Edit: HB34_-_Sexual_Offense_Prevention_and_Response_Program_established

Markdown Content:

= HB34 Sexual Offense Prevention and Response Program established. =

== Status ==
[https://house.vga.virginia.gov/subcommittees/H15002/agendas/5301 Public Safety | Subcommittee — 1/20/2026]

<hr>

== Overview ==

=== Summary as Introduced ===

Virginia military forces; Sexual Offense Prevention and Response Program established; report. Establishes the Sexual Offense Prevention and Response Program (the Program) within the Department of Military Affairs and creates an independent Sexual Offense Prevention and Response Officer. The Officer provides victim advocacy services and assists victims of certain criminal sexual assault offenses in making either a restricted report or an unrestricted report. The bill applies to members of the Virginia National Guard and the Virginia Defense Force, and to offenses committed by or against members of the Virginia military forces. The bill also requires annual reporting on program implementation, effectiveness, and outcomes.

The bill creates new statutory sections governing definitions, reporting options, investigations, and oversight.

<hr>

=== Patrons ===

==== House Patrons ====

• Joshua G. Cole (chief patron)

==== Senate Patrons ====

• None

<hr>

== Language ==

The language of [https://lis.virginia.gov/bill-details/20261/HB34/text/HB34 HB34] can be viewed here.

<hr>

== Opening Statement ==

=== House Subcommittee Statement ===

Mister Chair, members of the subcommittee—

HB 34 reflects a policy this body has already endorsed. Last year, the House passed this legislation by a vote of 93 to 3. It was vetoed. We are here today because the underlying problem remains unresolved in code.

Because after vetoing, Governor Youngkin enacted Executive Order 50, which established this type of prevention-and-response framework administratively. HB34 codifies those protections in statute so they’re durable and uniform.

This bill establishes a Sexual Offense Prevention and Response Program within the Department of Military Affairs to ensure that members of the Virginia National Guard and Virginia Defense Force have access to essential victim advocacy services and a transparent, reliable reporting process.

It creates an independent Sexual Offense Prevention and Response Officer—outside the chain of command—to support survivors, explain their options, and connect them with medical care and counseling.

The bill provides two clear reporting paths:

Restricted reports: Allowing victims to seek care and support without immediately triggering an investigation.

Unrestricted reports: Referring cases to law enforcement for evidence collection and prosecution.

This structure ensures a victim-centered response that protects privacy when needed and ensures accountability when a survivor is ready to proceed.

The bill also requires annual public reporting so the General Assembly can evaluate the program’s effectiveness and ensure continued oversight.

Importantly, the Department of Planning and Budget has confirmed that this program can be implemented without additional state spending.

The veteran who originally brought the need for this legislation to my attention, Jean Ibañez Payne, a military sexual trauma survivor, was unable to attend this hearing this morning.

So I would like to read a statement she provided:

<blockquote>
I am Jean Ibañez Payne, a Military Sexual Trauma Survivor of 20+ unwelcomed events of sexual abuse, which included rape, harassment, and assault. I spoke up and was not protected by the system. Instead, I was left feeling more like the perpetrator. Again and again saw my perpetrators get away with the crime and move on to have successful careers. Five women and four men are abused daily, with sexual abuse cases being underreported by two to four times.

I brought [this legislation] to Delegate Cole because we need accountability and transparency in the armed forces.

Very respectfully,

Jean Ibañez Payne
</blockquote>

I respectfully ask that the subcommittee favorably report HB34.

<hr>

=== House Committee Statement ===
n/a

=== Floor Statement ===

Mr. Speaker, HB34 codifies a sexual offense prevention and response program within the Department of Military Affairs to ensure members of the Virginia National Guard and Defense Force have access to independent victim advocacy. It places into statute the framework previously approved by this body by a 93–3 vote in 2025 and adopted by Governor Youngkin's Executive Order 50.

I hope it will be the will of the body to engross the bill and pass it on to its third reading.

=== Senate Subcommittee Statement ===
n/a

=== Senate Committee Statement ===

HB 34 reflects a policy this body has already endorsed. However, the previous iteration of this bill was vetoed. And this bill is in front of you today because the underlying problem remains unresolved in the Code.

After the veto, Governor Youngkin issued Executive Order 50 to create this type of prevention-and-response framework administratively, but it was never properly implemented. HB 34 codifies those protections in law so they are durable, uniform, and not dependent on executive action.

And the need for this legislation is serious. Sexual assault remains a significant issue in the U.S. military; in 2024, there were 8,195 reported sexual assaults involving service members across all branches. Surveys have consistently shown that a substantial number of service members experience unwanted sexual contact, with past Defense Department analysis finding roughly 5–6 % of female service members reporting sexual assault in a given year. We can help reduce that number for our service members.

This bill operates squarely within Virginia’s lawful authority while strengthening protections for victims of sexual assault within the Commonwealth’s military forces. It creates an independent reporting pathway outside the chain of command, requires unrestricted reports to be referred to civilian law enforcement, and allows victims to seek protective relief through Virginia courts.

It does not change criminal penalties. It does not interfere with federal military authority. It does not direct federal officers to act. It relies on existing state police powers and court procedures to ensure accountability and transparency.

The bill also requires annual reporting to allow this body to evaluate its effectiveness and maintain oversight. And the Department of Planning and Budget has confirmed it can be implemented without additional state spending.

I hope that it will be the will of the committee to report the bill.

NOTE (THIS IS NOT PART OF THE SCRIPT):

This is a potential response to the Department of Military Affairs, IF they say the bill NEEDS to be narrowed:

• There is no clear constitutional defect in the bill as written.

• The bill does not command federal officers or override federal authority.

• Federal systems do not replace the need for ensuring state-level oversight.

• Guard members often serve in state status under the Governor’s authority.

• When serving the Commonwealth, they should have Commonwealth protections.

• Reducing the bill’s scope would weaken transparency and legislative oversight.

• The suggested changes solve a theoretical problem but create a real reduction in victim protections.

###

This is what the DMA is suggesting change:

The Department of Military Affairs has suggested narrowing the bill so it applies only to the Virginia Defense Force, not the National Guard or Air National Guard. They also propose removing or revising the “military protective order” language, arguing that a state employee cannot issue a federal-style military protective order and that such orders generally apply only to service members under federal authority. In addition, they recommend reducing certain reporting and disclosure requirements to avoid jurisdictional confusion and concerns about sensitive information.

<hr>

== Support and Opposition ==

=== Support ===

• Military sexual trauma survivors and advocates  
• Victim advocacy organizations  
• Supporters of military accountability and transparency reforms

=== Opposition ===

• (None recorded)

=== No Recommendation ===

• (None recorded)

<hr>

== Fiscal Impact ==

The [https://lis.blob.core.windows.net/files/1082765.PDF fiscal impact statement] can be viewed here.

=== Summary ===

According to the Department of Planning and Budget, HB34 has no anticipated fiscal impact on state agencies.

=== Basis of the Estimate ===

The Department of Military Affairs currently operates a federally funded Sexual Assault Response Coordinator program. Existing personnel and infrastructure will be used to implement HB34, and annual reporting requirements do not generate additional costs.

=== Budget Considerations ===

No budget amendment is required.

<hr>

== Possible Questions ==

This section addresses likely questions raised by members or stakeholders.

=== TL;DR ===

Q1: “Isn’t this already handled within the Guard?” 
TL;DR: Some support exists, but HB34 creates independent, statutory protections and oversight.

Q2: “Does this bypass military command?” 
TL;DR: No. It provides independent victim support while preserving law enforcement authority.

Q3: “Will this create new costs?” 
TL;DR: No. The program is built on existing federally funded infrastructure.

Q4: “Why allow restricted reports?” 
TL;DR: Confidential reporting increases access to care and improves long-term accountability.

=== Q1: “Isn’t this already handled within the Guard?” ===

What’s true: The Virginia National Guard has existing sexual assault response resources.

What’s incomplete: These resources are not fully independent from command structures and lack statutory reporting and oversight requirements.

Answer you can use: HB34 places victim advocacy, reporting options, and oversight into state law. It ensures consistency, independence, and transparency regardless of leadership changes.

=== Q2: “Does this bypass military command?” ===

What’s true: The Officer operates independently from the chain of command.

What’s misleading: Independence does not mean lack of accountability.

Answer you can use: The bill preserves law enforcement authority for investigations while ensuring survivors can access support without fear of retaliation or suppression.

=== Q3: “Will this create new costs?” ===

What’s true: No state funding is required.

Answer you can use: The Department of Planning and Budget confirms that existing federally funded staff and systems will implement the program, with no fiscal impact.

=== Q4: “Why allow restricted reports?” ===

What’s true: Restricted reports allow victims to receive care without starting an investigation.

What’s often omitted: Many survivors delay reporting due to fear of retaliation or career consequences.

Answer you can use: Confidential reporting improves access to medical and counseling services and increases the likelihood of later accountability when survivors are ready.

<hr>

== Additional Information ==

1. Military sexual assault is widely underreported

• Survivors frequently face career retaliation, isolation, and disbelief  
• Underreporting reduces accountability and prevention efforts

Policy implication: Independent reporting systems increase trust and participation.

2. Independence improves survivor safety

• Chain-of-command reporting creates conflicts of interest  
• Independent officers reduce pressure on victims

Policy implication: Structural independence is essential for credibility.

3. Dual reporting options reflect best practices

• Restricted and unrestricted reporting models are used by the U.S. Department of Defense  
• They balance survivor autonomy and public safety

Policy implication: HB34 aligns Virginia with national standards.

4. Oversight strengthens prevention

• Annual reporting enables legislative review  
• Data supports training improvements

Policy implication: Transparency drives institutional reform.

5. No-cost implementation promotes sustainability

• Federal funding supports staffing  
• State law ensures continuity

Policy implication: HB34 delivers reform without fiscal risk.

[[Category:2026 Session]]