Latest Breaking News On - Navy point - Page 1 : vimarsana.com

Transcripts For CSPAN2 Tonight From Washington 20130314

steps on the issue was part of last year's national defense authorization bill that president obama signed. while obviously her work is not done, i am hopeful we can build up some of these initial changes which included one ensuring that all convicted offenders in the military are processed for discharge or dismissal from the armed forces regardless of what they serve in an second remove cases dismissed from the immediate commanding officer in sexual assault cases which is one of the issues we will look at today as to whether we need to remove such authority entirely from the chain of command and place them in a process. we live to the combat ban that prevents women from serving in many combat positions that can lead to significant promotion opportunities that open door for more qualified women to excel in our military. we have increased diversity and top leadership positions improving response from leadership when it comes to responding to sexual assault. we passed an amendment introduced by senator -- based on our legislation which means troops that do to to you come pregnant as a result of a rape no longer have to pay out-of-pocket for those -- concerning our first -- second panel of witnesses after we will hear from senator barbara boxer who has extraordinary passion and leadership on this issue our second panel will be both men and women who are going to tell their personal stories and i want to salute each and every one of you for having the courage to tell such painful and personal stories. it's my hope and belief by committing the selfless act you are encouraging others to step forward and are also helping prevent crimes going unpunished. we have the duty to you and thousands of victims you represent to examine whether military justice is possible and what is the most effective and fair system that can be. despite some very dedicated j.a.g. officers i do not believe the current systematically meets are standard. that statistic on prosecution rates and sexual assault in the military are devastating. only 240 preceded to trial. nearly 70% of these reports are rape aggregated sexual assault. a system where less than one out of 10 reported perpetrators are taken to trial for their alleged crimes is not a system that is working and that is a reported crime. the defense department itself puts the real number closer to 19,000 where in reality closer to one out of 100 alleged perpetrators are faced with any accountability at all. and it's entirely inadequate and unacceptable. my view is that emphasizing institutional accountability in the prosecution of cases is needed to a real deterrent to criminal behavior. we need to encourage victims to come forward and purchase a paid in a prosecution is not detrimental to their safety or their future and it will result in justice being done. currently according to the department of defense 477% of servicemembers are too afraid to report their assaults because of your braille -- retaliation or unjust punishment. too many victims do not feel justice is likely or even possible. we need to take a close look at the military justice system and we need to be asking the hard questions with all options on the table including moving this issue outside of the chain of command so we can get closer to reality in our services. the case we have all read about in the audio air base is shocking and the outcome should compel all of us to take the necessary action to ensure that justice is swift and certain not rare and fleeting. i had the opportunity to press secretary hagel on the issue of sexual assault and secretary hagel responded by saying i agree. it's not good enough. the whole chain of command needs and accountable. i couldn't agree more. i was pleased with the secretary's public statement earlier this week that he is open to the changes to the military justice system as well as legislation to ensure effectiveness in our responses to the crime of sexual assault. in addition secretary had written to letters requesting a review in light of these decision to be made by march 20 through march 27 is a useful first step. after ranking member graham makes an opening remark we will hear the testimony from senator barbara boxer who has been a leading voice on this issue. and last year's defense bill she successfully included in them and that prohibits any individual who is convicted of felony sexual assault for being issued a waiver to join the military. we will then have the following witnesses who have been a victim of sexual assault while serving in the military or a knowledgeable advocate for addressing the issue of sexual assault in the military. i will now defer to senator graham to give his opening remarks. see i want to thank senator gillibrand for having the hearing. 47 the 49% feel intimidated to come forward because they may face reprisal is something that is obviously wrong. having said that the purpose of military justice is good order and discipline in the unit so when they are called upon to engage the enemy and to train and deploy together they can do so in the most effective fashion possible. the military's unique place is not a democracy. it's a place where you're asked to do extraordinarily difficult things and you have to count on people to your right into your left to be there when you need them and vice versa. in the military we have a crime for a commander to have a personal relationship sexual in nature or otherwise overly familiar relationship that can be consensual, that would be consensual. we probably should look at that policy as well to make sure that we are dealing with fraternization cases in an appropriate dachshund. why would you be concerned about a relationship that you would not be concerned about maybe in the private world? if your unit is called in to combat the last thing you want to think about is that the person who has a close relationship with the commander may get a pass at your expense. so we want to keep professional relationships between those who ordered the unit to engage the enemy so that those who follow the orders will never believe that there are some special relationship between the commander and a particular individual in the unit because that will break the order and discipline apart. that is one area where human sexuality can really deal a blow to a unit that is consensual. but i can't think of a more devastating blow to the unit then to than to have one member assault the other. if you want to break the unit apart and create a horrible environment to effectively engage the enemy, allow this to happen. because it shows not only physical violence is the ultimate sign of disrespect. i can't think of the more disrespectful measures than taking advantage of someone or physically violating them. that is just absolutely not only a crime, it is an ultimate detrimental demise of the unit to have such conduct breakout. the reason senator gillibrand we want to prosecute people when they do that is that they are are destroying the in its effectiveness. are the bad guys. now having said that, i have been a military lawyer for 30 years. another problem that could hurt the unit is for somebody to be wrongfully accused and feel like they have no voice. that the system is going to go from one extreme to the other. at the end of the day military justice is about rendering justice in an individual case but always military justice is to make that unit as effective as possible, to maintain good morale and discipline and if you are a female in a unit and you feel like nobody cares about what happens to you, you destroy morale. also, if you are in a unit where people may misunderstand what you are saying and you feel like you can't defend yourself. we have got to find some balance here but to the victims thanks for coming forward. i know it's not an easy thing to do. the numbers are astounding. if we are going to continue to be the most effective fighting force for freedom and good in the world we are going to have to solve this problem. as long as you have human beings you are going to have problems but clearly the message we are sending we are sending to our female members of the military is that we are way too indifferent and that your complaints are falling on deaf ears and to all of our commanders, how when the world can you lead your unit in a responsible manner if people in that unit feel like the system doesn't care about them? i will do everything i can within reason to make sure that that stops and that if you are accused of an offense of the military you still get a fair trial. >> senator boxer. >> thank you so much madam chairman and ranking member graham. thank you both for holding this critical hearing. it's very timely and thank you so much or this opportunity to testify. i am very honored, very honored. today i'm here to talk about the violent crime of sexual assault in the military not about fraternization. i'm not here to talk about disrespect of vicious crimes and i'm not here to talk about false charges but about real charges and the way they are handled. as you well know, congress to our great i think credit passed a bipartisan violence against women act and i think everyone on both sides of the aisle who worked so hard for that. i was so proud of president obama signing it into law last week. that law recognizes every human being, every human being male, female deserves protection from violence and it sends a clear and unequivocal message that wherever a sexual assault occurs madam chairman whether on a college campus or on an indian reservation or in a religious setting or in our military, yes the offender must be punished. sexual assault is a heinous and violent crime and it must be treated as such. it isn't an internal matter. it is it is a violent crime and that must be treated as such. and i want to thank each and everyone of you for supporting the boxer cornyn amendment that says no the military cannot take offenders, people who have been convicted of sexual assault into the military. that will help us going forward but we need to do much more. we know this crisis is staggering and despite some important reforms by the department of defense and i thank them for those, they are trying to improve prevention, investigation, prosecution but still too many military sex offenders go unpunished and too many victims do not get the justice that they deserve. as the chairman said it's unacceptable and it must stop and we are the ones to stop it. and you particularly are the ones who can stop it. well in response to a letter that senator shaheen and i sent defense secretary hagel committed to taking a hard look at the military justice system. he agrees that much more must be done to combat military sexual assault. now let me tell you i don't have all the answers. if i had all the answers i would tell you that today. but one thing i do know is that immediate steps must be taken to prevent senior commanders who have the ability to unilaterally overturn a decision or sentence by a military court and i want to thank senator mccaskill who introduced legislation to do just that. that is the first step and only the first step. two recent events and want to share with you. highlight the urgent need for dramatic change. the first case involves a decision by an air force lieutenant general to dismiss all charges against lieutenant colonel convicted of aggravated sexual assault and again all you have to had to do was listen to senator mccaskill's comments on it to understand how this gets us. many in congress are military and our nation were stunned to read that the general used his discretion as the convening authority to throw out a military guilty verdict. the jury of high-ranking military officers and i want to say who on this journey for kernels a lieutenant colonel had sentenced a lieutenant colonel to a year in prison and dismissal from the air force. that is a jury of his peers for sure. under the uniform code of justice the general's decision to overturn that verdict is final and it cannot be reviewed or changed. the second event i wanted to hear because you may not know this. it took place in my home state of california. last month an army veteran shot and killed two santa cruz police detectives who were attempting to question him over sexual assault allegations. in the aftermath of the shooting we learned that even though the former soldier has faced two separate rape charges while serving in the army, charges against him were dropped and he was discharged without a conviction as part of a plea bargain. now what is it going to take to convince the military that sexual assault is a violent and vicious crime and that those who perpetuate it, they are capable of other violent crimes including murder. what is it going to take if they vicious violent crime, and those capable of that vicious crime are capable of other crimes, murder. the examples. >> speak for themselves in there so many more. you will hear them today and your heart will break. it is time for us to take swift decisive steps to ensure that decisions of the military justice system don't rest solely in the hands of one individual. it's not enough that our military has tolerance for sexual assault. you can say anything. i can say anything. but the facts speak for themselves. the department of defense estimates that 19,000 sexual assaults occurred in the military and i want to point out to my colleagues and my friends that many of these cases involved men. only 17% are ever reported. i am so grateful to both of you for this hearing and senator gillibrand i'm so happy that you chose to hold the subcommittee, your first, on military sexual assault. i look forward to working with you on a conference of solution to this problem. today's hearing is the first on this critical issue in nearly a decade, a decade. it's high time not only for this hearing but for changes in the way the military handles these cases. i know all of us who are touched by this issue are going to work with our colleagues, republicans independents back and with the military. the military most of all wants this to go away and we have to and his terrible tragedy of sexual assault. just think of what an amazing legacy will be for the senate if we succeed and even more important think about how many men and women we will rightly protect. thank you so much and i'm very excited to have this hearing and they go with your leadership, the two of you, we can get this done. thank you very much. >> thank you senator boxer for your very strong and valuable testimony. we are so grateful for your leadership. we are now going to welcome than the next panel. you can come up and i will read a biography briefly for each of you while you get settled. we have anu bhagwati is the executive director and co-founder of the service women's action network. the former captain and commander and she serves as a marine officer from 1999 to 2004. while serving she faced discrimination and harassment as a woman in the military. we have bridget mccoy former specialist in the u.s. army. bridges served in u.s. army from 1987 to 1991. she was 18 years old when she signed up to serve her country in the first gulf war. she was sexually assaulted by a non--- officer and rebekah havrilla. rebekah served in u.s. army from 2,042,008. she was only female member of the bomb squad in eastern afghanistan attacked by a colleague on the pakistani border during her last week in the country in 2007. we have brian lewis former petty officer third class navy. brian was in the u.s. navy in june of 1997. during his tour he was raped by a superior noncommissioned officer and forced to go back out to sea after the assault. anchorage each of you to express your views candidly and tell us what is working and what is not working. tell us who understand what to do to address this problem of sexual assault in the military. we will hear your opening statement here's your complete and prepared statements will be included in the record. following the open statements we limit our question to seven minutes in the first round to senators. ms. bhagwati. >> thank you. good morning chairman gillibranr graham and members of the subcommittee. my name is anu bhagwati and the executive director of service women's action network or swan and a former marine corps captain. swan's mission is to transfer military culture by securing opportunities and freedom to surf without discrimination harassment are sold and to perform services to assure high quality health care health care and benefits for women veterans and their families. military sexual violence is a personal issue for me. during my five years as a marine officer experienced daily discrimination and sexual harassment. i was exposed to a culture with sexism rape jokes pornography and widespread commercial sexual exploitation of women and girls both in the united states and overseas. my experiences came to a head while at the school of amber treat and camp lejeune north carolina from 2,022,004 were eyewitness reports of rape sexual assault sexual-harassment swept under the rug by hand full of field grade officers. perpetrators are promoted or transferred to other units without punishment while victims were accused of lying or exaggerating their claim in order to ruin men's reputations. as a company commander in the infantry are ultimately chose to sacrifice my own career to file an equal opportunity investigation against an offending officer. i was given a gag order by my commanding officer got a military protection order against the officer in question, lived in fear of retaliation and violence from both the offender and my own chain of command and then watched in horror as the offender was not only promoted but also given command of my company. many of the women who were impacted by these incidents including me are no longer in the military. however all of the officers who are complicit in covering up these incidents has since retired or still serving on active duty. i was devastated because i loved and still love the marines. i wish my experience was unique in the last few years of working on these issues and in the hundreds of cases we handle each year on swan's helpline i've discovered that rape sexual assault sexual-harassment are pervasive throughout the military. sexual violence day in every branch of service and operational and nonoperational environments in both combat arms as well as support units and affects both men and women. the department of defense itself assaults occurred in 2010. while 8600 victims were female 10,700 were mailed. this is a critical point. military sexual violence is not a women's issue. sexual assault is widely understood by military personnel and overexposed to a culture of victim blaming. let's be clear rape and assault are violins traumatic crimes, not mistakes, not lapses and professional judgment, not leadership failures and not oversight in character. rape is about power, control and -- thanks to a surge of pressure over the last few years by advocates in the media and congress military leadership is finally enforced to recognize the issue of sexual violence. some protections have been sensible like the creation of the special victims unit mandatory transfers for victims or in the air force, a pilot program which assigns each victim a designated special victims counsel. and yet while these help after an assault to you will need to prevent sexual violence nor change the culture that still condoned sexual violence. military leadership cannot solve this problem on its own. i urge congress to enact the following reforms going forward. first congress should grant convenient authority over criminal cases to train professional disinterested prosecutors. commanding officers can i make truly -- and oftentimes with the victim as well. in recognition of this fact a number of common law countries have already transferred cases away from commanders to prosecutors leaving the policy of violation of the right to a fair and impartial trial. second, open civil courts and the military victims. civilian victims of workplace crimes including civilian dod dod employees have one critical avenue for redress currently unavailable to uniform dress and l.. access to civil courts. to this day the u.s. supreme court in the federal court below it continued to maintain a service members are barred from bringing claims of negligence or intentional discrimination against the military. depriving military personnel of remedies for violations of their rights. in the face of the judicial doctrine congress must ensure that men and women in uniform can access the remedies available to all other individuals under the federal tort claims act and the civil rights act. given the prevalence of retaliation against service members who reported incidents of sexual assault and harassment the absence of these remedies for military personnel is especially shameful. i will close by saying that today we are looking at an institution that desperately needs to be shown the next step forward. senators do not let today's servicemembers become another generation of invisible survivors. thank you. >> ms. mccoy. >> thank you very much for having me here. i have deep gratitude towards those who have worked tirelessly for our forces to be heard and to those here listening with compassion and open hearts to make changes towards these matters at hand, changes that need to come from the roots. i'm a gulf war i era service disabled veteran. i was raised during military service and during i first assignment. that was 1998. i was 18 years old. it was two weeks before my 19th birthday. this happened in a foreign country, away from american soil while i was stationed in germany. i did not report it's for reasons which will become clear as i tell my story. that would not be the last time i would be assaulted or harassed this is my story but it's not mine alone. more than 19,000 men and women every year share similar stories. that year, the year that i was raped, that same year i was raped again by another soldier in my unit. another year i was sexually harassed by a commissioned officer in my unit. by 1990, between 1990 and 1991 another nco in my unit began harassing me for inappropriate touching words and behavior. this nco requested from my command that i be moved to her director for him in a work environment where there was no access or key entry code involved. upon receiving my new shift schedule i can only compare the anguish of this entrapment. i was a mental and emotional collapse. senior woman nco in my unit helped me to write a written statement to present to my command. and to file a formal complaint, a complaint that my command answered by no official hearing, no written response and it was only answered later with a verbal response from my first sergeant who asked me, what did i want? and that i misunderstood this nco's intentions toward me. the only thing i wanted at that time were two basic things. one was an apology and for the harassment to stop. that was all. i didn't know what was happening and at no time did anyone ever move forward with my formal complaint nor was anyone willing to discuss the process with me. they did however remove me from the team and a formal apology consisted of him driving by me on bass, rolling down his window and saying to me, sorry. so after that and do it in the days that followed i was verbally and socially harassed, put on extra duty that conflicted the conflicted with my medical profile and socially isolated. eventually i was given a choice to either get out or to face possible ucmj action myself. most women who are victims of sexual harassment are threatened and charged and so i felt i had no choice. i was literally terrified. and so in that terrified position i was paralyzed and i just chose to get out because that was the option given to me. within a week, i had orders out of germany and i was escorted by two ncos to my plane and that was it, my career was over. please note that in that unit i was not the only one that was sexually assaulted or sexually harassed. many women came to me and said they have the same situation happened but they never told me who in fact did this. returning to the essence of billion life was difficult and i had a lot of false starts. i have a lot of negative feelings carried over from the military. i became suicidal and had suicidal attempts. i went through severe depression and had multiple severe medical emesis and was unable to carry on the rigors of work to which i was highly trained for. i repeatedly move from place to place and was homeless and medically disabled. not all even the va would recognize and help me until two decades later. i lost many material things and emotional relationships in my lifetime and struggle. i grieve agreed because i feel i was the lucky one. i hate left my unit alive with an honorable discharge and although discombobulated and i feared for my life and future many leave with less than honorable discharges and disorders on the records or they're hindering them from applying for medical treatment and medical claim. some like pfc. johnson don't come home to their parents alive 22 years later almost to the day i was awarded veteran service compensation and service connection for military sexual trauma. can you tell me why did it take so long? why did i have to go through so much before anyone would listen to meet? why did i have to be violated again through the process of asking for help in seeking claims status? today i volunteered in this helps to ground me, volunteers through different veterans organizations and outreach foundations. i participate in listening sessions to help organizations like the sierra club to understand the many facets of veterans needs for programmatic purposes. my history is chronicled with other women and the documentary service when women go marching on. i'm a social media advocate for women's social justice; great with community and veteran organizations and dozens of other organizations. i speak and have spoken at the surgeon general's task force for suicide prevention because suicide and homelessness are two huge issues in the military sexual trauma community. and with the claims denial and lack of purposeful medical treatment exacerbating those issues. of course ptsd from mst is a main contributing factor. i have to say i know longer have any hope that the military chain of command will consistently prosecute convicts sentenced and carry out the sentencing of sexual predators in uniform without absconding justice somehow. only 8% of them are prosecuted. how many are relieved of their duty, their pension, their career? how many are placed on a national registry of sex offenders before they return to civilian life and even after that what happens to the 90% of women that word sentence were prosecuted? notes not allow sexual predators to happen to wear uniform the opportunity to become highly trained highly degreed military decorated sexual predators. let's make sure they are convicted and was honorably discharged and listed on the national registry. let's do this before they go into our communities to further harm our community and family members. sexual assault and trauma have deep and broad roots in the military. let's not just trimmed the branch, let's deal with this from the roots. please make it stop. >> thank you. ms. havrilla. good morning my name is rebekah sets and i'm the outreach education coordinator for service women's action network swan. i previously from may 2001 to december 2012. during that time i insisted and providing referral to 600 servicemembers veterans and their families on issues related to military rape sexual assault and harassment. these included overcoming barriers to getting va sexual trauma claims accepted overcoming homelessness actively finding quality mental health care. i hail from the great state of south carolina where group looked intelligent army 2004. i was a technician and achieved the rank of sergeant three years and three months. i deployed to afghanistan from september 2006 to september 2007 and spent the majority of my time in the eastern provinces where is assigned a combined explosive exploitation cell ied response and intelligence operations. i also spent time running positions in combat companies and i was awarded the joint service commendation medal for my achievements while deployed and was given an army achievement medal and good conduct medal before he left active duty. my deployment brought more than just the stress of occupational hazard. during my tour one of my team leaders continuously sexually harassed me and was sexually abusive towards me. his behavior caused me so much anxiety ended up self referring to mental health. on medication and the stress of having to live with an abusive leader and co-worker. one week before my unit was scheduled to return back to united states i was raped by a servicemember that have worked with their team. initially he chose not to report of any kind because had no faith in my chain of command. is my first sergeant previously had accusations against him in vienna climate was extremely sexist and hostile in nature towards women. after disclosing my rate to a few close friends and the filing of restrictirestricti ve report 60 days before he left active duty against my rapist and team leader but had no intentions of ever doing a formal investigation. i began a job as a contractor and entered the reserves in missouri and tried to start a different life for myself. reintegration was challenging and i had support -- few support systems to rely on. on. i suffered poster maddox dress. a year after separating from active duty i was on orders for job training and during that time i ran into my rapist. he recognized me and told me he was stationed on the same installation. i was traumatized from the unexpectedness and seeing him and i remove myself from training and sought out -- from a chaplain who told me among other things that the rape was god's will and god was trying to get me attention so i would go back to church. again i did not file a sexual report against my rapist. six months later a friend home and called me they found pictures of me on line that my perpetrator had taken during my rape. at that point i felt my rape was always going to haunt the elicited something about it so went to army criminal investigation division and a full investigation was completed the initial cid interview was the most humiliating thing i have ever experienced. i had to relive the entire event for over four hours with them mailed cid who i'd never met and explained to him repeatedly exactly what was going on in each of the pictures. after the interview is completed i heard nothing from the investigator until four months later when cid requested i come back and to repeat my statement to a new investigator who is taking over my case. i almost refuse. during the four months of waiting without any work on the case except phonecalls from my friends have been interviewed i lived in constant fear and might run into my rapist again or he might re-out to retaliate against me in some way. as such you continue with the case even though i felt nothing was ever going to be resolved in six months later i was to leave and go my rapist admitted to having consensual sex with me while married his chain of command refused to pursue charges of adultery and the case was closed. the military criminal justice system is broken. unfortunately my case is not much different from the many other cases that have been reported. i fear retaliation and before-and-after reported the investigative process reach, ties me. many of institutional systems set up to help failed me miserably. my perpetrator went unpunished despite admitting to a crime and commanders were never held accountable. what we need is a military with a fair and impartial criminal justice system one that is run by professional legal experts, not unit commanders. we also need an additional system that allows military victims to accessible courts if the military fails them. without military criminal justice reform and access to civil courts the military sexual violence will continue to be widespread and a stain on her character. thank you for your time. >> thank you. mr. lewis. >> gentlewoman gillibrand and ranking member -- i am sitting here today before you as the first male survivor to testify in front of congress on this very important issue and thank you for allowing that privilege to me. i also want to take a minute to thank my partner andy and all the thousands of partners and survivors of sexual trauma and i would also like to thank the parents and caregivers that work so hard to keep us on a level playing field. they deserve our recognition. i enlisted in the navy in 1997 and advance to ranking petty officer third class through german tour i was raped by a noncommissioned officer. i was ordered by my command not to report this crime. after this crime had taken place i was misdiagnosed with a personality disorder by the current director of the defense centers of excellence for psychological health and dramatic rain entry. i filed felt retaliation claims to no avail. i was given a general discharge for a personality disorder in august 2001. my petition to change my discharge from the general discharge to a prop for personality sorter to a medical retirement for ptsd was denied by the board of corrections. i carried that discharge as an official and permanent symbol of shame on top of the physical attack, the retaliation and the aftermath. i fear will be discussed when i apply for law school, when i i play applied to be vented to the bar and the but when i applied for a job. i wonder what opportunities it may destroy for me. however, i choose not to dwell on what the past has thrown my way. i will graduate in may with a bachelors of science degree of from maryland and i will graduate in december with a masters of science degree from the same university. they plan to go to hamon university school of law and i choose to work towards stopping this crime in our military. needless to say because of it might discharge i've had to pay for all these degrees on my own. i am here today because i'm not alone. my story is all too common. protector defenders regularly from active duty personnel seeking help as they are being denied opportunities to report generally retaliate against diagnosed with arithmetical diagnoses are charged with misconduct after reporting the attack. the culture of victim blaming and retaliation while failing to punish the perpetrator must end. the department of defense -- defense -- 19000 salsa kritsch and 86% of victims to not report mostly out of fear of retaliation. of those 19,000 victims about 10,700 or a man and 8300 are women. to translate this into percentages about 56% of estimate of victims and the military are men. this is a part of the crisis that the department defense does not acknowledge. now just what can we do to stop sexual assault in our military? first we must read nice rape is not just about sex. it's about violence power and sometimes abuse of authority. general franklin's recent action to set aside the guilty verdict of aggravated sexual assault is yet another example of abuse of authority that will have a chilling effect on military judges prosecutors and juries and inhibit victims from coming forward. a system that elevates an authority and discretion over the rule of law precludes justice and hinders it long into the future. colonel wilkerson's victims have been in contact and she wants you to know kool endured eight months of public commemoration and investigations. why bother to put the investigator's prosecutors judge jury and me through this if one person can set aside justice with the swipe of a pen. i have your copy of her statement which has been submitted or the record madam chairwoman. reforms to date have clearly not been addressed and have targeted the symptoms without addressing the root cause which is that the military justice system is fraught with inherent bias conflict of interest abuse of authority and held in low regard to the victim. where is a civilian has a constitutional protections of an independent judicial system servicemembers do not. members must report an assault to their commanders however if those commanders take action and prove that an assault occurred they also prove failure of their own leadership. congressman put commanders in charge of violent crimes. through adjudication and posttrial. commanders have too often fail to care for the victim or prosecute the perpetrator. they have failed to end this long-standing epidemic. we also need to ensure that prevention includes mail servicemembers. the majority of prevention efforts are targeted towards females. as i demonstrated men are the majority of the victims in our military. we cannot marginalize male survivors and send a message to make and not be raped and therefore not real survivors. survivors of military sexual, need -- the military has sent survivors at the backdoor with an almost weaponize medical diagnoses like personality disorders that affect their benefits and future employment opportunities. we need to establish a system separate and apart from the military records and keep these charges and grant survivors medical retirements they are due under the department of defense. currently the correction boards only change 10% of their discharges. these discharges make it much harder for veterans to find meaningful employment victimize the veteran and make it impossible for these veterans to use their earned education benefits. in conclusion this epidemic has not been addressed in decades of review and reform by the department defense and by congress. some of the reasons for this include men being at visible and ignoring survivors of sexual trauma inherent bias and conflict of interest present military justice system. the reporting investigation proceed in adjudication of sexual assault must be taken out a chain of command and into an independent office with professional military oversight. establish discharge review processes -- the causes lifelong harm. it is another way that the department defense fails us. congressional legislation created the systems that are inherently biased unfair and do not work. it is is not congress's duty to pass legislation that so servicemembers can receive justice that is fair and impartial and finally addresses the military's epidemic of sexual assault. it should also be noted that a lot of survivors like the other panels it said did not come him. there are people like kerry goodwin and so many others that do not survive from their sexual assault and we need to do this in memory of them. madam chairwoman this concludes my remarks and i'm prepared for your questions and those from from the subcommittee. >> he thank you to each of you for such direct and thoughtful testimony. each of you have recommended in your own way that you would like the authority removed from the chain of command and in fact there should be an independent legal review and a prosecution. ms. bhagwati if we are able to institute a prosecution system that does not involve having to report to your chain of command do you think that would increase the number of cases reported and did you think it will increase the number of cases that are prosecuted and do you think you will increase the number of cases where a conviction is found? >> thank you senator gillibrand. yes i do. it's really a two-prong system. we have the pipeline of accused being prosecuted and hopefully convicted but also the retaliation that servicemembers face in the process which can't just be dealt with through the criminal justice system within the military. so yes absolutely and independent prosecutor can give authority, convening authority will dramatically shift the way victims approach whether or not to report that victims be said that as well. we have to remember i look at it as kind of a cynical way thinking about sexual assault being inevitable in the military if all we focus on is prosecution and the dems care. we have to do something on the front end to prevent sexual assault from happening at all and right now there's no deterrent because of sweeping culture chains. >> do you think we have more convictions and justice is served that will signal change within the military that if you do commit these crimes you will be caught and prosecuted and you will be punished? >> absolutely. it's a huge step we need to take but i would just like to encourage the senate to consider the fact that criminal justice is not a perfect system and either the military or the civilian world and that victims need more than just a criminal justice system to achieve closure and full access to justice. civilian victims within argonaut estates have much more access to redress and that is why the civil court system needs to be open to military victims as well. right now that terry victims have less access to justice and the civilian victims who are sworn to honor and defend. >> how do you think if he could open the civilian court system to victims that would change the culture of the military? >> the civil court traditionally is designed to deter victims. there is a lower burden of proof and victims are likely to get more justice and it acts as a work place a deterrent to workplace discrimination harassment and assault within the civilian context. you can go can't go a week without reading a case of abuse in the mainstream news about a civilian that some of discrimination or assault actually getting her day in court. the civilian criminal justice system hasn't been able to give her justice. >> what are some of their ways and that you think we can change the culture and the military to create less of a climate of discrimination and the possibility of assault and abuse? >> one very integral piece of this unfortunate puzzle is really to legalize sex discrimination which exist in the military and only one military occupational specialty has been open to women as far as we know thus far and so we are very much looking forward to what the joint chief has announced in the way it will be implemented but sex discrimination in the military goes hand-in-hand with sexual harassment and sexual assault. >> for the other three witnessee to have reported your case of sexual assault and rape to prosecutor directly how do you think it would have changed how your case was handled and what differences do you think it would have shown? >> i really have to reach back over 20 years to think about it but i believe i would have moved forward with pursuing some type of -- i would not have backed away. in my case i did% of documentation that was necessary to move forward and they didn't do anything. so i would have had something in place for someone in place to go to to have that conversation to move forward with some type of legal process. ultimately i would have still had my career. i would have still been serving. i would not have been forced out and i would not have been for -- scared for my life. i would have had an intermediary to go to. >> i'm not sure if i would do it much differently. i was in a unit of 22 people. even if i had an independent prosecutor i believe not this year but last year there was no potential for transfers so had i actually gone through with a full investigation investigation while serving i still would have had to live with many of the men who were abusive ports made. that is not anything i would have ever want to go through. independent prosecutor aside the challenge is partially changing the culture within the military of how women are viewed and until some of the leadership is held accountable for the actions of some of their subordinates when leadership is allowed and swept under the rug and leadership is never made to stand for the actions of others that they hands down could have easily said this is unacceptable baker and it will stop. until that happens, because not all units are like mine and i just happen to get a a bad one but had i been in that situation with that unit i still probably would have not reported at that time. >> mr. louis? >> thank you for your question madam chairwoman. i want to be absolutely clear that my perpetrator was not just a perpetrator against me. he perpetrated this crime against other victims in that same command while under this the command of the same co so yes an independent prosecutor would have made a world of difference. it would have gotten the reporting outside of the chain of command that wouldn't have enabled my commanding officer to sweep this under the rug. even if i would have had to stay on board ship with my command and perpetrator, i would have still been able to access some form of justice and that at the end of the day would have saved me i feel a lot of heartache and a lot of disappointment and hearing one of my senior members of my chain of command come to me and say you are not going to report this. that is devastating to any survivor, male, female, whatever. it feels like your heart breaks when your commanders break faith with you in that fashion. an independent prosecutor would have made all the difference. thank you madam chair. >> thank you. senator graham. >> to all of you believe that you have someone in your corner, someone assigned to help you through the system, and advocate, that would have helped? >> i initially went to the sexual assault response coordinator and i found them to be very helpful and very supportive but they have absolutely no authority with these issues. while it was comforting in some respect to know that they were supportive and they were there, there is nothing they can particularly do for you when you were going through the military judicial system. i think having someone ,-com,-com ma because i eventually get a full investigation and even then i had no one to guide me through that to explain what was going on and i didn't hear from cid for four months after my initial report. i think someone like a special victim individual trained in the legal aspects of what is happening and what's going on would have been extremely beneficial for me when i was going through the actual investigation process. >> could you give the committee not in public here but privately the name of the chaplain who told you that? >> i honestly don't remember his name but i can easily find it out for you. >> would you please find that out? >> i can do that for you. about opening civilian litigation, is it bhagwati? >> it's bhagwati. >> would you suggest that the claim be against the government or the individual member? >> they are claims against an employer and the federal tort claims and civil rights act cases have been traditionally brought up for the victim but all of this i think needs to be closely looked at. but in our system, in our culture civil courts get justice much more frequently than in a criminal court and so we have to look at how we can make the military more on par with the civilian system. it makes no sense that young americans should put on a uniform and sacrifice the constitutional right. that makes no sense. >> mr. louis, he received a general discharge, is that correct? >> yes, senator. >> again maybe we can do this in the committee privately. do you mind if we look at your file? >> no problem senator. >> from your point of view do you think having a victim advocate would have been helpful or someone that you could have gone to that would have been in your corner to educate you on the things you could do when you hit a roadblock? >> some survivors have had success with a victim advocate. but i think in order to be feasible, any person that would be in my corner would have to be of rank and able to issue orders and able to do things to help me directly. i was fortunate enough to see mental health and i thought that doctor was in my corner and he wasn't. >> he was not? >> no sir. i just cannot imagine a case where someone of lesser rank could effectively be in my corner while being subject to the chain of command. >> ms. mccoy you were victimized multiple times, is that correct? >> that is correct. >> did you ever go through a cid process? >> i did not. i did go through the process of filing paperwork with another nco and they helped me and came alongside me at that time but i don't know there was a victims advocate. i know we have sexual harassment training and we were given steps on how to handle sexual harassment but there was no one that could come alongside me. .. going through the day-to-day maybe backlash for even reporting it and isolation. i don't know how that is going to help that individual while they're still stations in that united when they're receiving that type of treatment. >> maybe you can comment on it individually from your own personal experience. why do you think the commanders, the senior nco leadership -- why were they so host l -- hoist l to the claims? >> my own experience in the marine corps., there was signs of hopes along the way. when i was at the school of infantry, it was actually the men that were just outraged as the victim of sexual harassment and assault. on the officer side there was an all-boy's club colonels protecting staff sergeants. whether or not it has to do with an inclination of protecting one's own career, looking out far future star, whether or not there's a misguided attempt to protect a good man because you know his family and he served twenty years. you hear the language all the time and officers there are fewer of us, and we spend time with one another hanging out the oak club. it's a different culture. that's why the case was more egregious. there was a -- even without looking at fact of the case. it's typical in every unit throughout the armed services. >> one of the things that i, you know, i really do stress. it's about leadership. the hostility isn't necessarily even toward women. the hostility is toward the feminine, the perception of being less than and perception of being weak. even though i was the only female in my unit, i was not the only one targeted for abuse. we had two other maims that were targeted regular ily for sexual harassment and abuse. they went through the same stuff i did. it was not a gender issue. it was a we are targeting what we see as less than. and just by me being a woman, i was automatically less than even though i was just as good as they were. the mind set when you have that mentality and again, you have the leadership that allow it is to continue every day. i can't tell you a single day i was there that didn't go back with a rape joke, sex joke, sex play simulated sex play between men. it was -- we had a sexual assault and harassment training we went through. one of the sergeants got on the table and stripped naked and danced and laughed at it. that's the culture i live on a daily basis. when you deploy you are stuck with the people in small units and places. why would i go to a chain of command i knew was going allow the things? it was not even a hostility toward women in general. it's that is the kind of culture that some of these unites commander allow to thrive. when you have the type of culture, the type of issues are going continue to be pore pet waited -- perpetuated. >> thank you. senator bloomen bliewmen >> thank you senator gillibrand. i want to thank you and other members on the panel. i think senator mccaskill, senatorsha shaheen, senator gillibrand. i have been privileged to be involved in some of the work that has proceeded this hearing. i think the hearing is critically important because it highlights why we're here today, which is that in the aftermath and the wake of ten years of war, we want to assure we have in our military, the best, brightest, and bravest. obviously actual assault is one of the primary obstacle to attracting and obtaining good people to the military. it's not just the victims, although we deeply respect and care for the or -- how horrific experience you have encountered it's the national interest that brings us here today. it's the interest of our extraordinary military. it also brings us here today. they have common -- demonstrated they are aghast by the problem and acting to do something about it. not just defense secretary hague l, i believe many of the leaders in the military they will be -- i view today's hearing as a cooperative effort. cooperative between this panel and the department of defense in seeking to address a problem that thought have zero tolerance. literally zero tolerance. as a parent of two sons, who are currently serving in the military, and one who serves on the panel and has spent some of the best moments of my two years as a member of the senate with the military, three times visiting afghanistan, having the privilege of working with many of our military, i believe that we have in our military right now the next greatest generation. and that if question deal with this problem, we will assure that we continue to have that quality of people in the military and, i believe the leader of our military are determined to make it so. but this issue is more complicated than just making a speech or saying we have zero tolerance. literally deterrence is in the detail. i say that as a former prosecute and united states attorney in connecticut for four and a half years and state attorney general for twenty years. the details of evidence, of sentencing, of review, and appeal are what will enable us to solve the problem. i welcome the suggestion, for example, that we have independent authority outside the chain of command, which might be welcomed by many of the officers who have to make these decisions. and i think these issues ought to be explored. you know, the will wilkerson case is extraordinary not just for the conviction, the sentence was only a year, as i understand it. even more troublingly, i'm going quote from the full statement, mr. lou wigs, -- lewis that was provided by the victim. i endured eight months of public humiliation and investigations, interviews by osi, and the prosecution. apparently without an attorney. and to continue 0 the quote i was interrogated for several hours by wilkerson's legal counsel without the benefit of legal counsel myself. he was interrogated by hours by the defense counsel without any aid of an attorney or so. so let me ask you, would you suggest that we ought to have -- not just a victim's advocate, we a victim's advocate who would serve in effect as legal representation for the victim? so that victim's rights and perhaps expanded rights would be better protected? >> it's a very sensible recommendation or suggestion. i would refer do you the air force's pilot program. i imagine general harding will be touching on that in a few hours. it's a very, you know, by all accounts, we have referred a couple of clients just for this purpose, airmen who have needed that extra buffer. it's incredibly intimidating process even under the best circumstances. there's so much hierarchy and power and intim -- intimidation in the process of coming forward, and yes, that measure as it's been briefed to us even goes beyond what civilian victims have which is fantastic. military victims need the extra bufferrer because of the hire hierarchy environment they operate every day. especially junior enlisted troops. >> we should be very clear, civilian victims who come forward do so in a highly intimidating process, and they have needed -- i can tell you as one who has seen this process improve other the years, they have needed the advocacy that the military is beginning to provide, and i commend the pilot program than started and we will be hearing later from folks who can tell us more about it. i asked you as victims who are thered a vote cays now whether that kind of separate unit, which i have advocated ought to be made institutional. >> i believe it should be. i will add, i think there's extra pressure on military victims. it's a different environment. it's a confined environment. you cannot quick your job or you will be charged. in a civilian environment, rape, assault, and harassment are horrible within any condition. in the military you have less freedom of movement, access, you have incredibly hierarchy system. nine times out of ten you are told to be silent. that's how we're trained. >> i think you have highlighted the point by calling attention to the culture within your unit, the practices within your unit, which in essence were unreviewlble because of the physical and command structure. that's you encountered. >> yeah. it's something that i saw, you know, outside of my unit as well. i spent the majority of my time with infantry special combat and special forces engineers. i spent 99% of my time as the only female. i had exposure to other unitses and capacity. there were some that were just as bad and some that were not. there was some that treated me with professional respect and dignity. i never had any problems with some. in my mind, it comes to what is a i lowed? what does the leadership say goes and doesn't go? where do they draw the line? and that filters down to the lower levels, and continues do so. >> my time, unfortunately, has expired. i want to close by saying that your testimony in particular really all of your testimony call thes attention to the needs for prevention, part of is deterrence. i say that as prosecutor. i'm a believer in deterrence. firm punishment, prosecution, but also education. i know, the military has begun using an extraordinary documentary called "invisible war" which i hope will be shown to everybody, all of our brave men and women in the armed forces so we can prevent the kind of unit culture that you have described so movingly. i want to thank you for being here today, for having the courage to step forward. but also for your service in our military. and thank all the military and veterans present here today for your service as well. thank you. >> thank you, senator bliewmen that. >> thank you, madam chair. i want to thank you for having this and the services for being here today. we appreciate what you have to say. and this is an incredibly important issue. i wanted to ask about this idea of prevention, and what do you think we can do more effectively? i don't pretended to have a very good understanding -- now i know the military has made some steps in terms of what kind of education they are doing whether it's showing individuals the invisible war film, but also it seems to me we won't have prevention unless we have -- at the military academy, basic training, this be a core component and readiness, a core component of training of the chain of command as a priority, and what was your experience with that? any sense of what we can do more on that end to make this as you say, changing the culture mean it being a core component of every aspect of when you receive training and your readiness of the awareness and reporting and accountability. >> well, i have to say that it even starts at recruitment because we have quite a few of our men and women that are being raped and sexual harassed during the recruitment process. so i would say even before you get to the center where you're having the process of you being, you know, examined and all of your background history and, you know, interrogated, it needs to start at the very beginning. before you even get in to the military. so that when people come in, they know there is a no tolerance. this is not going the area, this breeding ground for you to wreak havoc against other people. it has to start at the very beginning. and that's just what i believe. >> thank you, senator. >> one of the key components as i said in my opening statement, we not mar -- the department defense's campaign last year or so was ask her when she's sober. the idea of the idea margin isle z of a small -- male survivor coming forward and given the strong societal almost blind eye of a male survivor. we need to empower them to come forward. the other things in term of prevention is it must be a core part of readiness. it must extend all the way back to recruitment, and commanders must actually put the things they learn in training in to practice if they receive an expedited request for transfer, the benefit of the doubt should automatically be with the victim, and the transfer should be grantedded unless there's some extenuating circumstances against it. and i can't -- i would be hard pressed to think of any. but prevention also has to be a way of thinking and it has to be accepted all the way down almost to the very bones of the people that we don't do this against each other. we don't hide the crime when it comes up, and even if this crime comes up, it's not a failure of my leadership to say this has happened and i need to record it up the chain of command properly. >> thank you inspect is a question i thought about. dod has direction about how sexual harassment trains are to be conducted. a few years ago, the gao did a report on the trainings, and it just doesn't happen the way it's supposed to happen for numerous reasons. it's -- we've been at war for over a decade now, times crunch. it becomes a powerpoint, check it here, read this, go on, move on, we have to get it done. let get through this. one of the things we always saw, we had an e6 in the unit. click through the sides, everybody sign here and move on. so i think that, you know, by actually implementing the dod's recommendation of having outside educator come in and do the trainings. it's important you have someone not in the military system who understands the military system, that can come in and say, you know, this is what can consent is. it's what, you know, that can lay out exactly -- this is the define it and say, this is what is going happen if you do this. you know, and have actual consequences as we discussed all morning for this action if they occur. i think it's important the training is there it's just not being implemented properly. there's not enough educators out there that are doing this. sometimes there's only one or two to an entire installation. they can't handle reports and do training at the same time. it's a budget issue, it's a funding issue of how we going provide appropriate educators for the topic from recruitment on, exactly. >> thank you. >> i think bryan's point is really important. messaging is critical. culture change cannot happen without an entire rethinking of how this issue is messaged within the military. i mean, generally the way they talk about the issue there's an assumption you are harassed or assaulted because you are weak. weakness somehow plays in to, you know, the entire makeup of why this doesn't -- this is a hard problem within the military. we're not trained to think of other -- ourselves as weak. it's victim hollywood is not something that any veteran wants to own. it's a completely out of sink with being in the military. but when there's messaging that sort of, you know, small women who aren't strong enough are victims. and you see veriuations on that theme -- variation on the theme. it has nothing to do with a sex of a victim. when there's mixed messaging about alcohol and rape, where there's and assumption that there's just a lapse of professional judgment on the part of a young man in most cases. you see messaging about that. ask her when she's issuer poster is the perfect example. there's so many inappropriate mixing of messages. which is also just based on mythologies. it's not based on fact. rape tend to be serial. they use tools like alcohol to undermine their victim's credibility. it's not a matter of young people partying and the wrong thing happening. i mean, rape is layout tactics to do what they want to do. and it's -- there's really just a lack of understanding about what rape is and sexual harassment is. and the final thing, the culture is so entrenched right now, when it comes to sexual violence, because chain of command is how we have learned to operate from day one of basic training or ocs, you really need out systems that are available to victims within the military because it's hard for your mind to really dosh think out of that box once it becomes your 24-norm. the uniform, it changes you. and for all the right reasons because it's very effective operationally to be trained that way. when it comes to being violated, attacked, losing your dignity at the hands of a fellow service-member. we need outside systems. they are obviously perceived as safer. they work better. i want to thank all of you. my time is up. just briefly, first of all, sexual assault and rape is not eat the weakness of the victim. it's about power and control and the assertion of that. that obviously in a military context becomes an even greater problem. obviously my background as a prosecutor too, i want you to know, mr. lewis, i very much appreciate that men are victims of sexual assault in the civilian sector but in the military. i can imagine this is an even greater issue we need to address for men and women and all people's dignity. two things i wanted to say briefly, you know, in my state, in the civilian side we had what is called a victim's bill of rights, and it seems to me like there needs to be a bill of rights also when you're in the military in terms of you know how you'll be treated. it has to also be something that the chain of command is held accountable for. so i appreciate all of you being here today and look forward to hearing what you have to say and listening to what you have to say beyond this hearing as we try to make sure that we address this issue and stop what is happening. thank you. >> thank you. senator her. >> thank you. i thank you for your testimony and the information that you provided. i realize that this situation is complicated. and one of the things to change is a culture of institution and military. we are proud of the service of our men and women in uniform, but this is -- these kinds of assaults, we must move in the right direction, and some of the suggestions that you made were, i think steps that we should consider seriously. one of the questions that you are asked what -- if we were to remove the decision to prosecute or even to investigate from the chain of command and giving to an independent authority. would that help? and something you said struck me and you said that while this is going on, though '02 still in the environment, you're still feeling very vulnerable, so what are some things we could do during the process? basically i want to know what kind of privacy is afforded to someone who comes forward to report these crimes? what can we do even if we were to remove the decision from the chain of command? >> i think when you're in the military, you feel like you have absolutely no privacy at all anyway. even when it comes to medical issues. there really is no privacy. as mentioned, i think that implementing the concept of base transfer or unit transfer or getting you away from those people that were perpetrators against you. i can't imagine being in my unit going through an investigation at any point in time. but had i had that option of saying, hey, go to a -- say it happened to me. i'm thinking about reporting it. i'm not sure because i don't want to have to stay in the unit and deal with the potential backlash. had they given me the option of saying question transfer you to another unit another dutied station. it's very small. it's not like i can go from unit unit to another one play to be to another. i would have to literally pcs or go tdy in some capacity to get away from, you know, change duty stations that have to move states, basically. you had the challenges that might come with that. i'm in another location, i've decided to press chawrnlgs and i'm having to do this from a remote location. so there's complications as everybody discussed today. i think had i had the option to say you can go forward with a prosecution and not be in the unit that you're in, i might have considered that very seriously. but i can't imagine doing it while embedded and entrenched with the same unit that was causing all of my difficulties. >> would the rest of you agree that should have been an option presented to you to be removed from the environment in which these incidents occurred? >> absolutely. >> thank you, senator. and absolutely. one of the current problems with the unit transfer idea is that a unit may be in the same geographic location, for instance. if this happened to me aboard a ship in pearl harbor station, i could have stationed on a submarine before i went to the -- out of pearl harbor. if i could have been moved from the submarine to navel support command there at the same base, almost the same building, and that's -- i would rather, speaking personally i would rather deal with the pressures of having to deal with the prosecution of half a state away or whenever than to be in a situation where i have to look my perpetrator in the face. i have to eat, sleep, read, go to the bathroom or anything else with that perpetrator. >> would all of you think -- would all of you agree that removing the decision to go forward with either investigation or prosecution should be removed and should go to an independent authority and up the chain of command? would all of you agree it would be a desirable step? >> there other cubs that have removed the chape of command from making the decisions. i think great britain has done so. are you familiar with the experiences of in these countries whether the incidents of sexual assault went down, where prosecutions went up? reports went up. are you familiar enough to talk to us a little bit about what you're impressions are of the other countries that have made this kind of change? >> we've done some research. it's my understanding that the u.k. and canada systems are ones we should look at in closer details. the australian system is also one you look at, although we have seen less success in that system. beyond that, though, i would refer you to additional subject matter experts. i think it's -- it requires a great deal of further study, but the u.k. has done it successfully. it's my understanding that the prosecutors themselves are military but that the super visiers of the prosecutors is civilian. so it's a bit of a mix. in the u.k. system. >> so there's some thing definitely question learn from the other countries. i happen to read an article in the newspaper marge 10th, 2013, and it's talking about the case. and it notes that because of all of the attention being paid to the terrible situation, these assaults, that somehow there's a political climate where a commanding officer is feel pressure to prosecute sexual assault allegations. and the article goes on to say that commanderring officers sometimes use their discretion to proceed with weak cases. and they cite some examples when it happened. so it seems to me twont point to the desirability of removing these kind of decisions from the chaifn -- chain of command so they wouldn't feel political pressure to prosecute weak cases. would you like to comment? >> absolutely. it's a critical point that professionalizing the system actually putting legal experts in charge of the process serves everyone better. it creates a fair and more impartial trial for the accused as well. the classic kind of example of why the current problem is so serious is the marine corps. doing the right thing as the head of the marine corps. by speaking out strongly against sexual assault in the marine. we were excited to heart language. because he and everyone in the chain of command is seen as problematic. it he were removed like all other unit commanders he could speak strongly about the issue. as everyone within the armed forces should. we have a perception there's undue influence by the kommendant or other military commanders because commanders have the discretion over the cases. it doesn't need to be that way. we professionalize the system and go in the direction of the, for example, u.k. we won't see the undue influence. >> thank you. miami chair, my time is up, thank you. >> senator mccaskill. >> thank you for being here today. rape is the crime of a coward. rape is in the ranks are massacre raiding real members of the military. because our military is not about cowards. now our military does an amazing job of training. i'm so proud of our military. but unfortunately i believe that this is not a crime that we're going train our way out of. because the crime of rape has nothing to do with sexual gratification. it has dog -- nothing to do with dirty jokes, and frankly, there's a lot of studies that say it's not even connected necessarily with people who like to look at dirty pictures. it's a crime of assault, power, domination, and i believe based on my years of experience that the only way that victims of sexual assault are going to feel empowered until the -- in the military when they finally believe that the focus on the military is to get the guys and put them in prison. i believe the focus of our effort should be on effective prosecution. and what do we need to do to make sure that these investigations are done promptly and professionally. the victims are wrapped in good information, solid support, and legal advice. that the prosecutors have the wherewithal and the resources to go forward in a timely and aggressive way. you don't have the ability of some general somewhere who has never heard the testimony of factual witnesses in a consent case can wipe it out with a stroke of a pen. what i would like from you all, some of you your cases -- they are all compel flipping all moving. i like senator graham and infuriated at the chaplain. i'm enfour -- who perpetrated what happened to you are still serving in our military. i would like to hear from you especially those who had the cases that were more recent. what happened when you reported in terms of getting good legal information about what your rights were and what to expect? >> thank you, senator. as mentioned, i had none. when my friend notified me that he found the picture of my rape online and again, it was kind of actually kind of a spur of the moment decision i was like, okay, enough is enough. it's gone on long enough. i'm going to do an investigation. this is ridiculous. >> i could back to your initial decision. because we know there's a huge number of the cases. there's never a restricted or unrestricted report. and just so we make the record clear remember stricted report is held for five years and unrestricted report is kept for twenty years. >> i believe those just changed. i believe that restricted reports now are to be kept for fifty. but previously there was a much lower cap on that; correct. >> okay. whatever the amount is, the difference between the restricted and unrestricted how timely we can get after it. if it's restricted you don't get investigated. >> correct. you basically become a statistic. >> if in fact you made the report restricted was the unique nature of the victim being embedded with her perpetrator in a work environment that is intense and depends on working together. what would have happened when you went in if you were told that if there is probably cause found in the next thirty days, that this crime was committed, your perpetrator would be removed from the unit. what would your response have been? >> it probably would have been worth considering. at that point, you have a timeline. a light at the end of the tunnel, so to speak. with set standards and guidelines of okay, this will happen in the event that this, this, this are found. again, everybody, you know, when you're in the middle of it, i look -- you look back on it with 20/20 or monday morning quarterback style and like, oh, i can look back on this and think i might have done it differently. when with you're in the middle it's extremely different to be able to think clearly. it's a huge trauma. it affects your mental health, how you see the world, how you see yourself. had i had more information, had there been some type of recourse saying it's not about me, it's about him. had there been probable cause for some type of prosecution. i was asked later when i did my full investigation. if they find enough, are you willing to take it to court marshall. said yes, absolutely. it in the beginning that wasn't even an option for me. that wasn't something that was given to me, and, you know, again, we can do the what if all we want. and looking forward, i'm a different person than i was if i were in the same situation now and have it happen to me. yes, absolutely i'm willing to take that as this perpetrator is going to be done in thirty days or a potential for that there of. let move forward. >> do you feel like your special advocate that you talked to, do you feel like they were neutral, supportive, tried to talk you out of it, tried to talk you in to it? >> most of them are very supportive. they wanted to be helpful. they understood that hair hands were tied as to what they could do for you as a victim. they kind of -- when i went in to do my restrict report against the rapist. i mentioned in passing the constant sexual harassment and assault of the team leader. they said do you adopt do a report against him. i was like, i haven't thought of that. sure, why not. they weren't pressuring me. i had the option to do that if it was something i was willing to do. at that time, my end of the tunnel, my light at the end i had sixty days and i was out of the army. that's all i wanted. i wanted to be out, i wanted to be done and away from the unit i was in. >> mr. lewis, what about you? did you feel like the point in time you reported anywhere that there was any legal help or any kind of help at all that would have allowed do you move forward with some kind of effort to -- is your perpetrator still in the navy? >> i honestly don't know. at this point, i hope that i've moved forward enough they honestly don't care. it has to be about me. >> i know that. i care, so you know. >> i appreciate that, senator. >> i care. >> honestly. when the situation came to light, there was an eerie silence that emanated from the jag office. >> what year was this? >> 2000. >> okay. >> and it was like a black hole had all the sudden surrounded the j.a.g. office. because the judge general of the command is intord nant to the commanding office. at some point becomes about preservation of their own career rather than helping me. and no, there was no effective legal situation that i had access to. >> my time is out. i want to say that i do -- i spent a number of hours with an amazing professional prosecutors in the area of sexual assault, at the pentagon on monday. decades of experience, and i do feel that there is some progress being made in some branches, some more than others. recognizing that they have failed at getting after this. and doing what our military usually does best. that is focus on a mission, and make it happen. and what you all are doing today allows us focus on the mission to get the coward rapists out of the ranks. and we're going everything we can to make it happen. so thank you all very, very much for being here. >> thank you, senator. >> senatorsha hen. >> thank you, madam chair. thank you for holding the hearing today. thank you for your testimony. we ease is -- especially appreciate your willingness to come forward and tell your stories in a way that allows us to hopefully follow up and take action to try to address with the military what is obviously a continuing challenge. and mr. lewis, i esspecially appreciate your willingness to point out that this is a crime that victimizes not just women but men. senator mccaskill said and you said in the testimony, i think it's very important to start with the fact that rape and assault sexual assault are not about sexual activity. they are about power, control, and intimidation. i think that is an issue that has taken a long time for the civilian world to appreciate. i was on the commission of the status of women in new hampshire in 1980 when we were working with law enforcement and other advocate the to try to get across that point. and clearly it's still an issue. it's still something that not everyone understands particularly people who have not been in your situation. i was amazed to see that in your statistics they brought forward that one in three convicted sex offenders remain in the military. and that the only branch of the service that says they danger all sex offenders is the navy. it seems to me that's a pretty basic bar that we should think about as we're looking at people who have been convicted of rape and sexual assault. we hear there's a connection between resistance to pursue sexual crimes and careerism among military officers. there's concern for the reputation of the accused, and the commanding officer. those concerns have been presented as reasons to frustrate the efforts to bring criminals to justice. so i wonder if you could talk more tsh you made several recommends in your testimony. how can we more effectively show that covering up sexual crimes is not a way to advance careers? >> i'll go back to what i think some of my colleagues here were talking about. when these crimes happen, you know, in my case i was junior office reporting the crimes to senior officers, it was a --, you know, sort of thinking back 20/20 as rebecca said on those experiences. i had so much more rank and authority than the average service-member navigating these issues. by far. so much more freedom of movement. i think there's something that happens beyond the company grade level with officers who definitely are staying and for the full twenty years or more i was actually -- it was suggested to me by an equal opportunity officer they should charge my battalion commander for failure to do the right thing in these cases. which was absolutely an overwhelming perspective. it shut me down completely. here i was a a captain. i couldn't fat m -- fat m for something that was e2, or e3 going through the same thing. i couldn't do it. i was literally the thought of doing it made me dysfunctional. i still had -- i command i had to command my company and to do that in addition to filing an equal opportunity investigation against the lieutenant, i mean, it was just overwhelming. , you know, the old boy's club which i was referring to earlier is very much alive and well within each service branch. i think the fact that for women in the military there is still suggest barriers to career progression and there are not enough women throughout the services at top levels. there are not flag officers who are women. all of it is related, ultimately. we need to see change in which so many more women are entering the military and six to 7 percent of the marines are not now female but we're moving forward a quarter or third or maybe even more eventually. we see it at that rate beyond 20% where climates start to shift. that's what we need to aim for. you can't isolate women from all of these positions and expect your institution to treat the service-members fairly. everyone suffers as a result. and does they have metrics that show overall career impact to service-members who have been subjected to sexual assault? have any of those report assault choose to refrain in the military, and have any -- because of the trauma they experienced? are those numbers that have been collected? >> not to my knowledge. we have been in discussion with several congressional offices about discussing retention issue alone. to my knowledge, the military is not yet at least suffering or recruitment crisis when it comes to, you know, more americans learning about sexual violence in the rank. we are example of the retention crisis. there are thousands of our colleagues every year who are adding to the numbers. they know it's not a safe or welcoming environment for them to stay in. well, absolutely. as a percentage of the women in the military is close to 15%. as you say, it's not reached the critical mass where it will begin hopefully to have more of an impact on how sexual assault is treat the. it could become an issue of recruitment. as we look how we attract the best and brightest people to our military. obviously it's an issue when it comes to women and men. that's going to greatly affect our ability to do that. so thank you all very much for your testimony. thank you. thank you to our witnesses for joining us. on the issue of culture which keeps coming back. i lived through a period of change in this country of culture that was very significant and it was the culture of drunk driving. when i was a kid, it was sort of badge of honor, how did you get home from the party? i don'ti don't remember. ha, ha. that really changed. i tried to think through why it changed. one reason was the laws changed. and punishment became immediate and certain. if you're caught drunk driving you're going spend a weekend in jail and lose your license far period of time. it's certain and no doubt about it. so i think part of what the message you're sending us is it's the length of time and the uncertainty of punishment that allowed the culture to continue to existing in the military. would you agree with that? >> yes, senator, i would. absolutely. it's unconsciousble that punishment is solely up to the discretion of one individual. -- as we noted is not even in the courtroom. it's sexual assault on a person brings a year many is from. -- prison it's sends the wrong message that the military doesn't value what is happening. but what happened to the victim. >> what is the typical lapse of time between the time a charge is filed and the time the charge is disposed of one way or another within the military system? is there an average is it weeks, months, years? >> that i'm not certain of. i imagine that the military panel would be able to address that far better than i would. but i can get back to you on that, senator. >> other thoughts, miss mccoy? >> i would like to say that i received more reprimand for not passing a pt test during my time than the perpetrator of sexual harassment and sexual assault toward me received with me filing official papers to my command. so there is . >> what does that tell you? >> that's what i'm saying. there is no standardized -- if you assault someone, if you sexually harass, these are the things that are going to happen to you in an absolute and finite way. it's absolutely depends on the command. it absolutely depends on the individual within the command, and what their relationship is with the commander and the people who are going to possibly move that case forward. so -- . >> we've been talking about various solutions involving independent prosecution and those things. it seems to, one other thing we talk about is period of time. charges shall be considered within thirty days or some period and the schedule of the penalties. so there is certainty. to me, that's what lead to the change of the culture of drunk driving. people understood there were consequences and it became socially unacceptable. and now it's drunk driving is way down. a lot of lives are being saved. >> again, in my particular case, i was systemically exited from the military following my bringing forward this case of sexual harassment. and just purely asking for something to be done within ninety days i was out of the military completely. >> i want to follow up on a question. it's being considered at the capitol. how long it took you to get va benefits. [laughter] a this because as you know, there's a bill that is named after a very wonderful woman. talk to me about your experience on that on the va side. >> well, when i got out, on my documentation, my medical exam, i specifically stated i was scared, that i was fearful, and that i had physical injuries, you know, multiple physical injuries. it took probably two years for them to finally get me processed and send me a document stating that i had a zero -- my injuries were service connected, but there was zero percent compensation. that was in 1992. so from 1992 to -- because i didn't understand the process there was really no one, you know, there to guide me. even though there was bso. >> that's a separate issue. >> yeah. >> even though there's bso going to the va at that time in north carolina it was a daunting experience to walk in as a young woman and nothing but older male veterans and try to go through the process. fast forward to 2006, 2007, somewhere in there when i went again and nut paperwork again for multiple medical issues, hadn't even touched on anything military sexual trauma. i didn't know there was anything like that at that time. they sent me paperwork back, process, process, 10% again. so, i mean, it was just a constant, constant . >> we're talking almost twenty years. >> it was twenty two years before i actually received some response to the military sexual trauma portion of the case. my benefits, and again, another eighteen years before the physical injuries that i sustained because of partially because of the sexual trauma and partially because of patrol, you know, being out on patrol. but it's amazing to me that one in three military sexual trauma cases are awarded. i mean, one in three. so you have to go through this long process of filing paper wosh, explaining to people exactly what happened to you and by step. and then get a doctor's note from the va and most veteran women are not even in the va system. they don't want to touch it. and so you have to go through the process to even get them to look at your case to be approved for the benefits, you know, for compensation. >> so our country is letting you con in three places. first by the perpetrator, second by the military while you're there, and third the va. >> it's absolutely awful. >> comments on the ruth moore act? >> yes, thank you, senator for mentioning it. it's actually in my testimony as well. i didn't have time to add that. it's the easiest thing that the senate can do at this point to alleviate the third betrayal of the three betrayal you outlined. which is the military may have betrayed service-members, but the va can very easily award compensation, which is well deserved. the standard which the ruth moore act lays out would be comparable for the post-traumatic stress disorder for combat-related drama. the legislation would easily resolve the problem. >> thank you. >> thank you cain. >> thank you. and to the witnesses i appreciate your testimony and i apologize for stepping out for another committee meeting in the middle. i hope i don't repeat questions. it's an important hearing. i thank the chairwoman for putting it up to draw attention to the serious issue. it was a civil rights lawyer for 17 years before i got in to senate wide politics, and this is a fundamental issue in human rights. we need get right. the experience that you share painful experiences is going to help others. let me begin we thanking you. and thanks you additionally for being advocate the for others as i know you are. you present sort of an interesting timeline for us because we have the four of you there from different service branches and served at different points in time from the '80s through recently. in your capacity assed a vote cays you are working for people serving today. i feel like question get a timeline of the military culture. i guess where i would like to start is are things changing in your own experiences or the work you're doing with victims, are things changing? are things changing for the the good or bad, are people more willing to open up and share experience. i'm interested interested in hearing each of you addressing it. it if there are things changing for the positive we want to do more. to the extend things are changing for the negative, we want to address solutions districtly at things that are changing for the negative. sort of in your own experiences, during the time you served, especially as advocates do you see changes in the culture. steps being taken that are either moving us in the right direction or moving us in the wrong direction? >> well, from my perspective, i come this -- i started in social media project that basically i just wanted to connect with other people who had been through the same things i had been through. and so i perceived that social media and grassroot community activism has been the single most -- it being that brought people together. helped solidify the groups of different varying issues and brought all of these people together to say we have an issue. let's work together to get something done, you know, in a positive direction. what i . >> and what did you start the social media activity? >> i started on -- i had a site called veteran social justice, it initially was very secret. you couldn't get on it unless you were invited. it was to protect women who had been sexually assaulted anded a that time people didn't want to come forward and say anything. but then i felt that facebook would be a better venue to move forward to gather more people. together to bring the community together, the community supporters together, the people who were starting organizations who were advocating on behalf of veterans. so it just made sense to me. if everyone was on facebook, then everyone was on facebook. so i think that . >> your sense that's been a positive change because it gives people first a safe way to share the stories and find out there are others that are the stories that maybe suffer in silence. .. we had one woman who came and said i had never met another survivor before ever. and didn't know that other women and men had even gone through this. i was completely by myself and alone with my own experiences. unfortunately, the line is setup to help people who have been through these things. obviously we get a lot of the negatives. we get a lot of the people who have experienced this with mental health, homelessness, and one of the other interesting things is that i do get a lot of older women who served in vietnam and some are starting to speak out about their experiences. there has been a shift in momentum of the last two years. a shift forward. there have been baby steps made through legislation and there have been some positive progress. that is what i try to hold onto. at the same time, we are still dealing with a lot of individuals. i get calls from active duty men and women who are still going through the same. from korea, from germany, from japan. it is very much the same in a negative capacity. obviously we wouldn't be having this hearing if this wasn't a problem. i think that we need to recognize the problems and we need to continue to make forward progress and educate the public and our own military and our issues. continuing to take the steps and continue the path that we have already started on. we will continue to see more progress and more less of these instances occurred. >> thank you. >> serve? >> thank you, senator. the unfortunate reality is the department is not leading the charge on change to your mentioning. the change that has been coming externally, as one senator mentioned, the invisible war. this summer another documentary focusing on male survivors will be coming out. they have been agents for change. there has been veterans as a result of advocacy organizations going back as far as world war ii to talk about military problems. you're right, we do have a timeline. just from my own personal knowledge, it goes all the way back to world war ii. >> i think that a greater in-process should come from sexual assault and sexual prevention organizations in saying that, you know, you have this expertise, you have the survivors, what can you do to help us. time and again in the military has proven themselves incapable of addressing this problem. another avenue of change also have to come, as i said, that many to be validated and lifted up and survivors need to be validated and lifted up and say that we believe you. and there needs to be a system whereby survivors that have been kicked out in the last 20 or 40 or 50 years need to be able to go back to the military and get the medical retirements for ptsd and not have to suffer through life with a bad piece of paper saying that in essence they pushed me out. it is unconscionable that that change isn't happening, it really needs to happen. >> you have thoughts on the question? >> i would love to see the department of defense come out with a poster that says do not rape. end of story. >> thank you to each of you. not only for your courage, but your determination and unbelievable advocacy on the behalf of the survivors. i'm sure that any survivors cannot imagine this horrible crime that could be committed against them could make a difference. the because of the experience, you are making a difference and i can tell you that we cannot do this job alone. we cannot find the right solutions. >> this is the beginning of a much longer conversation. a conversation that we need to have not just as a committee in the senate, but as a nation. and i want to thank you for your unbelievable strength and courage in leading this conversation. thank you very much. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> this subcommittee will resume. think each of you for your service and your dedication and your sacrifices you have made for our country. i am grateful that you're here today for this important hearing and i am grateful that many of you came this morning and participated with the first two panels. that means a great deal, not just to our witnesses, but also to the families and to all of our military families. we appreciate it so much. i know that this has become a very debated issue. both within the military and also in everyday conversations. i also know that many of you view this as a jumping off point on how important this issue is far military and families. i'm eager to hear your testimony. each of you have five minutes to give an oral statement and you can submit to the record any additional material that you want to submit. we are going to hear from robert taylor, the department of defense. dana chipman, nanette derenzi, lieutenant general richard harding, and major general vaughn ary, and major general gary patton, and at no fred kenney and we thank you all. i would just like to start with fred kenney. >> good afternoon, madam chair, and distinguished members of the committee. thank you for the opportunity to appear before you to discuss this. nothing new to you, ranking member grandma. i can tell you that we want to have a collaborative cohesive environment that allows us to eliminate sexual assault in the coast guard, it was a central theme of the state state of the coast guard address delivered three weeks ago we are doing everything we can to investigating and make sure that the victims are treated with dignity and ongoing support. i would like to now address some of the highlights of the policies and programs. more detailed information is contained in my written testimony for the record. the allegations must be reported to the coast guard investigative service. we have formally established an investigation program. we have also established 22 specially trained and credentialed agents known as sexual violence investigators. coast guard regulations have been updated in the last year or clearly defined roles and responsibilities. we mandate significant education and ensure greater victim support and safety. in april 2011, a task force examined the posture towards sexual assault in response. it approved 39 recommendations from the task force in january, including the establishment of the sexual assault prevention council. it is the most senior coast guard experts to oversee immediate course corrections as needed. the vice commandant helvey niekro on figure 27, of this year. it places great importance on the need to train and empower personnel and recognize and respond appropriately when they have situations that involve disrespectful behavior. the coast guard presented work life specialists and included general specific breakout sessions in how to prevent it and respond. we have received this award for 2012. this training was the most meaningful and effective that we have received. the training sessions have been incorporated into all command and leadership courses, as well as the coast guard academy in new london, connecticut. we have also expanded the number of victim advocates across the coast guard, with many added in the last few years. i am committed to enhancing the expertise of coast guard lawyers serving these cases. judge advocates serve and experience a relatively small trial docket that would otherwise not be allowed. in closing, our goal is to eliminate sexual assault within the coast guard we have response capability, victim support, and accountability. thank you for the opportunity to testify and i am pleased to answer to questions you may have. >> attorney general harding? >> thank you. i'm pleased to be here to speak today. we are committed to supporting victims of sexual assault while we do everything to eradicate this awful crime from our service. the honorable michael donnelly is fully committed to eliminating sexual assault within our ranks. we have made their position abundantly clear. one sexual assault is one too many. we believe that like other challenges we face in the past, and will face in the future, we will be able to stay rooted to our core values and integrity and excellence, acting on those values. we have engaged in improving our efforts to prevent and respond to sexual assault across many different lines of effort. while we have many ongoing efforts, i will limit my comments to just one at this time. specifically i would like to talk to you about our special victims council programs that we have initiated. i believe it represents a positive and profound change in the way we approach sexual assault cases. the pilot program provides airmen who report that they are victims of sexual assault with an attorney to represent them. it is unique among federal agencies and providing that level of support to victims of sexual assault. the primary purpose is to give the very best care to our people. our council also operates independently of the prosecution's chain of command. they establish an attorney-client relationship and they zealously represent their clients behalf, measurably helping victims not feel re-victimized by having to endure alone what can be a complex and exhausting and often confusing criminal justice process. we are in the early stages of this program and we are extremely excited about what the future holds. in december we trained 60 experienced military attorneys as part of the special victims council. we are representing today about 200 clients in various stages of investigation and adjudication cases and the victims to date, it is very positive. it is the right thing to do. it is already making a difference for clients. in closing, the men and women who raise their right hand with great pride, volunteered to serve this great nation and became more than just airmen, but part of the air force family. therefore we strongly believe that we have a sacred obligation to provide a work environment that welcomes them. they keep them free from sexual abuse and provides the very best care and advocacy on their behalf. i look forward to answering your questions and i thank you. >> the next speaker? >> members of the committee, on behalf of general ray odierno, thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today. listening to survivors who bravely testified this morning of outbreaks and trust should lie at the core. how do we restore those bonds? how do we retain the trust's of the very best of america's daughters and sons? those who continue to answer the call to serve our army because it defends all of us. the answer lies with a system of justice to boys and support the victims, maintain good order and discipline for our forests and protect due process for any soldier who stands accused of a crime. sexual assault crimes destroy the trust that enables mission a congressman. because of the harsh reality of these cases, we have developed a tailored approach to handle them. professional and independent investigators and prosecutors form the vanguard for a special victims capability directed by the congress last year. we actually began the transformation to a special victims focus in 2008. the capability starts with a report of sexual assault. victims have various options to report. our goal is simple. to encourage victims to come forward. we understand that victims are often but walked in to report. every unrestricted sexual assault allegation reaches the criminal investigation division or cid. they are, specially trained investigators independent of the command pursue their investigations without interference or agenda. these agents received extensive training in sexual assault investigations. working hand-in-hand with these investigators are the special victims prosecutors. these experienced judge advocates are training specifically to focus on victim care. a complete prosecutor course, offered by the national district attorneys association and on-the-job training with a civilian special victims unit in a large metropolitan city. both cid have hired those to mentor and train and assist these special victims teams. they bring decades of experience from federal enforcement agencies and the district attorney's offices. prosecutors serve the interests and rights of the victim, the communities take the interest, and by holding offenders accountable. families attest to the dedicated support these attorneys provide. such as that from a victim's mother who describe this as a member of the family who made her daughter feel stronger and more capable than she knew she could feel. eleven years of war have reaffirmed that the commanders have a central role in administering military justice. justice. in the same way that they are accountable for training and welfare and safety, morale and discipline and mission readiness. a recent court-martial conviction set aside by a commander has concern over the role of the commander. should we evaluate changes to that rule? absolutely. we collectively evaluate military justice, processes and procedures in an ongoing forum. the joint service committee has established us by the department. moreover, we have mandated panels that can change the code. it is science of a healthy system of justice subject to scrutiny and transparency and accountability. although the focus of the hearing today is the prosecution of these offenses, we cannot assume that we can prosecute our way out of this problem. accountability remains critical. the change will occur only when both prevention and response measures yield change. so we began with every new recruit. focusing on values and intervention techniques. the system of justice is not perfect. no system is. we have worked dramatic changes to the system over six consecutive sleep cycles. policy and statutory changes are comprehensive. we make mistakes. every day in every jurisdiction around the country, prosecutors make difficult decisions on the cases. we are no different. my commitment to you is that we will do everything in our power to retain the trust of the men and women who serve our army. and to preserve a system of justice of which we can be proud. thank you, i look forward to your questions. >> ranking member grandma and members of the subcommittee. thank you. thank you for the opportunity to testify here today. the department is determined to combat and prevent sexual assault in the military. the men and women who put their lives on the line to protect this country must be assured that they have the opportunity to serve without fear of sexual assault. sexual assault in the military is not only an abhorrent crime that has enormous harm to the victims, but it is also an attack on the discipline and good order on which military cohesion depends. we must combat this with all the resources at our disposal. secretary chuck hagel has made it clear that combating this flight is a priority and that he demands results. i watched the hearing this morning and i want to take this opportunity to thank the witnesses for coming forward, and i believe that their testimony will contribute to making our military better. the department is in the process of implementing a multifaceted effort to address sexual assault in the military. in my office along with the judge advocate in the joint service committee are working to improve the legal policies pertaining to sexual assault. these efforts are designed to make our judicial and support structures more efficient, effective, and responsive to the needs of victims while preserving the rights of the accused. the department has recently authorized the united states air force to implement a pilot program that assigns special victims council who was report assault. they are experienced attorneys who advocate trial counsel and to be military judges. although the pilot has been operational for just six weeks, i understand the numerous victims havarti requested assistance. we need to evaluate the program's effectiveness and to resolve questions concerning the proper role of the council. which is critical to ensuring that this expansion does not have unintended consequences, but includes the pursuit of justice. to that end, i pass the joint service committee from across the department and coast guard in evaluating the program. the long-standing issue of concern is a significant role that the commanders have in the administration of military justice generally and specifically in cases involving allegations of sexual assault. the recent action of the authority to disapprove the findings and the sentence and just to dismiss the charges of assault after a conviction by a court-martial has underscored concerns with the role of commanders. article 50 of this code authorizes the authority in his or her sole discretion to modify the findings of a court-martial. over the years, congress has preserve this. however, the role of commanders has been narrowed numerous times to provide protections for the accused. so it would be a misreading of the legislative history to put the role of the commander beyond a careful examination. we must strive for military justice system that considers evidence and respects the rights of the accused and punishes the guilty and reinforces military discipline. members of the military must have confidence that the military justice system will treat the accused and victims fairly. with that in mind, the department has initiated a number of reviews to inform congress and the secretary of defense regarding the advisability of additional changes to the administration of military justice. specifically secretary hagel has directed me to ensure that the panel of experts to examine the systems used to prosecute and adjudicate crimes involving military assault required by section 576 of last year's military process, including the authority to set aside the court-martials findings of guilt. the panel presents an excellent opportunity to solicit independent advice on the appropriate role in today's military justice system, which includes robust rights of appeal. proceeding with care and experts on the administrative justice under other systems, it will ensure that changes to the administration are constructed and we will avoid any negative repercussions. the care and caution must not be allowed to become an excuse for inaction. especially where further action is needed. the men and women serve to protect us every day. they put their lives on the line for us. this great country of ours. we owe them the military in which sexual predators have no part in sexual assault has no place. until all sexual assault is eradicated, it is our duty to ensure that the victims find support and we lawyers at the table have a special obligation to ensure that the military justice system works effectively to provide justice in every case and to all involved. i look forward to your questions. thank you. >> good afternoon, madam chair, ranking member, members of the subcommittee. thank you for this opportunity to appear before you this afternoon. .. an certainly meeting and list together members of the earlier panel who put a face and a voice to the impact of sexual violence underscoring the porn of victim care fop that end, consistent with the 2012ndaa, the navy is hiring 66 civilian credentialed full-time sexual assault response coordinators and 66-full-time civilian credential victim advocates. they will augment the more than 3,000 active duty command victim advocates and work with specially trained nciss -- investigators to form the core of -- it's focused on upholding the special trust placed in us to provide a fair, effective, and efficient military justice system. we have implemented several key initiatives to ensure our clients of the government about accused receive the highest level of advocacy. in 2007, to improve the overall quality of court-martial litigation. we established a j.a.g. core offices apply for the designation as military justice specialists or experted based on the litigation experience and aptitude. those selected for the designation leave trial and defense departments and provide proven experience in the courtroom personally conducting, overseeing, or adjudicating complex cases to include sexual assault. the program leverages trial counsel, defense counsel, and judicial experience to exchance the effectiveness of the court-martial practice. in 2010, we established the trial counsel and defense counsel assistance programs, t cap and d. cap respectively. lead by experts in military justice. they delivered advocacy training and assessments worldwide. they conducted outreach training to improve effort between the prosecutors, investigators, and other military justice stakeholders, they serve as trial counsel or assistant trial counsel and several complex cases to include sexual assault cases. the t. cap deputy director is a former state prosecute we are a sexual assault prosecution experience. she previously served as directer of national center for prosecution of violence against women. she's a noted author in the field. d. cap established to support and enhance the defense bar, provide financial expertise, and standardized resources for defense counsel. the office leads training efforts and consults with details counsel through every phase of the court march process worldwide. in 2012, we hired two highly qualified experts. one to work at the headquarter level, and another to work in d cap. they are channeling significant sexual assault litigation experience in to enhanced litigation skills and practices for prosecution and defense teams in the field. we are now in the process of hiring another highly qualified expert to work in our trial counsel assistance program. we provide our litigators with extensive trial advocacy training throughout the course of the careers. the navel justice school in conjunction with the criminal justice division coordinate specialized training on litigating complex sexual assault crimes and leverage knowledge from the civilian sector and sister services through cross training. we thank career litigators to civilian postgraduate schools to receive mast master of law degrees. to further define the complex litigation capability, last year the navy established a program assigned two mid level career officers to work in the sex crime units in two civilian prosecution officers one in california and one in florida. what i hope is clear from these and other initiatives they are described more fully in my statement is a secretary may vis, admiral -- at entire team remains steadfastly committed to getting in front of the problem and eliminating sexual assault from the ranks. for our part, the j.a.g. corp. remains actively engaged in sexual assault awareness, victim response, and accountability initiative. thank you for the opportunity, again, and i look forward to taking your questions. >> major general ary. thank you. >> members of the subcommittee. thank you for the opportunity to toff here today. i'm must begin by assuring you that secretary and general don't make the elimination of sexual assault a top priority in our department. within the marine corps. our personally leading this fight. not just in words, but through actions. in june 2012, the kommendant issued a sexual response campaign plan. it's a blueprint for institutional and cultural change within the corp. and sets us on a course to improve our ability to prevent and respond sexual assaults. in july, 2012, or kommendant directed every marine officer to attend sexual harassment symposium. it included subject matter experts spoke about prevention, the use of alcohol as a women, victim claiming, and dispelling myth. they spent much of 2012 traveling around the world speaking to the leaders in a series of heritage wreef -- briefs. make it clear that sexual assault would never be tolerated. as he recently stated, and i quote, we are determined to eradicate sexual assault in the marine corps. it's a personal thing to me. i want to address two main areas today. first i want to highlight the progress the of the military initiative to combat sexual assault. during the past few years, there have been significant statutory and regulatory changes made to the military justice system that effect such sexual assault prevention and response. as we implement these changes, we must carefully balance three main interests. the command's responsibility to maintain good order and discipline, the institutional right of the accused, and the fundamental obligation to protect and care for victims. military commanders are uniquely positioned to balance these three interests, and ensure the military justice system serves and protects each of them. second, i want to address the improvement to our legal response capability. in 2012, cam daunt directed a complete reorganization of the leelg community. a reorganization that affected over 49 different commands and 800 legal. the new organization established four regional legal service support sections is kinded to ensure we place the right counsel both trial and defense with the appropriate expertise, supervision and support staff on the right case regardless of location. the center piece of each office is a complex trial team. these regional offices also contain criminal investigators, legal administrative office, paralegal support, and highly qualified expert. our highly qualified expert are experienced civilian prosecutors that provide training, mentoring, and advice on are trial statry and tactic. all of these improvements protect victims' interest while ensuring the accused receive the due process rights guaranteed by the institution. in addition to increasing the available expertise to litigate sexual assault expenses. they expanded the scope of the secretary of defense policy on the dispositions authority for oches to cover not only penetration offenses but also all contact sex offenses, all child sex offenses, and attempt commit an offense. we have smaller group of more senior and experienced officers making dispositions discussions for all -- decisions for all in any relate misconduct. in addition to gain more visibility and command attention on the critical issue, they directed a new eight-day brief to the first general officer in the chain of command from the date of the victims' unrestricted report of sexual assault. the eight-day brief serves as a checklist, guaranteeing each victim's care is supervised by a senior commander. elimination of sexual assault is a top priority for our corp., and the cam daunt's personal leadership and commitment are making a difference. by using a top down comprehensive approach and by attacking on all fronts from prevention to prosecution. i truly believe we are making a positive change in the culture of our core. as we consider additional action in the area of sexual assault, i believe the response systems panel and judicial proceedings panel established in 2013 national defense authorization act provided an opportunity to analyze any future reforms and we look forward to participating. again, i thank you for the opportunity to testify here today. and i welcome your questions. >> major general patent. >> ma'am chair, thank you for inviting me to appear today. first, i would like to thank the sexual assault survivors who testified earlier today. i appreciate their personal courage in standing up and speaking out. their words inspire all of our efforts and renew my commitment every day to this cause. it's been my honor to serve over the past 33 and a half years. during the time, i'm no stranger to leagd culture change. to include helping destag matize mental health care for combat veterans, fully integrated women with the department of women and service report, and also managing the department's successful repeal don't ask don't tell. the nominator in the complex institutional challenges has been an unequivocal mission success, readiness to the force, and welfare to the men and women in uniform. as i want to say that the department recognizes that sexual asawlgt is a terrible crime, and more needs to be done in combating it. it is a national problem in our society. but we many the military must hold ourself to a higher standard. it has no place in my army or military. it's an front to the value we defend and erodes the cohe thinks that our units demand. it's unacceptable the 19,000 member and women servicemembers in 2010 are estimated to have experienced some form of unwanted sexual contact. this estimate is based on feedback from an department anonymous survey of the active duty force. that same year, just over 2,600 victims of sexual assault took the difficult step of coming toward and making an official report of the crime ranging from rape to abusive sexual contact. the number, when compare to the survey estimate, demonstrates a significant underreporting of the crime. it prevents victims from receiving the care they need, and limits our ability to investigate these crimes and hold defenders appropriately accountable. in this reporting problem demonstrates it's a complex issue. there's no silver bullet solution. or dod wide mission to prevent and respond to the crime in order enable military readiness and reduce with a goal to eliminate sexual assault from the military. reducing and eliminating sexual assault requires a multipronged approach one that leverages a wide range of initiative and engages every service member to prevent the crime from occurring in the first place. when one does occur, effective processes and expert people are in place to support victims and ensure the delivery of justice. underpinning all of our certificate a need for enduring culture change. requiring leaders -- with sexist behavior. -- core values we must all live by and define how we treat one another. a victim's report is taken seriously, their previous is protected and they are treated with sensitivity. where bystanders are trained and mote vade to prevent unsafe behavior. and family, a command climate are offenders know they will be held accountable for the actions. they are being stressed and taught today at multiple levels of officer education and training across the force and we're getting positive feedback from the training. i often get asked how we know when the culture change has taken hold. my answer relates back to the experiences growing up in the army spanning the past five decades. i believe we will know change has occurred when prevention of sexual assault is as closely scrutinized a prevention of friendly fire. ly know change occurred when sexist behavior and language produce the same offensive reaction as hearing a racist slur. we are not there yet, but we're heading in the right direction and we need remain persistent in moving this forward. the department disciplinary strategy organized along five line of event, prevention, investigation, accountability, victim advocacy, and assessment. all five are described in detail in my written statement submitted for the record. in the interest of time i'll conclude any oral stwaiment a few personal observation. i firmly believe question turn it around. it will take time. it will also take continued emphasis in all five lines of effort. culture change starts at the top i have seen in my nine months in the job unprecedented senior and mid level attention and energy focused on sexual assault response programs across all. the key is transferring this energy and focus from top to bottom across the force. through quality training, and strong leadership. i began my remarkses by stating that sexual assault is a national problem. ly conclude by stating it's my view that the department of defense can and must be a leader solving probt for america. thank you for your attention. i look forward to your questions . thank you. we have number of states for the record including nancy parish, lisa max, mr. ben clay, and -- there's no objection. they will be included in the record of the hearing. i now would like to turn over to chairman levin. >> thank you for your leadership and holding this hear -- holding this hearing and to all of us who have joined in the effort as a major effort. it's a huge initiative, it's vitally important. i just very much appreciate your recognizing me for a few moments. i want to thank our colleagues as well that are here waiting to asking questions. and it will take a few moments. first of all, mr. taylor, i want to thank you. i wrote you a letter asking you for the legislative history of article 60, and as of, i believe, just today you responded to my letter with your own letter, and including in that letter is a fairly lengthy legislative history. i would ask you, madam chairman to incorporate in the record. >> without objection. >> i have a chemical couple of questions for mr. taylor. the legislative history you have provided. the convening authority under article 60 adopted by the continent tap couching in 1775, now at the time that the authority was established, did a servicemember convicted bay military court-martial have the ability to appeal his conviction to a higher military court? >> no, sir. >> given that a servicemember can now appeal, his conviction to an air force court of criminal appeals and to the -- in the case we're talking about and the united states court of appeals for the armed forces, is there any reason now to allow convening authorities to overturn a court court-martial conviction on the basis of legal error and trial? >> there have been many developments since 1775, to get us where we are today. the robust appellate procedures provided by today's uniform code military justice are do raise a very serious question about whether the authority provided by article 60, which was most recently dealt with by the congress in 1983. whether the unlimited authority of the commander to dispose of a finding of a court-martial is any longer required or would serve continues to serve a vital purpose. regoing to look to that very thoroughly with a very much of an open mind. the change in the robustnd of appeal yet procedures over time designed to protect the victim -- excuse me to protect the accused makes this a very different question certainly than existed in 1775. >> thank you very much, mr. taylor. i want to thank our witnesses, and again, thank you madam chairman for your leadership here and the others who joined with you. again, i thank my colleagues and you for allowing me a few minutes up front. >> thank you. i'm now going allow senator graham to ask the questions. he has a time constraint. senator graham. >> thank you, ma'am chairman. just indulge me a bit here. i'll try to as quick as possible. i had a budget markup. thank you for holding the hearing. it's been important to all of us. convening authority, statistics in regarding setting aside findings. from the marine perspective, you gave a state of 2010 to 2012. there were 17,000 resulting in findings of guilty. seven candidates out of those 17,068 the convening authority took action to disprove findings of guilty. none involved sexual assault. that's.4%. does that sound right, general? >> yes, it does. >> okay the air force. last five years the convening authority disapproved findings of guilt at 1.1% of cases, 40 out of 3,713, five of the forty were sexual assault cases. does that sound right, general. >> yes, sir, that's correct. >> the navy does not have a tracking system for article 60 dispositions? you'll get one, won't you? [inaudible] okay. good. you have been able to go to the regional commands and collect evidence from those evolved in revealing cases. what we have from the navy we found one known case where the convening authority took action to disprove the findings that one case was a sexual assault case. and the army, since 2008, had 4,603 cases that went to court-martial with some conviction and 68 cases the convening authority dismissed all specifications or approve the findings of guilt 1.4%. no army convening authority found that the soldier committed a sexual assault. does that sound right for the army. >> it does, senator. >> the reason i want to bring it up. i want to make sure that people understand in a one case has to be good in terms of the whole system. the con convening authority, general harding, for general court-martial is what rank usually? >> the air force that would be o9. lieutenant general is the usual rank of our generally marshall -- special court-martial convening convening is normally 06. >> what about the army? >> they were typical '08 or ninth special court in '06. >> navy? >> typical, sir for gcm two star. for a special court-martial. '06. >> marine corps.? >> one, two, and three-star generals, sir. typically. >> army? >> sir, i think general chipman. >> yeah. >> i'm representing the sexual assault response office. >> i'm sorry. i apologize. i should have paid better attention. the coast guard. you are always last. it's not fair. >> i called on them first. >> good for you. changing tradition here. >> to answer the question in the coast guard it's 1, 2 on or 3-star admiral. special can range from '03 thriewnt '06 captain. >> if there's a case generated at the local unit let's say a squad ron or flight person refeeling the case is a distance away from the incident in terms of command. >> that's correct. >> okay. so this concern that it's a budde budde system, i want the public to understand that the convening authority particularly for general court-martials that would involve a case of rape or some serious sexual assault is a distance away from the unit in question. just from the way the system works. the history of article 60, and people in the civilian community may wonder why does a convening authority have the ability to set aside a punishment. so you a robust appeal system. if there's a legal error in the case, the accused has the right to appeal autothe way to the supreme court, if necessary, to correct it. with we have the convening authority in the decision making role about setting aside findings. when you go back -- to the history of the concept, you start with the continental army, and i'm trying to find my paper here. general eisenhower testified to the house armed service committee before the act, which is the predecessor to the bcmj of 1950, that in his opinion, it is necessary that the person in the chain of command have the power to take final lecture on court-martials, he opposed a proposal to move the power to mitigate or emit certain types of from the commands to the judge advocate general. you had another general colins who offered similar testimony. he believed that the commander must have power to initiate the charges in order e feck wait order and goodies plin. there's legal problems that can be correct by the appeal yet system. -- we have generally held the view that the one person that has the power to determine good order and discipline to make sure it is present is the military commander. could each of you give an opinion as to whether or not the concept is still viable and relevant in 2013? >> senator, if i could, i'll start. i think it's incredibly viable. it's part of the reason why we succeed in the nation 'armed complex over the course of 238 years. we have largely been successful in the conflict. we bring things to every flight and bring the best people, we're volunteer force. we begin the best training. we bring the best equipment. congress helps us in the record. those are three legs with four legged table. it womans and falls without the fourth. that's discipline. command and control is an important element in discipline. it ties it all together. the convening authorities of ability to exercise some of the accountability on every aspect of an airman soldier, sailer's behavior is important creating a response of discipline force. so i think it is -- it was incredibly important in 1775, and the reason why we stayed in the field for eight years the best of the army at the planet at it time. it's still important today. >> can you indulge me or do you deposit to the -- from the army's point of view. do you concur? >> senator, i would add this. in the cases where we have set aside findings for the entire case after by the convening authority, it's typical where we have a greater result achieverred by doing so. for example, very light sentence what was charged initially as a severe set of crime. it was such equivalent to non-jew official punishment. we set aside the findings in return for post trial resignation to get the greater good of getting the offender out. >> people understand the convening authority cannot increase. >> that's correct. they can take an action in a post trial . >> correct. >> navy's point of view. does the command authority resonate in 2013. >> yes, sir, i believe it does. commanders are responsible for life and death decisions. the safety, welfare, well being is good order and discipline of those under the charge. my experience has been that the convening authorities and the commanders take these decisions to heart. they strive day in and day out to do the right thing. their people of integrity. they are advised by well qualified and well trained legal counsel. having said that, the military justice process has matured greatly over the last since the last time article 60 was reviewed. there are lawyers at every stage of the process. and it is good time to look at article 60 again in light of the changes. but ever mindful of the second and third order effect of adjusting or restricting somehow the convening authority. >> about navy's thotion that it should not have the power and placed to someone else's hands. >> no, that's not our position at all. >> what about the marine corps. >> thank you for the opportunity to talk on the issue. i think for so long as we hold our commanders accountable, for everything that a command does or fails to do they must have the types of authorities. their responsible for setting command climate, responsible for the culture, and it is their leadership that we have to hold accountable. they need to be able to hold everyone in their unit accountable to preserve that kind of order and discipline to accomplish the mission. >> thank you. >> thank you, senator. the coast guard is the smallest of the armed forces. the unit tend to be smaller as well. the commander is the embodiment of leadership and discipline within the small units. and to maintain that discipline, i cob cur with my colleagues. i would add that we have also reviewed our past court-martial practice to determine if the commander is ever overturned in the last four years. that's a charge specification involving sexual assault. and over 200 court-martial convene in the

Transcripts For CSPAN2 Today In Washington 20130314

>> i want to thank you for your unbelievable strength and courage and leading that conversation. thank you very much. [inaudible conversations] >> [inaudible conversations] >> [inaudible conversations] >> [inaudible conversations] >> out hearing of the subcommittee will resume. thank you, e.g., for your service, for dedications, for your sacrifices you've made for country. i'm so grateful you are here today with this important hearing. am also incredibly grateful that many of you came this morning and participated and listened to the first two panels. that means a great deal, not just to our witnesses but also to their families and all of our military families. we appreciate it very, very much. i know that this is becoming very debated issue, both within the military and in everyday conversation. i also know that many of you have seen the film the invisible war, so the jumping off point on how important this issue is for our military and their families. i'm very, very eager to hear your testimony, and each of you will have five minutes to give an oral statement and you can submit for the record any addition material that you want to submit today, and after your testimony. we're going to from robert taylor, acting general counsel of the department of defense. lieutenant general dana chipman, judge advocate general of the united states army. vice admiral nanette derenzi, judge advocate general of the united states navy. lieutenant general richard harding, judge advocate general of the united states air force. mineral -- major general bunting, staff judge advocate to the commandant of the marine corps. major general gary patton, sexual assault prevention and response office. rear admiral frederick kenney, judge advocate general of the united states coast guard. thank you all. i think we can start with admiral kenney. >> that afternoon. -- good afternoon take thank you for the opportunity to discuss the coast guard's efforts to prevent a response to sexual assault in our service. good afternoon to you, madam rag member graham. i share the commitment to the safety and well being of each of our servicemembers. ensuring that coast guard personnel have a collaborative cohesive work environment that allows them to accomplish their mission, protecting those on the sea, protecting america, protecting the sea itself. eliminating evidence of sexual assault within the coast guard with -- was a significant theme. sexual assault is intolerable in the coast guard. it's devastating to its victims, it has broad repercussions throughout the service. we're committed to doing everything we can to prevent sexual assault, to investigate and every allegation, to holding people accountable through military justice and other actions, and to ensuring victims of sexual assault are protected, treated with dignity and provided appropriate ongoing support. i like to notice some highlights of our policies and programs, more detailed information that is contained in the written testimony submitted for the record. all allocation of serious sexual misconduct must be reported the coast guard investigative service for investigation. it was fo from establish a sex crime investigation program. cgs is a step chicago f-22 specially trained and credentialed agents known as family and sexual violence investigators. coast guard regulations on sexual assault prevention and response have been updated in the last year to more clearly defined roles and responsibilities. the mandate significant education and training. and ensures greater victim support and safety. in april 2011 the vice commandant charted the task force to holistic would examine the coast guard posture towards sexual assault prevention and response. devise commandant approved 39 recommendations from the task force in january, including the establishment of sexual assault prevention council. it is a standing body of the most senior coast guard admirals and subject matter expert design to, among other things, oversee the implementation of the task force recommendation and ordered immediate and actual course corrections and the policy as needed. the vice commandant held the inaugural meeting on february 27 this year. a place great importance and need to train and about all coast guard personnel to recognize and respond appropriately when they observe situations that involve disrespectful behavior. last year the coast guard crude a role about sexual assault prevention workshop presented live by agents, judge advocates and worklife specialist, includes gender specific breakout sessions to have a frank dialogue about sexual assault, how to prevent it and how to respond. since its inception the workshop has provided training to 40 units and the price was 7500 coast guard personnel. this initiative received the department of homeland security's office of general counsel of or for excellence in training in 2012. many coast guard have reported this train was the most meaningful and effective training they have ever received. training sessions are and have been incorporated into all command and leadership courses in the coast guard as well as our recruit training center in new jersey and coast guard academy in new london, connecticut. we've also significantly expanded the number of trained victim advocates across the coast guard with nearly 400 new victim advocates added in the last two years. i'm committed to enhancing the expertise of coas coast guard l, services council and sexual assault case. coast guard judge advocates also attended advanced training to hone their litigation skills and sex assault cases. in closing our goal is to eliminate sexual assault within the coast guard by building a strong cultural prevention, education and training, response capability, victim support, appropriate reporting of procedures, and accountability. thank you again for the opportunity to testify today and i'm pleased that any questions that you may have. >> thank you. lieutenant general harding. >> madam chair and members of the committee, also thank you for the opportunity speak today about sexual assault prevention and response efforts in the air force. we are committed to supporting victims of sexual assault while we do everything humanly possible to eradicate this awful crime from our services. are secretary, the honorable michael donnelly after chief of staff general mark, are fully committed to eliminating sexual assault within our ranks. it made their position abundantly clear. the air force has zero tolerance for this offense. one sexual assault is one too many. we believe our sexual assault challenge, like other challenges we faced in the past, and will face in the future, will be overcome by staying true to our core values and integrity, service and excellence. acting on those vouchers. with actively engaged in improving our efforts to prevent and respond to sexual assault across many different lines of f effort. ywhy would many ongoing efforts to combat sexual assault, time constrained to limit my comments to just one at this time. specifically, i'd like to talk to you about our special victims council program that we initiated in january. i believe that represents a positive and profound change in the way we approach sexual assault cases. the pilot program provides airmen to report that they are victims of sexual assault with an attorney to represent them. our special victims council program is unique among federal agencies in providing that level of support to victims of sexual assault. this pilot programs primary purpose is to give the very best care to our people. our special victims council operate independently of the prosecution's chain of command. they establish an attorney-client relationship with victims, and they represent on their client's behalf. thereby protecting victims privacy and immeasurably helping victims, not field we victimized by having to endure alone of what can be complex, exhausting, and often confusing criminal justice process. we are in early stages of this program, but we are extreme excited about what the future holds. in december, which render first cadre of 60 expands military attorneys a special victims council. the date you represent about 200 clients in various stages of the investigation, and adjudication phases of the cases. feedback from victims to date has been very positive. the svcp program is the right thing to do in caring for airmen. and we are making a difference for their clients. in closing the men and the women who raise the right hand with great pride volunteered to serve this great nation became more than just airmen. they became part of our air force family. therefore we strongly believe that we have a sacred obligation to provide a work environment that welcomes them, that keeps them free from sexual abuse by the federal airmen, and provides the very best care and advocacy on their behalf. i look forward to answering your questions, thank you. >> next one, next speaker is lieutenant general chipman. >> madam chair and members of the committee, on behalf of the honorable john mchugh and general ray odierno, thanks for the opportunity to testify before you here today. listening to survivors who bravely testified this morning about breaks that should lie in the corkum had bond -- how do we restore those bonds? had we retain the trust, those who continue to add to the call to serve our army because it offends all of us. for me, the answer lies with the system of justice to give voice and support to victims, maintains good order and discipline for our force, and protects due process for any soldier who stands accused of a crime. sexual assault crimes destroy the trust that enables missions accomplishment. because of the harsh reality of these cases, you develop a tailored approach to handle them. in the army, professional and independent investigators and prosecutors formed the vanguard for special victims capability directed by congress last year. we actually begin the transformation to a special victims focus in 2008. the capability start with report of a sexual assault. victims have various options to report an allegation. our goal is simple, to encourage victims to come forward. we understand that victims are often reluctant to report. every unrestricted sexual assault allegation reaches the army's criminal investigation division. they're specially trained criminal investigators, independent of the command pursue the investigations without interference or agenda. these agents receive extensive training and sexual assault investigations. working hand in hand with these investigators are the arms special victim prosecutors. these experienced judge advocates are seasoned trial lawyers and are trained specifically to focus on victim care. a complete career prosecutor courses offered by the national district attorneys association, and on the job training with a civilian special victim in any large metropolitan city. in addition, both cid and a check or have hired civilian investigators and prosecutors to mentor, train come and assist the special victim teams. these experts bring decades of experience and expertise from something police agencies, other federal law enforcement agencies and state district attorney's offices. special victim prosecutors serve the interests and rights of the victim, the community safety interest, and the good order discipline of the unit i holding offenders accountable. testimonials from victims and their families attest to the dedicated support these attorneys provide, such as that from a victims mother who described it as a member of her family who made her daughter feel stronger and more capable than she knew she could feel. 11 years of war have reaffirmed that commanders have a central role in administering military justice. in the same way that they are accountable for health, training, welfare, safety, morale, discipline, and mission readiness. a recent court-martial conviction set aside by a commander has focused concern over the posttrial role of the commander. should we evaluate needed changes to the posttrial role? absolutely. we collectively evaluate military justice, processes and procedures in an ongoing forum, the joint city committee established. moreover, we have congressionally mandated panel's that can responsibly consider changes to these codes. these vehicles like this hearing are signs of a healthy system of justice, subject to scrutiny, transparency, and accountability. although the focus of your hearing today, the prosecution of these offenses, we cannot assume we can prosecute our way out of this problem. accountability remains critical. but real change will occur only when both convention and response measures yield culture change. so we begin with every new recruit, focusing on army values, and bystander intervention techniques. our system of justice is not perfect. no system is. we have worked dramatic changes over six consecutive cycles. we make mistakes. every day in every jurisdiction around this country, ross accused make difficult decisions on cases. we are no different but my commitment to you is that will do everything in our power to retain the trust of the men and women who serve our armies, and to reserve a system of justice of which we can be proud. thank you and i look forward to your questions. >> mr. keiner? >> chairman gillibrand, ranking member graham, and members of the subcommittee, thank you. and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify here today. the department is determined to combat and prevent sexual assault in the military. the men and women who put their lives on the line to protect this country must be ensured that they have the opportunity to serve without fear of sexual assault. sexual assault in the military as not only an abort crime, but does enormous harm to the victims, but it is also a virulent attack on the discipline and good order on which military cohesion depends. we must combat this scourge with all the resources at our disposal. secretary hagel has made it crystal clear to the senior military and civilian leadership of the department that combating this blight is a major priority for him, and that he demands results. i watched the hearing this one and want to take this opportunity to thank the witnesses for coming forward, and i believe that their testimony will contribute to making our military better. the department is in the process of implementing a multifaceted effort to address sexual assault in the military. and the legal our been, my office along with the judge advocates general and the joint service committee on military justice, are working to improve departments legal policy pertaining to sexual assault. these efforts are designed to make our judicial investigative and support structures more efficient, effective and responsive to the rights and needs of victims while preserving the rights of the accused. the department racially authorized the united states air force to let a pilot rogue ramp to victims who report sexual assault the special victims council our experienced attorneys who may advocate on behalf of the victims of commanders in authorities, staff judge advocates, drug council and to the extent authorized by the many for courts-martial, military judge. although the pilot has been operational for just six weeks, i understand the numerous victims have already requested assistance. in the need to evaluate the program's effectiveness and to resolve questions concerning the proper role special victims council in the military justice system, which is critical to ensuring that this expansion of victims rights does not have unintended consequences that continue the pursuit of justice. to that in them i passed the joint service committee military justice experts from across the department and the coast guard with evaluating the program. a long-standing issue of concern of significant role that commanders have in military justice generally, and specifically in cases involving allegations of sexual assault. the recent action of the convening authority to disapprove the findings and sentence, and to dismiss the charges of sexual assault after a conviction by court-martial is underscored continuing concerns of the role of commanders. over the years, congress has preserved the center will of commanders. however, the role of commanders has been narrowed numerous times to provide protections for the accused actually be in this reading of the long legislative history of the ucmj to put the role of the commander beyond to be careful re-examination. we must strive for a military justice system that impartially considers evidence, respects the rights of accused and victims alike, punishes the guilty, and reinforces military discipline. the effective members of the military must have confidence that the military justice system will treat both accused and victim fairly. with that in mind, the department has initiated a number of views to inform congress and the secretary of defense regarding the advisability of additional changes to the administration of military justice. specifically, secretary hagel directed me to ensure that the panel of independent experts to examine the systems used to investigate, prosecute and adjudicate crimes involving military assault required by section 576 of last year's nba a considers the role of the convening authority in the military justice process, including the authority set aside at court-martials findings of guilt. the panel presents an excellent opportunity to solicit independent advice on the appropriate role of the convening authority in today's now to justice system which includes robust rights of appeal. proceeding with care and listening to all those affected by the military justice system and to experts on the administered justice under other systems, will ensure that changes to the administration and military justice are constructive and avoid any unintended negative repercussions. but care and caution must not be allowed to become an excuse for an action. we are further action is needed. our men and women in uniform serve to protect us every day. they put their lives on the line for us with this great country of ours. we owe them a military and sexual predators have no part, and sexual assault has no place. until all sexual assault in the military is eradicated, it is our duty to ensure that the victims find support, and we lawyers at this table have a special obligation to ensure that the military justice system works effectively to provide justice in every case and to all involved. i look forward to your questions, thank you. >> vice admiral derenzi. >> thank you. afternoon, madam chair, ranking member graham, members of the subcommittee. and you for this opportunity to appear before you this afternoon to address the navy's commitment to fighting sexual assault, and specifically about the navy's accountability initiative. please let me state up front, this is not just a legal issue. it's the leadership issue for everyone of us. and in recognition of this, the secretary of the navy, ray mabus, the chief of naval operations, admiral jonathan greene a, implement a multifaceted approach to combat sexual assault am including comprehensive training and awareness that emphasizes active in both leadership and bystander intervention. when incident does occur, the navy is dedicated to ensuring that victims receive full spectrum and timely support to include medical treatment, counseling and legal assistance. and certainly meeting and listening to the members of the earlier panel who put a face and a voice to the impact of sexual violence underscores the importance of victim care. into the den, and consistent with the 2012 nba, the navy is hiring 56 civilian credentialed full-time sexual assault response coordinator's, and 66 full-time civilian credentialed victim advocates. they will augment the more than 3000 active duty command victim advocates and they will work with specially trained investigators and specially trained jag corps officers. the check or is intensely focused on upholding the special trust that his place in is to provide a fair, effective and efficient military justice system. with implement several key initiatives to ensure that our clients, both the government and the accused receive the highest level of advocacy. in 2007, it improve the overall quality of court-martial litigation. we established military justice litigation career track. jag corps officers apply for the designation as military justice specialists, for experts, a son of litigation experience and aptitude. those selected for the designation lead department and provide proven experience in the courtroom, personally conducting, overseeing, or adjudicating complex cases to include sexual assault. this program leverages trial counsel, defense counsel and judicial experience to enhance the effectiveness of our court-martial practice for complex cases. in 2010, we established the trial counsel and defense counsel assistance program, the cat and the cat respectively, led by experts in military justice. they conducted outreach training to improve efforts between prosecutors and investigators and other military justice stakeholders. a service trial counsel or assist in f.a.r. council in several complex cases to include sexual assault cases. the tcap deputy director is a gs-15, a former state prosecutor with extensive sexual assault prosecution experience. she previously served as a director of the national center for the prosecution of violence against women, and she's a noted author in the field. dcap was established to support and enhance the defense bar, provide technical expertise to case collaboration, and standardized resources defense council. the office leads training efforts and consult with detailed counsel through every phase of the court-martial process worldwide. in 2012, we hired to highly qualified experts, one to work at her headquarters level, and another to work in dcap. they are channeling significant sexual assault litigation experience into enhanced litigation skills and practices for prosecution and defense teams in the field. we are now in the process of hiring another highly qualified expert to work in our trial counsel assistance program. we provide are litigators with extensive trial advocacy training throughout the course of their careers. naval justice going conjunction with a criminal justice division, our tcap and are dcap, courtney specialist training on litigating complex sexual assault crimes, and to leverage from the this civilian sector and from our sister services through crosstraining. we thank career litigators, to receive master of law degrees in trial advocacy. to further define our complex litigation capabilities, this last year the navy established and externship program, and assigned to mid-level career officers to work in the sex crime unit, one california and one in florida. what i hope is clear from these and other initiatives that are described more fully in my statement is that secretary mabus, admiral greenberg and the entire navy leadership team remain steadfastly committed to getting in front of the problem and to eliminating sexual assault from our ranks. for our part, the jack remains actively engaged in sexual assault awareness and prevention training, victim response and accountability initiative. thank you again for this opportunity, and i look forward to taking your questions. >> major general ari? >> thank you. chairman gillibrand, ranking member graham, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify here today. i must begin by showing you that secretary mabus and general amos continue to make elimination of sexual assault a top priority in our department. within the marine corps our commandant is personally leading this fight. not just in words, but through action. in june 2012 the commandant issued his sexual assault prevention and response campaign plan. this plan is a blueprint for institutional and cultural change within our core and sets us on a course to improve our ability to prevent and respond to sexual assault. in july 2012, our commandant directed every marine general officer to attend sexual assault prevention, and response symposiums. this training event includes subject matter expert who spoke about prevention, the use of alcohol as a weapon, inadvertent victim blaming, and dispelling myths. our commandant also spent most of 2012 coming around the world speaking to his leaders in a series of heritage briefings, making it clear that sexual assault would never be tolerated. as he recently stated, and i quote, we are determined to eradicate sexual assault in the marine corps. it's a personal thing to me. i want to address two main areas today, for someone to highlight the progress the military's initiatives to combat sexual assault. during the past few years there have been significant statutory and regulatory changes made to the military justice system that affects such sexual assault prevention and response. as with implement these changes, we must carefully balance three main interest. the commanders in hand responsibility to maintain good order and discipline, the constitutional rights of an accused, and our fundamental obligation to protect and care for victims. military commanders are uniquely positioned to balance these three interests, and ensure the military justice system serves and protects each of them. second, i want to address the improvement to our legal response capability. .. >> composed of experienced senior prosecutors. our highly-qualified experts are experienced civilian prosecutors who provide training, mentoring and advice on trial strategy and tactics to all military prosecutors in the region. all of these improvements protect victims' interests while insuring the accused receives the due process rights guaranteed by the constitution. in addition to increasing the available, per tease to litigate sexual assault expenses, the commandant on the disposition horse for sexual offenses to cover not to only penetration offenses, but also all contact sex offenses, all child sex offenses and attempts to commit such offenses. in essence, we now have a smaller group of more experienced officers making decisions for all sexual offense allegations and any related misconduct. in addition, to gain more visibility and command attention on this critical issue, the commandant directed a new eight-day brief to the first general officer in the chain of command from the date of the victim's unrestricted report of sexual assault. this eight-day can brief serves as a checklist guaranteeing each victim's care is supervised by a senior commander. elimination of sexual assault is a top priority for our corps, and the commandant's leadership and commitment are making a difference. by using a comprehensive approach and by attacking from prevention to prosecution, i truly believe we are making a positive change in the culture of our corps. as we consider additional action, i believe the response systems panel and the judicial proceedings panel established in the fiscal year 2013 national defense authorization act provide an opportunity to analyze any future reforms, and we look forward to participating. again, i thank you for the opportunity to testify here today, and i welcome your questions. >> major general patton. >> madam chair and members of the subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to appear today. first, i would like to thank the survivors for testifying today. their words inspire all of our efforts and renew my commitment every day to this cause. it has been my honor to serve our nation with service members just like them, and during that time i am no stranger to leading culture change. to include helping destigmatize mental health care, more fully integrating women in the armed forces with last year's department of women and service report and also managing the department's successful repeal of don't ask, don't tell. the common denominator in all of these complex institutional challenges has been an unequivocal commitment to success, readiness of the force and the welfare of our men and women in uniform. now as the director of the sexual assault prevention response office for the past nine months, i want to say that the department recognizes that sexual assault is a terrible crime and more needs to be done in combating it. it is a national problem in our society, but we in the military must hold ourselves to a higher standard. sexual l assault has no place in my army and no place in my military. it is an affront to the values that we defend, and it erodes the cohesion that our units demand. it is unacceptable that 19,000 men and women, service members in 2010, are estimated to have experienced some form of unwanted sexual contact. this estimate is based on feedback from a department anonymous survey of the active duty force. that same year just over 2,600 victims of assault made an official report of these crimes ranging from rape to abusive sexual contact. this number, when compared to the survey estimate, demonstrates the significant underreporting of this crime. this underreporting prevents victims from receiving the care they need, and it limits our ability to investigate these crimes and hold offenders appropriately accountable. finish as this reporting problem demonstrates, sexual assault is a complex issue. there's no single silver bullet solution. our dod-wide mission is to prevent and respond to this crime in order to reduce with the goal to eliminate sexual assault from the military. reducing and eliminating sexual assault requires a multipronged approach, one that engages every service member to prevent the crime from occurring in the first place. but when one does occur, effective processes and expert people are in place to support victims and insure the delivery of justice. underpinning all our effort is the is the need for enduring culture change, requiring leaders to foster a command client -- climate from top to bottom where sexual assault is not tolerated, condoned or ignored. a climate where dignity and respect are the core values we must all live by, where a victim's report is taken seriously, and they are treated with sensitivity. where bystanders are trained and motivated to prevent unsafe behaviors, and finally, a climate where offenders know they will be found and held accountable for their actionings. these climate factors are being stressed and taught at multiple levels of noncommissioned officer and officer training, and we are getting positive feedback. i often get asked how we will know when this culture change has taken told. my answer relates back to some of my formative experiences growing up in the army spanning the past five decades. i believe we will know change has occurred when prevention as closely scrutinized a as prevention of fratricide or friend fire, when sexist paver and derogatory language produce the same reaction as hearing a racist slur. we are not there yet, but we are heading in the right direction, and we need to remain persistent in moving this forward. the department's strategy is organized along five lines of effort; prevention, investigation, accountability, victim advocacy and assessment. all five are described in detail in my written statement submitted for the record. in the interest of time, i'll conclude with a few personal observations. i firmly believe we can turn this around, but it will take time and continued emphasis on all five lines of effort and at all levels. culture change starts at the top. and i have seen in my nine months in this job unprecedented senior and mid-level leader attention and energy right now focused on sexual assault prevention response programs across all the services. the key now is transferring this energy and focus from top to bottom across the force through quality training and strong leadership. i began my remarks by stating that sexual assault is a national problem. i will conclude by stating that it is my view that the department of defense can and must be a leader in solving this problem for america. thank you for your attention, i look forward to your questions. >> thank you all. um, we have a number of statements for the record including statements from nancy parish, president of protect our defenders, lisa metz, mr. ben clay and from the victim of the avenue yang know air base. i'd also like to turn these proceedings over to our chairman, chairman levin. >> madam chairman, thank you for your leadership and holding this hearing. and to all of us those who have joined in this effort, it's a major effort, it's vitally important. i just very much appreciate your recognizing me for a few moments, and i want to thank our colleagues as well who have been here waiting to asks questions, and this will just take a few moments. first of all, mr. taylor, i want to thank you. i wrote you a letter asking you for the legislative history of article 60, and as of, i believe, just today you responded to my letter with your own letter. and included in that letter is a fairly lengthy legislative history which i would ask you, madam chair, to incorporate in the record. >> without objection. >> and then i just have a couple questions for mr. taylor. the legislative history that you provide indicates that the authority of a convening authority under article 60 of the uniform code dates back to 1775. now, at the time that that authority was established, did a service member convicted the have the ability to appeal his conviction to a higher military court? >> no, sir. >> now, given that a service member can now appeal his conviction to the air force court of criminal appeals and then in the case we're talking about and then to the united states court of appeals for the armed forces, is there any reason now to allow convening authorities to overturn a court-martial conviction on the basis of legal errors at trial? >> there have been many developments since 1775 to get us where we are today. the robust apellate procedures provided by today's uniform code of military justice are, do raise a very serious question about whether the authority provided by article 60, which was most recently dealt with by the congress in 1983, whether the up -- unlimited authority of the commander to dispose of a finding of a court-martial is any longer required or would serve, continues to serve a vital purpose. we are going to look into that very thoroughly with a very much of an open mind. but the change in the robustness of appellate procedures over time designed to protect the victim -- excuse me, to protect the accused -- >> right. >> -- makes this a very different question, certainly, than existed in 1775. >> thank you very much, mr. taylor. i want to thank all of our witnesses and, again, thank you, madam chairman, for your leadership here and for the others who have joined with you. again, um, i thank my colleagues and you for allowing me just a few minutes up front. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you. i'm now going to allow senator graham to ask his questions, pause he has a time constraint. senator graham? >> thank you, madam chairman, and just indulge me a bit here, and i'll try to be as quick as possible, but i do have a budget markup. one, thank you for holding the hearing. i think it's been very informative to all of us. regarding setting awe side findings -- aside findings, from the marine perspective from 2010-2012, there were seven cases out of the 1768 the convening authority took action to disprove findings of guilty, none involved sexual assault. that's .4%. does that sound right, general? >> yes, it does. >> okay. the air force, in the last five years the convening authority disapproved findings of guilt in 1.1% of cases, 40 out of 3,713. five of the 40 were sexual assault cases. does that sound right, general? >> yes, sir. that's correct. >> the navy does not have a tracking system for article 60 disposition, but you'll get one, won't you? okay, good. but you've been able to go around to your regional commands and collect evidence from those who have been involved in reviewing cases, and what we have is from the navy we found one known case where the convening authority took action to disapprove the findings. that one case was a sexual assault case. in the army since 2008, there have been 4,6 of 03 cases that went to court-martial with some conviction. in of 8 cases the convening authority either dismiss z or disapproved the findings of guilt, 1.4%. no army committing authorities has approved the finding disturb. [inaudible] of the soldier that commits the sexual assault. does that sound right for the army? >> it does, senator. >> okay. the reason i bring that up is i want to make sure people understand, you know, one case has to be put in terms of the whole system. finish the convening authority, general harding, for a general court-martial is at what rank usually? >> with the air force that would be 09, general court-martial -- special court-martial convening authority would be normally an 06. >> what about the army? is. >> sir, our general court-martial conveneses typically an 08 or 09, special court 06. >> navy. >> typically, sir, for a gcm it's a one or a two-star, 07 or 08, and for a special court-martial it's 06. >> marine corps? >> one, two and three-star generals, sir. typically. >> army? >> sir, i think general chipman gave you the army. >> you're both here. >> i'm representing the sexual assault prevention office -- >> okay, i'm sorry, apologize. should have paid attention. coast guard. that's not fair. >> i called on them first. >> i know, good for you. >> well, thank you, senator. to answer the question, general court-martial convening authority are one, two or three-star admirals, special convening authorities can range from 03 lieutenant to 06 captain. >> so if there's a case generated at a local unit, let's say a squadron or a flight, the person reviewing that case, general harding, is quite a distance away from the incident in terms of command, is that correct? >> that's correct, senator. >> okay. so this concern that it's a buddy-buddy system, i just want the public to understand that the convening authority or particularly for general court-martials that would involve a case of rape or some serious sexual assault is a distance away from the unit in question just from the way the system works. now, the history of article 60, and people in the civilian community may wonder why, why does a convening authority have the ability to set aside a punishment. you do have a robust appeals system, so if there's a legal error in the case, the accused has the right to appeal all the way to the supreme court if necessary to correct legal errors. but we still have the convening authority and the decision making role about setting aside findings. when you go back to the history of this concept, you do start with the continental army, and in -- i'm trying to find my paper here, can't find it. but general eisenhower testified to the house armed services committee before the old stead act which is a predecessor to the ucmj of 1950 that in his opinion it is necessary that the person in the chain of command have the power to take final election on court-martials. he opposed to a proposal to mitt certain types of sentences from commanders to the judge advocate general. you had another general, collins, who offered similar testimony as commander of the guadalcanal. he believed in order to effectuate good order and discipline. so there's legal error problems that can be corrected by the appellate system, but when it comes to good order and discipline of a command, we have generally held the view that the one person that has the power to determine good order and discipline and to make sure it is present is the military commander. could each of you give me an opinion as to whether or not that concept is still viable and relevant in 2013? >> well, senator, if i could, i'll start. i think it's incredibly viable. it is part of the reason why we succeed in the nation's armed conflicts. over the course of 238 years, we have largely been successful in armed conflict. it's because we believe four thupgs to every fight. -- things to every fight. we bring the best people. we're an all-volunteer force. we give them the best training. third is we bring the best equipment. congress helps us in that regard. the table wobbles and falls without the fourth leg and that's discipline. and command and control is an important element in discipline. it ties all those things together. and the convening authority's ability to exercise some accountability on every aspect of an airman, soldier, sailor, marine's behavior is incredibly important creating a responsive, disciplined force. so i think it is, it was incredibly important in 1775, and the reason why we stayed in the field and bested the best army on the planet at the time, and it's still important today. >> could you indulge me, or do you want to -- >> go ahead. >> from the army's point of view, do you concur? >> senator, i would add this: in the cases where we have set aside findings or the entire case after, by the convening authority or, it's typically been where we have a greater result to achieve by doing so. so, for example, a very light sentence on what was charged initially as a very severe set of crimes, a light sentence was such that it was equivalent to nonjudicial punishment. therefore, we set aside those findings in return, for example, in lieu of court-martial to get the greater good of getting to fender out of our service. >> the convening authority cannot increase the sentence. >> that's correct, sir. but it can, in fact, an action -- >> in lieu of it. >> that's correct. >> in the navy's point of view, does this command authority resonate 2013? >> yes, sir, i believe it does. manners are responsible for life and death decision, the safety, welfare, well being and good order of discipline of those under their charge. my experience has been that these convening authorities and these commanders take these decisions to heart. they strive day in and day out to do the right thing. they're people of integrity. they're advised by well qualified and well trained legal counsel. having said that, the military justice process has matured greatly over the last, since the last time article 60 was reviewed. and there are lawyers at every stage of that process now; trial counsel, defense counsel, staff judge advocates. and it is a good time to look at article 60 again in light of those changes, but ever mindful of the second and third order effects of adjusting or restricting somehow the -- >> is it the navy's position that the convening authority should not have this power, and it should be placed into someone else's hands? >> no, sir, that's not our position at all. >> what about the marine corps? >> sir, thank you for the opportunity to talk on this issue. i think for so long as we hold our commanders accountable for everything that a command does or fails to do, then they must have these types of authorities. they're responsible for setting command climate, they're responsible for the culture, and it is their leadership that we have to hold accountable, and they need to be able to hold everyone in their unit accountable to preserve that good order and discipline to accomplish their missions. >> coast guard? >> thank you, senator. as the coast guard is the smallest of the armed forces, our units tend to be smaller as well, and that commander is the embodiment of leadership and discipline within those small units. and to maintain that discipline i concur with my colleagues. i would add that we have also reviewed our past court national practice to determine if a commander is ever overturned in the last four years, a charge or specification involving sexual assault. and there have been three instances where a specification, a part of a -- >> right. >> -- finding was overturned, but that was always on the advice of a judge advocate who had found plain legal error. >> right. now, what i will do just to wrap up here very quickly, i think that the hearing today shows the need, the first panel shows the need for the congress to be involved. and i think these programs that you're coming up with have a great possibility to pay dividends. but it is a cultural problem, and it has to be changed. and all i would urge my colleagues to do is that there's been a longstanding tradition in the military of allowing the commander of this authority for the reasons just cited, better than i could ever articulate. general harding, i would like in private for you to offer to brief the members of the committee about the aviano case. you briefed me. it's quite an interesting case, and i would just ask every member of the committee to spend some time, if you could, being briefed about the facts of that particular case. but as to the climate in the military, the fact that victims feel they can't come forward, clearly, this has to be addressed. and i just want to thank you, madam chairman, for bringing this up to the nation's attention, to the committee's attention, and i look forward to finding a way to continue the progress that seems to be made. >> thank you, senator graham. i am extremely disturbed based on the last round of question and answer that each of you believes that the convening authority is what maintains discipline and order within your ranks. if that is your view, i don't know how you can say that having 19,000 sexual sexual assaults and rapes a year is discipline p and order. i do not understand how you can say that of those 19,000 cases to only have approximately 2400 even reported because the victims tell us that they are afraid to report payoff retaliation and the blame -- because of the retaliation and the plame and scorn they will get from their colleagues. and i really cannot understand how 2400 cases, only 240 of which go to trial can be result in you believing that that authority is giving you discipline. and order. it is the exact opposite of discipline and order. and i'm very grateful for all of the changes that have been made. each of you gave opening testimony that was very strong and thoughtful about the kinds of changes you are making, and i appreciated that i heard from each of you that there's a zero tolerance. and i appreciate that i hear from each i don't have how about the -- from each of you about the training you are giving your lawyers and your prosecutors and the training you are giving your advocates. and that is all well and good. but if the convening authority is the only decision maker of whether a case goes to trial or proceeds and the only decision maker about whether to overturn a case, well, then all that training and all those excellent lawyers and prosecutors you have don't mean a difference. it doesn't make a difference. because the person with the authority is not the one who has that years of training in terms of legal ability and prosecute tore l y'all discretion and the understanding of the nature of a rape, that it is a violent crime. it is not ask her when she's sober. that is not what this issue is about. so i appreciate the work you are doing, i honestly do. but it's not enough. and if you think you are achieving discipline and order with your current convening authority framework, i am sorry to say you are wrong. and every victim that has come in front of this committee and every story we have heard over the weeks and months shows that we have not even begun to address this problem. so to lieutenant general harding, let's talk about the aviano case. do you think justice was done in that case? >> i think that the convening authority reviewed the facts and made an independent determination. and that was his obligation as given to him by this body. granted, it was 65 years ago. but he fulfilled a statutory obligation, and he did so with integrity. >> and do you think the five senior officers that were the jury in that trial did not do justice? >> i can't say that they did not, ma'am. i think both the jury and the convening authority did their duty. >> well, as they reached the p opposite decision, in one instance justice was not done. which instance do you believe justice was not done? >> i can't say. i'm not going to conclude that justice was or was not done. what i will conclude is all parties did their job. from my review -- >> well, one of the parties was wrong. and if you are the victim in that case to have gone huh eight months of -- through eight months of testimony, of providing evidence, i can assure you she does not believe justice was done. i'd like to move towards some questions concerning how we can evaluate a stronger system. mr. taylor, what do you think of the aviano case? >> i am very concerned about the message receiveed as a result of that case. to back up just a little bit, each of the people at in this table gave a response to senator graham's question, but except for me. i believe that we have to look very carefully about whether there is a continuing value to the authority provided to the convening authority to throw out findings, to reject findings of a military trial, of a court-martial. as senator levin indicated, there is a very robust system of appellate rights that are available to protect the accusers. and i think we have to very carefully reconsider whether there needs to be changes to article 60, whether there needs to be further guidance on how article 60 is to be employed, but the secretary has charged me to take a thorough and open and searching look into the continued need for article 60 as it exists today. and i intend to do so. it will be informed, certainly, by the experience of these very fine lawyers and leaders and by others to make sure that we have we don't do damage to good order and discipline. but there is something that seems odd about the power to reject findings that came out of a jury in the absence of some major, obvious problem. so i'm concerned by the message that is received. i think we have to redouble our efforts to make sure that victims are are willing to come forward and are willing to entrust the military justice system. i think we need to redouble our ever efforts to insure that victims feel supported and respected and honored for is the service that they are doing by coming forward and saying no. >> thank you. i have many other questions that i'll submit for the record for each of you. our next senator is senator blumenthal. >> first of all, let me thank senate gillibrand not only for the focus on this issue and convening this hearing, but also for the passion and commitment that she brings to this issue which i share. and let me begin by saying that you have all given very thoughtful and informed answers, and if i may say very lawyer-like answers. which is to say cautious and careful. this issue really demands immediate action and not just tinkering around the edges. you know, in my first visit to afghanistan, i've been there three times, my mission was to find out what could be done to protect our military men and women against the ieds that continue to cause more than half of all our casualties. and we have since dealt with that problem more effectively through a combination of body armor, better equipment to detect them, a range of action. when i first visited camp leatherneck, i was shown what the marine corps was doing in the absence of the body armor and all the other measures that took time to do. and they had rigged a 10-foot-long pole with what looked like the end of a coat hanger. which they used very effectively to detect roadside poms. because they -- bombs. because they couldn't wait. this problem is the e equivalent of an ied in every unit of every armed force. it is the equivalent of a immensely destructive force which the aviano case has brought to the public's attention in a very dramatic way much like the photograph of a roadside bomb going off in iraq or afghanistan would be. but i think it is equally potentially destructive to the good order and discipline and most especially to recruitment, to retention of the best and the brightest and the bravest that you now have. and i couldn't degree more, lieutenant general harding, that all of those elements are necessary. but people, ultimately, are our greatest asset. in the military. and as i said this morning, i don't know how many of you were here, i truly believe we have the best and the brightest and the bravest now in the next greatst generation of the military, and we need to continue attract and retain them which is why this issue is so important and why the lack of effective action will be the equivalent of an ied for our armed forces. so my view is we need to do more than tinkering around the edges of the system, and we need to do it, reform, right away. and, you know, chairman levin asked a there are thoughtful -- a very thoughtful question about the convening authority's power to overturn a conviction. and even if we were to remove that power, in my view, it would not really deal with some of the systematic shortcomings of this system which are not your doing. in part, they're our doing because one of those shortcomings is the lack of sufficient resources. i know as a prosecutor to gain a conviction you need evidence. for sufficient evidence, that is conviction beyond a reasonable doubt which is by no means an easy standard, you need really expert investigative elements. and we have an obligation to provide you with those resources as well as l to assist you in dealing with this issue by helping to reform that system. so i want to begin by asking you with, mr. taylor, you know, you have a panel, you have various ideas, you've said you're considering them. what's your timetable? >> the secretary has directed me to provide a preliminary assessment of the need for change in article 60 and the nature of any such changes by march 27th. the panel is necessarily on a much longer time frame. it is a panel that is mandated by the 2013 ndaa. four members of the panel are to be appointed by chairman and ranking of the senate armed services committee and the house armed services committee, and so it's -- and it will be subject to faca, i believe. it's on a much more extended time frame. so we'll do an internal effort, and then there will be this external, independent panel effort. and that, of course, time frame ultimately is up to you. >> is your ais accessment something that you can share with us at the end of this month? >> that -- >> i assume it's march 27th of this year. [laughter] >> yes, it is. >> okay. >> that, of course, would be up to the secretary. >> well, i would like to make a request on my behalf, others may join, in asking that it be made available on march 28th or as soon thereafter as possible. i know i don't have authority to issue subpoenas the way i did when i was a prosecutor, but i hope that the secretary of defense will share the sense of urgency that we have in moving forward as quickly as possible. >> you've been asked about the rates convictions are overturned. do you have any numbers on the rates of conviction where courts martial are convened on sexual assault cases? >> i believe that each of the service jags provided that during the answer, and i didn't write it down -- >> right. >> but it's very low, specifically in cases involving sexual assault. >> can you give me an explanation, and i'm not -- unfortunately, my time has expired, but i have one last question for you and i will have others that i want to submit for the record. as to why the rates of conviction are so low? >> the rates of conviction, unfortunately, well, sexual assault is a, can be a difficult charge to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. i think that many of the efforts that you heard about in improving the professionalism and the resources available for sexual assault cases, the creation of special victims prosecutors and that capability, the increased support to victims may result in an improvement in the conviction rate. but it's a hard -- it can be hard to prove. >> well, my time has expired, and i will submit these questions. but i would respectfully suggest that that issue be part of your preliminary assessment submitted to the secretary of defense and then to us. i thank you all for your extraordinary service to our nation. none of this is personal to you or to the military as i hope you understand. i firmly believe that you will solve this problem because you have been so effective at solving similar issues whether they're cultural or strictly logistical or otherwise military in our history and thank you for your service. >> senator hirono. >> thank you, madam chair. and thank you to all of the testifiers. we heard from witnesses this morning, and i'm sure you may have been in the audience listening to the testimony from them where with they describe going through a very difficult process even reporting their sexual assaults. and you've testified this afternoon on the various programs, training, education, you know, efforts to change the culture in the military. my question is do you know whether all of this focus to change the culture, to provide the kind of support, education, whether that's working? do you ask the victims, the survivors whether these programs are working for them? any of you -- >> i'll take a, take that first if that's okay with my colleagues. i direct the sexual assault prevention response office, and i do talk to survivors on a regular basis. we also have other informal mechanisms of hearing from them and other people on the issue such as anonymous safe help line which we've had tens of thousands of calls into over the two years that it's been in effect. one of the things that we've been hearing fairly recently in those sorts of informal feedback is that that they are encouraged by the reforms, the initiatives and the programs that are being put in place. but it's something that we need to remain persistent on, that we've also got very positive feedback on the training that has been, essentially, revamped in the past year. the powerpoint slides and things we heard about this morning are done. they're over. there's no training that solely consists of powerpoint slides. they're interactive, they involve in some cases victim testimony, scenario-driven discussions, videos that are presented, ethical decision scenarios that are presented. i mean, i've been a part of training at multiple different levels on different bases, and this is revamped training that we are getting good feedback on. and it is having some effect in terms of pushing this interest, awareness and education not only at the top level, but pushing it down through the ranks to the very bottom, to the influence leaders that we really, truly need to affect if we're going to make this an endouring culture change -- enduring culture change. >> and i would say that's probably a very long process. we also heard the discussion today that we should take out the decision to prosecute from the chain of command and go to an impartial al qaeda of adjudicatory system of decision making. and i would like to ask you if you can briefly comment on, do you foresee major problems with going that route? because countries such as great britain and canada have gone that route. maybe one of the other -- >> i'll answer it first, and if i can pass it down the row, i'm the only nonlawyer sitting at the table, but i have commanded infantry, and it's for seven and a half years. so speaking from a command perspective on this answer, my point of view would be that we want command orers involved in the process. -- commanders involved in the process. we want commanders paying attention to victims. we want commanders caring for them, taking their reports seriously. we want commanders paying attention to crimes and other acts of discipline and harassment and derogatory language and all these things along the continuum of harm. we want commanders paying attention to that. we want commanders setting saturdays for what's acceptable and not acceptable in a unit where dignity and respect are the only standard in how we treat one another. we want commanders doing that. and as a commander, i'm responsible for the health and welfare of my men and women in my unit. take that as my ultimate responsibility, and i take it very seriously. i've led men and women in combat with that same responsibility. and so, you know, we expect and hold commanders accountable for establishing standards in their unit and then holding people accountable that do not meet those standards whether they be standards or performance or standards of behavior. and as a commander, i want the know, you know, who that offender and perpetrator is of this crime because that person is degrading the readiness of my unit. and it's also committing a crime against another human being in my unit. so i, i feel we need commanders very involved in this. >> i think they should be involved, but on the other hand, should they be the, basically, judge and jury? i think that's the question that we are confronted with. and if one -- if you'd like to -- >> senator, if i could add at this point i visited my counterparts that run those systems in the u.k., in canada and in australia. i've visited every one of the judge advocates general from those respective armed forces. that model that they have is not a model to which we should aspire. moreover, they are not comparable in any way, shape or form to the size, the length, the frequency of our deployments of u.s. military forces. when we have 300,000 soldiers in theaters of operations in afghanistan and iraq, we need a system that punishes swiftly, visibly and locally and not independent of the chain of command, not an independent adjudicative authority, but under the direct, control and focus of that responsible commander in the theater. >> well, that's just it, because we have a huge number of people who are serving, and thousands and thousands of them are being assaulted through information from the pentagon. so in this continues, and i would say that we do need to acknowledge and face some facts. i do commend all of you for the work that you're doing to address what is a large issue. and, in fact, one of the testifiers mentioned that getting convictions or pursuing sexual assault cases are very difficult because often it becomes she said/you said or he said/she said. that kind of situation. and i have some experience in having to actually change a law in hawaii when i was in the state legislature where the law allowed for the victims and the you survivors to be revictimized which is what we're hearing time and time again from our testifiers in this morning. and i think that that is a situation, another situation where the actual underlying law and the authority probably needs to be address canned. addressed. and, mr. taylor, i think i heard you say that this authority of the convening officer to be able to just undo a decision, a court-martial decision that you think that in the situation where we do have a robust appellate process available to defendants in the military, that perhaps this kind of an ultimate authority to overturn a decision should not rest in one person's hands who may not even have any kind of legal training. because that is what we're talking about. these are legal results. these are legal processes. finish and in my view, anybody who's going to overturn a legal process should have a legal background. and that is not the case. and i'm glad that this does not happen frequently which just says to me that perhaps we can eliminate this particular authority on the part of the convening authority. >> we will take -- >> comment? >> yes, yes, ma'am. we will take a very hard look at that, absolutely committed to doing so and directed by the secretary to do so. and we will, and as i indicated, i have a deadline imposed on me by the secretary of march 27th to give a preliminary assessment. >> thank you. madam chair, my time has expired. >> i'm sorry. if i could add, we also have a deadline set by secretary of defense to secretary of the air force of the 20th, so we've got one week to let him know what our thoughts are on the very same subject. >> thank you. >> senator ayotte? >> thank you, madam chair. i want to thank the witnesses for being here. today on this very important issue which we've got to address. it is undermining, as you mentioned, our readiness, our military, and it's totally unacceptable, and it's not consistent with the greatest military on earth. so i want to ask about a gao report that was issued in january and, mr. taylor, the gao report found that military health care providers don't have a consistent understanding of their responsibilities in caring for sexual assault victims and because the department has not established guidance for the treatment of injuries stemming from sexual assault and that there are certainly specific steps of care if someone is a victim, steps that have to be taken to protect their confidentiality and also in some instances steps that need to be taken to preserve evidence that may be needed if they choose, you know, if they choose to report. we, obviously, hope that they're able to do that, report their victimization in the crime that's been committed against them. so where are we in light of this gao report? do you have any established guidance from dod for the treatment of injuries that could be transmitted to medical providers so that they properly treat victims of sexual assault in the military? >> senator, i believe thatpatton would be in a better -- that general patton would be in a better position to answer this question. >> general? >> yes, ma'am. we have a standing d. instruction, and it is -- department can instruction, and it is very close to being reinsured with a revised instruction, and the revised instruction, i expect that to be out by the end of this month. and the revised instruction addresses in detail some of the inconsistencies that were found in the gao report. and i personally have read the gao report and then looked at both the two enclosures, number 7 and 8, and i brought them with me here. if i, if you're interested in having those. but these are enclosures in the revised instruction, the policy that will be promulgated and which will address some of the very specific points that you were mentioning. specifically, how restricted reports, victims and survivors who make restricted reports how they are to be dealt with confidentiality. and with regard to the other procedures that are medical practitioners must afford and the counseling that must be available and the examinations that must be given and those sorts of things. but equally, i think one of the gaps determined by the gao report was the gap between unrestricted care and a gap with the restricted reports. and there's, those points are specifically addressed in the revision of policy which, again, has completed the omb and interagency coordination i expect to be prom all dated here within the next couple weeks. like any policy, policy's only as good as the paper it's on. there has to be training based in that policy, and then the medical community, i know our assistant secretary for health care has conferred with all the services and they are focused on addressing that point and insuring that those changes to the policy are promulgated and put in action as soon as possible. >> general, in formulating the policy before being in the senate i was an attorney general, and, for example, in my state we used to -- there was specific guidance issued from the attorney general's office after having brought together stakeholders including physicians, victims, basically all stakeholders and formulating these guidelines, law enforcement, to make sure that they were appropriate, that they were thorough and that this was not just something from the top down, but it came from really getting the stakeholders who are involved in it to make sure that they're right. so how did the process that you upside took to put these -- undertook to put these together, what did that involve, who did you consult? and, you know, there are very good models for this even in the civilian sector, and i wonder if you consulted any of those. >> ma'am, it was a very collaborative process. all the services and medical experts were involved in this particular portion of the policy. our health affairs staff was involved, and we do confer with the, with the experts in the field. i know one of the women on my staff has been involved in victim advocacy and has been a, and has been working pseudoby side, really on the front lines of victim advocacy and care for victims for most of her or adult life. another woman involved in the formulation of policy was the sexual assault coordinator of the year for the air force and has a lot of hands-on experience in dealing with the, with victims and getting them through not only the difficult step coming forward and going through the reporting step, but then also into the medical system as well. so i, i'm pretty comfortable that it's been a broad and collaborative process, and like i said, the inconsistencies that were identified in the gao report, i've made a comparative look between the gao report and then what we have in our revised, and i believe it does cover the, all those areas. >> so when will this be issued and then, also, what are the implementation plans, and how do you -- i i mean, one of the biggest issues we heard this morning from the panel of victims was the culture issue. this is only one component of the culture issue, but how do you implement these guidelines to make sure that victims are also receiving the proper treatment and respect within the medical system? >> well, the first step is the policy. and like i said, we expect to have this back from the office of management and promulgated by the end of this month. so that's the first step. but the policy then has to be taking -- the department policy has to be taken by the services and then promulgated in some fashion. and on this case being a medical, just take the medical component out, you know, i would expect that the surgeons generals and, would be issuing guidance and reinforcing guidance on those aspects of the policy then within their service. education programs then have to be based on the changes in the policy so people can be educated, and they know the new standards of performance in terms of medical practice and care for all type survivors. and then lastly, there's an assessment step which is to say, you know, we should be out there, and we need to be out there identifying, you know, where the, how these policies are being applied by the medical practitioners. and i know that dr. woodson, our assistant secretary of health affairs, has a plan that he has shared with me. i don't know the timeline, but he does have a plan once this policy is promulgated and education in place and so forth to go out and audit various medical communities to insure that these standards are being applied and our victims are being cared for as they demand. we also hear -- of course, we also hear from the survivors. and they tell us things. i mean, i had a, i had a summit of survivors in my office several weeks ago, and one of the survivors told, shared with me a very difficult tale of how she was treated in an emergency room in a military hospital. and those types of inputs are very important to how we, you know, go about this. >> thank you, general. and also can you, i would ask that you provide that policy to the committee, and i would also ask that you provide us with the action implementation plan so that we can follow up on this issue and thank you for being here. appreciate it. >> yes, ma'am. >> senator mccaskill. >> thank you. i have, after meeting with many of you and many of your colleagues, i have gotten much more familiar with the ucmj. in fact, on the advice of one of the army jags, i actually downloaded it on my ipad and now have it as an app. and i keep coming back to the structure that is very strange the more i think about it. i've tried every kind of criminal case there is from a low-level shoplifting, burglary to a capital murder death penalty case. and in the criminal justice system we build a fence around the fact finders. and we make sure that the evidence they hear is relevant, and judges are in charge of making sure that the evidence is relevant and that the rules are followed. and generally in our system the only people that can overturn the fact finders are people who have also heard the witnesses. unless there is a legal problem with how the trial was actually conducted. now, your system is much different. in your system a defendant can refuse to take the stand, which is certainly their right and, therefore, their character doesn't come into evidence. because the only way someone's character comes into evidence is if they place it in evidence. so the fact finders don't get to hear what a great guy someone is. they are listening just to the facts of the case. now, it is bizarre to me that when that is over, you begin a clemency process. i'm going to read the quote from the victim in aviano about the clemency process. the clemency process was a travel is city. the vast majority of the statements were personal attacks on the judge, the prosecutors and me. a few were actual clemency letters stating the relationship with wilkerson. pleads think of his family -- please think of his family, etc. many of them, especially the ones from the pilot community and their wives, wrote caustic, vitriolic letters alleging that the judicial system is corrupt and that the trial was not legitimate. they claimed the prosecutors were bullies and unethical, the panel was biased because they weren't pilots, the judge made bad decisions, i am a slut, a liar. unprofessional. now, this information goes to this general, and he is to look at that contemporaneously with supplanting his judgment for the fact finders'. there is no good reason for that. i can't think of one, and i would love it if one of you would tell me why -- in our system after the appeal is finished, then there's an opportunity for clemency by an executive authority. to commute a seasons, to pardon someone -- to commute a sentence, to pardon someone, but not prior to a decision on whether the case was, n., conducted legally. how can someone's judgment about the factual determination in a case be clear if they are being bombarded with evidence of character of the defendant who hadn't taken the stand for an opportunity of fact finders for his character to be cross-examined for bad acts? and i would like some explanation from you as to how the good and discipline of the order is enhanced by the ability of the mixing of hose two very different -- of those two very different deliberations. >> senator, i'd like to try, first, on that question. i think we have two distinct aspects to this, the convene authorities on findings and those authorities on sentence. because i can see that clemency, of course, extends also to sentence revision. in this some cases, for example, a convening authority might delay the imposition of forfeitures that were part of the sentence to provide continued support financially to the accused family, dependent spouse and children. so that's one aspect where clemency would be appropriate from the outset. as you know in some cases, clemency might be appropriate to address a legal error that was identified either by the judge during the course of the trial, by the staff judge advocate on his or her review and that we know will be taken care of by the appellate court, but why not go ahead and clean that error up with the action by the convening authority? >> i guess i understand the point you made, but i think that there will have to be a stronger argument than that for me not to come down on the side that clemency belongs at the end of the legal determination, not in the middle of it. i'm not somebody who believes that somebody who hasn't heard the evidence presented should be making a determination on who is telling the truth. a transcript never tells the full story as to who was telling the truth. that's why we have trials. and to supplant that judgment for the people who actually heard the testimony, particularly in these cases. because these cases are he said/she said. these cases are all about the believer about of the witnesses -- believer about of the witnesses. and juries are very good at sniffing out who's telling the truth. i'm not sure a general, far removed with no legal training looking at a stack of clemency contemporaneously with a dry transcript, is given the right information to make the kind of decision that's going to be for the good and order, discipline of the whole. so that is one issue. another issue i have, um, is that if this power, this amazing power that is given this one individual is ability the good of the whole -- and we talked about this, general, in my office with general welsh -- it appears to me that the aviano general has really failed. because if this decision is because you want them to have the ability of looking at the good of the whole, i don't think anybody is going to argue that this decision has been terrible for the whole. this decision has turned the military on its ear as it relates to the criminal justice system that is contained therein. he was not looking at the good of the whole, he was looking at this individual case. so the irony is the very power he has is because of the good of the whole, but yet narrowly looking at the facts in evidence and a tack of clemency in this case and making a decision that sets the air force back with. we may be all the way back to tailhook at this point in terms of all the work you've tried to do to move the air force forward. you know, mr. taylor, could you comment on that as to whether or not these cases are really being decided on an individual basis or whether or not this good of the whole is being considered? because i think senator gillibrand's point is a really good one. if it's about the good of the whole, i don't know that we're doing a very good job since this problem is as pervasive as it is and is getting worse and not necessarily better. >> senator, i think you have a very good point. it is entirely possible, and it is entirely possible that there is a disconnect between the rationale for this authority which is the good of the whole and how it has come to be utilized. that is one of the things that i i will need to consider in making my preliminary assessment, but it is, it is a serious issue, and it requires a lot of -- it requires a very serious response and hard thinking, and i i commit to you that i will think hard about that. i think it's a very good point. >> my time is out. i've got -- let me first make sure has everybody seen invisible war on the panel? general ary, i would certainly like for you later what, if any, action for the good and discipline of the whole unit was, happened to any command at the military barracks here in washington as a result of the incident? you don't have to tell me now. but i'm dying to know what commander was relieved, what commander was dismissed. clearly, the facts around that case are, has serious implications beyond the sexual assault that is alleged. i will never look at the friday night ceremonies the same way again after seeing that movie, and on behalf of the marines, i would think that there would be a deep can desire to clean that up and show that it's a new day at the washington barracks. >> yes, ma'am. we'll get you that response. >> and finally, i have a long list of others about investigators and their specialized training. i don't know if -- okay, great. i'll wait then. thank you very much. >> thank you, senator mccaskill. we're going to take a second round because there's interest by the senators sitting here. mr. taylor, we've talked a little bit about how other nations have addressed their previous practices of having a convening authority, britain, canada, australia. have you had an opportunity to study what they did in those jurisdictions and whether it had any beneficial effect on increasing amount of reporting, increasing the amount of prosecutions? did it have any effect on unit cohesion, unit morale, on discipline, on order? did they see a loss by removing convening authority? >> i've dope a little reading -- i've done a little reading on the topic, but the, as i understand it, the rationales for the action taken in canada and in great britain and some other countries has been focused really on protecting the accused. and it's to provide a further layer of insulation for the benefit of the accused. and whether it has had any impact at all on sexual assault cases, i don't know. i will be, i plan to be talking with counterparts and try to gather some of that information over time. not for the 27th. >> i want to talk with each of you about in this real challenge of underreporting, and anecdotally listening to the testimony this morning, each of the victims said, you know, if i had an advocate early on to tell me what my rights were, to stand by me, to have some authority, if i knew that i could be transferred immediately or my, the perpetrator could be transferred immediately, that might give me the courage to withstand the 30, 60, 90 days it would take to have a case reviewed. they said if i knew my alleges would be taken seriously and i had a real chance that this perpetrator could be convicted and he'd be held accountable, i might have been willing to report. so i'd like each of the services to tell me their view of why do you think there's so little underreporting? i mean, if it's literally 19,000 and more than half are sexual assaults against men and if only 2400 are actually unrestricted, that's a terrible reporting rate. what do you think the reasons are? are the things that are being implemented now, will they been to address -- will they begin to address it? what is the most important thing in your mind is there to increase the number of reports that are made for these sexual assaults? lieutenant general harding, you can start there, and we'll go across. >> that's one of the reasons, ma'am, that we, that we structured that special victims counsel program. >> could you talk into the mic there, general? >> i'm sorry, sir. that that's one of the reasons we structured the svc special victims counsel program. the majority, at least the survey tells us, of our sexual assaults are not reported. we believe that if victims believe that there is somebody on their side as they go through this complicated process that can be very exhausting, that we'll see more of them come forward. that's our hope. in part. also, when we looked at fy-'11, the last batch of statistics we gave you, we noticed that in the unrestricted reporting side that we had 29% of our victims who had said i want to cooperate with law enforcement, walk away and refuse to cooperate before they got to the courthouse day. that was 90, in the air force's case 96 victims. so we believe that that helps us encourage and 'em bodden them -- embolden them as well and to feel less like they've been revictimized by that process when they've got somebody there to explain why things are happening the way they are. and so, so i believe there are multiple reasons, our surveys have shown multiple reasons why people do not report. we know that one of them is the belief that this is a difficult process to get through. that's not the only reason. i think i'd turn it over to major general patton to let you know what that survey revealed and told us among the various reasons why people don't report. >> lieutenant general chipman? >> senator, i think to follow on what general harding said, these are the most difficult kinds of allegations to share with anyone. these are the intimate details of our personal lives, our bodily integrity. i think there's a natural reluctance there. i think there is a great desire for privacy on the part of these victims to avoid general knowledge among unit members of the community of the kinds of things that have been inflicted upon them. and finally, i think it's just what's different about military service is this idea that you take on this member of a team cohesion,'s prix, good order of discipline. i i think that was shown very well in the documentary that you asked us if we'd seen. one of the biggest crimes was the assault but, secondly, the attitude of the military when it was reported, the lack of support that those victims received and that sort of violation of the fundamental belief that they were part of a team that would take care of them, that would not allow this to happen. so i think that still plays out in the underreporting. >> vice admiral? >> yes, ma'am. i agree with general chipman and with general harding as well. i think it comes down to victims knowing that they will be responded to, supported, cared for through the process. we're in the process of hiring professional, full--time victim advocates which is different than having a lawyer serve as a victim advocate. we're striving to form a core relationship between prosecutors, investigators and the victim advocate to work with the victims who come forward in a constructive, cohesive way. we're watching with interest the our force pilot on what a special victims counsel role could be within the system where we don't have one very well defined. but they would not supplant a victim advocate. we've all instituted expedited transfer. last year the navy approved 79 of them. none were disapproved within 72 hours. and if a command declines, the request goes to the next flag on the chain. there were no declinations. i think the training that we've devised -- informed in large part by the experiences shared so powerfully in "the invisible war" -- are helping at the deck plate, fleet level people to understand the resources that are available, what actually happens when an allegation is made. .. that we have the proper training for investigators, for lawyers, for first responders. we have hot lines that can be reached through phones, through e-mail. restricted reporting is something that i know is difficult for people to completely understand. i think the truth is, we're trying to give people options to come forward. ideally we want people to come forward to us, and make an unrestricted report so that we can pursue accountability, aggressively. but not everyone, as we heard this morning, so difficult to come forward, the courage to come forward, the trust to come forward. we are working to earn that. until we do, and until an individual finds that come supported by the people around them, they have the ability to make the restricted report which allows them to get medical care, counseling, and victim support without going through the accountability process. and it's our hope that with the support they will find the courage to change into an unrestricted report. >> my time has expired so i'm going to turn out to senator graham. >> thank you. this is an emotional topic so i will be pushing back a bit summer things said. but having said that, please do not mistake the pushback for an understanding that sexual assault in the military need to be addressed and we need to improve upon the current system. because what we have today is not working. but in terms of whether not we have a good order and well disciplined military, i would say the answer is yes. the answer is yes, because you see it in the way they conduct themselves in battle, the enemies of this nation have never faced a fine or a military force than exists today, and we have problems, their human beings involved in our military, and that's no justification for people acting badly and poorly. and i want america to know that the best test of discipline is when the flag or the balloon goes up. we are the best in the world. now, this idea that fighter pilots take your fighter pilots, we don't talk about that -- we're going t to talk about a little bit. general harding, do you know the convening authority's? >> i do. >> is there any suggestion that he set aside the findings because of the career field he was in or a personal relationship with the accused? >> absolutely not. >> absolutely not. as a matter of fact, he doesn't know the accused. >> i just want to set this straight. you may not agree with what the general did, but actually know these people. they take this job very seriously, of sending people into combat get a take their job seriously as a convening authority to make sure that in their view for the units in question, justice was rendered. we are talking about a handful of convening authority action, given thousands of cases. please don't over indict the system. mr. taylor, i want you, if you could come to people in your office to review every convening authority in the military, in terms of special court-martial, general court-martial convening authority, and see if you can find somebody who is not up to the task. because i believe, ladies and gentlemen, that our commanders that get to this rank have been chosen for a reason. now, the problem of reporting sexual assault in the military, mr. patton, is any greater problem in the military that it is in the civilian community? >> sir, i believe they are on par in both sectors. >> i would say that what happens in the civilian community in this area is probably duplicated in the military, on par may be the right word, but i promise you this. there is no city, there is no state, there is no county that's going to take it more serious than the men and women before you. now, when it comes to defending somebody in the military, i've been a defense counsel and i've been a prosecutor. in the civilian world and in the military world. one thing i never had to worry about containing a military member is cost. i've got every witness i ever wanted. i didn't have any already pay an i did not hundreds of cases. as a military prosecutor, i spent an inordinate amount of time preparing a case that our civilians colleagues within the -- would envy. are their district attorneys out there not many cases they should? absent. sometimes the system fails. i just want people to understand, in the military justice arena, it is a focused effort to get this right. the defense counsel is an independent chain. and i was on "60 minutes" once trying to take the drug labs down at the air force had created that i thought was producing false positives, and awarded 60,000 results because the system worked. my boss at my back, the military judge was a real hero. so the only thing i can say is that the purpose of this hearing is a good purpose. people are not feeling comfortable with telling what's going on in that unit regarding sexual assault. but the idea, quite frankly that convening authorities are the problem is not what i see here. i see the system broken. and i do believe that if you're going to give a man or woman the power to send someone in battle, and to literally go and i, that we should trust their judgment when it comes to disciplining that unit. that's just my personal bias. having said that i think there's a tremendous amount to build on here, and mr. taylor, i look forward to working with you, and the administration, try to finalize -- ways to make the system work better. madam chairman, this is a difficult issue, but let's please not, i want you to read come if you can, a summary of the case. you may not come out with what the convening authority did but i just avoided did it. i just don't believe that. so finally, mr. taylor, as we go forward, what can we do in terms of sequestration? i mean, you know, we're talking as if nothing else is going on out there. everybody is doing more with less. there are less lawyers. bears more responsibility. so please tell us what you need in terms of budget to enhance these programs. and i think everybody on this committee, and senator mccaskill, you've been terrific about focusing on this, let's find out what we need to resource that is not being resourced and make this a priority. because i will end with this thought. if women in the military, and men are victims, too, but if you really believe that there is no place for you to go and you are being abused, that's got to be the worst possible feeling in the world. i would not want one member of my family to ever have to live under those conditions. so this command climate i think is beginning to change, but how do we -- nobody wanted to talk about it. nobody wanted to embarrass the command. they wanted to show the stuff under the rug. there's no wind -- there's no other answer for this to get this out of him. i believe in today's you, and all i ask is that when we find this new way forward, that we still preserve the ability of the system to judge every individual case based on the individual facts that we don't paint with a broad brush. everybody is guilty. thank you very much. >> well, i first, i certainly agree with senator graham, especially the first part of his statement. i'm compelled to be compassionate about this because i agree with them. we are the best in the world, and my comment about the overall health and good order and discipline of the unit is based on what i believe is a military that is grappling with a problem that the military knows you don't have under control. i don't think i'm saying anything that most of you don't agree with. i think you know we need to do better. i think you know there are women out there that feel like because of the particular facts and circumstances other military service, their ability to get a piece of justice is limited. and i know you all want them to. so i don't think there's a significant disagreement between senator graham and me about that. i just think that some of the convening authorities power does not appear to be rational to me, particularly the way it's currently set up in terms of the order of things and the ability which i think most of you are uncomfortable with the notion that the rules say this can be done for no reason at all. as general welsh i think said to me, we're not anytime where you are getting people out of prison to put him on the front lines because we need warm bodies. some of these roles date from that time. when you didn't have to give any reason at all, and i think you explain to me why they said no reason at all, it came from the mouth of general eisenhower in a hearing like this. or something to that effect. let me talk about a couple of things that i wanted to get to. it is my understanding that if member of the military needs to update their security clearance, they must self-report counseling around their sexual assault, and they do not have to report counseling for combat related issues, grief, or family matters. is that too, mr. taylor? >> -- is that true, mr. taylor? >> it is generally true. questions when one, there's a different interpretations, but generally that's accurate. i think there are serious issues with question 21, and i would just like to say that the issues are not limited to those who are receiving, receiving the care that we want them to receive. that's true whether the need for care is a result of sexual assault or is something else. i personally am very concerned about question 21, and would like to see some action on it. >> i think we need to really take a look at that, because if you're looking at someone's mental health, what you are really saying is, if your mental health issues come from combat or a problem in your family, that doesn't impact your security clearance. but if you've been a rape victim, it does. now, i can't imagine any of you would agree with that outcome. does anybody think that's right or fair? okay. so, be sure and let us know if you have a problem with us looking at that, because i want to get that changed right away. if i was a woman in a military and i've been raped and had a security clearance, that she would impact my willingness to come forward. it sure would impact my willingness in terms of giving up my career. what about this is just and i made earlier? if we have probable cause based on a sound criminal investigation, and the jag is recommended to the convening authority that we go to a general court-martial proceeding, why are we so focused about moving the victim? why are we not moving the perpetrator at that point speak with senator and we do the authority to move a perpetrator to another command or another installation, of the unit that is within the discretion of the chain of command. so that is an available option. it would make it a little more tedious in the sense of proceedings that had to go forward with the article 32 investigation, any emotions you, so you might have to move it back and forth to the installation that is holding the court-martial but certainly it's an option to me, chain of command.

Navy Point boat ramp in Escambia County to reopen Friday

Navy Point boat ramp to close: Escambia County officials

Floating during the eclipse: Boaters are making plans for viewing on April 8

HENDERSON—Most people viewing the solar eclipse on April 8 will be standing on solid ground, but quite a few people will have a different experience.

China "Research Vessel" Set To Dock In Male Amid India-Maldives Tensions

Amid strained ties between India and the Maldives, a Chinese vessel has entered the waters of the island nation and is set to dock in its capital Male. The 4,300-ton Xiang Yang Hong 03 is classified as a 'research' vessel

Florida School Grades Released; How Did Your Child's School Score? : NorthEscambia.com

Local online newspaper for North Escambia County Florida, Pensacola, Walnut Hill, Bratt, McDavid, Molino, Century, Cantonment, Atmore, Flomaton, News

Anthony 'Turk' Cannon returns to St. Michaels for Dec. 2 concert

ST. MICHAELS — Growing up in St. Michaels, Anthony Cannon learned the joys and challenges of working the water from his father, Wilson “Turk” Cannon.

Pink flamingo spotted in Navy Point dies from suspected injury

The Chesapeake Bay Maritime Museum's Oyster Tin Collection

The Eastern Shore’s Chesapeake Bay Maritime Museum is home to a collection of roughly 650 oyster tins, which together are worth more than $200,000.