive compensation is required and 
    undertaken by Board members with no conflicts of interest related 
    to the compensation decision.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \45\ Blackwood, Amy. ``The State of Nonprofit Governance.'' 
September, 2014. Online at: https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/
publication/22951/413229-the-state-of-nonprofit-governance
.pdf

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    c. Enhanced Congressional Oversight and Reports to Congress

  i. Currently, USOC must submit a report of its receipts and 
    expenditures, a description of activities and accomplishments of 
    the Committee, data concerning diversity in Olympic sports, and a 
    description of steps taken to encourage the participation of women, 
    disabled individuals, and racial minorities in amateur activities 
    to Congress every four years.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \46\ 36 U.S.C. Sec. 220511

  1.  Congress should require that reports be more frequent and 
        consider adding criteria such as efforts to ensure the 
        livelihood of amateur athletes. These reports should be 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        publicly available.

  2.  In testimony before the Senate Commerce Committee, Xiao 
        recommended the following:

    I recommend one of two potential solutions: the first would be for 
            Congress to establish an oversight committee in the same 
            model as the U.S. Service Academies. An independent USOC 
            Oversight Committee should consist of well-respected non-
            profit or civic leaders with the requisite expertise to 
            evaluate the business practices of the USOC, provide 
            recommendations to the USOC Board of Directors, and report 
            directly back to Congress periodically. Alternatively, 
            Congress could appoint several members of the USOC Board of 
            Directors in a bi-partisan manner. Both models would 
            provide more outside perspective to the USOC's governance 
            structure without significantly impacting the stability of 
            the organization.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \47\ Xiao, Han. Testimony before the U.S. Senate Commerce Committee 
Subcommittee on Consumer Protection, Product Safety, Insurance, and 
Data Security, ON THE FUTURE OF ATHLETE SAFETY: ``Strengthening and 
Empowering U.S. Amateur Athletes: Moving Forward with Solutions'' July 
24, 2018.

    f. Conduct Sexual Assault Climate Survey: This idea is modeled on 
the Military Panel recommendations and would help USOC and Congress 
understand the prevalence and attitude towards sexual assault among 
athletes. Additionally, it would create an accountability mechanism, 
enabling outside observers to monitor the success of efforts to create 
a healthier environment for athletes. Sexual assault climate surveys 
ask participants to respond anonymously about perceptions of their 
institutions' climate for unwanted sexual assault, perceptions of how 
their institution responds to sexual assault, and whether and how often 
they have experienced sexual assault. The Department of Justice is a 
strong proponent of climate surveys and described the surveys as 
``essential'' resources for addressing sexual assault on college 
campuses.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \48\ See: https://www.justice.gov/ovw/protecting-students-sexual-
assault#campusclimate

  i. In the military, the survey has been useful in understanding the 
    scope of sexual assault and evaluating solutions implemented by 
    service branches and the DoD. For example, recent survey results 
    found the rate of sexual assault was declining but that that a 
    majority of victims who report cases of sexual assault experience 
    some sort of backlash in their unit. The results, particularly 
    reports of retaliation, elicited statements from Defense Department 
    officials recognizing retaliation as a ``crucial'' problem and one 
    that must be addressed. In this respect, the survey provided clear 
    evidence that could be used to compel action.\49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \49\ See: ``Sexual assault on both men and women in the military is 
declining, Pentagon survey finds.'' Washington Post, May 1, 2017. 
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2017/05/01/sexual-
assault-on-both-men-and-women-in-the-military-is-declining-pentagon-
survey-finds/?utm_term=.74122efd81ed

  ii. Sexual assault climate surveys are also used widely by colleges 
    and universities to gather data on campus sexual assault and to 
    guide strategic initiatives.\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \50\ Lebioda, Kati. ``State Policy Proposals to Combat Campus 
Sexual Assault.'' Policy Matters, December 2015. Online at: https://
www.aascu.org/policy/publications/policy-matters/campus
sexualassault.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Giving SafeSport the Necessary Tools to be Effective
    a. Determine the Comprehensive Human and Financial Resource Needs 
of SafeSport

  i. Issue: SafeSport may lack the financial and human capital 
    necessary to fully address the problem of Olympic sexual assault. 
    As an example, the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency, USADA, had total 
    expenses of $20 million in 2016. SafeSport's budget was $4.6 
    million, with just $1.5 million going to prevention efforts.

  ii. Solution: Ask SafeSport to undertake a thorough assessment of the 
    scope of the sexual abuse problem throughout all Olympic 
    disciplines and develop a needs assessment that includes a 
    sufficient financial and human resources budget. This assessment 
    should be provided to Congress within six months.

    b. Create Independence from the USOC

  i. Issue: SafeSport should be independent from USOC. Concerns have 
    been raised about SafeSport's hiring of USOC staff and the fact 
    that it is funded directly by USOC and NGBs.\51\ There have been 
    instances in which SafeSport reported evidence of sexual assault-
    related code violations that did not ultimately result in 
    meaningful sanctions. For example, USA Diving recently lifted the 
    suspension of John Appleman, an Ohio State Diving Coach who 
    SafeSport reported may have committed a code violation for failing 
    to act on reports of sexual assault by his colleague Will Bohonyi. 
    USA Diving chose not to pursue SafeSport's investigation.\52\ 
    Similar instances have occurred in USA Swimming, as the 
    organization never reported a signal sexual-abuse case to the 
    authorities despite its National Team director admitting to have 
    sex with a minor.\53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \51\ See: https://www.indystar.com/story/news/2017/03/08/safesport-
center-answer-athlete-sex-abuse/98775554/
    \52\ See: https://tucson.com/sports/arizonawildcats/usa-diving-
clears-coach-who-arizona-hired-then-dumped/article_5614141a-ac8f-11e8-
8440-2f89b596eee7.html
    \53\ See: https://www.outsideonline.com/2162781/unprotected. 
SafeSport has broad discretion over how to end its investigations. 
SafeSport can pursue sanctions, make recommendations to NGBs on how to 
proceed, or decide that no further action is necessary. See SafeSport's 
code: https://safesport.org/what-we-do

  ii. Solution: SafeSport should be encouraged to reconfigure its Board 
    with people who have no current or historical affiliation with the 
    USOC, including ensuring that a significant percent of its Board is 
    comprised of athletes, parents of athletes, and people with 
    expertise in preventing sexual abuse. Moreover, SafeSport needs its 
    own funding, independent of the USOC.
    Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Jerry Moran to 
                              Phil Andrews
    Question 1. How have the recent reforms provided by the Protecting 
Young Victims from Sexual Abuse and Safe Sport Authorization Act 
impacted your National Governing Body (NGB) from a structural and 
resource perspective?
    Answer. USA Weightlifting is very supportive indeed of the 
Protecting Young Victims from Sexual Abuse and Safe Sport Authorization 
Act, and although the mandates that were imposed on NGBs were primarily 
already addressed in existing policy and procedures enacted by USA 
Weightlifting, the act has given new reporting requirements to members 
of USA Weightlifting. The requirements of the act fit reasonably well 
with the existing structures within USA Weightlifting and therefore did 
require vast changes in our particular NGB.
    Enforcing requirements of those policies, now re-enforced by the 
act, do put a strain (albeit a necessary one) on human resources in a 
smaller organization such as ourselves. However, as we are able to 
automate some of the enforcement of, for example, training 
requirements, this will reduce the human time necessary to ensure 
compliance with these policies and procedures.

    Question 2. Have you hired additional personnel to help review 
cases, implement training, education and outreach? Please elaborate on 
how this is being implemented.
    Answer. As an NGB with a small staff of 12, we are unable to 
financially hire an individual purely to work on this area. With that 
said, we have appointed a member of our staff to lead on this project 
and much like our partnership with USADA (U.S. Anti-Doping Agency) in 
the area of anti-doping education. This covers the area of education 
and outreach.
    We require electronic training to be taken by all staff, coaches, 
board and committee members, technical officials, administrators, 
national team athletes and any other individual within our membership 
who exposed to contact with minor athletes or occupies a position of 
power over any athlete, regardless of age.
    Regarding investigation and review. With regard to sexual cases our 
protocol is to report these immediately and without hesitation to the 
U.S. Center for SafeSport (and to law enforcement) which has exclusive 
jurisdiction in this area.

    Question 3. Does your NGB have internal protocols/procedures to 
investigate allegations that are not sexual abuse (i.e., drug use, 
bullying, fraud, etc.)? Do you refer cases that are not sexual abuse to 
the Center for SafeSport?
    Answer. Yes, USA Weightlifting in 2017 implemented an independent 
model for its' Ethics & Judicial Committees.
    This means that no elected or employed official in USA 
Weightlifting has the power to dismiss a complaint, the only bodies 
with this power are the Ethics & Judicial Committee. The Ethics 
Committee acts as the investigatory house, whereas the Judicial 
Committee's primary role is to hold hearings in cases. Individuals may 
also invoke a right to a hearing before the American Arbitration 
Association.
    With the help of the professionals on the Ethics & Judicial 
Committees, the organization also implemented a significantly Code of 
Conduct & Ethics in September 2018. Those professionals include a 
former inspector general, those who work in professional ethics, 
attorneys, Federal prosecutors and judges. This code, as required by 
our bylaws, will be reviewed by these two Committees each year.
    We refer and report, as is required, any sexual case to the U.S. 
Center for SafeSport. We also refer any case, as is required, any anti-
doping case to the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency.
    In the area of Emotional & Physical Abuse, USA Weightlifting has 
accepted in full the U.S. Center for SafeSport Code. At this time, 
despite its' name, the U.S. Center for SafeSport does not accept cases 
in the area of Emotional & Physical Abuse and these cases are 
adjudicated at the NGB level.
    Further independent investigator resources are made available to 
the Ethics and Judicial Committees in the instance that they need to 
call on further human resources to carry out an investigation. In the 
event of an Emotional or Physical Abuse allegation, USA Weightlifting 
uses an independent investigator as a matter of routine.
    A full copy of our updated Code of Conduct & Ethics is available on 
our website, this document fully describes the different processes for 
an allegation of Emotional & Physical Abuse, Ethical violation or 
administrative grievance.

    Question 4. How does the total revenue of your NGB compare to the 
others? What portion of your revenue comes from the U.S. Olympic 
Committee (USOC)?
    Answer. Our NGB has an operating budget (total revenue) of 
approximately $5.2m per annum. Approximately 2 percent of these funds 
are provided by the U.S. Olympic Committee, with a slight rise in 
funding anticipated in 2019. The primary driver of that amount is the 
digital media agreement between USA Weightlifting and the U.S. Olympic 
Committee.
    Based upon studying IRS 990 forms published for the year 2016, the 
last year for which all 990 forms are published, USA Weightlifting was 
the 28th (of 47) NGBs in terms of revenue. This is reasonably similar 
level of income to USA Squash, USA Shooting or USA Boxing.
    The largest revenue driver for USA Weightlifting is Coaching 
Education, followed by membership revenue. Our largest expense is 
participating in international competitions, followed by direct cash 
support to athletes, event hosting expenses and coaching education 
rebates.

    Question 5. Based on your NGB's experiences in handling abuse 
allegations, did the Protecting Young Victims from Sexual Abuse and 
Safe Sport Authorization Act provide the necessary authorities to the 
Center for SafeSport and NGBs to address abuse allegations? If there 
are shortcomings, please identify them.
    Answer. The 2017 Act did address many needs in the area of 
protecting our young athletes from sexual abuse in Sport--inclusive of 
a critical update to the 1990 Victims of Child Abuse Act to extend 
mandatory reporting requirements in the area of sexual abuse to both 
law enforcement and the U.S. Center for SafeSport. It was an important 
step forward in addressing the issue of sexual abuse in sport.
    The 2017 Act also recognized the jurisdiction of the U.S. Center 
for SafeSport, however the Center faces significant operational and 
funding issues which must continue to be addressed in order for the 
Center to be able to address each and every abuse allegations in a way 
in which victims of abuse, and alleged offenders, may be able to trust 
truly in the quality of the process.
    Finally, the 2017 Act did give a requirement for NGBs to put into 
place due procedures to reduce or prevent one on one interactions 
between covered individuals and athletes and especially to ensure an 
ease of reporting. These requirements put additional reasonable 
pressure on NGBs to act.
    NGBs, together with all parties involved, must continue to monitor 
and review their approach to preventing sexual abuse in their sport 
over time, over and above of the legal requirement to do so.
    However, the act does not address the need for similar oversight, 
policies and reporting mechanisms for those sporting organizations not 
affiliated with a National Governing Body. This remains a loophole in 
the sport world, wider than the NGBs, which needs to be addressed for 
the Nation to truly do everything possible to discourage and prevent 
abuse in sport.
    The major shortcoming of the act is the failure to provide Federal 
funding for the enforcement side of the U.S. Center for SafeSport. At 
this moment in time, the funding for the Center is simply insufficient 
and coming from interest sources such as NGBs and the U.S. Olympic 
Committee. While taxpayer resources ought to be treated with the utmost 
respect, the U.S. Anti-Doping agency model has proved that to have true 
independence, Federal funding independent of the U.S. Olympic Committee 
and NGB funding stream is necessary. Notwithstanding the source, and 
the NGBs and U.S. Olympic Committee have doubled their respective 
funding amounts for 2018, the funding at the moment from all sources 
simply does not scratch the surface of being able to address the 
outstanding level of complaints received by the U.S. Center for 
SafeSport. We all need the Center to be effective, to have truly 
independent power, to work--at the moment this is not the case and 
funding to acquire the number of qualified investigators and legal 
staff is a reason why.
    Another area that ought to be addressed by the act in any revision 
is penalties for misuse of reporting activities. Unfortunately, there 
is some evidence to show that some allegations are being made in either 
a timed fashion or alternatively in a malicious fashion for maximum 
impact on sporting decisions, for example to harm a particular coach or 
athlete in their selection process. While it is clear these are an 
exceptionally small amount of cases and in no manner should the ability 
to report be rolled-back, in a competitive environment such as sport 
the penalty for clear and deliberate mis-use of the systems put in 
place ought to carry significant sanction.

    Question 6. Our subcommittee has heard from many survivors 
regarding Larry Nassar's sexual abuse under the guise of medical 
treatment. It is clear that centralizing all of the medical oversight, 
expertise and access in one individual for a lengthy period of time was 
a major factor that helped facilitate the abuse by Nassar. Has your NGB 
updated its medical policies and procedures to prevent this from 
happening? If so, how have you implemented these safeguards and how has 
the structure of your medical staff changed?
    Answer. The Nasser case, and especially considering that we have 
direct victims of Dr. Larry Nasser in our sport certainly increases the 
spotlight on the area of Sports Medicine. Our Sports Medicine Society 
has taken a Committee led approach for over a decade, chaired by Dr. 
Mark Lavallee.
    USA Weightlifting has long had in place a rotational scheme of 
Sports Medicine professionals, ensuring a balance between knowledge of 
our sport and athletes together with the lack of the ability for an 
individual practitioner to become seen as the one and only person 
capable of treating an athlete or to become so familiar with an athlete 
or set of athletes, especially amongst youth athletes, that they may be 
able to engage in grooming behavior. This rotational approach in 
particular has been praised by direct Nasser survivors as an item that 
would have, likely, gone some way to preventing the level of widespread 
abuse.
    With that said, since the Nasser case USA Weightlifting has 
implemented a yearly review of its' Sports Medicine policies which is 
conducted across medical, legal and administrative professionals with 
the goal of ensuring athlete safety, athlete care is paramount in both 
our domestic and international event provision for our athletes.
    A full version of our Sports Medicine policy is available on our 
website, inclusive of the requirements imposed upon an individual in 
order to serve as part of USA Weightlifting's Sports Medicine team.
    I was also able to attend the USOC Conference on Sexual Abuse in 
Sports Medicine recently in Pittsburgh. It was refreshing to hear the 
best practices of a number of sports in this area, and a determined 
approach to getting this right across not only the USOC and NGBs but 
also the American College of Sports Medicine. In particular, it was 
important to discuss the specific challenges that are faced at the 
elite sport level in Olympic Sport, for example the treatment of 
athletes in remote and unusual locations, e.g., Turkmenistan.

    Question 7. In the wake of the Larry Nassar sexual abuse scandal, 
what policies and procedures have you put in place regarding access, 
retention and preservation of athlete's medical records? Have you 
provided those policies to USOC?
    Answer. No Response.
                                 ______
                                 
    Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Dean Heller to 
                              Phil Andrews
    Question 1. Have you engaged with sexual assault survivor advocacy 
organizations to have them review and suggest improvements to your 
policies and procedures to ensure with certainty that your athletes are 
protected from abuse?
    Answer. We have proactively engaged directly with survivors of 
sexual abuse in sport, including those who joined me at the Senate in 
Washington DC this October. We have made proactive changes and programs 
based upon direct feedback from those who have survived abuse and are 
within our sport. We have not, however, reached out to advocacy groups 
outside of those directly affected by abuse in sport.

    Question 2. What surveys or other tools have you implemented to 
determine and measure whether your athletes feel empowered to report 
abuse? How recently were these surveys conducted?
    Answer. Our approach to this area has been direct conversations 
with those who have suffered from abuse in sport, and to find out what 
might have helped them to come forward during the time they were 
suffering. Each and every suggestion made has been implemented. With 
that said, we will be adding a question to our annual membership survey 
in early 2019 to measure this item with our wider membership.

    Question 3. How are your organizations ensuring young athletes 
understand what type of behavior from coaches or other adults is 
inappropriate and should be reported?
    Answer. Our NGB, like others, is taking a proactive approach to 
education in this area, both as an organization and in partnership with 
the U.S. Center for SafeSport. One key item is that we insist that even 
our youth athletes have education from the U.S. Center for SafeSport 
for national team or national camp participation, where they might be 
exposed to less familiar individuals.
                                 ______
                                 
 Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Richard Blumenthal to 
                              Phil Andrews
    Question 1. Currently, amateur athletes are only eligible for up to 
10 years after their last qualifying international competition to 
represent athletes on NGB or USOC boards. Athlete advocates have called 
for this 10-year requirement to be relaxed, so that older, possibly 
retired athletes who have more professional experience, time, and 
resources, may contribute their expertise. Would you support expanding 
the eligibility?
    Answer. With careful thought and implementation, this is something 
that ought to be supported. There are former athletes who can bring 
significant value to the work of a Board or Committee. With that said, 
there are also non-athlete areas of boards that can also bring this 
same value. For example, of our 10-member board, 50 percent have 
experience as high-level athletes within our sport, while only two of 
them are specifically an athlete representative (for clarity, the 
remainder would not qualify for the 10-year rule).

    Question 2. Provided that eligibility for athlete representation is 
expanded, would you support ensuring that the membership and voting 
power held by such amateur athletes is not less than 50 percent of the 
membership and voting power held in the board of directors of the 
corporation and in the committees and entities of the corporation?
    Answer. USA Weightlifting is already in this position at the Board 
level, which reflects my answer at the Committee hearing at the Senate. 
Our board has the good fortune to include 50 percent or more of those 
with experience as a high-level athlete in our sport. Added to this 
they bring their post-athletic experience as a coach, technical 
official or as a professional to the current board make up.
    As I reflected in my above answer, the idea of expanding those on 
the board who have experience as an elite athlete should be encouraged. 
However, the structure of that ought to be considered very carefully in 
order to ensure the goals of this idea is realized.

    Question 3. Please explain any factors preventing you from changing 
your NGB's bylaws to (1) increase the percent of athlete representation 
on your board, and (2) allow for older former amateur athletes who may 
have more professional experience to serve on boards. If there are no 
factors preventing you from making these changes, please explain why 
you have not or will not in the near future.
    Answer. Although there are no obvious barriers, and as already 
noted we are already in a position where 50 percent or more of our 
Board have experience as a high-level athlete in our sport, a change in 
the voting rights of our members would require approval by the 
membership of USA Weightlifting. There would be the issue to consider 
of representation of those current constituencies on the Board of 
Directors. At this time, those seats occupied by those with former 
participation as high-level athletes might be in a technical area, at-
large area or grassroots area. If these were changed to have a pure 
qualification to be a former athlete, it would take a great deal of 
thought around the technical and grassroots areas and how these members 
ought to be represented at the board level.

    Question 4. Please explain your NGB's process for changing bylaws, 
ethical codes, and any other policies or procedures.
    Answer. Our bylaws contain an amendment clause that broadly 
dictates that if a voting right is changed, an item must be approved by 
our wider membership while non-voting updates may be voted upon by our 
Board of Directors. Our Code of Ethics is reviewed annually by our 
Ethics & Judicial Committees, with the amendment being signed off by 
our Board of Directors. Generally for a substantive policy, the policy 
would be looked at by staff, by a committee or task force appropriate 
to a given policy and finally by our Board of Directors.

    Question 5. Are you committed to making sure half of coaches at 
protected competitions are women? If yes, how do you plan to accomplish 
that?
    Answer. Our coach selection procedures for personal coaches present 
and funded by USA Weightlifting at protected competitions follow an 
objective process, regardless of gender. IT is fair to say the majority 
of our coaches selected in this process are male. In our 5-tier coach 
ranking system, 4 individuals have reached International Coach level 
who are female, and one has reached the pinnacle Snr International 
Coach level.
    USA Weightlifting has recently seen a large expansion in the number 
of Women participating in the sport since approximately 2010, and this 
is beginning to start to translate into the number of Women in Coaching 
and technical official positions. USA Weightlifting is making 
significant efforts to encourage female coaches. This has included the 
recent implementation of a specific Women's Camp, a specific Women's 
Coaching Education Weekend, and a Women's Coach Mentorship program with 
the goal of generating more elite level female coaches.
    Our bylaws also specifies a goal of 50-50 gender representation, 
and in the context of our administrative structure requires gender 
representation within that set up.
    It is worth noting the Chair of USA Weightlifting is female and 
represents coaches on that body. She is also chair of the IWF Women's 
Commission.
    One of our two Coaching Education Managers on staff is female, our 
National Team Manager is female, while our contracted team nutritionist 
is also female.
    With all that said, we cannot at this point guarantee that 50 
percent of coaches attending these competitions be female since it is 
dependent on the objective selection process for coaches. With that 
said, while it is not a written requirement (save for teams involving 
minor female athletes) a U.S. female official accompanies the vast 
majority of teams that we send to international competitions, including 
protected competitions.

    Question 6. Given USOC's oversight relationship with NGBs and since 
NGBs are required to follow guidelines and requirements set forth by 
USOC, would you agree that USOC is liable for its oversight of NGBs and 
how effectively they promote athlete safety? Why or why not?
    Answer. Absolutely, it has always been my understanding and reading 
of the Ted Stevens' Act 1978 that the U.S. Olympic Committee has 
oversight responsibilities of the NGBs. This is a challenging, but 
vital and important, role.

    Question 7. Would you support the Athletes' Advisory Council having 
a vote on USOC's Board?
    Answer. The AAC current occupies three (3) seats on the USOC Board, 
under Section 3.2 (c) of the U.S. Olympic Committee Bylaws.

    Question 8. Would you support the Multi-Sport Organization Council 
having a vote on USOC's Board?
    Answer. I would only support this provision if the MSOC members 
submit to the same requirements, specifically regarding Anti-Doping, 
SafeSport and Athlete Safety matters, and if the vote (members) of the 
USOC board is equally or lower to the number of Athlete (AAC) 
Representatives, and equal or lower to the number of National Governing 
Body (NGBC) Representatives.

    Question 9. If the U.S. Center for SafeSport declines to add an 
individual to its banned or temporarily suspended lists, what authority 
does your NGB have to independently take such action?
    Answer. The U.S. Center for SafeSport does have exclusive 
jurisdiction in the area of sexual abuse, however, the NGBs are still 
charged with the ethical and good running of their individual sport. 
There may also be occasions in which jurisdiction is returned to the 
NGB, or that the matter is determined by the Center to be best 
adjudicated at the NGB level, for example where the offence considers a 
sport-specific rule. In these cases, yes, the NGB may implement a 
suspension with attention to due process for both the alleged victim 
and alleged offender.

    Question 10. Is it true that if NGB membership is given up before 
disciplinary action is taken, you can escape being placed on your NGB's 
disciplinary records?
    Answer. No.

    Question 11. How can banned lists--whether on NGBs sites or the 
Center for SafeSport's records--be made more useful for athletes, 
parents, clubs? How in sync are the Center for SafeSport and NGB's 
lists?
    Answer. USA Weightlifting has provided by the U.S. Center for 
SafeSport and U.S. Olympic Committee a copy of our banned list, updated 
as and when an individual is added (except where added by the Center or 
U.S. Anti-Doping Agency). Note our centralized banned list includes 
those under sanction for ethical reasons. The next logical step is a 
centralized database searchable by location and sport available on a 
centralized basis.

    Question 12. Where should individuals go for the most comprehensive 
list and information regarding banned or temporarily suspended members 
for your NGB? Does the Center for SafeSport's website have a 
comprehensive list? Does your NGB's website have a comprehensive list? 
Please explain.
    Answer. A full list of banned members (inclusive of those under 
temporary sanction) can be found under the member tab at our website. 
It is also linked for those hosting any USA Weightlifting activity for 
the purpose of enforcement. The U.S. Center for SafeSport has been 
provided with a regularly updated copy of this list.

    Question 13. If you become aware that a coach has been engaged in 
sexual misconduct, for example, would your first call be to law 
enforcement or to the Center for SafeSport?
    Answer. Law Enforcement, then the U.S. Center for SafeSport. This 
also covers when a non-coach may have been alleged to have engaged in 
this conduct.

    Question 14. Do you ever rely on the Center for SafeSport for 
required reporting to law enforcement? Under what circumstances would 
you not call law enforcement at all, but only inform the Center for 
SafeSport?
    Answer. No.

    Question 15. If you witness or receive complaints regarding 
grooming behaviors by a member, would you report that to law 
enforcement, or only to the Center for SafeSport?
    Answer. Both.

    Question 16. Under what circumstances would or have you hired an 
independent investigator to investigate a complaint?
    Answer. USA Weightlifting utilizes independent investigators when 
investigating allegations of Emotional and Physical Abuse as a matter 
of routine. USA Weightlifting also makes this resource available to our 
Ethics Committee in the course of ethical investigations.

    Question 17. How many times have you personally called law 
enforcement, pursuant to your mandatory reporting requirements?
    Answer. I am happy to say, I have not yet had the occasion.

    Question 18. What specific penalties are in place for members in 
your NGB who fail to report suspected child abuse to law enforcement? 
How many times have you imposed such penalties?
    Answer. Failure to report child abuse is a crime and therefore 
would be required to be reported in the same way as above for the child 
abuse itself. However, we have not yet had this instance in our sport 
where we have had to pursue an individual for failure to report.

    Question 19. Has your NGB developed explicit rules that reinforce 
the ethical line between coaches and athletes (i.e., no texting, 
including parents or guardians on correspondence)?
    Answer. Yes, since July 2017, USA Weightlifting has had specific 
policies on the interaction between adults and minors in regard to 
electronic communication as well as other sport specific areas such as 
appropriate touching of an athlete.

    Question 20. Have you developed sport-specific educational or 
training materials to complement the more generic U.S. Center for 
SafeSport training materials? Who have you worked with in developing 
such materials?
    Answer. We have not yet developed specific materials regarding our 
sport, however we have put into place specific policies to our sport 
addressing specific areas in our sport, for example, the requirement to 
wear the singlet during the weigh in for minors (and the choice for 
adults), as well as appropriate communication and touching of the 
athlete. These policies are available to athletes and coaches alike.

    Question 21. Do you think it might be confusing to athletes for 
NGBs to have internal ``SafeSport'' programs and for there to also be a 
``U.S. Center for SafeSport'' that is actually in charge of handling 
sexual misconduct? Can you commit today to changing the name of any 
existing internal ``SafeSport'' programs to make the distinction clear 
for athletes?
    Answer. This issue warrants wider discussion. I would be happy to 
commit to whatever name makes the ``Who, What, Where, When'' of Athlete 
Safety & SafeSport issues clear to the Athlete, Coaches and other 
stakeholders. This requires us to decide for example if the term, 
``SafeSport'' applies simply to sexual abuse or also to emotional and 
physical abuse. It also means that we need to establish if it is 
confusing that, for example, NGB policies related to sexual abuse are 
not called ``SafeSport'' but the investigatory body for those policies 
is called ``SafeSport''. USA Weightlifting is happy to participate in 
that conversation, and will commit to the appropriate naming term 
agreed upon by any working group on the matter that includes 
representation from the NGB, U.S. Olympic Committee, U.S. Center for 
SafeSport as well as views from athletes, coaches, survivor advocate 
groups and other relevant stakeholders.

    Question 22. At this Subcommittee's last hearing on amateur 
athletes, Mr. Han Xiao, Chair of the Athletes' Advisory Council 
testified that NGBs would intentionally circumvent athlete 
representatives. He recounted a variety of tactics including:

   Appointing rather than electing athlete representatives to 
        sign documents;

   Keeping an electronic signature of the AAC representative on 
        file to sign documents;

   Giving an AAC representative a document with very little 
        time before a submission deadline and asking for a signature;

   And scheduling meetings such that competing athlete reps 
        cannot attend, or removing what the NGB perceives to a 
        problematic athlete representative and then failing to refill 
        the position.

    Some of these tactics were employed by USA Taekwondo and documented 
in a 2012 Section 10 Complaint against the NGB.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ https://www.teamusa.org/-/media/TeamUSA/Documents/Legal/
Arbitration--Hearing-Panel-Cases/Section-10/2011/Robinson-v-USA-
Taekwondo-22712.pdf?la=en&hash=31C1EF0B
6376CA5D5C73BEF0598708EA9A9040F1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Have you ever employed any of the above listed tactics to undermine 
the authority and responsibilities of your NGB's athlete 
representatives? Will you commit to ensuring these tactics are never 
used again in the future? How will you ensure this?
    Answer. In my tenure, and to the best of my knowledge, USA 
Weightlifting has never engaged in these tactics. USA Weightlifting 
will never engage in the above mentioned tactics, and calls on our 
fellow NGBs to ensure that these tactics are never employed as well as 
the U.S. Olympic Committee to ensure that no NGB is able to use these 
tactics at any time without consequence from the U.S. Olympic 
Committee.

    Question 23. The USOC has argued, time and again, to be dismissed 
from lawsuits because it has ``no control'' over NGBs. In fact, the 
evidence shows that USOC actually exercises a significant amount of 
control over NGBs, like your own. Please describe what policies, 
procedures, or guidelines are provided to NGBs through USOC. Please 
also describe any financial support, staffing, or legal support 
received from or funded by USOC.
    Answer. USA Weightlifting generates 98 percent of its budget 
independently of the U.S. Olympic Committee, including the costs of 
protected competitions. USA Weightlifting receives a small amount of 
support in the high performance area covering one member of staff and 
some small ancillary costs, in 2018 received small grants for the areas 
of fundraising, international relations and web streaming. The vast 
majority of funding from the U.S. Olympic Committee arises from the 
Digital Marketing Agreement between USA Weightlifting and the U.S. 
Olympic Committee.
    Since the creation of the USOC's NGB Services department, led by 
former USA Archery CEO Denise Parker and overseen by former USA 
Weightlifting CEO Rick Adams, the USOC has vastly ramped up its' 
oversight and compliance capabilities and enforcement, its' 
communication of best practices and, together with the Athlete Safety 
department, have also provided much higher levels of expectation 
regarding policies and procedures and good governance.
    The U.S. Olympic Committee has been particularly focused on 
revising and enforcing athlete safety requirements on NGBs, using the 
USOC Athlete Safety Policy, although this is not the only example. The 
U.S. Olympic Committee has also used the new compliance checklists and 
audits as a tool to evaluate NGBs areas of weaknesses in governance, 
athlete safety, athlete representation and other key areas of ethical 
operation.
    USA Weightlifting encourages the USOC to continue to grow in this 
area so we may continue to recover as a movement.

    Question 24. Before the U.S. Center for SafeSport was established, 
did your NGB have the authority to suspend or ban a coach?
    Answer. Yes.

    Question 25. After the U.S. Center for SafeSport's establishment in 
March 2017, does your NGB still have the authority to independently 
suspend or ban a coach, even if the U.S. Center for SafeSport declines 
to do so?
    Answer. Yes.

    Question 26. In August, the Center for SafeSport declined to defend 
its ban of Jean Lopez, a taekwondo coach it had determined, months 
earlier, was engaged in a ``decades long pattern of sexual 
misconduct.'' The Center then removed him from its database of 
sanctioned individuals. Despite this, Steve McNally, the President and 
CEO of USA Taekwondo, has kept Jean Lopez on USA Taekwondo's suspension 
list.\2\ Do you think Mr. McNally's decision was appropriate? Would you 
have made the same decision? Why or why not?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ https://www.teamusa.org/usa-taekwondo/v2-resources/legal/usat-
suspension-list
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Answer. Since my wife is a former employee of USA Taekwondo, I will 
declare a conflict of interest in answering this question as I have 
some knowledge of the behavior of Mr. Lopez and therefore a pre-
conceived perception of Mr. Lopez.
    I will, however, express significant concern that the U.S. Center 
for SafeSport declined to defend its' finding in this case. This 
suggests significant process and investigatory issues which ought to be 
of concern for all of us with the goal of having a robust way to keep 
young athletes safe.

    Question 27. What consequences have and will you impose on member 
clubs that do not take your NGB's banned and suspended lists seriously? 
Please explain what enforcement mechanisms you have. How often have you 
exercised such enforcement mechanisms? Please detail.
    Answer. A member club who employs a banned individual, very simply 
is no longer a sanctioned member club. IF the Head Coach (designated 
coach) or any other affiliated individual becomes ineligible, either 
that individual is removed from involvement from the club or the club 
is no longer a member club.
    In one case, the club coach and club president were suspended. In 
this case, the club therefore became a non-member club and immediately 
the athlete members were notified and became unattached.

    Question 28. How regularly on background checks conducted on your 
members?
    Answer. Yearly. An individual pays and submits their data every 2 
(two) years, and a supplementary screen is carried out in the 
intervening year.

    Question 29. There are criticisms that the term ``SafeSport,'' 
according to a Deadspin article, was developed and trademarked by the 
USOC to serve as ``a pleasant-sounding euphemism for a horrible set of 
acts.'' \3\ How you lead by example, when it comes to making sure 
sexual abuse is not merely swept under the rug as ``SafeSport'' issues?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ https://deadspin.com/safesport-the-usocs-attempt-to-stop-child-
abuse-is-se-1826279217
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Answer. Respectfully, I'm not sure that our organization, certainly 
not our current leadership, has ever considered the word ``just'' 
immediately before any word that means or refers to sexual abuse.

    Question 30. What does a pedophile or sexual predator look like?
    Answer. There is no generic look, age, gender, race, orientation or 
otherwise of a sexual offender.

    Question 31. In your experience investigating sexual misconduct 
complaints, I'm sure you often receive character witness statements 
from parents and athletes themselves. Have you found that there's any 
correlation between such statements and whether the individual is 
actually guilty? How much weight should be placed in such character 
witness statements? Can you commit to reducing the weight--if any--that 
your NGB currently places on such statements during an investigation?
    Answer. Fortunately, I have not personally had to engage in 
investigation. Since the U.S. Center for SafeSport have the exclusive 
jurisdiction in this area, this question ought to be directed to their 
team of investigators. I would generally be of the opinion to seek 
input from experts in the investigation of sexual crimes, together with 
academic researchers in this area if a determination is yet to be made 
by the Center.

    Question 32. Do you agree that it is possible for an individual to 
be respectful to certain individuals, and abusive toward others?
    Answer. Yes.

    Question 33. What is the process in which your NGB keeps its 
respective website and other publications up to date listing banned or 
temporarily suspended individuals by the Center for SafeSport? Does 
your NGB have a dedicated staff member update these lists? If so, what 
is the position title of said staffer? How often are these lists 
checked to keep current? On a daily basis?
    Answer. Once a sanction is finalized by the Center, and information 
is made available to the NGB, the website is updated by our Director of 
Engagement (who has responsibility for our website), or in his absence 
our Marketing & Content Manager, within 1 business day. This also 
occurs for other sanctions imposed by our Ethics & Judicial Committee 
or by the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency. Our Membership Manager will make a 
similar update in our membership system, again within 1 business day.

    Question 34. I understand that arbitration is the general process 
used by the Center for SafeSport to address disputes.
    Answer. This matches my understanding, the U.S. Center for 
SafeSport submits to arbitration hearings (at the cost of the 
individual wishing to appeal), if there is a dispute of its' 
investigatory finding.

    Question 35. Who pays for your NGB's attorney fees in arbitration? 
Is it supported in any way by USOC?
    Answer. In my six (6) years with USA Weightlifting, we have not had 
an arbitration hearing (though, there we have had arbitration hearings 
involving our sport at the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency and U.S. Center for 
SafeSport).

    Question 36. Who pays for athletes' attorney fees in arbitration? 
Do you provide any assistance for athlete's attorney fees?
    Answer. At the time of writing, athletes are responsible for their 
attorney's fees.

    Question 37. What assistance do you receive from the USOC when in 
arbitration? What kind of legal guidance does the USOC provide in such 
cases?
    Answer. We have never been provided, nor have we sought, legal 
advice from the U.S. Olympic Committee to the best of my knowledge.

    Question 38. Arbitration proceedings can be re-victimizing for 
survivors, who must relive their most painful memories under a grueling 
cross-examination. Questions asked by the opposing side have reportedly 
included intimate questions about an individual's personal sexual 
history. Do you believe such questions about an individual's sexual 
history relevant? How so? Can you commit to barring any such questions 
from further arbitration or legal proceedings?
    Answer. Since our NGB should not be considering cases of sexual 
misconduct at the NGB level, these should be dealt with at the U.S. 
Center for SafeSport level then we, as staff, do not have any 
experience of this line of questioning. As a staff, we no longer 
control these hearings and therefore have no influence or control over 
the line of questioning given in a sexual misconduct case. I would 
respectfully advise the Senator to raise this question with the U.S. 
Center for SafeSport.

    Question 39. Former USA Swimmer and Olympic Gold medalist Nancy 
Hogshead-Makar has noted that women are largely missing from leadership 
positions throughout swimming's more competitive levels. While women 
represent just over 50 percent of coaches in the sport nationwide, a 
meager fraction of women comprise the elite ranks of the sport. As 
recently as 2016, the U.S. Olympic swim team had no female coaches. 
What, in your opinion, is the reason for the dearth of women coaching 
at Olympic levels, and other elite coaching levels in the sport?
    Answer. We agree with Ms. Hogshead-Makar that would like to see an 
increase in Women's Coaches in the Sport of Weightlifting.

    Question 40. Do you believe that a lack of female coaches is 
problematic?
    Answer. (No answer provided)

    Question 41. Do you believe that holding a Women in Coaching Task 
Force, or other coaching summits aimed at female coaches is sufficient 
to actually reduce gender disparity at elite levels? Beyond these 
leadership resources, what is your NGB doing to change the culture that 
currently stifles women leaders within sport?
    Answer. (No answer provided)

    Question 42. Do you agree that more female coaches at an elite 
level would make athletes safer?
    Answer. (No answer provided)

    Question 43. The AAC has reported concerns that the Athlete 
Ombudsman does not act independently of the USOC leadership. Would you 
agree that the Athlete Ombudsman should be moved outside the USOC 
structure to an Office of Inspector General or another external office? 
Do you believe that the U.S. Center for Safe Sport is sufficiently 
independent from the USOC? What conflicts of interest currently exist 
that prevent the Center from achieving true independence?
    Answer. (No answer provided)

    Question 44. Do you think former employees of the USOC should be 
working at the U.S. Center for SafeSport? Do you understand how this 
would compromise the Center's independence?
    Answer. (No answer provided)

    Question 45. Would you support the creation of an Office of 
Inspector General office--like the oversight branches of Federal or 
state agencies--to independently investigate internal abuse, 
mismanagement or misconduct and promote efficiency and effectiveness at 
the USOC, U.S. Center for Safe Sport, and National Governing Bodies?
    Answer. (No answer provided)

    Question 46. Regarding health insurance for athletes, what criteria 
does your NGB use to determine which athletes receive paid health 
insurance coverage either through the NGB or USOC? What percentage of 
the cost of this health insurance coverage are your respective athletes 
or their families responsible for?
    Answer. (No answer provided)

    Question 47. What percentage of your athletes receive health 
insurance through the Elite Health Insurance Plan (EHIP)? Does this 
program cover sports-or competition-related injuries? Does this program 
cover non-competition-related injuries?
    Answer. (No answer provided)

    Question 48. Does your NGB terminate the insurance of athletes 
whose injuries may impact their competition status? If so, how much 
notice is provided to the athlete? Please describe any other NGB-or 
USOC-sanctioned health insurance programs available to member athletes 
and whether those programs are paid for by the NGB or USOC.
    Answer. (No answer provided)

    Question 49. Does this health insurance program provide coverage 
for mental health services? Do you believe that mental health services 
are important for athletes? Do you believe that it is or should be your 
NGB's responsibility to provide mental health services and coverage for 
athletes? Beyond insurance coverage, what mental health services does 
your respective NGB currently provide for athletes? Are these services 
available to all athletes under the NGB's purview, or just athletes at 
elite levels? What can your NGB specifically do to improve your athlete 
wellness and mental health support services for athletes?
    Answer. (No answer provided)

    Question 50. What is the process for an athlete at your NGB to take 
advantage of these mental health services--for example, do they have to 
first notify their coach or an executive at your NGB? Do you think that 
in cases regarding mental health services, it is appropriate to require 
an athlete to first notify their coach or NGB leadership of a potential 
mental health problem before receiving treatment or assistance? Do you 
agree that such a policy places athletes in a position where they can 
potentially be retaliated against, or further abused? Do you agree that 
at the very least, such a policy could prevent athletes from coming 
forward to take advantage of critical mental health services?
    Answer. (No answer provided)

    Question 51. What was your NGB's total budget in Fiscal Year 2017?
    Answer. $5.2m

    Question 52. How much (dollar amount or percentage) of the budget 
came from the USOC either directly or in the form of grants?
    Answer. Approximately 2 percent of our budget is provided by the 
U.S. Olympic Committee.

    Question 53. What percentage of your budget goes to direct athlete 
support in the form of a stipend? How many athletes receive a stipend?
    Answer. I interpret the question here to mean direct cash to 
athletes, rather than support for athletes otherwise than in cash. 15.2 
percent of our total operating budget was spent in this manner. This 
excludes direct athlete support in cash to the athlete which is 
provided by the U.S. Olympic Committee.
    If we include items spent on athlete support otherwise than in 
cash, 33 percent of our budget goes to directly supporting athletes. 
This does not include any staff salaries but does include international 
event travel and support, recovery support funding, sports medicine 
funding, camp support and other forms of athlete support.
    While explaining those numbers, I would wish to point out that the 
manner in which USA Weightlifting makes its' revenue is via Coaching 
Education, where we expend 53 percent of income back to the instructors 
and hosts of our coaching courses, which therefore takes a significant 
percent of our revenue. This is unique to our National Governing Body 
(NGB), as we are the only NGB to derive our largest revenue source from 
this area.
    Additionally, USA Weightlifting provides 8 National Events per 
annum which approximately $880,000 worth of business, which is an 
approximate break even.
    Removing those areas of operation, the percent of ``available'' 
funds that is spent on athlete support rises significantly. Finally, 
our budget for direct cash to athletes has risen over 900 percent since 
2012.

    Question 54. Does USOC have any role in budgeting decisions within 
your NGB?
    Answer. None whatsoever.

    Question 55. Does your current NGB budget limit your ability to 
provide services to athletes? Does it limit your ability to implement 
and adhere to Center for Safe Sport policy, or to conduct thorough 
internal investigations on complaints of misconduct?
    Answer. Yes, of course with additional funding it would be possible 
to make available additional services to athletes especially in regard 
to performance services and in respect to additional funding that can 
be dedicated to competition funding for both athletes and for personal 
coaches of an athlete.
    I do not believe that our budget limits our ability to adhere to 
SafeSport policy or investigate complaints that arise.

    Question 56. Does USOC have the ability to direct your NGB in 
making decisions related to Olympic competition?
    Answer. Yes, the Olympic Games is the exclusive jurisdiction of the 
U.S. Olympic Committee, and therefore specifically in Olympic Games 
competition, the USOC can direct the NGB in our decision making. The 
USOC has a general oversight role as we compete elsewhere within our 
Olympic sport.

    Question 57. Does your NGB have a ``two-deep'' policy, so that an 
adult is never alone with an athlete? Why or why not? Have you 
considered such a policy?
    Answer. Yes, to ensure the safety of the athlete.

    Question 58. Has USOC ever asked NGBs to consider a ``two-deep'' 
policy?
    Answer. USA Weightlifting implemented the two-deep policy for 
Sports Medicine at least 6 years ago and in 2017 in other areas, such 
as weigh-in. Therefore, while I do not specifically remember the USOC 
asking our NGB to implement a two-deep policy, it is entirely possible 
that the USOC did ask for us to do so, but since we had already done 
so, it was not noted as an action for our particular NGB.

    Question 59. Most child-safety experts recommend a policy of not 
texting a minor individually. In other words, coaches can text others 
in a group, or can include parents on the text, but should not text 
athletes individually. Why hasn't your NGB adopted such a policy to 
ensure inappropriate conversations are not taking place?
    Answer. Our NGB has adopted a policy in this matter, which was 
adopted in July of 2017. This policy requires that electronic 
interaction include the parent or guardian except with specific written 
permission of the parent or guardian and where a copy must be available 
to the parent or guardian.

    Question 60. On October 10, 2018, USA Weightlifting launched a new 
athlete wellness program that makes available pro-bono resources to 
support the mental health and wellness of athletes.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ https://www.teamusa.org/USA-Weightlifting/Features/2018/
October/10/USA-Weightlifting
-Launches-Athlete-Wellness-Program
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Who did you consult before establishing such a program? Did you get 
input from USOC? Did you get input from the U.S. Center for SafeSport?
    Answer. This program was designed based off of the direct feedback 
of survivors of sexual abuse in sport. The program serves those who are 
participating in the sport of Weightlifting (though this is primarily 
athletes, it covers any member).
    The primary people that I consulted before rolling this program out 
were those holding LCSW and LPC qualifications, as well as educators in 
this area, who are those with primary expertise in the recovery from 
trauma.
    I did not consult the U.S. Olympic Committee or U.S. Center for 
SafeSport on the matter, though I have made the resource available to 
them to offer to those members or athletes they come into contact with.
    This program does not deal with the response from an investigation 
and enforcement standpoint, it deals with recovery from trauma, and the 
mental wellness of our members and athletes. That trauma may or may not 
arise specifically from sexual abuse in sport. There is also no 
obligation that the athlete or member has arrived at this resource via 
the U.S. Center for SafeSport or via the U.S. Olympic Committee

    Question 61. Have you heard any feedback about the program? What 
have you heard? How will you implement this feedback?
    Answer. The program is very new, at the time of writing just a 
shade short of 6 weeks old. Therefore, feedback is reasonably limited 
at this moment. I would be more than happy to follow up with Senator 
Blumenthal and/or the Committee as appropriate in a few months' time to 
further evaluate what feedback has been received.
    However, I will pull out that I heard from one particular recipient 
of this program to the extent that it had been tremendously impactful 
to them and assisted them considerably.
    We have 23 members who are have reached out participating in this 
program, this ranges from elite athletes on our national team to non-
elite athletes to former athletes who are now coaches. We expect these 
numbers to grow in the coming months. To be clear, we do not hold these 
members to account on the amount of therapeutic intervention they go 
through, so it is possible some may have stopped participating without 
that knowledge.

    Question 62. Instead of having to go through you or Suzy Sanchez to 
take advantage of these new services, would you consider making it 
possible for athletes to anonymously take advantage of such services? 
When will you do so?
    Answer. We would like to do so, the challenge is while we can keep 
the names confidential of the athletes (and/or members, since the 
program is not limited simply to athletes), the challenge with this 
approach is the anonymity. In order to build a worthwhile therapeutic 
relationship, it is necessary for us to connect an individual with 
therapeutic resources that are local to them and appropriate to their 
needs. In this wide-ranging area it is almost impossible to do that 
without some degree of interaction.
    The idea of making both a male and female contact available is to 
allow the athlete (or member) to go to the individual that makes them 
feel most comfortable. Additionally, Suzy does not have a direct input 
to selection matters so therefore it allows for an individual to 
contact someone who does not have any influence over selection policy.
    I do want to make it clear that this program is for the benefit of 
all athletes (members) participating in Weightlifting, regardless of 
their age and regardless of the origin of their trauma. Anything 
shared, as is required by the American Counselling Association Code of 
Ethics, and typically by state law, there is privilege between the 
therapist and the athlete/member. This is not fed back to USA 
Weightlifting. The names and locations of those within the program is 
not shared internally. If there is a manner in which we can make it 
possible for an individual to come forward for support in a totally 
anonymous way we are absolutely supportive of that.

    Question 63. What percentage of the 2018-19 operating budget is 
earmarked for direct athlete support?
    Answer. I interpret the question here to mean direct cash to 
athletes, rather than support for athletes otherwise than in cash. 15.2 
percent of our total operating budget was spent in this manner. This 
excludes direct athlete support in cash to the athlete which is 
provided by the U.S. Olympic Committee.
    If we include items spent on athlete support otherwise than in 
cash, 33 percent of our budget goes to directly supporting athletes. 
This does not include any staff salaries but does include international 
event travel and support, recovery support funding, sports medicine 
funding, camp support and other forms of athlete support.
    While explaining those numbers, I would wish to point out that the 
manner in which USA Weightlifting makes its' revenue is via Coaching 
Education, where we expend 53 percent of income back to the instructors 
and hosts of our coaching courses, which therefore takes a significant 
percent of our revenue. This is unique to our National Governing Body 
(NGB), as we are the only NGB to derive our largest revenue source from 
this area.
    Additionally, USA Weightlifting provides 8 National Events per 
annum which approximately $880,000 worth of business, which is an 
approximate break even.
    Removing those areas of operation, the percent of ``available'' 
funds that is spent on athlete support rises significantly. Finally, 
our budget for direct cash to athletes has risen over 900 percent since 
2012.

    Question 64. What is your current salary? And by contrast, how much 
money has the USAW committed to national team athlete support for the 
2018-19 season?
    Answer. In 2018, my annual salary is $110,000. To compare, this is 
the lowest salary of comparable National Governing Bodies by revenue.
    By the end of 2018 in just a few short weeks, we will have spent 
approximately $836,000 on direct cash to athletes, excluding any non-
cash services such as travel to international competitions, travel to 
camps, recovery services, performance services which are also funded by 
USA Weightlifting. The top stipend for a Weightlifting athlete is 
$4,500 per month (or $63,000 per year), plus any performance bonuses 
earned at competition.
    Athletes in USA Weightlifting can earn a monthly stipend, which we 
understand to be a leading amount within U.S. Olympic Sport, as well as 
bonus payments for medals and placement, additional to the Operation 
Gold payments available.
    Separately, USA Weightlifting offers an amount of funding for each 
funded athlete to use with.
    The above figures reflect items funded by USA Weightlifting and not 
those funded by the U.S. Olympic Committee. The U.S. Olympic Committee 
contributed a further $1000 per athlete finishing in the top 8 in the 
World across Dec 2017 to Nov 2017 in direct cash support.

    Question 65. Can you provide further information about specific 
policy changes USAW has made to prevent sexual abuse and protect 
athletes at all levels of competition?
    Answer. (No answer provided)
                                 ______
                                 
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Catherine Cortez Masto 
                            to Phil Andrews
    Question 1. To what extent are you personally--and your leadership 
and staff--actively engaging with both the Athletes' Advisory Council 
and victims of sexual abuse to help direct your programming to stamp 
out a culture of abuse that enabled predators to target athletes?
    Answer. While CEOs and NGB Staff are not invited to engage with the 
U.S. Olympic Committee's Athlete Advisory Council, we are active with 
our own 7-member elected Athlete Advisory Council within USA 
Weightlifting. This 7-member council includes both our USOC Athlete 
Advisory Council elected representative and our alternate 
representative. I personally attend every meeting of the AAC to 
interact with our athletes.
    While the majority of conversations and issues that we speak about 
at the USAW AAC level tend to focus on sport related items, 
particularly due to the large amount of technical change (e.g., body 
weight category changes), that has occurred in Weightlifting in the 
last calendar year, the AAC is empowered to comment and give feedback 
on any issue it so pleases inclusive of Athlete Safety.
    Regular contact with the athlete population, especially its' 
elected leadership, is essential to creating a culture which is 
inclusive of the athlete, and gives the athlete the power to act in all 
areas of the NGB. For example, our AAC has a sign off on our selection 
procedure and any amendment must pass the vote of the entire AAC not 
simply one signature.

    Question 2. Are you engaging with elite-level athletes who are 
victims of sexual abuse to help direct your programs away from this 
widely reported culture of abuse that enabled predators?
    Answer. We are very fortunate in USA Weightlifting that, to the 
best of our knowledge, there is no athlete who qualifies for the Ted 
Stevens Act definition of ``elite athlete'' who has suffered sexual 
abuse. However, there are members of our NGB with high levels of 
achievement who have. I have personally engaged with these individuals, 
both in person and electronically, in working through how we might put 
in place programs for the benefit of survivors and how we might take 
steps to stop sexual abuse in the future.
    In particular, we have implemented the Athlete Wellness Program as 
a direct result of feedback from survivors of sexual abuse present in 
our membership. Survivors have also given feedback on reporting 
mechanisms and publicity features of our website and communications.

    Question 3. How do you empower athlete voices in your NGB?
    Answer. USA Weightlifting attempts to put the athlete at the heart 
of everything we do, while also being mindful of our other 
constituencies such as coaches and technical officials. Many items that 
can be done to empower the athlete also empower the remainder of the 
membership.
    USA Weightlifting, as required, has 20 percent representation on 
Board and Committees and also has former athletes on staff at the 
organization. This helps to focus the mind on the needs of the athlete 
in decision making.
    Athletes are encouraged to reach out to staff, to AAC members, to 
Board and other decision-making powers to give their feedback and 
views. Our task is to ensure that decisions made are in the best 
interests of the organization, that means considering the view of the 
primary constituent of the sport, which is the athlete.
    We also hold regular open sessions with all athletes, including a 
once a month call for all-comers (Athletes, Coaches, Technical 
Officials), sessions at events, and even via social media where 
athletes, coaches and any other member can ask questions or make 
suggestions directly to the NGB leadership, specifically the CEO.
    Athletes (and other membership groups such as coaches or technical 
officials), must be able to give their view without fear of retribution 
or a negative effect on their career. Creating such a culture is 
challenging and is not made overnight, at its' core it requires open, 
honest, communication.

    Question 4. What changes are you implementing internally to ensure 
that you are using athlete perspectives to drive some of your decision 
making?
    Answer. USA Weightlifting already detailed some of these items in 
the above answer, in addition with 50 percent of more of our Board 
having experience as a high-level athlete in our sport, it helps 
consider the opinion of athletes in making major decisions. It is also 
important that the voices of our elected athlete representatives are 
turned to regularly during those discussions.
    On the staff side, we employ former athletes (and former coaches) 
on our staff which together with their professional performance 
provides valuable insight when designing programs or making decisions 
which impact an athlete, coach or technical official.
    Finally, and perhaps most importantly, constant and open 
communication with athletes (and also with coaches and technical 
officials) is vital to understand the views, desires and wishes of 
those groups and how to balance those needs when those needs diverge--
and ultimately to keep the athlete need front and center.

    Question 5. Do you think that there are trust issues between 
athletes and administrators?
    Answer. Trust issues have historically arisen between athletes, 
their coaches and the administration of a sport. This was certainly an 
issue in our sport, and one which we have taken great pains to try to 
address--some of the methods we have used have been detailed above.
    Our sport also utilizes objective procedures not only in selection 
to our national team but in every area possible. This allows us to 
build trust because it means that it is not possible for there to be a 
personal bias reason for an athlete not to be selected for a team, for 
participation in a program, or for their remuneration as an athlete. 
The same applies to coaches where it is again an objective program.
    At its' core, as I've previously mentioned, is open and honest 
communication as regularly as possible with the different areas of a 
membership of the NGB, especially with the athlete population.

    Question 6. How do you prevent retaliation against athletes who 
provide their opinions?
    Answer. Due to the fact that we utilize objective procedures in 
almost every area, it is almost impossible for there to be retaliation 
against an athlete. With that said, we do provide all members 
(including athletes), the ability to anonymously submit suggestions to 
USA Weightlifting through our website. We also provide anonymous 
surveys to our athletes (and to other member types) to provide 
opinions.

    Question 7. Do you feel the USOC has equally encouraged or created 
partnerships with survivors and advocates? If so, please provide 
examples.
    Answer. I am not currently privy to the partnerships created by the 
U.S. Olympic Committee, and therefore cannot comment in detail on this 
matter.

    Question 8. Do you currently employ a full-time staff member with 
sufficient professional knowledge and experience with victims of severe 
emotional, physical and sexual abuse? If so, please identify that 
person and their role.
    Answer. No, we do not.

    Question 9. Do you agree with Mr. Adam's assessment of the culture 
within your organization prior to your tenure?
    Answer. I would firstly point out that Mr. Adams' testimony did not 
specifically refer to USA Weightlifting, though Mr. Adams is a former 
CEO of our organization, he was referring to all of the now 50 NGBs 
rather than one in particular.
    My tenure as CEO started in the last few days of December 2015, and 
I am not sure I would either agree or disagree with that assessment in 
the case of USA Weightlifting. While I am not certain that victims of 
abuse were actively discouraged from reporting abuse in any conscious 
fashion, it is fair to say that the NGB could have done more to make 
reporting mechanisms available to victims of sexual abuse and to raise 
the profile of sexual abuse issues in sport.

    Question 10. Since taking over, have you implemented any specific 
changes to address this ``environment'' that ``discouraged victims from 
reporting abuse''?
    Answer. Yes, we have implemented a significant amount of policies 
and procedures to provide an environment that firstly goes to lengths 
to prevent abuse occurring but encourages reporting of abuse.
    We have implemented reporting buttons on our website and made sure 
these are well communicated to our membership. We have also implemented 
an independent model for adjudication of ethics cases as well as non-
sexual abuse cases in our sport. This unique approach means that in a 
smaller sport like ours there is no fear that favoritism or prior 
knowledge of the alleged victim or alleged abuser will have an effect 
on the outcome.
    USA Weightlifting also implemented a specific number on our phone 
tree to directly report abuse (and indeed, anti-doping violations). USA 
Weightlifting already had existing codes of ethics and anti-retaliation 
policies though these have been strengthened recently.

    Question 11. What are you doing to change the culture within your 
sport and community?
    Answer. USA Weightlifting has engaged in a cultural change program 
since 2015, to a culture that puts the athlete at the center of what we 
do. To be clear, that is not at the cost of either coaches or technical 
officials. The culture we seek to create at USA Weightlifting is one of 
servant leadership of our sport to serve our athletes, their personal 
coaches, our hard-working technical officials in a positive fashion.
    The biggest single item in that is constant open, honest and 
transparent communication with membership of all levels, but especially 
the high level athletes, larger club coaches and the personal coaches 
of those high level athletes.
    This includes everything from regular Q&As, to answering any 
question no matter how small, to giving full and frank explanations of 
a decision (even when that decision might not be popular, people will 
usually be much more positive with a degree of understanding), to 
publishing as much as you are able. For example, every quarter we 
publish our operating budget to our membership.
    Anything that can be seen by us at the National Office ought to be 
able to be shared with membership, short of any personal, confidential 
information such as information about an athlete's medical or mental 
health care for example.

    Question 12. What are you doing to make sure that coaches and other 
staff members do not have unhealthy levels of power, authority or 
influence over athletes and their families?
    Answer. Repeating many of the items I have already highlighted 
above, the objective style of selection within USA Weightlifting does 
not give rise to a great deal of undue power of a coach or staff member 
over an athlete.
    Similarly, our national team programs are entirely optional. An 
athlete, using the unanimous vote of a committee, may be removed from a 
national team if they are no longer in the shape that selected them, 
but they cannot be removed for attitude or obedience. This also applies 
to personal coaches, who likewise cannot be eliminated for attitude or 
obedience reasons.
    These items put the pressure on the NGB and its' staff to have 
positive interactions with our athletes and coaches, as oppose to 
commanding interactions with athletes and coaches.

    Question 13. What are you doing to educate parents and family of 
members of your membership to take athlete abuse issues seriously and 
teach them the value of SafeSport programs?
    Answer. USA Weightlifting is proactively publicizing SafeSport 
information to our membership, and where we have information, to 
parents. We have also voluntarily participated in each and every one of 
the programs made available by the U.S. Center for SafeSport's 
education department.
    As well as mandatory education requirements for covered individuals 
within our membership, education is made available to athletes and 
parents.
    USA Weightlifting, in common with other NGBs, has requested our 
membership system vendor to begin to collect parent-specific 
information in order that we can better communicate directly with the 
parents of each athlete rather than sending information to the coach or 
the contact details of the minor athlete.

    Question 14. Does SafeSport recommend the most direct way for the 
USOC to communicate their material to all of their NGB's and on to the 
member clubs?
    Answer. No, they do not.

    Question 15. What have you found is the best way to share, post, or 
disseminate SafeSport information?
    Answer. A blended approach is necessary--utilizing website, social 
media and e-mail communication tools to ensure that information is 
available to all areas of the membership.
    Question 16. When SafeSport recommends an interim suspension, what 
steps does your organization take to enforce that interim measure with 
limited information?
    Answer. The U.S. Center for SafeSport imposes, does not recommend, 
interim suspensions, and delegates to the NGB to enforce those interim 
suspensions, this provides a challenge to the NGB since the process is 
not yet completed.
    In our case, since we are generally speaking about a limited number 
at a time, we can disseminate this information on a need-to-know basis 
(as at this time guilt is not yet established).
    USA Weightlifting has taken action where the Center has declined to 
taken an interim measure short of suspension. For example, we have 
taken action to prohibit a technical official from participation in 
Weigh-in while under investigation by the U.S. Center for SafeSport. 
This does not fully prohibit the individual from participation while 
under investigation for the alleged offence.

    Question 17. What are the access points in your organization for 
athletes to report misconduct--either physical, emotional, or 
financial?
    Answer. You can report abuse via buttons on the front page of our 
website, by phone, or in person. You may do so anonymously though in 
order for an effective investigation, we do request that anonymous 
reporters give as much detail as possible including any possible 
witnesses to said misconduct.

    Question 18. How do you minimize conflicts of interest within those 
reporting channels?
    Answer. Our independent model of investigation means that conflict 
of interest is generally removed from the outset. In the case of 
Emotional & Physical Abuse we always use an outside independent 
investigator to further remove conflict of interest from either the 
alleged victim or alleged offender.

    Question 19. What direct action is your organization taking not 
only to identify, but also to remove coaches, athlete directors, 
employees, and officials who witnessed either emotional or physical 
abuse of athletes and did nothing to stop it or report it to 
authorities?
    Answer. Our primary focus at this time is to investigate and 
eliminate perpetrators of emotional and physical abuse of athletes. 
Seeking to identify and remove athletes, coaches or others who have 
witnessed and not reported this type of abuse has not been a focus of 
our NGB thus far.

    Question 20. What are the biggest challenges for your member clubs 
to be able to adhere to the SafeSport minimum requirements?
    Answer. A major challenge for many clubs in our sport is that a 
building may be shared with many different sports, including non-
Olympic governed sports. Therefore defining where requirements cover 
clubs, and individuals, and where they do not is not as clear as it 
would first appear.
    With that said, policies have clarified if you are a member of USA 
Weightlifting with exposure to coaching at the club level then these 
policies apply to you under the definition of ``covered individual''.

    Question 21. What do you believe are the explicit protections you 
are directed to uphold and where do they apply to?
    Answer. Yes, we have specific requirements under the 1978 Ted 
Stevens Act, 1990 Victims of Child Abuse Act and the modifications to 
those acts as per the 2017 SafeSport Act.

    Question 22. Does that duty cover only Olympic events and training 
centers?
    Answer. No, it covers any and all USA Weightlifting sanctioned 
activities, operations and clubs. For the benefit of the Committee, USA 
Weightlifting is not present at the Olympic Training Center.

    Question 23. Does that duty extend to off-site venues? Member 
clubs? Member events?
    Answer. Yes.

    Question 24. What individual is most responsible for that 
protection?
    Answer. As the leader of the organization, the CEO.

    Question 25. What are your challenges, if any, to hiring additional 
staff that are experts with survivors of sexual abuse?
    Answer. As a small organization, this is headcount and budget. 
However, a way to address in our size of organization is to give 
preference in hiring decisions to those who do have experience in 
dealing with those who are survivors of sexual abuse.

    Question 26. Has the USOC made any such requirements of your 
organization?
    Answer. USA Weightlifting has made our ``banned list'' public since 
early 2016, before any public calls for a list to be made public.

    Question 27. What direct requirements or requests have come from 
the USOC since the May testimony with regard to the NGB's publishing 
accessible lists of all banned individuals?
    Answer. The U.S. Olympic Committee has requested data from our NGB 
regarding banned individuals, inclusive of those banned for reasons 
otherwise than SafeSport. For clarity, they excluded bans for field of 
play reasons (though USA Weightlifting does not have any field of play 
sanctions).

    Question 28. Do these ban list's work? What could be done to best 
disseminate this information?
    Answer. USA Weightlifting makes these lists available publicly and 
specifically sends these lists to those who are sanctioning an event or 
club endorsed by USA Weightlifting. The banned list is easily 
accessible through the member tab of our website and includes those who 
are suspended for Anti-Doping or Ethical reasons in a central location.
    This could be further enhanced by a centralized banned list, which 
has been discussed at the U.S. Olympic Committee level, searchable by 
location, offence and sport. This database then ought to be searched by 
background checks inside and outside of Olympic sport.
    It is vital however, that those listed are those who are facing 
sanction at the end of the process, where guilt has been established 
for an individual. The best example that exists of practice in this 
area is the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency who have a long and well-
established process for publication of sanctions.
    So far as the question of effectiveness, the issue is that a banned 
list requires an individual person to look at the banned list. Though 
our NGB, and others, take a proactive approach to inform gatekeepers of 
those who are suspended as well as sharing with key adjacent sports, 
fundamentally it requires a parent, club owner or other decision maker 
regarding an interaction to view the list.
    The single largest deficiency in banned lists is that they are 
generally not recognized by non-Olympic and Paralympic organizations. 
This potentially allows an individual who is banned in one sporting 
organization to simply participate through another sport organization 
that is not governed by an Olympic or Paralympic organization.

    Question 29. What are the consequences, as outlined by USOC, for 
NGB member clubs that hire a coach or individual on the banned list?
    Answer. I am not aware of any specific consequences that the U.S. 
Olympic Committee would impose on a member club since that is a member 
club of the NGB, not of the U.S. Olympic Committee.
    However, such an NGB that allowed that to continue may face 
compliance issues with respect to their NGB obligations to the U.S. 
Olympic Committee and at the absolute worst, therefore, decertification 
under Section 8 of the Ted Stevens Act.
    At the USA Weightlifting level, the club would not be considered 
any longer a USA Weightlifting sanctioned club and would be removed 
from our sanctioned club list. Any athlete members would be moved to 
unattached.
    This also occurs if the head coach, or administrator, of a club 
becomes a sanctioned member, it will automatically invalidate and 
suspend the membership of the club also.

    Question 30. Has the USOC demanded the implementation of strong 
policies to keep banned members away from events sanctioned by the USOC 
or individual NGB's?
    Answer. This has been a constant narrative within the Olympic & 
Paralympic movement since the emergence of the Nasser case and the 
subsequent focus on this area. The USOC has made great pains to implore 
the NGBs to act to enforce sanctions.
                                 ______
                                 
    Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Jerry Moran to 
                              Anne Cammett
    Question 1. How have the recent reforms provided by the Protecting 
Young Victims from Sexual Abuse and Safe Sport Authorization Act 
impacted your National Governing Body (NGB) from a structural and 
resource perspective?
    Answer. U.S. Figure Skating contributes money to support the U.S. 
Center for SafeSport and has allocated additional resources for U.S. 
Figure Skating SafeSport education. U.S. Figure Skating's Staff Counsel 
is spending full time on SafeSport matters (education, case management 
and compliance). U.S. Figure Skating is in the process of hiring a 
full-time SafeSport Education Outreach Director as well as an 
administrative assistant to support the SafeSport program. In the 
meantime, two other senior staff members have added SafeSport 
educational duties to their responsibilities until the Education 
Outreach Director is hired.

    Question 2. Have you hired additional personnel to help review 
cases, implement training, education and outreach? Please elaborate on 
how this is being implemented.
    Answer. See answer to Question 1 above.

    Question 3. Does your NGB have internal protocols/procedures to 
investigate allegations that are not sexual abuse (i.e., drug use, 
bullying, fraud, etc.)? Do you refer cases that are not sexual abuse to 
the Center for SafeSport?
    Answer. Only cases of suspected or alleged sexual misconduct are 
reported to the Center. All other types of abuse (physical abuse, 
emotional abuse, bullying, threats, harassment, hazing and willfully 
tolerating misconduct) are reported to U.S. Figure Skating in a number 
of available medias (telephone, online form, e-mail). Once an 
allegation of misconduct is received, it is forwarded and resolved by 
U.S. Figure Skating's Ethics, Grievance and SafeSport committees 
depending on the nature of the alleged abuse.

    Question 4. How does the total revenue of your NGB compare to the 
others? What portion of your revenue comes from the U.S. Olympic 
Committee (USOC)?
    Answer. I'm not sure how U.S. Figure Skating's total revenue 
compares to other NGBs. In 2017-18, approximately 6 percent of U.S. 
Figure Skating's revenue came from the USOC.

    Question 5. Based on your NGB's experiences in handling abuse 
allegations, did the Protecting Young Victims from Sexual Abuse and 
Safe Sport Authorization Act provide the necessary authorities to the 
Center for SafeSport and NGBs to address abuse allegations? If there 
are shortcomings, please identify them.
    Answer. As I stated during my opening statement at the October 3 
hearing, I believe that the following measures are necessary for the 
Center to reach its full potential:

    Increase funding for the U.S. Center for SafeSport to provide more 
personnel in the areas of education, investigation and adjudication. 
Fulfilling the Center's role effectively during these formative years 
is the key to establishing credibility and long-term viability.
    Create a coordinated SafeSport public awareness campaign that all 
national governing bodies can use and support in solidarity. This 
campaign should be created by experienced child-welfare professionals 
with a goal to educate athletes, parents, coaches and all who work with 
young athletes to be vigilant, informed and reactive to all forms of 
abuse.
    Provide a national database of banned and suspended persons, 
searchable by name, sport, state and region.
    Amend the Protecting Young Victims from Sexual Abuse Act to give 
subpoena power to the U.S. Center for SafeSport to provide more 
effective investigations and enforcement.
    Finally, at some point in the near future, expand the reach of the 
U.S. Center for SafeSport. Athletes within the jurisdiction of national 
governing bodies represent a small segment of youth sports participants 
in the U.S. A full commitment to ending abuse in sports must include 
children that participate outside the auspices of the U.S. Olympic 
movement.

    Question 6. Our subcommittee has heard from many survivors 
regarding Larry Nassar's sexual abuse under the guise of medical 
treatment. It is clear that centralizing all of the medical oversight, 
expertise and access in one individual for a lengthy period of time was 
a major factor that helped facilitate the abuse by Nassar. Has your NGB 
updated its medical policies and procedures to prevent this from 
happening? If so, how have you implemented these safeguards and how has 
the structure of your medical staff changed?
    Answer. While this question relates to circumstances involving 
gymnastics, U.S. Figure Skating does not have centralized medical 
providers. With regard to medical and sports science professionals who 
travel to competitions or participate in camps to provide medical 
support and/or education to U.S. Figure Skating team members, U.S. 
Figure Skating requires they meet the following standards prior to 
being assigned:

        (1) Must hold relevant license in good standing with the 
        appropriate board certification for his/her specialty; (2) must 
        submit licensing to U.S. Figure Skating; (3) must submit to a 
        criminal background check; (4) must join the U.S. Figure 
        Skating National Network and travel pool of medical providers; 
        and (5) must be a member in good standing with U.S. Figure 
        Skating, which subjects them to the jurisdiction of U.S. Figure 
        Skating rules and policies. In addition, U.S. Figure Skating's 
        Sports Sciences and Medical Committee conducts an evaluation of 
        all medical professionals after each event to which they are 
        assigned. In addition, there is no single doctor or medical 
        provider who is the U.S. Figure Skating ``Team Doctor'' or 
        medical provider.

    Question 7. In the wake of the Larry Nassar sexual abuse scandal, 
what policies and procedures have you put in place regarding access, 
retention and preservation of athlete's medical records? Have you 
provided those policies to USOC?
    Answer. Since 2011, U.S. Figure Skating athlete medical records and 
other performance-related data is housed on an encrypted, digital 
platform. The athlete and only authorized individuals have access to an 
athlete's account. The USOC is not involved in this process and 
therefore no such policy has been provided.
                                 ______
                                 
    Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Dean Heller to 
                              Anne Cammett
    Question 1. First, I want to start off by saying I admire the 
bravery of the athletes who have come before this Committee previously 
to share their story. As a father and grandfather, I know that what 
happened to them is every parent's worst nightmare. We live to protect 
our children, and it is disgusting to me that the individuals that they 
reported abuse to didn't protect them.
    Have you engaged with sexual assault survivor advocacy 
organizations to have them review and suggest improvements to your 
policies and procedures to ensure with certainty that your athletes are 
protected from abuse?
    Answer. No other organizations except the U.S. Center for 
SafeSport. U.S. Figure Skating recognizes the need for expertise in 
addressing survivor advocacy and is in the process of hiring a 
SafeSport Education Outreach Director with a degree in psychology or 
social work and measurable experience regarding emotional, physical and 
sexual abuse.

    Question 2. What surveys or other tools have you implemented to 
determine and measure whether your athletes feel empowered to report 
abuse? How recently were these surveys conducted?
    Answer. Since 2001, U.S. Figure Skating athletes competing in 
international events have received post-event surveys that ask them to 
anonymously evaluate Team Leaders, medical providers and officials. The 
comment section allows for elaboration. This communication tool allows 
honest feedback and a vehicle to express any issues involving mistrust.

    Question 3. How are your organizations ensuring young athletes 
understand what type of behavior from coaches or other adults is 
inappropriate and should be reported?
    Answer. U.S. Figure Skating conducts SafeSport webinars, in-person 
presentations and requires a SafeSport Compliance Chair for each member 
club. Monthly SafeSport articles are featured in SKATING magazine and 
the Professional Skaters Association magazine. In addition, the Center 
is currently developing age appropriate training for younger athletes 
that U.S. Figure Skating is committed to promote to its membership.
    U.S. Figure Skating has also launched a new awareness campaign made 
to empower our young athletes (some who begin skating at age 3). The 
goal of the campaign is to empower and encourage young athletes to 
speak up when they suspect something wrong.
    The result is the U.S. Figure Skating ``Your Voice'' campaign, 
currently in Phase II. The campaign's tagline: Your Voice is Powerful . 
. . Say Something. To a parent. To a friend. To a trusted adult. The 
campaign will be rolled out in 3 Phases.
    Phase I: In their own words (video and print), Olympic athletes 
shared stories and gave advice regarding the six types of abuse and 
misconduct (physical, emotional, sexual; bullying, threats and 
harassment; hazing; willfully tolerating misconduct).
    Phase II: Athlete members of Team USA, the ISP, synchro's DREAM 
program and the Athletes Advisory Committee agreed to be the first 
Athlete Ambassadors of the ``Your Voice'' program.
    Each Athlete Ambassador selects two young skaters at their training 
rink for their positive leadership skills. After explaining the tenets 
of the campaign, the young skaters also become Athlete Ambassadors and 
are presented with ``Your Voice'' T-shirts. The young athletes also 
receive material to share with parents.
    Phase III (December): Club members are encouraged to become Athlete 
Ambassadors, showing their support by adhering free ``Your Voice'' 
stickers on their water bottles, phones, laptops, etc. For a minimal 
cost, customizable ``Your Voice'' T-shirts will be available for 
members to personalize and let everyone know their Club supports the 
power of Athletes voices.
                                 ______
                                 
 Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Richard Blumenthal to 
                              Anne Cammett
    Question 1. Currently, amateur athletes are only eligible for up to 
10 years after their last qualifying international competition to 
represent athletes on NGB or USOC boards. Athlete advocates have called 
for this 10-year requirement to be relaxed, so that older, possibly 
retired athletes who have more professional experience, time, and 
resources, may contribute their expertise. Would you support expanding 
the eligibility?
    Answer. Yes

    Question 2. Provided that eligibility for athlete representation is 
expanded, would you support ensuring that the membership and voting 
power held by such amateur athletes is not less than 50 percent of the 
membership and voting power held in the board of directors of the 
corporation and in the committees and entities of the corporation?
    Answer. It would depend on the definition of an athlete 
representative. Currently, 14 of 15 U.S. Figure Skating voting board 
members are athletes or former athletes.

    Question 3. Please explain any factors preventing you from changing 
your NGB's bylaws to (1) increase the percent of athlete representation 
on your board, and (2) allow for older former amateur athletes who may 
have more professional experience to serve on boards. If there are no 
factors preventing you from making these changes, please explain why 
you have not or will not in the near future?
    Answer. U.S. Figure Skating bylaws can be changed by a vote of two-
thirds of the votes cast of the Governing Council delegates present in 
person or by proxy at the annual meeting of the Governing Council in 
early May.

    Question 4. Please explain your NGB's process for changing bylaws, 
ethical codes, and any other policies or procedures.
    Answer. U.S. Figure Skating bylaws can be changed by a vote of two-
thirds of the votes cast of the Governing Council delegates present in 
person or by proxy at the annual meeting of the Governing Council in 
early May. U.S. Figure Skating's board of directors can make rules or 
change ethical codes and any other policies and procedures by a 
majority vote of the board throughout the year. The Governing Council 
may also change rules at the annual meeting of the Governing Council in 
early May.

    Question 5. Are you committed to making sure half of coaches at 
protected competitions are women? If yes, how do you plan to accomplish 
that?
    Answer. U.S. Figure Skating's membership is majority female and the 
majority of coaches are female.

    Question 6. Given USOC's oversight relationship with NGBs and since 
NGBs are required to follow guidelines and requirements set forth by 
USOC, would you agree that USOC is liable for its oversight of NGBs and 
how effectively they promote athlete safety? Why or why not?
    Answer. The USOC is responsible for monitoring NGB compliance with 
the NGB's obligations as a member of the USOC, and has the authority to 
address noncompliance.

    Question 7. Would you support the Athletes' Advisory Council having 
a vote on USOC's Board?
    Answer. The AAC currently has three voting representatives on the 
USOC board.

    Question 8. Would you support the Multi-Sport Organization Council 
having a vote on USOC's Board?
    Answer. U.S. Figure Skating would not object.

    Question 9. If the U.S. Center for SafeSport declines to add an 
individual to its banned or temporarily suspended lists, what authority 
does your NGB have to independently take such action?
    Answer. U.S. Figure Skating bylaws and rules allow for members to 
be suspended or banned independent of other entities' actions or 
inactions.

    Question 10. Is it true that if NGB membership is given up before 
disciplinary action is taken, you can escape being placed on your NGB's 
disciplinary records?
    Answer. No.

    Question 11. How can banned lists--whether on NGBs sites or the 
Center for SafeSport's records--be made more useful for athletes, 
parents, clubs? How in sync are the Center for SafeSport and NGB's 
lists?
    Answer. Clear links to such lists must be available on each 
website. U.S. Figure Skating's banned list contains a complete list of 
all U.S. Figure Skating members banned by U.S. Figure Skating or the 
U.S. Center for SafeSport; the Center's list only lists those members 
banned since the opening of the Center in March 2017.

    Question 12. Where should individuals go for the most comprehensive 
list and information regarding banned or temporarily suspended members 
for your NGB?
    Answer. U.S. Figure Skating's website--www.usfigureskating.org

    Question 13. Does the Center for SafeSport's website have a 
comprehensive list?
    Answer. The Center's list reflects only those U.S. Figure Skating 
members who have been banned or suspended for sexual misconduct since 
the Center's launch in March 2017.

    Question 14. Does your NGB's website have a comprehensive list? 
Please explain.
    Answer. Yes. The list has been published on U.S. Figure Skating's 
website since 2005.

    Question 15. If you become aware that a coach has been engaged in 
sexual misconduct, for example, would your first call be to law 
enforcement or to the Center for SafeSport?
    Answer. Law Enforcement

    Question 16. Do you ever rely on the Center for SafeSport for 
required reporting to law enforcement?
    Answer. No

    Question 17. Under what circumstances would you not call law 
enforcement at all, but only inform the Center for SafeSport?
    Answer. Non-sexual and non-criminal matters would not be reported 
to law enforcement.

    Question 18. If you witness or receive complaints regarding 
grooming behaviors by a member, would you report that to law 
enforcement or only to the Center for SafeSport?
    Answer. All reports that allege behavior that could be construed as 
grooming would be reported to the Center. Law enforcement is also 
contacted depending on the nature of the alleged behavior.

    Question 19. Under what circumstances would or have you hired an 
independent investigator to investigate a complaint?
    Answer. An independent investigator would be retained if necessary 
to avoid a conflict of interest.

    Question 20. How many times have you personally called law 
enforcement, pursuant to your mandatory reporting requirements?
    Answer. None. I have not personally witnessed misconduct that would 
mandate that I report to law enforcement.

    Question 21. What specific penalties are in place for members in 
your NGB who fail to report suspected child abuse to law enforcement? 
How many times have you imposed such penalties?
    Answer. Members are subject to disciplinary action up to and 
including revocation of membership. In one case, a member was suspended 
for failing to report suspected child abuse.

    Question 22. Has your NGB developed explicit rules that reinforce 
the ethical line between coaches and athletes (i.e., no texting, 
including parents or guardians on correspondence)?
    Answer. Yes.

    Question 23. Have you developed sport-specific educational or 
training materials to complement the more generic U.S. Center for 
SafeSport training materials? Who have you worked with in developing 
such materials?
    Answer. Yes. Child welfare and counseling experts were involved in 
formulating U.S. Figure Skating's Harassment and Abuse policy which was 
approved in May 2000. In addition, U.S. Figure Skating's Board of 
Directors, SafeSport Committee and Athlete Advisory Committee (AAC)--
which include child welfare experts and athlete representatives--have 
reviewed and provided input on U.S. Figure Skating's SafeSport 
Handbook.

    Question 24. Do you think it might be confusing to athletes for 
NGBs to have internal ``SafeSport'' programs and for there to also be a 
``U.S. Center for SafeSport'' that is actually in charge of handling 
sexual misconduct? Can you commit today to changing the name of any 
existing internal ``SafeSport'' programs to make the distinction clear 
for athletes?
    Answer. While some might think it is confusing, SafeSport is not 
just ``sexual misconduct'' but also includes physical misconduct, 
emotional misconduct, bullying, threats and harassment, hazing and 
willful toleration. U.S. Figure Skating would not be in favor of 
changing the name of its SafeSport program.

    Question 25. At this Subcommittee's last hearing on amateur 
athletes, Mr. Han Xiao, Chair of the Athletes' Advisory Council 
testified that NGBs would intentionally circumvent athlete 
representatives. He recounted a variety of tactics including:

   Appointing rather than electing athlete representatives to 
        sign documents;

   Keeping an electronic signature of the AAC representative on 
        file to sign documents;

   Giving an AAC representative a document with very little 
        time before a submission deadline and asking for a signature;

   And scheduling meetings such that competing athlete reps 
        cannot attend, or removing what the NGB perceives to a 
        problematic athlete representative and then failing to refill 
        the position.

    Some of these tactics were employed by USA Taekwondo and documented 
in a 2012 Section 10 Complaint against the NGB.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ https://www.teamusa.org/-/media/TeamUSA/Documents/Legal/
Arbitration--Hearing-Panel-Cases/Section-10/2011/Robinson-v-USA-
Taekwondo-22712.pdf?la=en&hash=31C1EF0B
6376CA5D5C73BEF0598708EA9A9040F1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Have you ever employed any of the above listed tactics to undermine 
the authority and responsibilities of your NGB's athlete 
representatives? Will you commit to ensuring these tactics are never 
used again in the future? How will you ensure this?
    Answer. To my knowledge, U.S. Figure Skating has never engaged in 
such tactics and our athlete board representatives and Athletes 
Advisory Committee would not tolerate such tactics. In addition, such 
tactics would be against U.S. Figure Skating's Code of Ethics and Code 
of Conduct and would be subject to disciplinary action.

    Question 26. The USOC has argued, time and again, to be dismissed 
from lawsuits because it has ``no control'' over NGBs. In fact, the 
evidence shows that USOC actually exercises a significant amount of 
control over NGBs, like your own. Please describe what policies, 
procedures, or guidelines are provided to NGBs through USOC. Please 
also describe any financial support, staffing, or legal support 
received from or funded by USOC.
    Answer. U.S. Figure Skating is governed by and receives its 
authority from the Ted Stevens Amateur Sports Act and USOC bylaws. In 
addition, the USOC outlines its various policies and procedures to be 
followed by U.S. Figure Skating in an annual ``Performance Partnership 
Agreement'' that also includes details of any funding received by U.S. 
Figure Skating from the USOC. Since 2005, USOC's financial contribution 
to U.S. Figure Skating has amounted to between 2 percent and 8 percent 
of U.S. Figure Skating's annual budget. Such financial contribution is 
earmarked solely for athlete support, either in direct payments to 
athletes or for programs and staff that support athletes. No funds are 
provided for legal support.

    Question 27. Before the U.S. Center for SafeSport was established, 
did your NGB have the authority to suspend or ban a coach?
    Answer. Yes.

    Question 28. After the U.S. Center for SafeSport's establishment in 
March 2017, does your NGB still have the authority to independently 
suspend or ban a coach, even if the U.S. Center for SafeSport declines 
to do so?
    Answer. Yes.

    Question 29. In August, the Center for SafeSport declined to defend 
its ban of Jean Lopez, a taekwondo coach it had determined, months 
earlier, was engaged in a ``decades long pattern of sexual 
misconduct.'' The Center then removed him from its database of 
sanctioned individuals. Despite this, Steve McNally, the President and 
CEO of USA Taekwondo, has kept Jean Lopez on USA Taekwondo's suspension 
list.\6\ Do you think Mr. McNally's decision was appropriate? Would you 
have made the same decision? Why or why not?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ https://www.teamusa.org/usa-taekwondo/v2-resources/legal/usat-
suspension-list
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Answer. I cannot cast an opinion without complete information, 
however, Mr. McNally appears to have acted on behalf of the athlete's 
safety pending full results. U.S. Figure Skating has the authority to 
suspend or ban a member on its own accord. U.S. Figure Skating has 
never reversed a ban imposed on a member.

    Question 30. What consequences have and will you impose on member 
clubs that do not take your NGB's banned and suspended lists seriously? 
Please explain what enforcement mechanisms you have. How often have you 
exercised such enforcement mechanisms? Please detail.
    Answer. U.S. Figure Skating membership rules provide that any club 
can be placed on inactive or suspended status if it does not comply 
with all U.S. Figure Skating rules. Such inactive or suspended status 
means a club cannot host test sessions, obtain performance sanctions, 
obtain competition sanctions and loses its voting rights at U.S. Figure 
Skating's annual Governing Council meeting. To U.S. Figure Skating's 
knowledge, no banned or suspended member has been hired by a member 
club and therefore, no action has been taken against a club for this 
reason.

    Question 31. How regularly are background checks conducted on your 
members?
    Answer. Annual background checks are conducted on adult members in 
a position of authority over athletes or who have frequent contact with 
athletes.

    Question 32. There are criticisms that the term ``SafeSport,'' 
according to a Deadspin article, was developed and trademarked by the 
USOC to serve as ``a pleasant-sounding euphemism for a horrible set of 
acts.'' \7\ How you lead by example, when it comes to making sure 
sexual abuse is not merely swept under the rug as ``SafeSport'' issues?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ https://deadspin.com/safesport-the-usocs-attempt-to-stop-child-
abuse-is-se-1826279217
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Answer. As stated in my testimony to Congress, in May 2000, U.S. 
Figure Skating instituted its first ever Harassment and Abuse Policy 
and a mandatory reporting requirement for all its members. This 
requirement stated that if any form of child abuse is observed or 
suspected by a member, the member must immediately contact local law 
enforcement or a public child welfare agency and make a report. In 
addition, the member must also make a report to U.S. Figure Skating's 
Ethics Chair. The following year, another new rule mandated publishing 
the identity of any banned or suspended members in SKATING magazine, 
later moving a detailed list to U.S. Figure Skating's official website 
(in 2005), where it still resides today. U.S. Figure Skating has acted 
promptly on every incident reported to it of suspected sexual abuse or 
misconduct since the new policy was enacted in May 2000. Since May 
2000, U.S. Figure Skating has banned 16 members for sexual misconduct, 
six for financial irregularities and two for ethical violations.

    Question 33. What does a pedophile or sexual predator look like?
    Answer. A pedophile or sexual predator could be anyone, anywhere.

    Question 34. In your experience investigating sexual misconduct 
complaints, I'm sure you often receive character witness statements 
from parents and athletes themselves. Have you found that there's any 
correlation between such statements and whether the individual is 
actually guilty? How much weight should be placed in such character 
witness statements? Can you commit to reducing the weight--if any--that 
your NGB currently places on such statements during an investigation?
    Answer. Since March of 2017, the U.S. Center for SafeSport has 
exclusive jurisdiction for the investigation and adjudication of sexual 
misconduct cases, and therefore, U.S. Figure Skating has not been 
involved in such cases.
    Question 35. Do you agree that it is possible for an individual to 
be respectful to certain individuals, and abusive toward others?
    Answer. Yes.

    Question 36. What is the process in which your NGB keeps its 
respective website and other publications up to date listing banned or 
temporarily suspended individuals by the Center for SafeSport? Does 
your NGB have a dedicated staff member update these lists? If so, what 
is the position title of said staffer? How often are these lists 
checked to keep current? On a daily basis?
    Answer. U.S. Figure Skating updates its suspended and banned list 
immediately after notice of a sanction is issued by the U.S. Center for 
SafeSport for cases involving sexual misconduct. U.S. Figure Skating 
has jurisdiction for all types of misconduct other than sexual 
misconduct. In situations where the sanction in other types of 
misconduct results in a finding by U.S. Figure Skating's Grievance 
Committee that a suspension or ban is warranted, the finding is written 
by the Grievance chair and posted by U.S. Figure Skating's Director of 
Communications.

    Question 37. I understand that arbitration is the general process 
used by the Center for SafeSport to address disputes.
    Answer. As I understand, according to the Center's rules, 
arbitration is used only if an appeal is made of a decision imposed by 
the Center.

    Question 38. Who pays for your NGB's attorney fees in arbitration? 
Is it supported in any way by USOC?
    Answer. U.S. Figure Skating would pay for any attorney fees, with 
no involvement by the USOC.

    Question 39. Who pays for athletes' attorney fees in arbitration? 
Do you provide any assistance for athlete's attorney fees?
    Answer. Unknown. No.

    Question 40. What assistance do you receive from the USOC when in 
arbitration? What kind of legal guidance does the USOC provide in such 
cases?
    Answer. None. None.

    Question 41. Arbitration proceedings can be re-victimizing for 
survivors, who must relive their most painful memories under a grueling 
cross-examination. Questions asked by the opposing side have reportedly 
included intimate questions about an individual's personal sexual 
history. Do you believe such questions about an individual's sexual 
history relevant? How so? Can you commit to barring any such questions 
from further arbitration or legal proceedings?
    Answer. U.S. Figure Skating has not been involved in any 
arbitration proceedings and cannot speculate on what is relevant or 
not.

    Question 42. Former USA Swimmer and Olympic Gold medalist Nancy 
Hogshead-Makar has noted that women are largely missing from leadership 
positions throughout swimming's more competitive levels. While women 
represent just over 50 percent of coaches in the sport nationwide, a 
meager fraction of women comprise the elite ranks of the sport. As 
recently as 2016, the U.S. Olympic swim team had no female coaches. 
What, in your opinion, is the reason for the dearth of women coaching 
at Olympic levels, and other elite coaching levels in the sport?
    Answer. U.S. Figure Skating has no knowledge of U.S. Swimming's 
membership. A majority of coaches in figure skating are women, and half 
the coaches of U.S. Figure Skating's 2018 national champions were 
women.

    Question 43. Do you believe that a lack of female coaches is 
problematic?
    Answer. U.S. Figure Skating does not have a lack of female coaches. 
I would not want to speculate on other sports.

    Question 44. Do you believe that holding a Women in Coaching Task 
Force, or other coaching summits aimed at female coaches is sufficient 
to actually reduce gender disparity at elite levels? Beyond these 
leadership resources, what is your NGB doing to change the culture that 
currently stifles women leaders within sport?
    Answer. U.S. Figure Skating is 73 percent female. This is not an 
issue in our sport.

    Question 45. Do you agree that more female coaches at an elite 
level would make athletes safer?
    Answer. I would not want to speculate on that.

    Question 46. The AAC has reported concerns that the Athlete 
Ombudsman does not act independently of the USOC leadership. Would you 
agree that the Athlete Ombudsman should be moved outside the USOC 
structure to an Office of Inspector General or another external office?
    Answer. In principle, yes, but I would want to first understand the 
structure of any external office.

    Question 47. Do you believe that the U.S. Center for Safe Sport is 
sufficiently independent from the USOC? What conflicts of interest 
currently exist that prevent the Center from achieving true 
independence?
    Answer. While the Center is independent of the USOC in its 
investigation and education functions, a perception will continue to 
exist that the Center is not fully independent from the USOC until the 
USOC ends its funding or is not the Center's principal funding 
mechanism.

    Question 48. Do you think former employees of the USOC should be 
working at the U.S. Center for SafeSport? Do you understand how this 
would compromise the Center's independence?
    Answer. In principle, I do not object, but I recognize the optics 
of a conflict of interest.

    Question 49. Would you support the creation of an Office of 
Inspector General office--like the oversight branches of Federal or 
state agencies--to independently investigate internal abuse, 
mismanagement or misconduct and promote efficiency and effectiveness at 
the USOC, U.S. Center for Safe Sport, and National Governing Bodies?
    Answer. In principle, yes, but would want to understand its 
authority and scope of powers before fully supporting.

    Question 50. Regarding health insurance for athletes, what criteria 
does your NGB use to determine which athletes receive paid health 
insurance coverage either through the NGB or USOC?
    Answer. U.S. Figure Skating determines which athletes receive USOC 
paid health insurance coverage based on the following prioritized 
criteria:

  (1)  Team members from the 2018 Olympic Winter Games, February 9-25, 
        2018

  (2)  Team members from the 2018 World Championships, March 19-25, 
        2018

  (3)  Medalists at the 2017 Grand Prix Final, December 7-10, 2017 
        (highest ranked, by medal, athlete(s) receives the slot(s))

    Question 51. What percentage of the cost of this health insurance 
coverage are your respective athletes or their families responsible 
for?
    Answer. In most cases, between 0 percent--10 percent with a minimal 
co-pay.

    Question 52. What percentage of your athletes receive health 
insurance through the Elite Athlete Health Insurance (EAHI) plan 
(``EAHI'' is the correct term, not ``EHIP'')? Does this program cover 
sports-or competition-related injuries? Does this program cover non-
competition-related injuries?
    Answer. Approximately 17 percent of U.S. Figure Skating's 
international pool of athletes are eligible for EAHI.
    EAHI covers non-competition related medical needs, but U.S. Figure 
Skating provides secondary accident insurance for most sports-related 
injuries.

    Question 53. Does your NGB terminate the insurance of athletes 
whose injuries may impact their competition status? If so, how much 
notice is provided to the athlete?
    Answer. U.S. Figure Skating does not terminate EAHI coverage of an 
eligible athlete during a season. Eligibility for EAHI is determined 
each season by written criteria.

    Question 54. Please describe any other NGB-or USOC-sanctioned 
health insurance programs available to member athletes and whether 
those programs are paid for by the NGB or USOC.
    Answer. U.S. Figure Skating provides at its expense excess medical 
coverage for participants in figure skating events and practices 
sponsored, sanctioned and supervised by U.S. Figure Skating and U.S. 
Figure Skating member clubs. Select elite athletes also have access to 
USOC clinics and providers, based on a minimal copay. In addition, U.S. 
Figure Skating provides for accident and sickness coverage at its 
expense (including competition related injuries) for all athletes and 
delegation members while representing Team USA at international 
competitions.
    Question 55. Does this health insurance program provide coverage 
for mental health services? Do you believe that mental health services 
are important for athletes? Do you believe that it is or should be your 
NGB's responsibility to provide mental health services and coverage for 
athletes?
    Answer. EAHI includes mental health coverage. Yes, mental health 
services are important to athletes. An NGB should use its best efforts 
to include mental health coverage within any coverage it provides.

    Question 56. Beyond insurance coverage, what mental health services 
does your respective NGB currently provide for athletes? Are these 
services available to all athletes under the NGB's purview, or just 
athletes at elite levels? What can your NGB specifically do to improve 
your athlete wellness and mental health support services for athletes?
    Answer. Currently, for U.S. Figure Skating's international pool of 
athletes, the following are available:

   One-on-one consultations and ongoing access for identified 
        athletes as named in the USOC approved high performance plan 
        (typically Grand Prix competitors).

   One-on-one consultations at several high level summer 
        competitions for athletes competing internationally.

   Educational presentations for International athletes at 
        summer camps and U.S. Championships

   Ongoing discussion with professionals and coaches at various 
        seminars

    All NGBs can promote athlete wellness and mental health support 
services for athletes by promoting existing educational programs such 
as those provided by the Centers for Disease Control and the American 
College of Sports Medicine.

    Question 57. What is the process for an athlete at your NGB to take 
advantage of these mental health services--for example, do they have to 
first notify their coach or an executive at your NGB? Do you think that 
in cases regarding mental health services, it is appropriate to require 
an athlete to first notify their coach or NGB leadership of a potential 
mental health problem before receiving treatment or assistance? Do you 
agree that such a policy places athletes in a position where they can 
potentially be retaliated against, or further abused? Do you agree that 
at the very least, such a policy could prevent athletes from coming 
forward to take advantage of critical mental health services?
    Answer. Identified athletes are assigned a USOC-contracted or USOC 
professional at the beginning of each season or may choose their own. 
Once introduced, they do not need to notify their coach or NGB.
    I personally do not believe it would be appropriate to have an 
athlete be required to notify a person in authority to receive any 
appropriate mental health care.

    Question 58. What was your NGB's total budget in Fiscal Year 2017?
    Answer. Approximately $18 million.

    Question 59. How much (dollar amount or percentage) of the budget 
came from the USOC either directly or in the form of grants?
    Answer. Approximately 6 percent.

    Question 60. What percentage of your budget goes to direct athlete 
support in the form of a stipend? How many athletes receive a stipend?
    Answer. Approximately 6 percent. Approximately 60 athletes.

    Question 61. Does USOC have any role in budgeting decisions within 
your NGB?
    Answer. No.

    Question 62. Does your current NGB budget limit your ability to 
provide services to athletes? Does it limit your ability to implement 
and adhere to Center for Safe Sport policy, or to conduct thorough 
internal investigations on complaints of misconduct?
    Answer. No. No.

    Question 63. Does USOC have the ability to direct your NGB in 
making decisions related to Olympic competition?
    Answer. The USOC approves the criteria for the athlete selection 
process for the Olympic Games and subsequently those athletes nominated 
by U.S. Figure Skating to compete in the Olympic Games. The USOC has no 
other involvement with U.S. Figure Skating's decisions related to the 
Olympic Games.

    Question 64. Does your NGB have a ``two-deep'' policy, so that an 
adult is never alone with an athlete? Why or why not? Have you 
considered such a policy?
    Answer. Yes, to safeguard the athlete.

    Question 65. Has USOC ever asked NGBs to consider a ``two-deep'' 
policy?
    Answer. I have been told by U.S. Figure Skating staff that the USOC 
first recommended a ``two-deep'' policy in a SafeSport handbook 
template distributed by the USOC to NGBs in the fall of 2012.

    Question 66. Most child-safety experts recommend a policy of not 
texting a minor individually. In other words, coaches can text others 
in a group, or can include parents on the text, but should not text 
athletes individually. Why hasn't your NGB adopted such a policy to 
ensure inappropriate conversations are not taking place?
    Answer. U.S. Figure Skating has such a policy as part of its ``Two-
Deep Leadership'' policy.

    Question 67. One problem that I have continually witnessed during 
this investigation is that the USOC, the Center for SafeSport and NGBs 
have a tendency to put a fresh coat of paint on something, without 
actually resolving the problem at hand. We've seen this in new branding 
initiatives, which sometimes have euphemistic names to make it seem 
like an organization is tackling a problem.
    During your testimony, you mentioned a program U.S. Figure Skating 
has started, called ``Your Voice.'' You displayed a T-Shirt with the 
slogan during the hearing. Is Your Voice just another way to put a 
fresh coat of paint on a problem with flashy branding to give the 
impression that USFSA is addressing abuse?
    Answer. No. The ``Your Voice'' awareness campaign is designed to 
empower the athletes themselves. One of the overriding issues in 
reporting sexual misconduct and/or abuse is the silence of the victim. 
The ``Your Voice'' campaign is designed to empower victims to report 
any sexual misconduct and/or abuse.

    Question 68. How specifically is the Your Voice campaign attempting 
to prevent abuse, or provide an avenue for reporting abuse?
    Answer. The very essence of the ``Your Voice'' Campaign is to 
empower athletes to use their voice to report abuse or suspected abuse.

    Question 69. How much is this new campaign costing USFSA?
    Answer. Although the dollar amount of the campaign is irrelevant to 
its effectiveness because of the use of volunteers and Olympic athletes 
to promote the ``Your Voice'' campaign, currently, about $14,000 has 
been spent on the campaign for the purchase of tangible products to be 
given out by volunteers to further promote the campaign: 300 T-shirts, 
50,000 stickers and 1,500 posters.

    Question 70. Is USFSA changing any specific policy, or providing 
any financial resources to local clubs or elite levels to support this 
campaign?
    Answer. The goal of the ``Your Voice'' campaign is to empower and 
encourage young athletes to speak up when they suspect something wrong. 
The ``Your Voice'' campaign is currently in Phase II. The campaign's 
tagline: Your Voice is Powerful. . .Say Something. To a parent. To a 
friend. To a trusted adult. A brief description of each phase of the 
campaign follows:

   Phase I: In their own words (video and print), Olympic 
        athletes shared stories and gave advice regarding the six types 
        of abuse and misconduct (physical, emotional, sexual; bullying, 
        threats and harassment; hazing; willfully tolerating 
        misconduct).

   Phase II: Athlete members of Team USA, the ISP, synchro's 
        DREAM program and the Athletes Advisory Committee agreed to be 
        the first Athlete Ambassadors of the ``Your Voice'' program. 
        Each Athlete Ambassador selects two young skaters at their 
        training rink for their positive leadership skills. After 
        explaining the tenets of the campaign, the young skaters also 
        become Athlete Ambassadors and are presented with ``Your 
        Voice'' T-shirts. The young athletes also receive material to 
        share with parents.

   Phase III (December): Club members are encouraged to become 
        Athlete Ambassadors, showing their support by adhering free 
        ``Your Voice'' stickers on their water bottles, phones, 
        laptops, etc. For a minimal cost, customizable ``Your Voice'' 
        T-shirts will be available for members to personalize and let 
        everyone know their Club supports the power of Athlete's 
        voices.

    Question 71. Can you provide further information about specific 
policy changes USFSA has made to prevent sexual abuse and protect 
athletes at all levels of competition?
    Answer. My written testimony outlines what U.S. Figure Skating has 
done since 2000. In addition, since the Center began in 2017, U.S. 
Figure Skating has:

   Expanded required background checks to include all who come 
        in frequent contact with athletes, such as U.S. Figure Skating 
        employees, Board of Directors, medical providers, camp faculty, 
        etc. This season, also included all volunteer officials, such 
        as judges.

   Hired Staff Counsel to administer SafeSport program, manage 
        SafeSport reports and cases, and to act as U.S. Figure Skating 
        liaison to U.S. Center for SafeSport.

   Approved an annual minimum of $100,000 for additional 
        SafeSport initiatives and education

   With athlete guidance, launched grassroots awareness 
        campaign (``Your Voice'') inspired and supported by the AAC and 
        Team USA athletes

   Implemented an online reporting form as a third mechanism to 
        report abuse or harassment.

   Automated SafeSport compliance reporting for those roles 
        required to pass background check and complete SafeSport 
        Training.

   Updated U.S. Figure Skating's SafeSport Program Handbook, 
        emphasizing ``Two-Deep Leadership,'' locker room and travel 
        policies

    Question 72. During the hearing, when I asked whether you would 
voluntarily commit to increasing athlete representation to a majority 
on your boards and committees to ensure that their voices and concerns 
are heard, you answered that you would want to research the idea 
further. Two weeks later, can you now commit to increasing athlete 
representation to 51 percent on the USFSA Board and its committees? Do 
you believe that increasing the age eligibility for athletes, allowing 
older athletes to participate on the Board would satisfy your concerns 
with athlete experience?
    Answer. I stand by my testimony. With respect to athlete 
experience, currently, 14 of 15 U.S. Figure Skating voting board 
members are athletes or former athletes. Changing the definition of an 
athlete would need thorough review.

    Question 73. What percentage of the 2018-19 operating budget is 
earmarked for direct athlete support?
    Answer. More than 80 percent of U.S. Figure Skating's 2018-19 
operating budget supports athlete programs. Regarding U.S. Figure 
Skating's international pool of athletes and national team, 
approximately 17 percent of the annual budget is earmarked specifically 
for these elite athletes.

    Question 74. What is your current salary? And by contrast, how much 
money has the USFSA committed to national team athlete support for the 
2018-19 season?
    Answer. I receive no salary as president of U.S. Figure Skating. As 
president, I volunteer an average of 30-40 hours per week to the 
organization. Athlete support is answered above.

    Question 75. Is U.S. Figure Skating currently spending money on any 
lobbying, or government affairs work? If yes, what are they advocating 
on behalf of?
    Answer. No.
                                 ______
                                 
   Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Tammy Duckworth to 
                              Anne Cammett
    Question. Included in your written testimony is a policy suggestion 
for creating a national database of banned and suspended persons. In 
your view, what entity or individual is best positioned to develop, 
administer and enforce such a database? In your opinion, should such a 
database be shared with law enforcement, school districts or State 
governments?
    Answer. The U.S. Center for SafeSport is the entity best positioned 
to develop and administer a national database of banned and suspended 
persons. Any such national database of banned and suspended persons 
should be shared with as many entities as possible and available to the 
public.
                                 ______
                                 
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Catherine Cortez Masto 
                            to Anne Cammett
    Question 1. Athlete and Community Engagement: To what extent are 
you personally--and your leadership and staff--actively engaging with 
both the Athletes' Advisory Council and victims of sexual abuse to help 
direct your programming to stamp out a culture of abuse that enabled 
predators to target athletes?
    Answer. There are four members of U.S. Figure Skating's Athlete 
Advisory Committee (AAC) on U.S. Figure Skating's 15-member board of 
directors, which I chair as president. This ensures the AAC is actively 
involved in developing Athlete Protection policies.
    Most recently, the entire 50-member AAC was involved in the 
revision and updating of the U.S. Figure Skating SafeSport Handbook. 
Individual input and discussion were key in the process and resulted in 
a unanimous approval by the AAC, SafeSport Committee and board of 
directors.
    The AAC also has been an active participant in the U.S. Figure 
Skating SafeSport awareness campaign, ``Your Voice.'' In addition, the 
50-member AAC (along with other U.S. Figure Skating athlete groups) is 
participating in Phase II of the Your Voice program, which has these 
role-model athletes selecting young ``Athlete Ambassadors'' at their 
own rinks to bring the message of the campaign to the grassroots level. 
(More on the awareness campaign in Question 3.)

    Question 2. Are you engaging with elite-level athletes who are 
victims of sexual abuse to help direct your programs away from this 
widely reported culture of abuse that enabled predators?
    Answer. U.S. Figure Skating has an open dialogue with all athlete 
survivors.

    Question 3. How do you empower athlete voices in your NGB?
    Answer. As stated in the answer to Question 1, the AAC has four 
seats on U.S. Figure Skating's 15-member board of directors and is very 
active in committees and working groups. In addition, the AAC is 
actively engaged in the U.S. Figure Skating SafeSport awareness 
campaign, ``Your Voice.'' The goal of the ``Your Voice'' campaign is to 
empower and encourage young athletes to speak up when they suspect 
something wrong. The ``Your Voice'' campaign is currently in Phase II. 
The campaign's tagline: Your Voice is Powerful. . .Say Something. To a 
parent. To a friend. To a trusted adult. A brief description of each 
phase of the campaign follows:

   Phase I: In their own words (video and print), Olympic 
        athletes shared stories and gave advice regarding the six types 
        of abuse and misconduct (physical, emotional, sexual; bullying, 
        threats and harassment; hazing; willfully tolerating 
        misconduct).

   Phase II: Athlete members of Team USA, the ISP, synchro's 
        DREAM program and the Athletes Advisory Committee agreed to be 
        the first Athlete Ambassadors of the ``Your Voice'' program. 
        Each Athlete Ambassador selects two young skaters at their 
        training rink for their positive leadership skills. After 
        explaining the tenets of the campaign, the young skaters also 
        become Athlete Ambassadors and are presented with ``Your 
        Voice'' T-shirts. The young athletes also receive material to 
        share with parents.

   Phase III (December): Club members are encouraged to become 
        Athlete Ambassadors, showing their support by adhering free 
        ``Your Voice'' stickers on their water bottles, phones, 
        laptops, etc. For a minimal cost, customizable ``Your Voice'' 
        T-shirts will be available for members to personalize and let 
        everyone know their Club supports the power of Athlete's 
        voices.

    Question 4. What changes are you implementing internally to ensure 
that you are using athlete perspectives to drive some of your decision 
making?
    Answer. Since 1983, U.S. Figure Skating has had strong athlete 
representation through its AAC. In addition, (as previously stated) 
there are four members of U.S. Figure Skating's AAC on U.S. Figure 
Skating's 15-member board of directors. Most recently, the entire 50-
member AAC was involved in the revision and updating of the U.S. Figure 
Skating SafeSport Handbook. Athletes have had and continue to have a 
strong voice in U.S. Figure Skating decision-making.

    Question 5. Do you think that there are trust issues between 
athletes and administrators?
    Answer. I don't believe there are trust issues at U.S. Figure 
Skating between athletes and administrators. In my experience, our 
high-performance athletes are unabashed in sharing their views and 
directly offer opinions and suggestions.
    In addition, U.S. Figure Skating athletes competing in 
international events have received post-event surveys that ask them to 
anonymously evaluate Team Leaders, medical providers and officials 
since 2001. The comment section allows for elaboration. This 
communication tool allows honest feedback and a vehicle to express and 
communicate any issues.

    Question 6. How do you prevent retaliation against athletes who 
provide their opinions?
    Answer. U.S. Figure Skating has a policy prohibiting retaliation 
for reporting misconduct issues and for filing grievance complaints.

    Question 7. Do you feel the USOC has equally encouraged or created 
partnerships with survivors and advocates? If so, please provide 
examples.
    Answer. I am unaware of any partnerships.

    Question 8. Do you currently employ a full-time staff member with 
sufficient professional knowledge and experience with victims of severe 
emotional, physical and sexual abuse? If so, please identify that 
person and their role.
    Answer. U.S. Figure Skating dedicates its Staff Counsel with 
assistance from two senior directors to our SafeSport program. In 
addition, U.S. Figure Skating is in the process of hiring a SafeSport 
Education Outreach Director. The ideal candidate will have a psychology 
or social work degree and clinical experience with victims of 
emotional, physical and sexual abuse.

    Question 9. Safesport: The Center for SafeSport must succeed. I 
think from all the testimony we have received during these hearings, 
and in many of my private meetings with survivors, advocates, 
leadership in sport including NGB's, the USOC, and Safe Sport, we know 
that we must stimulate a culture of reporting. In 2017 testimony 
offered by Mr. Rick Adams, of the USOC, he said there was an ``. . 
.environment that discouraged victims from reporting abuse. . .'' at 
NGBs.
    Do you agree with Mr. Adams' assessment of the culture within your 
organization prior to your tenure?
    Answer. I do not believe that U.S. Figure Skating has had an 
environment that discourages victims from reporting abuse. U.S. Figure 
Skating has mandated reporting since May 2000 when it promulgated 
General Rule 1.03, which mandates members to report suspected child 
abuse to local law enforcement or a public child welfare agency. Anyone 
under the jurisdiction of U.S. Figure Skating who fails to report is 
subject to disciplinary action. In addition, U.S. Figure Skating has a 
policy prohibiting retaliation for reporting misconduct.

    Question 10. Since taking over, have you implemented any specific 
changes to address this ``environment'' that ``discouraged victims from 
reporting abuse''?
    Answer. See answer to Question 9 above.

    Question 11. What are you doing to change the culture within your 
sport and community?
    Answer. U.S. Figure Skating believes strongly in empowering the 
athletes themselves to protect against abuse and sexual misconduct. Our 
``Your Voice'' campaign is reaching our youngest athletes, empowering 
them to speak up.

    Question 12. What are you doing to make sure that coaches and other 
staff members do not have unhealthy levels of power, authority or 
influence over athletes and their families?
    Answer. U.S. Figure Skating has a decentralized training system. 
Athletes (and their families) select the coaches who train them. I 
believe this decentralized system diminishes the unhealthy levels of 
power that other sports face with a centralized training system and/or 
a national team coaching staff.

    Question 13. What are you doing to educate parents and family of 
members of your membership to take athlete abuse issues seriously and 
teach them the value of SafeSport programs?
    Answer. U.S. Figure Skating conducts SafeSport webinars, in-person 
presentations and requires a SafeSport Compliance Chair for each member 
club. Monthly SafeSport articles are featured in SKATING magazine and 
the Professional Skaters Association magazine. Every member (and the 
public) has access to the SafeSport Handbook. Lastly, there is parent-
specific training provided by the U.S. Center for SafeSport that U.S. 
Figure Skating promotes to its members.

    Question 14. Does SafeSport recommend the most direct way for the 
USOC to communicate their material to all of their NGB's and on to the 
member clubs?
    Answer. At this time, I am unaware of any such recommendations.

    Question 15. What have you found is the best way to share, post, or 
disseminate SafeSport information?
    Answer. With such a diverse membership, ranging from age 3 to 93, 
U.S. Figure Skating uses a variety of means to share SafeSport 
information: Social media platforms; organizational website; e-blasts; 
SKATING magazine; in-person presentations; webinars; in-arena 
announcements, public service announcements and rink boards (signs 
along the internal walls of ice skating rinks).

    Question 16. When SafeSport recommends an interim suspension, what 
steps does your organization take to enforce that interim measure with 
limited information?
    Answer. U.S. Figure Skating immediately suspends the membership of 
the individual. In addition, we post the suspension on our public 
website, and we contact the member clubs in the region where the 
individual resides.

    Question 17. What are the access points in your organization for 
athletes to report misconduct--either physical, emotional, or 
financial?
    Answer. U.S. Figure Skating

   Direct phone call to U.S. Figure Skating SafeSport Staff 
        Counsel: 719.635.5200

   Online reporting form: www.USFigureSkating.org/SafeSport

   E-mail: SafeSport@USFigureSkating.org

    U.S. Center for SafeSport

   Online reporting form: safesport.org

   Phone: 720.524.5640

    All reports may be anonymous.

    Question 18. How do you minimize conflicts of interest within those 
reporting channels?
    Answer. U.S. Figure Skating has a rule and a process for members, 
leadership and staff to follow in the event of a real or perceived 
conflict of interest. In addition, U.S. Figure Skating's staff counsel 
is the case manager for all reports. Staff counsel does not have any 
personal involvement in the sport and has no overlap with the 
competition or participation side of the organization.
    U.S. Figure Skating's Ethics, Grievance and SafeSport committees 
are comprised of working professionals from the fields of law, medicine 
and child welfare. Each sign a conflict-of-interest agreement that 
requires disclosure and recusal upon the majority vote of disinterested 
committee members.

    Question 19. Protection and Removal: What direct action is your 
organization taking not only to identify, but also to remove coaches, 
athlete directors, employees, and officials who witnessed either 
emotional or physical abuse of athletes and did nothing to stop it or 
report it to authorities?
    Answer. U.S. Figure Skating's mandatory reporting rule, in place 
since 2000, and code of conduct hold all accountable. Failure to report 
subjects a member to sanction up to, and including, membership 
suspension.

    Question 20. What are the biggest challenges for your member clubs 
to be able to adhere to the SafeSport minimum requirements?
    Answer. U.S. Figure Skating clubs are led by volunteers. Sanctioned 
events are, for the most part, staffed by volunteers who serve a 
variety of roles with respect to the conduct of events. Compliance with 
all SafeSport requirements at all local levels, particularly with 
volunteer turnover and some volunteers only working single events, can 
create challenges.
    Also, the vast majority of ice rinks are private businesses that 
are not owned or operated by U.S. Figure Skating and its member clubs.

    Question 21. What do you believe are the explicit protections you 
are directed to uphold and where do they apply to?
    Answer. U.S. Figure Skating adheres to USOC-directed Athlete 
Protection policies, the U.S. Center for SafeSport's Code and policies 
and procedures as well as federal, state and local laws.

    Question 22. Does that duty cover only Olympic events and training 
centers?
    Answer. U.S. Figure Skating's Athlete Protection policies apply at 
all U.S. Figure Skating-sanctioned events and activities.

    Question 23. Does that duty extend to off-site venues? Member 
clubs? Member events?
    Answer. See the answer to Question 22 above.

    Question 24. What individual is most responsible for that 
protection?
    Answer. All U.S. Figure Skating members are responsible for 
protecting our athletes. From a staff standpoint, U.S. Figure Skating's 
Staff Counsel oversees U.S. Figure Skating's SafeSport program, with 
oversight by U.S. Figure Skating's SafeSport Committee and Board of 
Directors.

    Question 25. What are your challenges, if any, to hiring additional 
staff that are experts with survivors of sexual abuse?
    Answer. None. U.S. Figure Skating is in the process of hiring a 
full-time SafeSport Education Outreach Director who ideally will have a 
psychology or social work degree and clinical experience with victims 
of emotional, physical and sexual abuse.

    Question 26. Ban Lists: Susanne Lyons, former Acting CEO and 
upcoming Board Chair of the USOC, said in her hearing testimony before 
the House Commerce Committee in May, that she committed to looking into 
creating and enforcement requirements that ``ban lists'' be made 
publicly available. I know a number of your organizations do post those 
lists.
    Has the USOC made any such requirements of your organization?
    Answer. No. U.S. Figure Skating has published its suspended and 
banned list since 2001.

    Question 27. What direct requirements or requests have come from 
the USOC since the May testimony with regard to the NGB's publishing 
accessible lists of all banned individuals?
    Answer. We have been responsive to all requests for information 
from the USOC but no requirements have come from the USOC regarding the 
publishing of accessible lists of all banned individuals.

    Question 28. Do these ban list's work? What could be done to best 
disseminate this information?
    Answer. Banned lists prohibit membership from U.S. Figure Skating, 
so it has been effective keeping those who are banned from 
participating in U.S. Figure Skating-sanctioned events. The U.S. Center 
for SafeSport is the entity best positioned to develop and administer a 
national database of banned and suspended persons. Any such national 
database of banned and suspended persons should be shared with as many 
entities as possible and available to the public.

    Question 29. What are the consequences, as outlined by USOC, for 
NGB member clubs that hire a coach or individual on the banned list?
    Answer. I am unaware of any consequence based on a USOC directive. 
However, hiring a banned or suspended coach is prohibited under U.S. 
Figure Skating rules. The consequences are up to and including 
revocation of membership or suspension of a Club from participating in 
U.S. Figure Skating-sanctioned events and activities.

    Question 30. Has the USOC demanded the implementation of strong 
policies to keep banned members away from events sanctioned by the USOC 
or individual NGB's?
    Answer. I am unaware of any demand from the USOC, but USOC bylaws 
require an NGB to follow all rules and requirements of the U.S. Center 
for SafeSport. If a member is banned by the Center or U.S. Figure 
Skating, that member cannot participate in any U.S. Figure Skating-
sanctioned event or activity and U.S. Figure Skating strictly enforces 
such ban.
                                 ______
                                 
    Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Jerry Moran to 
                          Timothy Hinchey III
    Question 1. How have the recent reforms provided by the Protecting 
Young Victims from Sexual Abuse and Safe Sport Authorization Act 
impacted your National Governing Body (NGB) from a structural and 
resource perspective?
    Answer. Prior to the passage of the Protecting Young Victims from 
Sexual Abuse and Safe Sport Authorization Act (``Act''), USA Swimming 
had policies and procedures in place now required by the Act for: 
reporting allegations of child sexual abuse to law enforcement, 
adhering to the U.S. Center for SafeSport's Code, reasonably limiting 
one-on-one interactions between minor athletes and adults, prohibiting 
retaliation, and notifying local swim clubs of any alleged Code of 
Conduct violations by a swim club member, among other things.

    Question 2. Have you hired additional personnel to help review 
cases, implement training, education and outreach? Please elaborate on 
how this is being implemented.
    Answer. Since the passage of the Act, USA Swimming has hired a Safe 
Sport Coordinator, who shares certain responsibilities with the Safe 
Sport Senior Manager, including case review, training, education and 
outreach. However, USA Swimming generally has maintained two full-time 
professionals dedicated to these efforts since late 2011 (See USA 
Swimming Safe Sport Team Bios: https://www.usaswimming
.org/articles-landing-page/2017/02/10/protect).
    USA Swimming also employs two lawyers, an education specialist, 
risk manager, background check program coordinator, and administrative 
assistant who dedicate a portion of their time to the organization's 
Safe Sport program, including in the areas of case review, training, 
education and outreach.

    Question 3. Does your NGB have internal protocols/procedures to 
investigate allegations that are not sexual abuse (i.e., drug use, 
bullying, fraud, etc.)? Do you refer cases that are not sexual abuse to 
the Center for SafeSport?
    Answer. Yes, Articles 3 and 4 in USA Swimming's Rulebook address 
the internal protocols and procedures used to investigate allegations 
that do not involve sexual abuse. USA Swimming has referred a limited 
number of cases that are not sexual in nature to the U.S. Center for 
SafeSport, including, for example, where there may be an existing or 
perceived conflict of interest.

    Question 4. How does the total revenue of your NGB compare to the 
others? What portion of your revenue comes from the U.S. Olympic 
Committee (USOC)?
    Answer. USA Swimming is among the top revenue-generating National 
Governing Bodies. In Fiscal Year 2017, approximately 13.1 percent of 
our revenue ($5,259,700 of $40,074,817) came from the USOC.

    Question 5. Based on your NGB's experiences in handling abuse 
allegations, did the Protecting Young Victims from Sexual Abuse and 
Safe Sport Authorization Act provide the necessary authorities to the 
Center for SafeSport and NGBs to address abuse allegations? If there 
are shortcomings, please identify them.
    Answer. USA Swimming embraces its obligations under the Act, and I 
am not familiar with any deficiency in the authority granted by the Act 
to the U.S. Center for SafeSport and NGBs to address abuse allegations. 
While USA Swimming supports the U.S. Center for Safe Sport and is fully 
committed to its success, we believe that the Center and NGBs must have 
sufficient resources in order to effectively exercise such authority.

    Question 6. Our subcommittee has heard from many survivors 
regarding Larry Nassar's sexual abuse under the guise of medical 
treatment. It is clear that centralizing all of the medical oversight, 
expertise and access in one individual for a lengthy period of time was 
a major factor that helped facilitate the abuse by Nassar. Has your NGB 
updated its medical policies and procedures to prevent this from 
happening? If so, how have you implemented these safeguards and how has 
the structure of your medical staff changed?
    Answer. USA Swimming does not allow one individual to make all 
medical decisions regarding an athlete; instead, there is collaboration 
among the USA Swimming Director of Sports Medicine, the United States 
Olympic Committee Sports Medicine Network, and the volunteer USA 
Swimming Sport Medicine Network to assess each case and provide 
relevant options for medical treatment. Athletes (and their parents) 
then make their own medical decisions and proceed in the manner they 
feel most comfortable.
    In addition, there is a rotation of volunteer medical providers 
from the USA Swimming Network that travels or provides coverage at our 
USA Swimming sanctioned events. This allows USA Swimming to have a 
diverse network of providers.

    Question 7. In the wake of the Larry Nassar sexual abuse scandal, 
what policies and procedures have you put in place regarding access, 
retention and preservation of athlete's medical records? Have you 
provided those policies to USOC?
    Answer. All USA Swimming medical records are housed in the USOC 
electronic medical records system (``EMR'') and have been since the 
USOC created EMR. For USOC sanctioned events, all medical documentation 
and medical care provisions must be documented in EMR. Access to these 
records are open to the health care providers who are providing 
coverage for that specific event.
                                 ______
                                 
    Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Dean Heller to 
                          Timothy Hinchey III
    Question 1. First, I want to start off by saying I admire the 
bravery of the athletes who have come before this Committee previously 
to share their story. As a father and grandfather, I know that what 
happened to them is every parent's worst nightmare. We live to protect 
our children, and it is disgusting to me that the individuals that they 
reported abuse to didn't protect them.
    Have you engaged with sexual assault survivor advocacy 
organizations to have them review and suggest improvements to your 
policies and procedures to ensure with certainty that your athletes are 
protected from abuse?
    Answer. Yes, USA Swimming has retained Praesidium, a national 
leader in preventing sexual abuse within organizations (https://
praesidiuminc.com), to review and evaluate the substance of our 
policies and procedures to ensure they are as effective as possible. 
This initiative was undertaken in direct response to feedback we 
received regarding our educational materials, including by survivors of 
sexual abuse within the sport. Our policies and procedures were also 
developed based on resources and feedback provided by the Child Welfare 
League of America, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the 
National Center for Missing and Exploited Children.

    Question 2. What surveys or other tools have you implemented to 
determine and measure whether your athletes feel empowered to report 
abuse? How recently were these surveys conducted?
    Answer. USA Swimming has not conducted formal surveys to determine 
whether athletes feel empowered to report abuse, but we have engaged 
with athletes on this topic through in-person meetings. For example, in 
April, I addressed our athlete protection program at the Athlete 
Leadership Summit, which was attended by 120 swimmers aged 15-18. In 
September, I attended a Safe Sport Committee meeting, where a group of 
dedicated volunteers, including athletes, addressed various ways to 
enhance the organization's athlete protection efforts and promote 
reporting. I have also had a number of face-to-face meetings with 
survivors of abuse and with our elite level athletes to receive 
feedback and share ideas. USA Swimming recognizes the value of 
expanding the sample size and demographics of those from whom it 
solicits feedback and will be pursuing additional opportunities to do 
so going forward.

    Question 3. How are your organizations ensuring young athletes 
understand what type of behavior from coaches or other adults is 
inappropriate and should be reported?
    Answer. Since 2013, USA Swimming has offered free Safe Sport 
athlete education. USA Swimming has also developed supplemental 
resources, including, for example, scenario-based trainings and 
activity books, to educate athletes on the types of behavior that are 
inappropriate and should be reported. Since May 28, 2018, USA Swimming 
has trained over 400 individuals--including coaches, athletes, and 
parents--in in-person workshops offered at member club visits to the 
Olympic Training Center, Regional Coaches Clinics, and national 
programs.
    USA Swimming is also in preliminary discussions with one of our 
largest team management platforms to push Safe Sport content through 
team websites to team administrators and parents. This is a watershed 
opportunity for our athlete protection program, whose key audience is 
swim parents, even though parents are not typically members and 
therefore more challenging to reach.
                                 ______
                                 
 Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Richard Blumenthal to 
                          Timothy Hinchey III
    Question 1. Currently, amateur athletes are only eligible for up to 
10 years after their last qualifying international competition to 
represent athletes on NGB or USOC boards. Athlete advocates have called 
for this 10-year requirement to be relaxed, so that older, possibly 
retired athletes who have more professional experience, time, and 
resources, may contribute their expertise. Would you support expanding 
the eligibility?
    Answer. Yes.

    Question 2. Provided that eligibility for athlete representation is 
expanded, would you support ensuring that the membership and voting 
power held by such amateur athletes is not less than 50 percent of the 
membership and voting power held in the board of directors of the 
corporation and in the committees and entities of the corporation?
    Answer. It would depend on how the eligibility for athlete 
representation is expanded, but there are circumstances in which I 
would support athletes holding at least 50 percent of Board and 
committee membership and voting power.

    Question 3. Please explain any factors preventing you from changing 
your NGB's bylaws to 1) increase the percent of athlete representation 
on your board, and 2) allow for older former amateur athletes who may 
have more professional experience to serve on boards. If there are no 
factors preventing you from making these changes, please explain why 
you have not or will not in the near future.
    Answer. There is nothing that prohibits more than 20 percent 
athlete representation on our Board of Directors or older former 
amateur athletes who may have more professional experience to serve on 
boards. In fact, a number of our newly-elected Board members are 
exactly that.

    Question 4. Please explain your NGB's process for changing bylaws, 
ethical codes, and any other policies or procedures.
    Answer. The majority of bylaw changes are determined by a majority 
vote of the Board of Directors. Board policies are determined by a 
majority vote of the Board of Directors. Other organizational rules 
(including its Code of Conduct) generally are determined by a majority 
vote of the House of Delegates. Operational polices are determined by a 
majority vote of the staff Strategy Team (CEO, COO, CMO, CFO and 
General Counsel/VP of Business Affairs).

    Question 5. Are you committed to making sure half of coaches at 
protected competitions are women? If yes, how do you plan to accomplish 
that?
    Answer. We cannot guarantee that half of coaches at protected 
competitions are women; however, we are committed to putting resources 
and a framework in place to ensure that all women coaches can have the 
level of career development they so desire.

    Question 6. Given USOC's oversight relationship with NGBs and since 
NGBs are required to follow guidelines and requirements set forth by 
USOC, would you agree that USOC is liable for its oversight of NGBs and 
how effectively they promote athlete safety? Why or why not?
    Answer. Yes, if the USOC is going to impose requirements on the 
NGBs, it has a responsibility to ensure those requirements are 
effective and are being met.

    Question 7. Would you support the Athletes' Advisory Council having 
a vote on USOC's Board?
    Answer. Yes.

    Question 8. Would you support the Multi-Sport Organization Council 
having a vote on USOC's Board?
    Answer. I am not sufficiently familiar with the Multi-Sport 
Organization Council to know whether or not it would be appropriate for 
the Multi-Sport Organization Council to have a seat on the USOC's 
Board.

    Question 9. If the U.S. Center for SafeSport declines to add an 
individual to its banned or temporarily suspended lists, what authority 
does your NGB have to independently take such action?
    Answer. It is my understanding that once the U.S. Center for 
SafeSport (the ``Center'') assumes jurisdiction over an individual or 
matter, the NGB is not permitted to take independent action. So, the 
NGB's authority to independently act is somewhat contingent upon 
whether or not the Center has exercised its exclusive jurisdiction over 
a matter.

    Question 10. Is it true that if NGB membership is given up before 
disciplinary action is taken, you can escape being placed on your NGB's 
disciplinary records?
    Answer. No. USA Swimming has routinely pursued disciplinary action 
against former members.

    Question 11. How can banned lists--whether on NGBs sites or the 
Center for SafeSport's records--be made more useful for athletes, 
parents, clubs? How in sync are the Center for SafeSport and NGB's 
lists?
    Answer. Banned lists can be made more useful by improving 
accessibility, searchability, and providing specific, consolidated 
information (i.e., one list for all sports). Currently, USA Swimming is 
working with the U.S. Center for SafeSport to align differing practices 
\8\ and ensure that our lists are in sync.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ Although USA Swimming waits for a decision to be final before 
posting (e.g., the opportunity to appeal has expired), it immediately 
notifies the relevant club and Local Swim Committee and updates its 
online member database in order to ensure the suspension can be 
enforced while the appeal process runs.

    Question 12. Where should individuals go for the most comprehensive 
list and information regarding banned or temporarily suspended members 
for your NGB? Does the Center for SafeSport's website have a 
comprehensive list? Does your NGB's website have a comprehensive list? 
Please explain.
    Answer. Individuals should reference USA Swimming's published lists 
of suspended individuals for the most comprehensive list and 
information regarding banned or temporarily suspended members. The U.S. 
Center for SafeSport's (the ``Center'') list only contains the names of 
those suspended by the Center (dates back to July 1, 2017). There are 
currently some names of USA Swimming members published on the Center's 
list but not USA Swimming's due to USA Swimming's practice of waiting 
for a decision to be final before posting and the Center's practice of 
posting immediately upon imposition of a suspension.\9\ We are working 
with the Center to align these practices and anticipate that it will be 
accomplished shortly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\ Although USA Swimming waits for a decision to be final before 
posting (e.g., the opportunity to appeal has expired), it immediately 
notifies the relevant club and Local Swim Committee and updates its 
online member database in order to ensure the suspension can be 
enforced while the appeal process runs.

    Question 13. If you become aware that a coach has been engaged in 
sexual misconduct, for example, would your first call be to law 
enforcement or to the Center for SafeSport?
    Answer. It is USA Swimming's practice to first contact law 
enforcement, then the U.S. Center for SafeSport.

    Question 14. Do you ever rely on the Center for SafeSport for 
required reporting to law enforcement? Under what circumstances would 
you not call law enforcement at all, but only inform the Center for 
SafeSport?
    Answer. Because USA Swimming's first call is to law enforcement and 
not the U.S. Center for SafeSport (the ``Center''), we do not rely on 
the Center for reporting to law enforcement. However, where a matter is 
first reported to the Center and not USA Swimming, USA Swimming will 
rely on the Center's representation that the matter has already been 
referred to law enforcement.

    Question 15. If you witness or receive complaints regarding 
grooming behaviors by a member, would you report that to law 
enforcement, or only to the Center for SafeSport?
    Answer. It would depend on the specific allegations. If the 
specific allegations involve possible criminal conduct or any obvious 
step towards criminal conduct, we would report that to law enforcement.

    Question 16. Under what circumstances would or have you hired an 
independent investigator to investigate a complaint?
    Answer. USA Swimming would likely hire an independent investigator 
to investigate a complaint of an alleged Code of Conduct violation 
under certain circumstances in which there wasn't a clear, per se 
violation (e.g., the existence of criminal charges).

    Question 17. How many times have you personally called law 
enforcement, pursuant to your mandatory reporting requirements?
    Answer. I personally have not reported to law enforcement, as 
complaints come in to our Safe Sport staff.

    Question 18. What specific penalties are in place for members in 
your NGB who fail to report suspected child abuse to law enforcement? 
How many times have you imposed such penalties?
    Answer. USA Swimming has had a mandatory reporting requirement 
since 2010 (see Article 306 of USA Swimming's Rules). There has been a 
circumstance where USA Swimming could demonstrate that two individuals 
affiliated with a USA Swimming member club knew of the alleged abuse 
and failed to report it. Based on the factual circumstances of that 
situation, both were subject to fine and an education requirement. In 
other circumstances, USA Swimming could reasonably foresee requesting a 
suspension or ban from membership. Further, now that the Protecting 
Young Children from Sexual Abuse and Safe Sport Authorization Act 
requires USA Swimming members to report suspected child abuse to law 
enforcement within 24 hours (regardless of state law), we will work 
with law enforcement to ensure appropriate enforcement of the law, in 
addition to our rules.

    Question 19. Has your NGB developed explicit rules that reinforce 
the ethical line between coaches and athletes (i.e., no texting, 
including parents or guardians on correspondence)?
    Answer. Yes.

    Question 20. Have you developed sport-specific educational or 
training materials to complement the more generic U.S. Center for 
SafeSport training materials? Who have you worked with in developing 
such materials?
    Answer. Yes, USA Swimming has retained Praesidium, a national 
leader in preventing sexual abuse within organizations (https://
praesidiuminc.com), to review and evaluate the substance of our 
educational and training materials. Our policies and procedures were 
also developed based on resources and feedback provided by the Child 
Welfare League of America, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 
and the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children.

    Question 21. Do you think it might be confusing to athletes for 
NGBs to have internal ``SafeSport'' programs and for there to also be a 
``U.S. Center for SafeSport'' that is actually in charge of handling 
sexual misconduct? Can you commit today to changing the name of any 
existing internal ``SafeSport'' programs to make the distinction clear 
for athletes?
    Answer. It may be confusing to some athletes for NGBs to have 
internal ``Safe Sport'' programs and for there also to be a U.S. Center 
for SafeSport; however, USA Swimming is not able to commit today to 
changing the name of our existing Safe Sport program. USA Swimming's 
Safe Sport program has existed for the past eight years and has 
developed considerable recognition among its membership. To change the 
name would likely result in greater confusion than what may presently 
exist. Further, Safe Sport includes abuse and misconduct beyond what is 
sexual in nature. Instead of making name changes, USA Swimming would 
support greater efforts to educate on and distinguish between the two 
programs.

    Question 22. At this Subcommittee's last hearing on amateur 
athletes, Mr. Han Xiao, Chair of the Athletes' Advisory Council 
testified that NGBs would intentionally circumvent athlete 
representatives. He recounted a variety of tactics including:

   Appointing rather than electing athlete representatives to 
        sign documents;

   Keeping an electronic signature of the AAC representative on 
        file to sign documents;

   Giving an AAC representative a document with very little 
        time before a submission deadline and asking for a signature;

   And scheduling meetings such that competing athlete reps 
        cannot attend, or removing what the NGB perceives to a 
        problematic athlete representative and then failing to refill 
        the position.

    Some of these tactics were employed by USA Taekwondo and documented 
in a 2012 Section 10 Complaint against the NGB.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\ https://www.teamusa.org/-/media/TeamUSA/Documents/Legal/
Arbitration--Hearing-Panel-Cases/Section-10/2011/Robinson-v-USA-
Taekwondo-22712.pdf?la=en&hash=31C1EF0B
6376CA5D5C73BEF0598708EA9A9040F1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Have you ever employed any of the above listed tactics to undermine 
the authority and responsibilities of your NGB's athlete 
representatives? Will you commit to ensuring these tactics are never 
used again in the future? How will you ensure this?
    Answer. Disenfranchising athletes in the manners outlined above is 
inexcusable, and they are not practices employed by USA Swimming.

    Question 23. The USOC has argued, time and again, to be dismissed 
from lawsuits because it has ``no control'' over NGBs. In fact, the 
evidence shows that USOC actually exercises a significant amount of 
control over NGBs, like your own. Please describe what policies, 
procedures, or guidelines are provided to NGBs through USOC. Please 
also describe any financial support, staffing, or legal support 
received from or funded by USOC.
    Answer. Expectations and responsibilities of National Governing 
Bodies are addressed in the USOC Bylaws. Additionally, there is a sport 
partnership manual that addresses a variety of considerations most 
applicable to elite athletes. About half of the USA Swimming National 
Team budget is provided by the USOC, and the USOC also provides 
significant human resources (e.g., trainers, nutritionist, etc.) for 
our National Team coaches and athletes, including on international team 
trips. The USOC does not provide legal support to USA Swimming.

    Question 24. Before the U.S. Center for SafeSport was established, 
did your NGB have the authority to suspend or ban a coach?
    Answer. Yes.

    Question 25. After the U.S. Center for SafeSport's establishment in 
March 2017, does your NGB still have the authority to independently 
suspend or ban a coach, even if the U.S. Center for SafeSport declines 
to do so?
    Answer. Yes. USA Swimming has the authority to independently 
suspend or ban a coach for reasons outside the jurisdiction of the U.S. 
Center for SafeSport (the ``Center'') or if the Center declines to 
assert its jurisdiction. However, it is my understanding that once the 
Center asserts jurisdiction, an NGB is no longer permitted to 
independently suspend or ban the relevant individual if the Center 
declines to do so.

    Question 26. In August, the Center for SafeSport declined to defend 
its ban of Jean Lopez, a taekwondo coach it had determined, months 
earlier, was engaged in a ``decades long pattern of sexual 
misconduct.'' The Center then removed him from its database of 
sanctioned individuals. Despite this, Steve McNally, the President and 
CEO of USA Taekwondo, has kept Jean Lopez on USA Taekwondo's suspension 
list.\11\ Do you think Mr. McNally's decision was appropriate? Would 
you have made the same decision? Why or why not?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\ https://www.teamusa.org/usa-taekwondo/v2-resources/legal/usat-
suspension-list
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Answer. I am not familiar enough with the facts, circumstances, and 
processes at issue in this scenario to draw conclusions of its 
appropriateness and whether or not I would do the same thing.

    Question 27. What consequences have and will you impose on member 
clubs that do not take your NGB's banned and suspended lists seriously? 
Please explain what enforcement mechanisms you have. How often have you 
exercised such enforcement mechanisms? Please detail.
    Answer. USA Swimming's rules explicitly prohibit member clubs and 
coaches from allowing any suspended individual to coach or instruct 
athletes, from aiding or abetting the coaching or instruction of 
athletes, or for allowing such individuals to have an ownership 
interest in a USA Swimming club (See Article 304.3.10 of USA Swimming's 
Rules). To date, we have been able to clearly communicate our 
expectations to affected member clubs and have not had to enforce these 
provisions.

    Question 28. How regularly on background checks conducted on your 
members?
    Answer. Monthly background checks are conducted on non-athlete 
members.

    Question 29. There are criticisms that the term ``SafeSport,'' 
according to a Deadspin article, was developed and trademarked by the 
USOC to serve as ``a pleasant-sounding euphemism for a horrible set of 
acts.'' \12\ How you lead by example, when it comes to making sure 
sexual abuse is not merely swept under the rug as ``SafeSport'' issues?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\ https://deadspin.com/safesport-the-usocs-attempt-to-stop-
child-abuse-is-se-1826279217
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Answer. During a meeting with a survivor, she brought this same 
issue to my attention and underscored the need to call it what it was--
child sexual abuse. Since that time, I have made a conscientious effort 
to use those words as often as possible and have encouraged my staff to 
do the same.

    Question 30. What does a pedophile or sexual predator look like?
    Answer. As I'm sure you know, you can't identify a pedophile or 
sexual predator by the way they look. They are young and old, men and 
women, of all ethnic groups and backgrounds, and often look like a 
``normal'' or ``nice'' person.

    Question 31. In your experience investigating sexual misconduct 
complaints, I'm sure you often receive character witness statements 
from parents and athletes themselves. Have you found that there's any 
correlation between such statements and whether the individual is 
actually guilty? How much weight should be placed in such character 
witness statements? Can you commit to reducing the weight--if any--that 
your NGB currently places on such statements during an investigation?
    Answer. USA Swimming has not found that there is any correlation 
between character statements and whether the individual has engaged in 
the alleged misconduct. USA Swimming has regularly and effectively 
argued that such statements should be given limited, if any, weight.

    Question 32. Do you agree that it is possible for an individual to 
be respectful to certain individuals, and abusive toward others?
    Answer. Yes.

    Question 33. What is the process in which your NGB keeps its 
respective website and other publications up to date listing banned or 
temporarily suspended individuals by the Center for SafeSport? Does 
your NGB have a dedicated staff member update these lists? If so, what 
is the position title of said staffer? How often are these lists 
checked to keep current? On a daily basis?
    Answer. Once USA Swimming receives information from the U.S. Center 
for Safe Sport (the ``Center'') regarding an individual's ban or 
suspension, USA Swimming's Safe Sport Coordinator updates USA 
Swimming's list. The lists are updated in real time; however, there are 
currently some names of USA Swimming members published on the Center's 
list but not USA Swimming's due to USA Swimming's practice of waiting 
for a decision to be final before posting \13\ and the Center's 
practice of posting immediately upon imposition of a suspension. We are 
working with the Center to align these practices and anticipate that it 
will be accomplished shortly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\ Although USA Swimming waits for a decision to be final before 
posting (e.g., the opportunity to appeal has expired), it immediately 
notifies the relevant club and Local Swim Committee and updates its 
online member database in order to ensure the suspension can be 
enforced while the appeal process runs.

    Question 34. Who pays for your NGB's attorney fees in arbitration? 
Is it supported in any way by USOC?
    Answer. USA Swimming pays for its attorney fees in arbitration and 
does not receive any financial support from the USOC in connection 
therewith.

    Question 35. Who pays for athletes' attorney fees in arbitration? 
Do you provide any assistance for athlete's attorney fees?
    Answer. Athletes are not a party to Safe Sport-related 
arbitrations. Instead, USA Swimming acts as the complaining party 
against the accused respondent.

    Question 36. What assistance do you receive from the USOC when in 
arbitration? What kind of legal guidance does the USOC provide in such 
cases?
    Answer. None.

    Question 37. Arbitration proceedings can be re-victimizing for 
survivors, who must relive their most painful memories under a grueling 
cross-examination. Questions asked by the opposing side have reportedly 
included intimate questions about an individual's personal sexual 
history. Do you believe such questions about an individual's sexual 
history relevant? How so? Can you commit to barring any such questions 
from further arbitration or legal proceedings?
    Answer. I do not believe such questions about an individual's 
sexual history are relevant, and that line of questioning has been 
objected to and disallowed in USA Swimming hearing proceedings.

    Question 38. Former USA Swimmer and Olympic Gold medalist Nancy 
Hogshead-Makar has noted that women are largely missing from leadership 
positions throughout swimming's more competitive levels. While women 
represent just over 50 percent of coaches in the sport nationwide, a 
meager fraction of women comprise the elite ranks of the sport. As 
recently as 2016, the U.S. Olympic swim team had no female coaches. 
What, in your opinion, is the reason for the dearth of women coaching 
at Olympic levels, and other elite coaching levels in the sport?
    Answer. USA Swimming has over 50 percent female coaches in its 
membership; however, the percentage is far lower at the elite level. 
Like a number of other industries and professions, the culture and 
lifestyle of elite level coaching does not always lend itself to 
balance, and many women opt out to pursue other opportunities, 
including raising a family. Additionally, it seems that even the best 
female coaches in the country have to work harder to earn the respect 
of others. Therefore, we are working to change the culture of elite 
level coaching and provide opportunities and support to female coaches 
who want to pursue that opportunity.

    Question 39. Do you believe that a lack of female coaches is 
problematic?
    Answer. Yes.

    Question 40. Do you believe that holding a Women in Coaching Task 
Force, or other coaching summits aimed at female coaches is sufficient 
to actually reduce gender disparity at elite levels? Beyond these 
leadership resources, what is your NGB doing to change the culture that 
currently stifles women leaders within sport?
    Answer. I do not believe that holding a Women in Coaching Task 
Force or similar summit is sufficient to reduce gender disparity at 
elite levels, but it is a start and it gives female coaches a support 
system. We have also recently brought on a consultant in this area, 
Susan Teeter, who was the women's swimming coach at Princeton for over 
30 years, in order to help develop programs to improve in this area. 
USA recognizes the need to do more in this space and we will continue 
to look for ways to progress.

    Question 41. Do you agree that more female coaches at an elite 
level would make athletes safer?
    Answer. More female coaches at an elite level may positively change 
the training and competing environments and/or encourage some athletes 
to raise concerns they have.

    Question 42. The AAC has reported concerns that the Athlete 
Ombudsman does not act independently of the USOC leadership. Would you 
agree that the Athlete Ombudsman should be moved outside the USOC 
structure to an Office of Inspector General or another external office?
    Answer. Although I am not familiar with the specifics of these 
concerns, I can appreciate how they could arise and would support a 
change in structure that enabled the Athlete Ombudsman to do her/his 
job as effectively as possible.

    Question 43. Do you believe that the U.S. Center for Safe Sport is 
sufficiently independent from the USOC? What conflicts of interest 
currently exist that prevent the Center from achieving true 
independence?
    Answer. No, I don't believe that the U.S. Center for SafeSport (the 
``Center') is completely independent from the USOC due in large part to 
the Center receiving the majority of its funding from the USOC. 
However, in the absence of other meaningful funding sources, I think it 
is more important that the Center has the resources to exist and 
operate effectively.

    Question 44. Do you think former employees of the USOC should be 
working at the U.S. Center for SafeSport? Do you understand how this 
would compromise the Center's independence?
    Answer. I appreciate the concerns regarding employees of the USOC 
working at the U.S. Center for SafeSport; however, I support putting 
the most effective staff in place, regardless of whether or not that 
includes prior employment at the USOC.

    Question 45. Would you support the creation of an Office of 
Inspector General office--like the oversight branches of Federal or 
state agencies--to independently investigate internal abuse, 
mismanagement or misconduct and promote efficiency and effectiveness at 
the USOC, U.S. Center for Safe Sport, and National Governing Bodies?
    Answer. Yes.

    Question 46. Regarding health insurance for athletes, what criteria 
does your NGB use to determine which athletes receive paid health 
insurance coverage either through the NGB or USOC? What percentage of 
the cost of this health insurance coverage are your respective athletes 
or their families responsible for?
    Answer. USA Swimming and the USOC provide the Elite Athlete Health 
Insurance (``EAHI'') program opportunity to all National Team athletes. 
This enables all National Team athletes to have access to health, 
vision, and dental coverage and access to a nationwide database of 
providers to aid in their health care. In addition, EAHI enables access 
to the USOC National Medical Network (NMN), which provides flights and 
accommodations to any of the USOC Olympic Training Centers for 
evaluation and treatment for any illness or injury. If additional 
subspecialty evaluation/treatment is needed, athletes will be referred 
to those providers at no cost.
    Within the last two years, the USOC and USA Swimming has agreed to 
extend this service to former Olympians and National Team athletes who 
incurred an injury and are not training and those who are training 
through an injury but fell out of the ``National Team'' category due to 
the injury. In a few cases, we have also extended the program to Junior 
Team athletes who incurred unique injuries, so that they did not have 
to search for medical specialist on their own to receive a proper 
diagnosis and treatment.
    Finally, beginning with the 2016 Olympic Team, we offer the Olympic 
team insurance for a year after each Games regardless of whether or not 
they are training or competing.
    Athletes are only responsible for paying taxes on the USOC EAHI.

    Question 47. What percentage of your athletes receive health 
insurance through the Elite Health Insurance Plan (EHIP)? Does this 
program cover sports-or competition-related injuries? Does this program 
cover non-competition-related injuries?
    Answer. The majority of USA Swimming's National Team and 
professional athletes receive Elite Athlete Health Insurance (EAHI) 
through the USOC and USA Swimming. Although EAHI does not cover all 
sports-or competition-related injuries, supplemental coverage is 
provided by USA Swimming. The EAHI program covers non-competition-
related injuries.

    Question 48. Does your NGB terminate the insurance of athletes 
whose injuries may impact their competition status? If so, how much 
notice is provided to the athlete?
    Answer. If USA Swimming is aware of an athlete's injury, we try to 
keep them on EAHI as long as possible; however, if an athlete's 
insurance is terminated, they are given at least one months' notice.

    Question 49. Please describe any other NGB-or USOC-sanctioned 
health insurance programs available to member athletes and whether 
those programs are paid for by the NGB or USOC.
    Answer. In addition to EAHI, USA Swimming's Injury Claims Insurance 
has allowed member athletes who have been injured while training or 
competing to use its services to cover doctors' visits, physical 
therapy, and/or medical imaging that, without this service, they would 
have had to pay for or claim under personal policies.
    In addition, in these types of cases we can refer members to our 
``Senior Physician Network,'' which is a small group of Primary Care, 
Orthopedic, Cardiology, Neurology, Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, 
and Pulmonology physicians who have been subject to a background check 
and had their medical credentials reviewed and verified. These 
physicians are then able to review cases and refer them to regional 
colleagues, as appropriate. This senior group of physicians are 
recognized by their peers as experts in their respective fields of 
medicine and are a tremendous asset to USA Swimming.
    Both of these programs have greatly benefited USA Swimming members, 
especially those families who don't have medical insurance and older 
athletes who are no longer covered under their undergraduate 
institutions' or parents' coverage.

    Question 50. Does this health insurance program provide coverage 
for mental health services? Do you believe that mental health services 
are important for athletes? Do you believe that it is or should be your 
NGB's responsibility to provide mental health services and coverage for 
athletes?
    Answer. Yes, EAHI provides coverage for mental health services. USA 
Swimming recognizes that mental health services are critically 
important for athletes and that it is our responsibility to provide 
such services for athletes.

    Question 51. Beyond insurance coverage, what mental health services 
does your respective NGB currently provide for athletes? Are these 
services available to all athletes under the NGB's purview, or just 
athletes at elite levels? What can your NGB specifically do to improve 
your athlete wellness and mental health support services for athletes?
    Answer. Mental health services was the number one request from our 
2016 Olympic Team, as well as the membership as a whole at the 2016 
annual U.S. Aquatics Sports Conference. As a result, USA Swimming has 
developed a three-pronged approach:

  a.  Provide a licensed psychologist at all Gold Medal Meets and any 
        training camp hosted at an Olympic training center. Ideally, we 
        would like to expand this service to more international meets 
        and are in the process of creating a network of providers that 
        have passed both the USA Swimming background screen and the 
        USOC medical credential/background screen to aid.

  b.  Create a Task Force, consisting of a sport psychologist, social 
        workers, medical providers, and three former National team 
        athletes to create the best services and resources for all 
        registered members. Two of the former National Team athletes on 
        the Task Force have either received or are in the process of 
        completing their post graduate degrees in the field of mental 
        health.

  c.  Continue to engage with our membership on the topic. For the past 
        two years we have presented at the annual convention on our 
        current efforts and solicited feedback from all attendees on 
        how we can structure mental health services to address the 
        needs of our registered members and improve/enhance or create 
        resources requested.

    USA Swimming will also be hiring a full-time dedicated staff member 
in 2019 to focus exclusively on athlete and coach mental health.

    Question 52. What is the process for an athlete at your NGB to take 
advantage of these mental health services--for example, do they have to 
first notify their coach or an executive at your NGB? Do you think that 
in cases regarding mental health services, it is appropriate to require 
an athlete to first notify their coach or NGB leadership of a potential 
mental health problem before receiving treatment or assistance? Do you 
agree that such a policy places athletes in a position where they can 
potentially be retaliated against, or further abused? Do you agree that 
at the very least, such a policy could prevent athletes from coming 
forward to take advantage of critical mental health services?
    Answer. An athlete's ability to take advantage of mental health 
services is not conditioned upon them notifying their coach or anyone 
at USA Swimming. Such a requirement would be inappropriate.

    Question 53. What was your NGB's total budget in Fiscal Year 2017?
    Answer. In Fiscal Year 2017, USA Swimming's total revenue was 
$40,074,817 and expenses were $38,006,170

    Question 54. How much (dollar amount or percentage) of the budget 
came from the USOC either directly or in the form of grants?
    Answer. In Fiscal Year 2017, $5,259,700 or 13.1 percent of total 
revenue came from the USOC.

    Question 55. What percentage of your budget goes to direct athlete 
support in the form of a stipend? How many athletes receive a stipend?
    Answer. In Fiscal Year 2017, direct athlete support (including 
stipends) totaled $2,897,000 or 36.3 percent of National Team expenses 
($7,983,203). Seventy-nine athletes received stipends totaling 
$1,307,524, which is 3.4 percent of the organization's total expenses 
and 16.4 percent of the National Team's total expenses.

    Question 56. Does USOC have any role in budgeting decisions within 
your NGB?
    Answer. The USOC does not have a formal role in budgeting decisions 
within USA Swimming.

    Question 57. Does your current NGB budget limit your ability to 
provide services to athletes? Does it limit your ability to implement 
and adhere to Center for Safe Sport policy, or to conduct thorough 
internal investigations on complaints of misconduct?
    Answer. Although USA Swimming could always do more with a larger 
budget, our current budget does not limit our ability to provide 
services to athletes or implement and adhere to U.S. Center for 
SafeSport policy or conduct thorough investigations on complaints of 
misconduct.

    Question 58. Does USOC have the ability to direct your NGB in 
making decisions related to Olympic competition?
    Answer. With respect to Olympic Team selection, the USOC approves 
team selection procedures, but USA Swimming conducts the U.S. Olympic 
Team Trials and selects the Olympic team. When we are on the ground at 
the Olympic Games, the USOC coordinates much of the logistical 
planning, and we take advantage of the services they are uniquely able 
to provide as a National Olympic Committee.

    Question 59. Does your NGB have a ``two-deep'' policy, so that an 
adult is never alone with an athlete? Why or why not? Have you 
considered such a policy?
    Answer. Yes, this policy, in addition to a policy addressing open 
and observable environments is included in USA Swimming's Best Practice 
Guidelines, which were developed in 2010 and are publicly available at 
https://www.usaswimming.org/docs/default-source/safe-sportdocuments/
club-toolkit/1.-policies-and-guidelines/best-practices_general-safe-
sport.pdf.

    Question 60. Has USOC ever asked NGBs to consider a ``two-deep'' 
policy?
    Answer. Not to my knowledge.

    Question 61. Most child-safety experts recommend a policy of not 
texting a minor individually. In other words, coaches can text others 
in a group, or can include parents on the text, but should not text 
athletes individually. Why hasn't your NGB adopted such a policy to 
ensure inappropriate conversations are not taking place?
    Answer. USA Swimming's Model Policy: Electronic Communication was 
created as a resource for clubs in 2012 and addresses this concern. USA 
Swimming's Rules require member clubs to have an electronic 
communications policy and provide that in the absence of one, USA 
Swimming's model policy is the default. The policy is publicly 
available at https://www.usaswimming.org/docs/default-source/temp/safe-
sport/reporting/model-policy_electronic-communication.pdf.

    Question 62. To the best of your knowledge, does the U.S. Center 
for SafeSport operate a ``flagged list'' of individuals that is aware 
of that have committed sexual misconduct, but not have been members at 
the time? Has USA Swimming ever operated such a list? How is this list 
operated and updated?
    Answer. USA Swimming does not maintain a ``flagged list'' of 
individuals. Rather, USA Swimming has an established practice of 
creating non-member records to include in its member database for 
certain people who should be ineligible for membership. USA Swimming 
has approximately 300 of such non-member records that have blocks to 
prevent the individual from registering with USA Swimming without a 
review by headquarters. A block is placed on a non-member record due to 
(1) international doping control violation; (2) failure to pass a 
background check; or (3) report made to USA Swimming that would 
constitute a Code of Conduct violation if the individual were under the 
jurisdiction of USA Swimming.
    USA Swimming retains jurisdiction over individuals who violated its 
rules while members, so whether or not an individual is a member at the 
time the organization learns of the misconduct is irrelevant.
    The U.S. Center for SafeSport has a similar process for those 
circumstances involving sexual misconduct, which it refers to as an 
``administrative hold.''

    Question 63. If a USA Swimming member were to resign or otherwise 
give up membership before it is found out that he or she is guilty of 
sexual misconduct, would that former member be added to the USA 
Swimming's banned or suspended list? Why or why not? Or would that 
member just be added to USA Swimming's ``flagged list''?
    Answer. USA Swimming retains jurisdiction over individuals who 
violated its rules while members, so whether or not an individual is a 
member at the time the organization learns of the misconduct is 
irrelevant.

    Question 64. What is the purpose for not publishing the names of 
individuals on USA Swimming's ``flagged list''? Can you commit to 
publishing these names moving forward on your website, as you do 
individuals on your or the Center for SafeSport's banned or temporarily 
suspended list?
    Answer. USA Swimming publishes the names of individuals who have 
been banned or suspended for violating the organization's rules. There 
has been no finding of a USA Swimming rule violation (nor could there 
be based on jurisdictional issues) for those who have had non-member 
records created in order to prevent them from subsequently joining the 
organization. Further, the information USA Swimming receives in order 
to create and block a non-member record is already publicly available.

    Question 65. If a USA Swimming member were to resign or otherwise 
give up membership before it is found out that he or she is guilty of 
sexual misconduct, could that former member be added to the U.S. Center 
for SafeSport's banned or temporarily suspended list?
    Answer. Yes, like USA Swimming, the U.S. Center for SafeSport (the 
``Center'') retains jurisdiction over individuals who violated USA 
Swimming's rules while members, so whether or not an individual is a 
member at the time the Center learns of the misconduct is irrelevant.

    Question 66. During the hearing, you committed to following up on 
the cases regarding former USA Swimming coaches Paul Bergen and Norm 
Havercroft. Please provide any update you have on their case. Please 
explain any disciplinary action taken against members on this list.
    Answer. The information USA Swimming possesses regarding these 
cases is being shared with the U.S. Center for SafeSport now that it 
has exclusive jurisdiction over allegations of sexual abuse.

    Question 67. Are there any individuals on your flagged list whom 
you've received complaints about, but that you have not acted on 
because they are not currently USA Swimming members?
    Although USA Swimming does not maintain a ``flagged list,'' the 
very purpose of creating and blocking a non-member record is to 
identify individuals outside the jurisdiction of USA Swimming who have 
engaged in misconduct and ensure they are not able to join the 
organization in the future.\14\ Again, USA Swimming retains 
jurisdiction over individuals who violated USA Swimming's rules while 
members, so whether or not an individual is a member at the time the 
organization learns of the misconduct is irrelevant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \14\ For example, a non-member record may be created for a swim 
coach criminally charged with sexual misconduct who is not and was 
never a member of USA Swimming. We typically receive notification of 
the misconduct allegations via a Google alert highlighting a local news 
story. If the criminal charge ultimately is dropped, the coach would be 
able to pass a criminal background check and join USA Swimming. Based 
on the creation of a non-member record and designating it to require 
headquarters clearance, we are notified of the application, able to 
check our records, and intervene in the membership application process, 
as appropriate. It has not happened with any frequency, but it is 
critically important that we are aware if and when it does.

    Question 68. Does USA Swimming notify local clubs and communities, 
or any other national team--i.e. Team Canada--if individuals on this 
flagged list relocate and coach in locations that are not under USA 
Swimming's jurisdiction? Are you aware that reports indicate that 
members on this very list have simply relocated and easily found new 
positions? Will you commit to doing the right thing, and notifying 
other clubs or countries that employ, perhaps unwittingly, individuals 
on your flagged list who are guilty of sexual misconduct?
    Answer. We do not track individuals who are outside the 
jurisdiction of USA Swimming; however, the scenario you describe 
underscores the value of pre-employment screening, which USA Swimming 
requires its member clubs to do before hiring a coach. Additionally, 
the information which we rely upon to create a non-member record is 
already publicly available.

    Question 69. Do you feel responsible for any abuse that occurs at 
the hands of these flagged individuals?
    Answer. These are individuals unaffiliated with USA Swimming who 
have already been publicly identified (including criminally charged) 
for misconduct that occurred unrelated to USA Swimming. Our intent in 
recording this information is to ensure they never become members of 
USA Swimming.

    Question 70. Following the hearing, video footage was captured 
where your legal counsel appears to represent that USA Swimming's 
database should represent the complete list of disciplined members--not 
the Center for SafeSport's database. There appears to be at least 
thirteen individuals who are currently suspended or banned by the U.S. 
Center for SafeSport, but whose names do not appear on any of USA 
Swimming's public database of disciplined members. One individual left 
off of USA Swimming's database is Sean Hutchinson, whom we know 
sexually abused Olympic swimmer Ariana Kukors. There's also swimming 
coach Steven Lochte, who quietly resigned this past summer--just before 
he was given an interim suspension by the Center for SafeSport in 
September. The lack of an accurate centralized database to verify 
membership underscores USA Swimming's complicity in ``passing the 
garbage''--passing sexual predators from one club to another. Why are 
so many individuals listed on the Center for SafeSport's disciplinary 
records missing from the permanent and temporary banned lists on the 
USA Swimming site? If this was simply a mistake, have you rectified it?
    Answer. USA Swimming and the U.S. Center for SafeSport (the 
``Center'') have different practices regarding the publication of 
names, which we are currently working to address. USA Swimming does not 
publish names until the hearing process has come to a final resolution, 
whereas the Center publishes upon the imposition of a suspension. As a 
result, the Center's list includes certain names of individuals whose 
cases remain pending, including Sean Hutchison and Steven Lochte. 
However, in those cases, USA Swimming still notifies the relevant 
member club and Local Swimming Committee and updates its online member 
database to avoid ``passing the garbage.''

    Question 71. Mr. Hinchey, if these lists are not kept up to date, 
how can you expect athletes, clubs, and communities to accurately 
verify membership and prevent predators from abusing athletes?
    Answer. Though the lists are kept up to date, USA Swimming 
recognizes the confusion caused by the different publication practices 
by the U.S. Center for SafeSport (the ``Center'') and USA Swimming, and 
we are working with the Center to remedy it.

    Question 72. Former USA Swimming coach Michael McCorvy was deemed 
permanently ineligible by Magnolia Aquatic Club this past April. While 
no recent charges have been filed against McCorvy, his ban was likely 
due to his 1992 charge of criminal trespassing and sexual assault. If 
USA Swimming is actually requiring their coaches to pass background 
checks, how did McCorvy--with his sexual assault crimes that were pled 
down to a misdemeanor--pass his checks from 1992 on? Why isn't he on 
USA Swimming's list of disciplined individuals?
    Answer. USA Swimming's criminal background check is premised on the 
vendor's ability to obtain criminal records under applicable state and 
Federal law. McCorvy's 1992 charges of criminal trespassing and sexual 
assault were not reported on his criminal background report. He is not 
on USA Swimming's list of disciplined individuals because his case 
remains pending. As previously described, USA Swimming does not publish 
the names of individuals whose cases remain pending (though it does 
notify the applicable member club and Local Swimming Committee and 
updates its online member database).

    Question 73. Do USA Swimming background checks flag both felonies 
and misdemeanors--especially if the misdemeanors are sexual in nature? 
Do background checks that are currently being administered now flag 
those with misdemeanors of a sexual nature? How so?
    Answer. Yes, USA Swimming's Background Check Policy is publicly 
available at https://www.usaswimming.org/background-checks.

    Question 74. In January 2018, three USA Swimming members were added 
to its banned list. All had committed sexually-related crimes that are 
being investigated or adjudicated by legal authorities.\15\ One 
individual, Nathan Weddle, was arrested in December on allegations that 
he had sex with a 15-year old swimmer that he coached. The other two, 
James Cutrone and Christian Valcarce, were arrested on charges of child 
pornography. However, on USA Swimming's website, they are just banned 
under ``Violation of the SafeSport Code.'' None of the reasons included 
their sexual crimes, diminishing the list's value to non-USA Swimming 
organizations that might attempt to hire the three individuals. What 
are you doing to make your banned and suspended lists more informative?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \15\ https://swimswam.com/usa-swimmings-list-banned-members-brings-
confusion/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Answer. Presently, USA Swimming's banned and suspended lists cite 
to the rule violation that resulted in the sanction. Based on the 
applicable rule and year, it is clearer in some instances more than 
others what was the underlying conduct resulting in the sanction. USA 
Swimming recognizes that the basis for the ban or suspension is 
relevant and important and is working to address this while still 
maintaining the accuracy and integrity of the publication.

    Question 75. Local swim clubs that are members of USA Swimming were 
insured until 2014 by U.S. Sports Insurance Company Inc., a company 
originally based in Barbados created and solely owned by USA Swimming 
and governed by former and current USA Swimming officials. The company 
provided general liability coverage for sexual abuse to local clubs, 
and also was responsible for underwriting USA Swimming's scorched 
earth, plaintiff-draining legal defense strategy against sexual abuse 
claims. Is it true that U.S. Sports Insurance Company Inc. was 
partially paid for by the fees of amateur swimmers at the club level?
    Answer. Prior to 2014, and as far back as 1980, Lexington Insurance 
Company provided yearly insurance policies to USA Swimming and member 
clubs. USSIC (referred to as U.S. Sports Insurance Company, Inc.) 
provided some level of reinsurance to Lexington Insurance Company 
beginning in 1988. Insurance is a benefit of membership, so that member 
clubs can lease or rent pool time. Membership fees are one category of 
USA Swimming's revenue; insurance is one category of USA Swimming's 
expenses.
    The defense strategy of each case is and was determined by the 
facts of the case and applicable law. Settlement demands were evaluated 
by Lexington Insurance Company and the individual defendants' 
attorneys, rather than a ``scorched earth, plaintiff-draining legal 
defense strategy.''
    USSIC also had two independent board members as part of the 
governance structure that were not affiliated with USA Swimming.

    Question 76. Do you find anything disturbing about swimmers paying 
the fees of lawyers who might fight against them in court someday 
regarding sexual abuse litigation?
    Answer. Swimmers do not pay the fees of lawyers. Swimmers generally 
pay monthly dues to their club, which covers a membership fee, cost of 
pool time, and club expenses such as coaching salaries. A small part of 
the dues is passed along to USA Swimming. Insurance is a benefit of 
membership in USA Swimming since practice facilities and meet 
facilities require clubs to provide evidence of insurance. The facts of 
each case are evaluated by the insurer's claim adjusters and defense 
counsel representing each individual defendant, who make the decision 
on the nature and extent of the defense and respond to settlement 
demands.

    Question 77. While the U.S. Sports Insurance Company Inc. provides 
$2 million worth of liability insurance for sexual abuse civil cases, 
until recently the company provided local clubs just $100,000 in 
coverage in sexual abuse cases. Do you think that $100,000 is 
``enough'' coverage to protect individuals at local swim coverage, 
given the massive scope of sexual abuse in the sport?
    Answer. Effective January 1, 2014, and due to the improving risk 
profile of USA Swimming and its member clubs, the insurance marketplace 
increased the limits available to USA Swimming clubs to $1,000,000 per 
occurrence and $5,000,000 aggregate and provided additional limits 
where required by written contract. From a practical standpoint, the 
question is not what is ``enough'' coverage, but what is available in 
the marketplace to purchase during any given year.

    Question 78. There was a real purpose for reducing the financial 
exposure of the U.S. Sports Insurance Company, and it wasn't a good 
one. According to the OC Register, the lower liability coverage for 
local clubs was a factor in generating millions of dollars in ``safety 
rebates'' from the company back to USA Swimming. Do you know what the 
term ``self-dealing'' means? Are you aware that this arrangement 
between USA Swimming and the insurance company is a prime example of 
this practice?
    Answer. USSIC was owned by USA Swimming; it was not an independent 
insurance company. Safety Rebates (or dividends) from USSIC were paid 
from 1999 to 2006 and were paid based on improving loss experience and 
lower insurance premiums. The improved experience was due to lower 
frequency and severity of injuries due to racing starts. It is not 
uncommon for a subsidiary to pay a dividend to a parent company. USA 
Swimming capitalized USSIC in 1988 and subsequent years with over $5 
million and paid additional capital to USSIC of $1.7 million in 2011. 
Prior to 2006, there were very few claims of sexual misconduct filed 
against USA Swimming member clubs.

    Question 79. This arrangement also signals that USA Swimming was 
aware that there was a sexual abuse problem in swimming. Do you 
recognize that USA Swimming was essentially betting on the rate of 
sexual abuse that would occur under its very watch?
    Answer. USSIC was established 1988 due to injuries from racing 
starts. There was a significant improvement in injuries from racing 
starts due to USA Swimming's racing start certification program and 
adoption of minimum pool depths for racing starts. The captive insurer 
did not tie safety rebates to sexual abuse; rather, the safety rebates 
were paid before an increase in sexual misconduct claims and due to a 
decrease in racing start injuries.

    Question 80. I know that this arrangement occurred before you took 
the reins as the leader of USA Swimming, but I want you to take a 
moment and reflect. Do you think that betting a financial windfall on 
the backs of sexual abuse survivors is morally reprehensible?
    Answer. I don't believe USA Swimming bet a financial windfall on 
the backs of sexual abuse survivors.

    Question 81. How much money has USA Swimming spent on legal fees? 
How much has USA Swimming spent in the voluntary compensation for 
abuse--not including settlements or lawsuits?
    Answer. In Fiscal Year 2017, USA Swimming spent approximately 
$300,000 on legal fees, which included business operations expenses, in 
addition to Safe Sport-related disciplinary matters. In Fiscal Year 
2017, USA Swimming paid approximately $23,000 through its survivors' 
assistance fund, SwimAssist. We recognize that SwimAssist is 
underutilized and have taken a number of steps to increase awareness of 
it among our membership. In 2019, SwimAssist is currently budgeted at 
$100,000 with $1.5 million in reserves.

    Question 82. Has USA Swimming set up, or attempted to set up a 
victim's defense fund? Looking back in retrospect as the organization's 
current leader, do you believe that the cost of such a fund would have 
been less than the cumulative amount that USA Swimming has spent on 
litigation with abuse survivors?
    Answer. To my knowledge, USA Swimming has not attempted to set up a 
victim's defense fund, and I am unable to speculate whether the cost of 
such a fund would have been less than the cumulative amount that USA 
Swimming has spent on civil litigation involving claims of sexual 
misconduct.

    Question 83. Is it USA Swimming's policy to automatically deny 
responsibility in civil lawsuits regarding their role in sexual abuse? 
What type of message do you believe that USA Swimming's litigation 
sends to survivors?
    Answer. USA Swimming's legal strategy is largely developed by local 
counsel based on the relevant facts and in accordance with applicable 
law. USA Swimming does not have a policy to automatically deny 
responsibility in civil lawsuits.

    Question 84. It is my understanding that the U.S. Sports Insurance 
Company Inc. was sold in 2014. Does USA Swimming currently have an 
insurance company that provides coverage for sexual abuse? Which 
company? Is it run in-house by former and current USA Swimming 
officials, like the last company?
    Answer. USA Swimming started purchasing insurance from K&K 
Insurance Company in 2014, who provides the insurance through National 
Casualty. Commercial insurance became available to USA Swimming due to 
our improving risk profile and a strong Safe Sport program. USSIC was 
sold to R&Q Insurance in 2016. Neither entity is run by former members 
or officials; both are public companies unrelated to USA Swimming.

    Question 85. Has USA Swimming encountered difficulty in maintaining 
an insurance plan after the scope of the sexual abuse scandal has 
become clear?
    Answer. No. Besides K&K Insurance/National Casualty, other insurers 
have submitted insurance proposals to USA Swimming due to our improving 
risk profile. USA Swimming has not encountered difficulty in 
maintaining an insurance plan, and the current insurance plan is in 
place through 2019. USA Swimming was able to obtain increased insurance 
limits for clubs in 2014 due to our improving risk profile from our 
Safe Sport program.

    Question 86. Does USA Swimming still require athletes to contribute 
to its insurance plan with an athlete fee of any sort? Do these fees 
still underwrite USA Swimming's litigation against sexual abuse 
claimants?
    Answer. USA Swimming has a membership fee which is one source of 
revenue. Insurance is a benefit of membership. We do not initiate 
litigation against sexual abuse victims, but our insurer may pay 
defense costs for legal cases filed against individual defendants in 
line with the insurance contract. We also maintain a survivors' 
assistance fund, SwimAssist, and provide Participant Accident Insurance 
to members.

    Question 87. Do you have any comment on how your predecessor 
handled the U.S. Sports Insurance Company Inc. in regards to collecting 
funds from amateur club swimmers to combat athlete sexual abuse civil 
suits? Do you have comment regarding USA Swimming's tactics of 
litigation against abuse victims?
    Answer. It is my understanding that USSIC was set up in 1988, prior 
to any sexual abuse litigation filed against USA Swimming, and sold in 
2014. Membership dues have been part of USA Swimming since 1980 and are 
one source of the organization's annual revenue. USA Swimming's 
litigation strategies are largely developed by counsel in line with the 
facts alleged and applicable law. Any comment about my predecessor, who 
I never met, would be inappropriate, but under my leadership, USA 
Swimming is committed to an improved Safe Sport program and 
relationships with survivors of abuse in the sport.

    Question 88. In 2013, USA Swimming paid Nielsen Merksamer, a 
Sacramento lobbying firm, $77,627 to lobby against SB 131, California 
legislation that would have given childhood sexual abuse victims more 
time to file civil suits and recover damages against organizations that 
employed sexual predators. Why do you think that USA Swimming was 
interested in lobbying against legislation that would have helped 
sexual abuse victims? Do you believe that this expenditure represents 
an appropriate use of funds for USA Swimming?
    Answer. Although I was not here in 2013, my understanding is that 
USA Swimming's objections to the legislation were similar in nature to 
what Governor Brown cited in his veto of the legislation https://
www.gov.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/
SB_131_2013_Veto_Message.pdf). However, I do not envision USA Swimming 
lobbying against state law under my leadership.

    Question 89. Do you believe that USA Swimming's liability against 
sexual abuse litigation should be protected more than athletes' safety? 
Do you believe that advocating for legislation that would reduce your 
organization's legal risk at the expense of survivors sends the right 
message after hundreds were abused over decades under USA Swimming's 
watch?
    Answer. Although I was not here in 2013, my understanding is that 
USA Swimming's objections to the legislation were similar in nature to 
what Governor Brown cited in his veto of the legislation https://
www.gov.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/
SB_131_2013_Veto_Message.pdf). However, I do not envision USA Swimming 
lobbying against state law under my leadership.

    Question 90. Is USA Swimming currently using funds to lobby against 
child or sexual abuse legislation? Is USA Swimming currently spending 
money on any lobbying, or government affairs work? If yes, what are 
they advocating on behalf of?
    Answer. USA Swimming is not currently using funds for lobbying 
activities, including child or sexual abuse legislation. In 2019, we 
anticipate getting more involved in other legislative matters, 
including, for example, water safety and anti-doping initiatives.
                                 ______
                                 
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Catherine Cortez Masto 
                         to Timothy Hinchey III
    Question 1. Athlete and Community Engagement: To what extent are 
you personally--and your leadership and staff--actively engaging with 
both the Athletes' Advisory Council and victims of sexual abuse to help 
direct your programming to stamp out a culture of abuse that enabled 
predators to target athletes?
    Answer. USA Swimming's representative on the Athletes' Advisory 
Council is Natalie Coughlin Hall. Natalie also serves on USA Swimming's 
Board of Directors and is a member of the Board Task Force that works 
with USA Swimming leadership on Safe Sport-related issues. In this 
regard, we have worked closely with our AAC representative, although 
USA Swimming has not engaged with the broader AAC directly (on this 
issue or any other).
    My staff and I have also personally met with a number of survivors 
of sexual abuse--young and old, male and female, current members and 
former, from recreational to elite level swimmers. As I mentioned in my 
testimony, the input several survivors have provided over the past 
months has been among the most powerful, compelling and effective I've 
received and has directly resulted in positive change. I will continue 
to solicit, listen to, and implement it.

    Question 2. Are you engaging with elite-level athletes who are 
victims of sexual abuse to help direct your programs away from this 
widely reported culture of abuse that enabled predators?
    Answer. Yes, some of whom have publicly acknowledged their 
experience and others who have not.

    Question 3. How do you empower athlete voices in your NGB?
    Answer. USA Swimming empowers athlete voices in our organization 
through a variety of ways, including representation on our Board of 
Directors and all committees. USA Swimming also has created a number of 
educational and training programs to engage and empower athletes, 
including the athlete-led Athlete Leadership Summit, She LEADs and the 
Athlete Fellow program. USA Swimming further engages with athletes on 
an informal basis through regular meetings and conversations.

    Question 4. What changes are you implementing internally to ensure 
that you are using athlete perspectives to drive some of your decision 
making?
    Answer. Internally, we are working to incorporate athlete 
perspectives into everything that we do. In addition to the formal 
channels mentioned above, we have increased our outreach to athletes on 
relevant topics and are building a bigger network of those to consult 
with on the decisions being made by staff that impact their experience 
with the organization.

    Question 5. Do you think that there are trust issues between 
athletes and administrators?
    Answer. Yes, in certain circumstances and among certain athletes 
and administrators.

    Question 6. How do you prevent retaliation against athletes who 
provide their opinions?
    Answer. In addition to having a rule that prohibits retaliation 
against individuals who have made good faith reports of abuse (see 
Article 307 of USA Swimming's Rules), we also have a demonstrated 
practice of encouraging reporting and sharing opinions without 
retaliation. As the President & CEO of the organization, I have made 
clear to my staff that this type of behavior will not be tolerated, and 
that sentiment has been echoed by our Board Chair.

    Question 7. Do you feel the USOC has equally encouraged or created 
partnerships with survivors and advocates? If so, please provide 
examples.
    Answer. I am not familiar enough with the USOC's efforts in this 
regard to draw a conclusion. But like USA Swimming, the USOC can always 
do more.

    Question 8. Do you currently employ a full time staff member with 
sufficient professional knowledge and experience with victims of severe 
emotional, physical and sexual abuse? If so, please identify that 
person and their role.
    Answer. The full-time staff members that engage most frequently 
with victims of emotional, physical and sexual abuse are Tiffany 
Midkiff, Safe Sport Coordinator, and Liz Hahn, Safe Sport Senior 
Manager. Tiffany joined USA Swimming in 2018 after a distinguished 
career in the United States Army, which included serving as a Sexual 
Assault Response Coordinator (SARC) for the Department of Defense 
Sexual Harassment/Assault Response and Prevention Program (SHARP) from 
October 2012 to March 2018. Liz joined USA Swimming in 2011 after 
serving as a caseworker in the SAIFE Unit (Sexual Abuse Intervention 
and Family Education) for the El Paso County Department of Human 
Services.
    Additional members of our Safe Sport staff include a social worker, 
a former Deputy Prosecuting Attorney in the special victim's team sex 
crimes and child abuse unit, and a former guardian ad litem.

    Question 9. Safesport: The Center for SafeSport must succeed. I 
think from all the testimony we have received during these hearings, 
and in many of my private meetings with survivors, advocates, 
leadership in sport including NGB's, the USOC, and Safe Sport, we know 
that we must stimulate a culture of reporting. In 2017 testimony 
offered by Mr. Rick Adams, of the USOC, he said there was an ``. . 
.environment that discouraged victims from reporting abuse. . .'' at 
NGBs.
    Do you agree with Mr. Adam's assessment of the culture within your 
organization prior to your tenure?
    Answer. Many survivors felt very comfortable reporting and working 
with USA Swimming, but others obviously did not. It is critically 
important that USA Swimming create and promote an environment where all 
survivors feel safe to report abuse without fear of retaliation and 
confident that allegations will be taken seriously, and we are working 
to instill that.

    Question 10. Since taking over, have you implemented any specific 
changes to address this ``environment'' that ``discouraged victims from 
reporting abuse''?
    Answer. Our reporting process and procedures have not changed, but 
I have sought to demonstrate an unwavering commitment to providing a 
safe and healthy environment for all members and to responding 
appropriately when reports are received in order to ensure that 
survivors are willing to come forward.

    Question 11. What are you doing to change the culture within your 
sport and community?
    Answer. When I started with USA Swimming in July 2017, it was clear 
that the organization had a robust Safe Sport framework and program in 
place. However, it also became clear that there was still considerable 
organizational culture change that needed to occur to be as successful 
as possible in preventing and responding to abuse.
    Over the past 16 months, I have pursued such organizational culture 
change through four main approaches. First, I have adopted a ``zero 
tolerance'' approach to abuse and harassment within swimming. This has 
resulted in both suspensions of membership and terminations of 
employment. Second, I have proactively sought opportunities to meet 
with survivors of sexual abuse within our sport to listen and to learn. 
Third, I have engaged our athletes--from grassroots to elite--in 
shaping and directing our program. And finally, I have transitioned the 
organization from asking, ``Why would we?'' to ``Why wouldn't we?'' Why 
wouldn't we pursue whatever opportunities possible to protect our 
children and athletes, even if they may fall outside the traditional 
scope and responsibility of a National Governing Body.

    Question 12. What are you doing to make sure that coaches and other 
staff members do not have unhealthy levels of power, authority or 
influence over athletes and their families?
    Answer. USA Swimming recognizes that there is an inherent power 
imbalance between coaches and athletes. However, based on that 
recognition and understanding, we have taken steps to mitigate its 
effects and unintended consequences. For example, among other things, 
USA Swimming's Best Practice Guidelines encourage parents to support 
and be involved in their children's swimming experience and discourage 
coaches from initiating contact with athletes outside of club 
activities or developing peer-to-peer relationships with athletes.

    Question 13. What are you doing to educate parents and family of 
members of your membership to take athlete abuse issues seriously and 
teach them the value of SafeSport programs?
    Since 2012, USA Swimming has offered free Safe Sport parent 
education. USA Swimming also promotes the U.S. Center for Safe Sport's 
parent education through our social media and communication channels. 
Additionally, USA Swimming is working with its largest online team 
management platform, TeamUnify, to distribute Safe Sport messaging and 
education to parents through team websites. Finally, USA Swimming 
encourages its member clubs to include Safe Sport content in their 
communications with parents, such as during parent meetings and in team 
handbooks.

    Question 14. Does SafeSport recommend the most direct way for the 
USOC to communicate their material to all of their NGB's and on to the 
member clubs?
    Answer. I am not aware of any such recommendations.

    Question 15. What have you found is the best way to share, post, or 
disseminate SafeSport information?
    Answer. We have found that different audiences (e.g., athletes, 
coaches, parents, clubs, officials, Local Swim Committees (LSCs), etc.) 
receive and share information differently. We are working to enhance 
our communication through social media, as that seems to resonate most 
effectively with athletes. USA Swimming publishes a monthly coach 
newsletter via e-mail through which we distribute resources and 
opportunities unique to coaches. At the local swim club level, we are 
leveraging one of our largest team management platforms (TeamUnify) to 
push Safe Sport content through team websites to team administrators 
and parents. This is a watershed opportunity for our athlete protection 
program, whose key audience is swim parents, even though parents are 
not typically members and therefore more challenging to reach. Finally, 
we send out a Safe Sport bi-monthly newsletter to over 500 individuals, 
including LSC Safe Sport Chairs, LSC General Chairs, LSC permanent 
office staff, LSC Registration Chairs, the Safe Sport Committee, our 
NGB Safe Sport counterparts, and additional members who have signed up 
to receive it, who subsequently pass it on to additional members and 
constituents.

    Question 16. When SafeSport recommends an interim suspension, what 
steps does your organization take to enforce that interim measure with 
limited information?
    Answer. When the U.S. Center for Safe Sport imposes an interim 
suspension on a USA Swimming member, we notify the member's club and 
Local Swimming Committee, in addition to making a notation in our 
online member database. USA Swimming's rules also prohibit member clubs 
and coaches from allowing any suspended individual to coach or instruct 
athletes, from aiding or abetting the coaching or instruction of 
athletes, or for allowing such individuals to have an ownership 
interest in a USA Swimming club (See Article 304.3.10 of USA Swimming's 
Rules).

    Question 17. What are the access points in your organization for 
athletes to report misconduct--either physical, emotional, or 
financial?
    Answer. Individuals may report violations of USA Swimming rules 
(including physical, emotional or financial misconduct) via our online 
reporting form, phone, e-mail, text, or any other available 
communication channel (e.g., Facebook or other social media). Anonymous 
reporting is permitted in all circumstances. Additionally, individuals 
may report to the U.S. Center for SafeSport, which will refer to us any 
allegations of misconduct outside of its jurisdiction.

    Question 18. How do you minimize conflicts of interest within those 
reporting channels?
    Answer. Historically, few conflicts of interest have arisen within 
USA Swimming's reporting, investigatory and hearing processes; however, 
when they have, the affected staff members and volunteers have recused 
themselves and been shielded from the processes. Additionally, since 
2017, USA Swimming has requested the U.S. Center for Safe Sport address 
matters that involve an actual or perceived conflict of interest with a 
USA Swimming staff member or volunteer.
Protection and Removal
    Question 19. What direct action is your organization taking not 
only to identify, but also to remove coaches, athlete directors, 
employees, and officials who witnessed either emotional or physical 
abuse of athletes and did nothing to stop it or report it to 
authorities?
    Answer. USA Swimming has had a mandatory reporting requirement 
since 2010 (see Article 306 of USA Swimming's Rules). In circumstances 
where a member knew of the abuse (regardless of whether or not they 
witnessed it) and failed to report it, we have imposed sanctions. Now 
that the Protecting Young Children from Sexual Abuse and Safe Sport 
Authorization Act requires USA Swimming members to report suspected 
child abuse to law enforcement within 24 hours (regardless of state 
law), we will work with law enforcement to ensure appropriate 
enforcement of the law, in addition to our rules.

    Question 20. What are the biggest challenges for your member clubs 
to be able to adhere to the SafeSport minimum requirements?
    Answer. The biggest challenges for USA Swimming member clubs to be 
able to adhere to the SafeSport minimum requirements are a lack of 
clarity regarding the requirements themselves, limited time and 
resources available in volunteer, parent-run organizations, and 
restricted oversight of coach-run organizations.

    Question 21. What do you believe are the explicit protections you 
are directed to uphold and where do they apply to?
    Answer. USA Swimming is directed to uphold explicit protections, 
including:

   Complying with the reporting requirements set forth in 
        section 226 of the Victims of Child Abuse Act of 1990;

   Establishing reasonable procedures to limit one-on-one 
        interactions between an amateur athlete who is a minor and an 
        adult (who is not the minor's legal guardian) at a facility 
        under the jurisdiction of USA Swimming without being in an 
        observable and interruptible distance from another adult, 
        except under emergency circumstances;

   Offering and providing consistent training to all adult 
        members who are in regular contact with amateur athletes who 
        are minors, and subject to parent consent, to members who are 
        minors, regarding prevention and reporting of child abuse to 
        allow a complainant to report easily an incident of child abuse 
        to appropriate persons;

    Further, all adult members of USA Swimming and all adults 
authorized by such members to interact with amateur athletes must 
report immediately any allegation of child abuse to the Center and to 
law enforcement.

    Question 22. Does that duty cover only Olympic events and training 
centers?
    Answer. No, the duty covers facilities under the jurisdiction of 
USA Swimming.

    Question 23. Does that duty extend to off-site venues? Member 
clubs? Member events?
    Answer. Yes, the duty covers facilities under the jurisdiction of 
USA Swimming.

    Question 24. What individual is most responsible for that 
protection?
    Answer. Every covered individual is responsible for the protection 
of athletes in our sport; as the President & Chief Executive Officer, I 
am the most responsible.

    Question 25. What are your challenges, if any, to hiring additional 
staff that are experts with survivors of sexual abuse?
    Answer. Since I joined the organization in July 2017, USA Swimming 
has hired two new employees to work with our Safe Sport program, and 
based on those experiences, I feel very comfortable with our ability to 
hire staff with relevant and appropriate expertise. As I noted in my 
October 3 testimony, USA Swimming recently hired a Safe Sport 
Coordinator and Associate Counsel to enhance our operational 
capabilities. Their respective backgrounds include serving as a Sexual 
Assault Response Coordinator in the United States Army and a Deputy 
Prosecuting Attorney in the special victim's team sex crimes and child 
abuse unit, and their skill sets complement the other members of the 
Safe Sport staff, which now totals eight--four core and four support. 
These staff members work with countless other Safe Sport Champions, 
including a twelve-member Safe Sport Committee, four national Zone Safe 
Sport Coordinators, 59 Local Swim Committee Safe Sport Coordinators, 
twelve Safe Sport Athlete Fellows, hundreds of Safe Sport Club 
Coordinators, and the organization's Board of Directors to foster a 
culture of athlete protection throughout the organization.

    Question 26. Ban Lists: Susanne Lyons, former Acting CEO and 
upcoming Board Chair of the USOC, said in her hearing testimony before 
the House Commerce Committee in May, that she committed to looking into 
creating and enforcement requirements that ``ban lists'' be made 
publicly available. I know a number of your organizations do post those 
lists.
    Has the USOC made any such requirements of your organization?
    Answer. No.

    Question 27. What direct requirements or requests have come from 
the USOC since the May testimony with regard to the NGB's publishing 
accessible lists of all banned individuals?
    Answer. None to my knowledge.

    Question 28. Do these ban lists work? What could be done to best 
disseminate this information?
    Answer. Anecdotally, we know that USA Swimming's published list of 
banned individuals has prevented certain hiring decisions outside of 
our membership; however, we don't have a good sense of how frequently 
and effectively it is being used. It is my understanding that the U.S. 
Center for Safe Sport is looking further into this issue.
    In addition to the publication of names on its website, USA 
Swimming also proactively notifies the impacted club and Local Swimming 
Committee when an individual is banned or suspended from membership and 
makes the appropriate designation in its online member database.

    Question 29. What are the consequences, as outlined by USOC, for 
NGB member clubs that hire a coach or individual on the banned list?
    Answer. I am not aware of any USOC-imposed consequences for NGB 
member clubs that hire a coach or other individual on an NGB's or the 
U.S. Center for Safe Sport's banned list; however, USA Swimming rules 
prohibit member clubs and coaches from allowing any suspended 
individual to coach or instruct athletes, from aiding or abetting the 
coaching or instruction of athletes, or for allowing such individuals 
to have an ownership interest in a USA Swimming club (See Article 
304.3.10 of USA Swimming's Rules). Those rules would be enforced by USA 
Swimming via membership bans or suspensions for the individual(s) and/
or member club(s) in violation.

    Question 30. Has the USOC demanded the implementation of strong 
policies to keep banned members away from events sanctioned by the USOC 
or individual NGB's?
    Answer. Not to my knowledge.
                                 ______
                                 
    Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Jerry Moran to 
                             Darrin Steele
    Question 1. How have the recent reforms provided by the Protecting 
Young Victims from Sexual Abuse and Safe Sport Authorization Act 
impacted your National Governing Body (NGB) from a structural and 
resource perspective?
    Answer. USABS has complied with all necessary requirements of the 
Protecting Young Victims from Sexual Abuse and Safe Sport Authorization 
Act with the support of outside legal consultation.

    Question 2. Have you hired additional personnel to help review 
cases, implement training, education and outreach? Please elaborate on 
how this is being implemented.
    Answer. Temporary outside legal support was employed to ensure 
compliance, and current employees were tasked with the implementation 
of policies and procedures as well as the monitoring of training and 
education for the organization. We hired no additional personnel.

    Question 3. Does your NGB have internal protocols/procedures to 
investigate allegations that are not sexual abuse (i.e., drug use, 
bullying, fraud, etc.)? Do you refer cases that are not sexual abuse to 
the Center for SafeSport?
    Answer. USABS does not have formal protocols/procedures for 
investigating allegations not involving sexual abuse. We will refer 
those allegations that fall under the authority of the U.S. Center for 
SafeSport to the Center.

    Question 4. How does the total revenue of your NGB compare to the 
others? What portion of your revenue comes from the U.S. Olympic 
Committee (USOC)?
    Answer. In the 2016/17 Fiscal Year, total revenue for the eight 
winter NGBs ranged between $2.3M--$42.2M. The total revenue of USABS 
ranked 5th at 3.7M. USOC revenue makes up approximately 60 percent of 
total revenue for USABS.

    Question 5. Based on your NGB's experiences in handling abuse 
allegations, did the Protecting Young Victims from Sexual Abuse and 
Safe Sport Authorization Act provide the necessary authorities to the 
Center for SafeSport and NGBs to address abuse allegations? If there 
are shortcomings, please identify them.
    Answer. To date, we have not identified any shortcomings in the 
authorities for the U.S. Center for SafeSport.

    Question 6. Our subcommittee has heard from many survivors 
regarding Larry Nassar's sexual abuse under the guise of medical 
treatment. It is clear that centralizing all of the medical oversight, 
expertise and access in one individual for a lengthy period of time was 
a major factor that helped facilitate the abuse by Nassar. Has your NGB 
updated its medical policies and procedures to prevent this from 
happening? If so, how have you implemented these safeguards and how has 
the structure of your medical staff changed?
    Answer. Although USABS does not have a structure where medical 
oversight, expertise and access lies with one individual, we have three 
notable policies to reduce the risk of abuse.
    A new policy was created requiring all athletes to see a physician 
outside the USABS and USOC medical system every four years for a 
comprehensive medical physical exam.
    A new policy was created requiring all medical and massage 
treatments to be performed in Sports Medicine at Olympic Training 
Center or in a separate, designated room at a hotel when traveling, 
with SafeSport information prominently displayed. No treatments or 
evaluations are authorized in bedrooms.
    All athletes are given a post-season survey on all medical 
providers and that information is used to determine if any issues have 
occurred. Changes to medical staff are based on these evaluations.

    Question 7. In the wake of the Larry Nassar sexual abuse scandal, 
what policies and procedures have you put in place regarding access, 
retention and preservation of athlete's medical records? Have you 
provided those policies to USOC?
    Answer. All athlete medical records are to be entered into the USOC 
electronic medical record system.
                                 ______
                                 
    Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Dean Heller to 
                             Darrin Steele
    Question 1. First, I want to start off by saying I admire the 
bravery of the athletes who have come before this Committee previously 
to share their story. As a father and grandfather, I know that what 
happened to them is every parent's worst nightmare. We live to protect 
our children, and it is disgusting to me that the individuals that they 
reported abuse to didn't protect them.
    Have you engaged with sexual assault survivor advocacy 
organizations to have them review and suggest improvements to your 
policies and procedures to ensure with certainty that your athletes are 
protected from abuse?
    Answer. We have not yet done this, but we agree with the suggestion 
and are committed to completing it within the current Fiscal Year.

    Question 2. What surveys or other tools have you implemented to 
determine and measure whether your athletes feel empowered to report 
abuse? How recently were these surveys conducted?
    Answer. We regularly conduct surveys with our athletes that allow 
anonymous responses and ensure confidentiality. The most recent surveys 
took place after the 2018 Olympic Games.

    Question 3. How are your organizations ensuring young athletes 
understand what type of behavior from coaches or other adults is 
inappropriate and should be reported?
    Answer. Each youth membership prompts a notification to parents or 
guardians that directs them to SafeSport information and educational 
material about appropriate behavior from coaches or other adults.
                                 ______
                                 
 Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Richard Blumenthal to 
                             Darrin Steele
    Question 1. Currently, amateur athletes are only eligible for up to 
10 years after their last qualifying international competition to 
represent athletes on NGB or USOC boards. Athlete advocates have called 
for this 10-year requirement to be relaxed, so that older, possibly 
retired athletes who have more professional experience, time, and 
resources, may contribute their expertise. Would you support expanding 
the eligibility?
    Answer. Yes.

    Question 2. Provided that eligibility for athlete representation is 
expanded, would you support ensuring that the membership and voting 
power held by such amateur athletes is not less than 50 percent of the 
membership and voting power held in the board of directors of the 
corporation and in the committees and entities of the corporation?
    Answer. No.

    Question 3. Please explain any factors preventing you from changing 
your NGB's bylaws to 1) increase the percent of athlete representation 
on your board, and 2) allow for older former amateur athletes who may 
have more professional experience to serve on boards. If there are no 
factors preventing you from making these changes, please explain why 
you have not or will not in the near future.
    Answer. The USABS bylaws specify the requirements for amending the 
bylaws, including changes that impact voting power of any board 
director category. The bylaws do not give USABS the authority to 
redefine the eligibility requirements for athlete representatives. 
Those eligibility requirements are defined by the Amateur Sports Act.
    It is important that athlete representation does not fall below 20 
percent in either members or voting power because the athlete voice is 
crucial to the board and ensures that athlete interests and 
perspectives are always considered. I do not oppose an increase in 
athlete representation provided that the increase is due to the 
rigorous vetting process that the rest of the board members go through 
prior to joining the board.
    The current process for athlete representatives being named to the 
board is through direct appointment through an election of the 
athletes. That process is appropriate for 20 percent representation, 
but not for a greater than 50 percent representation, as suggested in 
the hearing.
    The standards for non-athlete board members are very high and those 
nominees are vetted by a committee to ensure competence and the 
presence of any specific backgrounds desired by the board (ie, law, 
fundraising, marketing, human resources, strategic planning, etc.).
    While it is not possible to change the requirement for athlete 
representatives, it should be noted it should be noted that older 
former amateur athletes are allowed to participate on the Board today. 
In addition to the three athlete representatives on our board, the 
USABS has two additional board directors who are Olympians, but do not 
count as athlete representatives. One of which has BS and MS degrees in 
Public Health and Health Care Administration, and the other is a 
graduate of West Point with an MBA from Columbia. Their education, 
professional experience, AND athletic backgrounds make them incredibly 
valuable and competent board members.
    A point that is too often lost in this conversation is the need for 
diversity within an organization. Diverse ideas, points of view and 
perspectives allow us to more effectively achieve our mission and serve 
a wider population of stakeholders. USABS supports that concept and 
Section 6.3 of the USABS bylaws, `Diversity of Discussion' states; 
``USABS's Board shall develop norms that favor open discussion and 
favor the presentation of different views.''
    Increasing by mandate, representation of any contingency group--
including athletes, to a majority reduces diversity and stands in 
opposition to the teachings and best practices for effective nonprofit 
boards.

    Question 4. Please explain your NGB's process for changing bylaws, 
ethical codes, and any other policies or procedures.
    Answer. Section 21.1 of the USABS Bylaws states the following:

        Any amendment or repeal of these Bylaws that increases or 
        decreases the number of directors, changes the membership 
        categories, or changes membership voting rights, may only be 
        voted on and approved by the members of the membership category 
        or categories whose number of directors, category, or voting 
        rights are affected.

    Otherwise, these Bylaws may only be amended, repealed, or 
substituted at any duly-noticed meeting of the Board or at a special 
meeting of the Board, at which a quorum is present, upon the 
affirmative vote of at least two-thirds (2/3) of the members of the 
Board entitled to vote.
    The Code of Ethics is written and approved annually by the Ethics 
Committee. Policies and procedures are under the purview of the 
management and may require proper notice and/or AAC approval.

    Question 5. Are you committed to making sure half of coaches at 
protected competitions are women? If yes, how do you plan to accomplish 
that?
    Answer. No. We recognize the importance of developing and hiring 
female coaches, but we oppose quotas. Women's bobsled and skeleton 
disciplines were not Olympic until 2002 and the vast majority of 
coaches were former competitors. That is one reason the development of 
female coaches has not yet caught up to the development of male 
coaches. As more female coaches develop, we expect the percentage of 
female coaches to increase. While we ideally prefer gender balance, we 
are concerned first and foremost with the quality of the coach.

    Question 6. Given USOC's oversight relationship with NGBs and since 
NGBs are required to follow guidelines and requirements set forth by 
USOC, would you agree that USOC is liable for its oversight of NGBs and 
how effectively they promote athlete safety? Why or why not?
    Answer. Yes, I agree the USOC is liable for its oversight of NGBs 
and how effectively they promote athlete safety. That oversight is 
defined by the Amateur Sports Act.

    Question 7. Would you support the Athletes' Advisory Council having 
a vote on USOC's Board?
    Answer. Yes. The Athletes' Advisory Council currently has three 
votes on the USOC's Board. Those three USOC Board members were elected 
by the AAC and nominated to the USOC Board.

    Question 8. Would you support the Multi-Sport Organization Council 
having a vote on USOC's Board?
    Answer. No.

    Question 9. If the U.S. Center for SafeSport declines to add an 
individual to its banned or temporarily suspended lists, what authority 
does your NGB have to independently take such action?
    Answer. The Amateur Sports Act requires that we ensure due process, 
which includes a hearing prior to banning or suspending individuals. 
Once that happens, we have the authority to ban or suspend individuals.

    Question 10. Is it true that if NGB membership is given up before 
disciplinary action is taken, you can escape being placed on your NGB's 
disciplinary records?
    Answer. No.

    Question 11. How can banned lists--whether on NGBs sites or the 
Center for SafeSport's records--be made more useful for athletes, 
parents, clubs? How in sync are the Center for SafeSport and NGB's 
lists?
    Answer. I am of the opinion that the best way to make banned lists 
more useful for athletes, parents, and clubs is by ensuring that those 
stakeholders are aware of the lists and know where to find them. The 
banned list for USABS is in sync with the list maintained by the Center 
for SafeSport.

    Question 12. Where should individuals go for the most comprehensive 
list and information regarding banned or temporarily suspended members 
for your NGB? Does the Center for SafeSport's website have a 
comprehensive list? Does your NGB's website have a comprehensive list? 
Please explain.
    Answer. We do not currently have any banned or suspended members, 
but if that changes, we will have the information available on our 
website and the Center for SafeSport will have that information on 
their website as well.

    Question 13. If you become aware that a coach has been engaged in 
sexual misconduct, for example, would your first call be to law 
enforcement or to the Center for SafeSport?
    Answer. If an allegation of sexual misconduct toward a minor is 
made, the first call will be to law enforcement. If an allegation of 
sexual misconduct toward an adult is made, and that conduct is 
described as sexual abuse or misconduct under Federal or state law, the 
first call will be to law enforcement. If the allegation of sexual 
misconduct toward an adult is made, and that conduct is not described 
as sexual abuse or misconduct under Federal or state law, the first 
call will be to the Center for SafeSport.

    Question 14. Do you ever rely on the Center for SafeSport for 
required reporting to law enforcement? Under what circumstances would 
you not call law enforcement at all, but only inform the Center for 
SafeSport?
    Answer. Any circumstances requiring a call to law enforcement will 
be made by the NGB and we will not rely on the Center for SafeSport to 
report it to law enforcement. Allegations of bullying, hazing, or 
sexual harassment will not necessitate a call to law enforcement in 
most cases, but would be reported to the Center for SafeSport.

    Question 15. If you witness or receive complaints regarding 
grooming behaviors by a member, would you report that to law 
enforcement, or only to the Center for SafeSport?
    Answer. Grooming behaviors that do not include violations of the 
law would be reported to the CEO of USABS and the U.S. Center for 
SafeSport.

    Question 16. Under what circumstances would or have you hired an 
independent investigator to investigate a complaint?
    Answer. USABS would hire an independent investigator in the event 
that the U.S. Center for SafeSport rejected a claim, but significant 
questions remained unanswered in the view of the Board.

    Question 17. How many times have you personally called law 
enforcement, pursuant to your mandatory reporting requirements?
    Answer. To date, we have not had any mandatory reporting 
requirements to fulfill.

    Question 18. What specific penalties are in place for members in 
your NGB who fail to report suspected child abuse to law enforcement?
    Answer. Failure to report suspected child abuse to law enforcement 
is a violation of the USABS Athlete Safety Policy and grounds for 
termination of a staff member and dismissal of a volunteer.

    Question 19. How many times have you imposed such penalties?
    Answer. To date, no member of USABS has been found in violation of 
the reporting requirements.

    Question 20. Has your NGB developed explicit rules that reinforce 
the ethical line between coaches and athletes (i.e., no texting, 
including parents or guardians on correspondence)?
    Answer. Yes.

    Question 21. Have you developed sport-specific educational or 
training materials to complement the more generic U.S. Center for 
SafeSport training materials? Who have you worked with in developing 
such materials?
    Answer. To date, USABS as not developed educational or training 
materials independent of the U.S. Center for SafeSport.

    Question 22. Do you think it might be confusing to athletes for 
NGBs to have internal ``SafeSport'' programs and for there to also be a 
``U.S. Center for SafeSport'' that is actually in charge of handling 
sexual misconduct?
    Answer. The USABS has changed it's SafeSport Policy to the Athlete 
Safety Policy, although we have not experienced confusion to date.

    Question 23. Can you commit today to changing the name of any 
existing internal ``SafeSport'' programs to make the distinction clear 
for athletes?
    Answer. This distinction is currently being addressed by the U.S. 
Center for SafeSport and USABS will comply with the resulting guidance.

    Question 24. At this Subcommittee's last hearing on amateur 
athletes, Mr. Han Xiao, Chair of the Athletes' Advisory Council 
testified that NGBs would intentionally circumvent athlete 
representatives. He recounted a variety of tactics including:

   Appointing rather than electing athlete representatives to 
        sign documents;

   Keeping an electronic signature of the AAC representative on 
        file to sign documents;

   Giving an AAC representative a document with very little 
        time before a submission deadline and asking for a signature;

   And scheduling meetings such that competing athlete reps 
        cannot attend, or removing what the NGB perceives to a 
        problematic athlete representative and then failing to refill 
        the position.

    Some of these tactics were employed by USA Taekwondo and documented 
in a 2012 Section 10 Complaint against the NGB.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \16\ https://www.teamusa.org/-/media/TeamUSA/Documents/Legal/
Arbitration--Hearing-Panel-Cases/Section-10/2011/Robinson-v-USA-
Taekwondo-22712.pdf?la=en&hash=31C1EF0B
6376CA5D5C73BEF0598708EA9A9040F1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Have you ever employed any of the above listed tactics to undermine 
the authority and responsibilities of your NGB's athlete 
representatives? Will you commit to ensuring these tactics are never 
used again in the future? How will you ensure this?
    Answer. USABS has not employed any of the above listed tactics to 
undermine the authority and responsibilities of our NGB athlete 
representatives and we will commit to ensuring that those tactics are 
not used in the future.

    Question 25. The USOC has argued, time and again, to be dismissed 
from lawsuits because it has ``no control'' over NGBs. In fact, the 
evidence shows that USOC actually exercises a significant amount of 
control over NGBs, like your own. Please describe what policies, 
procedures, or guidelines are provided to NGBs through USOC. Please 
also describe any financial support, staffing, or legal support 
received from or funded by USOC.
    Answer. The USOC provides support and approval for athlete 
selection criteria, high performance plans, and Olympic-related 
procedures. They audit the USABS for compliance with the Amateur Sports 
Act and they provide non-discretionary grants for athlete support and 
programs. USOC personnel is available as needed for advice to NGB 
personnel.

    Question 26. Before the U.S. Center for SafeSport was established, 
did your NGB have the authority to suspend or ban a coach?
    Answer. Yes.

    Question 27. After the U.S. Center for SafeSport's establishment in 
March 2017, does your NGB still have the authority to independently 
suspend or ban a coach, even if the U.S. Center for SafeSport declines 
to do so?
    Answer. Yes.

    Question 28. In August, the Center for SafeSport declined to defend 
its ban of Jean Lopez, a taekwondo coach it had determined, months 
earlier, was engaged in a ``decades long pattern of sexual 
misconduct.'' The Center then removed him from its database of 
sanctioned individuals. Despite this, Steve McNally, the President and 
CEO of USA Taekwondo, has kept Jean Lopez on USA Taekwondo's suspension 
list.\17\ Do you think Mr. McNally's decision was appropriate? Would 
you have made the same decision? Why or why not?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \17\ https://www.teamusa.org/usa-taekwondo/v2-resources/legal/usat-
suspension-list
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Answer. I do not feel that I have enough information about the 
situation to determine if the U.S. Center for SafeSport was right or 
wrong in their actions, or that Steve McNally was right or wrong in his 
actions.

    Question 29. What consequences have and will you impose on member 
clubs that do not take your NGB's banned and suspended lists seriously? 
Please explain what enforcement mechanisms you have. How often have you 
exercised such enforcement mechanisms? Please detail.
    Answer. Member clubs that choose to work with individuals on the 
banned or suspended list will immediately forfeit their membership with 
USABS and that decision will be announced on the USABS website. To 
date, no clubs have been found in violation of this.

    Question 30. How regularly on background checks conducted on your 
members?
    Answer. Athlete members do not go through background checks. All 
employees and individuals who interact with athletes beyond an 
officiating capacity or public interaction capacity go through biennial 
background screenings.

    Question 31. There are criticisms that the term ``SafeSport,'' 
according to a Deadspin article, was developed and trademarked by the 
USOC to serve as ``a pleasant-sounding euphemism for a horrible set of 
acts.'' \18\ How you lead by example, when it comes to making sure 
sexual abuse is not merely swept under the rug as ``SafeSport'' issues?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \18\ https://deadspin.com/safesport-the-usocs-attempt-to-stop-
child-abuse-is-se-1826279217
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Answer. The term ``SafeSport'' is understood by NGBs as 
representing a multitude of athlete-protection infractions, ranging 
from encouraging an injured athlete to return to play pre-maturely to 
sexual assault or rape. My experience has been that SafeSport issues 
are taken very seriously and I have not seen or heard of any getting 
swept under the rug.

    Question 32. What does a pedophile or sexual predator look like?
    Answer. My understanding is that a pedophile or sexual predator 
could look like anyone.

    Question 33. In your experience investigating sexual misconduct 
complaints, I'm sure you often receive character witness statements 
from parents and athletes themselves. Have you found that there's any 
correlation between such statements and whether the individual is 
actually guilty? How much weight should be placed in such character 
witness statements? Can you commit to reducing the weight--if any--that 
your NGB currently places on such statements during an investigation?
    Answer. We currently have no experience using character witnesses 
for investigating sexual misconduct claims and I have no reason to 
believe that will change in the future.

    Question 34. Do you agree that it is possible for an individual to 
be respectful to certain individuals, and abusive toward others?
    Answer. Yes.

    Question 35. What is the process in which your NGB keeps its 
respective website and other publications up to date listing banned or 
temporarily suspended individuals by the Center for SafeSport?
    Answer. If the Center for SafeSport bans or suspends an individual 
from USABS, the website will be updated immediately upon notification 
of the ban or suspension.

    Question 36. Does your NGB have a dedicated staff member update 
these lists? If so, what is the position title of said staffer?
    Answer. The current responsibility for updating the website, 
including these lists, is the Director of Marketing and Communications.

    Question 37. How often are these lists checked to keep current? On 
a daily basis?
    Answer. These lists will be current because they will be updated 
upon each notification of a ban or suspension from the U.S. Center for 
SafeSport.

    Question 38. I understand that arbitration is the general process 
used by the Center for SafeSport to address disputes.
    Answer. That is my understanding as well.

    Question 39. Who pays for your NGB's attorney fees in arbitration? 
Is it supported in any way by USOC?
    Answer. Our NGB is responsible for attorney fees in arbitration. It 
is my understanding that the USOC does not fund arbitration expenses 
for NGBs.

    Question 40. Who pays for athletes' attorney fees in arbitration? 
Do you provide any assistance for athlete's attorney fees?
    Answer. It is my understanding that athletes are responsible for 
paying their attorney fees in arbitration.

    Question 41. What assistance do you receive from the USOC when in 
arbitration? What kind of legal guidance does the USOC provide in such 
cases?
    Answer. It is my understanding that the USOC limits legal guidance 
on arbitration to explaining the correct AAA process.

    Question 42. Arbitration proceedings can be re-victimizing for 
survivors, who must relive their most painful memories under a grueling 
cross-examination. Questions asked by the opposing side have reportedly 
included intimate questions about an individual's personal sexual 
history.
    Do you believe such questions about an individual's sexual history 
relevant? How so? Can you commit to barring any such questions from 
further arbitration or legal proceedings?
    Answer. I do not have legal expertise, experience or training, so I 
do not feel qualified to answer that question.

    Question 43. Former USA Swimmer and Olympic Gold medalist Nancy 
Hogshead-Makar has noted that women are largely missing from leadership 
positions throughout swimming's more competitive levels. While women 
represent just over 50 percent of coaches in the sport nationwide, a 
meager fraction of women comprise the elite ranks of the sport. As 
recently as 2016, the U.S. Olympic swim team had no female coaches. 
What, in your opinion, is the reason for the dearth of women coaching 
at Olympic levels, and other elite coaching levels in the sport?
    Answer. I am not informed enough about USA Swimming to speculate on 
that situation.

    Question 44. Do you believe that a lack of female coaches is 
problematic?
    Answer. Yes. There are differences in male and female athletes so 
it is important to have perspectives from male and female coaches.

    Question 45. Do you believe that holding a Women in Coaching Task 
Force, or other coaching summits aimed at female coaches is sufficient 
to actually reduce gender disparity at elite levels?
    Answer. I am not informed enough about the Women in Coaching Task 
Force to have an opinion on its effectiveness.

    Question 46. Beyond these leadership resources, what is your NGB 
doing to change the culture that currently stifles women leaders within 
sport?
    Answer. It is crucial to identify and remove obstacles that deny 
interested women the opportunity to become sport leaders. USABS has a 
strong female leadership presence at the staff level and has actively 
developed high-potential female coaches.

    Question 47. Do you agree that more female coaches at an elite 
level would make athletes safer?
    Answer. Yes.

    Question 48. The AAC has reported concerns that the Athlete 
Ombudsman does not act independently of the USOC leadership. Would you 
agree that the Athlete Ombudsman should be moved outside the USOC 
structure to an Office of Inspector General or another external office?
    Answer. If that change resulted in an improvement over the current 
structure, I would support it.

    Question 49. Do you believe that the U.S. Center for Safe Sport is 
sufficiently independent from the USOC?
    Answer. Yes.

    Question 50. What conflicts of interest currently exist that 
prevent the Center from achieving true independence?
    Answer. I am not aware of any conflicts of interest that keep the 
Center from achieving true independence.

    Question 51. Do you think former employees of the USOC should be 
working at the U.S. Center for SafeSport?
    Answer. I don't have an opinion on whether former employees of the 
USOC should or should not be working at the U.S. Center for SafeSport.

    Question 52. Do you understand how this would compromise the 
Center's independence?
    Answer. If an employee of the U.S. Center for SafeSport is not 
independent of the USOC, then I understand how this would compromise 
the Center's independence.

    Question 53. Would you support the creation of an Office of 
Inspector General office--like the oversight branches of Federal or 
state agencies--to independently investigate internal abuse, 
mismanagement or misconduct and promote efficiency and effectiveness at 
the USOC, U.S. Center for Safe Sport, and National Governing Bodies?
    Answer. If the creation of an Office of Inspector General office 
resulted in an improvement over the current structure, I would support 
it.

    Question 54. Regarding health insurance for athletes, what criteria 
does your NGB use to determine which athletes receive paid health 
insurance coverage either through the NGB or USOC? What percentage of 
the cost of this health insurance coverage are your respective athletes 
or their families responsible for?
    Answer. All National Team athletes who compete at the World Cup 
level are offered Elite Athlete Health Insurance (EAHI). This insurance 
covers non-sport related injuries and illnesses and 100 percent of the 
premiums are covered by the USABS.

    Question 55. What percentage of your athletes receive health 
insurance through the Elite Health Insurance Plan (EHIP)? Does this 
program cover sports-or competition-related injuries? Does this program 
cover non-competition-related injuries?
    Answer. All National Team athletes who compete at the World Cup 
level are offered Elite Athlete Health Insurance (EAHI). This insurance 
covers non-sport related injuries and illnesses.

    Question 56. Does your NGB terminate the insurance of athletes 
whose injuries may impact their competition status? If so, how much 
notice is provided to the athlete?
    Answer. No.

    Question 57. Please describe any other NGB-or USOC-sanctioned 
health insurance programs available to member athletes and whether 
those programs are paid for by the NGB or USOC.
    Answer. All athlete members receive sport-accident insurance. The 
premiums are 100 percent paid by USABS. This insurance covers sport-
related injuries.

    Question 58. Does this health insurance program provide coverage 
for mental health services?
    Answer. EAHI does cover mental health services.

    Question 59. Do you believe that mental health services are 
important for athletes?
    Answer. Yes.

    Question 60. Do you believe that it is or should be your NGB's 
responsibility to provide mental health services and coverage for 
athletes?
    Answer. If not covered by EAHI, yes.

    Question 61. Beyond insurance coverage, what mental health services 
does your respective NGB currently provide for athletes? Are these 
services available to all athletes under the NGB's purview, or just 
athletes at elite levels? What can your NGB specifically do to improve 
your athlete wellness and mental health support services for athletes?
    Answer. We support athletes who seek support outside of the 
insurance coverage on a case-by-case basis. We recently supported an 
athlete through leveraging our partnership with the USOC and 
accommodated her treatment needs.

    Question 62. What is the process for an athlete at your NGB to take 
advantage of these mental health services--for example, do they have to 
first notify their coach or an executive at your NGB?
    Answer. We do not currently have a clearly defined process, but are 
committed to creating one.

    Question 63. Do you think that in cases regarding mental health 
services, it is appropriate to require an athlete to first notify their 
coach or NGB leadership of a potential mental health problem before 
receiving treatment or assistance?
    Answer. It should not be required as a condition for receiving 
treatment or assistance.

    Question 64. Do you agree that such a policy places athletes in a 
position where they can potentially be retaliated against, or further 
abused?
    Answer. If an athlete is being abused or an NGB has a culture where 
retaliation is permitted, then yes.

    Question 65. Do you agree that at the very least, such a policy 
could prevent athletes from coming forward to take advantage of 
critical mental health services?
    Answer. Yes.

    Question 66. What was your NGB's total budget in Fiscal Year 2017?
    Answer. $3,813,031

    Question 67. How much (dollar amount or percentage) of the budget 
came from the USOC either directly or in the form of grants?
    Answer. $2,287,033, 60 percent

    Question 68. What percentage of your budget goes to direct athlete 
support in the form of a stipend? How many athletes receive a stipend?
    Answer. In Fiscal Year 2017 it was $264,000, 12 percent. In the 
current Fiscal Year, all National Team athletes competing at the World 
Cup level will receive a stipend.

    Question 69. Does USOC have any role in budgeting decisions within 
your NGB?
    Answer. No, but the USOC does have a role in how USOC grants are 
utilized.

    Question 70. Does your current NGB budget limit your ability to 
provide services to athletes?
    Answer. Yes.

    Question 71. Does it limit your ability to implement and adhere to 
Center for Safe Sport policy, or to conduct thorough internal 
investigations on complaints of misconduct?
    Answer. No.

    Question 72. Does USOC have the ability to direct your NGB in 
making decisions related to Olympic competition?
    Answer. No.

    Question 73. Does your NGB have a ``two-deep'' policy, so that an 
adult is never alone with an athlete? Why or why not? Have you 
considered such a policy?
    Answer. If the athlete is a minor, yes.

    Question 74. Has USOC ever asked NGBs to consider a ``two-deep'' 
policy?
    Answer. I am not aware of that specific request being made.

    Question 75. Most child-safety experts recommend a policy of not 
texting a minor individually. In other words, coaches can text others 
in a group, or can include parents on the text, but should not text 
athletes individually. Why hasn't your NGB adopted such a policy to 
ensure inappropriate conversations are not taking place?
    Answer. We have adopted such a policy.

    Question 76. I have specifically heard multiple accounts that you 
sought to silence Mr. Han Xiao, Chair of the AAC, at the recent USOC 
Assembly.
    Answer. The Senator was misinformed.

    Question 77. During a breakfast meeting with the AAC and NGB 
Council, you aggressively spoke to him for voicing concerns regarding 
the very athletes he was elected to represent.
    Answer. The Senator was misinformed.

    Question 78. According to reports, you chastised Mr. Xiao for 
discussing his concerns with USOC and NGBs and suggestions for reform 
with this Subcommittee.
    Answer. The Senator was misinformed. The topic of Mr. Xiao's 
discussions of is concerns with the USOC and NGB's were never 
mentioned. Mr. Xiao's suggestions for reform with the Subcommittee were 
never mentioned. I never addressed Mr. Xiao separately from the overall 
AAC.

    Question 79. What type of signal do you think that sends to the 
athletes in your sport?
    Answer. Had the fictional accounts of that meeting been accurate, 
the signal it would send to the athletes in my sport would have been a 
negative one. If the athletes in my sport had an accurate account of 
that meeting, the signal it would send is that honesty, integrity and 
bold leadership are the way we live our values in the USABS. We speak 
the truth and expect integrity from others.

    Question 80. Do you believe that publicly attacking Mr. Xiao for 
his suggestions to this Subcommittee is the appropriate way to vent 
your frustrations?
    Answer. The Senator was misinformed. I do not believe that publicly 
attacking Mr. Xiao for his suggestions to this Subcommittee is the 
appropriate way to vent my frustrations, which is one reason I did not 
do it.

    Question 81. Why do you believe that it was inappropriate for Mr. 
Xiao to make recommendations to this Subcommittee?
    Answer. I do not believe that it was inappropriate for Mr. Xiao to 
make recommendations to this Subcommittee. On the contrary, as Chair of 
the USOC AAC, it was Mr. Xiao's duty to make recommendations to this 
Subcommittee.

    Question 82. Do you want to apologize to Mr. Xiao or the athletes 
you represent for this behavior?
    Answer. If the reports provided to the Senator had been true, I 
would owe Mr. Xiao an apology. In this meeting, I reminded the members 
of the AAC that when one of them speaks, that person represents all of 
them. Therefore, when inaccurate or misleading information is provided 
to the media by a member of the AAC, they have an ethical 
responsibility to correct the record. I also told them that the NGBs 
would love to join forces in their fight for making positive changes in 
the Olympic movement, but I cannot do that if their tactics are 
unethical.
    The vast majority of the AAC and Olympic athletes are highly 
ethical, and that is one of the reasons that I raised this particular 
issue. A very small minority of athletes is taking advantage of the 
media attention available to them right now to push their own agenda. 
Those individuals do not represent the majority of the athletes.

    Question 83. In your opinion, is your organization living up to its 
mission of being ``responsible for fielding teams for national and 
international competition''?
    Answer. Our organization does field teams for international 
competition, but that quote is not from our mission statement. In 2007 
our current mission statement was established and the only change was 
an update to the initials from USBSF to USABS: The mission of USABS 
shall be to enable United States athletes to achieve sustained 
competitive excellence in Olympic competition and to promote and grow 
the sports of bobsled and skeleton in the United States.

    Question 84. Do you believe that fielding a team requires a 
financial commitment by your organization?
    Answer. It is desired, but not required. Our goal is to one day be 
able to fund 100 percent of the expenses for all teams/athletes at all 
levels, but that has never been achieved in our organization's history. 
We have published criteria for how we field teams at all levels, but 
full-funding is only provided to the top-ranked teams/athletes in the 
highest race series.

    Question 85. What percentage of the USA National Team are you 
funding?
    Answer. We are fully funding 91 percent of the 2018-2019 U.S. 
National Teams on the World Cup tour.

    Question 86. What is your current salary? And by contrast, how much 
money has the USABS committed to national team athlete support for the 
2018-19 season?
    Answer. My current salary is $180,000. National team athlete 
support for 2018-19 is $2,103,265.

    Question 87. What percentage of the 2018-19 operating budget is 
earmarked for direct athlete support?
    Answer. Direct Athlete Support is defined as money given to 
athletes in the form of a cash stipend, which is intended to assist 
athletes in covering expenses while they are training and competing. 
The percentage of the 2018-19 operating budget committed to Direct 
Athlete Support (stipends) is 7 percent.
    This metric has been inaccurately interpreted as the only 
representation of athlete support. Stipends allow athletes to pay their 
bills without having to get jobs that distract from their training or 
competing. Direct Athlete Support does not include the technology and 
equipment provided by the NGBs, the coaches, or the travel expenses 
provided on the competitive tour. When those additional athlete 
benefits are included with the cash to athletes, the percentage 
increases to 72 percent. Also not included in Direct Athlete Support is 
free lodging, meals, and sports medicine provided at the Olympic 
Training Centers, although those expenses are incurred by the USOC 
rather than the NGBs.

    Question 88. And what percentage of the 2018-19 budget is slated 
for administrative/coaching salaries?
    Answer. The 2018-19 budget includes administrative/coaching 
salaries of 39 percent. I would like to remind the Senator and the 
Subcommittee that sports like bobsled and skeleton do not have the 
benefit of high school or college feeder programs, so we are 100 
percent responsible for developing and hiring all the coaches for our 
programs.

    Question 89. During the hearing, you said that ``getting feedback 
from the athletes is one of the most important things in identifying 
maybe some unknown issues that are out there.'' A number of Skeleton 
athletes recently wrote you a petition outlying a number of their 
grievances. Do you think that that 21 members--a significant 
percentage--of the USABS team writing a letter expressing its concerns 
with the financial management of USABS represents that the NGB is 
headed in the right direction?
    Answer. The short answer is that 21 (anonymous) athlete members of 
USABS writing a letter expressing their concerns with the financial 
management of USABS does not signal that an NGB is--or is not headed in 
the right direction. The USABS Board and leadership present the 
financials to the members annually and invite them to ask questions. 
Had the concerns raised in the petition been asked at the Annual 
Meeting when the budget and financial statements were presented, we 
would have gladly answered the questions, explained the statements and 
addressed concerns.

    Question 90. Did you take this letter seriously? Do you believe 
that any of the concerns mentioned in the letter are valid? Have you 
attempted to engage with the athlete activists that helped write the 
letter beyond your written reply?
    Answer. I did take the letter seriously, as did my board of 
directors. All athlete concerns are valid. In addition to the written 
reply, I have spoken with Athlete Representatives on the Board. 
Although I don't know which athletes helped write the letter, I offered 
the opportunity for any athletes to pose questions at a recent all-
athlete meeting. I have also engaged two members of the USOC AAC 
leadership team, including the Chair, Han Xiao for their feedback.

    Question 91. Are you willing to restore funds to athletes?
    Answer. The hard truth about Olympic sports is that funding is 
based on performance. The performances went down and the funding went 
down with it. When performance goes back up, funding will increase.

    Question 92. Are you willing to withhold a percentage of your 
salary to help reinstate a basic level of funding for National Team 
Athletes?
    Answer. The majority of National Team athletes competing on the 
World Cup level still receive a basic level of funding, but no, I will 
not withhold a percentage of my salary to increase funding to athletes.

    Question 93. Why or why not?
    Answer. I have voluntarily given up bonuses and perks valued at 
more than $75,000 over the past two seasons--not because I wanted to 
fund particular programs, but because I didn't think I earned them. If 
I were to give up more of my salary, I would put that money into those 
athletes with the highest potential to fight for medals at the Olympic 
Games. I will not support the demand to withhold a percentage of my 
salary to fund athletes for the same reason senators will not withhold 
a percentage of their salary to fund causes and programs they believe 
in.

    Question 94. Do you believe it's possible to financially abuse 
athletes?
    Answer. Yes.

    Question 95. Would you say your athletes have been financially 
abused? How would you describe their grievances?
    Answer. No, our athletes have not been financially abused by the 
organization. It is common for athletes to be frustrated by the lack of 
financial support available to those who are not ranked at the top of 
the sport. The top-ranked athletes do get financial support and they 
did not support the petition.

    Question 96. Are you aware that financial abuse and mismanagement 
are often factors that can breed a culture of further abuse, 
particularly sexual abuse?
    Answer. I'm aware of financial abuse as it relates to domestic and 
elder abuse by individuals who control the spending and finances of the 
victims. It's a subject that should be taken seriously. I have never 
seen the concept applied to organizations.

    Question 97. In a letter responding to the skeleton athlete 
petition, you wrote that the ``USABS' financial condition is misstated 
and often misunderstood.'' Is it true that Ashley Walden said ``we've 
been operating in the red'' on a conference call that included 
athletes?
    Answer. I was not on the call at that time, but I confirmed with 
Mrs. Walden that she did express that sentiment. She's the Director of 
Sport and she was under the mistaken impression that USABS finished the 
year in the red. It was an honest mistake and I educated her.

    Question 98. Is it also true that USABS' IRS 990 tax forms reveal 
that you have been operating in a surplus in recent years? How do you 
explain this variance in financial reality?
    Answer. Fiscal responsibility is very important to USABS. While we 
establish a challenging budget each year, our collective fiscal 
discipline allows us to satisfy those challenges and we finish in the 
black the vast majority of the time.

    Question 99. Upon reviewing the USA Bobsled & Skeleton website, it 
is not immediately clear where, if at all, the information regarding 
athlete misconduct, or a list of banned or temporarily suspended 
individuals is located.
    Answer. The USABS does not have any individuals banned or suspended 
for athlete misconduct. If that changes, we will prominently display a 
list.

    Question 100. Does any information regarding these topics exist on 
your website or other publications? Can you commit to improving the 
visibility of this information on your site, for clubs and members of 
the sport to easily find it?
    Answer. The assumption that all NGBs have a list of banned and 
suspended athletes to display is inaccurate. USABS will commit to 
continuing our same high standards of transparency so that if a USABS 
individual is banned or suspended, we will prominently display a list.

    Question 101. During the hearing, when I asked whether you would 
voluntarily commit to increasing athlete representation to a majority 
on your boards and committees to ensure that their voices and concerns 
are heard, you answered ``no'' because you were concerned that doing so 
would undermine the competence of the board. You further added that 
many athletes ``have not completed education.'' Do you see how these 
statements can potentially come off as insulting to athletes?
    Answer. It is difficult to understand how athletes who have not 
completed education would be insulted by revealing that fact. It is 
difficult to understand how athletes who have completed their education 
would be insulted by revealing that many of their peers have not. There 
is no doubt that I could have been more clear in my response and I was 
surprised by how many athletes were insulted by my comments.

    Question 102. In your opinion, what are the educational 
requirements for members of the USABS Board?
    Answer. There are no educational requirements for members of the 
USABS Board.

    Question 103. Do you believe that increasing the age eligibility 
for athletes, allowing older athletes to participate on the Board would 
satisfy your concerns with athlete experience?
    Answer. I do support the idea of increasing the age eligibility for 
athletes representatives, but that is defined by the Amateur Sports Act 
and not within the authority of NBGs to change it. Nonetheless, it 
should be noted that older athletes are allowed to participate on the 
Board today. In addition to the three athlete representatives on our 
board, the USABS has two board members who are Olympians, but do not 
count as athlete representatives. One of which has BS and MS degrees in 
Public Health and Health Care Administration, and the other is a 
graduate of West Point with an MBA from Columbia. Their education, 
professional experience, and athletic backgrounds make them incredibly 
valuable and competent board members.

    Question 104. You also mentioned that you have been conducting a 
culture training with the entire USABS organization, though not 
necessarily related to SafeSport issues, because your organization has 
not experienced in ``quite a while.'' Do you believe that since your 
organization has had fewer cases of sexual misconduct than other NGBs, 
that frequent SafeSport training is not necessary?
    Answer. No, SafeSport training is very necessary and I would never 
suggest otherwise. We cannot get complacent or naive to the potential 
risks and we must always look for ways to reduce them.

    Question 105. What do you mean by a ``culture training'' if it is 
not related to training and policy regarding sexual misconduct?
    Answer. USABS has partnered with People Academy to help develop a 
culture that reinforces our values of Teamwork, Commitment, and 
Integrity. Through a hands-on process with athletes, staff and coaches, 
we identified the following areas of focus: communication growth 
mindset, enjoy the journey, accountability, grit & family. We recently 
had additional training with staff, coaches and athletes and it was 
wildly successful.

    Question 106. As we discussed in the hearing, a member of the 
Skeleton Team was recently exposed to the sexually explicit content of 
a male coach.
    Answer. This situation was investigated and it was found that a 
male coach used his personal Apple Id to upgrade an app used for video 
review on a USABS iPad. He did not realize that his personal iCloud 
account would be available on that device as a result. A skeleton 
athlete found the personal iCloud account of the coach and found the 
personal content on that account.

    Question 107. Subsequently, other athletes were exposed too.
    Answer. After finding the inappropriate content on the iPad, the 
athlete shared it with other athletes.

    Question 108. Athletes took the correct protocol in reporting the 
situation, and a trusted athlete representative was brought in to 
handle the situation. Safe Sport was contacted, and the USOC-AAC 
representative was brought in to help resolve the matter. Athletes were 
told through representatives that appropriate disciplinary action would 
take place. However, nothing was done, and the scandal was seemingly 
ignored.
    Answer. We treat code of conduct violations like HR issues and we 
do not make them public. The fact that athletes were not informed of 
any disciplinary action does not mean disciplinary action did not take 
place or that the issue was ignored. It's unfortunate that so many 
people, including Senators, are reluctant to educate athletes on the 
realities of such things.

    Question 109. Can you please provide a written account of how this 
case was handled further, as you promised in the hearing? Were you 
informed by the USOC-AAC representative of these explicitly sexual 
content?
    Answer. Appropriate disciplinary action did take place and the 
situation was handled. The coach in question updated a video analysis 
app by using his Apple ID and unintentionally exposed his personal 
iCloud account. Athletes realized this and reviewed the content on the 
personal file and shared it without the coach's consent.
    After learning of the situation, the USABS Board immediately 
brought the case to the U.S. Center for SafeSport for an investigation 
into the original situation and the way it was handled. The goal of 
USABS is to ensure it was handled correctly and to learn from any 
aspect that was not handled correctly. It is currently an active 
investigation and I do not believe it is appropriate to discuss any 
additional details.

    Question 110. Do you think it's appropriate or professional that a 
coach would expose himself to athletes in this manner?
    Answer. The exposure was unintentional as the coach did not realize 
that the iPad was connected to his personal iCloud account. 
Nonetheless, it was unprofessional and the coach is responsible for any 
loss of coaching effectiveness he experienced as a result.

    Question 111. Was any disciplinary action taken? Why not?
    Answer. The coach was counseled on his responsibility to keep this 
type of thing from happening and if the situation impacted his ability 
to lead his athletes, it would be considered a performance issue.

    Question 112. Did you tell the representative that you would take 
disciplinary action on the coach?
    Answer. Yes, and the original plan was to keep the coach from 
attending the World Championships and I shared that with the 
representative. That decision was not due to disciplinary action and 
was later changed.

    Question 113. Why was this case not published on your website to 
warn members of USABS of this coach's behavior?
    Answer. The exposure was not found to be a violation of SafeSport 
because it was unintentional and did not involve minors.

    Question 114. When said coach then made light of the situation on 
social what action was taken? If no action was taken, why not?
    Answer. The coach was embarrassed to have his private pictures 
shared among athletes and this approach was seen to be a way to help 
all involved move forward.

    Question 115. Can you see how this case demonstrated to athletes 
that the established channels for athlete grievances apparently do not 
work?
    Answer. No, I can see how this case demonstrated to athletes that 
sometimes their expectations are not met. It is a mistake to tell 
athletes that they should define the effectiveness of going through the 
established channels by whether or not their expectations are met.

    Question 116. Can you see how inaction in this case has created a 
culture of fear among athletes, as they risk retribution for speaking 
up?
    Answer. No. The retaliation or retribution from athletes speaking 
up has never been alleged and perceived inaction does not create a 
culture of fear.

    Question 117. How do you plan to repair and strengthen the damaged 
relationship you have with USABS athletes?
    Answer. This situation has been unfortunate, but represents the 
valid right of athletes to challenge the leadership on decisions made 
in the organization. The way to strengthen the relationship with 
athletes is to acknowledge the issues raised, clarify the strategies 
that are misunderstood, and fix the issues that need to be fixed. That 
is happening now and the improvement has already been evident.

    Question 118. Given USABS' financial difficulties and inadequate 
fundraising, along with the seemingly confrontational relationship you 
have with USABS athletes and the AAC, do you believe that you are the 
right choice to lead USABS into the future?
    Answer. I disagree with the premise, but I do believe I am the 
right choice to lead USABS into the future.
                                 ______
                                 
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Catherine Cortez Masto 
                            to Darrin Steele
    Question 1. Athlete and Community Engagement: To what extent are 
you personally--and your leadership and staff--actively engaging with 
both the Athletes' Advisory Council and victims of sexual abuse to help 
direct your programming to stamp out a culture of abuse that enabled 
predators to target athletes?
    Answer. My staff and I have been personally involved with the 
implementation of SafeSport policies and have invited any victims of 
abuse to come forward and report claims. During Board meetings, AAC 
members have been asked to provide their perspectives on potential 
areas of risk that need to be examined. Although a culture of abuse 
inside the USABS has never been alleged, we continue to monitor our 
programming and will make changes where necessary.

    Question 2. Are you engaging with elite-level athletes who are 
victims of sexual abuse to help direct your programs away from this 
widely reported culture of abuse that enabled predators?
    Answer. We are not aware of any elite-level athletes from USABS, 
who have been victims of sexual abuse at the hands of predators inside 
USABS. If we become aware, we will engage them and ask for their 
perspective. We have committed to engaging with a sexual assault 
survivor advocacy organization, to have them review our policies and 
procedures and suggest improvements.

    Question 3. How do you empower athlete voices in your NGB?
    Answer. We have an open-door policy, a policy of non-retaliation, 
and conduct post-season athlete surveys that promise confidentiality to 
respondents.

    Question 4. What changes are you implementing internally to ensure 
that you are using athlete perspectives to drive some of your decision 
making?
    Answer. Internally, we have increased the decision-making ability 
of the athletes by leaning on the AAC for some policies that directly 
impact the athletes. The latest example was regarding the fee required 
when an athlete files a waiver request. Some athletes communicated to 
us that they did not think the fee was fair, so we asked the AAC to 
review the policy and recommend a better one. We plan to change the 
policy based on the AAC recommendation.

    Question 5. Do you think that there are trust issues between 
athletes and administrators?
    Answer. I don't know that it will be possible to eliminate all 
trust issues between athletes and administrators, but they should be 
minimized to the extent possible.

    Question 6. How do you prevent retaliation against athletes who 
provide their opinions?
    Answer. We have a non-retaliation policy and we will consistently 
enforce it.

    Question 7. Do you feel the USOC has equally encouraged or created 
partnerships with survivors and advocates? If so, please provide 
examples.
    Answer. I don't have enough information to have an opinion on that 
topic.

    Question 8. Do you currently employ a full-time staff member with 
sufficient professional knowledge and experience with victims of severe 
emotional, physical and sexual abuse? If so, please identify that 
person and their role.
    Answer. No.

    Question 9. Safesport: The Center for SafeSport must succeed. I 
think from all the testimony we have received during these hearings, 
and in many of my private meetings with survivors, advocates, 
leadership in sport including NGB's, the USOC, and Safe Sport, we know 
that we must stimulate a culture of reporting. In 2017 testimony 
offered by Mr. Rick Adams, of the USOC, he said there was an ``. . 
.environment that discouraged victims from reporting abuse. . .'' at 
NGBs.
    Do you agree with Mr. Adam's assessment of the culture within your 
organization prior to your tenure?
    Answer. It's difficult to determine if that specific issue was part 
of the culture prior to my tenure, but it's possible.

    Question 10. Since taking over, have you implemented any specific 
changes to address this ``environment'' that ``discouraged victims from 
reporting abuse''?
    Answer. An environment that discourages victims from reporting 
abuse is likely a symptom of a much larger issue in the organization. 
Setting expectations of professionalism and ethical behavior for the 
staff and coaches is critical for establishing an environment where 
athletes do not feel discouraged from reporting abuse or raising other 
issues in the organization. I think we have done that in USABS.

    Question 11. What are you doing to change the culture within your 
sport and community?
    Answer. USABS aspires to serve as an example to other National 
Federations within the sport. As a member of the Executive Committee of 
the International Federation, I am also able to help create an 
environment that changes the international culture where it needs to be 
changed.

    Question 12. What are you doing to make sure that coaches and other 
staff members do not have unhealthy levels of power, authority or 
influence over athletes and their families?
    Answer. Our coaches and staff operate within a system of 
collaboration and selection of athletes to National Teams is based on 
written criteria which is used by selection committees. If the written 
criteria is violated, athletes may file a claim with an independent 
Judicial Committee for investigation. If a coach or staff member makes 
unethical decisions, athletes can file a claim with the independent 
Ethics Committee for investigation.
    The structure of the organization greatly reduces the risk of a 
coach or staff member abusing their power and there are remedies 
available if that is suspected of happening.

    Question 13. What are you doing to educate parents and family of 
members of your membership to take athlete abuse issues seriously and 
teach them the value of SafeSport programs?
    Answer. Each youth membership prompts a notification to parents or 
guardians that directs them to SafeSport information and educational 
material about appropriate behavior from coaches and other adults.

    Question 14. Does SafeSport recommend the most direct way for the 
USOC to communicate their material to all of their NGB's and on to the 
member clubs?
    Answer. I do not have knowledge of what SafeSport has recommended 
to the USOC.

    Question 15. What have you found is the best way to share, post, or 
disseminate SafeSport information?
    Answer. We have found that the best way to disseminate SafeSport 
information is through in-person presentations. If that is not 
possible, e-mailing the information is the next best method. Having 
prominent links on the website and posted information in sports 
medicine facilities are important as well.

    Question 16. When SafeSport recommends an interim suspension, what 
steps does your organization take to enforce that interim measure with 
limited information?
    Answer. We have not yet faced that situation, but it is understood 
that the Center has the authority to impose suspensions and bans, so we 
would enforce any recommendations regardless of having limited 
information.

    Question 17. What are the access points in your organization for 
athletes to report misconduct--either physical, emotional, or 
financial?
    Answer. Being a smaller NGB in terms of staff, coaches, and 
athletes, we are able to utilize multiple access points for athletes. 
In addition to being able to make a claim with the Center, athletes may 
go through their AAC representatives, coaches, staff or Board members.

    Question 18. How do you minimize conflicts of interest within those 
reporting channels?
    Answer. By not requiring athletes to use limited reporting 
channels, they have the ability to avoid reporting to someone who may 
be perceived to have a conflict of interest.

    Question 19. Protection and Removal: What direct action is your 
organization taking not only to identify, but also to remove coaches, 
athlete directors, employees, and officials who witnessed either 
emotional or physical abuse of athletes and did nothing to stop it or 
report it to authorities?
    Answer. If we become aware of it, we will investigate and take 
appropriate action.

    Question 20. What are the biggest challenges for your member clubs 
to be able to adhere to the SafeSport minimum requirements?
    Answer. We currently have only one member club and that club has 
not expressed any challenges to adhering to the SafeSport minimum 
requirements.

    Question 21. What do you believe are the explicit protections you 
are directed to uphold and where do they apply to?
    Answer. We have a duty to protect athlete members from abuse.

    Question 22. Does that duty cover only Olympic events and training 
centers?
    Answer. This duty covers all programs and events in which the NGB 
participates and/or manages.

    Question 23. Does that duty extend to off-site venues? Member 
clubs? Member events?
    Answer. This duty extends to off-site venues, member clubs and 
member events.

    Question 24. What individual is most responsible for that 
protection?
    Answer. All covered individuals are responsible for that 
protection.

    Question 25. What are your challenges, if any, to hiring additional 
staff that are experts with survivors of sexual abuse?
    Answer. The only challenge to hiring additional staff would be 
financial, but if that resource was needed, that challenge would be 
overcome.

    Question 26. Ban Lists: Susanne Lyons, former Acting CEO and 
upcoming Board Chair of the USOC, said in her hearing testimony before 
the House Commerce Committee in May, that she committed to looking into 
creating and enforcement requirements that ``ban lists'' be made 
publicly available. I know a number of your organizations do post those 
lists.
    Has the USOC made any such requirements of your organization?
    Answer. It is my understanding that all banned individuals need to 
be posted on NGB websites in the form of a list.

    Question 27. What direct requirements or requests have come from 
the USOC since the May testimony with regard to the NGB's publishing 
accessible lists of all banned individuals?
    Answer. Each NGB is required to provide a banned or suspended list 
to the USOC.

    Question 28. Do these ban list's work? What could be done to best 
disseminate this information?
    Answer. The USABS does not have any individuals currently suspended 
or banned, so I do not have an opinion of whether or not the lists 
work.

    Question 29. What are the consequences, as outlined by USOC, for 
NGB member clubs that hire a coach or individual on the banned list?
    Answer. It is my understanding that NGB member clubs would lose 
their membership status with the NGB if they hired someone on the 
banned list.

    Question 30. Has the USOC demanded the implementation of strong 
policies to keep banned members away from events sanctioned by the USOC 
or individual NGB's?
    Answer. I am not aware of that demand, but it is possible that such 
a demand has been made to NGBs that have banned members.
                                 ______
                                 
    Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Jerry Moran to 
                            Stephen McNally
    Question 1. How have the recent reforms provided by the Protecting 
Young Victims from Sexual Abuse and Safe Sport Authorization Act 
impacted your National Governing Body (NGB) from a structural and 
resource perspective?
    Answer. As a smaller NGB with limited staffing resources, the 
changes to the process have been helpful. The contribution of the 
Center's expertise, in terms of both education and investigation (and 
subsequently, resolution) better enables USA Taekwondo to protect 
athletes.

    Question 2. Have you hired additional personnel to help review 
cases, implement training, education and outreach? Please elaborate on 
how this is being implemented.
    Answer. USA Taekwondo will shortly fill a new position to be 
announced imminently, of ``Head of Athlete Protection.'' This role will 
ensure all policies are robust and implemented fully, develop the 
educational tools and programs, and will work with the Executive 
Director on the handling of any cases that come to us in future.

    Question 3. Does your NGB have internal protocols/procedures to 
investigate allegations that are not sexual abuse (i.e., drug use, 
bullying, fraud, etc.)? Do you refer cases that are not sexual abuse to 
the Center for SafeSport?
    Answer. Yes, USA Taekwondo handles non-sexual abuse allegations 
through its Ethics Committee. Depending on the nature of the 
allegations, USA Taekwondo may refer non-sexual abuse cases to the 
Center for SafeSport.

    Question 4. How does the total revenue of your NGB compare to the 
others? What portion of your revenue comes from the U.S. Olympic 
Committee (USOC)?
    Answer. USA Taekwondo is a smaller NGB. Our typical total revenue 
is somewhere between $3m and $3.5m per year and our funding from the 
USOC ranges typically between $250k and $500k per year depending on how 
close we are to an Olympic Games.

    Question 5. Based on your NGB's experiences in handling abuse 
allegations, did the Protecting Young Victims from Sexual Abuse and 
Safe Sport Authorization Act provide the necessary authorities to the 
Center for SafeSport and NGBs to address abuse allegations? If there 
are shortcomings, please identify them.
    Answer. One shortcoming is how long it can take to resolve an 
allegation. Specifically, it took several months for the Center to 
investigate and sanction both Steven Lopez and Jean Lopez. Another 
shortcoming relates to what record is required in order to make a 
decision. While the Center concluded that it had credible evidence that 
the Lopez brothers had committed egregious SafeSport violations as 
evidenced by the lifetime bans the Center imposed, when the Lopezes 
appealed, the alleged victims declined to participate due to ongoing 
civil litigation. As a consequence, both lifetime bans were ultimately 
overturned because the arbitrators had no live victim testimony against 
the Lopezes.
    While we support due process for the accused, these are not 
criminal proceedings and we question the apparent point of view among 
arbitrators that live victim testimony is a requirement. USA Taekwondo 
cannot fairly be asked to allow those facing egregious and unresolved 
allegations back into our community and our events.

    Question 6. Our subcommittee has heard from many survivors 
regarding Larry Nassar's sexual abuse under the guise of medical 
treatment. It is clear that centralizing all of the medical oversight, 
expertise and access in one individual for a lengthy period of time was 
a major factor that helped facilitate the abuse by Nassar. Has your NGB 
updated its medical policies and procedures to prevent this from 
happening? If so, how have you implemented these safeguards and how has 
the structure of your medical staff changed?
    Answer. USA Taekwondo does not have a centralized system for 
appointing medical staff. Instead, medical staff are appointed from a 
pool. We have also implemented a two-deep leadership policy for medical 
staff, meaning that no athlete is treated in a room without another 
responsible adult being present.

    Question 7. In the wake of the Larry Nassar sexual abuse scandal, 
what policies and procedures have you put in place regarding access, 
retention and preservation of athlete's medical records? Have you 
provided those policies to USOC?
    Answer. [See our answer to Question 6 above. Yes, we have provided 
those policies to the USOC.]
                                 ______
                                 
    Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Dean Heller to 
                            Stephen McNally
    Question 1. First, I want to start off by saying I admire the 
bravery of the athletes who have come before this Committee previously 
to share their story. As a father and grandfather, I know that what 
happened to them is every parent's worst nightmare. We live to protect 
our children, and it is disgusting to me that the individuals that they 
reported abuse to didn't protect them. Have you engaged with sexual 
assault survivor advocacy organizations to have them review and suggest 
improvements to your policies and procedures to ensure with certainty 
that your athletes are protected from abuse?
    Answer. We are working closely with the Fighting Spirit group out 
of Michigan which educates young athletes on abuse prevention 
strategies, and plan to strengthen those ties still further in 2019. In 
addition, in 2018 we launched #Notinmysport, an education and athlete 
empowerment program that focuses on awareness of the many types of 
possible abuse and calls on athletes to `make their statement' on the 
kinds of behavior they will not tolerate in their sport.

    Question 2. What surveys or other tools have you implemented to 
determine and measure whether your athletes feel empowered to report 
abuse? How recently were these surveys conducted?
    Answer. USA Taekwondo was one of three NGBs that participated in 
the U.S. Center for SafeSport's Climate Survey in 2018, which covered 
this subject. The survey was drafted and administered by the Center and 
distributed to all athletes in the required demographic by USA 
Taekwondo.

    Question 3. How are your organizations ensuring young athletes 
understand what type of behavior from coaches or other adults is 
inappropriate and should be reported?
    Answer. In addition to the SafeSport policy and education 
requirements, as mentioned above, USA Taekwondo has engaged the 
Fighting Spirit group to work with us on this very important subject. 
All athletes who make the National Team in future will have to take the 
Fighting Spirit training, which Is specifically designed to educate 
young athletes not just on the signs of potentially inappropriate 
conduct, but also how to protect themselves from such abuses.
                                 ______
                                 
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Catherine Cortez Masto 
                           to Stephen McNally
    Question 1. Athlete and Community Engagement: To what extent are 
you personally--and your leadership and staff--actively engaging with 
both the Athletes' Advisory Council and victims of sexual abuse to help 
direct your programming to stamp out a culture of abuse that enabled 
predators to target athletes?
    Answer. USA Taekwondo worked very closely with the AAC last year to 
revise and strengthen both our travel and medical policies prior to a 
team trip to Taipei. This work led to the implementation of two deep 
leadership methodologies on that trip, that have now become official 
policy for all USA Taekwondo activities. We have engaged Fighting 
Spirit out of Michigan--an education and empowerment group led by a 
victim of sexual abuse--to deliver programming to all of our National 
Team and Academy athletes related to spotting the signs of abuse (or 
potential abuse) along with techniques to get yourself out of danger 
and safely report to the correct authorities. This is in addition to 
the SafeSport policies themselves, and our new social media 
#notinmysport campaign, which both educates and empowers athletes to 
speak out again all forms of abuse in sport.

    Question 2. Are you engaging with elite-level athletes who are 
victims of sexual abuse to help direct your programs away from this 
widely reported culture of abuse that enabled predators?
    Answer. This is not something USA Taekwondo has done yet but would 
very much like to do. Pending class action litigation against USA 
Taekwondo prevents direct victim communication at this time. 
Nonetheless, our new Head of Athlete Safety will be tasked will working 
with victims from other sports to gain key perspectives and advice from 
them once appointed early in 2019.

    Question 3. How do you empower athlete voices in your NGB?
    Answer. USA Taekwondo launched the #notinmysport social media 
campaign in 2018, empowering athletes to demand the healthy, safe, 
competitive and successful environment they deserve from their sports. 
The campaign encourages athletes to `make their statement' on the 
issues that matter most to them, to encourage voices to speak up 
without fear of repercussions.

    Question 4. What changes are you implementing internally to ensure 
that you are using athlete perspectives to drive some of your decision 
making?
    Answer. We have begun to engage much more frequently and deeply 
with the AAC, including on the aforementioned policy work and our Board 
SafeSport working group, through to giving the AAC an opportunity to 
vote on proposed selection procedures.

    Question 5. Do you think that there are trust issues between 
athletes and administrators?
    Answer. Sadly, yes. I believe USA Taekwondo has made significant 
progress in this area, but it will take time to truly build. A big 
problem with that has been our historically frequent turnover of 
leadership, and that needs to be fixed as it takes time to build a 
truly trusting relationship, even with the right people in charge.

    Question 6. How do you prevent retaliation against athletes who 
provide their opinions?
    Answer. USA Taekwondo under my leadership will simply not tolerate 
any acts of retaliation. I have not seen this happen under my 
administration. Our small size and the infusion of people like me into 
the organization who do not have a history with the sport are positive 
factors where an anti-retaliation stance is concerned.

    Question 7. Do you feel the USOC has equally encouraged or created 
partnerships with survivors and advocates? If so, please provide 
examples.
    Answer. Beyond the Center for SafeSport I have not experienced 
this, although I know that the new USOC CEO, Sarah Hirshland, is very 
focused on these matters.

    Question 8. Do you currently employ a full-time staff member with 
sufficient professional knowledge and experience with victims of severe 
emotional, physical and sexual abuse? If so, please identify that 
person and their role.
    Answer. We intend to appoint a Head of Athlete Safety in the very 
near future and are committed to ensuring excellent qualifications and 
providing training for that person.

    Question 9. Safesport: The Center for SafeSport must succeed. I 
think from all the testimony we have received during these hearings, 
and in many of my private meetings with survivors, advocates, 
leadership in sport including NGB's, the USOC, and Safe Sport, we know 
that we must stimulate a culture of reporting. In 2017 testimony 
offered by Mr. Rick Adams, of the USOC, he said there was an ``. . 
.environment that discouraged victims from reporting abuse. . .'' at 
NGBs.
    Do you agree with Mr. Adam's assessment of the culture within your 
organization prior to your tenure?
    Answer. I do not believe Mr. Adams was speaking of our NGB 
specifically. Because I was not a part of the organization at the time, 
it is difficult for me to agree or disagree with Mr. Adams' assessment. 
However, the current combination of the SafeSport policy, Center for 
SafeSport and a new administration ensures that USA Taekwondo does more 
to proactively encourage reporting today than at any time previously.

    Question 10. Since taking over, have you implemented any specific 
changes to address this ``environment'' that ``discouraged victims from 
reporting abuse''?
    Answer. The #notinmysport campaign described above, rapid responses 
to abuse reports including SafeSport reporting, law enforcement 
reporting, and the use of interim and permanent suspensions, and open 
communication with the membership.

    Question 11. What are you doing to change the culture within your 
sport and community?
    Answer. USA Taekwondo is making sure no one individual who has 
authority over athletes within our organization is all powerful, and we 
are encouraging the wider community to be educated and vigilant in 
relation to spotting and reporting abuse. We will continue to encourage 
member coaches to not make their students call them ``master'' or 
``sir,'' rather ``coach'' or, even better, use their actual name--
athletes are told to call our National Coaching Directors simply Paul 
and Gareth. Taekwondo in particular is a sport with long held 
traditions of not questioning your instructor and reversing that will 
be a long (and much objected to) task, but one that USA Taekwondo will 
continue to pursue.

    Question 12. What are you doing to make sure that coaches and other 
staff members do not have unhealthy levels of power, authority or 
influence over athletes and their families?
    Answer. USA Taekwondo has employed two coaches who do not, and will 
not be allowed to run their own schools--they will simply train the 
athletes. We have employed two deep leadership policies to any and all 
athlete interactions, to ensure that no athlete is ever completely 
alone with a coach.

    Question 13. What are you doing to educate parents and family of 
members of your membership to take athlete abuse issues seriously and 
teach them the value of SafeSport programs?
    Answer. USA Taekwondo is currently rolling out the new SafeSport 
training for athletes and parents and will continue to develop and grow 
the #notimysport campaign to educate and empower everyone to be 
vigilant and aware. In addition, all National Team athletes will now 
take the Fighting Spirit training.

    Question 14. Does SafeSport recommend the most direct way for the 
USOC to communicate their material to all of their NGB's and on to the 
member clubs?
    Answer. We have a direct relationship with the SafeSport Center, so 
material comes from them, not from the USOC. The USOC does audit USA 
Taekwondo though to ensure we are complying with any and all 
requirements.

    Question 15. What have you found is the best way to share, post, or 
disseminate SafeSport information?
    Answer. USA Taekwondo extensively uses social media to communicate 
with its members, and this has definitely been the most successful 
method, both for communication and stimulation of debate. We also use 
our website, and e-mail for messaging purposes.

    Question 16. When SafeSport recommends an interim suspension, what 
steps does your organization take to enforce that interim measure with 
limited information?
    Answer. USA Taekwondo enforces the suspension completely, 
immediately making the member ineligible to participate in any way 
within the organization.

    Question 17. What are the access points in your organization for 
athletes to report misconduct--either physical, emotional, or 
financial?
    Answer. We have a reporting form on our website, including the 
ability to report anonymously. Reports also come in direct to the 
SafeSport Center, via e-mail and by telephone.

    Question 18. How do you minimize conflicts of interest within those 
reporting channels?
    Answer. All reports are handled the same way if directed to USA 
Taekwondo. The Executive Director will decide whether to file the 
complaint with either the Ethics Committee or the SafeSport Center. All 
complaints will be referred to one or the other.

    Question 19. Protection and Removal: What direct action is your 
organization taking not only to identify, but also to remove coaches, 
athlete directors, employees, and officials who witnessed either 
emotional or physical abuse of athletes and did nothing to stop it or 
report it to authorities?
    Answer. We are not aware of any such allegations against current 
employees or coaches. USA Taekwondo hired two coaches from overseas who 
are completely new to the organization with no history in the U.S. as 
National Coaching Directors.

    Question 20. What are the biggest challenges for your member clubs 
to be able to adhere to the SafeSport minimum requirements?
    Answer. We do not believe there are any major challenges for our 
clubs to adhere to the SafeSport minimum requirements.

    Question 21. What do you believe are the explicit protections you 
are directed to uphold and where do they apply to?
    Answer. USA Taekwondo must adhere to all applicable SafeSport 
requirements and carry out its mandatory reporting duties. We also use 
interim and permanent suspensions where appropriate, regardless of 
whether this is a minimum requirement. USA Taekwondo must also lead 
efforts to educate its community e.g., how to spot the signs of abuse 
early and the importance of reporting.

    Question 22. Does that duty cover only Olympic events and training 
centers?
    Answer. USA Taekwondo is committed to carrying out the duties 
described in Questions 3, above, in all aspects of its daily operations 
and events.

    Question 23. Does that duty extend to off-site venues? Member 
clubs? Member events?
    Answer. We provide mandatory background checks and SafeSport 
training to all members who may have authority over athletes, including 
clubs, etc., which broadens the protection and education to improve 
safety for all. We are best able to protect athletes in environments 
that we can control such as our own events.

    Question 24. What individual is most responsible for that 
protection?
    Answer. This would largely depend on the circumstance. As the 
Executive Director, I am responsible for implementing policies and 
procedures to protect athletes. On National Team trips, the most senior 
staff member or coach would be the most responsible for protecting the 
athletes. Within a member club, the club owner would be the most 
responsible for protecting the athletes.

    Question 25. What are your challenges, if any, to hiring additional 
staff that are experts with survivors of sexual abuse?
    Answer. In order to meet the needs of the entire athlete 
population, we are committed to hiring a Head of Athlete Protection who 
has the qualifications and will be provided with the training to 
further our effort to protect athletes from all kinds of abuse. 
However, we have limited financial resources. This is why we are so 
supportive of the Center for SafeSport and want to see it succeed.

    Question 26. Ban Lists: Susanne Lyons, former Acting CEO and 
upcoming Board Chair of the USOC, said in her hearing testimony before 
the House Commerce Committee in May, that she committed to looking into 
creating and enforcement requirements that ``ban lists'' be made 
publicly available. I know a number of your organizations do post those 
lists.
    Has the USOC made any such requirements of your organization?
    Answer. No, but USA Taekwondo has published its suspension list 
publicly for many years, so there has been no need to request this of 
USA Taekwondo.

    Question 27. What direct requirements or requests have come from 
the USOC since the May testimony with regard to the NGB's publishing 
accessible lists of all banned individuals?
    Answer. See answer above.

    Question 28. Do these ban list's work? What could be done to best 
disseminate this information?
    Answer. It depends on what is meant by ``work.'' If a parent were 
to check the list before allowing their child to participate at a 
member club and decided against their child's participation based on 
the club owner's name being on the list, then the list works. But this 
depends on a parent taking this step. Moreover, the vast majority of 
taekwondo practitioners, probably around 90 percent, never have any 
contact with USA Taekwondo so may not even know it exists. If 
information about all coaches involved in youth sports, regardless of 
their membership status with an NGB, were to be centralized, e.g., via 
a licensing system, then this would be a better way to notify the 
public of a sanction against the individual.

    Question 29. What are the consequences, as outlined by USOC, for 
NGB member clubs that hire a coach or individual on the banned list?
    Answer. If a member club hires a coach on the banned list USA 
Taekwondo will write to that member club immediately upon learning of 
this and inform them that we have information that this is happening, 
and request confirmation that the coach has been terminated. If the 
club does not confirm that the coach in question has been removed the 
club itself will be banned from any involvement with the NGB.

    Question 30. Has the USOC demanded the implementation of strong 
policies to keep banned members away from events sanctioned by the USOC 
or individual NGB's?
    Answer. USOC continues to work collaboratively with NGB's in this 
area but I have not received a ``demand'' of this nature. USA Taekwondo 
enforces its policy that banned individuals cannot participate in or 
even enter events sanctioned by the NGB.

                                  [all]
```