tv Politics and Public Policy Today CSPAN May 4, 2016 5:17pm-7:01pm EDT
incarcerated adults? >> they're incarcerated at a much higher rate. >> much higher rate. what are we to conclude from that? don't answer. i would suggest very lightly in what you conclude about that. the fact that you've got a higher percentage of people who are undocumented who are arrested in a community that has a lot of undocumented people, i don't know what to conclude from that. there could be good and bad things to be concluded from that, including about policing. and i can tell you this. if my police chief were at this table, he would testify that we want -- we don't want to essentially federalize our police forces and make them the equivalent of immigration police. because we want the corporation of the immigration community, including the undocumented immigrant community, in terms of law enforcement. i can tell you in my community, right across the river, it was because of an undocumented
individual we were able to solve a murder. by an undocumented individual. we were never have gotten the cooperation of the day labor community in this case undocumented, with our police if we had not had a different kind of policy where we differentiated our local law enforcement function from that of immigration and customs and so forth. so just a word of caution about that, and chief, you're more than welcome to comment on that if you wish. >> thank you. i have an excellent relationship with the hispanic community. we have outreach officers that go out into the fields and speak with them all the time. we do have many undocumented people come forward to report crimes. but the question was, do i see an increase or decrease? i'm not sure the exact numbers but i think it's proportional. so we have beat coordinators, we have, like i say, 45% of my officers speak spanish. i go to every meeting i'm invited to. i agree. we're not supposed to be
immigration officers. that's not our job, but at the s same time, we're feeling the impact of the lack of enforcement at the state and federal level. >> i understand that. mr. burbank, is deportation just the -- the sort of the answer to all of our immigration problems here? let's really up the game in deportation and that will solve everything? >> i do not believe it's the answer, personally, no. >> really, why not? >> i do not believe it's realistic. in fact, it's an unfair system in which we don't treat people equally across the board. the other thick is border issues and everything else, people come back. we need a system that reforms immigration so individuals can come into the country and work, can come into the country and visit, return home, can come out of the shadows and participate in society. this is not a question of legalization of everybody. this is a question of allowing them to participate so that they
understand traffic laws, so that they understand the rules. that they can get the treatment that everyone in society for alcohol, drug, and mental health issues that everyone in society experiences regardless of what their race is or where they may be for. >> what is the recidivism rate of deported individuals? i mean, we sometimes act as if deportation is the ultimate answer to a set of problems. but the fact of the matter is depending on who you are and where you come from, you may illegally enter the united states multiple times, even after having been deported, is that not correct? >> that is correct. >> and that is because of why? >> i think there is a desire to be in this country. and there are family members, there's many issues. but they do not, studies have shown conducted by research institutes and universities
across the nation that show individuals even in multiple returns are committing crime at a lesser rate. >> but even where we've got criminal activity, for example, in northern virginia where i live, we've had gang leadership that has been deported. back to central america, only to have them show up again, you know, four, five months later, and we had to go through the process all over again. so sometimes when we're dealing with criminals, they have a criminal network that also serves to reinject them unfortunately back in this community. and that's a different kind of challenge than simply addressing somebody's status. would you agree? >> absolutely. and you have just identified the frustration that police chiefs across the nation. the system is broken. until we reform immigration as a
whole, we will not be able to get past some of these loopholes that criminals are finding. >> i would just say this in my final comment, that i think you just -- i spent 14 years in local government before coming here. and was chairman of my koumenty, was equivalent of being a mayor, 1.2 million people. and that is my feeling, that the federal government has in some ways by overseeing a broken system, has forced localities and local communities to deal with the consequences of this broken system. and sometimes as certainly are two grieving parents here give witness to, it leads to tragedy. we've got to fix the system. thank you. >> chair now recognizes mr mr. carter, the gentleman from georgia for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and thank all of you for being here. i can only imagine the feelings that you have. and please know that you're in
our prayers. and we appreciate your courage for being here. >> thank you. >> mr. martin, if i could ask you specifically, victor martinez ramirez, he was an illegal alien who killed air force veteran marilyn ferris. he had been arrested by your police department six times in the previous 15 months, is that correct? >> that's correct, sir. >> six times in the previous 15 months. >> yes, sir. >> and he -- it's my understanding he had been released by the santa barbara county jail only 96 hours prior to doing this? >> yes, sir. >> had i.c.e. issued a detainer for this guy? >> not in this particular case. they did provide a detainer in 2014. but that was the only one we knew of. >> is your city, mr. martin, is your city or santa barbara county a sanctuary jurisdiction?
>> no, sir. the sty of santa maria is not a sanctuary city, never has been. in fact, i have letters from our city manager who was authored by our city council stating specifically they have never voted for at any time in the past or in the present to be a sanctuary city. >> have you ever contacted i.c.e. previously about to request a detainer on someone or a suspected illegal alien? have you ever had that experience? >> no, sir. what we do is when we arrest someone, the santa maria police department makes an arrest, we fill out a form that goes with the prisoner to the county jail. santa maria police department don't have a jail. we just have abacking processing area. in this form, we do check the officer does request an immigration review. in this particular case for victor martinez, we checked yes. then it would be in the hands of the sheriff's department and i.c.e. for them to make the
review. >> okay, and you're not sure what happened after that, in that particular case? >> no, sir. >> okay. wouldn't you agree that, sheriff, that increased communication between local law enforcement and federal law enforcement would, federal law enforcement especially because they're the ones who are responsible for the immigration enforcement, wouldn't you agree that better communication would obviously benefit everyone in this case? >> yes, sir, i would. >> and hopefully keep a tragedy like this from happening again. i mean, obviously, this is just -- this is obviously not our best work. could qualify as being our worst work. mr. chairman, obviously, i'm appalled, as we all are, at what has happened in this particular case and many cases like this. and you know, especially when you had a veteran who was murdered at the hands of an illegal alien, who was in police custody only hours before. only hours before this person was in police custody.
so i want to bring to your attention, mr. chairman, and other members of the committee, a bill i have. hr-4007. it helps communication and insures dhs and i.c.e. are responsive to those inquiries just like mr. martin just indicated. that is that they will work to make sure that these illegal aliens are indeed checked on. and that our immigration laws are enforced. again, it's hr-4007. that's a bill that i'm sponsoring that's called the alerted act. hopefully it will improve communication between local law enforcement and between the federal government. that's what we need more of. again, thank you for being here. and again, our condolences. thank you so much. we appreciate your courage. mr. chairman, i yield back. >> i thank the gentleman from georgia. i now recognize myself for five minutes.
and first of all, i want to thank the ranking member for asking you to tell us about casey and sarah. and if you can, mr. martin, tell us a little bit about marilyn ferris. we don't want these people to just be statistics. and i watched as people wiped tears, as a dad of two daughters, i can't imagine what you've been through. all of us are very, very grateful for you coming. this has been very helpful. mr. root, is it true that mrmr. mr. maha's bill was the cost of less than sarah's bill? >> yes. >> is it true he did not have a driver's license? >> he did not. >> do anyhow know whether he ever had one? >> i do not know that fact. i know there's no insurance, the
vehicle that killed my daughter, i'm not even sure the true owner of that vehicle. it's in the omaha impound lot right now. i heard it was from another illegal roofing contractor from wichita, kansas. but they won't let me take out of there to get it dusted for prints or whatever you want to say. >> okay. mr. martin, i listened to mr. burbank's response to chairman chaffetz about deporting drunk drivers. and frankly, that didn't go over well with me. i'm going to ask you, do you think we have enough legal citizens who drive drunk without adding illegal immigrant drunk drivers to that number? >> yes, sir. >> do you think it makes sense when we know that they have a record of drunk driving, and i would like for you to answer that again. you didn't have your microphone
on. i asked if you think we have enough without adding illegal drunk drivers to that? >> yes, sir, we have enough. >> do you think it makes sense when they're picked up for drunk driving since they're here illegally regardless of race, national origin, sex, gender, does it matter? or since they're here illegally and breaking our laws, does it make sense for them to stay here? >> no, sir, it does not. i viewed the vehicle just as i would a pistol. >> mm-hmm. and in this case, sarah root's case, it was just as deadly as a pistol, wasn't it? >> yes, sir. >> mr. burbank, in your last comments, you seemed to imply that the american taxpayers should pay for substance abuse treatment for people who are here illegally. is that what you're saying that we need to do, as a nation?
>> i don't believe i said that. >> i believe you did. >> i said that we have demstraighted through restorative justice systems in which substance abuse treatment, which is the direction where we bring people out and they don't reoffend. we're more effective than with incarceration. >> you said that in the context of illegals. if they're here illegally and they're in these substance abuse programs, you're pretty much saying that we need to invest american taxpayer dollars in providing substance abuse for people who are here illegally. does that not create another incentive for them to come here illegally? >> we have people who exist in this country -- >> listen, you're trying to turn this into something it's not. i'm not going to let you do it, and the chairman would probably pull me out of the chair, but we're sick of this. you have three people here representing family whose have lost loved ones.
we know that there was 124 people who are here illegally who have committed murders. just this month in my home state of alabama, they arrested three illegals who were here to do a home invasion. one of them said had the family be there with a firearm, he would have shot them. they were arrested, mr. martin, by local police in oxford, alabama, who were alert enough to see that they were carrying weapons and arrested them. they had prior convictions as well. one of them was carrying a pistol stolen from arlington, texas. one had a felony that goes back to 2008. it's insane. it's criminal. and you're sitting next to people who have lost two of the most precious things they'll ever lose in their lives. and frankly, i find it offensive. >> may i respond? >> yes, you may. >> so i sympathize with these
individuals. in fact, in the year 2000, my friend and colleague lost his life at the hands of an undocumented immigrant. i would not want that person caught who had never been found, he was held in custody and released. i would not want that person found at the expense of someone else's constitutional rights or civil rights. >> we're not talking about constitutional rights. and i think you have crossed a line in trying to imply that people who are here illegally have the same rights as people who are here legally. who are citizens of the country. we're not denying people due process. we're not denying them access to the justice system. we're trying to treat people as humanely as we possibly can. but the fact of the matter is i don't care if it was just one in the last den years, it would have been one too many if it were my daughter or my son. i yield back.
i recognize mr. broad fn for two minutes. >> i don't need two minutes. i want to do a follow-up with chief martin. i would like to thank you for being here today. i didn't want to respond a little to his comment. i thought it was completely out of line. i think the implication was completely unwarranted without anything to back it up. i appreciate what you're saying and we see it both from representative connolly and former chief burbank kind of the mentality we have to get over in this country if we're going to save our country, because we're going to lose our country unless we begin to take these immigration laws seriously, and we have too many people thinking of any ridiculous pretex under the world not to do the obvious. and we have seen that here today. but i would like to thank chief martin and thank all the other law enforcement officers around the country who i think are doing a tremendous job. i think it's unfortunate so many people want to disparage them.
that's all. >> i'll recognize the ranking member for closing statement. >> again, i want to thank all of you for being here. and i think when we look at this total problem, we have to understand that there's a lot of pain. and rightfully so. at the same time, when our nation was put together, founding fathers tried to create all kind of balances so that we keep our people safe, make sure that there's equal protection under the law, and a true sense of justice. and sometimes these things seem to kind of collide. but i am convinced that we can do better.
i think, and i think that as i heard director saldana talk, she's clear that there's some things we need to do, we as members of congress, need to do, perhaps in looking at the code and figuring out things that, ways we can be -- help them be more effective and efficient in what they do. no system, unfortunately, is perfect. none. i practiced law for many years and i saw a lot of things that will go with me in a negative way until i die. but i think what we have to do as americans is constantly reach for that more perfect union. whether we'll ever get there, i don't know, but we need to be striving for it every day.
and there's so many people who -- and i want us to always be careful, though, and i go back to my opening statement, that we don't just label a group of people because i think that's very dangerous, too. when we turn against each other, then i think it's almost impossible for us to truly pursue that for a more perfect union. that means we have to try to address the issues that come out of this. we have to look at i.c.e. and make sure that i.c.e. is doing what it's supposed to do, and all the other agencies. and where there are places that need to be strengthened, we need to do that. and put in the end, we want to try to make sure to all of you that these kind of things don't happen again. but we've got to -- and again,
we may only be able to minimize the possibility because you know things happen. people, even when you have the laws, people find a way to get around them. you know that. because i know you've been in this business long enough. and so, but again, your testimony has been very helpful to all of us. and i really from the depths of my heart, i thank you. i really do. and i think somebody said it a little earlier. you know, you never get over the loss. you don't. you just learn to live with it. you learn to live with it. and you learn, you're learning to live with it because it's still new. and the idea that you're able to do what you're doing, to come here and speak for your loved
ones, and like you said, ms. hartling, you know, i think you said something to the effect that i don't want to see her having died in vain. you want to see something come out of this. >> yes. >> to help somebody else. and that's one of the greatest ways you can deal with it. and we really appreciate it. you came to the right place. >> this is where i wanted to be. >> well, we're glad you came. all of you. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> we thank yall of our witnesss for their appearance today. if there's nofurther business, without objection, the committee stands adjourned.
while congress is on break this week, we're showing highlights from american history tv. normally seen weekends here on c-span3. tonight, a look at richard nixon and the watergate scandal, with bob woodward and video from president nixon's resignation and farewell to staff. american history tv, primetime, tonight at 8:00 eastern. on american history tv on c-span3 -- >> we're are here to review the major findings of our full investigation of fbi domestic
intelligence, including the program and other programs aimed at domestic targets. fbi surveillance of law abiding citizens and groups, political abuses of fbi intelligence, and several specific cases of unjustified intelligence operations. >> the 1975 church committee hearings convene to investigate the intelligence activities of the cia, fbi, irs, and nsa. saturday night at 10:00 eastern. the commission questioned staff assistant to nixon on a plan he presented to president nixon to collect information about anti-war and radical groups using burglary, electronic surveillance and opening of mail. >> for a number of years up until 1966 that had been successful and valuable particularly involving matters of espionage, and they felt that
it was given something the revolutionary climate, they thought they needed to have the authority to do. >> and just before 7:00 p.m. eastern -- >> and one person came and she said, you were chosen. she was from chezechoslovakia, e was there for four year s alreay in the concentration camp. she spoke hungarian also. they asked her what is happening? where are our parents? and she says, you see that smoke? there are your parents. >> holocaust survivor anna gross recalled his family's experiences in the ghettos of hungry at auschwitz concentrate camp in poland and forced hard labor. this was part of the united states holocaust memorial museum's first person series. then at 8:00. >> an an arkest named alexander berkman broke into frick's
office in nearby pittsburgh, shot him twice, and repeatedly stabbed him. berkman, however, is one of the great failures in assassination history. not only did he fail to kill frick. he also undermined the strikers for whom he was professing sympathy. because in many ways, public opinion saw this outburst of radical violence as a discredit to the union movement. >> the university of maryland's robert childs on the labor and social unrest at the turn of the 20th century. then sunday morning at 10:00, on road to the white house rewind, the 1968 presidential campaign of former democratic governor of alabama george wallace. for the complete american history tv weekend schedule, go to c-span.org. >> a panel of military and foreign policy experts recently discussed the challenges and benefits of integrating women into the armed forces. the panel also discussed whether
women should be included in the selective service. the council on foreign relations hosted this one-hour discussion. >> welcome to today's council on foreign relations meeting on women in the armed forces, the future of the military. we're starting things promptly. 8:30 and a half. today, we have with us julia bier, who is the principle director of force resiliency of the office for the undersecretary of defense at the pentagon. gale, the senior fellow for women in foreign policy at cfr, and author of ashley's war, the unfold story of a team of women soldiers on the special ops
battlefield. now out in paperback, and she said that three of the women from the book are in the room, so we will be putting you on the spot later. and we also have agnus schaefer, who is a senior political scientist at the rand corporation and has done many studies on the issue at hand. so, we start with the first questi question, last december, secretary of defense ash carter opened all combat roles to women. can you give us an update, where does it stand? >> sure, absolutely. >> policy into action. >> absolutely. good morning, everyone. thank you for having me. so as kimberly said, so the secretary announced in early december that he was opening all remaining positions to women. and during that announcement, he directed that the service kind of develop detailed impleme implementation plans to come back to him by the first of january articulating exactly the details on how they were going
to make this happen. we stood up in the implementation group chaired by the deputy secretary of defense and joint chairman of the chiefs of staff and had several meetings with the leadership of the department looking through each of the services, briefed each other on the details of the plan, making sure there were no issues and everything was covered and they had addressed all of the secretary's concerns that were laid out in his december memo. in and march, hereviewed all the plans, and he approved all the plans of 9 march and said everyone go forth and open everything no later than april 1st which we're past that day. positions are open and people are starting to assess and recruit and assign women. and so that's where we stand today. >> got it. so i guess the shorter version of that question is when are we going to see a woman navy s.e.a.l.? >> well, so the short answer to that is probably at the absolute
earliest, the summer of 2018. so the s.e.a.l. pipeline is very long. so the next invisted s.e.a.l. course doesn't start until this summer. so the s.e.a.l. course doesn't start until this summer and the officers later in the year. so the selection process is long to even get into the pipeline and then given the length of the training, it takes about two years. so, if we have a woman in one of the first two classes, you still won't even see the first one until '18. >> and same for rangers? >> so the rangers -- as this group knows, the ranger course is significantly shorter. so, the army did recruit their first female enlisted infantry woman. she signed up. she'll go to the course later this summer. it depends. so, for instance, the academy, when they graduate, there are a number of women both at west point and the naval academy who have identified they're
interested in going into this career track and they'll get commissioned shortly and go to their course. each course is different based on the service and education. >> taught at the army corps of engineer last year and if i didn't ask about the army, i'd be in trouble. so, we were talking about beforehand that there's a certain fiction that women haven't already been in combat, because in the past decade plus at war they have. and gayle, you said you just covered some remarks that -- where they -- where the commander brought that out. >> yes. >> first off, good morning. i'm really delighted to be here and to have all of you here at an early morning. so thank you. thanks to this incredible panel. and really for me, from a story-telling perspective, it is a huge privilege and really a journey to bring a story about which i was entirely ignorant to life. which is, you know, back in 2011, there were women on nighttime operations alongside army rangers, navy s.e.a.l.s and
other special operations teams. seeing the kind of combat experienced by less than 5% of the entire united states military, all while the combat ban was very much in place. and for me, the story was never simply a war story, it's really a friendship story. because so many times we forget what we haven't seen is the connection among women in the same way we've seen the connection among women, in that kim has covered beautifully for years, which is this bond of war. which we often associate only with men, actually has been experienced by women. and at the end of the day, it's really about service and sacrifice and patriotism and serving a cause greater than yourself and gender is secondary to it. and it is really now that our stories are catching up, that we're starting to see the reality of that. and i was at an event for "ashley's war" paperback launch
last wednesday at the national infantry museum in columbus, georgia, right next to ft. benning, and colonel fivecoat, who opened the army to women and talks about the accustomed ground combat rule. and i thought it was very powerful because the truth is the commanders in the field were working around these rules and at war, trying to figure out how to get the best people and the jobs they needed and working around systems. you know, one of the soldiers who's here, one of the young women from "ashley a's war," wa in a job that was coded for men, for years, before that combat ban was lifted. a female could not be in that role when you tried to put it in that system but her commander wanted the best person for the job. so i think really for me the best story telling takes us into the world that we didn't know that existed in "ashley's war" was a way to tell a story about the fact that there was an exceptional group of soldiers that answered when the country asked, well before they were officially there. >> allowed to do it. >> correct. >> and, of course, if you were
an mp and -- >> absolutely. >> -- escorting a convoy from one -- point "a" to point "b" in iraq or aflg, you were frequently under fire and having to fire back. >> >> absolutely. and also, the mps have long been integrated, which is something -- military police, for folks who aren't super familiar with this conversation, have long been men and women, and women have been leading in that arena. and so i think that sometimes we talk about these issues as if we just discovered them yesterday night at 11:00 p.m., when the truth is that many of these conversations have been going on for years and women have been very much a part of america's post-9/11 wars. >> agnes, you did some of the studies on this, including studies of certain organizations like the marine corps that didn't want this integration to happen, were on record saying, we want to exclude certain jobs to women.
so, what were some of the drawbacks that people brought up? >> well, so, rand did a large suite of work on this. and we did work for many of the services, as well as some work for juliet on the standards piece. and we didn't look so much at drawbacks, per se, but we were really focused on implementation in which of our work. and as a result of that, we sort of focused on lessons learned. so this is not new. and we have had these previous waves of integration, of not just women, but other outgroups such as gays and lesbians. and there are some similarities between those outgroups and those previous waves. so we tried to draw out some of the lessons learned. especially from previous occupations that were opened, such as engineers, aviation.
and what we found is that we really didn't do a very good job at documenting that process, and identifying those lessons learned. so we really emphasized to the services as they do this, they really need to focus on monitoring the implementation along the way so they could identify issues quickly and adjust course. and that they can learn from the process. so the process needs to be flexible enough for them to adjust along the way. we also looked at lessons from foreign militaries. and one of the major things, especially with the marine corps work, we really tried to emphasize -- initially they came back to us and said, well, we have this goal. if we're going to do, this we have this goal of very large numbers. we emphasized to them that nowhere in the world are we seeing large numbers. we're talking --
>> nowhere in the world that has done integration. >> that has done this, yes. >> are you seeing large number of women in combat roles? >> low single percentages. those are the type of numbers we're talking about. and in the special operations community, that is even smaller. and so we emphasized to them that, you know, if you're trying to define success in this integration process, and you're defining that based on numbers, you're setting yourself up to fail, because the likelihood is so small that you'll be able to, you know, recruit these large numbers. so -- and that's -- you know, we dug into that a little bit more. and that's -- there were two main reasons that the numbers were so low in foreign militaries. this may not be the case here. it may be different. but in foreign militaries, it was because women weren't really interested in these positions. and secondly, they couldn't make the standards.
so there were two-fold there. >> so that brings us back to you and the question of, as the policymaker, do you have a quota of women that you want to try to absorb into the combat roles? >> and this -- >> and how do you keep people from -- the mantra i keep hearing over and over, i'm conscious of the fact there were four women up here discussing this, so i have to play devil's advoca advocate. i keep hearing from male officers, you just know that there's going to be pressure on the bureaucracy to lower the standards, to make the numbers. >> right. and so we heard that also. so, the short answer to the question is, no, there are no quotas and there are no goals i want to come back to, i do want to make a point about the marine corps. i think what gets lost in this a lot is there's this narrative that the marine corps was opposed to integration. i don't think that's true. as somebody who is a retired marine myself and who has lived this and watched the marine corps, the marine corps did a
significant good-faith amount of work here and i think it is important to kind of recognize they asked tore exception, but a very discreet exception. so the marine corps recommended opening armor, opening artillery. the marine corps opened a vast majority of their positions and they asked for discreet exception on infantry and long-range reconnaissance. and that is important. and the concerns that the marine corps raises, the air force and navy, had very similar. so the marine corps was not that far off from everyone else, just the only one that chose to request an exception and that is an important point that gets lost. with regard to the standards, yes, we hear that all of the time. so, that's why when you look at secretary carter's memo and he has his guiding principles, he talks about the need to make sure we have the right standards, that they're occupationally specific, current and operationally relevant because that's the core of the
standard much everything we do and once we -- that is why it was so important to review and validate the standards. because now we have an ability to stand behind a standard that is able to be explained and articulate and is required to do the job. and recognition, right. the number of women that want to do the jobs are small and the number of women that could meet the standard beyond that is even smaller. so there is a full recognition that the numbers may be very, very small or not at all. and that is what the secretary said. so equal opportunity doesn't mean equal participation. we recognize there may be, again, very small or maybe none, so how do you guard against that, right? by having a solid standard that everyone -- >> are you publishing that standard so that everyone knows what it is and could tell if it changes? >> oh, yeah. absolutely. so all of the services -- well let me back up. so all of the services have -- again, i don't want to -- the services have had standards. but we've never drilled down in the manner that we had this time over the past 3 1/2 years.
so each of the services, again, went through every single occupational standard and they clearly define what had the standard was for entry into the occupation and then also what the standards are for not only an entry of my level soldier but then also a sergeant. and then the standards for a sergeant first class or gunnery sergeant are different than standards for a pfc. so they have laid out very clearly what the standards are for asession and the standards for retention. so, those are out there. i would also say they've institutionalized the process over the 3 1/2 years because they learned a tremendous amount on how to do this right. versus the direct combat rule said you could close an occupation to women if a vast majority couldn't do it. and what does that mean? those are very subject subjective. so now it's a definable standard. >> okay. >> is it sd that make sense? >> it does, it does. and the critics out there are going to say, let's see it in operation. >> and it is fascinating, i covered the opening of ranger
school of two women and in march and then again in florida in swamp phase in august. and you know, i went to write one piece, which was just sort of a straight -- and i ended up writing a piece that had the word standards in it probably 79 times because it was the only word anybody wanted to talk to me about, whether a woman or man. the advisers, the women who were serving as ranger school advisers, would come up to me and say, we never want the standard lowered. make sure your piece reflects that. all the men i talked to, some of whom i known from reporting "ashley's war," said, i don't care, but no standard can be lowered. there were lots of questions about that. i think that's why they brought reporters in a couple different times to show, look, there's not going to be a different standard. at the end of the day, any time humans are involved, there's a level of subjectivity but i think they worked very hard from ft. benning leadership to sew this is a transparent process
and the standard is the most important thing. the one bit of humor is at 4:45 a.m., i know you know those mornings when i met some ranger school leadership at benning gate, this one very storied retired ranger said to me, you know, what's amazing is i never heard people show this much love for the standard when i was active duty. so, you know, it was interesting to hear his perspective that the standard has always been something that's shifting, but i think now when everything else is shifting around it, it's even more important for that standard to be something that everyone understands and that is not changed for anyone >> yes. >> well, do i want -- to your point about standards. standards will shift. equipment will change. requirements will change. so, standards will change. >> standards will change because the equipment changes and, therefore, the ability needed to operate that equipment will change? >> exactly. but we have clearly defined what it takes to be successful on the battle field and the standard is derived from that.
it's derived from what's required today. we recognize there will be pressure and people that will ask questions about why not enough? >> but you'll always have to be able to drag a comrade who weighs 200-plus, plus their 80-pound back and gun wounded out. line of fire, isn't that one of those standards that just never -- >> absolutely. >> -- stops? >> we often use the example of tankers, right? the round weighs what it weighs. and you have to take it out of the rack, you must have the upper body strength to turn in the seat and load the round into the breach. it's a defined weight. it's a defined height. it's a defined distance. it doesn't matter -- i often use the term manner woman draft bunny rabbit. that's what it takes to do that. >> what about the fact that some studies have revealed that women do have a higher incidence of injuries after some of these heavy weight-bearing occupations, so you might have a high dropout rate from these combat positions where they might wash out aafter a year or two. will the military find a way to
absorb them back into another role? >> yeah, i think that they're working through that. but what we found from foreign militaries is that there are ways to mitigate. >> like what? >> against those injury rates. equipment is one of those. and i think they're -- just as they were drilling down to the standards, which i think really this issue of really nailing down those standards is one of the real benefits that came out of this whole process. both for men and women. because they really thought through rationally what does somebody, regardless of their gender, need do for that occupation? but they're now drilling down into what kind of equipment changes they can make. again, both for men and women. so for instance, caring your pack. you could adjust the waist belt for people who have shorter torsos, men or women. those kind of issues. i know their working through the armored plates and things like
that, again for people with shorter torsos. so i think -- >> so rather than making it gender specific, they are just thinking about integrating smaller people. >> right. exactly. >> but there are women-specific injuries that i've heard about like hip displacement from large marches because the hips are shaped differently in men than in women. >> right. again, foreign militaries have gone through this process, some of them have integrated -- >> like which ones. >> since you said you looked -- canada has been integrated for a long time. and we looked at 55 countries initially and narrowed down to our allies. but so, you can train women over longer distances and longer times. so you can sort of graduate their training so that they're not -- they're training over a
longer period of time and conditioning their bodies over a longer period of time and that allows them to strengthen -- >> so the bones have time -- i've heard something about this, that you slowly increase the weight that the bones are bearing so they get thicker instead of stressing them early and causing them to fracture. >> exactly. and they build their core and their upper body, so -- >> but that is slightly changing training and standards? it. >> it is. it is. so there is a tradeoff there. you know, they -- foreign militaries have kind of had them trained before they enlist or before they start some of these combat occupations. so you could do that training ahead of time. >> okay. so, that brings us back to the question that i heard brought up, for instance, s.e.a.l.s and buds, have you to now add in women's room -- women's quarters, et cetera. there's an added cost associated
with equality. there's an added cost associated with this extra training you're talking about and these equipment changes. is that worth it to the taxpayer? >> first, i think there is a lot of discussion there is added cost but when all the services actually looked at that, what they found is there really wasn't. most service members lived in rooms right now. they're actually not open squad base. so, actually, there was very little on the facility side of the house that had to be done. >> they're innocent a room full of bunch of bugs like weave seen in the old movies? >> right. the buds, s.e.a.l. training school out in california, they just had to build one new rest room. that was the extent of the facilities modifications that needed to be done. they needed to do some stuff to the barracks but the costs there were very minor. the same thing be both marine corps, army, air force all came back and said they didn't need to do any facilities modernization. they were good where they were. so, on the training side of the
house, though, i would say that -- especially on the special operations side, they have had these preasession courses. these courses have always, always been there. nobody is developing any new courses. with regards to is there a cost to develop something? no, actually not. so, the benefit, though, is huge for both men and women. we learned better ways to prepare people to succeed at the school. again, so, again, better ways to make sure, again, we're strengthening bone density and bone mass and making sure -- teaching them ways to do things so they don't injure themselves, use the core, things agnes said. all those benefits go to both men and women. >> so, in the few minutes before i open it up to the members, i wanted to discuss some of the emotional questions that get brought up. now, you're a former serving marine. >> yes. >> you mentioned, as we were chatting before this, that there was a little bit of trepidation when you took a commanding role
at one point -- >> yes. >> -- among some of the people working for you? >> yes. so, i was privileged to get commissions after the first year gulf war when the marine corps opened that to women. so, of course, i experienced firsthand what it was like to integrate into an m.o.s. that had been completely closed. i found the same thing. there was a lot of emotion, a lot of concern, a lot of people calling my marines to express consternation about the fact that they were now being led by a woman and what the concern was. my own personal experience is there were a lot of myths and confusion. but once they understood who i was and what they did and i did everything they did, everything was fine. we see that in the special operations community. we see that across the board. when we first started talking about this in 2010, we saw aa lot of the same concerns across the army and these misunderstandings of what a woman could or couldn't -- >> misunderstandings or misconceptions? >> misconceptions, yes, thank
you, that's better. of what they could or couldn't do. once you get there and they understand and they see you and see you operate, those things over time go away. >> how about the other two sort of lightning rod questions. how men respond when a woman is under fire and what happens to aspirit de corps when women are in the mix and you have women flirting with men. niece are two things always brought up after the first beer, when you get a group of special operators together? >> yes. let me make a couple points. first, as this came up in the interview with general mcchrystal as we were working on "ashley's war," women have been in delta for a long time. >> delta force? >> right. >> clandestine. >> right. quietly, obviously. he brought that up. it's like, you know, this is not a terribly new conversation, but
the second thing that's really important is oftentimes i don't think we give enough credit to men alongside whom these women are serving. something i thought in two years of working on, you know, trying to talk and talk and talk to people who have been on the front lines, in the special operations community. some rangers who have done 12, 13, 14 deployments in the post-9/11 wars, with the country that barely knew people were doing one, right? and you would talk to them and what they would tell you was, i want someone next to me who is competent, skilled and make sure they can do the job. if you pay your rent out there every night, you earn your seat, period. and i think that, you know, some of the demands of combat, the very life and death stakes of these wars erases so much of this discussion that goes on in nice rooms and, you know, in cities where power goes on when you flip a switch and the roads are smooth and there's infrastructure that works, right? when you're in very tough parts of the world, when there's a
very real war going on, what these guys were focused on is, can you do your job? will you slow me down? do you make a difference out there every single night and find what we need? one of the mps who's in "ashley's war" would tell me a story about the s.e.a.l. team she worked with. they weren't terribly excited to get her when she first showed up. once of the first nights up, she found the intelligence they were looking for in a baby's wet diapers. they found the person, got the thing and everybody got home safely without having to be out there any longer. for the cos, even when there were regulations whether women could fast rope or not, they actually trained their cst to fast rope. because 23 you're going to be on mission with us, you need to know everything we do. we decide if you're ready. so, i think what you see is people who have seen a lot of war, which is a huge percent of a 1%. are much less focused on these kind of discussions and much more focused on whether you can
deliver on the battlefield. and i don't think they get enough credit for that. >> agnes, in studying the different militaries, we have to bring up the israeli example. they took women out of their combat units because the men fell apart when they saw the women injured. >> yeah, a lot of people put up the israeli example as kind of the poster child. but they have a lot of constraints on their women as well. in terms of rules of engagement and things like that. and they couldn't be on the front lines and those kind of things. so, you can't -- it's not a direct -- directly analogous to what we're talking about here in the u.s. but, i mean, we definitely covered and studied this issue of cohesion because that was a major concern across the services, because they were concerned that if cohesion
deteriorated that would impact mission effectiveness. what we found is that really, you know, during these previous waves of integration of women into these moss, there was no degradation of cohesion. the reason for that is really it was this focus of task cohesion. people were concerned about whether you could do the job or not. regardless of wleather the persn to your left or right is a man or women. people don't necessarily need to like each other to work together but they really care about whether the person can do the job. this gets back to the standards piece, i think. this is why standards are so important. >> so the survey -- the survey you did when you asked, you know, what do you feel about women joining combat units and there was a highly negative response, was there a way to
differentiate between who had served alongside women and who hadn't? >> yes. we found that. and this is actually very similar to the work that we did when we were looking at the repeal of don't ask, don't tell. we looked at cohesion units. we did a large survey then, which at that point it was, you know, they couldn't openly admit they were gay or lesbian, but we were able to find a way to survey them. we found that, you know, when we talked to service members, those that had served along with women in higher headquarters, in particular, in the case of don't ask, don't tell, those who interacted with gays or lesbians were much more amenable to the fact this would be okay. so, this is very typical of when you integrate these out groups, if you've had contact with them, you tend to be more -- the
survey data indicates you tend to be more amenable to them. >> okay. well, it's 9:00, so at this time i'd like to invite members to join our conversation with their questions. reminder that this meeting is on the record and also, please, speak into the microphones in front of you. and state your name and affiliation. please limit yourself to one question and keep it concise to allow as many members as possible to speak. as people think of their questions, i will ask one more. selective service, now that combat rules are open, is it time for every young woman to go into the post office and sign up for a potential draft? >> what secretary carter said is selective services have to be part of a broader national discussion. that's not just d.o.d. we think it's time to have that conversation. we're prepared to do that.
>> okay. well, saying let's have a conversation is not stating which way you think the conversation should go. that's very careful. >> absolutely. and the secretary has been very clear to say, this is outside the purview of the department of defense. and so we're not there yet. this is something we absolutely need to look at. it's beyond just this very discreet issue so we need to make sure we take everything into conversation before that decision is made. >> so, let's see. we need to ask members to stilt their placards up when there's a question. i haven't done -- ma'am? can you lean into that mike? >> sure. i'm jen leonard with international crisis group. thank you very much for your comments. it's not an issue i've dug deep into but tracking in headlines. we've talked a lot about standards. everyone needing standards.
it would be great to hear from you qul anecdotally or research-driven about exceeding those standards and unique qualifications and whether and how in your research in terms of looking at allies, et cetera, there have been bits of evidence that have shared with you why women might excel at a particular category, set of issues, resilience, trouble shooting, et cetera. if there's not, where are we going to track that to? thank you. >> who would like to take a stab at that? >> or i can. yes, a lot of people talk about don't lower standards, you're absolutely right. we identified places across the board where perhaps the standard was too low and needed to be raised. we use often the airborne example. the pack weight was 45 pounds.
that's been around since world war ii. that's not reflective of what you need to carry on today's battlefield. that was a standard that needed to be raised in this particular case. with regards to what you were saying more on the cognitive resilience side of the house, for instance, in the special operations community there are -- they do test and assess people for decision-making skills, emotional stability, those type of things. those are standards that have been in place. again, there are areas where women will excel and we'll see that hopefully come forward. i don't know if you want to add anything to that. >> yeah. the date on this is really kind of mixed. this is why we emphasize to the services as they do this, they really need to monitor the progress and see where they're seeing those areas. and, you know, do fishtcys, they may be able to do things to help them. so, yeah, unfortunately, it's very mixed.
>> sue? laura. >> laura listwood, three years on dakowicz and metropolitan police department defense advisory committee of women in the services. it's been around since the korean war. just looked at various elements. one of the elements we looked at was women on submarines. some of the objections to blacks on submarines, you could have just taken the language out of that and said why women shouldn't be on submarines. unit cohesion, too close, wives don't like it, et cetera, et cetera. my question is in addition to this issue of the value added diversity which is getting more and more play in corporations and things like that, and
therefore, tracking that, which i think could be incredibly interesting to see from different perspectives, do you see there's going to be any diminution, increase around issues of sexual harassment? and issues of that nature? >> because these women are in units that have never had women before? >> yes. and so is it more, oh, now we respect them and understand what value they have, et cetera, versus, well, we have these close quarters and we have these issues? >> sure. so, i would say do we expect an increase? i certainly hope not, but i think we recognize that that's something we need to look at. that's what each of the services to the point we were talking about surveys before, that's why all of the services -- the socom survey, we need to identify where there are those
misconceptions and then develop training or we need to make sure that we explain where those things are incorrect so we don't have that. as well, to identify any potential issues that need to be addressed. we don't view this issue as anything -- sexual harassment. it's not tolerated in the department. it's not acceptable. this is no different than any other effort and we view it no differently. >> i was going to say, gayle, can you point out some of your folks in the crowd? >> yeah. so, the program -- the cultural support teams, which was a very benign name for a pretty ground-breaking concept was created by admiral olsen, who was the first navy s.e.a.l. to lead special operations command. you know, i had a c-span caller the other day say, you know, is this part of the feminist agenda? i said, i don't think admiral olsen was known for his feminist agenda. i think he was really focused on the security gap that his forces were facing in the field.
and when i had the pleasure of talking with him in the process of reporting, he was asking me about the soldiers, young women who were here who were part of this team. he was asking me what they were like. i was filling him in because he had retired just before the program had been in full swing. and he said, so, they're just like the men? i said, yeah. he said, you know, what i look for in special operations is physically fit problem-solvers. he said, people want to ascribe all kinds of superhuman traits to the special operations community, but that's at the core of what we're seeking. i think that was really important. and to lara's point about afternoon c african-americans and other integration. it was interesting talking to a soldier when he was skeptical when he said he had to go train girls. that was his official assignment, from benning to go to bragg -- to go to bragg to train members of this team and, you know, really at the end of eight days, this guy who by no
means would he care about equality or agenda, that's not his world, he said, you know, i looked around and i thought, these may one day be our own tuskegee airmen. these are people who will make history and no one knows they exist. i do think there's a lot of parallels. it's hard to see that in the moment. i think it's hard for all of us who chronicle it in the much wider picture but i think 50 years from now, this moment will look very different than it does right now. >> and -- >> i want to point out, there are three soldiers who are in "ashley's war" who are here and maybe you could just stand up for a quick moment. >> hi. >> i'm amy, still active duty, captain, marine corps, ft. bragg. >> microphone. >> captain rachel washburn, also serving at ft. bragg. >> captain megan, i'm in the massachusetts army reserve now.
>> can i put the three of you on the spot. have any of you encountered sexual harassment when you were in these unique jobs, when you first entered them? >> i think to gayle's point, we don't give enough credit to the men in this conversation a lot of times. i think what we have to remember, especially with the groups we worked with, the special operations community, they're consummate professionals. and i think from my personal experience, i never saw anything to that effect. i think that that -- that conversation is not -- is not addressed enough. we need to give more credit to the men in these situations and they're there to do a mission and were there to enable a mission. and it's almost as simple as that. a lot of this other conversation really doesn't matter when you're -- when you're in a high-stakes environment. that's my personal experience.
i don't know. >> thank you very much. >> it's fascinating when i was working on -- i was telling mara, i said, i was working on "ashley's war," it's washington so you don't talk about what you're working on very much. occasionally i would and i would say, it's a special operations story. oh, that's awesome. you know, i love lone survivor and i love american sniper. and you would say, oh, there are women in it. it was like crickets. and inevitably, the next question from men and from women was, oh, is it about rape or ptsd? and that was really eye-opening for me the first, second, third time i heard it. by the end i was prepared because it was absolutely urgent the issue of military sexual assault is front and center, 100%. but when valor is missing it affects the rest of the conversation about service, male or female. >> i think laura for bringing it up -- >> absolutely. >> because that's one of the
reasons it was founded, was to represent women in the military writ large. it's a question to be asked but it's great to have it knocked on the head by somebody who served out there. >> my name is sunie the l desay, retired marine, military officer. i loved the book. read the whole book. was intrigued by it. i appreciate everything i've heard. agree with pretty much everything. and just wanted to make two small points. my perspective. i married an army officer who could do more pull-ups, probably pushups, too, than marines i knew. i respected that, amongst a lot of other things. but the first point would be regarding the standards, and i never bought into the idea that that was some of the reasons that women shouldn't serve in
combat roles, even when i was a young officer. so -- but one point that didn't come up is while there is a past/fail standard, i mean, have you to meet some bare minimum, the standards still exist on a scale. and the military in addition to the requirement for, you know, tactical execution on the battlefield, there's this inspiration that comes from the people who can achieve even more, right? and i think even women in the boom, you see that from them. they really admire people who are super fit and more than necessary. there's an element of that that should be added to the conversation. the senior -- you spoke with some of these special ops leaders who are physical -- i mean, well beyond. even as they get older, they don't hold themselves to the sliding standard that you allow for the aging. they hold themselves to the original, the highest standard. and that's admired and valued
and respected. and the one other just small one, and you touched on it with your last question about the draft. i have a daughter now, too. but i think beyond, this the subject and the experiences speak to the even broader question of what's happening, not only in our country but society writ large, in terms of how families are evolving, how work is evolving. there are several other current booking hot in the cfr world, "lean in," "unfinished business," and another one called "the end of men," so i think all these dynamics are happening and they all have to be thought of holistically together if we're going to get to the right answer for everybody. >> so, one of the things i hear you saying is physical fitness might be one of the ways to put all doubts to rest. if you're more fit than everyone else.
but employing back to this question about participation in society and are we uneven, the question ash carter doesn't want to be the only one asking, but do we need women in the draft to follow through with this, you know -- if you're going to allow women to be in combat roles in the military, shouldn't they be part of the wider communities -- serving the wider community? i guess i'm stumbling around on this one because it's such -- it's such a -- i can see my own parents would have freaked out about it, but then you look at some of the discussions brought up by people like general stanley mcchrystal that shouldn't we have at least a general wider national service. so, where does that stand, that discussion? >> that's the crux of the issue right there. we need to have a larger
national discussion on public service, national service and where do we need to go from there. i think from our perspective, right, we have an all-volunteer force. we're meeting the requirements now. if we have a draft or don't have a draft or whether they expand selective service or they don't expand selective service, certainly we think we need to be part of that discussion. but it doesn't -- we are -- we have what we need and we have great people coming in. that's what secretary carter was focused on on the all-volunteer force. he didn't want to restrict his ability to recruit only a population. >> isn't that in a sense -- well, it's ducking the question. if you're going to make this a touchstone of your administration that you fought for this level of equality for first having gays in the military and then allowing women to go into combat roles, why not follow it through with -- and we believe, if we're -- if we're backing these two principles,
why not take a stand much having women in selective service? >> so, right. i understand the question. i guess where -- again, we're at the beginning of that discussion. and i think it's just to kind of take a position on it before we've even had the full-blown conversation is probably premature. >> one thing that's so interesting is we talk about equality. i think it's also really about talent. it's about finding the right pool, the right people for the right jobs. i think that's the national security discussion. that's the national security question. it's not about social programs. i think it's about security gaps and about having the best force. i think the draft question is fascinating. it was abolished when the russians invaded afghanistan. you know, that was a long time ago now. think about how much war has been fought since then. i think the whole conversation should be updated. you know, should 18-year-old
young women have to register? should 18-year-old young women? what are the options? you know, one parent told me i would much rather have my daughter defend my country than my son. i mean, parents come up to you all the time and tell you very colorful things. i think it goes to the fact that it's sort of an outdated way of viewing a world that has fundamentally shifted. to your point about looking at things in silos, this is a much bigger conversation about a world that is on fire in many different places, whether the shape of a threat that has changed and, i think, an international architecture that hasn't changed with it. going to that, a national infrastructure that hasn't kept pace with the times. how you defend and protect and serve. >> so, you're saying that the policy was really changed because it's about getting access to talent for the mission at hand rather than an issue of overall fairness and equalizing the plane? >> absolutely. secretary carter was very clear about that.
he was all about recruitment for the all-voluntary. he said, why would i voluntarily just cut my recruiting pool in half? it made no sense to him. >> i'm missing your study of other militaries, did you find there were other militaries that draw from the whole pool of the population in terms of a draft? >> yes, yes. and, you know, the reason for integrating these combat roles was different attract the countries, too. many were forced to. they had equal opportunity issues, lawsuits, things like that. so, it was interesting because, you know, it was interesting to see those various reasons, and some of them thought this was the right thing to do for equality reasons. we took a different route.
and, said, their strategies have been different, too. that kind of shaped the way they actually implemented this and some of them had quotas which we found actually didn't work. they never met them because their numbers were so small. that sort of set back the process. >> so, what were the numbers? what can we expect? what was an average, women in combat roles? >> none of the countries we looked at did we find anything above low single percentages. >> you're saying 2% or 9%? >> like, 5%, 6% was the highest, so -- >> some are -- >> some are very low. canada, which integrated their infantry almost 25 years ago. >> yes. >> 25 years ago. their numbers hover around the 1% range right now.
so, again, those -- so, that was informative for us. back to your question about the standards. we need to kind of continue the discussion about low numbers or no one is fine, right, because this -- have you to meet the standard. and so we have to make sure people understand we are fully comfortable with having low numbers. >> so, to play devil's advocate, it's interesting you're -- gayle just talked about you want to open up all of the floors to look for talent but it's only filling 1% or will probably only fill 1% of those roles? >> right. >> it's -- to play the devil's advocate, it's a lot of churn and a lot of expense to look at this to open everything up, to get only 1% of those roles filled. >> you could say that. or, again, we don't know who's out there. we have no idea what it's going to look like. so, you don't know what those young girls in high school are capable of and wanting to do
moving forward, so we may see increase numbers. training properly for better ways in fitness and body mass and bmi and bone thickness, we may have more numbers in the united states. >> it was fascinating. i was at west point in the fall and one of the things that was really fascinating there was, you come in and you're supposed to give this talk. i just have a question for you. how many of you want to go into infa infantry? you know, hands shot up. just to think that they are on the cusp of this change 37 there are young women in west point who could come up to you sa and say, i thought there were two tooers. jobs that everybody could do and jobs that women couldn't. and i have always wanted to be in infantry. there were a couple women in "ashley's war" that enlisted and didn't know women couldn't be in the infantry. or rotc cadets who were at the top of their rotc group who
couldn't be in infantry when they come out. you would see all kinds of inefficiencies in the system, right, that are being leveled out. i have never heard anybody talk about huge numbers but is there a talent pool out there? you do see it. >> hey, i went to wellesley. i'm trying to -- this is not a very skeptical audience. so, i'm trying to channel the skeptics. >> i think it's really important to have discussions about them. otherwise, people feel like, well, kosh, you know, they're just having a conversation divorced from reality. and the truth is, you just want to have a reflection of what's already happening. >> if i could say quickly about the cost piece, we actually ran a very detailed cost analysis in marine corps work. we looked at attrition rates for women and how many women you would need to bring in to keep the infantry at the same level as it is today, those kind of issues. we found it's less than 1% of the overall personnel budget.
again, this -- i think that there's this misconception that it will be very simple and that mirrors what the other services have found, too. >> less than 1% of the overall personnel budget, what are we talking? you guys have big budgets. >> yeah, i can't -- it was very small. sorry, i can't think of -- >> tens of millions? >> it was -- i think it was -- yeah, i'm not sure. but it was overall in the scheme, it was very small. >> very small. >> yeah. >> sir? >> damon of the -- >> we can't hear you. >> damon porter with the global automakers. we know policy decisions are not made in a vacuum. there's demon strabable evidence why women should be in combative forces.
can we talk about from the historical perspective. we raised the issue of physical standards. how much of title 9 are shaping the ability of demonstrating the physical dexterity and ability of women to serve in combative roles? and, i guess, the other point to that question is, how much can women in combative forces help shape the policy discussions outside of armed services such as equal pay? >> so suddenly we have a whole bunch of questions with only six minutes left. so, i'm going to ask a couple people a couple questions in a row. can we take your question? >> yes, i'm here on behalf of the women in military service for america memorial called wimsa. we're the only memorial that honors all women across all services in the nation. and in 2014 a d.o.d. report came out and said that d.o.d. spends about $90 million on 87 military service museums and not one of those is dedicated to women.
and i just wanted to know, during this time of unprecedented progress, in the military, if the time is ripe for support for this institution as well as other memorials and museums that honor women? >> okay. and one more? >> hi, good morning. my name is christine. i'm an undergraduate student at georgetown university but i just transitioned out of the ma kean reason corps, i was a corporal. i was an arabic linguist. right now at school i do a lot of research on understanding the muslim world. we talked a little bit about the unique advantage that women bring to the battlefield and especially as the decision has already been made for inte imprags, i hope to switch the conversation to, like, okay, it's -- it's decided now. so, what are we uniquely going to bring to this arena? so, my question is, do you think women will provide a unique advantage and how can we capitalize that specifically when we're talking about women
encountering violent extremism? which i know a lot of ngos and think tanks are focusing on. i wonder if the d.o.d. specifically has looked at how we can integrate women specifically on how to capitalize on women's unique skills in that arena? >> so, we have three questions and three minutes left. starting with that one, unique skills women can provide. are there specific things you're recruiting them for within combat roles that help in those areas? >> that goes to one of the earlier question, right? women and men, there are differences so, perhaps, there are things women can bring to the discussion. and i think it gets to "ashley's war," where there were unique skill sets where the special operations community realizes they need help. this was a recognition of what was actually already going on in the fights in iraq and afghanistan. so, to answer your question, yes, but, again, that's part of that entire discussion. that was the reason behind all of this. we wanted to be able to use the skills of the women that were out there.
>> and that title 9 question? sorry, go ahead. >> title 9, i think, is fascinating. one thing, if i noticed a couple things that were across the board on the soldiers who were part of "ashley's war" and the ragers were taken specifically the direct actions that were taking, you know, the most fit in this. one ranger said, if nobody else liked you, we did. they were looking for people who were ready to go and be fit and fierce and be able to keep up on those kinds of special operations/missions. almost all of them were track athletes. almost all of them had been raised by fathers who had always treated them the same as their brothers or if they had no other siblings who were brothers, they were held to the highest of standards. and athleticism and sports was very much a theme for -- across the board. they can talk to you about that more afterward. but you really did see that across the board in terms of always having benefit, always having trained to a very high
standard and what amy, who's here, actually played high school football all four years. she's going to be mortified when i tell you that, and didn't want to after the first couple years but little girls would come up to her after games and say, they wanted to be like her and that was sort of hard to quit after that. so, you know, i do think title 9 very much played a role in the physical athleticism and the opportunities. >> you had something to add. >> i think something that was fascinating for me is you asked, how are these women going to effect -- a lot of the senior men were involved in this conversation. they have daughters. and a lot of their thinking on this issue was formed by those daughters and what they wanted to see. you know, their daughters were phenomenal and why shouldn't my daughter be able to do that? many daughters are serving in uniform as captains now. they may not be on the cusp, they may not be, but they're out
there and continually informing this discussion. i think that's fascinating about all of the dads. >> last quick point, the women institutions or museums memorializing women in the military. >> right. absolutely, wimsa does phenomenal work. we thank you for what you do. i can't exactly -- budgets are tight and we certainly support the work you do. it's fantastic. >> thank you very much. i want to thank the panelists for answering some tough questions and showing the public out there that the tough questions have been asked before enacting this policy. and thank you all for attending this session on women in the armed forces, the future of the military. that concludes the cfr session.
while congress is on break this week, we're showing highlights from american history tv. normally seen weekends here on c-span3. tonight a look at richard nixon and the watergate scandal with bob woodward and video from president nixon's resignation and farewell to staff. american history tv prime time tonight at 8:00 eastern. this week ending the c-span cities' tour hosted by our charter and sometime warner cable partners takes you to san bernardino, california, to explore the literary history of this city located east of los angeles. on december 2nd of 2015, 14 people were killed and 22 were
seriously injured in a terrorist attack at the inland regional center in san bernardino. wheel talk with congressman pete aguilar and recovery by the equipment. >> when we talk about terrorism, when we talk about the fight against terror, it isn't something that's in the abstract anymore. it's something that across this country means -- it means something, because this isn't a big city here in san bernardino that was attacked. this is -- this could happen anywhere. >> we're also speak with san bernardino city councilman about establishing a permanent memorial to the victims of the attack. >> well, it provides a sense of remembrance and highlights their lives and what they've contributed to our local community. certainly, it always will be a near and dear place for us to kind of provide a place of consolation, serenity. we're thinking a serenity
garden, a prayer chapel of some sort in and around this area. >> on book tv we'll learn about the family of wyatt earp from author nick, his book talks about the earps notoriety and connection to san bernardino. >> the connection they have to san bernardino county starts back to about 1852 when the father of wyatt earp, who is the most well-known of the earps, his name is nicholas earp, he was basically left his family temporarily. they were living in monmouth, illinois. he heard about the gold rush up in northern cal. before he came back -- went back to the midwest, he ven sttured n to southern california and he passed through the san bernardino valley. and he vowed one day he would come back to san bernardino. >> and on american history tv, we'll visit the san bernardino history and railroad museum and talk about the importance of the railroad to san bernardino with
allen bone, san bernardino historical society vice president. located in the 1918 santa fe depot. it contains many objects related to the railroad completed in 1918. it replaced a wooden structure that was approximately 100 yards east of here that burnt in 1960. why the depot was built in a lot larger than it was needed, they decided to house the division headquarters at this location at that time. >> watch the c-span cities tour saturday at noon eastern on c-span2's "book tv" and sunday afternoon at 2:00 an "american hit arstory tv" on c-span3. visiting cities across the country. a former nuclear regulatory commissioner was among the witnesses at a hearing of the house energy commerce, energy and power subcommittee on two bills it's working on that would
revamp federal governance and modernization of the u.s. nuclear power industry. witnesses talked about the expected need for growth in the nuclear arena over the coming years. this is just over an hour. >> everybody, good morning, and welcome to our hearing to discuss legislative proposals to advance the use of nuclear energy. i want to thank all our witnesses in advance. i'll be introducing each of you before your five minute opening statement, but we want to thank marvin fertel for the great job he did at the nuclear energy institute and i think it's his plan to go on and look at other challenges at the end of this year so we're delighted he's
here. he served as nei's president chief executive order since 2009 and has long and distinguished year advocating for the nuclear industry. nuclear energy is an integral part of our energy policy. the current fleet of roughly 100 operating nuclear power plants safely and reliably generates about 20% of our nation's electricity. however, many of these power plants are approaching the end of their current license and unnecessary regulatory costs are adding to challenging economic conditions. this outlook provides a timely opportunity to examine proposals to improve the regulatory framework for nuclear power plants and options to develop a regulatory framework for advanced nuclear technologies. new nuclear technologies hold great promise to operate in a cost-competitive environment with even greater safety margins than existing reactors, while
generating less waste and reducing proliferating concerns. however, regulatory uncertainty is repeatedly cite theed as a top barrier to developing these technolo technologies. the department of energy, which supports nuclear research and development activities, should collaborate where applicable with the nrc to address this uncertainty. today we're going to hear from stakeholders about how to more effectively manage the regulatory process including options to increase the efficiency and certainty of the nrc's existing licensing process. a representative kissinger's discussion draft highlights that cumbersome red tape in our regulatory process, forces rate payers to pay more for safe, clean, nuclear power. and i want to thank him for his legislation and we look forward to your comments about that. also, certainly appreciate
congressman latta's leadership in addressing regulatory barriers hindering the advance nuclear technologies. his legislation, the advance the nuclear technology act, will ensure d.o.e.'s technical expertise, research, and facilities are utilized when appropriate to assist the nrc. and at this time, i would like to yield in a minute or so to mr. latta and yield to mr. kizinger. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. i would like to, again, thank you for holding this hearing today on the nuclear power, which is highlighting the bill congressman and i introduced last week, hr-4979. i'd like to ask unanimous consent mr. chairman to enter several letters into the record. these letters are from the nuclear institute, the american nuclear society.
and clear path. >> without objection. >> thank you very much. the future needs to start now with congress ensuring the nuclear regulatory commission is able to provide -- nuclear power is currently 20% of our national energy portfolio and must remain a vital part of our energy mix. as the united states looks to foot up, more energy will be needed, and nuclear power provides a reliable, clean based low power option. investment in new technologies is happening with approximately 50 companies in this country working to develop the next generation of nuclear power. again, that is why we have introduced hr-4979. it's time congress to ensure to the nrc provides the framework so innovators prepare to apply for licensing technologies. hr-4979 requires that nrc establish regulatory framework for issuing licenses for reactor technology but also requires the nrc submit a schedule to implementation of the framework by 2019.
safety and nuclear is the number one goal in the regulatory frame ensures the nrc has the opportunity that enables them to regulate the future technology of the nuclear industry. hr 4979 requires the department of energy and nrc collaborate in advancing new nuclear technology and natural labs and d.o.e. provide opportunities for testing of new nuclear technology in the federal lands and the option to look at private/public partnerships between the d.o.e. and private sector companies vested in investing in the future of nuclear. there's also a role for nrc in this space because these testing opportunities allow for demonstration for technologies that nrc has not been licensing for over the past four years and mr. chairman, i greatly appreciate holding this hearing. i yield back to you, thank you very much. >> mr. kizinger, mr. upton is not going to be here, so i want to give you his time -- >> thank you. >> all right. >> if mr. latta wants to talk some more, he can talk more,
too, then. this time i'll recognize mr. rush for his five minute opening statement. >> i want to thank you, mr. chairman, for holding this important hearing today on hr-4979, advanced nuclear technology and development act of 2016. and the nuclear utilization of keynote energy policies act. mr. chairman, as we move toward a reduced carbon sustainable energy economy, there's no doubt that nuclear energy will need to play an instrumental role in order to reach those objectives. while today's fleet of nuclear reactors utilize light water reactor technology, more intention is now being paid to the use of non-lwr reactor
designs and that have been demonstrated by the department of energy but are currently not licensed for commercial use in the united states. in fact, mr. chairman, emerging innovative designs of advanced non-light water reactors and light water small modular reactors have the potential to produce nuclear power more efficiently and with less waste than the current technologies. and we are to truly develop and scale up these technological advances. it is important that policymakers and nuclear regulatory commission provide regulatory certainty for the nuclear industry in order to encourage investment in these next generation nuclear designs. so i applaud my colleagues, mr.
latta and mr. mcnerney for introducing hr-4979. this legislation seems to provide guidance and direction to the nrc and d.o.e. to ensure these two agencies have sufficient technical expertise and in order to support and regulate advanced reactor technology. the bill also requires the nrc to formulate a plan that would help foster civilian research and development of advanced nuclear energy technologies and enhance the licenses -- licensing and commercial development of such technologies. mr. chairman, i fully support the intent of this legislation. i look forward to hearing feedback from our panel of experts on both the necessity for this type of legislation and
the implications once it is enacted. in regards to the nuclear utilization of keynote energy policies act, i also look forward to engaging the witnesses on this legislation. mr. chairman, finally, if nuclear energy is going to continue to play a constructive role in a reduced common energy portfolio, we must ensure that we have policies in place that appropriately reflect the contributions of the industry and current reality that it faces. so i commend my colleagues from illinois, mr. kizinger, for introducing a bill forecadraft very least a conversation toward reachings