Datasets:

gtfintechlab
/

CoCoHD_transcripts

	<html>
	<title> - [H.A.S.C. No 116-4] MILITARY SERVICE ACADEMIES' ACTION PLANS TO ADDRESS THE RESULTS OF SEXUAL ASSAULT AND VIOLENCE REPORT AT THE MILITARY SERVICE ACADEMIES</title>
	<body><pre>
	[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
	[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]




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

	MILITARY SERVICE ACADEMIES'

	ACTION PLANS TO ADDRESS THE

	RESULTS OF SEXUAL ASSAULT

	AND VIOLENCE REPORT AT THE

	MILITARY SERVICE ACADEMIES

	__________

	HEARING

	BEFORE THE

	SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILITARY PERSONNEL

	OF THE

	COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

	HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

	ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS

	FIRST SESSION

	__________

	HEARING HELD

	FEBRUARY 13, 2019


	[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

	__________


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

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




	SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILITARY PERSONNEL

	JACKIE SPEIER, California, Chairwoman

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


	C O N T E N T S

	----------
	Page

	STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS

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

	WITNESSES

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

	APPENDIX

	Prepared Statements:

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

	Documents Submitted for the Record:

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

	Witness Responses to Questions Asked During the Hearing:

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

	Questions Submitted by Members Post Hearing:

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


	MILITARY SERVICE ACADEMIES' ACTION PLANS

	TO ADDRESS THE RESULTS OF SEXUAL ASSAULT

	AND VIOLENCE REPORT AT THE MILITARY

	SERVICE ACADEMIES

	----------

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

	A P P E N D I X

	February 13, 2019


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


	PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

	February 13, 2019

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



	[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

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


	DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

	February 13, 2019

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

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


	WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING

	THE HEARING

	February 13, 2019

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



	RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY DR. ABRAHAM

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


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


	QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING

	February 13, 2019

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



	QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MS. SPEIER

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

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

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

	[all]
	</pre></body></html>