in the survey, millenials have positions on most of these issues. it's not a 50/50 divided country on climate change. it's not a 50/50 divided country on wealth inequality. so why are these outcomes not happening? it's because the democracy we live in is not accountable to us. host: our conversation with the cofounder and president of an organization called our time. you can get more information on line at our time.org. he's also a contributor to the huffington post. and andrew, who is 20 years old joining us. caller: thanks for having me on. i just wanted to say i was watching the state of the union address and i was the only one in my house. i go to college. and i was the only one in my house to watch it and that amazed the lack of politicalen volvement with my generation. it's discouraging but also you know it makes me feel like someone that's politically

engaged can have an impact. just really make sure that everyone that isn't paying attention that goes out and votes has at least some information and i'm always pushing people to try and get that extra knowledge so they can have an informed vote, whichever party they vote for. another thing i wanted to say is with the state of the union address, i was listening to the last couple of guests you had on the constitution. i just want to say that i think it is important to recognize that the congress and the president aren't always supposed to work together. i think there is to be some amount of gridlock. and an executive order i think it has to be used to a certain amount. but to the amount that the president has said in the state of the union i think expands upon his power as the president. host: thanks for the call.

we had a lengthy discussion on the constitution and the federalist papers and the use of executive authority by the president. if you want to respond. guest: i think the amount of gridlock we've had is actually unprecedented. it's not that -- gridlock is absolutely supposed to be a part of the process. checks and balances of course are supposed to be a part of the process. i know the previous statement went in-depth in this. but i also believe as in most people that part of the reason you see such disengagement, you see to few people watching is nothing gets done. why should i turn on the state of the union when congress doesn't do anything, the president doesn't do anything? my life situation is no better than it was last year or the year before. so why not just watch football? so i think there's a pragmatic reason for that. but it's also incredibly deleterious in the sense that

when people are overlooking the political process you ironically cede more power to special interests because when you're not looking they unfortunately rake things more in their favor. host: let me ask you to respond to another story. the numbers do not add up. they released an enrollment report from january. it shows the age breakdown of people selecting insurance under obamacare. some sobering news on the fact that young people are not signing up, young healthy people who would supplement the expenses. so when i was assigned a paper in college and they say you have two weeks to do the paper, i don't know about most people but i'm pretty sure that people i knew would not turn that paper in ten days early. you would maybe not eevep begin writing it until one or two days before. i certainly wouldn't.

and then you turn it in right at the last minute. if you look at the statistics from massachusetts in terms of how young people enrolled in romney care which was of course similar to obamacare, it happened at the last minute. i think that you're going to see a huge a influx of millenals enroll right before the deadline. there's national youth enrollment day which is a focused effort to get a lot of young people to sign up for insurance on february 15th. but for the most part i'm not terribly alarmed. the reason that older people sign up earlier is because they're sicker and they need insurance faster. but young people are not going to want to take the fine. and i think if you step back and look at the premise of obamacare, the premise of obamacare is to make sure that every person has insurance, that we don't have to pick up the tab for them if they want up in emergency rooms and so forth. i think the idea of getting covered is not egregious to most young americans. so i'm fairly confident that obamacare the affordable care act is going to work. it's going to serve our generation well.

there are some parts of it that will have to be worked out of course the rollout was unfortunate. but any bureaucracy's rollout is unfortunate. but there's a big difference between procrastinating and fulfilling an school obligation, a paper anything like that versus paying for health insurance that many people feel they don't need. they would rather pay the fine than pay for health insurance. guest: there are only about 5% of americans according to a poll from the advocacy group who state they don't want health insurance. most people want health insurance and they want affordable health insurance. host: and they'll pay for it? guest: absolutely. and interestingly enough, most people are going to get subsidies because infortunately given the wages of millenials, people who earn less than $45,000 a year are going to get subsidies. eight or nine out of ten will get subsidies which will make their premium about 100 a month or less. guest: but those will phase out

over the next five to ten years. so when that happens, will that -- we see a dropoff? guest: i think by then you'll have most people covered. and when they go to the doctor for the first time and realize, wait a second, i don't have to pay $250 or $300 out of pocket or if they get in an accident or if they need their -- any kind of procedure that comes up when you are in your 20's or 30s, which are frequent, they're not going to have to add thousands of dollars in medical debt to their student loan debt or housing debt or debt from groceries or any other costs that they have. so i think the fact is millenials do not find the idea of the individual mandate egregious. they find the fact that as an advanced society people should not have to go bankrupt when they go sick. and as we know about 50% of all bankruptcies are due to medical bills. so what this legislation will hopefully do is reduce that and

also save money as a country. and health care costs is a whole other side of the equation. host: graduate of kenyan college the cofounder and contributor to our time. there is this headline. obama is losing it. i am a millennial and i'm disappointed in obama. let's go to william, 62-year-old old from -- 62-year-old old from georgia. go ahead. guest: i would like to say to mr. seagle when i heard he's a writer for the huffington post i realize he's very biased and slanted so anything that comes out of his mouth i'll direct -- accept from obama. guest: the huffington post i've also written for for tune cnn money.com. i've written for the new york

daily news. i've published in a lot of different places. the huffington post is a great journalism outlet that has a lot of diverse voices and often a lot of conservative contributors so i wouldn't necessarily make assertions to my bias based on where my op eds are published. guest: thank you for your comment. now i'd like to say basically yesterday i found out one of my daughters' friends who is a chemical engineer graduated from georgia tech this last july still does not have a job. i think the big problem with the lack of jobs and for the millenials this is a real issue. now, i would like to say what do the millenials think about them paying for old people with the affordable care act? that's why they're not signing up. they realize this is a transfer of money from young people who don't have jobs, don't have money, have huge debt, and they're going to pay for old people.

who have the majority of the money. guest: so, a few things. most young people are in favor of the provisions of obamacare around ending preexisting -- any discrimination against people who have preexisting condition. they like the provision that you can stay on your parents' insurance plan until you're 26. and they know that they're going to one day be old and sick, too. we're going to be old and sick, too. and that if this is part of the social contract that people who are younger and healthier need insurance to be a part of the exchange soss that people who are older and sicker and manage obtaining insurance a little bit more affordably, i don't think that's such an egregious notion. i think this idea that we're opposed to each other because we're different ages is juenile. in the sense that we have a

social contract as a society where we're all supposed to live together and try to operate under a fabric that allows us not to fall through the cracks. and so the young people can help old people a little bit. great. and if old people can help young people even better. but rather than viewing this as a generational conflict, i think it's important to ask what the philosophy is behind the affordable care act, which is that people should not have to go bankrupt when they get sick. host: in a nearly two-week period between october 30 and november 11, harvard conducting a study of over 2,000, 18-19-year-olds. the approval rating of the president back in the spring was back in 52% dropping to 41% in the fall. among congressional democrats it was 41% in the spring dropping. congressional republicans, 27% back in the spring.

19% in the fall. again this from the harvard institute of politics. guest: so young people if you look at the harvard poll are actually most independents and i think what that shows is that our generation likes to look at the facts and then base our political opinions off facts as opposed to just being blindly allied with a political party. i think the obsession over the political horse race the bickering the binary parties that are prospering and flourishing off polarizations, the media which by the way has the lowest approval rating even lower than congress. cable news has a lower approval rating than congress. that's a result of people who have capitalized off the hyper partisanship and our generation has no interest in that. part of the reason that cable

news viewership is so old and so dwindling is because it only focuses on the animosity and rankor between the political parties as opposed to where there's consensus. i think what our generation is looking forward to are solutions oriented programming both from a news and entertainment perspective but also from a legislative perspective. host: and this point. guest: the reality of the situation is unfortunately our generation is going to have higher taxes probably the rest of our lives and that's because we have a debt we've had, we put wars on the bill, we've put costly tax breaks on the bill. we've had reckless and foolish spending on certain things. and we have waste in our programs. let's not pretend that's the conservatives are totally wrong, too. those things have created a major debt and deficit that will only ultimately be solved by both some unfortunate degree of

benefits cuts and tax increases. so absolutely. we're going to have to pay taxes. hopefully the burden will not be totally disproportionate on only young people. i would like to see older generations embrace higher taxes in terms of realizing that this is an inevitable conclusion if we're ultimately going to be able to work ourselves out of the hole we're in. host: if you're in your car and listening on c-span radio, heard nationwide, we are discussing the millenial generation and how they view politics in light of the president's state of the union address. matthew is with our time. elliott joining us on the phone. good morning. caller: good morning. what i would like to talk about is put this world into a phrase, it's a spinning top. and what happens to a spinning top right now is we are educating a lot of kids and that's -- college is a continue once of high school and that's what it's getting to be.

and you're putting these college graduates into the workforce and they're making more than the guys that have been there 20 years that got all their education through experience. and what that does is makes a company top heavy. and the top will flow down, it will fall, and i want to ask the young guy do you think that you can just come out of college or which is a better way for you to earn experience through work college and what he thinks about that. host: appreciate it. guest: the answer to your question is both work, college experience, and so forth. it's a in nation. i think when you -- combination. when you don't have higher education, we know from data that you're likely to earn less the rest of your life. you'll have lower wages. and you'll have a tougher time finding a job. the new unfortunate reality is

that a high school diploma is even worse in the job market than it was decades ago. so college is necessary. but work experience and internships and apprenticeships are necessary. the president spoke about germany and how they have apprenticeships which are part of their high school system. and he's unfortunately at the mercy of the kindness and ben ev lens of the private sector of corporate america in terms of whether they're going to increase the amount of apprenticeships they give. but workforce experience, internships, apprenticeships for, summer jobs coupled with a higher education is the ideal. the question is whether people can afford to go to college and whether or not they're ever going to be able to dig themselves out of their student loans. the huge irony, college is the best ticket to upper mobility. pretty much everyone agrees with that.

republicans, democrats, the president focuses on that. michelle the first lady wants through her new community college summit she's attending every kid to go to college. but ironically, after you go to college, you're shackled into student loans. $30,000 on average per student is student loan today. $1.2 trillion as a country. host: 30,000 no question that's a lot of money. but some say that also could be an automobile loan at 30,000. guest: sure. host: so you're getting something for the education. you can question what you're going to get over an automobile loan. guest: of course. but automobiles are not as necessary to finding employment in upward mobility especially because more young people are migrating to cities. and if you live in new york or d.c. or any city with decent public transportation, you don't need a car to survive. and that's not an expense that's mandatory. however, the higher education if

you if you want to earn about $1 million more throughout the course of your lifetime, is necessary to have competitive wages in america. host: of course you go to graduate school or law or medical school it's more. host: you're 60 years old? caller: a little over that. i wanted to express the hope that i have in the millenial generation. i worked for one of the six major banks on wall street during the crisis and with subprime mortgages and saw what they did to accumulate mortgages to derive their derivative activities and exactly what happened. the first people who actually had major public voice and got the story right was the beginning of the wall street -- the occupy wall street group, which was primarily young people who

had researched it, got it right and had the courage to get out there and say what really happened inside those banks. and i think that was why there was a rise in the popularity of the occupy wall street. and i sort of blame the media on the decline because they focused on the people who were in the parks and kids who were complaining about the loans for education, which are obviously legitimate but it shifted the focus away from the real problem which is wall street and what the banks are doing. anyway, it's a two fold -- hope for me. not only did you get it right but you were the younger generation who got it right and had the courage to get it out there. thank you. host: thanks very much for the call. let me follow up on an early point. this is from one of our viewers. is there any public information

on these apprenticeships? guest: there are about 400,000 apprenticeships that we have now as a country. i think we're trying to expand that number considerably. however, i'm not personally sure off the top of my head how that breaks down on a statewide level. but i would presume that they could have larger corporations based there that are interested in apprenticeships. some of the fortune 500 companies that the president has worked with will see more likely to be the states that are employing young people. host: from illinois, dan. good morning. caller: good morning. i would like to say it's very refreshing to see this young man on tv this morning. i would like to encourage all young people to commit themselves to something worthwhile while you're young. and life will have meaning, a lot more meaning. i think i heard him say that he was not too impressed or overexcited about the

president's state of the union message. i was jumping off my chair. i couldn't sit still. because i know what he is talking about. i know about the brick wall and the partisan politics and the miseducation of our nation and our young people through all this media nonsense that they're trying to get people to fight among themselves and further their own political agenda. this president is so smart, i think that he is doing a great job. he is going to do great things for the country. he is planning for the long run. he is a community organizer himself. he knows how to go around the establishment, the government, to get things done. he's going to go through the states like he said through organizations through companies. he has so many options at his disposal he is going to do great things. and he knows where the resources are. host: thanks for the call. did you want to respond?

guest: i think the unfortunate part about the state of the union to reiterate my earlier point is too few people were watching and paying attention because they've tuned out washington, d.c. as place that can make any productive output in terms of improving the quality of their lives. that was the unfortunate part of the state of the union. the speech, the tone was excellent. i just think we're appropriately cynical about its ability to yield outcomes. 2016, in the early look is who you think your generation is going to gravitate towards first on the republican side? guest: on the republican side, it's rand paul. formerly ron paul. in terms of where a lot of young conservatives who have libertarian procliveties lean. and the reason for that is young people on the conservative side are incredibly opposed to the drug war. and rand and ron paul have been champions of disclosing how costly, how socially inequitable and how foolish and wasteful of resource it is drug war has been. and i give them a lot of credit

for that. host: on the democratic side? guest: on the democratic side, there clearly is talk of hillary as the inevitability, the inevitable candidate again. so i think that is a risk for her because when she ran the inevitability ticket the first time, she was upstaged by someone else. so i think it would serve her campaign well to approach this 2016 race if she decides to get in with a little bit more framing as the underdog. but in terms of who the favorite is, i don't even think we know on the democratic side, besides hillary clinton, who is rumored to run. elizabeth warren was rumored to run. there's talk that maybe kristin jill brand will run.

she's done a lot of great work for small businesses and female entrepreneurs. and i think income inequality in terms of gender is incredibly important. and also a passionate issue to millenials. and one of the moments in the state of the union that saw the most social media interaction for millenials. so she could absolutely be an interesting candidate as well. host: thanks very much for being with us. appreciate your time today. guest: my pleasure. on the next washington journal, we will discuss the republicans plan for immigration legislation in the house. after that, the wall street journal will talk about some of the ideas republicans are offering as alternatives to the health care law. later in the program, a

discussion of nuclear weapons and how they are secured. we will be joined by the former deputy administrator. andill also take your calls share your comments by e-mail, twitter, facebook. we getting live at 7:00 a.m. on c-span. tomorrow the senate banking subcommittee will hold a hearing on the government's response to recent security breaches that target and neiman marcus. include the secret service says lead agent for cyber investigation and the federal trade commission's federal trade director. you can watch the hearing live at 3:00. you can post your comments on twitter during the broadcast. >> consumers will win in the end. it allows privacy to continue to innovate.

they will bring new services and new pricing to business models and to consumers. consumers will be the main beneficiaries. >> big corporations are the ones with tremendous amount of market power. they have a tremendous amount of influence to try to shape policy to go there direction. consumers are going to be the losers in this deal. are is why so many of them speaking up and asking the fcc to move forward with a clear path to protect them. >> the impact of the net neutrality reading -- decision, monday on c-span two. >> i was in the car wreck. i wrote about it extensively in my book. the whole time i was in the hospital, not injured really, i had a cut on my leg and a broken ankle. i was praying that the other person's car would be ok.

the other person in the car was one of my best friends. i did not know. i did not recognize that at the site of the crash. i think because they prayed over and over for him to be ok and he thought nobody listened. god was not listening. my prayer was not answered. i went through very long time of not believing. i did not believe that prayers could be answered. and it took me a long time and a lot of growing up to come back to faith. bush, monday night at 9:00 eastern. live on c-span. and watch her recent interview with laura bush at the presidential center in dallas. officials military

discuss the sexual assault in the military should be handwritten -- handled by the chain of command. then a question-and-answer with a historian. at 7:00 a.m. eastern, washington journal. >> a federal panel that was established to review sexual assault in the military voted this past week to maintain the chain of command when dealing with sexual assault cases. that was a preliminary decision by the panel which is made up of four congressional members and five other picked by the pentagon. testimony from retired military officials who spoke for the panel on the state of command. >> before we get started, i want to extend the thanks and appreciation to interim dean greg and the george washington university law school for allowing the panel to use its facilities for this meeting.

as many of you may know, in addition to being a brilliant scholar and professor of law here at gw, he is also a colonel in the united states army reserve who has served in many positions including pellet judge. i do not know if you're in the room at thank you very much. the panel wants to express its thanks to the assistant dean of administrative affairs as well as natalie fields and her assistant. i want to thank all of you for helping us put this meeting together. they had established the response systems panel to conduct an independent review and assessment of the systems

used to investigate, prosecute, and adjudicate crimes involving adult actual assault and related offenses under the uniform code of military justice for the purpose of developing recommendations regarding how to improve the effectiveness of those systems. among many other very important and challenging tasks, congress directed the panel to assess the role of the commander including initiatives to modify the current role of the commander in the military justice system. the panel has arty focused much of the efforts in this area. we will spend today discussing it as well. in addition to the panel's efforts, due to the vast scope of the task congress assigned to us in the short time we have to

accomplish our work, we have established three subcommittees. the role of the commander, subcommittee on systems in a subcommittee of victim services. it seemed the most efficient way to proceed and get as much done as he possibly could in the time that we have. various panel members serve on each of the committees who are added in order to help us with our work. i serve as the chair of the role of the commander committee. at a subcommittee meeting earlier this month the members requested to hear from retired former officers who both supported and opposed modifying the commanders authority to convene court-martial. we heard from a number of retired officers at the meeting.

i believe that was held on january 9, if my memory serves me. there is a transcript of it. it was fully transcribed. we await getting it back in order to post on the panel's website. i'm sorry. it is already on the panel's website. we invited everyone who appeared at the subcommittee meeting to come and testify today at the full panel meeting which is a public meeting. many of the same former officers who appeared before the subcommittee have been able to come back and accept this invitation to present their views to the full panel. we're also lucky to have some officers who were not at the subcommittee meeting. they are available on the panel's website. i would like to turn out to our presenters for the first session this morning.

they will speak in favor of modifying the role of the commander in the military justice process. as you can see, we have four presenters who are here in person and three who have joined us by phone. let me just start by thinking each and everyone of you for making yourselves available today. if we could, i would like to begin with general rainville. are you there? >> yes, i am. good morning. >> we'll be pleased to hear your comments. >> thank you very much. thank you for allowing us to participate over the phone.

i regret i could be there in person. i served on both active-duty in the air force, the air force reserve and the national guard. i have 13 years of command time of the vermont national guard. i said for basing decisions to prosecute sexual assault, and other serial criminal offenses and moving them from outside of the command chain. i think the decision to prosecute or not should be based on evidence independent of preexisting command relationship. they deserve that due process. i strongly believe in holding commanders responsible, that is a given.

we should not confuse command responsibility with leadership. commander should always be responsible for command climate. this would allow the commanders to focus their efforts on command business and improving the command climate. leadership to me is an ability to inspire others. to think strategically well focusing on a mission success. i sensed even more reports have come out in the paper of undetectable actions by senior military officers, unfortunately, and this is the

importance of what the subcommittee is doing in the recommendations you will be submitting and the importance for a visible change in the structure of the military response. for decades up to the present time, the military department has gone through cycles of focusing on the issues of sexual harassment and sexual assault in the military. some good actions were taken. the decision to put emphasis on it with the commanders and hold them responsible. and to educate the men and women on harassment, on acceptable behavior versus unacceptable behavior. each time we measured afterward.

low and behold, the cycle repeated itself over and over. i think now with the changes that she has proposed in her legislation, they go further. there is a real opportunity to strike at the heart of part of the problem. that is to change the structure. to place the decisions to prosecute with trained military legal professionals. to let commanders focus on mission readiness and war fighting and inspiring and leading. and to be able to build back that confidence in due process within the military that we must demand of ourselves provided for the men and women who are serving.

i really thank you for addressing this. i will not repeat other things i had said before except just to emphasize that it is more important than ever that this is seriously dealt with and that we do not accept push back unchanged but really look for ways that will actually have a strong, positive effect on these problems they keep repeating themselves. thanks again for the opportunity to talk iphone. i will be listening and. >> thank you very much. i would like to turn now to the general who is with us here this morning. >> and give her this opportunity to appear before the panel.

>> are the microphones on? i can hear you. i do not know if anyone in the back cam. >> we agree the little ones are not the best. >> if you cannot hear me, put your hand up. i want to make sure everyone can hear you. i come at this from the direction that i served on active duty for it 30 years as a commissioned officer, during the years of the women's army corps from 1969. and through the process when the core was integrated into the army mainstream over a time of four decades. in retirement, they have continued to work the issues

that are concerning dysfunctional policies governing how we utilize women in the military and the issues of sexual harassment. i have very reluctantly agreed and have come to the conclusion that there is a problem in continuing to attempt to resolve sexual assault cases within the existing chain of command. i do support the effort to take this and put it under the appropriate leader authorities external chain of command and let commanders command. when i commanded a woman's company in virginia 64-66, we had an old girl network that was very effective from company to managers to women staff advisors at army level to the office of the jerk your back to the training center in how we manage

commanded our army women. i only had five women assigned to me. the remainder of the women were assigned to the three separate commands, the post, and at students who were all billeted together simply because of their gender. i was there commander. in this particular arrangement i had ucmj authority over all of the women. the chain of command was not the chain of command that adjudicated in cases of misbehavior with them. in 1996, after the aberdeen ground scandal was recalled to active duty by the secretary of the army.

there is adverse public of the where a number of drill sergeants, officers, and others were implicated in having sexual relationships with women in training. when this happened, the secretary decided the way to really get into the heart of what is going on here was to have the panel go forth into the army and measure the human dimensions worldwide. in the next year, our panels, there were 40 of us, went worldwide to 65 installations, interviewed or focus grouped or surveyed over 35,000 troops.

family members also. we did a lot of wandering around were ever we were to find out what was the command climate in which we were operating there. in september of 1997, the final report was rendered. i will tell you. it was documented thoroughly. we had 98 behavioral scientist working with us to ensure that our research documents were valid and that the questions were valid. when the report came out and was delivered to the secretary, four major findings occurred. sexual harassment is in the army but sexual discrimination is the larger problem. the equal opportunity program of the department of army levels of beautiful on paper. it did not work worth any.

the soldiers do not respect it. the soldiers do not trust it. they felt that if they registered a complaint of sexual assault or whatever the complaint might be that they would be are their victimized by their peers or superiors for having caused this problem. number three, we found that most drill sergeants were very competent and doing what they did and they did it well in the training phase. number four, we found the major problem was failures and leadership from the very top to the very bottom, from the pentagon down to the squad. that leadership has not created the appropriate climate army wives to ensure they were treated with respect and dignity.

this report went forward with a number of recommendations which included extending one addition a week, revamping the selection process for for drill sergeant and instrucors, changing their training and reinserting into the curriculum training in the army values and ethics and traditions, morality. we also went forward with the intention of filling every vacancy in the training base where there were sergeants who should we there in the office and the units for training. we are not there. we were involved in the vietnam war. that took the priority. fast forward seven years.

the same problems we identified then are identified army-wide now. there has been no solution offered to ensure that we can handle this under the presidential mechanism we are using. it is for this reason that i have felt compelled to stand and say that we need to think out of the box. we need new direction. we need creative thinking. we need not to be so married to the chain of command, which i believe in, as the mechanism to command, manage, and administer to the army in war and peace. army in war and peace. when you have a weak link in the chain, it behooves us to take that weak link out and come up with a different mechanism for handling the very complex cases of sexual assault. for that

reason, i support gillibrand and i hope we have a thorough search for a better way to ensure a better army of the future. thank you. >> thank you very much, general foote. next we will hear from admiral evans, u.s. navy. >> thank you very much. thank you for inviting me to me to the panel today. it is an honor for this retiree to be given the opportunity to testify. i served nearly 30 years on active duty in the united states navy. more than eight of those were commander units in the united states and overseas ranging from 200 to over 6000 personnel.

for six of the command years, i had the authority to convene general court-martial. i also had a one-year assignment as the direct or of the standing committee on military and civilian women. the committee's mission was to draw a strategy to change the climate of the navy and marine corps to value and respect women. we did develop a strategy. it was implemented. it included a get tough approach. and many changes to systems and processes. here he are again addressing the same issues of accountability.

i also served as a presidential appointee on the military board for five years. i have watched the debate about the military justice system and the military panel on the sexual assault cases for the past several years. from my perspective, this has always been, first and foremost, about readiness. recruiting, training, organizing, equipping, and, most importantly, leading america's i missed men and women to be ready to go into harms way supporting the nations interests. the number of incidents and the system of criminal conduct compels a new and improved approach. as recently as 1992, -- statistics tell a different story. when incidents of sexual misconduct occur, victims should real confident reporting them. a legend perpetrators should also feel they will be treated

fairly in the military justice system. i appreciate those trusting in the military justice system. i believe they were essential to the nation and a good order and discipline in my commands. today, i believe some of those same prerogatives attribute to a culture promoting a climate free from unwanted sexual conduct and safeguarding the rights of both the accused and the victim. i applaud the most recent changes in the military justice system. and my judgment, they represent significant and long needed progress, particularly with regard to crimes involving unwanted sexual conduct and the seeming epidemic of sexual assault and the military.

there is no question once again a full court press is on, yet i am not convinced it is all that is necessary to address the crisis, which is why i support senator gillibrand's proposal. from my own experience, receiving a report of sexual assault by another man, particularly one who was senior and had an excellent performance record, but even more gut wrenching to reflect on what crimes may not have been reported because someone in my command did not believe i would believe their story or they thought there would be retaliation. i would accept or even welcome a senior officer with prosecuting experience weighing the other end and making a fast-paced decision about whether to move forward with a court-martial. it will be in the best interest to both the alleged victim and the accused.

i cannot see how a commander's authority would be undermined and that she or he would somehow not be able to set the proper command climate to support the in admission of cases proceeded to trial based on the strengths and weaknesses of evidence. when i was a commander in my first command assignment, i did not have general court-martial convening authority. the regional commander, the one star admiral held that authority. my having to refer the most serious cases to him did not in any way lessen my charge and ability to lead my sailors and officers effectively. certainly, it did not absolve me of any accountability for order and discipline and most especially, for accomplishing the mission. i believe senator gillibrand's legislation strikes exactly the right balance between military command needs and supporting victims and accused. it is more important than ever

to implement the substantive changes enacted but also to take this additional measure to enhance the trust and confidence in the military justice system. thank you again for giving me the opportunity to speak with you today. >> thank you very much, admiral. now, we will hear from admiral robinson with the u.s. navy. >> thank you very much, your honor, and thanks to the entire panel. i have had an opportunity to read some of the records from january 8, and what you are dealing with is amazingly complex and vexing, and i know we are all on the same side. permit this old retired chaplain of 36 years service to reflect not simply to reprise what i said at the beginning of that january 8 meeting, but to reflect a bit on the remarks that were made in the afternoon session following our presentation.

i do so with a unique perspective as a chaplain not yet in the chain of command but part of the chain of command. i have been privy to the inner thinking of commanders. i have been often the first to hear of an incident because chaplains are first responders in many cases when they are trusted and respected. i have been the source of solace and strength, i hope, for some of them, and occasionally witness to the inner struggles of perpetrators who have come for counsel, so something of a unique perspective alongside the

chain of command. i bring that panel, those thoughts, to what was said, as i said, following our presentation. the people that you heard from in the afternoon and the people you will hear from later this day are among the finest human beings and the most distinguished commanders you will ever have an opportunity to hear from. i stand in awe of some of them and to even be addressing you knowing that they are doing so as well amazes me. they are the senior commanders who get it. they understand it, and nothing i am about to say should indicate that no senior commander, no senior leader gets it and understands it, but they

have also lived for 30 or more years with the chain of command being an article of faith. as a chaplain, i know something about how faith and articles of faith work, and it becomes more than simply the party line. it becomes a whole way of thinking and a perspective that really governs the way you see virtually every issue in your life. that is what faith is at its best, and sometimes at its worst. however, one sees that the chain of command is not the only -- or the convening authority of the chain of command is not the only tool in the commanders' toolkit.

i can still remember vaguely back when i was a junior officer and working with company commanders in the marine corps. most of my service time was with marines. the company commanders never had convening authority, but there were still held accountable and responsible for all aspects, everything that went on in their company. they could file charges, they could fill out the charge sheet and someone else decided what would happen to that sheet, they did, by the way have article 15. god bless you. they did have -- i can't break out of that apology. >> thank you for that. >> they did have, frequently, lieutenant colonel's in command of battalions did not have -- they did not have general court-martial authority. but they had many tools and they

were responsible for maintaining good order and discipline, the command climate, mission accomplishment, all the other aspects that we hold the command responsible for. without this specific convening authority, which is what we are discussing today, convening authority, i would argue that convening authority -- this is not a necessary -- especially when we deal with nonmilitary crimes, with crimes that are felonies, part of the larger legal system outside of the military, the convening authority is not a necessary element although i understand the folks you are hearing from have operated all of their life with it, and it is very hard to break out of that thinking pattern. i will also say that since this is a matter of -- something more than the party line, it is a

matter of faith that commanders must have all of this authority, it becomes difficult, it becomes difficult for me, to break with the predominant thinking of the senior leaders, that i have marveled at, over the years. that is a very difficult thing to do. and it is difficult, especially, to do so in public. speaking to other folks including myself, i know that there are many who are on the fence, they are ambivalent, they are not ready to break with the party line, they are not ready to do so publicly. it was just a moment ago, general foote said that she does so both reluctantly went feeling

compelled by the circumstances to do so. and that is a very difficult thing for any of us, i would remind us that just a couple of years ago, several of the most senior members of leadership in the military, counseled congress in public, in public hearings, the repeal of don't ask don't tell would be a significant burden for their branch of the armed forces. i say it that way because not every chief of staff said that. but several did, that this would be a significant issue in this would be a -- a disturbance in the force, but -- but their branch would do it.

but when it actually came to it, don't ask don't tell was repealed, did anybody notice? life went on. even in those branches of the service that thought they would be most challenged it was like watching a predicted train wreck that all of a sudden did not have any noise or sound, it was a silent movie.