. .

and also, medical safety. sexually transmitted diseases become more than the norm, if meningitis breaks out , if particular unit tuberculosis breaks out -- there will be some emphasis, commanders have that responsibility. my question is -- i don't mean to be facetious or smart, i think it is a decent analogy. how many of you as commanders have made the decision when one of the people in your command needed to go to the hospital? isn't that the function of technicians, which are doctors? that as affecting

the morale in your unit. it is not your decision whether or not this person need an appendectomy are a heart catheterization or in a mutation -- or an amputation. they need hospital care, is that the function of the dr. technician? sayour troops then commander, i thought you were making all the decisions, why does joe have to take -- have to have his attendance taken out -- have to have his appendix taken out? in the context of which we are speaking, that issue fits in with the issue that the commander must make all decisions for everybody. is not a good analogy, with respect. we are talking about behavior. >> all right.

we are responsible for safe behavior. arm, somebody breaks their you do not decide whether it will be a splint -- >> that is true. i prefaced it by saying. arederstand commanders responsible for safety. when something goes wrong, are those medical people's decisions? >> they are. most commanders are not medical experts. we had better be behavior experts. is -- command is about behavior. background --e a or we would not be commanders. , when youxpertise make someone a commander, you are most interested in -- when

you sit on command selection boards, it is different from a promotion board. what you are looking at, they are very candid discussions that you cannot have an a promotion board. promotion boards are dictated by law. command is not. the reason is because you need to have candid discussions about the judgment of this individual. everyone in the command selection board is technically competent. it is about judgment. the things we need to make thanents about more anything else is people's behavior, including sexual assault. >> your honor. as a commander, don't you believe that if someone in your unit gets a broken arm or needs

treatment, something of that commander youa will look into the conditions in which that happened or take actions to ensure they get treatment and make sure it does not happen for anyone else? >> it's not an isolated event. >> it can reflect other things about the unit. >> correct. >> i just wanted to make a statement on that particular point. after 30 plus years, the majority of my career in law enforcement, you cannot help but sometimes be a little jaded at times, but i find that nobody is infallible. when you look at the current system, we have law enforcement investigators that, during the course of the investigation work hand-in-hand with the legal community to ensure that evidence is being collected properly. then when it is presented to a commander, that commander gets

advice and judgment with another lawyer to ensure that they want to go forward with prosecuting the offense or not. in the case when the decision is advisorit is both the and the commander. there is also the recourse to go further to pursue that as well. that is an aspect i think we have forgotten. when we take one individual out of the decision-making aspect of that entire chain, we are starting to lessen the opportunity for covering the checks and balances. and that your infallibility of any one person is kept in check by taking the commander out, i'm

not sure all lawyers would say they are infallible in and of themselves. >> the medical analogy would only work if the people doing the procedure were laymen. when you have people making the ultimate, irrevocable decision, they are laymen and not lawyers, so you have fundamentally different processes and their evaluating things in terms of laymen and commanders. you go to the civilian side and you have governors, the president with authority to oversee aspect of the judgment that are not lawyers. the doctor is more like the pilot. i've had pilots that work for me that land the plane and make decisions and take care of that technical area. from the military layice system, where it is

people that make the irrevocable talking >> i was not about the ultimate decision, i was talking about the process of initiating charges. the pilot decides how is going to land and if she's going to land regardless of who else is on board. what i'm trying to point out, i think, through this question is, hypothetically, in a medical theation, it is the doctor, medical community that is making the decision. whether it is in the combat situation or somewhere else in the world. the doctors are making those decisions and i hope they would be the proper people to be making that decision. it does not mean they will be -- commanders will not be held responsible for ensuring the health and safety of their

units. there will still be that impetus. you will not say i do not care how safe the motor pool is because doctors are ruling that and i'm trying to say that if we turn this over to someone else, some other entity hypothetically, military , lawyers, the commanders will not care about sexual assault anymore. i think you have pretty clearly said yes, you will. commanders will continue to emphasize and be responsible for sexual assault in the units just as, to repeat myself, they are responsible for safety, health, even though when things go wrong and a body gets assaulted by something that fell from the roof that should have been secured at some point, the decision on what to do with that crashed head -- with that

crushed head will be made by someone other than the commander. >> i take your point. we are talking about behavior here. >> if the company commander, if is not seeing that people are eating healthily or washing their hands and that the barracks and housing areas are not kept clean, sanitized, all sorts of medical issues breakout in that unit -- that is a behavior issue, is it not? the commanders are still going to be responsible for that behavior or lack thereof in their unit. even though medical personnel are making the ultimate decision of how to treat the wounded, in this case we will call them the victims.

or the perpetrators. >> maybe this will help clarify. >> from my experience being in years, wet the commander is ultimately responsible for an accountable for is everything in his or her unit. you have a suite of people, ig, jag, doctors, equal opportunity. you have a bench of technicians that are there to advise and not every activity belongs in one of those stovepipes. sometimes the chaplain, the eo, and the commander has the ability to integrate capabilities on the staff in toer to come up with a way address the issue. if we stovepipe, the commander loses the purview of their experience and their leadership ability.

they have seen things that even the stovepipe people will not see and all of us get better in the business. the commander is the integrator of all of that. in order to best deal with that issue. >> i agree the analogy is not exact. who is making the decision to send that military person to the doctor to begin with? if it is the person themselves, they may not be a doctor but they are saying they need medical help. or, if it is the commander and you are walking around, ok, that initial decision will not be necessarily made by a medical doctor. madeis how decisions are -- someone sends someone to a doctor and they themselves are not medical. when it is determined you need professional help, the same thing happens here.

my question was going to the point, this is also a response to what admiral baumgartner said and also a response about the question raised with medical personnel. having the commander put his or to perimeter on the decision prosecute it is not just a , technical decision about needing to go to the doctor. it is also sending a statement to all the troops that this behavior on its face is not acceptable and i, as commander, meaning authority, want to make it clear that when this kind of behavior takes place, it has to go to the hospital, it has to be addressed whether it is our legal system so that itself is a

message that is important, to use your phrase, the good order of discipline, to morale or ethical standards. am i misunderstanding what you said? >> no, in fact, that is very much in line with my opening statement and that is the important thing. if you want to go to other areas, certainly if you are troops are reminded by the hospital it's time to come in and have their dental exam, that is one thing. if the commander says i want that exam done on time and you better be green for deployment, it will happen. this is operational, this is coming from the people i trust with my life, this has that stamp there. throughout my career, i have picked different items that were always problems administratively

and you put your thumb print on it, you relate those two operations and effectiveness and have a climate, you have a tremendous impact on how that is addressed with the compliance. they have the command influence behind it. you understand exactly what i am talking about. >> thank you. admiral baumgartner, you're making me feel guilty about missing my last dentist appointment. i'm grateful for the freedom. to cancel it. >> if your commander had told you to go, you would have. [laughter] >> i have a small question and a bigger question. the small question -- which is perhaps inappropriately characterized as small, but it goes to why we have this problem now. general brady, i am grateful you

are back today. i'm grateful for everyone who is with us on the phone and in-person. you're not the first group of incredibly accomplished military senior commanders who have led our force through so many challenges. general brady you said something , the last time we heard from you about the nature of the problem and i want to put that out here and ask if this is what you see as the source of the problem today in the armed forces. you said, this is the end of your statement, the department of defense needs to realize that we are in the parenting business. our society is coarsening. while i have the ultimate respect of the young men and women who choose to serve this nation, too often they do not respect the opinions, the bodies, or the the basic humanity of those around him. they come to us with 18 years of society's conditioning and some of this is against teamwork, respect, good order, discipline,

and ultimately the success of our mission. general, is the problem the people we are getting rather than the military culture itself? >> it is all our problems. the military did not invent this. we have, in too many cases, and the only good number in this business is zero -- but in too many cases, we have not done all that we could do, i believe. i hate it when people read my words back to me. but yes that's what i said. , [laughter] >> lawyers like to do that. >> that is exactly what i said. that's the story i'm sticking to. i think there are lots of challenges. what i said about the generation coming in now, i think it's true. i think research would back that up. that is not in any way excuse our responsibility in the

service to take that on. but we are doing some parenting we would not have done in past years. because we are having to correct some behaviors that we might not have in former times, perhaps. but we must be willing to do that. i think that a great advance -- in fact, the most significant thing that happened in my 41 year career was the increasing role of women in the service. it did incredible things for us. first of all, just in terms of numbers, you cannot have an all volunteer force without women. not only that, but they bring a civility. i'm old enough to think that men and women are different. thank god they are. they bring a civility to the workplace that was not there when i first came in the service.

and sometimes i'm bothered when we characterize this that it sometimes gets characterized as a women's issue. it's a man's issue because they are the ones doing it by and large. that is the case we have not made as effectively and as widely as we must. women are not going to solve this problem. men have to solve this problem and it has to do with the men organizationn an says thisommander who will not happen in our unit and this will not happen to our sisters. if you do, you deal with us and commanders are given the responsibility for good order and discipline. --hink every commander once i think every commander wants,

if there's a sexual assault, someone thinking about sexual assault, i want them to have my picture in their mind thinking they are going to have to deal with this guy if it happens. >> can i just add something on the societal piece to this issue? when i came to the army i came , out of a value space catholic, four generation of west pointers. i did not intend to stay in the army beyond my commitment, but i found i had joined a values-based institution that was responsible for policing itself and rebuilding the army after the vietnam war. i stayed in the army because it was values-based. what you find, from kids that are coming in some are coming , from broken homes, not necessarily the same values i grew up with, but it is incumbent upon the service as we bring new members in that we spend time with respect, dignity, these values we expect

to be in our force. whether someone comes into the military for two years, 10 years, 20 years, they will return a better citizen because of the discipline, leadership, and responsibility we put upon them in the military, i personally believe. >> i had the opportunity the last few days to sit in the back of the room and i will use the acronym, the army sharp summit, sexual harassment summit. the most senior army commanders and command sergeant major is in the world came from all over and attended this two day event. the issue of society and the contributing factor was one of the big discussion points. what was refreshing to me from where i sat was a renewed emphasis to look at where a young soldier is most vulnerable.

it usually -- i will use military grade, from private e1-e4, the most vulnerable. -- the most vulnerable is a victim. what the army is doing now in terms of putting a laser beam on what we do and that involvement. if you sit down with them and say, look, this may have been acceptable from where you came, it is no longer acceptable, and to really put the razor on that environment in which they work. it certainly has the attention of the senior leadership of the army. >> thank you, general. >> and your larger question? [laughter] >> you're not the first we have heard on this but you are close to the last. that we will here on this narrow issue. we are close to have to start deciding about some of the many issues that face us in the realm that we are studying. this is really but one of many.

you have given us insight onto many others. but on this issue of the authority's role, i would just cut to the chase here and say if commanders as convening authorities can solve this problem and if it is so easy, as general brady has suggested, to remove those who falter and if they are indeed experts in behavior and understand the ways to get them to do right, you've all talked about doing the right thing -- you said it so many times. i keep seeing that movie. i think we have done a lot of the wrong things in the wrong way in this narrow arena of stopping rape, sexual assault, and sexual harassment in the armed forces. during the time you've been senior leaders in the forces, -- in the services. why should we not consider this change, whether you consider it

technical or far-reaching, of removing convening authorities from the criminal justice process when what we have been doing has not worked? >> i would like to add before you answer, a companion question to consider in parallel. what makes me ask the companion question is the media report of the white house study of sexual assault on college campuses. if that report is accurate, i do not vouch for it, but one in five women in college campuses are the victims of sexual assault and 12% of those victims -- 12%, report and 88% do not. the companion question i would raise is why are we not -- because society has done so poorly -- why are we not considering and revamping the civilian system of prosecution

that we have right now? why are we not removing the authority from senior civilian prosecutors to prosecute cases? >> i will start to respond there. >> this is mike vitale. >> i yield. >> thank you. i think the answer quite frankly is as leaders, every generation learns and understands how society is changing. clearly, that is true for all of us as well and this has been going on for some time. leaders should have been aware from it all along. i would argue just the gentleman's comment about learning about what's going on in colleges, we have probably surmised this for some time. but now we have the data. with the data we can take action. for the last few years, we have been extremely focused on trying to ensure that we are in fact

eliminating this problem. i would argue that given that, we need to ourselves recognize that it is not a broken system that requires radical surgery. it just needs tuning. you could make the argument that tuning could be done by the legislation. but i would argue that the tuning can be done but the fact that the commanders are now well aware of the challenge trying to do what is right to take care of that challenge. giving a time to make that happen, it is different from in the past where we were saying we didn't do anything about that. we did not really understand the significance of the problem and that is why people talked about it that did not grab it and run with it. we are grabbing and running with it now and it's time to take effect. >> admiral. >> i would say a few things in response to that. one is we should be careful

about running into a system that does not seem to be working for society in general. i suspect there are other ways to look at these numbers college campuses are a worse place to be than military. especially when you look at the number of males and females and factor in the number of perpetrators and big and so you find out it is probably much worse a problem on college campuses than it is in the military even much worse than -- much worse percentagewise when you are just looking at statistics. why move to a system that is more like what is not working there? the second part of the answer is years, we had10 people who did not understand the problem. many people in society don't understand the problem. the vast majority of men are not inclined to be perpetrators and it is hard until it is shoved in your face to understand that there are men out there that do this kind of stuff, that will do it, that you have to come to

grips with it. i think it has happened and it has happened over the last five to 10 years in the military and specifically in the last three or four thanks to a lot of publicity and a lot of help from the outside to make that focus and to come to that significant emotional understanding that your colleagues out there do these kinds of things and you won't necessarily know that because they look to be normal, productive, good soldiers, sailors, and so forth. we have passed that understanding and we have it now. we can take that understanding, some greater tools, and put them in the hands of commanders with the system that can get things done and focused them on this. and there are tweaks that need to be made and have been made to the system that will prevent many of the problems.

we are in a much better place to go forward and we can accomplish much more in the system because we can control more of the elements involved. >> let me make a comment regarding -- i think it's one i made the last time when i was in by phone. everybody on every side of this issue has their data. they have their data, their reports, their surveys, etc. in my experience, i came into the fight directly and about -- in about 2004 in the sexual assault response coordinator program. the first thing we had to do is educate ourselves about the nature of the crime. we did that. we reached out to a doctor at boston university, a woman who

was a prosecutor, and they did yeoman's work for us educating senior leadership about the nature of this. one thing we learned that the fbi had already known was this was, as they called it, the most underreported crime in america. the number was 5% or something. is not big%, it enough, that's the answer. one of the mantras to begin with was we need more reports. we suspect it's happening. we don't know how big it is. it's bigger than we think it is. we really need more reports. we worked on it pretty hard for a long time. recently, there was this report that came out from the services that had a vastly increased number of reports of sexual assault. some people took that to think it is worse than we thought it was.

you were worse than we thought you were. but some of us took it as saying this means that people have increased confidence in the chain of command to deal with this so they are coming forward in bigger numbers than they had in the past. i guess you can -- your glass can be half empty or half-full full on that one. but we wanted more reports. we are not happy that we have them but we are happy in the sense that if there is any good news there, it is that there does appear to be increased confidence. finally, on the accountability issue, if i am a commander and i have referred a case to court martial, i will bird dog that issue. that is in my job.

i'm going to follow it and i'm going to know what's happening. i'm going to ask questions about what's happening. as opposed to it being on a court docket. if it goes someplace else, on a court docket, commanders, their human nature, are they going to be unconcerned? all commanders have more to do than time to do it. where is it going to get the attention? if it's been shuffled off to a specialist in another chain or if it still part of my job? >> thank you, madam chair. thanks to all of you for coming and those of you on the phone, we appreciate the information you are giving us grapple with this very serious question. i think admiral houck raised an

issue that is concerning me a lot. the concern about conflict of interest. the reason people are raising this is because it is somehow the notion that a commander can really squelch, interfere with the process, so if some sexual assault is taking place in his or her command, they can just push it under the rug and they have an interest in doing it. i see someone in the audience nodding their head. that is what i think is at the crux of this concern about conflict of interest. a commander is going to have an in dash have an interest in not proceeding with the prosecution of sexual assault and will be able to squelch it. could you please address that? can be commander squelch it? just that, in a narrow way. can commanders squelch it can , they interfere with the interfere with the prosecution? can they push this under the rug? >> if you are not very smart.

i don't know what rock you have been living under if you can think you can hide anything from anybody as a commander. the congress, bless their hearts, can get any e-mails they want. no, we live in a glass house. it's a trite phrase, but it's absolutely true. if you are in any position of -- there are2014 some young soldiers, airmen, you -- who can see you doing anything. you drop your child off at officeon the way to your , and you will be held off of the brigadier general list. you cannot hide anything.

that is the way it ought to be. that is what we signed up to. one of my mentors says we've signed an unlimited liability clause. we accept that. that's the way it ought to be. no i don't think we can. , you will be found out and you should be if you are subverting the process. >> general dunwoody? >> there is this notion that there is this a good old boy network that would allow people to sweep it under the rug but my experience is that does not exist. in this day and age, the consequence of trying to do that on the good order and discipline of the organization are much worse than during the right thing for the right reason. >> devastating. >> does the commander control the investigation? >> no. >> no. no. >> can the commander stopped the investigation? >> i suppose you could, but under what justification?

no. that would be pretty silly. >> no. >> it would be a great peril if you tried to do that. i cannot speak for all of the other services. but there is transparency to other places on what they are doing. other people know what investigations are happening. they are monitored so that if you squelched an investigation, it would not be very long before the highest levels, certainly in the coast guard, new -- knew that you had squelched it. >> in the army, because it is an independent investigative arm, commanders do not have the authority to interfere in an investigation. >> i have been at the most senior levels of the air force sitting with the chief and he would routinely ask our senior how isy or our ig

investigation x going. and all he was asking about was the timeframe. he was just seeing if you were close to being through? how you're doing? no commander that has any awareness gets involved in the investigation process once they launch it. >> this is ralph jodice on the phone, if i could add? >> go ahead. thank you. >> commanders cannot squelch those types of things. again, i will use my own personal experience, there were allegations against my senior enlisted advisor. folks came to me and presented

me with their facts and i would launch a commander in that -- a commander investigation. if i had squelched that, all of the other people in the unit would have known there were inappropriate things this person had said and done. we've all talked about good organization. if i had swept it under the rug it would have torn the entire unit apart. as a commander, you owe that answer, no matter how that answer comes out, you owe that answer to everybody. to the victim and to those that are making the allegations. you cannot squelch it. the responsibility of the command does not allow you to do that. we would not take command so seriously if we thought, oh yeah, i will just push it away. we owe that answer to everybody. to ensure that, if there is a problem, we take care of it and

we make the right decision. the decision might be a significant punishment for the individual, a loss of rank, even imprisonment. i do not see that squelching -- it does absolutely no good. it is detrimental to any organization. you have got to find the right answer, no matter how hard it is. you've got to find the right answer so that everybody knows when the decision is made that the right thing has been done. some people might disagree along the way. as a commander, you know that you have done that and you have dug into it and poured over the report that is presented to you. you have taken all of the experience you have, the advice

from your legal advisor, from your deputy commander and others, and you know you have you are going to make the right decision. >> general campbell? >> this is based on what i have heard the last few days -- is that there are so many mechanisms in place that the moment of victim steps forward and says, something bad has happened, that a commander, at great peril to his or her professional career, if they do not report that within hours, then they might lose a chance to command that unit. special victims councils, they track this. they track down to the hour that this is being done. i cannot imagine a scenario in which a commander will say, let's squelch this. it ain't going to happen. >> do you have anything else? >> no. >> thank you. >> colonel cook?

>> it is going to build on something you have all got to. one of the other perceptions besides the conflict of interest issue is that commanders make that call. the other concern -- the other reason to give it to the judge advocates and take it away to the commander -- from the commander is that they are not trained to do this. all of you have left the military, most within the last 24 months. general campbell, you are a bit more removed. in terms of your timing, but you currently work with the chief of staff on the army on development of our general officers. even this morning, a comment that was made this morning -- commanders are rarely trained to exercise informed judgment on cases. they are trained for operational success. i am not talking about past training, the problems have been there. the data has been collected.

we are learning from the past still. can you comment on the current training for our senior leaders to make informed judgments, if you believe they can make that, and what are we doing to keep that current? in terms of information that is constantly being developed? >> i will argue that you are probably correct. in the past the commanders early , on did not get much experience early on -- but i would not say that as a reason to take it away from them. the first time -- the first --erience with this i commanders will come on board a ship, in my case, and be under my command and start gaining experience -- having to hold article 15's. they have the legal ability to reach back and get advice. through that article 15 experience they begin to really understand how this process works and what the

commander is so important to making sure that fair and consistent judgments are every one ofnd those cases. for me, coming into command, my objective was zero article 15's. i was very naïve and optimistic. by the time i ended my command tour 14 months later, i had 60 cases. i did not want to, but i did. i gained a tremendous amount of experience through that. as you continue to escalate through command, that experience gets broadened. until you are convening authority. throughout that span, you are gaining experience yourself and you are being advised by very whoessional jag's understand and have more experience. what you are not necessarily trained, you are getting training through that experience.

you have a tremendous appreciation and understanding with how to balance plea-bargaining, the charges, with what you want to see come out of that -- in the best way and most consistent way for all concerned. the victims as well as they confused -- the victims as well as the accused. that is what i would say. in response to your question about training now, we have recognized that there is a need to ensure that. in the navy, we have moved most of our general court-martials to the regional commanders so that they can continue to build this body of experience. they do go through training when they are assigned regional rps toders by our jag co make sure they're ready for that position. >> is that legal -- is that specific legal training on what they may encounter? >> yes. trained specifically by our jag

corps. this is not new. they have been doing this as 5ommanders since the e-0 level. they have probably anywhere between 7-10 years of experience in this arena. it is the jag making sure that they fully understand new general court-martial on what the convening authority brings. jodice, if i could add? >> sure. >> as we go through and become commanders at different levels, at least in the air force, we go through different types of commanding courses. as a squadron commander, group commander, wing commander. in every one of those, even as a flag officer, legal courses or

legal advice, legal presentations, are done in every one of those courses. i would venture to say that those are increasing even more and more. in my particular situation, when i took over as commander of the air force in washington and had a court-martial convening authority -- over 40,000 airmen located not only in the national capital region, but around the world. i spent the time and sat down with my jag to ensure that i knew what it was that i could and could not do, was expected. there were cases i was looking at all the time, including prison sentences, and everyone one of those cases and situations, jag is right there with us.

in the case of the things we were talking about with regard to sexual assault, victims i , believe we are doing way more training today than we have in the past. like admiral the tally -- like admiral vitale said, there needs to be a little bit of time. i know there is not much. i believe that all commanders know that the need to have that guidance because they are not legal experts. the need to stay close when they're making these tough and difficult decisions that affect people's lives. i believe that they do. >> i think that all of the services have specific -- first of all, just officer development courses, when you are a second nsign, all thean e way up, you get some legal

information. as you become commanders, i think all of the services of a specific school for you for every level of command. certainly, things like the legal aspects of command probably receive as much or more emphasis than anything else. but you do not like to be a commander in a classroom. where you learn it -- i learned from lawyers who were normally half my age -- because every week we had a session called cops and robbers. amy cox and robbers, you discussed every case going on in the insulation. s and robbers, you discussed every case going on in the insulation. -- in the insulation. that is where i learned about what was appropriate and what was not appropriate. guyhe time you are a senior

ofgal, you have had a lot experience with the legal business. you spend as much time with your attorney as you do with anyone else. >> general dunwoody? general campbell? the training a general officer receives is very individualized. if a young man or woman is living to a command position, they get to our staff judge advocate school in charlottesville. it is not power points, it is one-on-one. i just talked to a young man who said how impressed he was that people took the time. theppose it you can say danger was you would come out of that saying i am pretty smart

and i know this stuff. rules, if youen ever got ready to do something that feels real good, stop and ask your lawyer. that has saved me from doing something that might not have been smart. i'd try to follow that as best as i could. >> ms. fernandez? >> i have a pretty stark question. admiral baumgartner, you said that a lot of changes happened in the past 2-3 years. let's say the threat -- taking the commander out of the process goes away. just goes away. we have heard a lot of testimony that that has gotten a lot of the change moving. the threat of taking the commander out. once that threat is gone, are all of these changes and trainings and resources that have been put toward this problem going to go away? that always lies in the back of

my mind. if this panel reports out that we are going to leave the commander just where he or she is, that then we're are going to stop looking at this problem is much as we have been looking at it for the past 2-3 years. >> i would say my guess would be that if attention faded from this problem and progress was not made, i think the services are all well aware that legislation could be introduced in five years if nothing has happened or it has not improved in five years or gotten worse in five years, it would be a very short conversation at that point in time. the services are all well aware that any progress made has to be sustained, otherwise this is still an issue, it is still a threat. if the services get what they

ask for and don't deliver. >> i think that is an important question. my answer would be, i certainly hope not. one thing i mentioned in an earlier panel, we really need better data. osd can force back. the services will not do it. they will all do it differently. we really do need some better data. everybody has their own set of facts. none of them match up. osi,eeds to drive cid, ncis, all the attorneys and commanders. they need to collect, force the services to provide the same data, the same answers to the same questions asked in the same way so that we know what we're talking about to the degree that we can.

there is always going to be a little murkiness because of the nature of the crime and the nature of reporting. but we can deal with a better set of facts if we were a little more standardized and i think that would be an important recommendation for your panel, for something that osd needs to drive, so that we know what we are talking about. >> general dunwoody? >> i would say that we should not need a threat to fix this problem, for starters. i would also say, below the senior level, most people don't know that they could lose that authority. from the general population at large. you see people doing all the right things for all the right reasons because we are better educated and understand the problem better. the measures and the focus the congress has put on it and the panel is bringing to it -- they

got the leadership's attention. they know we have to get after this. when i think back, the integrations of blacks into the army, the integration of women into the army, the don't ask don't tell going out the door, who led those transformations? it was the military and the leaders in the military. we can lead this as well. we need to lead this. we need to be the model for society, for campuses, for industry who have a challenge bigger than ours. we know and understand the issue and now we need to get after it. i believe the chain of command can do that. >> mike vitale. >> go ahead. i would say to your question, i do not think so. because, unfortunately, i really don't ever see this problem

going away. a case study would be looking at our drug problem. we recognized that drug problem back in the early 1980's. we took a pretty effective identify, track, and eliminate that problem. we are still doing that today. it is likely we will continue to recognize that this problem exists and continue to treat it and do all of the things we have talked about today. >> anything further? >> no. >> with our thanks, we are going to adjourn this panel now. again i cannot thank you enough , for coming. >> thank you. >> we will be in recess for lunch. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] >> on the next "washington

journal," discussing the republicans plans for immigration legislation in the house. gop is about ideas the offering as alternatives to the health care law. later, a discussion about how nuclear weapons and materials are secured. we will be joined by the former administrator for the nuclear security administration. we will take your calls and ments, beginning live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. live from oklahoma city for the state of the state address from mary fallin, oklahoma's 27th governor and chair of the national governors

association. 1:30 her remarks live at eastern time. later, coverage from florida for a debate between alex fink and left jolly, seeking a seat vacant by congressman bill young. >> consumers will win in the end to continue to's innovate and bring their services and new pricing business models to consumers. consumers will be the main beneficiary. >> the big corporations one out, they are the ones with market power and influence in d.c. to shape policy. going to beally are the losers in this deal, that is why so many of them are speaking

up and asking the sec to move forward with a path to protect him. the netmpact of neutrality ruling. tonight, 8:00 eastern on c-span2. wroteas in a car wreck, i about it extensively in my book. the whole time i was in the hospital, not injured really, i had a cut on my leg. that the other person in the car would be ok. the other person was one of my best friends, which i did not know. i did not really recognize that at the site of the crash. over and her and was not, i thought god was not listening and my prayer was not answer. i went through a very long time

of not believing and not believing that prayers could be answered. it took me a long time and a lot of growing up to come back to say. >> first lady laura bush, tonight at 9:00 eastern. and c-spanc-span3, radio. watch our recent interview with mrs. bush at 10:30. next, q and a with author and historian robert dallek. on the about his book kennedy white house. live at 7:00 a.m., "washington journal." ♪ >> this week on "q&a," author and historian robert dallek discusses his latest historical

narrative titled "camelot's court: inside the kennedy white house." >> robert dallek, in your recent book, "camelot's court: inside the kennedy white house," the last paragraph of your entire book -- i cannot resist saying, thank you to president obama -- is graciously hosted for dinners for presidential historians -- what is your insight into president barack obama because of four dinners with them? -- with him? >> he is a highly intelligent man. he is keenly interested in history and the way in which the presidential institution has evolved.

and what he could take away from past presidential performances to make his a more compelling and more successful administration. i wish we had some extraordinary answers to provide him, but of course the nature of history is that it is an imperfect humanistic enterprise. he understood this. but we talked a great variety of things in those interviews, in those dinners. there were roughly 12 historians. i wasn't the only one there. some of his principal aides, including one of his principal speechwriters. so for me it was a fascinating experience to be able to sit right next to the president at dinner and have this kind of exchange with him. in many ways, it felt like an academic seminar.