tv Politics and Public Policy Today CSPAN April 13, 2016 4:00pm-7:01pm EDT
there's a finance committee. complete failure. customer service committee, complete failure. real estate committee. maybe they did their job. i can't really speak to that. but it seems to me that at some point we have to ask hard questions about who is actually on the board of this organization, what is their experience, are they just people who, you know, get these positions because of political paybacks, and they know nothing about transit or transportation or operations? why aren't we getting the absolute best? people who run big enterprises? do we have a governance problem? are they the kind of people where you would put up their resumes and say there's no
better can person in the country chairing my safety committee, et cetera. is that the kind of board that's governing this or is that really the problem? >> no, that is not the type of board that is governing this. let me address this. 16-member board is way too big. kennedy center. people raise money but they don't run an organization. when i was on last time, we had 12. that was too big. four federal representatives couple of years ago. >> your average corporate board is probably a dozen board members. >> it's just too many. secondly, congressman, your point is well taken. no, people don't come there with enormous experience. some do. one or two people have worked in the transit industry for a while. but most people don't. they're there for a whole variety of reasons. sometimes they're there because nobody else would come, believe it or not. so, that's what you have as a board. secondly, it's never been clear what the board does. in the past, this committee has
criticized the board for being too involved in the general manager's business. then there was an opportunity, the board was not at all involved. >> sorry to interrupt. but that's why you need a good board. >> correct. >> right? because a good board knows what their job is. they look at the ceo, manager of the enterprise, and say these are your goals. if you don't reach them, we're going to make a change. they have committees that ask the right questions and make sure things are happening. it seems to me, as part of whatever has to be done to fix this system, which will involve more capital, there has to be a serious conversation about completely reconstituting this board and making sure these are not just political appointees who know what they're doing. right? we can't be sitting here, looking at pictures of jumper cables, right, in oversight.
there has to be a management structure and governance structure that works. we talk about management and under investment but one of the biggest embarrassments, in my opinion, you could have in this town is to have been on the board of this thing the last ten years because you've utterly faile failed. >> january 7, 2011, transforming governance of the washington metropolitan area transit authority. this is a report on how we should completely redo the board 2011, five years ago. and nothing happened. your point is well taken. there's four districts and any time it's brought up, nobody wants to do anything. >> i think we should put on the
table ensuring real board members -- if you run a public company and you're the chair of the audit committee, the board has to certify that the person is an expert. we need that kind of certifyificaticertif certification. >> admirable people have done good things in the community. if i had to certify them i could not certify that any of these people are experts, being a steward and a fiduciary of the federal government's money, state of virginia's money, and district of columbia. >> reclaim mieg time which has long ago expired, the gentleman from maryland makes a good point i would caution my colleagues that federal law cannot dictate
who is on the board of metro, nor can federal law tell the paying jurisdictions who they get to appoint to metro. if federal raw wants to do that, federal law has to pay the bills and that was the point i made earlier. we are awol. we don't pay an operating subsidy. therefore, we must tread lightly in telling virginia, maryland and d.c. who and what will serve on the board. this is not a federal entity. thank you, mr. chairman. >> i thank the gentleman. >> blue line riders how they were treated compared to riders on the rest of the system. and my friend talks about closing the blue line for six
months got more people excited than upset. they have legitimate complaints and the rosalyn tunnel is one of them. what do we do now to help those blue line riders? >> eye am taking a look at that to see if there are other ways we could provide that service and how we're managing the three line there is. so, it's a technical exercise. any time you do that. i will be coming out in the near future with that this you. >> chairman evans, you made a very strong case for a federal model. do you have anything in mind? >> yes. other states have dedicated funding sources for their transportation systems. some use a sales tax, gas tax,
combination of the two, or property tax. no other transit system is operating in a multijurisdictional area. th that, therein, is the problem. virginia, maryland and d.c. have to agree on what kind of funding source, tax fee, whatever you want to call it. is it gas, sales, income, property or a combination of those? and we have just not been able to do it. which is why i suggested -- i was reading history. tennessee valley authority. in the roosevelt era, the federal government super imposed on everybody this taxing district used to build the dams for the tennessee river. i haven't done anything beyond that. but i'm frustrated with the local jurisdiction's inability to deal with this. and so i go back to the federal government, maybe they can help us out. my whole point is this. we need help in metro. if we don't get it, if we don't get it, we are going to be in serious trouble beyond where we are now.
>> the history of how metro got so bad. materials out of date, factually incorrect. place where control center workers routinely worked 12-howe days in order to get the overtime. and ntsb preliminary report was very critical the way the control center responded at that smoke incident back in january '15. so, all these things wrap around culture. what can you tell us to give us some hope that you're making changes within the control center? and a culture that performs well. >> organization, so i changed how that reporting relationship goes so i can get more focus on that part of the operation, as
miss flowers mentioned, on a regular basis making sure they're playing by the rules, following all the procedures. the larger issue you talk about, it's not confined just to the rail operation center, this issue brought up in the magazine. what i have found is a strong disconnect between management and the front line employees that is, you know, evolved over years, where people feel, in effect, disenfranchised. they don't feel a part of the business. they don't feel pride in the business. they don't feel the commitment in it. that's what i am focusing on, to get the front line people and the managers to understand that if they do not tap into that resource, you know, their job is to bring that resource up, not push it down. and if they can't do that, then it gets back to congressman comstock's issue. that is what we need to get this organization in the direction we need to get it in. >> thank you and good luck.
>> miss flowers, in the ntsb report, there's no prior experience of direct safety oversight or ssoa, has limited staff to carry out the function, doesn't have the authority to lead panels, et cetera. how do you respond to these documented criticisms of why you're not the right entity to do the oversight? >> first of all, we are on the job and doing the job. and we do have enforcement power.
we have the ability to direct and take directive action when there are safety infractions and we have the ability to withhold funds, as much as 5% to 25% of the funds, to compel them to take corrective action. on the experience side, we feel we have the technical competence. we have put together an organization that has experience from faa and fra. secretary fox took a one deal approach, to augment the oversight effort. fra, ntsa, and office of the secretary. i know that ntsb is concerned about whether we can sustain this. we do have additional budgetary
authority and we think we needed to act quickly. fta had the statutory authority and fra did not at this time to oversee commuter rail -- fra had the statutory authority for commuter rail but not for urban public transit. >> i thank the gentleman. the chair recognizes the ranking member for a follow-up question. >> i'm just going to ask one question and then yield to mr. comstock. as you just told my colleague, you have the statutory authority to withhold funds 5% to 15%. in fact, you've threatened to do that if the three jurisdictions do not form this oversight committee in a certain course of time. is that correct?
>> that's correct, one year. february of next year. >> all right. have you taken cognizance of the legislative schedules of the two respective states, maryland and virginia? >> yes, we have. what we would like to see -- we're continuing to provide technical assistance and work with the three jurisdictions. we would like to see this move forward rather than take actions to withhold funds. >> i support what you're trying to do and pressure you're trying to put on them. one little word of caution. be aware of the difference in legislative schedules so we're not asking them to do something they can't possibly do within their legislative calendar. >> i just want to say we could rather than would. >> thank you. >> the chair recognizes the gentle woman from verirginia, ms comstock, for five minutes. >> thank you. as a former member of the
virginia state legislature, we are only there january through february or march sometimes. that had some impact this year also as we were trying to take some action. thank you. and i also wanted to mention my predecessor was up here today. i mentioned we were having a metro hearing and he raid raised the same issue about the board. appreciate the honesty in terms of looking at the expertise there and obviously there are challenges there to look at. good management ideas i think our new general manager is focused on, just to get them on the record here. yesterday, you had talked about things like looking at paratransit. i don't know if maintenance might be an area that can be outsourced. could you maybe detail for the
record, so we have some of these good, positive ideas that things will probably all share and have in common and can improve? >> parking, obviously, feeds our system. 60,000 parking spaces. that's not the core thing we wake up every morning worried about. it's an opportunity for private sector to do that, for instance. para transit, we have a model that's been around for years. in today's technology, there's opportunities to do that, to make sure that we don't take anything away from any of our customers but actually give them alternatives that, for us, will be cheaper. >> and i think yesterday you had cited that the average cost is $50? and so you were already identifying other ways, particularly on short trips where we could save money with
the on-demand economy and be more efficient for the users. >> more efficient and give 24-hour notice for your trip. there's other all ternives. you can call up and it can happen very quickly. >> we can welcome the uber economy to metro. >> not one vendor. >> uber lift on demand. >> headquarters building is another opportunity, i believe. just in terms of the number of people we have there. do we need that many people in a prime location? basically i'm looking at that as well. on the maintenance side, on the fair collection side, i think again there's opportunities to where it makes more sense to have other resources applied there, that's what we should do. i'll continue to do that. >> thank you. i really appreciate it. i just wanted to highlight some of those things. i think there has been some really good thought that the general manager has already put into this, where i think we will
find a lot of common ground and maybe we can focus on those things first, bring the costs down and minimize some of the other problems and costs we're dealing with so we can have a more civil discussion on that when we have actually solved a lot of these problems, have a very functioning system. i appreciate your taking that approach, as you proceed through. so, thank you. >> i thank the gentle woman. let me follow up a little bit on what my good friend, mr. connelly, was saying with regards to jurisdiction. miss flowers, i don't know that you were necessarily the best group, and i really care a lot about secretary fox. in fact, i consider him a personal friend. i don't know that it was necessarily the right decision. but here is my whole point on this. mr. heart, miss flowers, we have to get this system into place where you're not at a hearing, talking about the safety of this system, you know. so, while it may be germane
today, i'm hopeful that in the very near future it will not be a discussion that even comes -- we talk about uber a little bit. i've got staff members now taking other forms of transportation to get to work who used to take the metro. i want to acknowledge your service and certainly say thank you. there's no tougher job than local politics. and so i want to acknowledge that.
the vast majority use here and whether 50%, 60% or if it's higher than that, we've xwot to get it right. by getting it right, i need to figure out who is in charge. is it a 16 or 14-member board? is it the new general manager? is it the coalition of people who put forth the people who sit on the board? who is in charge? who owns it? in your written testimony, it says you want to make it clear that you don't own the metro and paul doesn't own the metro. but somebody has to own the
responsibility. and i guess that's what i'm getting to. who is that? who do we hold accountable for a system that has deferred maintenance and is not safe? who is that? >> it's myself and paul. >> you can't have two leaders. so, ultimately, where does the buck stop? >> paul is in charge. >> if paul makes a decision that the board doesn't agree with, what happens to paul? >> we haven't faced that yet. >> but you will. i mean, listen, this is a big problem that's taken 40 years to get here. deferred maintenance. you've been on the board three times. is this your third tour of duty? >> twice.
does paul get fired? >> no. the close down is a good example. we discussed it. i turned to paul and said what do you want to do? he said close it down. and everybody got on board. i believe that's how this will operate. we have 9 out of 16 new board members. this isn't the board of a year ago. i believe it's a better board than we've had in a long time. we support the general manager, what he is doing. he is assessing the system. to answer your longer question, he will come back in six weeks with a plan to fix this. we, as a region, will have to decide how to implement the plan. the question you haven't asked me today is about the six months in blue line. i'll address that.
if we do half it will take me 12 months. if i do a lane at a time, it's even worse. it's convenience versus safety versus time versus money. and we, as a region, have to decide that. closing something for six months is a bad idea. >> let me jump in. >> bad idea. >> if i haven't been clear before, let me be clear. closing the blue line for six months is not an option. >> not an option. >> do you understand that? >> i understand that. >> you'll take that to the board? that is not an option? >> absolutely. but what we're doing now is also not working, the other extreme, three hours at night and on the weekends single tracking. somewhere in between those two extremes -- >> i'm a numbers guy and agree with you. i went through, looked at the traffic and had the staff -- they looked at all those numbers. we could close down the metro on the blue line at 10:00 at night, work all through the night and have it back up by 5:00 am the next morning, have a normal work period, do more work on saturdays and sundays.
i've looked at it. and the number of people that you affect is infintesimcimal t the number of people that travel. i'm not going to be getting calls in north carolina about the metro in d.c. being down. jerry will. barbara will. so, when that happens, you've got to understand that, you know, what we endured for 26 hours will be multiplied times six months. it's just not an option. but you made a statement, jack, that you said we, all right? so, is it him or is it we? who is in charge? because ultimately what i've got to get to is i want the next person that's sitting here to be able not only to certify that
it's safe, but that they made all the instructions. and if they're asking for money that we have given them the additional resources that they need to do that. and so you're saying that he can make the tough decisions and, if he does, the board is not going to fire him. at least you as the chairman are not going to recommend that? >> that's correct. >> all right. let me go to you, mr. general manager. as you've looked at this system, how much deferred maintenance should have been done that wasn't done? >> i don't have a numeric. again, i think the approach is part of the issue. the way we've been trying to do it. what you just talked about. you know, i just ran the numbers. >> so, how many jumper cables were placed between the death that we had in 2015 and literally the other day when the system was closed down? how many jumper cables were replaced? >> number of the sleeves were
65%. again, that's part of the issue that i have had. we tend to do things around a particular issue and not look at this thing together. for instance, going out and replacing the sleeves, that would deal with one issue. that's not dealing with the issue of a capable that's lying on the ground. that's not dealing with a cable that's lying in moisture. that's not dealing with other issues. that's where we have to come at this thing. >> so, why would you say that it hasn't been done? when we had an unbelievable, horrific tragedy that happened, everybody came. we all came to a meeting. we were determined to get this fixed right away and get it done. yet what i heard from your testimony is we're going to wait. i'm seeing a shaking hand.
i must have misheard that. >> that's a cell phone issue, totally different issue. what i'm doing right now based on what happened three weeks ago, from the plaza to -- three weeks ago. what did we do? who did what? i'm going to get to that issue. people had to do certain things. and did they do it? did we do it poorly? what did we learn? then what did we put in place? and did that occur on the day f of -- at mcpherson square. what happened in that 14 months, what happened on this incident and what are we doing going forward? a new team that goes out every day basically and looks at the cables. so, we weren't doing that before. now we do it, in effect. they do the entire system. it takes them a month to do the entire system. in effect, we're doing that
every day, going out and checking that. we weren't doing that before. i already put those things in place. even that, i'm not sure that's all we can do. we come out and say we're going to fix the track, the cable, the paracables, the drainage system. we're going to fix those things as we go out there rather than keep coming back and forth, running off and doing this, running off and doing that. >> how do you respond to the criticism that there is a culture within the family that does not really emphasize safety or service? is there a culture? is that an accurate statement? >> it is. >> okay. part of fixing a problem is recognizing that you have one. thank you for your candor and honesty. mr. evans, thank you for your leadership on the board. i have a request of the two of
you. i would like for you to answer it verbally, if you would. if you find that there are board members that are trying to exert their influence over the general manager, mr. evans, are you committed to at least letting either me or the ranking member know that that is happening? >> yes, i am. and if i do find that, i will act myself. >> i believe that. >> but i also will. >> i believe that. to you as a general manager, if you find that there is impediments to you getting this restored and up to speed from a safety and service standpoint and that you're getting undue political influence from the board -- and i use the word political because there will be differences of opinions. are you committed to letting the ranking member and i know? >> i will, but it will be after the fact because i won't be here
any longer. >> i understand. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for your support and collaboration. i know it's there, even though you represent north carolina. not the national capital, but all of us, as mr. evans indicated, must take ownership for the national capital transit system. we have witnessed a maddeningly decade long decent into mediocrity. it's affected the entire workforce. i work eight or nine hours f it doesn't get done in that timeframe it's somebody else's oblem.
customers unhappy? so what. answering a question? not my job. as mr. evans' indicated it's everyone's concern within the workforce. everything is everybody's job at a certain level. especially when it comes to public safety. what worries me are the implications of it. this is washington, d.c. this is the capital of the superpower elect. we cannot allow the deterioration of our metro system to become the soft under belly of any target in the future. tens of thousands of lives so
the stakes are even higher, frankly, after tragic attacks in europe. ta what more do we need by way of warning that this isn't just us being anal retentive because we need want a cleaner metro system. metro is a very important part of that calculus. it behooves all of us to find swift solutions. i thank my good friend from north carolina for his indulgence and his support. >> i thank the gentleman. that task is monumental in ways.
you talk about the fact when it was originally put in place. we've gone from the jettison's to mr. toad's wild ride. it's time to bring it back to a point of honor and a standard of which your constituents, mr. comstock's constituents, mr. connelly's and all of those around can be proud of it. i'm committed to work in a bipartisan manner to do that. i'm afraid general manager -- it's going to end in your portfolio to fix. so within the next 90 days, i would like an update on what has been done, what's going to happen within the next 90 days. it would be prudent if we have a
90-day update as we look at this, and before we make any long-term decisions on what is closed or not closed. i wouldsk that we get some input from those who benefit from this system each and every day. i thank each of you, if there's no further business before the committee, the committee stands adjourned.
were then able to put on the record what the situation was. >> you've been talking about $20 billion over ten years. >> 25. >> $25 billion over ten years. is that just to get it to the state of repair or also to include the expansion such as building the new tunnel? >> yes. some of it is expansion. $6 million. like the rosalyn tunnel. >> it would include the new tunnel? >> yes. >> eight-car train. >> it does include some expansion? >> absolutely. >> i have a chance that breaks it down. >> how realistic do you think it is to ask for regional funding source and what you think it takes -- >> how realistic it is? it has to be done. we're done fooling around. it's realistic because it has to be done. without it, we won't be able to run this system as we need to run it.
it will be unreliable. you'll have the system you have. nobody wants that system. >> would you say that's more important than the 300 million request from congress? >> they're equally as important. we are $150 million short going into the next year. no, it's on the operating side. just to operate the system, you know. balance the budget at $100 million. we're going into labor negotiations, which we always lose. we will increased labor costs. all of those collectively will cost us more money. i am not raising fares. i'll just quit the board. i won't be there. we have to get this from the jurisdictions. >> disagree with some -- you should address safety management first and then ask for money. >> they go together. without the money, i can't do the safety and the management. management is too hard to address. composition of the board. everybody gets crazy. what i'm focused on is the
safety, reliability and money needed to address those issues. you heard the example i made on enclosures much the best way to do this -- the fastest, cheapest, safest way to do is close it down. that's a decision we all have to make. this system is just not going to work. they took the approach of least resistance five years ago and harold glover was killed. >> majority being republican or if you had a democratic house that was in existence for four years. >> tom davis who head this had committee got us the money and he was a republican. i don't see that being an issue here. it shouldn't be. this is a nonpartisan thing. i think the congressman is a very big supporter of public transit.
$300 million for florida. yeah. no, i don't see that being an issue. i see a commitment to -- >> what was the success of this? >> we educated everybody to what we need. now the question is whether they're going to act. >> you're talking about from the ridership perspective. they're one of our partners. we have to work on this together. that's how i look at them. >> they talked about being the new guy in town and the issues that came prior to you, obviously, being here do you hope if we are back here 12 months from now, even just an update -- hopefully not some other kind of incident, are you confident we'll be talking about a different system 12 months
from now? >> i'm confident we'll be talking about how we moved it along. again, i cannot undo -- there's systemic issues here, all kinds of issues here. i think you will see a change in the organization, you'll see a change in the approach we have toward customers. you'll see a change in how we maintain the system. you'll see that. will it be perfect? no. will i have everything i want to achieve? probably not. but there will be a difference. >> the headlines today are going to be house republicans reject pleas for money. but there's a lot of subheadlines in a story like this. what's your takeaway from this hearing? what was the use of this for you? >> again, it's something i've seen with all the ones we've dealt with. there's an importance to this region and we better get it right. they're not saying this is a dumb idea. disinvest. they're not saying that. they're saying we can't survive
without this. let's make it work. now get on it. >> technical issues raised about the sleeves, 65% fixing those. there is a lingering concern among everyone in the room that these fire also keep happening until all those sleeves are replaced. do you share that concern and why? >> again, i have to look at the power in the entire system holistically. you can't just point to one issue. some of the issues we've had with the cables has nothing to do with the sleeves. you know, that's just as, if not more important than the sleeves. we can't just go spend all of the resources we have doing just sleeves. we have to look at this, what are the risks, and then do it. that's part of the plan. >> another crack at this tomorrow. >> that's right. do you have a time line on the completion of the sleeves? i know that's not the only thing
but -- >> it will be affected by the plan that gets rolled out. >> that's true. good point. >> it's part of that. thanks, guys. >> preferable, when i'm done -- >> a reminder if you missed any of this hearing on the safety of washington, d.c. metro system you can find it online on c-span.org. we're back on capitol hill tomorrow for a hearing about the nation's prepared nez for cyber
the campaign 2016 bus continues its travels to visit winners from this year's student cam competition. our bus recently visited spanish springs high school to recognize our winner. our bus and crew headed to california to meet with student cam winners, including correa middle school in san diego, where congressman scott peters took part recognizing students jackie power for their winning documentaries. and in elhambra, california, judy chu joined us to honor three winners for their documentary on social security security called "a sense of skurlt." charter, comcast, cox and time warner cable. every weekday be sure to watch
one of the top 21 winning entries on 6:00 am eastern before washington journal. a discussion on women in military combat with current and former military officers. they debated the recent policy change, lifting restrictions on women serving in combat roles. the event was hosted by the new york city bar association. >> think tank and panel discussions are a way of life but some of them are not so good. i hope we have a great one tonight. i think you're all aware that we're here to talk about an issue that is extremely important to the military. and i would argue, as a reporter who covers the pentagon and military, important to the nation. the integration of women in all
combat -- in all roles in the military, including in combat roles. for those of you who may ormy not be familiar with the contours of is that the current defense secretary, ash carter, announced in december after i think it was three years of study that all jobs would be open to women across the mail tear. it was an interesting announcement, i found, sitting there because mr. carter, who's been secretary since, i guess, last year, very interested in this issue made the announcement with little fanfare and kind of just standing alone at a podium in what we call the pentagon briefing room. it -- the optics of the announcement struck me and occurred to me that it kind of
contributed to this idea that there is -- has been some debate about this issue. and what we're here to talk about tonight is a lot about that debate. we have four panelists and we've kind of set this up a little bit as, you know, kind of for and against integration of women, now, the timing of this panel is interesting really because the decision has been made so kind of move out on this decision and there will be integration of women so it's not necessarily for or against but we're at a point now where the pentagon is trying to figure out how to implement this decision. and so it's -- i think this is a good, timely topic that's very timely for right now. so let me just quickly introduce
the folks we have up here and then what i want to do is ask a few questions but basically ask each of the panelists to kind of stake out where they sit and explain kind of where their position is. i'm not trying to make this a point/counterpoint you're ignorant, you're stupid, just to kind of have a substantive interesting conversation but also fast moving. hopefully you guys have great questions. i have some questions but i hope that you guys have even better ones and we'll get to those questions very soon after. let's just start real quick -- let me just explain -- and i carefully on the train rewrote these short little bios and then i realized that was too long and i don't want to, like, slow things down and read a bunch of bios. take it from me that these guys are all interesting people with varied backgrounds, different
opinion opinions. they have strong opinions on these issues and i hope we'll get them out here. so in no particular order dan o'shea is here to my left. he's a combat veteran with more than 25 years service in the military. i'm not going to read through this but he's a former navy seal who i think had a lot of service and then returned after 9/11. i have here he's a subject matter expert known as an sme, in asmymmetric warfare and counterterrorism, kidnapping and hostage rescue. dan managed the interagency coordination of 300 kidnapping incidents and played a direct role in every major international kidnapping incident in iraq thefrom 2004 t
2006. he has a lot of stories. kate germano is an active duty lieutenant colonel in the marine corps. we're very heavy on the navy. kate is still in service, at least for a little longer. most recently as the skmander of fourth recruit battalion in paris island which if you're not familiar is the only place where women are trained to be marines. and that was her last big command she served in a bunch of different roles but most notably as a recruiter in various forms so i think we can really yield some great answers about the
thinking about how this integration thing happens not only from a standpoint of training women at paris island but also recruiting them because i think this is a factor. to her right is elliot ackerman, a former marine and infantry officer, one of those cool guys who's become now a novelist. he's author of the critically acclaimed novel "green on blue" and soon -- when is that coming out? >> january. >> in january "dark at the crossing." here here but he's based in istanbul. he's covered the syrian civil war since the last few years his work, both fiction and essays, have appeared in the "new yorker," the "atlantic," "the new republic" and the "new york times" magazine. he got out of duty in 2009 and served in southwest area, served as an advisor for the afghan commando which is is one of the
strongest effective fighting forces in afghanistan and he also served in iraq in november in 2004 in the battle of fallujah. he certain earned a civil star he frequently is interviewed on tv. jude eden is a former enlisted marine sergeant. she served as a data communications specialist. she did communications in iraq's western anbar province and that was during the height of a lot of the tensions and -- it was a really dangerous time during that period.
she is now a frequent contributor as a freelance writer to various publications, the "new york times," breitbart, stream.org, and laura ingram's life set so what we have here is a bit of a group here. these two are generally have concerns about the policy that has been decided upon. these two are generally in favor of the integration of women in combat. now the title of this event tonight is a little bit racy but the idea is to kind of bring out some ideas about what the nation and military needs to think about as we integrate women in these combat roles. i think one of the -- there's a lot of different issues.
i think to think about. but how it's done, how it's done to be successful, how it's done to improve combat effectiveness, to -- or if it's done in a way that's going to limit combat effectiveness i think all these various questions are ones that people have, whether they're on one side of the issue or another. so i'm going to stop talking. i want to ask everybody to kind of give a quick maybe four or five-minute intro to where they sit, how they think about this issue, who they are and then we've got a couple questions and then we'll jump to the audience. >> so i'll not even jab for four or five minutes. i just view this as -- and even before the decision was made i wrote a little bit about it is that it seemed very likely that the decision would be made and all of my observations and
conversations with folks that i knew who were sma somewhat close to the decision, including serving officers who were to be infantry officer corps, which if you don't know that's the marine corps -- where the marine corps trains its infantry officers and was used as a test bed for women going through that training. if they could pass, the attitude and conversation was very much framed as "we need to launch these multiyear studies to determine whether or not a woman's body is even capable of the incredible rigors of combat. and to me that just really seemed like a smokescreen because that was not the issue. the issue was a cultural issue. you know, i -- when i served in the infantry i certainly had marines who were incredibly fit, but i also had marines in combat who were not incredibly fit. one of my collateral duties as a second lieutenant, which is one you could imagine any second lieutenant would like, i was my company's body composition
officer. that meant that monthly 10% of the marines who were outside of the height and weight standards have to come to me and they would take their shirts off and i would wrap a tape measure around them and tell them they needed to lose weight and those marines were outside of the standards and they continued to serve and serve in combat and many of them did fine but i think sometimes to the outsider there's this view as though all marines are these sort of marines or solders or whom rfr these monolithic demi-gods who are gods and that's not the truth. these are people. so we at the corps as an organization needed to spend energy doing studies that considered the hipbone densities of women and if we saw there was maybe a 10% higher rate of shin splints in women that would disqualify them from all combat. frankly, to me, it just seemed kind of disingenuous and that issue was was cultural and that in the preparation for the
possibility of this decision that the leadership of the organization would be doing the organization a greater service by saying okay, we need to look at how we would reengineer what is at least specific to the infantry a hypermasculine culture and one that frankly works, it promotes ideas of brotherhood and camaraderie through a masculine sentiment and that inspires men to do incredibly brave things to save one another on the battlefield but that was not the conversation and in the leadup to this i felt like that was concerning because it might set up the corps as an organization to fail. and i think that's what all of us regardless of our positions don't want to see happen to any of our services so now we here in a moment where that decision has been made and to me it seems the appropriate conversation is to say okay, how can we implement this, the most effectively, so that the organization is stronger? and in order for the organization to implement this effectively and be strong and to
kang culturally as it needs to change, those conversations need to be had and they need to be had under the leadership of the marine corps in my case and so i think we're at a moment of truth where at the most senior levels of leadership, the four-star level, there needs to be very clear guidance given and disappointingly thus far what i've seen is there has -- at least the perceptions but is just sort of a quiet campaign that we're not happy with this and we're going to proceed begrudgingly. and having spent a lot of time down in infantry platoons with 19 and 20-year-old privates and lance corporals they hear that message and so i would just call myself sort of a concerned alumni of the organization that would like to see in the next 15 xx years that it's implemented do in the a stellar manner that upholds the organization's highest values and not as a -- with no incidence that serves as a black mark and there have been
incidents like this in the past if you go back to the corps's history, '50s and '70s and times like that. but i'm looking forward to the conversation. >> just for the sake of diversity here, why don't we go now to -- since she's on the other side -- and i don't want to make too much of this point/counterpoint thing but we have different views here so go ahead. >> sure. in addition to gordon's intro, part of why i have some credibility not just as an enlisted marine or the only enlisted person on this panel is i was also secondary duty that i had at camp fallujah was that i was pulled for entry checkpoint duty to frisk women for explosives, so that was convoying in and out of camp fallujah on a daily basis with the marine corps infantry and, you know, being on the street in the outskirts of five different checkpoints coming into
fallujah. and i'm really glad that the new york bar association is putting this on because they're doing something here that the administration and congress have failed to do, which is to hold an open debate and discussion on this subject and the reason the administration has suppressed debate on this is because the case for integrating women has been so weak and any time we would what elliot calls a smokescreen is empirical evidence that women suffer not just average civilian women but military women, active duty women average two to 10 times the injuries that men do in the military. that's a liability not an asset when you have that kind of additional risk and these are very fit women. the argument for women in combat depends on ignoring that, depends on the provably false claim that women are
interchangeable with military men and infantry men which, again, depends on ignoring decades worth of research. sports medicine, military medicine, military experience. the marine corps's nine-month integration study is only the latest in a series of studies that have been done over time and all finding the same conclusion because we're talking about anatomy and no matter how culture changes or societal norms change, you can't change human anatomy and these are differences that cannot be ignored. it ignores the problems that coed combat units already face with rates of pregnancy, sexual assault, unit cohesion, these are things that cannot be ignored and are being ignored and ashton carter, secretary of the navy ray mavis just said
"well i have a difference of opinion on that" and they ignored the $36 million study on this. and the other big thing that the advocacy for women in combat depends on is a swallowing whole the big lie which is that this is an equal opportunity for women. with these kinds of rates of injury for women before they're even on men's standards or infantry standards that's unequal for women. that's -- that doesn't do women any favors, nobody is doubting that women serve honorably, we can serve in 98% of the jobs and be successful, but there's a difference between deplaying to the combat units -- which many, especially general public -- is very detached from. the difference between deploying to a combat zone, working in a
combat zone, doing a dangerous job such as what i did and being on these direct ground combat missions that are kill missions going door to door, cave to cave often killing at point blank range hand to hand. women are at a disadvantage physically against men who want to kill them. another part of my background is many years of martial arts before the marine corps and then during the marine corps and i've trained with a lot of men, always made me better fighting against other women but men who really want to kill you, when you're -- and this happens often, technology and modernity have not mitigate it had need for direct ground combat. and that hand-to-hand fighting and if you talk to anybody who has a lot of deployment experience, direct close combat experience or you can read their accounts, a lot of the time
they're smashing heads. i mean, when the ammo runs out, when the gun jams. so this is not mitigated by we're so technologically advanced that this doesn't happen anymore. so these are a lot of the points that i feel are being ignored by the administration, it's incredibly important that we bring these forward. the empirical data on women's injuries even fit women. twice the injuries, that's just your baseline. it's ten times the stress fractures. six times the acl tears and hip injuries because women's gate tends to be smaller, it is smaller. and so they have to exert more effort when doing these long marches under load. that's empirical data. and if fact that it's being
ignored in favor of of just pushing this through and saying it's equal opportunity when, in fact, it's really not i think is a dissafs and in terms of implementing, there's no way to imimplement a flawed plan. >> because i am in act i have duty i need to start with the disclaimer that my views are my own and not marine corps. i want to start by saying one, i fully echo what elliot said about culture and this is specific to the marine corps. we have cultural issues in the marine corps. it's a wonderful institution. i think that whether you're a male or female marine, everyone serves with pride because we are very tied to our lineage. but all this relies that every organization needs to evolve. the marine corps has struggled to evolve, whether it's been
about desegregation for african-americans, whether it was "don't ask, don't tell" and now with the integration of women into combat roles and i want to point out the fact that a lot of the data that jude referred to is unfortunately looking to the past. one of the things that the marine corps and the services don't always do well is take cases of success, take units where things are going well and replicate the things that are working within those units to mitigate concerns and mitigate risks. and having two tours on recruiting duty and also having been assigned to the recruit depot at paris aland, the only place where we make female marines, i experience this firsthand. what i saw when i was on recruiting twice was that the women we were recruiting were held to a lower standard when it came to the initial physical fitness requirements. they weren't always required to come to pt the way the male applicants were. they certainly weren't pushed to their full exertion rates were
the way the male applicants were. they weren't relied on to fulfill leadership position with the delayed entry program at the substation level the way the males were and they were not required to make significant gains in their physical fitness level before going to recruit training the way the males were. and so having seen that on recruiting and made changes twice in my two tours on recruiting as a commander and as an operations officer and executive officer, to mitigate those risks and change how we recruited and trained and prepared women to go to boot camp, what i found was that there are success stories that can easily be replicated and can easily mitigate a lot of the concerns that jude has discussed. but we haven't evolved to the point that we need to and we haven't looked to those units and those commands that do have success stories to tell. and instead what we tend to do is we tend to look at the negative statistics and that's exactly what we saw with the marine corps's combat
integration task force. the women who participated in that study were all exemplary women. they volunteered to serve in a capacity that wasn't popular because of our culture and they were successful throughout a lot of the training that they participated in. but the fact that they were coming out of paris island where we've held women to a lower standard for decades is best indicated by the fact that they were expected to do less at patience island because of segregated train, the fact that these women were recruited and not held to the same standards for preparation as their male count parts even before going to recruit training, these were women who graduated from recruit training and could do the bare minimum to pass the male standards to participate in the study. but they were not the women who would have been in the study had we had higher standards from the beginning. so what we're saying is as we're
talking about, what do we want to do and how do we want to do it in order to make sure that the institutions are successful. we're not going to continue to rely on studies that involved women who were always held to lower stan dprardards from the beginning and this's where i'd want to leave that. >> perfect, kate, thanks so muc much. >> pleasure to be here. it will be an interesting back and forth and i speak from someone with roughly 20 add years in special operations. i spent four years of my life in 9/11 between iraq and afghanistan between 2003 and 2013 deployed. i've been in every environment imagined you can imagine and i've served alongside women in iraq and afghanistan and elsewhere in a variety of roles and know the value and experience they bring to the table across many venues. they are flying combat -- close air support in helicopters and
jets. they are on convoy security which is probably the most dangerous job in iraq and afghanistan, driving logistically between forward operating bases and combat outposts so my comments and my view points are from a very different perspective. i listened to the comments from kate and elliot about changing the culture, particularly the marine corps and i've read their writings and i'm looking at it from -- we're talking about holding people to standards and the reality is the fact that everyone has come out with these standards, you know, if all the services and all the branches, it was marine corps alone that said the air force, the navy, the army, they just kind of punted. they don't want to deal with the topic and the marine corps said straight up you want to hold women to the standard and every one of them, from sec def carter to west point colonel herring who filed the lawsuit against women in combat, they said the
same thing "we want women to be given a chance and compete at the same standard of the men and be give an chance to fight and die for their country like young men have been doing since the nation's history." that sounds good in theory. let's hold them the same standard. well, the marine corps did a number of things. they started off with the bare bone minimum requirement on a pft for males is three bullets. max pft gettes 20. every marine that's worth his salt -- because i've served along them my whole career. if you're not a 300 pft marine corps officer, you won't pass ot. so instead of the dead harm ang, hold them the minute hum standard of the men. and a year later if they were to hold to that standard 50%, more than 50% of every female recruit in the marine corps would have been drummed out because they couldn't get the bare bone minimum.
that's one example. $36 million study, i don't know if kate is referring to that, that's what jude is talking to, they said let's put a marine corps company of all male traditional male company versus an integrated one, a coed one, not 50-50 men and women but put in the right order that there would be 10% women so maybe one woman in a squad with five marines, four male marine, maybe one female and they competed against 134 combat tasks, basic tasks that marines go through and what were the results? well, beyond the injuries that were overwhelming, jude has already talked about that, in every instance in combat priority from effectiveness of moving through the target, getting over walls, shooting accuracy, evacuating wounded members off the battlefield, guess who performed better by percentage overwhelmingly? it was basically 68% the all-male company outperformed. and in only one category of the many 134 combat tasks did the integrated company perform better than the men, the
all-male counterparts. i'm sorry, folks, but these facts are uncomfortable things. they're very uncomfortable things. without even getting into unit co-hessian. -- cohesion. i'm telling you as a man who went through training -- and marines would probably dispute that, i'm sure elliot could make a comment about his force recon trading but arguably buds is the hardest training in the world basic underwater demolition seal training. i've trained and worked with my counterparts from all over the world and i mean all over the world. and to a man everyone comes up to me and makes the comment -- asks me question about buds and these are sas guyings, french foreign legion, you name it. we went through the same training that my fore fathers did. our winning edge goes back to world war ii and it's all about hell week. the joke is i was in the last hard buds class but it's the standard. and the slippery slope we've already seen demonstrated by the
leddership, sec def carter, ash, all the facts that prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that you're going to effect what was a 30% combat inefficiency in an integrated unit. wall street folks, i don't know if there's any wall street folks, you're on wall street and you have a company and you're going to go and instead of hiring wall street mbas out of kellogg and harvard you're going to hire kids from a community college and accept a 30% business deficiency? you think that will be tolerated in wall street? yet we tolerate that within the new military unit and the facts of what they are? and that's the challenge because every time the studies come out, the leadership says "well, that didn't matter." well, they need to change the standard. chairman of the joint chiefs of staff has come out, well, we need to look at if the women can't do it then services need to justify why is the training level so high? why is the standard -- why is the bar -- and i'm telling you [ muted ] and all the other and
the rest, when the standards are going to be changed and lowered that will be the impact and it will cause major disruption to what has arguably been the marine corps, the greatest fighting unit ever produced. we need to change it. we are not even talking about the soft implementation in special operations seal teams and what not. >> thanks. so there's a lot of stuff in all of that. i failed to do something that we had -- this was dan's idea. i want to get an idea of who is here tonight and who has thought about this issue to begin with and who has a position on it. i would like a quick raise of hands and we'll come back to you soon. who has thought about this generally? okay. and who is at risk of being
divisive here who is very concerned about the policy decision that the pentagon made? and who is celebrating that decision? so we'll come back to hands later on. and by the way i want to say that -- i mentioned it before. marine corps and navy heavy on this panel and that's by accident although it makes sense because for different reasons the other services, concerns or non-concerns are -- were not as relevant or strong. the marine corps if you don't know was the service that had the -- i don't know what the word is. but objected to the policy decision and was essentially overruled when the decision was made to integrate women in combat roles so it's good that
we're a it will mall reen heavy up here. i think the bottom line is when the secretary of defense announced the decision he said that this has to be done in the name of combat effectiveness. the point was he was making this decision in order to improve the effectiveness of the fighting force, he also talked about recruiting and we can get to that. but let's talk about combat effectiveness for a minute. study that we talked about and marines -- correct me if i'm wrong -- i'm a reporter and i'm used to getting beat up so if i'm screwed up, please tell me. but the marines are at least credited with doing probably the most heaviest analysis on the issue brieprior to the decision being made. combat effectiveness is ultimately the bottom line.
another lot of answcillary issu. but two the issue of marine units based on this study are units with marine -- with women integrated in them as combat effective as ones that aren't? >> and i think just to bring something up. i think this is actually an amazing opportunity to reset standards. because i don't think anyone across any of the services is saying we're going to lower standards. look at the two women who made it through ranger school. sorry, three. it was carefully observed they adhere to every standard. i don't think we can make that assumption. if that happened i would be the first one standing lock arm with dan saying that's wrong and you cannot change a standard and i think kate would probably agree, she's been a crusader not of lowering standards but upping standards. everyone is talking about their
credibility and that at close quarters it comes to skull bashing. i spent a month in fallujah going house to house and it came to close quarters in many instances and i will tell you there were those instances when it came to close quarters and guys were shooting at each other in the face with pistols and i will tell you on the whole, the greatest issue i had as a rifle platoon commander wasn't some instance where two people were literally grappling hand to hand and it was who was the strongest, it was the issue that the number one physical issue i had in these battles was heat casualties. guys going down for heat stroke. and it was always marines, the marines who, frankly -- and appreciate that you think all marines are 300 pft officers, they're not. they're not. they're not. you might be hanging out with different marines but when you're down there in the trenches with the pfcs and lance corporals, they're not. a 225 ppt is a first class pft, most guys will be around there. and other fit young men but
there's a spectrum. so in many ways there is a great opportunity to reset standards and say you either make the standard or you don't and it doesn't matter if you're a man or woman. but let's talk about standards for a second. i was never particularly hot and bothered about this issue until an instant -- if you'll indulge me i'd like to share an anecdote. i was out of the marine corps and i was at a book party for a state department officer who served in afghanistan. and i bumped into an old marine colleague of mine, we'd been lieutenants at the same time and he was the director of the infantry officer course and the infantry officer course was a place that the commandant hand picked to say this is going to be our incubator to see if women can make it to these standards some i said hey, hi, it just happened that maybe six months before and i said how is it going? and to be the director of the infantry officer course is a big deal. it's very, very prestigious if you were an infantry officers and amongst infantry officers, it is -- it's a big organization, kind of a small club. there's a few thousand marine
infantry officers. and he was talking he said, it's going all right, none of withms have made it through. if you're a marine you call them wms. i said no one's come close? he said no, no. it surprised me no one was making it through he said well it's all friend than when we went through. i said how is it different? he said when i went through the infantry officer course in early 2004 the iraq war was flaring up and it had gone from being a course that was like a hazing course to see how tough you were to this sense that, hey, these young lieutenants are going to war and we have to make sure they're ready so it was a technical course. he said it's not like that anymore. first of all when we used to hike everything was graded as a group event. so the platoon passed or failed. your weak guy, you would carry his stuff. that's all changed now. now everything is individual effort. i'm like, oh, that's interesting. i thought that was a good thing because we had guys who made it
there the course who never should have made it through and were later relieved in combat. so it's much harder, that's interesting. still none of the women have made it through. no, none of them made it through. you can't tell me a woman is going to be able to hump the upper receiver to a mark 19 or the mortar 2 from an 81-millimeter mortar. never going to happen. okay, that's tough. those are heavy, they weigh about 40, 50 pounds. i was like but what happens when it happens? like what happens when some woman who was ranked in the cross fit games who's fitter than that private who i was wrapping a tape measure around his belly button, what happens when she shows up and says she wants to make it and she does? what happens then? he looks at me and says "it's never going to happen." and i'm sorry, i'm a marine, i'm a proud marine and i a human being first and that's wrong. to me, that is wrong. that is unfair and wrong that the standard gets slipped because we're not on a wartime footing and that's the
incubator. it's dishonest. when we come to this idea of integrated companies of women marines, they don't pass muster so i imagine everyone here as a civilian that sounds, okay, well integrated company doesn't pass muster, or integrated squad. what does that squad look like? a squad needs a squad leader. an effective squad leader will be a sergeant with probably six years in the infantry. a good one. so you're going to put women into these leadership positions unless they're coming in as a private that they're not trained. they don't have experience to do so when you sprinkle women into these squads and they are not trained infantry men they probably won't perform at the same level as a group of trained infantry men. so you look at this and for me i find it ironic, i'm not a big champion of women's rights. my wife at one point said "you're a rell sister on this issue, elliot." i don't feel like i am but this doesn't feel right to me. it feels dishonest and i feel like at the end of the day if you haven't gone through a transparent and honest process it's going to come out in the
wash. and that's sort of always been my concern. so i'll leave it at that, i'm sure everyone will have plenty to say to rebut that. >> you want to talk about and explain to folks, especially who may not be focused on this what combat effectiveness is and one of the standout issues of the marine corps study was i remember you know the ability of women who were put in this study to take a body off the battlefield if need be which is what happens in war sometimes and there were other signs but that was the one that stuck -- got to me that women would not be as effective in these units, i want to then come back and ask about i think some people think the study was flawed and the approach was flawed but jude or
dan, do you want to talk a little bit about what that means and why it's a big deal? >> yeah. first of all, the females were top-performing females, they had made the men's minimum pft standards, the physical fitness test. they had completed the enlisted infantry training and they weren't fresh recruits. they were lance corporals and corporals among them, corporals typically is your two years and they were competing against average men. they weren't competing against the top performers and yet and still on 134 combat tasks they were -- their performance was significantly lower, significantly weaker, they fatigued faster. but these are -- it's not a smokescreen. this is -- women have a lower lung capacity. we have less bone density. if it was just a matter of more
training or different training then professional sports and the olympics would have been integrated long ago. it's not just about training and holding them to different standards. holding women to men's standards, they're not men, they have a different physiology, let dense bones. adding the excess training actually diminishes their estrogen which in turn reduces their bone density and that's what causes greater injuries, greater rates of injury so you can't just say well if we re-evaluate the standards and, by the way, if women could make men's standards so easily they wouldn't need to be re-evaluated. democra dempsey famously said that, we need to re-evaluate these standards and elliot has echoed that. but even if there are some women who can make it. and, by the way, across fitter, female, competing at her utmost is no competition for a male
cross fitter competing at his utmost working out to his utmost. and that's what we're talking about here. >> but isn't it true, though that a female cross fitter who is really hot -- excuse me, just like very fit could potentially compete against maybe not the top male cross fitter but like -- that's the issue, you get these kinds of weak sisters. >> so even if you have a couple women who make the standards, a couple females graduated from rangers, even if you have women who can do that, they're rare. you don't make sweeping policy that affects the entire military based on a couple of exceptional women. second, the that says nothing, it does nothing to solve the problems of sexual relationships that are always a problem. >> so this is a cultural issue. you would agree? >> well, let me make a comment -- >> sex is not a cultural issue. you put men and women together
and they're going to have sex. >> that's a leadership issue. >> no, it's not. it's a human nature issue and they haven't been able to solve it for decades up to this point. >> if the reason that we are keeping women out is because the number will be so small i agree, it will be a small number. but the top performing cross fit woman is going to be in better shape than that fatty that i was dealing with and i would rather have her in my platoon than that guy and there's plenty of those guys to go around, so if the issue to not integrate is well, there's just too few women, it's a culture issue. >> the issue is you get those washouts out and we need better ways to get the washouts out. one of the things the marine corps study found was we see areas where we need to tighten up the standards for men as well so there's a lot to be gleaned from this marine corps study and to say that because some men wash out or because some men are unin the that means that women
are automatically interchangeable with them is false. >> but the marine corps didn't say we don't think we should integrate women because our culture doesn't accept women, the marine corps said we can't accept women because of these physical issues. so to me that is intellectually disingenuous. and i'm not a huge advocate but it's disingenuous. >> i'd like to talk about why it's rare for women at this point to be able to meet those standards. let's go back to recruit training. it's rare for women to be able to meet the standards because for decades we have allowed women to underperform at recruit training and we have created an environment specifically in the marine corps where we have these segregated training, we're the only unit that only trains women in the entire department of defense so women are held to lower standards while they here in the delayed entry program, they're not required to pt to the same standards, they're not required to push themselves,
they're held to lower standards there and that sets the standards for how males perceive them. so their male count parts think training is going to be easier for them because it has been. then they get to paris island and step on the yellow footprints which is the first ceremonial duty of every recruit to stand on those footprints and be welcomed by a drill stre instructor and females are pushed to the back of the formation. and they stand at the back of the formation until the ceremony is complete and they're whisked off to fourth battalion which is separate from the males in geography, time and space. so the males already have a negative perceptions but about their female counterparts right from the time they join the delayed entry program and i'm talking in averages here. i'm not talking about those success stories that i mention when i first started speaking. the bottom line is the perceptions but from the beginning is that training for women is easier and, oh, by the way, it has been easier and i have decades of data to
substan@that. let's talk about the rifle ranger. every marine is a rifleman. there's no physiological women women shouldn't be able to shoot. i know i was a terrible shot up until last year. we b.u. the bottom line is that for decades women achieved an initial qualification rate at the rifle range of between 68 and 72%. what does that mean? every marine is a rifleman, except forrer single female cohort going through recruit training, a third of each class was being dropped back in training for remedial training or discharged because they couldn't qualify on the range. was that because of physiology? no. was it because mentally they just cracked under pressure? absolutely not. it was because there was language expectancy and a perceptions but by the coaches on the range and the drill instructors that women just couldn't shoot. so last year women shot at 92%, just under 92% initial qual
rate. do you know-how that happened? we didn't get bigger recruits or give them an extra week to prepare, we didn't give them rifles in the delayed entry program or extra training, we held them to a higher standard. we didn't add anything other than supervision by the drill instructors and changing the expectation that just because they were women they couldn't shoot and they rose to the occasion. and that wasn't the only area where we saw women rise to the occasion in one year. we saw women rise to the occasion in terms of physical fitness. we saw women rise to the occasion in terms of fulfilling leadership responsibilities within their platoons because the drill instructors pensioned it and demanded it. i'm telling you, up until that point women were expected to do less and that's because we had this system of training that whisks the women away after they've not been held accountable to reaching high standards and then it's a mystery. bow do we make female marines?
i don't know, they're on their own compound doing their own thing and it's easier. >> so they created low expectations and they met them. >> your comment about your ifc commander that had that attitude toward wms, if you do a psychological officer of every soldier coming through and you look at their attitude towards women that marines didn't respect women from day one and they did a psychological profile and they wanted to weed out every young marine and officer coming in that has a negative attitude about the physical capability or leadership of their fellow female young marine officers, young enlisted you not only have a smaller output of female marines at the end of training off smaller output of men. >> so by your lodge nick 1950 we should apply the same test towards safers and say we shouldn't integrate african-americans because most marines who are white and male and from the south in 1950 don't like african-americans. there's the logic. >> that's an irrational base.
>> you just made that argument the logic doesn't work. >> not at all, not at all. >> the logic doesn't work, man. that logic is saying that because the men don't like women the women shouldn't be allowed in. >> your implication is that because the men have a general bias, including the commander of basic course that none of them pass. >> so he shouldn't let women in because men have a base? >> look at the empirical data. let's go to your cross fit analogy. the women that are performing training in their teens or pre-teens become olympic athletes or n whatever support, you name it, they're going on to become professional athletes and a mix join the military but they're not getting the numbers to get them through the training. ranger school. i was on deployment in the middle east, i got message traffic that said lieutenant j.j. o'shea, you're going to ranger school 1 january. i was flown home to san diego, i was given gear, it was said you
can't recycle, it's an army course, don't embarrass us, see you here in 72 days. the women that did go through the ranger selection process that they identified 140 women, whittled it down to 22 that made it through indoc training and the women that did graduate, they were given like a six-month basket to prepare and train for the training course and you're going to change policy based on three women graduating in a course -- >> yes, yes. >> that's the question. >> yes. people should have opportunities. >> but you're saying we need to go back because women aren't showing up ready to be integrated in with a marine infantry company so we have to go back to the presidential unit standards where they do the pft so -- >> why is so everyone afraid to set the standards and see who can pass? >> that's exactly what the core study did and they showed much weeker performance. >> they didn't.
>> everybody one at a time. this is a great conversation but one at a time. go ahead. >> the marine corps study showed -- and this is -- kate wants to say this is in the past -- yeah, the results were released this year -- you know, this pastfall. this is like yesterday, this is not like some age old thing. this -- marine corps study it was like can you do it or can you not do it? these are typical combat tasks. can you do it or not do it? and the answer was clear and not only that the women were distracting to the men and vice versa, okay? there's no mitigating for that. it doesn't matter if you can make standards. people are still going to -- here's the study of a battalion in 2010 that was deployed to iraq, army brigade. they found women were sent home for non-battle non-combat reasons three to four times the rate of men and 74% of the time it was due to pregnancy.
that's catastrophic, on average 12% of women in the military are pregnant at any given time. let's not pile on. regardless of standards there's this whole other set of issues you're adding on more problems to the combat units that don't exist by themselves. >> i'm going to get you guys in a second but aren't some -- that's the -- i have a marine friend who said he had women come into his unit and they were in afghanistan and the unit was not trained and not prepared for these women. what's the name of the marine -- i always forget. female engagement teams coming into -- let me explain what they do. they help when it comes to frisking? >> so they serve similar to the role i think that jude fulfilled in her duties. >> so they came into the unit and there was this guy was explaining there were a lot of problems with sex and other
things but what he came to realize was that these were discipline and leadership issues not oh, my god, women are in and suddenly you have -- >> right, and that's a copout. this is a human nature issue. men and women, it's all ages, all ranks and part of the problem is we have it where this is really just now being addressed in the past several years that, you know, that leadership has been just as guilty, it's not just the people on -- in the enlisted side but leadership has been guilty of doing this and not subject to this -- of inappropriate relationships, sexual assault, frat earnization, misconduct. this is a human nature issue. and you're talking about putting women in the units with the most alpha of alpha males because that hypermasculinity that elliot talks about is precisely what we need to kill the enemy
we're fightsing, which is isis, which are on methamphetamine when they're fighting by the way, making them even harder to kill. this is no joke here. we're piling on stuff that's known issues that we haven't been able to solve in the military in general, we tolerate this stuff, it's expensive and destructive and it's bad enough we tolerate it in the corps as a whole -- in the military as a whole but to put these added burdens and distractions and destructive and expensive problems on the combat units is idiotic. >> elliot you were marine leader. can you try to project and how would you add drese these issues if you were co of an integrated unit. >> and what happened to the men who got the girls pregnant? >> yeah, i think -- to peel back this logic and i think for me it's logical, you have to look
at it logically. i would concede if you wanted to create the most effective lethal deadly fighting no, sir the world you would probably go to, you know, some town in appalachia, find the 30 toughest guys in that town who have grown up hiking the mountains, would look the exact same and send them overseas to fight and they would be the best. definitely. but guess what? our military also represents who we are as a nation. like fundamentally, it does in many aspects, it does in many respects and i think the idea of just saying this is the stan sta -- standard, period and if you can make the standard you are allowed in here. so the logic that we can not integrate women into these units because you have senior officers who are behaving inappropriately, sexually assaulting women i don't know what to say to that, that's not
logical. it doesn't make any sense. by that standard in saying -- >> it's everybody in all -- >> but women get pregnant. so by that logic, women get pregnant so at elite law firms -- >> it's a higher risk -- >> -- we should take no women because. >> that would be catastrophic. >> to get pregnant is catastrophic? >> you're on a mission and somebody is pulled out, it's catastrophic enough when somebody is pulled out or goes out -- >> i think catastrophic is a little -- >> but for somebody to be pulled out for non-combat related thing and what about if a woman gets assaulted? and then it's $30,000 to then reassign her somewhere else, you have to pull out the guy to do the legal fight, if i could. what we're saying is we have such a low threshold for how human beings treat each other and that's okay and we're going to leave it at that and yet by
the same token we're saying the military has a higher standard for conduct and ethics. it makes no sense. the bottom line is that the issue of how men and women behave when they're in integrated units has been tested for decades in many different capacities and it's been successful. have there been problems? absolutely. but within those units there were discipline problems that already existed. so let's talk about what the concerns about in the integration process from the male perspective. number one concern, intimate relationships in the unit. that's the number one concern men have. the number one concern women have? targeted women as p.o.w.s. which is trainable? you basically are saying we shouldn't be training men and women -- >> women are concerned about both things. >> you're saying we shouldn't be training men and women to a higher expectation of conduct to make them understand that they are there to fight for their country and not sleep with each other but we will train women on how to protect them from becoming p.o.w.s.
it makes no sense. the bottom line is we're going to have a military and say the military is held to a higher moral and ethical standard, it needs to start with how we maintain good order and discipline with this issue. i can see somebody having a heart attack in the audience. >> so who's got -- thanks. awesome. who's got the best question. [ laughter ] raise a hand, who wants to ask a question. you and then elaine and then if you want to ask a question we'd love to hear what you have to say. >> my question is with regards to the arguments about the dangers of women outside of physiological inadequacies, cohesion of the units and military sexual trauma and such. with the recent changes to our nation's ideals with regards to gender identity, traditional gender roles, even the family
structure, how would that be any different than the military is going to have to address the challenges of, you know, having integration of women into the military itself? what is the military going to do if there's a gentleman who wants to join into a combat unit who has a different gender role or gender identity and how are they going to address h that? >> that's a great question. >> i mean, i -- >> it poses the same problems as -- i mean, now the lgbt thing is now rendered -- has now taken away the neutrality that once existed with the sexes being segregated -- separated. you know, with the guys amongst themselves or when you had "don't ask, don't tell" and i guess -- you may be better able
to answer this but you know now you've imposed -- you've taken away the neutrality that was once there because now -- and actually same sex assault is now on the rise in the military. so now you have -- it's -- people can serve openly and identify as whatever they want, this is -- >> i'll just go back and -- i'm trying to get away from the marine corps topic but to elliot's point. appalachian guys he's describing, that's what an oda is. special forces guys in particular, they're all southern boys, the best guy in your plato platoon, the point man, sniper -- >> that's not true go. to seventh group, they're all latino. >> i'm talking about another unit. >> go to tenth group. they're a diverse crowd. i worked with them a lot. >> all that is white noise. all this other stuff is white noise when you're in a steel platoon -- i was a platoon
commander in the 1990s, they're a different perspective. you know what we had to worry about? besides getting my main trained about going to war, whiskey and women. anything after midnight. so when grow in deployment, and other than with alcohol, you don't have 7-11. when you go overseas, you have nothing that focuses on the mission that is killing the enemy. that's what we do. that's what the special operations focus on. its complication takes guys to go i'm here to focus on the set that if you have something on the weekend going on, focus on why you are in the team room to be an operator.
we have women in our unit because it wasn't going to happen. they are working with the female operations officer and great shot, great operator and we were professional enough and most people when you go on deployment, there is a woman sitting next to you that you can keep your pants on. >> there women and you and i can share more stories. there not those issues. this is about leadership. there is value in the middle east on other parts of the globe. now we have that and we are taking away how we operate by
exposing the stuff. what we are arguing is lower standards. that's what the leadership wants. >> also let me say -- >> all the studies have come out and when the woman can't mean it, you need it just by that. >> it's absolutely false. >> absolutely true. >> reevaluating, you need to reevaluate the standards and they have consistently been lowered over the decades. what they do is take out certain tests where women don't excel so that they make the two men that used to be a two-man litter carry. they found that when women were integrated into the academies and stuff, they would test the men, but they found that two women couldn't carry the ship ladder, but two men could. in order to accommodate and get
the gender diversity med ricks, they will mouth the words and what they care about is gender diversity. >> they were talking about lowering the standards when they are already low. so the point being is everyone sitting here believes we should have a high standard. it's rare for people on that side of the range. the target does not have separate standards. the pull ups and some of the academics. this is the same that is required. >> women have under performed.
>> let's take professional sports. women that trained their whole life for college basketball. the wnba versus the nba. those women are physical freaks of nature like their male counterparts. they trained their whole lives that the average person can't do. at the end of the day, you took the top number one team and you play against the team that lost with the last place team. who is going to win that game? we are trying to say we don't hold the same standard in sports and we want to hold it to the same standard and make things different because women are not given the higher standard? >> on the women -- women are held to a separate standard and their injuries are so much
greater even on those lowered standards. >> they are not held to a higher standard for performance. >> i read the same study. we are arguing and used to having that discussion. they simple low from the standard population -- >> i think i know the answer. >> you indicated that it's just a matter of people being dishonest. i think you are being dishonest. they are not dishonest.
they would not think of being dishonest. i think the other half is men. i want you to take a look at who you are sitting next to. i want to put the men on this side and all the women on that side. if i drop the gaunt the and said fight to the death, who is walking out of this room? >> i need a question. >> you know that these standards, you said you were not a good shopper until last year. what stopped you in. >> i was convinced i was not a good shot. i told myself i was going to hold recruits to a higher standard, it had to start with me. i forced myself so i could
become more confident. it can be done. almost 20. >> 20 years and it took you that long and there was nobody telling you that you couldn't shoot. >> you are not familiar with language expectancy. if it were the case -- you can roll your eyes, sir, but the point is if women are told through language well, women can't shoot or you guys -- >> i was never told that through my entire four years. >> you may not have, but if look at the decades of shooting results, that was the case. when we changed that dynamic, we saw the results. >> just because somebody did, it doesn't mean that they are dishonest. sorry. i am saying this study was
dishonest. i would like to give joe a quick one. >> they are pretty much counter for the past 15 years. they only have access in the population. >> it's a false premises. first of all, it is a smaller -- first of all, if you were here to represent the society as a whole, we need to represent the disabled and the blind and the old. all of these things. if we were representing society, discrimination, one of the definitions is to decipher and
to be able to tell between something that has good value and something that has negative value. they must discriminate based on ability. it's a much smaller pool. >> it's not all men. you deploy the packet until the question. >> you may not need to dumb down for the audience. we have a few veterans and joe is one of them. >> where i was the last decade. i will give you an example, folks. at the outpost that is a small
footprint. i have been there all over the place. i landed on a cot and saw a woman there and she they said that's susie. my first question was not who is she having sex with or who is she messing with. is she good at her job? the question was, is she good at her job. >> if you did, could you? >> no. >> women are already being utilized in those capacities. >> the way they are being utilized for that kind of work.
>> i state that women don't belong. >> we are already doing that. the special operations. >> all-around, i think the points are being expressed very well. one of the central points that came out was whether or not this was going to result in higher or lower standard. i think the corollary to that is in a physical reason or cultural reason. the united states has their own history and playing a role here. if we extract the societal element from it, what does the panel think about other
countries? israel and denmark and women in combat roles. what can we learn from that? >> israel does not put women in direct combat roles. i tried it in 1948 and it was unmitigated and they never did it again. the injuries were too high for the women and they found the arab enemy became more ferocious knowing he was fighting an enemy. there was a myth that radical islamists loathe to fight women. if i was interested in 72 virgins, i would fight more fiercely so that i wouldn't lose to the women. it's because they fought more fiercely knowing that there were women on the opposing side because it's so humiliating to lose to women in battle. they have a tiny amount of women who have gone with the infantry
and they have sheltered them. the women complained about it and keep them on the base. they don't utilize them. any other nations that have the women of zero interests and no other nations, we have no military mean to repeal combat exemption. we want lots of really strong females in our military. they are serving with honor and distinction. we don't have to repeal or didn't have to repeal the exemption to utilize the females. they are already there and doing it and recognized for their actions. they are huge.
israel is tiny. they only do guard duty on the allies. everybody has to enskpls they serve less than two years. men have to serve a mandatory three. they are serving, but not in combat. >> they said they didn't have it. they don't have a stigma about women serving with men and with women being in particular roles. it's a cultural issue and as a military cultural issue and seek solutions on how to exchange and
ex-pant to make it more conducive, we will have this debate for decades. >> i was stationed in the north. i was in norwegian areas when the koran issue popped up. a construction team was to rebuild schools that did well and build churches to help the locals. what do the locals do? they say death to americans. they freaked out and the commander were both on the eve at the same time because there was a policy of about weeks of every month at war. the guy turned to me later on
for the teams for them and said we need help. can you give us advice? what they planned to do was take a statement from secretary of state and potus and the president of norway. all these statements and they will translate that go to the locals. all legals were destroyed and the cars from the local interpreters were working on things. the cars were destroyed. we asked them what was in your car, he was filing claims. they said my koran was burned. they had korans in their car. they had messaging that they had
and basically said listen, you burn korans protesting the burning of the korans and we ended up counter messaging and we used them against them and we have been next to the norwegians. they don't have an inkling of our threat. >> that sounds like an ad. this is a legitimate question. is there a risk of taking the most hard charging to meet the standards and break down. >> i think that the whole thing
must be unfair. and they find out the service breaks down and we didn't realize it breaks down. you are a marine. that's as a man. i'm sure all of us who serve have a broken and i do too. i think that is sort of an odd argument that it's unfair to women. it's hard on the male bodies if you don't see combat. if you do, you are getting shot at. that's the nature of the beast. i don't know what to do because it's like saying it's unfair to a race car driver because they may crash their car. >> we have been talking about this and it was a thorough study. it is interesting that into they
were picked out to the women who shouldn't go into combat jobs. when you read the study as i have and as jude probably has, you find that that difference, the delta in breakage between men and women overtime when physical fitness becomes a deficit, the brickage rate declines and is negated. what do we need to do to make it a success? we need to treat men and women to the same requirements and standards. >> the men there. >> i thank you, everyone. my questions to everyone, i wanted to step aside from the studies and look to your own personal views. regardless of where you are coming from, integration is happening. what are your thoughts on how we
should move forward into the training. there physical standards and moral and ethical. what was interesting is that we talked about holding them to the standards. they have the low moral standards that people say things like sexual misconduct is a hazard. stuff like that is trainable. there things that i don't believe are human nature because that's where it's going to happen. aside from seeing people getting paid a lot more, in the context of warfare with the engagement teams and we have seen where isis is afraid of kurdish women fighters because they were too embarrassed.
>> very good. this is not about what anybody thinks up here and the policy to make it a success. it is what it is, right? the policy has been made. >> it's a reveal administratively like it was enforced by tyranical feedback. >> let's assume that the policy will continue in the same way. if you don't have a view, that's fine, but how it can be implemented in the best way to address the issues that you guys have. what would they be? >> i don't think there is a successful way to implement a flawed policy. what they were saying about the injuries is false. when women are just as fit as men, they get fewer gains from extra training and the injury
rates they don't diminish with fitness and women decline at a faster rate. where the physical demand in the combat units are greater. military women who are fit and already being held to greater standards than average women. they are already averaging two to ten times men's injuries. that's not culture. that is anatomy and why standards exist for men and women. you can make women try to achieve men's standards, but in terms of everything that kate was talking about in training, there was no long-term study on the impact and the added injuries of holding them to that higher standard. a lot of women are going to not even make it through enlistment
let alone a 20-year career. this is no equal opportunity. >> i would like to focus on the linchpin to making it a success. changing the culture has to start at the level that they come in for the training. there fewer officers that they have enlisted marines. right now women are treated as the other. men are treated as warriors. women are segregated and they are held to lower standards. the only way to change the perception of women being the other is by not making them the other. if they are able to compete with their male counterparts throughout the 13 weeks, if they are able to be standing on that pt field for pt and doing the same pt and the men see the
women pushing themselves to the point of failure, the men will start to believe that women are no longer the other. i am using this because it's the most visible demonstration of what makes a marine a marine. should they be held to the same scores if you want them to compete from the rest, you are saying that the women should be held to the same goal and benchmark? >> you haven't found anything about my relief. i told them that unless they were strong enough to compete, they were always going to be the other. you have proven my point. pair will try to answer the question. i'm going to risk giving my friend dan a brain aneurysm when i do it. i think a way to do it which is
smart is you don't integrate it first. the first place you integrate is soft. my thinking is because special operations forces. the way you do it is the standard has to be the standard. the second it goes down, there will be argument that this is a flawed plan. the standard is the standard. there will be a few women who pass the rangers school and you take the women and you put them into soft units and allow them to start to succeed in that community. let's talk about the culture. it's very 1920 and macho masculine put your head through the wall. this is out of the box thinking that puts the maturity on the
operators and you will have an easier time integrating women as evidenced by the fact that women serve very, very widely in the special operations community. i did not see a woman for the three years i was in the battalion. our roles were filled only by men. my thought was they were successfully working in the units and the one thing a man in a unit will succeed that is tougher than he is, it's someone operating and will hotwire that argument that women are not tough enough. >> i will take the comment that a marine admitted the original and just said that. >> i was a marine and i said that. >> respond to that. >> let's take the rangers out.
i'm a qualified officer and i arranged the january one from the middle east 90 degrees to 14 degrees. i have full benefit. the fact of the reality is, that doesn't make you a ranger. no officer who takes 124 days to have the course recycles phase one two times. you have two chances, not three. they will never give you a shot. by the way, they put 141 through the pipeline. how many women have graduated from that? >> you set the standard and show up. >> you have the numbers of people who issue willing to volunteer. >> the numbers are decreasing. >> you wanted an answer to the
question that there is lots and lots, marines and military go through briefings up the wa zoo. okay. >> i promise, she is sitting here suffering. i won't have any. please. >> i want to comment on the things already said. >> then get to the question. no speeches. >> you started out downgrading the marine study because it had to do with women's bone structure. then you got into the discussion and you said that the women were not as prepared going into the ground combat task forces. that really is not true. the hypothesis of that study was
very simple. women with gender neutral standards going in which they did, they had extra training going in and the former learning centers going in and went up against the hypothesis that the gender-mixed units would perform equally as well as the men. all the empirical evidence went to the contrary. what is the reaction you are proving dan's point. the evidence comes in and you don't like it. >> i will disagree with you. we interpret it differently. the average man can do 12 to 15 pull ups. they went directly to the experiment were averaging three to five. >> they just asked the question and we will get your response. >> i stand on what i said.
you don't like to use the bone structure study. they had no choice. >> why did they have no choice? >> the only flaw with the exercises, they didn't come out with the conclusion you wanted. my question to you is, i know because i have studied in research, there is not a single study that proves what you are trying to imply. that with a little bit of preparation women can do as well as men. >> that's actually not true. >> no speeches. >> then when we talked about the other complications, you proved that also. you can't have it that way. you have to look at the big picture. what good is it and how does it benefit the marine and the military to introduce physical issues and the sexual issues that are problematic.
>> how would the military be better if this goes through with women? >> can i make a point and i will be brief. >> i think we have fundamentally different values at a base line level. i believe just because -- i don't think that suddenly you will have 50-50. huge physical differences and just because most women cannot meet the standards, it doesn't mean none should be able to try. none. there fewer women serving as ceos as than men.
>> you are being very dramatic. >> how is this going to improve over ten years. >> that will combat effectiveness and how will that improve in the military. when you got to answer that. >> because of this argument and this is what i think is intellectually dishonest. >> will you stop heckling me. thank you very much. that is the answer. at a certain point, our military does represent our values.
>> what kate said is assumes that the problem is all mail. females come on to men too. this is not one-sided. we are all human beings. we are professionals and a little bit of discipline will take care of this. it's human nature. you are fighting against hormones. and don't misconstrue what i'm saying. it's not like it's human nature to rape or assault, but women in the combat units will be at higher risk for that kind of thing with the most alpha of alpha males. no privacy and the furthest reaches of the globe with no privacy.
there is a risk of assault and what happens between men and women. men the not always at fault. if we have a beer, we could have more in common. not everyone does what i do, but they ran to a huge study and 85% of the community across the spectrum from air force pjs, they universally have brought up all the topics that they have done well on the issues. at the end of the day, the point for the guys is bottom line. how is this improving the fighting what we do for a business. for profession. to their position, it does not. it would destroy the team and
the ethos. the small element that hunted al qaeda down every night was less than 100 men. they did it for about eight years. that appalachian voice that they are talking about. anything to disrupt the capability should be a non-starter. the military serves one purpose. to win our wars. i have worked alongside women and making it a point. i have seen the value they bring and the capabilities, they had to have them in the capacity. that's not the topic. women are doing soft things and they need to be kept to the shadows and not aired out. it will not make the unit better. >> i'm glad we have so many questions. try to make it quick and get a couple of responses to move around. >> i will go straight to a
question. allowing women to try even though many may fail, i am wondering if you only have so many slots for the special operation forces and training regimens like there is only so many training spots that you need. if you are putting more women into the slots. and the nutrition rate is higher. to your point, might you produce fewer seals and if so, does that mean you have less seals? that doesn't cost them a school
seat. the sergeant will monitor and you take the test and they post the scores and they go down. from my understanding, you wouldn't have that issue. >> i mention the seals that want to go for decades now. we don't need more recruits. my freshman year is when they open up. there was like 24 or 20 a year. that meant anyone to become a seal, the bottom line is you have to go through the training programs and airborne and whatever. that came out of your physical fitness test. every guy, i had roughly 80 guys that competed for my class year.
i had 28 and 120 or 110. we all smoke them. it came out at the end of the day, the guy that interviewed you looked at your collective package. you were going to airborne and the school and doing the things that prepared you and how were you physically? the process was so thorough, 19 guys that got the slots, that was the most competitive on the planet. now they are grooming and they will go for sure on the pipeline. if she has a slot taken away that took four years and most of his life he wanted to be a seal. even though her scores were not as high, he didn't do the same things. that's another seat of that recent am. they will lower the standards and ship the scale.
combat. what your bench press is is not hugely relevant when you are playing the complex night raid or you are dealing with the security of an afghan valley that has incredibly complicated and tribal issues. i will say, anyone who has been in combat here, i think might agree with me. they are a deliver of the pie when you are fighting the war. >> the director of the american civil liberties union women's rights project, we brought a lawsuit in november of 2012 challenging the combat exclusion ban and in january as everyone knows of 2013, secretary of defense lifted that ban. our lawsuit is pending and we
have been waiting for full implementation which we thought would happen january 1st. now we are looking at april. so my question though is a lot of the fears that are being espoused in this argument are the same fears and arguments that were made against integrating racially and integrating allowing lgbt members. what are the effects and have any of these fears come to light? >> they have no comparison whatsoever. a black man is still a man. this is about ability and racism
is irrational. the opposition to women i combat is not based on unsubstandiated fear or irrational prejudice. it is based on knowledge of what the job requires. it is based on what happens every time we test women against men's standards. they don't perform as well and get injured more than twice as much. >> one of the arguments made about the lifting of don't ask don't tell, you have open service and you are going to create a huge cohesion issue. the end of the policy, they have not been the discipline issue. >> it hasn't really been studied very greatly. >> for the comparison at all, the lifting of don't ask don't
tell. >> the issue if someone has the issue, the issue is the standards that will be changed. that's all they care about. if the guy or the girl can perform the in addition, everyone in the unit, period. we talk about the standards not being changed, they will say if it's too hard, we need to go down. they have the greatest fighting force. >> i completely agree with you. we talk about the segregation issue. at one time in this country was a common notion and it still is in some parts of the country that african-americans were not as intelligent as white men.
to say that there is no comparison is a false statement because there is a comparison. the same arguments being used about women going into ground combat and impact cohesion where the same arguments that were used in 1950, 45, and then during don't ask don't tell during the repeal process. there is a comparison and if you look at the process, it has been successful and there hasn't been a backlash anticipated by the leadership. it's generational. i think every person who served in the military for every person in this room worked along someone who was gay. you knew it and maybe they didn't come out, but they were gay. it wasn't because they were gay. it was a nonissue for the generation that is serving
today. overtime when we see women succeed and hold them to a higher standard and become capable of achieving more will see this as a nonissue too. >> great. >> how is it going? when we went to korea, our military was very depleted and we have to put ajitants and everybody on the frontlines. why do we have women in the military in general? >> women are excellent at some essential fields or what i'm getting at is that there fields in which women excel especially compared to men. intelligence, communications, medicine. nobody here is arguing that the military or women shouldn't be in the military.
women have been serving with honor and distinction for decades and serving as well in the deployments. >> and within special operations. on many levels. if they say they don't have a woman in the unit, that is false. when those caught me, that's not the argument. by trying to wait for the standards to get to the base line, it's going to make us a better fighting and better mission or they will come in and that's not bonanza. >> real quick, we are almost in the five or-minute president.
the tight answers. >> the bottom 10% takes up 90% of your time. i found it to be commonly held. it means the bottom 10% of any unit is not performing at the level you need to to get your unit functional and getting rid of that bottom 10% will rush that much more combat effective. there may be correlation and the question is am i interpreting this wrong. when you look at the study they did, that takes into account all the physical fitness problems and all those things. there is a part of the study that said the top 10% of women overlap. 25% or 10% of men in the tests. it seems to me that it makes the
this is not just about a couple of women who want to. women are subject to involuntary assignment. they have greater risk of injury or whatever they tried at greater rates and for all sorts of reasons. the replacements come from the pool of the unwilling. most women in the marine corps and the forces are over 70%. they are not interested in the inventory. we don't have any who have applied to the move of the ones who were in that integration study. we have a lot of trouble finding any women who want to.
there is a study of the marine corps of 54,000 that upon found about 17% of men and 4% of women who were planning on staying in would not stay in if involuntary assignment was going to be on the table. i'm sorry, if the women's exemption was going to be repealed. the numbers were even greater like 20% for women if involuntary assignment. >> i top the get to this quick. >> i hate doing this. you ask your question and the woman asks.
>> everybody that i know refers to ships as if you like high school, you will love this. that doesn't mean they will speak to the combat readiness. that's after women were serving on them, but that's a huge problem. again, it's a huge problem that is not addressed by standards. regardless of physical standards. >> i would like to thank you during a difficult transition and a lot of lessons that were learned are lessons that we are learning today because we don't look backwards. i will say having served on the ship, we didn't have issues with the women in terms of how the mission was achieved. >> can someone speak to the question about the rangers?
i think it's not necessarily the argument. the women have been working with the teams and they had different duties than the men in those units. i served with the women were doing different work than the men. although there has been the argument that women had been in combat for a long time and it's not synonymous because the units are the ones that their purpose is close combat. i think those are interesting proof points to show that in duties that were similar, they can do the other jobs. it's not a one to one, they show they can be without them losing their mind. i'm sorry, folks, we are getting the hook. i'm a reporter and i try to ask
please make me smarter and despite the position and the questions and answers that everybody feels a little bit smarter. if you want me to, i will ask how many people may change their minds in any way based on the conversation tonight. anybody feel differently about the issue having sat through the discussion? i see one hand. >> i saw three hands.
>> we take you to tuscaloosa, alabama to study the culture of the study home to the university of alabama. we will learn about the history of the university of alabama in the 1960s with the author of turning the tide, the university of alabama in the 1960s. >> what he is trying to do above all was to get -- and a viable institution in the south and then nationally. it took a while to do that. the first thing you had to do was hire a faculty. only a third had terminal degrees. that was in 1958.
by 1965, 2/3 had it. that was competitive. we have our share of the finest faculty in the country. we are attracting students today that could go to harvard and yale and places like that. we lead the country in the number of national married scholars that come here. >> and on american history tv, we will visit the archaeological site and learn how the native american culture lived from about the 11th through the 15th centuries. >> welcome to the archaeological park. in the hay day, it was the largest city north of mexico and contains the remains of about 30 flattoped mounds. we ared standing at mound b and this is the largest mound in alabama that contains 112 cubic yards of dirt and this would have been where the structure
for the highest rachking ruler of the clan would have been. originally scientists thought that they were completely built with the dirt and research indicates that the base of the mound and possibly the sides of them were built with sod blocks which were filled in with clay. this will give a lot more stability to the structure as they were building it. we know that president cally after the mound was built, it would be capped over with different colors of clay. if you sliced into the mount, it would resemble a layer cake. >> watch the c-span cities tour saturday on c-span's book and sunday afternoon at 2:00 on american history on c-span 3. the c-span cities tour working with our cable affiliates and visiting cities across the country. >> fema's administrator for
protection and preparedness said proposed cuts to the agency's budget reflect difficult decisions in responsing priors across the department of homeland security. he made the remarks before a subcommittee on federal spending, oversight and emergency management. this is an hour and 15 minutes. >> i call this hearing to order. good afternoon and welcome to the panel and thanks for joining us today. we are charged with oversight and through regular ports that are provided by agencies that help us to oversee government and spending. today we are examining spending at the federal emergency management agency and the need to make reforms in that spending. given that our government borrows a million dollars a minute and has a $19 trillion debt, we can't afford to provide ways to persist in government.
waste at fema and grant program has been described in detail by the senator and the gao and dhs inspector coburn, the gao, dhs and inspector general. inspector general roth found in a report issued today that maryland bought nearly $70,000 worth of computer equipment it did nothing with for nearly a year and a half. in 2012, senator coburn reviewed one fema grant program and concluded the program is struggling to demonstrate how it is making the u.s. cities less vulnerable to attack and more prepared if one were to occur, despite receiving over $7 billion in federal funding. after ten years, a clear danger for the urban areas security initiative grant program is that it would be transformed from a risk based program targeting security gaps into an entitlement program for states and cities, and i think it still
exists and this many states are supplanting some of the typical expenditures they would pay for themselves with federal money. i don't think to the day -- to this date we have adequately corrected the deficiencies of dr. -- that dr. coburn found. just last month, inspector general roth released a report that had 333 recommendations for reform to the grant programs at fema. however, only found that four permanent changes that had been made over the time and that these recommendations have come forward. despite over a five-year period, little in the way of reform appears to have occurred. we had a hearing on this in 2013 and in which we went through the various forms of waste occurring at fema. everyone since that hearing we continue to have problems. $280,000 was spent for a bearcat armored vehicle in dover. that was the last time we were
around we complained after bearcat armored vehicle for keen. i guess they're ready for the next invasion. we found recently or the inspectors have found $1.7 million for unused radios and generators and $174,000 for the u.s. used radios in d.c. this is since we last met to talk about waste. every dollar wasted makes a difference to taxpayers. right now, fema is more than $20 billion in debt because of the flood insurance program. disaster spending often far outpaces the annual funding congress provides leading to the need for supplemental funding every year or so. fema has provided more than $40 billion in grants since 2001. these grants flow primarily to state and local agencies who too often seem to be using the funds for things they would never purchase with their own money. such as the 13 snow cone machines former senator coburn found were bought by some michigan counties.
small communities are using these funds to buy armored vehicles. local communities love federal grants because they don't have to tax their local constituents to pay for the spending. the federal government simply hides the grants in the massive $19 trillion debt. for this reason we must be diligent in insisting that local communities' needs be largely paid for by local taxes. a significant amount of this spending is also duplicative of other grants, such as the $650 million handed out to police by the department of justice last year. i expect general roth, inspector general roth will give us much more insight into the programs today. i hear a lot about fema from the constituents. the most are about flood maps, a neighbor of mine has a house at the local lake. the house is about 60 feet above the level of a dam and yet, fema's map has him in the floodplain and requires him to
pay -- spend money on extra insurance even though it's hard to conceive of how the house will flood when it's above the level of the dam. i hear that the updated flood maps aren't clear enough for county officials to make fully informed decisions. i hear it takes far too long for counties to receive disaster recovery work. perhaps if we weren't buying bearcats for local police officers, we'd be able to take care of the problems. i would certain welcome any comments from the ranking member, senator baldwin. >> thank you, chairman paul, for working with me to hold this important hearing to examine the federal emergency management agency's efforts to assist states in preparing for terrorism and natural disasters. i would like to also thank our witnesses for being here today.
we have learned from the attacks in brussels and paris and san bernardino that we face critical and evolving threats as a nation. not only do we face new risks of terrorism, we also face ongoing threats of natural disasters including floods, hurricanes and tornadoes. fema is charged with the critical role of ensuring that our first responders have the tools and resources they need to prevent, prepare for and respond to all hazards. for nearly 40 years, fema has implemented robust programs to increase state's capabilities to protect against disasters. notably, fema provides critical federal preparedness grant funding as well as realtime training and exercises for first responders. i think all of our states and indeed the country have benefitted from this critical assistance. however, as i have said in
previous subcommittee hearings we must continually assess and evaluate our programs to ensure we are addressing our nation's priorities in the most efficient and effective manner possible. so thank you again for being here, mr. manning, to discuss ways that fema can continue to prepare first responders for new and emerging threats as well as increased oversight of the programs. one area of particular importance to me and my home state of wisconsin and certainly many other states across the country is the significant increase in the transportation of crude oil by rail. at a higher rate than ever before, we are seeing this volatile substance travel in rail cars past homes, schools and businesses. with increased volume comes increased risk. and last november, two trains carrying hazdous materials
derailed in the state of wisconsin. spilling hundreds of gallons of crude oil in one case and thousands of gallons of ethanol in another. fortunately, nothing caught fire and nobody was hurt. however, in one of the instances, 35 families were evacuated from their homes. we have seen other derailments across the country including in illinois, west virginia, north dakota, alabama and virginia just in the past year. these instances pose an immense threat to communities, people and the environment. for example, this past weekend, a train derailed in wauwatosa, wisconsin. no one was hurt and they were not carrying hazardous material, but it's not enough to rely on luck. and we have to have sufficient
plans in place to respond to derailments including the worst case scenarios. now, i'm proud to have included a number of provisions in the recently passed highway bill to improve first responder access to information about these trains and it's really critical that the department of transportation implement the reforms as soon as possible. however, we must do more to address the significant security concern. it's why i requested the department general audit to see if they have sufficient plans and coordination efforts to effectively respond to and recover from railway accidents involving hazardous materials. i look forward to the results of that audit and to hearing from our witnesses about what more we can do to respond to this emerging threat. i am also concerned by a recent
department of homeland security office of inspector general report that found that fema has not adequately analyzed recurring oig recommendations to implement permanent changes to improve oversight of homeland security grant program. specifically, the ig found that while fema tracks specific audit recommendations on state by state basis fema has not proactivity analyzed the audits to discover trends, engage in root cause analysis and implement corrective action over the entire program. like the ig, i am concerned that states could be repeating the same mistakes. and that we run the risk of money not being spent for its intended purpose. similarly, i am concerned about
a gao report that found fema does not monitor the status of corrective actions made by federal departments that participate in national level exercises. while fema has made progress in addressing this issue, more needs to be done to track corrective action to ensure that fema has an up to date outlook of national preparedness. i look forward to hearing from you, mr. manning, on how fema plans to improve oversight of the grant program and track the status of corrective actions made by federal departments. i want to again thank chairman paul for providing us this opportunity to discuss these important issues and our witnesses for taking part in the discussion. it's my hope that when we leave here today, we have concrete ways to improve preparedness efforts for first responders. strengthen oversight of