tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN January 15, 2016 10:00am-12:01pm EST
[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] ♪ >> some endorsement news following last night's republican debate. bloomberg politics tweets jeb bush claims lindsey graham's endorsement. hill tweeting. the nations's capital, discussion on the middle east in particular, whether iran and saudi arabia are poised for more conflict. live coverage on c-span at noon. the united kingdom and ireland considering proposals to ban donald trump from their countries.
the british house of commons will debate that issue monday. we will have that live starting monday morning at 11:30 eastern. >> monday is martin luther king jr. day. we have featured programs on all networks. on monday, the house of commons debates whether to ban donald trump from their country. tv, university of wisconsin professor william p jones and his book "the march on washington: jobs, freedom and the forgotten history of civil rights." when a philip randolph went to reorganize the march he called offin 1941, everyone said you better get martin luther king. he went to martin luther king and kings that i will support you but let's expand the goals
of the march. the march is not just about equal access to jobs, it is about winning the right to vote in the south. >> at 8:30, representative john lewis recalls his involvement in the civil rights movement in "march book two." on c-span3 at 2:00 p.m., international history professor at the london school of economics and clinical science on iran's cold war partnership with the u.s. >> iran had to look to a third power to preserve its sovereignty against imperial ambitions of britain and russia. in the 1930's iran looked to germany to play that role. after the second world war, a generation of iranian statesman, including the shah, looked to the u.s. as a country that had no imperial ambitions and colonialism in the region. >> at 8:00 on real america, an
interview with dr. martin luther king jr. on his nonviolent hisoach to civil rights, comments on president kennedy's civil rights bill and how gandhi influenced his work appeared for the complete schedule, good to c-span.org. chairmanarmed services mac thornberry says the world is more dangerous than in 2009 and that u.s. superiority is eroding. the texas republican spoke at the national press club the day after president obama's state of the union address. this is about an hour. mr. hughes: welcome to the national press club. my name is john hughes, i am an editor for bloomberg first word, bloomberg's breaking news desk and washington, d.c. i am the 108th president of the
national press club. our speaker today is representative mac thornberry. he's the chairman of the house armed services committee. before i tell you more about him, i want to introduce the distinguished head table we have with us. table members include guests of our speaker and they also include national press club members. i ask each person to stand when their name is announced, starting from the audience's right. carll leubsdorf of the dallas morning news. the pentagon correspondent for usa today. allison mitchell of inside the army. mark, director of publications for the mitchell institute for aerospace studies. jacqueline, reporter for the washington examiner.
captain miles millar, who is our speaker's defense fellow. kasia, a bloomberg news reporter who is the incoming chair of the national press club speakers committee, skipping over our speaker for a moment, pat host, a reporter for defense daily and the speakers committee member who organized today's lunch. thank you. kevin, u.s. navy captain retired, a member of the national press club speakers committee, and director of the navy league of the united states, jen, a reporter for defense news and cochair of the national press club's young members committee, josh martin, chief of staff for our speaker. and bob simmons, house armed services committee staff director. [applause]
i also want to welcome our live audience in the national press club ballroom. i want to welcome viewers on c-span and listeners on public radio. you can follow today's action on twitter. use the hashtag #npclive. our speaker today is a texas republican who was first elected to the united states house of representatives in 1994. that was the year that voters and a democrats' 40 iran in the run in the- 40 year majority. prior to election, thornberry it was deputy secretary of state and the reagan administration. he also has worked as a congressional chief of staff. in congress, he has been a
member of the intelligence, budget, resources and homeland security committees. and in 2011 and 2012, he chaired the task force on cyber security. thornberry s most prominent role is as chairman of the house armed services committee. in beginning his second year in that job, he plans to continue an effort he has already started, to change the defense acquisitions process. his goal, which is shared by his senate counterpart john mccain, is to make weapons buying less wasteful and more agile and innovative. report says it is not unusual for a delivery time and cost to be underestimated by 20%
-50%. critics of the system say the competitive market forces of supply, demand and price are missing when there's a single buyer beinge single the pentagon. there are not many incentives to deliver programs on time. some changes were included in the defense authorization legislation that was signed into law last year. thornberry has said that that piece of legislation was just a first step. what are the next steps? let's hear that from our speaker. ladies and gentlemen, please give a warm national press club welcome to house armed services committee chairman, mac thornberry. [applause] rep. thornberry: thank you all for being here, i appreciate
this opportunity to think out loud with you a little bit about the threat that the country faces and about what congress and more particularly the house armed services committee intends to do about them in the coming year. last month, at the library of congress, a new speaker, paul ryan, outlined his vision for rebuilding a confident america. and that included an america that is respected and leads in the world. he specifically talked about making sure we have a military for the 21st century. as i have emphasized since i became chairman a year ago, the constitution puts that responsibility on congress' shoulders. too many of us tend to assume
it's the executive branch's job to figure out what we need to defend the country and they send the bill to congress and expect us to salute and write the check. but that's not what article 1, section 8 says. it says it's congress' duty to raise and support, provide and maintain, make rules for the government and regulation of the military forces of the united states. and the men and women on our committee, on both sides of the aisle, take that responsibility very seriously. as a matter of fact, as many of you all know, most of the issues we grapple with, we do so on a bipartisan basis. that doesn't mean that everybody agrees with every judgment call. but by and large, people try to find the right answer for the country. now, some of the calls we have made in the last few years that disagreed with the administration proposals, things such as retaining an aircraft carrier, not retiring the a-10, keeping both the u2 and global hawk when we have a severe
isr shortage, those things in hindsight look pretty good. today we have to make those judgment calls in a very constrained budget environment and in the most complex, difficult national security environment the country has ever faced. just think for a moment about the headlines of the last couple of weeks or so. escalating tensions in the middle east between saudi and arabia lead to a greater chance at sectarian war. north korea tests another nuclear device while continuing to advance its missile programs. reports indicate russia took down part of the power grid in part of the ukraine over the holidays. a british film crew comes back from raqqa with evidence that isis is pursuing chemical weapons, heat-seeking missile and remotely controlled vehicles. more evidence comes out about
isis operatives already in the united states. and in europe. china lands aircrafts on these islands it has constructed out of the south china sea. not to mention iran shooting missiles at u.s. navy vessels and then of course yesterday taking 10 american sailors and their boats. if you look back just a few more weeks, we read about leaks about a russian nuclear torpedo -- that could devastate coastal areas. and about iranian hackers infiltrating the control system of a small dam less than 20 miles from new york city at the same time they were attacking the websites of u.s. banks. and of course the f.b.i. helping stop four attempts in the last five years by russian gangs to sell radioactive material to middle east extremists.
who knows what the next two weeks or two months in 2016 are going to hold. the world is more dangerous today than it was in 2009. and despite the president's claim last night, that is not just hot air. that's the facts. that's reality. but it's also the reality that it's unlikely the obama administration is really going to do anything over the next year that's going to change that fact and probably not do anything that will abruptly change that trajectory. no president is irrelevant but in many respects i think the country and the world are moving on. so all that means the next command for the chief, whoever he or she may be, is going to inherit a whale of a mess on their first day.
you know, we all follow the news cycle as it goes from crisis to crisis but as charles hill writes in his book "grand strategies," those of us living through great historical events can rarely even glimpse the significance of what is going on around them. see, i believe those who look back on the events of our time will find that we are living through historic times, the magnitude and consequences of which we cannot fully appreciate. but the question is, is it historic in a good way or historic in a bad way? we know for sure the stakes are enormously high. no one can take the place of the united states of america as the primary force for good in the world. and yet history teaches us that no power stays on top forever. sometimes there's a decline and
sometimes it's a sudden decline. >> you want to know why we're in the most dangerous time, it's because your policies are keeping us in a state of perpetual war, when are you going to speak out against the relationship between the united states and repressive regimes like saudi arabia, egypt, are you going to call for an arms embargo against saudi arabia who buys billions of , dollars of weapons for us. saudi arabia is turning a blind eye while weapons, troops, and money go to isis. i hope you're going to speak out against saudi arabia tonight. it's also time to re-evaluate that relationship between the united states and egypt another , repressive regime. saudi arabia and egypt are both repressing their own people and using american weapons. we are sending weapons to every continent in the world right now. so we can only blame ourselves that it's a dangerous time. your policies are perpetuating endless war, sarah.
-- sarah. -- sir. mr. thornberry: somehow don't you just think at the national press club that that fits in in some way? i kind of think so. any of us in any of our businesses have to appreciate the first amendment. and then again it's always nice to turn off the television and change the channel from time to time. my point is, no country has stayed on top forever. max boot looked at the last 500 years of warfare and he found that many superpowers failed to take advantage of revolutions and military affairs and it had a drastic effect. he writes, the end can come with shocking suddenness, even after a long streak of good fortune. countries able to take advantage of these changes have been history's winners while those who have fallen behind have usually been consigned to irrelevance or oblivion. well new york country is better
-- well, no country is better positioned to continue to be one of history's winners than the united states. but we also can't assume that it's always going to be so. so we have to take deliberate decisions to ensure that we'll still be able to be this unique force for good in the world. and for congress, that means that we have to provide the funding and the capability and the authorities needed to be able to defend the country. and to oversee the activities of the executive branch. i think there are two primary characteristics that describe the military capability that we need. and they are strength and agility. we know from sports that you can't do with one and not the other. you have to have both. strength is crucial. churchill's insight into russia 70 years ago has a wider application today, i think. he said from what i've seen of
our russian friends and allies during the war, i'm convinced there's nothing they admire so much as strength and nothing for which they have less respect than weakness, especially military weakness. we cannot afford, if we can help it he, said, to work on narrow margins, offering temptations to a trial of strength. there's a lot of people that think that's exactly what's going on in the world today, that we are offering temptations for a trial of strength. and that's part of the reason the world is so chaotic. military strength requires both quantity and quality of capability. the obama administration, for example, argues that a ship today is more capable than a ship 20 years ago. well, generally that's true. but a ship can still only be at one place at one time. and we need enough of them to protect our interests and fulfill their missions all around the world. we do not have enough of them today.
nor do we have enough airplanes, nor do we have enough soldiers, etc. building a strong military requires money. last fall's budget agreement does not provide enough money for defense. but i agreed with those who believed that it was better to accept less than is required in order to be assured that it would be there. after the budget brinksmanship of the obama years, budget stability, even if it's just two years, counts for a lot. so i'm disturbed at rumor that the administration may not keep to the agreement in the budget submission it will send to congress in a few weeks. that agreement was that for fiscal year 2017, $573 billion would be available to meet base defense requirements. and that the oco account, the
overseas contingency account, would receive no less than $59 billion, with the exact amount to be decided, depending on world events. well, that agreement was reached two weeks before the paris terrorist attacks and the pace of our military operations is much greater than it was then. but rather than ask for more money to cover the costs of the elevated level of operations, it is -- the administration may be considering, it seems, lowering the base amount and not asking for the increase oco. they do that, that cuts people,
that cuts weapons, that cuts research, that cuts military capability. guaranteeing a minimum level of defense spending was the key to getting last year's defense budget. the terms were clear to everybody and everybody ought to stick to them. at the same time, our committee will not relent in our continuing oversight of how our money is spent. waste and inefficiency drain military strength and erode political support for it. so in addition to vigorous oversight, we put a high priority on reform, which i'll return to in just a moment. of course what we spend the money on what we buy is crucial. that gets me to capabilities. we of course have to make sure the men and women engaged in today's fight have what they need but we also have to take steps to make sure that we have what we need for the fights coming on ahead of us. i'm paying particular attention to the third offset efforts to cyber, to modernizing our nuclear deterrent, and to special operations. the president said last night that no nation dares attack us or our allies because they know that's the path to ruin.
well, that's been true, and it's been true for a long time. unfortunately, that's changing. our committee has spent more time over the last year on the issue of our eroding technological superiority than it has spent on any other issue. as you know, deputy secretary werk and vice chairman selva are advancing a focused push known as the offset to make sure in the future no state is willing to take on america. i applaud their efforts. but no one should be under the illusion that a handful of technological breakthroughs, even if they come are going to guarantee our dominant position for many years ahead.
technology changes too quickly, information moves too fast, the threats are too diverse and that means bigger change is required. obviously, cyber is the new domain of warfare where technology is not the primary problem but organizations, authorities, people are the most crucial things. this doesn't just affect the military but we have to be table fight and win in cyberspace. so the committee will be pushing issues related to people, organizations, rules of engagement in that domain to try to make sure we close the gap between the threat and the policies we now have to employ. it may seem a little bit odd to put nuclear detection in some of those capabilities we need to think about for the future but as the events over the last week have shown, nuclear know how is spreading. our own nuclear deterrent is the foundation for all of our other defense efforts. unfortunately, our war heads and our delivery systems have all
been neglected and are all aging out at about the same time. so we have to put the resources, which studies show will never be more than 5% of the total defense budget, but we have to put the resources as well as the focused effort and the will power into making sure that we have a nuclear deterrent that will continue to protect this country in the future, not just a nuclear deterrent that was designed for a different age. the world, including our enemies, has got an pretty good look at the enormous capability that our special operations forces brings. i have no doubt that we will continue to rely on them very heavily in the future. but there's a temptation and we've seen it in other nations, to use soft forces for
everything. one description of it, it's like taking a sharp knife and raking it across the concrete. you keep doing that, and it's not so sharp anymore. we'll be supportive but also protective of our soft capabilities because some of them are absolutely vital for the security of our nation. one of the areas where soft excels is in working with other security forces. and we're also going to be examining ways to help strengthen that capability because undoubtedly we're going to be doing more of that in the future. the u.s. has always needed a military strong enough to meet the threats of the day. the current situation is unlike anything we've ever faced. we must have the military capability to protect us against this enormous array of threats that confront us as well as the unexpected. in studying the anatomy of failure in war, cohen said there's three kinds of failure, failure to learn, failure to
anticipate and failure to adapt. that means the united states has got to learn, anticipate, and adapt faster than anybody else does. and and that requires institutional agility. so reforms to help promote that sort of agility is at the forefront of what our committee is focused on. i group these things into three different categories, people, acquisition, and organizations. the most important component of our defenses, of course, are people. we can never relax our efforts to make sure that our country continues to have the benefit of the very best people our nation can provide. last year, we followed recommendation of the military retirement and compensation commission and instituted a new retirement system for the military. most people thought it could not be done. this year, under the able
leadership of subcommittee chairman general dr. joe heck, we're going to be examining health care. which is a crucial part of all of our compensation as well as our well being. year after year, the administration has proposed raising tricare fees and co-pays on service members but simply taking more money out of service members' pockets is not reform. joe and his subcommittee are examining the whole military health care system, taking into account the recommendations of the commission but also keeping in mind the primary purpose of military health care is to help make sure we can fight and win the nation's wars. as was mentioned, last year we made a pretty good start on improving the way the department acquires goods and services, focusing on the acquisition work force, on acquisition strategies for each program, and on rebalancing the responsibilities
between d.o.d. and the services. this year, we're going to build on those reforms. my plan is to again introduce a standalone acquisition reform bill, solicit feedback and comments on it, adjust it as is appropriate, and then fold that into the annual defense authorization bill. one goal i have this year is to encourage more experimentation and prototyping. if you study the great military innovations of the past, the clear conclusion is that experimentation was at the heart of every success. it encourages innovative thinking, not just in developing the technology but in how you use it. it helps ensure there's mature technology before you start production so that you don't have those unexpected surprises. it reduces the odds that you're going to spend a lot of money on
a program of record that you then have to cancel and have it wasted. and if you couple that with open architectures, it helps you upgrade your systems as you go along at a lower cost. one of our nation's leading industrial design firms has as its motto, fail often in order to succeed sooner. they believe that enlightened trial and error is the key to success. i think that's right. and i think history bears that out when it comes to military innovation. today, it's hard to get money for experimentation without being attached to a program of record. and programs of record seem to be sacrosanct because once they get started, they hardly ever get stopped. i want to look for ways to foster experimentation and prototyping both in developing technology and in application and ensure that only mature technology goes into production.
to do that, a cultural shift is needed, not only at d.o.d. but within the congress. we have to accept or even expect regular, small failures in order to have greater success. if every experiment is a success , we're not learning very much. another key area of reform is organizational. we have to make sure that the organizational structure in the pentagon and around the world fit in today's world. while most everybody agrees that the goldwater-nichols reforms of 30 years ago were a success, i think most people agree that it's time to take a new look at some of those reforms and not be afraid to make improvements where it seems appropriate. last year, we made a start at requiring the department to reduce the number of bureaucratic layers that not
only cost money but slow decision making. the first step in dealing with a sluggish bureaucracy is simplification but i've got to tell you, we have a long way to go. michele flournoy testified that the tyranny of consistence has come to dominate the pentagon. if you look at the growth of staffs at the pentagon and the military, if you try to get everybody to come to consensus it's going to take a long time to make a decision. about half of all uniformed personnel serve on staffs that spend most of their time going to meetings and responding to tasks from the hundreds of offices throughout d.o.d. including 17 independent agencies, nine combatant commands and 250 joint task forces. needless to say we've got a lot of simplifying to do. again, looking back over 500
years of military history, boot says that having an efficient bureaucracy is the key determinant of whether a country manages to take back a military revolution. i don't know about y'all, but that makes me a little nervous. i think history tells us a couple of other things as well. one is that necessary reforms have to come from congress. some change can come from within d.o.d. but much of the change that's required has to be required by the legislative branch of government. secondly, we can't fix d.o.d. personnel, acquisition, organizations in a single bill or even in a single congress. and i don't think we should try. we should take measured steps, listening carefully to everybody involved in the system, especially to the end user who are the war fighters, and then take further steps. we will not get everything done
this year that needs to be done. but at the same time, we're not going to be sidetracked by all the voices who say, oh, there's no use trying, it's just too hard, it's just too complicated, too big a mess, don't worry about it. we are going to fulfill our responsibilities under the constitution. let me just address a few more issues that have to do with our country's security. in addition to building our military, article 1, section 8 says it's congress' responsibility to declare war and use military force. authorize the use of military force. as you know, speaker ryan has -- wants to see if there are the votes in the house to pass an aumf against isis. and those sessions on both sides of the aisle are under way. i've always believed we should pass an aumf on isis. while at the same time i
understand the difficulties in doing so. one of those challenges is that 75% of the house was not in office on 9/11. but those of us who were here will never forget that morning. another challenge is that many republicans are reluctant to authorize this president to use force when there is so little confidence around the country that he has a plan or the willingness to actually accomplish his stated goal to degrade and destroy isis. now, democrats seem to share that concern because they are asking for more restrictions on an aumf than republicans want. look, i do not want to tie our service members' hands when we send them into battle. what congress does or does not do will have consequences that last beyond this administration. so we need to find a way to do the right thing even if it's not politically easy.
speaking of tying people's hands, i've served on the house intelligence committee for more than 10 years, and continue to sit in on their briefings, as well as the briefings that our committee receives. i have no doubt that at exactly the time we face more diverse terrorists and other kinds of threats than at any time in our history, we know less about what our adversaries are up to. we certainly know less than we did at the beginning of the obama administration. now part of the reason is the evolution of technology. part of the reason is the leaks that have told everybody, including our adversaries, what we do and how we do it. but part of the reason is because of the ways we tie our own hands at collecting the information we need for the country's security.
for example, p.p.d. 28, presidential decision 28, gives foreign intelligence targets basically the same rights that american citizens have. overriding the instructions that the i.c. has gotten from every other president since ronald reagan. now we are asking more of our intelligence professionals than we have ever asked of them before, yet we ask them to operate with one hand tied behind their back. that makes the country more vulnerable. finally, i mentioned earlier that it's unlikely, in my opinion, that the obama administration will do anything other this coming year that will significantly improve the perilous situation we find around the world. i do not mean to disparage the many good people in the administration who are doing their best every day to try to keep the country protected. and i would include secretary carter and deputy secretary werk among them. but the direction comes out of
the white house. the white house imposes rules of engagement upon our men and women fighting in iraq, now syria, and in afghanistan and those -- and those rules of engagement make it harder for them to accomplish their mission and in some cases it increases the danger to their lives. in addition to that, there is an unprecedented degree of micromanagement from national security council staffers, not only of the top management at d.o.d. but of the men and women who are serving out in the field. and i'd refer you to the books and comments of the last three secretaries of defense and others who have left the obama administration just to get a feel for how pervasive and detrimental this practice is. too often, decisions are driven by political considerations, not security considerations.
this unprecedented overreach endangers our people, complicates their mission an d compromises our national security and i think it must end with this administration. congress chartered the national security council in 1947. and from time to time over the years, it has adjusted it. well, it may be time to look at it again. i said earlier that the united states is a unique force for good in the world. if we do not have the ability to continue to be that force for good or if we're unwilling to play that role, somebody else will fill the vacuum. that seems to be part of what's happening around the world today. i suggested that we live in historic times but we don't yet know if it's historic in a good way or historic in a bad way. i think we take for granted the world which the united states helped build after world war ii.
and the benefits that that has provided to us and to mankind. too many of us assume that human progress just inevitably marches forward. but as robert kagan argues in "the world america made," the current liberal order will last only as long as those who built it retain the capacity to defend it. in the end, he says, the decision is in the hands of the americans. decline is a choice. i think that's right. it is in our hands. it depends on the choices we make. and for the sake of ourselves, our children, and those around the world, i pray that we are able to answer history's call in fulfilling the obligations that it has placed on the united states of america. and do so in a way that will
make us proud. thank you. [applause] mr. hughes: thank you, mr. chairman. on behalf of the national press club, i apologize for that earlier interruption. as i was escorting the protester out of the room, she did not show her national press club membership card so i don't think she's a member of the club either. we have several questions about russia. could you comment on the russian navy's growing presence in the mediterranean and overflights around our coast and can we expect provisions in the national defense act for 2017 in response to perceptions of the russian threat?
rep. thornberry: well, two things are happening. one is despite the economic concerns that people have about russia and some of them are clearly real, but despite their economic problems, they are putting a priority on defense. and so they are building significant new capability that, as i mentioned, erodes the technological superiority we have enjoyed. some of the stuff they're building is designed for us. so that's one thing that's happening. the other thing that's happening is, they are being much more aggressive about its use. and there are those who believe that they sense a u.s. retreat from the world and they want to step forward to take advantage of it and to reoccupy the place that they believe they have enjoyed in the past.
so, you know, the tactical use of where you fry your ships and planes, obviously that's up to the military and the commander in chief. the capability to deal with what russia is doing, that's on our shoulders. so we will have provisions in the ndaa as far as developing capabilities, not necessarily to match them eye for eye but to have the capability that is needed to deal with the threats that putin presents. and just one brief example, every year russia continues to crank out new nuclear weapons with different characteristics. meanwhile, we haven't cranked out a new nuclear weapon since 1989, roughly. so that's just one example of the difference. mr. hughes: on isis, do you support sending u.s. ground combat troops to iraq and syria? and would you like to see an isis-specific authorization for the use of military force and do
you think congress should pass one in 2016? rep. thornberry: as i mentioned, i think we should vote and pass an authorization for the use of military force against isis. as y'all know, what we are doing is relying on the aumf that passed a few days after 9/11, and that specifically is tied to those who committed the attacks on september 11, 2001, and those that harbored them. well, isis didn't exist then. so what the administration has to do is try to draw a link that this is a successor regime. the problem is, in afghanistan today, isis is fighting the taliban and al qaeda, so it's a little hard to see how they're the same thing that we authorized the use of military force for. i think we have to have a new aumf. i mentioned some of the challenges, however, in doing so, especially on our side of
the aisle but on both sides. on both sides of the aisle. i do not think that it makes sense to send 100,000 ground troops in to iraq or syria as -- or anything like the invasion force we had in iraq before. but we -- i don't know if you saw yesterday, we had three former officials from the obama administration, including acting director of the c.i.a., undersecretary of defense for intelligence, and ambassador to syria, all testify, all said isis is of strategic and lethal threat to the united states, not hot air. and we needed to be doing much more. especially to reduce their caliphate. because towns will come and go in iraq and syria, but they are growing in other country, libya
and afghanistan among them. so we do have to have special operations people much more restrictive, much more vigorous air campaign. one note came out in our testimony yesterday, the early days of the afghanistan campaign after 9/11 had roughly eight times the number of aircraft sorties we have in iraq and syria now. just to kind of give you a feel for the different level of effort. so we need to clearly be more serious about it. all of the rules of engagement i mentioned are handicapping the efforts we are making. and as a result of that, many of our allies who want to do more, who are able do more, don't trust that the u.s. is going to lead so they're holding back. as you know, king abdullah has been in town the past few days,
met with our committee yesterday for a very good session on where things stand in this fight. so it is -- i believe it's serious, it is lethal, significant, i believe the u.s. must do more. it's not a choice between 100,000 troops or tying our military's hands. there are many options in between. i'd invite you to go look at the testimony we received yesterday from former obama administration officials to give you the outline of some of that. mr. hughes: we have a couple of questions on iran. can you tell us anything beyond the limited information we've received so far about the iranian sailors and do you see -- i'm sorry, the u.s. sailors detained in iran and do you see any benefit in the nuclear deal that was negotiated between iran and the united states, any benefit at all?
rep. thornberry: well, i don't know any more details at this point about the sailors who were taken. obviously it's something we have asked the pentagon to brief us on and we will of course follow up with that. any benefit at all to the iran nuclear deal, well, of course if iran gives up nuclear material , that's a benefit. the question has always been what is the cost? so do the costs outweigh whatever benefit there is? so part of the question is, have they done this for good? or is this a temporary measure to get sanctions relieved? has this affected any of their other activities? they've had two missile tests directly in violation of their agreement with the u.n. since the agreement was reached and we haven't done anything about it. you see this aggressive action in the persian gulf, continuing their activities in yemen, hezbollah, all the things they are doing around the world. none of that has showed up at all.
so as you may know, just before i came here, i voted on a further sanctions measure in the house which passed. related to the missile tests in violation of their agreements. and i think one of the big frustrations that many people on both sides of the aisle had is for the administration this has been get the nuclear agreement at all costs. and that's not the way this works. are there benefits? sure. there are also costs. and you have to see the whole picture, not just focus on one treaty that you hope become s your legacy. mr. hughes: >> questions on the new island bases in the south china sea by china. does the navy have what it needs to counter the threat in the south china sea? how far should the united states go in protecting allies in that region?
rep. thornberry: we do not have what we need because we don't have enough ships. that's part of what i was talking about. you can't be -- we don't have enough ships to be everywhere we need to be. there's portions of the year we were not able to have a carrier, for example, in the persian gulf. pacific is huge. we don't -- we have lots of things to pay attention to. we do not enough ships. i think it's very important to continue to have on a more aggressive schedule ships and planes to re-emphasize the point that these are international waters, these are not owned by the chinese. but the other key point for me is that lots of countries in that region, some allies of ours, some not so sure, are looking to see what we do. they're trying to decide, how is this going to go? is the u.s. going to step back and let china do what it wants to?
they may -- these allies or potential allies may be very interested in working with us to help push back on china all around their borders. but they need leadership from the united states. i think if there's a big question in the world today, it's whether the united states can lead. or will lead. mr. hughes: the additional resources for the military, questioner wants to know where are those resources going to come from? how do you take on the budget restrictions involved in building a larger military? and one questioner says you were dismissive in your remarks about president obama's statements about the current strength of the u.s. military in the state of the union speech last night. was the president wrong when he said that the u.s. spends more on defense than the next eight nations' spending on defense combined? how do you get the additional
money for defense and also responding to president obama's comments that it's already so robust. rep. thornberry: the president is not wrong to say we spend more than anybody else. of course we pay our people. not everybody pays their people and so we have costs that other countries do not have. we also have responsibilities that other countries do not have. and so we have to, if we're to fulfill our responsibilities, spend more. i'm not dismissive of the president's comment that we have the best military in the world. my point is that our superiority is eroding. and we've got lots of testimony and evidence to support that. i will tell you the one comment that got groans across the chamber last night was when he said these -- this notion that our enemies are not growing stronger is hot air.
and that provoked a lot of groans. i think that is empirically not true. that is certainly not true. our enemies have grown stronger. again, i refer to the testimony we received yesterday on isis as an example. russia is stronger militarily and in the world. china, we talked about, just go down the -- north korea, iran, etc. they are stronger. and the president seems to want to dismiss all that. you know. don't pay attention to that stuff that's happen, it's not real. it is real. that's the world. where do we get more money? there's only one way really to, in the long-term, in the bigger picture, to deal with the budget issues that face the country and that is reform of entitlements. that's roughly 2/3 of the federal budget is spent on mandatory spending programs. we are down to about 15%, 16% of the federal budget is spent on defense today.
that's all it is. it was 50% in kennedy's administration. now about 15% is spent on defense. meanwhile, 2/3 of the money is spent on mandatory spending programs. so that's where it has to happen. i just want to emphasize a lot of people thought, oh, a new retirement system in the military, that's never going to work. you shouldn't try. you're just going to make people mad. what we did was grandfathered people in who we made promises to. there's a group in middle that can make a choice, you can, if you're in the military under -- for fewer number of years, i think it's under 12, you can choose to go to the new system or stay in the old system. it's up to you. if you sign up tomorrow, you have to be in the new system. so that's the way we did it. make sure we keep our promises. now why would some sort of template like that not be appropriate for other sorts of entitlement reform?
we've got to. we simply have to. or else the 2/3 of the budget that is mandatory spending and interest is just going to gobble everything else up. and so not only to adequately fund the military but to deem with budget deficits and so forth, that's what is required. one last point. i think the first job of the federal government is to defend the country. so i think the first dollar that comes out of your pocket ought to be for defense. and everything else, mandatory spending and everything else, is after that. and in the dangerous world we live in today, defense of our homeland, protecting our lives and our liberties is more essential than ever. mr. hughes: will congress heed the pentagon's call to revisit the base realignment and closure
process? why or why not? rep. thornberry: we'll see. i put -- we had a provision in last year's bill that asked for data from the pentagon about where they think they have excess bases and in what sort of categories do they have them? because what's been happening since 2005, which was the last time we had a brac round, there was a study before that that said we have 25% excess infrastructure. well, they'd been trotting out that figure based on that 10-year-old study ever since. so i'm not saying we won't do another another brac, but i'm saying if we're going to do it, we'll do it on better data than a 10-year-old estimate that obviously is outdated in a number of ways, not only in what our bases are but what our threats are.
secondly, the 2005 -- i have to check with g.a.o., yeah, g.a.o., but last time i checked last year, the 2005 round of brac had not yet broken even. in other words, 10 years later, it's still cost -- it still costs the taxpayer more money than it saved. people say that was an unusual situation. it was more of a realignment, etc., etc. my point is, we don't have any extra money laying around. we've got to be darn careful. we know we have something that we don't need because once we give it away, especially if it's a training range or flying rain or something, we'll never get it back so we better be darn sure that we have more than we need based on good data. if so, we'll look at it. cyber becoming such
a major threat, this questioner wants to know how you'll seek to build out cyber personnel via legislation. rep. thornberry: when we go through our people reforms, as part of the reform effort i mentioned, one of the key questions that i and other members ask is, ok, what if we want to get somebody from silicon valley in to cybercommand and can we do that? do we have the authorities to do it? we're not going to match them on pay. but at least is it not an embarrassment? can we take somebody from silicon valley for a while and then they go back into the private sector and then can they come back? those are the kinds of questions we have to ask ourselves in order to attract and retain as best we can the kind of cyber talent we need to help defend the country. now, i've got to tell you. the professionals at cyber
command and n.s.a. are the best in the world. i have no doubt about it. but i also worry when i see the scale of what the chinese are doing and these terrorism people trying to deal with it on our side, there's a mismatch there. so we're going to have to amp up significantly our cyberefforts and the key to doing that as i mentioned, it's not the technology, it's the people as well as the policies and the organizations on how we fight and win in cyberspace. so that's -- a lot of that responsibility is on our shoulders, we have a lot of work to do in that area. mr. hughes: before i ask the final question or two, i have some housekeeping. the national press club is the world's leading professional organization for journalists and we fight for a free press worldwide. to learn more about the club visit our website, press.org and
to learn about our nonprofit programs or to make a donation, visit the website of the journalist institute, that's press.org/institute. i'd also like to remind you about some upcoming programs, the american association of university women will release an analysis of federal data about sexual violence on college campuses at a national press club newsmaker tomorrow, january 14, at 10:00 a.m. former senators tom daschle and trent lott will discuss their new book, "crisis point: why we must and how we can overcome our broken politics in washington and across america," next tuesday, january 19, at 6:00 p.m. and on saturday, january 23, at 6:30 p.m., the national press club will inaugurate its 109th president, thomas burr of the "salt lake tribune," this is the final lunch i am moderating as
president. i want to thank all the members and staff for their support over the past year and i want to thank the listeners and viewers for their interest in these events this past year. privilegebeen a true being the president of the national press club. thank you very much. [applause] i would now like to present you with the official mug of the national press club. and youh to cherished will enjoy that for years to come. [applause] >> final question mr. chairman. , 2016 questions i know you are dying to talk about.
the politics in the presidential race. one question says, do you support fellow texan senator ted cruz for the nomination. if he is unsuccessful, is donald trump your second choice? >> i tell my staff, they cannot put any questions, and i think they did. i have not decided who i'm going to support. , one, whichriteria republican has the best chance to win. number two, who would be the best commander in chief. as i mentioned, i think they will inherit a whale of a mess in the first day of in office. i am not sure who that is going to be. like a lot of the rest of the country, i think things are starting to get more serious. we will see as the voters begin to go to the polls, rather than talk to the pollsters.
[applause] >> one more question mr. chairman. on the democratic side, if it was president clinton coming in to succeed president obama, where there be a different dynamic on defense and other issues between congress and the white house? why do you think the same as it is now? >> i think there would be some difference. i think secretary clinton over -- career, has shown herself to be an stronger positions when it comes to national security. i think she has the benefit of seeing all of the chaos that the obama administration is leaving us with. i think there will be better relations between the administration and congress. to democrats and the
obama administration approach to congress has been very dismissive. duringmuch better president bill clinton's day and surely mrs. clinton will learn from that. it will be different. how big a difference will be, we can talk about that later. >> how about a round of applause for our speaker? [applause] >> i would also like to thank our national press club staff, including the journalism institute and broadcast center for organizing today's event. if you like a copy of today's program, or learn more about the press club, go to press.org. thank you, we are adjourned. [applause]
>> following last night's republican debate in north charleston, south carolina, senator lindsey graham has endorsed jeb bush. -- helpless us build our momentum by joining us today. a response from donald trump saying that senator lindsey graham and barest himself with his failed run for president. now, further embarrasses himself with endorsement of bush. live coverage coming up afternoon, a panel of middle east analyst will be looking into iran or saudi arabia are posed for more conflict. that is coming up in 55 minutes, live on c-span. on monday, the united kingdom is considering proposal to ban republican presidential candidate donald trump. the house of commons will debate the issue monday morning. we will have live coverage at 11:30 a.m. eastern.
have college age kids covered in alabama. it is really the kids in the elementary schools who are suffering. african-american kids are getting poor education and horrible buildings. it is separate and not equal. &a, --urday night on q partnership with booker t. washington in the african-american communities any south to build schools and bring elementary education to children in rural america. puts together these kid houses. the best thing booker t. washington ever did was say, no, i want the communities to build it. these six schools were built.
from that, it morphed into 5000 schools all over the south, including maryland. >> saturday night at 8:00 q&a.rn on c-span than half of college campuses in 2014 reported that they had zero sexual assaults. that report was unveiled at the national press club in washington yesterday. red statistic alone raises flags. it is about an hour. mr. gallo: ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the aauw news maker for the national press club. i am tony gallo with the news makers committee. the national press club is the oldest professional organization for journalists and news makers. if you are interested in joining, please see me afterwards. our membership is open to professionals in those fields.
we are very fortunate to have two of the leaders at aauw. these are lisa and anne. lisa is the top lobbyist at aauw. she leads several organizations, including the equal pay organization coalition. previously she worked for congresswoman carolyn maloney. she is a graduate of ohio university. and has several degrees from ohio state university. anne is the governor's manager for the association, which by the way has 165,000 members, 1,000 chapters and 900 universities, colleges participating. quite impressive. she is the voice on capitol hill to communicate with legislation to members of congress.
she is a graduate of davidson college and has a degree from george mason university. with that, i've spoken long enough. we turn the show to lisa maatz. one more thing. after about -- after they're finished, we'll have questions from the audience. please identify yourself and speak loudly. we don't have an extra microphone. ms. maatz: thank you so much, tony. good morning, everybody. what a great crowd. thank you for coming out today. it's an important topic and it's something that aauw cares about. i think cares so deeply about you could even say it's in our d.n.a. campus sexual assault. as tony mentioned, we have actually about 170,000 members, over 1,000 branches and 900 college and university partners. clearly this is an issue that affects our members and affects the issues that we care about. we're really pleased and excited that the press club invited us to be here today. and we're here today talk about campus sexual assault.
now, my work on this issue is informed by my 13 years with aauw, as well as my tenure as executive director of turning point, a domestic violence program, recognized for excellent by the ohio supreme court. i also worked at wittenberg university, where i was a hall director and ran a women's center that responded to incidents of sexual assault. so i can personally attest to the fact that this issue is not new. this issue is not new. what's new is the spotlight that's been put on it. what's new is the amazing outspoken survivors that are telling their stories and speaking a little truth to power. what's new is a white house task force on campus sexual assault. what's new is, i think, re-energized office of civil right that the department of education that has responded to a
national clamor for better enforcement and technical assistance. in many respects, a perfect storm. if you will. it reminds me of when i was working at turning point, doing battered women's work. the o.j. simpson trial came through. and the first violence against women's act was passed. and there was kind of this national teach-in about domestic violence at that point. and it feels very similar now. really glad to see us talking about sexual assault on campus. out loud. and with a real sense of being able to do something about it. when campus environments are hostile because of sexual harassment and violence, students can't learn. it's that simple. and it's that devastating. schools have an important and necessary role to play in addressing this epidemic. why would that be? because students' rights to an education free of sex discrimination are on the line. and while some schools have risen to the challenge, others have not. and some clearly are not in compliance with applicable laws.
we've long identified the need to end sexual harassment and violence on campus. our own research showed that nearly 2/3 of college students experienced sexual harassment. many of you may be familiar with the one in five stat in terms of how campus sexual assault affects women. what you might not be familiar with, what's less known, is that one in five women at college also experience physical or sexual abuse or threats of physical abuse from an intimate partner. in fact, college-aged women experience the highest rates of intimate partner violence in the country. we've long identified the need to talk about this issue. the issue impacts both men and women, students from all walks of life and all types of schools and for all kinds of reasons are all grossly underreported, both to schools and law enforcement. title nine and the cleary act provides tools that schools need to improve the
climate. passed in 1972, title nine is the gender neutral law that prohibits sex discrimination in federally funded education programs. --uired schools to eliminate this included evaluating current practices, publishing anti-discrimination policies and implementing grievance procedures providing for a prompt and equitable resolution of complaints. schools must also provide accommodations to students such as adjusting housing arrangements or changing class schedules and providing support. all schools should have a title nine coordinator to oversee these activities, as well as monitor patterns and address problems. it's important to know that these requirements are not new. as i said earlier, the issue isn't new. neither are the requirements that schools address them.
in fact, they date back to the law's first regulations in 1975. aauw was instrumental in passing the 1972 title nine itself. and also instrumental in urging the administration to finally do the regulations. it took more than three years, but it got done. since then, over the course of republican and democratic administrations, the u.s. department of education has continued to provide technical assistance and guidance that promotes compliance with the law. schools also follow a consumer protection law known as the cleary act. it requires colleges and universities that participate in federal financial aid programs, there we have that link always to federal money, always comes with strings, right? who get that federal financial aid to disclose crime statistics and security information. originally passed in 1990, congress updated the cleary act just recently. in 2013 it was part of a bipartisan re-authorization of cleary amendments within the violence
against women act. these updates require schools to report additional crime statistics and to provide ongoing sexual assault prevention and bystander intervention training campus-wide. this public report of a school safety effort is valuable to students and parents and provides insight to the schools who are working to improve their campus safety programs. the most recent regulations for the cleary act were adopted through a negotiated rulemaking process of diverse stakeholders. now, that sounds very wonky, negotiated rulemaking. but the key to remember here is that it was a very diverse group and they did come to a consensus. that is unusual. so, the fact that we had campus police, survivors, campus administrators, advocacy groups together doing that work and coming to consensus i think speaks well in terms of overall concern for this issue. they worked through these complex issues and came to a
consensus which went into effect on july 1 of last year. 2015. this new cleary data is now available and that's part of the reason why we're here today. we look forward to the positive impact this is going to have and the lessons that we can learn from the implementation. these reports are incredibly useful. they're useful because they help schools to design adequate responses and build programs that address gender-based violence. schools that aren't robustly taking advantage of this report are short changing their entire campus. title nine and the cleary act are long standing complimentary laws that work together to ensure that students and schools have a clear course of action when sexual violence occurs. and despite some claims of overreach, these requirements are not new. appropriately schools are not in the business of imposing
criminal punishments. these decisions are best left to authorities in charge of criminal investigation and prosecution, if a survivor decides to go down that path. the school's civil rights proceedings and any criminal investigation represent parallel yet equally necessary paths. laws and legal precedents spell out clear requirements for schools to be prompt, fair and impartial. in all disciplinary proceedings. and title nine echoes these due process requirements by reminding schools to be adequate, reliable, impartial and prompt and include the opportunity for both parties to present witnesses and other evidence. this is in whatever process, the setting or hearing process, that the school would put together. similarly the cleary process requires that school processes be prompt, fair and impartial. and that both parties receive timely notice regarding the outcomes of proceedings. so the data in many respects is part of what we're really interested in today.
because with that new regulation going into effect on july 1, this fall, we had the first reporting under the new regulations on campus sexual assault, as well as domestic violence, dating violence and stalking. the first data. it's always important when a new law goes through, how is it going to be implemented and what information are you going to get? because the whole point of the data is to give us a sense of what we might be doing better moving forward. now here's the rub. the top line finding from an analysis that aauw did of the cleary act data and new data that just came out was that 91% of campuses disclosed zero reports of rape. let me say that one more time. 91% of campuses reported or disclosed zero incidents of reported rapes. now, we know that defies reality. it defies the research. what's really going on?
there's more here obviously than simple data. and for that, we're going to turn to my valued colleague, anne. ms. hedgepeth: thanks, lisa. aauw's new research also took a look at a few other categories of crime that are disclosed every year by every school as a part of the cleary act requirements. so where 91% of campuses certified that they did not receive a single report of rape, we also looked at new categories, including dating violence, domestic violence and stalking. these additions, as we mentioned, they're new for 2014. they're in the database now for the first time. and they were a part of the violence against women act re-authorization in 2013. collecting information about dating violence, domestic violence and stalking, in addition to
rape, matters because we know that students are not immune from these forms of sexual harassment and sexual violence. college-aged women generally experience the highest rates of intimate partner violence and many women are sexually assaulted during college and research shows that at least one in five college women experience physical abuse, sexual abuse or threats of physical violence at the hands of an intimate partner during college. in addition, many college women experience dating abuse including physical, sexual, verbal or controlling abuse. it's clear that students experience this violence. this is happening at schools every single day. and now for the first time, we have a set of information about the scope of the problem on every single campus. what aauw's research found was that similar to rape, only about 10% of college campuses disclosed a reported incident in these new categories in 2014.
again, having such a low proportion of campuses with reported incidents of dating violence, domestic violence and stalking does not square with the wealth of information that we have about how many individuals are actually impacted every single year. aauw's research also did a quick look at the 4,000 main or primary campuses of colleges and universities with enrollment of at least 250 students. and why we did that is because these overall numbers we have are about every student. and i really want to stress that every student matters. and that's why the cleary act data is so valuable. at community colleges, in small programs, all the way up to some of these bigger schools that maybe we read about all the time. looking at just those bigger, main or primary campuses, though, we still found that reporting was out of line with what we know about the incidents of these crimes.
about 76% of those campuses disclose zero rape reports in 2014. this is a problem. a silver lining in our findings, though, is that campuses that reported one type of sexual violence often disclosed other types as well. to us that suggests that some schools have built the necessary systems to welcome reports of all types. and report survivors and report the statistics to the department of education. others with across-the-board zeros have not. what kind of conclusions can we draw? schools have a lot of work to do. many schools do. what's particularly frustrating is something i want to echo what lisa said earlier, our scrutiny follows several years of increased attention to campus sexual violence. this is the anniversary year. and as lisa mentioned, we seen
increased prevention from -- intention from the department of education taking off more recently in 2010 and 2011. and 2013 re-authorization of the violence against women act and a task force. schools have been put on notice and given many tools to improve their support system, their policies and procedures to , respond to sexual violence. the 2014 data that we'll send to you that far too many schools are not taking this on and many may not be following the law. some schools have seem to be welcoming reporting and disclosing it here in the collection. in that, i want to drive home an important point. many of us know this. every one in the event is too many, we know it is prevalent on college campuses and we should expect schools to have reported incidents to disclose annually. zeros are the red flag and i think we have to keep that in
mind in looking at some of this data that comes in every year. so how can schools rise to the challenge? they should be because doing so helps everyone. getting the cregget numbers in the correct numbers in the annual data collection helps college leaders allocate resources to improve prevention and response. think of that in domestic violence and stalking. if that is prevalent on your campus, that may be the type of prevention work. and counting these numbers accurately reflects that the assaults were counted and that is equally as important. while we do hope that schools are reporting accurate data and what i mean there are numbers that reflect all of the reports they receive. if they are not, they need to take action to change the
procedures quickly to verify and validate the data they are sending to the department of education every year. but another thing they need to be thinking about beyond the accuracy of the data is that the numbers disclosed in the cleary collection are from reported incidents. so obviously a big gap we need to close is between the number of actual incidents and the number of reported incidents. we know that there are many survivors on college campuses who do not disclose rapes to college officials or law enforcement. this will help close the gap between actual and reported incidents. the first thing is to develop policies, procedures and campus-wide training to ensure the proper handling of reports. if students don't know who to go to or schools have confusing policies and if no one is trained what to do when they receive a report, the environment is unlikely to
encourage survivors to come forward. i say that because it's smart for a school to do this but also in the law. title 9 in the cleary act requires schools to be doing these things. do public education around reporting options, making available online opportunities to report, providing a hotline for students. these things can make reporting as easy as possible which can be critical to closing that gap again between the actual number of incidents and the reported number of incidents. i want to mention something that we think could be a gamechanger for schools and climate surveys and there are tools. you don't know what you don't know. by asking students about their experiences, about whether or not they reported and why, schools can improve their campus climate. they can learn from the experiences and make changes.
schools can target efforts and ensuring the campus needs and what students are telling them. this work can bring the school's attention the number of actual incidents instead of benchmarks for improving reporting through the cleary collection while working to prevent sexual violence. there is a wealth of research out there that is telling us more and more about sexual harassment and violence on college campuses. while some of these ideas that i have just mentioned may seem like common sense. senator mccaskill released a report that schools were surveyed. 16% of those responded were doing fine with surveys in 2014 the year of the cleary collection. about half of the institutions
made easy by having a hotline option available. to eradicate the overwhelming number of zeros that we saw in the cleary data collection, these practices have to change. this can tell a very powerful story. another example of that is over the past month we have seen stories about new research regarding the incidents of sexual violence around division one football game days. it goes up dramatically. understanding climate issues may contribute to the issues of sexual violence can help a school tackle sexual violence. much like the data that was used in that research, the cleary collection data can help drive those solutions, for schools, for students, for the community and for policy makers. data is a friend in these prevention efforts and we want schools to use it.
all of this research overlaps with the findings and tells a story that we have a lot more to do on prevention, on school processes, and policies, on reporting and on data collection. one thing we wanted to speak to today and we mentioned this morning is that these findings joined but contrasted to long standing research into victimization. 91% of schools reporting zero rates with what we know has been validated. between 1-4 and 1-5 women are experiencing sexual violence during their college years. we have seen climate surveys that are finding similar numbers 4 and ballpark of 1in 1-5 and we saw the findings in a "washington post" national
survey. with their research, with the keizer family foundation, found 20% of young women say they were sexually assaulted and many more endured an attempted attack. it is this overwhelming story about how many individuals experience sexual violence during college, that casts an alarming light on our findings that so many schools report zero incidents. and lisa can add to this point with additional research that aauw has conducted in the past and what we are seeing across the country. ms. maatz: it happens to menace men and women and that is important to remember. it does not happen as often. it is not necessarily as harmful in terms of the outcomes for
their college education, but it still is a problem. one of the things that we have seen in the national surveys is that 7% of men, of young men suffered some kind of sexual assault on campus. what is interesting about that statistic, not only does it underscore the continued need for title 9 to be gender neutral, but there's evidence out there that says a man is more likely to be sexually assaulted than he is to be falsely accused of such assault. and i think that is a very important point to make. a man is more likely to be assaulted himself than he is to be falsely accused of that crime. the next step for aauw and congress and communities to take to assist schools and students in their efforts to end sexual harassment and violence. we know it works on a continue
um. and starts early and going to look at solid prevention strategies, we need to be talking about this in kindergarten and talking about healthy relationships and look at bullying and harassment such as bullying can have a gender component. if you can interrupt it further down, you run much less of a risk of it escalating into sexual assault, rape and unfortunately, even murder. we know that young men themselves are affected by this and there is also a you unique lgbt component to this particular problem and space needs to be made in terms of how policies are written and applied to understand everybody's lives in this particular instance.
we also know that the time immediately following an incident is critical for survivors. they need access to a safe space, to medical or counseling care and information about their rights. they also need to have an idea where they can seek traditional support. schools don't have to do this alone. most communities have some kind of domestic violence or sexual assault hotline, counseling and even prevention programs so there are local experts who are eager to work with colleges and universities to do this prevention work and provide the kinds of services that are necessary to help survivors. schools need to ensure there is a confidential adviser that is available to connect survivors with these resources. schools need to talk about what the students rights are, whether
they want to report to police or not and what their rights are on campus, what services are available. these are all things that a survivor in crisis, particularly a young woman who may now just be removed from her family, removed from friends and church and other support groups, this is the kind of things she needs. the aauw supported s.o.s. campus act. it would ensure that schools take these critical steps. in addition, these climate and victimization surveys can help schools better understand the dynamics between reported and unreported incidents of sexual violence. schools are hesitant to do these climate surveys because they are viewing campus sexual assault as a public relations issue more so than a safety issue and as a civil rights issue. one of the things we need to remember when we are talking
about campus sexual assault, it is a civil rights issue as it may be a criminal matter. schools have a responsibility through title 9 and through the cleary act to make sure that this behavior, this climate is not getting in the way of someone's right to an education. that public relations issue is key. i want to be clear there are good actors out there. the reality is, many times, schools have been concerned that if if they have a safety report that reflects the kind of crime that might be on campus that somehow it's going to be bad for business. parents and students will look at those reports and wonder if she should attend that school. with today's reality, in the fact that so many people are talking about this issue that is clearly present in our national conversation, schools need to get past that p.r. concern. if i had a daughter going to
college, i would much prefer a university that stands up to the microphone and says, you know what? we have a problem. it happens everywhere, which means it also happens here. here's what we are going to do about it, here's how we follow title 9 and make sure we are doing everything we can as an administration to support our students. that, to me would be comforting. you don't need to gloss it over and pretend it doesn't happen. address it right up front. and that could be revolutionary. these climate surveys help us understand the dynamics between reported and unreported incidents, but they help assess administrative and cultural factors on campus that can undermine reporting and reporting. these climate surveys can't be stressed enough. far too many schools don't do them. one of the benefits of the surveys is the longitudinal of
them. you can see how things are improving. you can see if your prevention efforts are working and see if students are learning about the processes and the rights that are available to them on campus and if they're not, you can address that. you can come back and figure it out but you're not going to know unless you do the survey. schools need information in order to combat this epidemic and this information, this accurate cleary reporting is going to provide them the data they need. these climate surveys provide transparency and also the kind of transparency that's crucial to student safety as well as to help schools fine tune their response. there isn't necessarily a one size fits all solution. yes, you have to follow title 9 and you have to follow the cleary act. but the climate survey can find
out what your specific problems are on your specific campus so you can design specific solutions. it would require surveys in this school. the surveys were something recommended through the white house task force that this particular bill would require schools to do it and fully in support. we urge congress to provide additional resources to the department of education to support schools, support title 9 coordinators and other stakeholders on relevant laws and best practices. one glimmer of positive motion moving forward, is one of the things the office of civil rights department of education recently released is the first ever tool kit for title 9 coordinateors. title 9 has been around for 40 years. but for the first time ever we
have a tool kit that tells them what their job is that reinforces that they can't be retaliated against for doing their job, and talks about the depth of title 9 and not just athletics. but talking about sexual vial earns on campus and access to stem classes, all the things that title 9 can be useful for. this is a huge deal and revolutionary. and our members across the country are printing out these new materials and hand delivering them to title 9 coordinators at colleges and universities and schools. part of the reason this is important, we found through our own research that not only do a schools not necessarily have a coordinator appointed, but many of the folks who are appointed don't know it. you call and ask for the title 9 coordinator and -- great story when i was at a conference, i had a woman come up to me
because she was excited about this information. at the break, she called her president at the university of a small school and called him right up and said i'm so excited about this, who do i need to talk to. who is our title 9 coordinator so i can share this information. and the president said you are. that can happen. we need to make sure they have this information. and i'm proud of our members getting this information out because it could be revolutionary in terms of how we address things. there are schools that are working diligently to respond to incidents of sexual violence. technical assistance can help them make real change. more attention to sexual violence and seen an uptick in complaints. we need additional funding as well as the office that handles cleary reporting and
complaints. there are schools that are under investigation regarding their compliance or lack thereof with title 9. the office of civil rights needs additional funding to provide technical assistance to schools and hold bad actors accountable. let me give you more detail because i think these numbers are astounding. the u.s. department of education office for civil rights which is responsible for enforcing title 9 and civil rights law currently has staffing levels that are almost 15% below levels years ago. -- below levels 10 years ago. levelse than 50% below 30 years ago, at a time when we are seeing an uptick in complaints and the complexities of the issues. they need the resources not just for the enforcement practices , but for the technical assistance to help schools to comply so they don't have to worry about an investigation. a single incident of sexual
violence is one too many. when it interferes with a student's education, it adds insult to injury. but we have tools to make a real difference. and aauw is stemming the tide of sexual violence as congress works to re-authorize the higher education act. i don't know if this is something that will get through. this is an election year and they just did pass the elementary and secondary act re-authorization. those committees are kind of tired right now. are they going to the do the higher ed this year? maybe. if they do, they need to address information about campus sexual assault. these bills on capitol hill have attracted bipartisan attention. something that is all too unusual these days. if we can find some consensus as well as the will to do a higher education bill we can put
additional protections, programming and requirements, following on our 2013 re-authorization. and really start to make great headway. thank you very much. we are now going to stand for questions. [applause] mr. gallo: just had two superb presentations and i will be calling on people. please give your name and identify what organization you are with and if you are with aauw, proudly say aauw or private citizen, say that. ma'am. can you speak loudly. we didn't get an extra microphone. >> i have not read all of the research you are referring to.
[inaudible] what data are you using to show that they may not be reporting, climate surveys, other kinds of data. i do not have access to it right now. i am trying to understand. ms. maatz: i will have my numbers guru. if the statistics were accurate, they would be very much something to celebrate but the reality is that we know that they're not. and what we don't know is why they are not. it could be because students don't feel safe in reporting. maybe campuses don't have a process in place to support survivors. we know from very clear research that has been reinforced over the years, campus sexual assault is happening. to be a school that comes
forward and have 91% of schools disclose no reported incidents of no assault defies the imagination. that is what leads us to the next question about why and what can we do about it? that is a critical question and part of the reason we worked so hard to get that into the re-authorization a few years ago. we wanted additional data that we could use to not only address prevention issues and see how we're doing and schools are doing. if the data was accurate, i would be doing a happy dance for you. [inaudible] we have actual documentation that it is not. i will have and go from there. ms. hedgepeth: what is important here when we say it's not accurate, we are looking at the difference about what we hear in terms of incidents level. that is from studies of the past
20 years. several of them that are often referenced came out of the department of justice but in 1980's, one of the research studies looked at students at 32 colleges and up through the most recent national survey that the "washington post" did which was representative. and found that number around 20% and what our findings that 91% of college campuses reported , they had zero reported incidents of rape in 2014 that doesn't match up with the surveys and detailed research and long standing research that when we ask students about their experiences as many as one in four and one in five women are experiencing sexual assaults. there are many of those studies. i do point to some of the more recent ones coming out of the department of justice and national survey from the "washington post" as good places to start. we have been excited to see some
schools release their information from their climate surveys and i mentioned that as well. several found numbers in that ballpark in terms of asking the incident level and reported. when schools are transparent about their survey findings, or even go to release as much data as they can, it provides a wealth of additional information to this conversation. and we would encourage schools to be transparent with that data. a great example, we did see m.i.t. release their information and people were able to say, did this question get at what you wanted it to. this may be an evolving field to study. that is one of the differences, looking at the different questions they ask. but at the end of the day it comes together. we asked students about their experiences, they are not being borne out in the reported numbers and that has happened
yet again when we look at the cleary data collection of the reported numbers in 2014. >> does the aauw recommend going to local police, rather than campus police? is there any incident of a campus police having a conflict of interest? ms. maatz: if you are a victim of sexual assault on campus and the campus has a police force do you go there or go to local police, and what interest might campus police have in terms of how to handle campus sexual assault. one of the things we need to remember when it comes to criminal reporting, there are
very good reasons why this crime is so underreported to police. victims don't necessarily want to come forward and they are revictimized when they do, services aren't adequate. police and prosecutors are not receptive or helpful when survivors come forward. there are reasons why they might not come forward. what's interesting now and you saw this with bernie sanders, who stumbled over an answer over campus sexual assault. he said we should be telling the students to go to the police and not letting universities cover it up. and i think he meant well in the sense that he was viewing that not encouraging students to go to the police somehow meant that it allowed the college to handle it in its own way and sweep it under the rug. the college can't sweep it under the rug. they have to keep track of those
civil rights protections and have to have title 9 incidents . you want a situation where you are providing the survivor with information, with access to resources so that he or she knows their rights and then if they choose to, they can make a report. the key here is not to make that report mandatory. if you want to ensure that not another survivor comes to the police, make reporting mandatory. you can't do that. you can't take that power away. that needs to be their decision because there are all kinds of ramifications to reporting. then to get to campus or local police, they are going to toss it to the one who has jurisdiction. so you might not necessarily have a choice as far as that goes. but the other thing to keep in mind with the cleary data collection, this is a place where they are supposed to be working with local police to
collect data. there is a lot of room for better collaboration and better conversation to make sure they are doing the best they can for victims. >> is there anywhere the public can go to see the cleary information before they go to school? ms. maatz: yes. and anne has that information. ms. hedgepeth: the question is how can we find that information of a prospective parent or student. one of the best things of the cleary act, it is a transparency-oriented law. all of the information that schools collect, report, put together under the cleary act has to be displayed in a few different ways. first and foremost, they put out an annual security report. it should be easy to find on their website. go to a school you know and type
in annual security report and see what shows up. that's a wonderful place to start. when it comes to the actual numbers, the reported incidents every year, the department of education collects all of them from schools and puts them in a data base and make it possible for anyone to look up to compare schools and do something with it . that's on a website that the department of education makes publicly available. we can make sure that you have that url afterwards and way you can slice and dice that data. that's what we use, the publicly available data to find this information and it means that anyone can do that in a community with a school they are interested in or a group of schools they are interested in. i want to stress that the cleary act covers more than sexual violence. while we have been focusing on rape, domestic violence and
stalking, there are additional crime statistics there. there is information about hate crimes or buys motivated crimes on campus, and a number of other things that schools do. this is a comprehensive look at the safety of students on campus. at least one take of it. when these things occurred, what occurred and what schools are doing to respond. we hope people will use it in that vein and push them if they have any questions. [inaudible] we have a lot of regulations on what schools are supposed to do. clearly, they are not following the expectations. how can you best hold institutions accountable?
ms. maatz: talked about one of the best ways and look at the annual security report. it's much more than statistics and in fact part of what we did in the 2013 re-authorization with the cleary amendments to that statute, was put in several different requirmentes that need to be added to this security annual report. students,things that staff, faculty, interested alumni, they can all look at. and let me tell you a few of the things. now they have to add hate crimes. that will be in there. there is a lot of research about violence against women depending to be a hate crime. depending on the context and how it is put forward. not only do they have to update their annual security report to include the institution program that are available. so in other words within that report, they should be detailing what prevention programs they're
doing to address this and that will give you a sense of the scope and whether you think they are adequate or not. they have to list the procedures, the steps, the time lines that the institution is going to follow when one of these crimes is reported. you can see that they have thought it through and they have the policy and have the process. all the sanctions that the school imposes should be listing so you could have a sense of what direction they're going. one of the things we have seen unfortunately, as we have gotten into this national conversation about sexual assault that some schools are providing ridiculous sanctions. book reports for people that have been found in an administrative setting, to be in violation of a student code of conduct and violation of sexual assault. schools need to use that
opportunity for the changed agent it can be. they need to provide clear options and support to students who report one of these incidents. within that report, you should be able to see who they are referring people to. what kind of services do they have on campus. is there something specific at the counseling center. students know for sure. if that is not fleshed out, you need to ask them because they need to have those services available. schools are required to give survivors the information about the options they have to report it, whether it's a title 9 report or a police report. again, that's part of what they are supposed to be talking about. and lastly, schools have to provide information on how they'll protect the confidentiality of survivors as well as notify them about counseling and other services. what we are doing with the cleary report, this is all about campus crime in general not just sexual violence. in addition to these stats, what are you doing? what steps are you taking?
what processes do you have in place? if that's done well, that could be a gold mine for someone to hold a school accountable. you need to ask questions. >> when you were talking about the cleary report, title 9, two words jumped out at me, timely and prompt. are they in the law? or the schools determine what is prompt and what's timely? ms. hedgepeth: the question is timely and prompt. i think the most important thing here is something we mentioned
earlier, our laws are not necessarily one size fits all. they are meant to work with schools' policy but provide a framework. the department of education has given some guidelines to help schools do the things they are supposed to do under these frame works that the law established. schools have resources under both title 9 through guidance and the technical assistance and the information that is available to title 9 coordinators to help them work through the processes they have to in a prompt manner. they have some opportunities to be clear with students that if there are going to be delays or things going on, those are outlines that they can make that happen. we also encourage students if schools are not being prompt, then that is something you can do something about. we have seen an increased number of complaints coming to the department of education. of tools that many people didn't know about for a long time. when or if you are involved in a
response, sexual violence on a campus, and you feel your school hasn't acted appropriately in the law or the guidance that has been provided, you have access to complain to the department of education and they may investigate what you have reported and we encourage people to look at that. they may need to bring it to the attention. that is one of many tools that are available that helps provide a framework to ensure that students have their civil rights protected. >> you can watch the rest of this event online at www.c-span.org. we are going to take you to the hudson institute, talking about increasing conflict between iran and saudi arabia and the implications to the rest of the middle east. live on c-span.
>> i would also like to welcome our c-span1 audience this afternoon for what i know is going to be a fantastically interesting panel. also a very timely one, given the events of the last week. detaining of the 10 american sailors this past week. of course, other recent events including the attacks on to saudi arabian diplomats in iran. given the topic, the turmoil in the persian gulf, it is poised for more conflicts. we will go for about an hour and 15 minutes. then, i will open it up for questions in the audience and maybe open it up earlier. we have an fantastic panel.
thenior fellow at foundation for the sense of democracies. , who is an, phillips adjunct fellow at the washington institute. philip and i have known each other for a wild. philip also owns a blog. to his left is my hudson institute colleague, michael durham. again, this is an extraordinary panel. i thank you for coming. let's open it up right now. >> thank you so much for your words, your invitation, and for providing me the opportunity to present my analysis. the detaining of amic