to look for them in the information is outdated, somebody has moved on from that address and so we have to come after investigative means, track them down. >> how many cases should we be investigating given the high number of vsat overstays? 3000 can be adequate. >> outside to prioritize within this population goes to represent public safety threats, those who have overstayed their visa for a long period of time and that probably means the number investigation should go. >> the last question, when you look at the idea about who won this watchlist, we debated that relative to the terror attack in orlando. somebody's on the watch list and someone on a no-fly list and they are here illegally. why are they still here illegally? what may be a priority if it

identified them on a no-fly list, they are here illegally. when they be a priority for us to investigate? >> most likely would talk about non-us citizens. most likely they are priorities. most likely they are under investigation. >> can you give us information? >> or maybe law enforcement sensitive regions by we don't act at the moment. >> i understand. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator perdue. i didn't read my opening statement because it was so lost and we had a long meeting with you. read a few sentences so you know leading up to my first question. this month two weeks ago five people were trapped by a fire and killed in a los angeles apartment living, a man who started the fire was in the country illegally and had been previously arrested for domestic violence and drug charges.

four of the five victims have been identified so far in all our constituents from ottumwa, iowa. too many americans have lost their lives vindictiveness have to feel the real and devastating impact caused by sanctuary cities and lax immigration of horse but. so what has changed since kay's family was killed a year ago? not enough. as i mentioned earlier, sarah root was killed when an undocumented person under the influence of alcohol earlier this year. this driver was later released from custody because the federal government refused. because of the twisted priorities that we seem to have in this country on immigration policy, there are consequences

to actions are particularly when actions are taken. criminals are not being detained even when somebody's life has been taken. this is why i introduced a bill last night i would address this problem. i have long with the senators of iowa and nebraska sent a letter to immigration and custom enforcement to request information on drug driver that killed sarah root instead of providing the information requested, rice responded that the information was protected by the privacy act. the privacy act authorizes disclosure to congress. second, the privacy act does not cover people in the united states illegally and there has been court cases i'm not on the even court cases that said resident aliens sometimes are covered by the privacy act. your department justified the

privacy act by claiming to protect people in the country illegally and of course we listen to sarah's family because they are from iowa and they are very disturbed about it. they could not comprehend why he was having -- seem to have more rights than they do. would you insurance policies match the statue? don't you think the family deserves to know all information about their daughter's killer? >> yes. consistent with law i will look into the request you have made and ensure you receive a reply. >> thank you. is that your letter regarding the nomination of the award for valor to irene martin, head of the san bernardino u.s. citizenship and immigration service office who refuse to let

homeland security investigation agents detain terror suspects on the inspector general found your department confirmed that berg was nominated in march lineup is a disturbing and then occurred in december and after whistleblowers had actions. do you think it's okay to nominate employees like mark who are under inspector general investigation for the secretary's award of valor? >> i'm aware of your letter and your issue. i haven't act about whether or not this employee should receive the valor award and i want to look at the complete package. >> thank you very much. two more questions. you and i have had a few discussion about eb five program and i take you. we've had long discussions of

thank you. i know you share my concerns about the program and appreciate the fact you are working to issue regulations that the reforms the chairman of god, senator leahy, congressman conyers and i have been pushing. or the regulations he planned to move out soon finally to his gerrymandering to prevent regional founders from unlimited number in affluent areas even though they are not high unemployment areas. >> limited gerrymandering was one of the changes that we are developing consistent with recommendations, sir. as we discussed the other day, we intend of the changes up are noticed and commented november. that is on the list. yes, sir. >> this is my last question. when you and i spoke this week on me to credit for decreasing the number of criminals released

from 36,000 to 30,000, but this is still too many criminals released in our community and the threat to public safety someone suggests you are releasing fewer people because you are detaining fewer people. but it's evident that the case of your so-called enforcement priorities allow drunk drivers to roam free. we've consider changing your policies to ensure all individuals charged with driving under the influence are priorities for removal. >> well, i certainly encourage that in specific cases including this one, but it may be an important federal interest to put a person in removal proceedings and those types of circumstances. at the number of criminal really says since i've been secretary has declined from a pointer to fy 14 to 30,000.

because of some policy changes may come at the number was around 1900, which is even lower end and this year it will be lower probably get out like to see the number reduced to the changes we've made to the system about two years ago i've had that effect. >> in regard to drunk driving and this is in a question no one with this comment. there is pressure in the one case i'm talking about but i think you ought to consider the cases that drunk driving and changing the policies. she's going for a second round. i don't have a second round. thank you, mr. chairman. i will be brief. i just had one question. listening, i'm a former prosecutor and have had protecting the homeland enough for us to go after these

terrorist groups. i think it is important to remember who the enemy is. we had a saying in our office as prosecutors that our job was to convict the guilty and protect the innocent. as he pointed out, i have no problem saying the word islamic extremism. i don't see this as their enemy. what were his people have been used. i don't see the enemy as a muslim community. i see in my own state doesn't the police officers coming from the somali community or a muslim who do everything they can to fight off this extremism and to make sure that our community is safe. i see muslims serving in the military. if a muslim congressman including my own in one of the witnesses that senator cruz called for his hearing this week actually went after that congressman and implied that he was somehow affiliated when in fact he is on a cisco with.

because he has stood up against the extremism. when we look at this, how we cannot indict an entire religion and community. they are the people we protect and the people we work with to go after this evil. fbi director james coleman has said the notion that u.s. is anti-muslim is part of trade for his narrative another terrorist group. david petraeus has said the ramifications of such rhetoric can be harmful and lasting. these concepts are totally good. they will compound the already great terrorist danger to our citizens. i just want to keep our citizens safe. i view this as a number one hole of our government and the number one purpose of government is to keep our citizens safe.

that includes safe from terrorists. i am the question of u.s. to comment about the intent of rhetoric we have seen an increase in hate crimes and how you charge at our nation's security, homeland security, differentiate between going after terrorists and extremists and a guiding an entire religion. >> i think it is good to our homeland security effort is to throw israel a suspicion over an entire religion. it's like with the islamic state would like us to do because it would be productive to their efforts to cast their current effort at islam against the west corporations or america. they would like to see it in those terms. i think that there is a distinction to be drawn between

terrorism, violent extremists and the islamic faith, which is as you know a religion of peace and those who follow that faith belief in peace. it is the third or fourth largest religion in the world and it is a diverse religion. it is as diverse as christianity. there's always a temptation to paint a religion or race or a city with a broad brush and i think that it is counter to our efforts at national security and homeland security to do so. i believe in this environment as i've said many times, it is imperative that we continue our efforts to build community partnerships with grants without breach, partnering the text that there. i'm glad that there seems to be

bipartisan support for doing so. it's imperative. >> i appreciate that. i know in our state to indict and convict people that need to be part of it recognizing in the muslim community that live in our state. tried to see those differences and balances as part of what we do every single day. i appreciate her closing words. thank you. >> thank you for your patience mostly. thank you for answering our questions and when you couldn't answer a question, get the answers in writing. we thank you for your cooperation in a thank you for coming in. our meeting is adjourned.

[inaudible conversations] is [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] carrots to a close, it emits any of secretary jay john and have to say, you can on our web type, c-span.org.

>> when we talk about human trafficking, we are talking about slavery, modern-day slavery that still today claims more than 20 million victims on any given time. all 20 million our people, just like everybody here. they have names. they have or have had families, in many cases they are enforced to in two or a living in modern

times that no human being should ever have to ask. speeeight in some places, particularly where violent extremists are able to find a contemporary safe haven, and i might add comment eight temporary safe haven, atrocities are rented and over. the 34-year-old survivor recalls captors in syria, and she pleaded with him to halt the incessant rape at a chargrilled girl. he replied she is not a little girl. she is a slave. >> you will hear more about this year's report on human trafficking live at 2:00 p.m. eastern by c-span will cover a state department briefing on the issue.

>> in the beginning, they did a lot of trajectories. so they calculated different rocket propellant and a great for many early missiles that were on the court role and a sergeant and then things changed when the space race have been

and when nasa was farmed. and then these women's roles begin changing. they ended up becoming the last programmers and they had these incredibly long careers at nasa. 40, 50 years. one of them still works at nasa today.

>> an all-female panel of digital media course of the producers and executives discuss coming the 2016 presidential election in target millennialist is a new type knowledges such as podcast on my chest was comparing camp and coverage on television versus online. this is the second annual ideas los angeles and seem a lot. >> it is all women. [applause] hi, guys. thank you, everybody for coming this afternoon. i was recently the executive editor on the digital side and worked on the election

strategies for fusion. i just started with my and the cofounder of twitter and a new company called matter studios right content created shop working with distinctive voices on awesome storytelling across platte lines, podcasts, video series, et cetera. we are here to talk about politics, which is not much may daily life at this point. i'm following avidly. it's still very much part of my daily life. when fusion asked me to put together a panel, i thought it was an awesome opportunity to bring together some of my favorite people who work in political coverage and do it really differently, each one of them. i'll introduce them. you guys are sitting in my card order. that may rearrange quickly just to make sure i don't miss any key point here.

list playing, thank you for coming. lives is an amazing voice, especially the videos is. she is a correspondent and has a series of 26 -- father in this election. she was previously where she cocreated the show flip the script, which is an award-winning video series covering social issues. she has been part of just explosive digital properties online and make a big waste that has helped drive to be very prominent during the season election coverage. thank you for being here. caitlin thompson is director of content at the podcasting company that's basically everything for podcast soup to nuts from editorial oversight cms, to add their name, to everything else.

world domination in the pot cafés. she yells ran political coverage in 2012 at wnyc and covered 2006 and 2008 at the washington post and all of that time. you're an early adopter to pot cats. i'm testing my own knowledge based on our many conversations. both bring to this conversation a great debt of knowledge about political coverage in this new space of podcasting, which we not everybody is super excited to get into. catherine mayer is actually the chief operating not serve under studios because i just hired her a few weeks ago. we know each other from "politico" where she was previously starred in an editorial, but then moving into

operation were "politico" and then working on the political state expansion where she was vp of operations for politicos to enter "politico" into six new markets, six event dates around the country and especially in new york, worked on the integration of capital new york with "politico," which is a big deal in new york. alicia menendez, fusions superstar anchor and correspondent and amazing political brain. we worked together a lot you should, especially on the foreign where she just brought her super depth of knowledge about the issues than the candidate and everything they have said for the last 12 years, just encyclopedic knowledge of the issues and decisions to that event and everything she does every day. i also wanted to mention that i think alicia --

>> don't do it. don't do it. >> i can't call you broadcast journalism's new gladiator. i didn't see that. out magazine did. i have embarrassing tidbits for everybody. >> i'm glad everyone else is spared. >> let's start talking. this is obviously a crazy election year. i think it has been really different than we thought it would be. a year ago when we were working at fusion trying to figure out how we were going to do 2016. i'm not think any of us foresaw that trump fours coming our way and thought it would be something to do with early on in the election and wake it down into the issues in sort of drive the conversation more ourselves and having it driven for us in many ways.

so i think there has been some adjusting we have had to do because one thing that would've thought that working on is how you differentiate yourselves in this space. especially using political coverage and make the headlines of the day in, day out campaign trail and we all want to be more creative, helped drive the conversations we want to have. it is hard when you're faced with the onslaught of headlines and news breaks coming out i had very similar campaign. at the same time, the panel was arranged to address the new technologies and opportunities, innovation in the digital space and changes in the way broadcast is doing things, too. i just want to get those questions with you guys in your respective areas of where you have had and talk about what you

have and if here in 20 expedient that has a different than four years ago and maybe even a little bit further in the past. caitlin, i wanted to start with you because you are in a super news pace this year, working in podcast. but from your perspective has been -- have you seen happening in podcasting that i've felt different than what you see in day-to-day political coverage. the mac it's a good question. first of all, how many people here listen to podcasts? good, a lot of podcast enthusiasts. i will go deep and dirty. feel free to find me. i love giving giving recommendations that love hearing what people are listening to. the way i would very succinctly describe what is happening podcast and i'm so in is about is essentially there has been a real non-success of punditry.

not to say people haven't tried to do it, the punditry has failed in the pot as space and there's a lot of reason. tech presents, discovery reason, the fact that most people don't live in the same day that something is produced by the lat about the media. but as fact in its place is so hard into me. its context, explanation, narrative and a lot of it has not off the binaries of who is winning the horse race today. what is tamara brain. not to denigrate not because there's part of that world, but the narrative context that the "washington post" is doing with their serious presidential rather talk about each and every one of the presidents and their challenges and story. mike and the economist are doing a show called special relationship, which has a political reporter in the u.k. is talking to one here in the u.s. if anyone has traveled overs is and try to host, you will know

how interesting that could be on the show really gets it. i could talk about this for hours. .. in a way that nobody else had been able to come close. they got to an incredible real hardening place and to me that was encouraging because these things are catching on like wild fire and the audience is younger, female and engaged.

so to me that's a great encouraging start. >> i think picking up on that, i want to go to liz. in one of the early conversations we had about what we wanted to talk about today, we talked about some of the opportunities covering trump presents and sort of how that's even with some of the really tough statements he's made about immigrant and other groups, that that presents an opportunity to discuss these issues too. so can you talk a little bit about how you've been getting into that? >> yeah, i think it's been a really hard election to cover for all of the reasons that we've layed out and and i'm trying to keep myself motivated. maybe it's my glass half full to the world and trying not to see him being trump, not as a problem but like an opportunity to have conversations about the

things that he's talking about, because trump is not -- we were talking about this earlier, is not just -- i don't even trump is the problem, i think he's a symptom of the problem. he's saying things that a lot of people are feeling and are thinking and he is saying them out loud and i think offered a good opportunity to talk about how we feel about immigration, how we feel about women, all all of these things, how we feel about muslims and why some of those assumptions and stereotypes are wrong and bigotry and what i try to do with 2016ish, the show i host is sort of take the camera off the candidates and turn it on the people and the issues. you know, the perfect example was actually last night. the senate democrats did this amazing filibuster, 14-15 hour filibuster until 2:00 a.m. around gun violence and just

wanting to push very common sense gun, you know, security reform and so they did this amazing filibuster and i turned on cnn and they are -- they have four people talking about what trump said and i'm trying to find the filibuster and i'm like why i can't find -- we used this program called slack at fox and it's media chat system and we need to get this up. we just put it on facebook live. re-created the facebook live of the filibuster and we reached 3.7 million people. it was our biggest facebook live ever. and so many people were like thank you for showing this, thank you for -- and people were tuning in and commenting and we kept going because there were so many people watching and i actually think it broke down because there were too many people watching. anyway, all of this to say that,

i think, general media is offering a different conversation and -- and position on all of these issues and conversations that we really need to be having. >> well, alicia, i'm sure fuzion has been experimenting with facebook live and taking broadcast to a new form. it feels different but we are wrestling with a lot of the same desires to show, right, and to sort of get inside there and tell stories visually, right, not just in terms of text and other things. so this year what are you seeing that's different with broadcast? how is it -- how does it when you think about producing broadcast journalism, what are you thinking specially going into the conventions, i'm sure you're having a lot of conversations about how you do that in the space. >> i'm in a unique slice of the broadcast world because we are

trying to broadcast to millennials, the youngest most diverse generation of american history, is core cutting. what a challenge there. going into this election, i think, there was a lot of concern that following the two elections of president obama that there was going to be a dropoff in the interest of young people. well, that could not have been less truth as much as we were prepared for donald trump, i don't think people were prepared for bernie sanders and the extent to which this generation is going to feel the bern. and candidates doing more than we have ever anticipated. normally you have a handful of debates or town halls. every night there's a new debate, new town hall. and i think that allowed a lot of networks to excerpt -- experiment with different formats. for us we have the opportunity to have hillary clinton, bernie sanders and martin o'malley when

he was still in the race one-on-one specific to the hispanic community and african-american community. you need to cover all of the quote, unquote, baseline issues. at the same time there's an opportunity on the tv side because there's so much interest from the candidates and constituents and reality that people are consuming so much more of their news online. so that means it's not just enough to report about the news or do this form, you really have to be doing deep dive on issues, on stories and they have to be character-driven. which is wonderful as someone who is a story teller, but you have to be aware always that you are producing both for television to take up the time that you have promised the cable networks that you will deliver them but then also to think as you're telling the story how you're going to tell it online. one is a mistake that people made in early days of that,

assuming that i could do a seven-minute television package and cut down in two minutes and put it on facebook. that's never going to work. and so i think that there's a lot of learning going on in real-time. there's exceptions to that. i'm sure you saw anderson cooper in cnn had exchange with pam bondi in florida that has gone viral. that's an amazing moment of unscripted, unprompted live television. if you're actually producing something that's story telling, it has to be told different on every medium. and i think the final thing i'd say you see innovation in part because of donald trump's has been it of calling out the press and refuting statements that he's made. you see msnbc and cnn which have to do 24/7 coverage doing fact checks in real-time as they interview donald trump because it's the only way that they can keep up with the interview and

keep their viewers informed. that's something we have never seen before. >> right. it used to be like fact-checking, like a nonprofit enterprise that would happen three days after a debate or something. maybe if you get around to it you will see what was true and what was not it's like part of our daily diet of understanding now. katherine, you were at politico for seven years during explosion of that brand and its domination and i think like really setting the bar for what doing real-time news in the political space looks like. i also worked there and learned a lot about that kind of pace. it's very challenging to keep up, but linked to the brand, so much -- they really changed the way, i think, news became around politics and i think about it like no scoop was too small and then you started seeing as other

platforms and companies emerged like mike, like fusion, we are all trying to get in that space a little bit, and you saw "the new york times" start to get faster and faster. everybody is trying to be fast all of the time and i think politico really started that specially in politics, so what is -- has the company done to go beyond that because obviously that's not -- you can't just sustain, you hit scale and you can't just sustain on that, what are some things this year that politico has been reaching into to continue to grow and innovate around the polic -- politico space? >> it started in 2007, you could be reached on your devices and then pretty quickly other news organizations caught up. so one of the best lessons that

the founder jim and john harris who were initially with the washington post and -- saw this kind of shift in the industry coming is that they taught us that your worst enemy is and even though politico does generate from daily version as well as magazine, they set into play pretty early on things that have been helpful for this current election and i want to talk about the platforms just because they have been successful and really smart about always innovating and always experimenting some of them, you know, some of the experiments. i wouldn't say failed but there are a lot of lessons learned from that. the first one was in 2011, again

it was primarily online advertising and print advertising and we started politico pro which is policy and it's really a must-used tool for policy professionals, not just in washington now but through our state's expansion of people who need intel and real-time about these, you know, policy areas, anything from health, to energy torques financial -- to financial services, name it. so that helps offer another revenue stream. another thing that we have seen that a lot of other media companies have started to utilize as well is live events and in 2012 we created an event

team that's 20 people and are able to produce 150 events a year which is pretty impressive. most of them are sponsored and we are very proud that we did not adopt the pay and the sponsor does not have a seat on the panel and they can't do opening remarks. [laughter] >> and then those are just some examples. now in the current day, we've been talking about caitlin in terms of podcasting, i think politico's biggest asset i people and the personalities, the brands, going back to that is that it's a life extension of journalism. glen who is very well respected, white house correspondent launched podcast that's successful not just in terms of audience and downloads but also the type of guests he's been

able to secure, one of which was president obama in the oval office and part of 2016 coverage they launched the politico caucus which is weekly insider survey of more than 300 people around the united states who are really who are plugged in whether politicians themselves or activists or consultants, with all the different platforms in terms of experimenting the one mission that they all have is to break news. and another one we were talking about in terms of like real-time we also have in addition to euros, we have politico europe and they have a big vote on the 23rd of the eu referendum and just today they launched an app that has live results and

polling and feedback and it goes back to that founding principle about not being complacant. politico has been ban from several trump events. [laughter] >> has anybody else been ban from trump? >> my colleague jorge ramos. >> so anyway, it's been great obviously as hillary mentioned, i have just recently moved onto work with matter studios, but still reading for politico and exciting what they're going to create next just because it's been such a variety of experiments that are -- that i'm very proud of. >> sticking with like the -- like you were talking about glen thrush and his voice, i want to talk a little bit about people

in this election and -- and who are covering and how we have seen the pool of reporters and voices expand this year, i think. i also ran the coverage for yahoo news four years ago so i've done that like people on charters and all of that and we made a decision not to make that at fusion and sort of make new voices to elevate as part of our coverage. and caitlin, you mentioned the podcasting space being a space that's receptive to people of color and -- and other -- i mean, maybe other voices we haven't heard of before and i would just like to sort of see what you guys think about like what you've seen in terms of new voices and is -- has 2016 created opportunity for more voices we haven't heard before,

because i still think of policy like a pretty white man dominating space so i assembled this panel so obviously there's hope for the future. caitlin, you want to talk about that for a second? >> yes, i think i would answer that question two ways, digital media by definition is much more inclusive and i think all of us at least at one point in our career have interned or stepped foot in or put in blood, sweat and tears to legacy organizations. legacy organizations don't do the greatest job of being representative and that's something that the media world does instantly and everyone is on the internet and the barrier access has dropped significantly. in my space when you talk about the kinds of values and the kind of success stories that i was enumerating, story telling, you know, liz you were talking about getting involved in people's personal narratives instead of

just covering in a lot of cases politicians. those are stories that women in particular, i would say dare better at telling and i think because the barrier to entry at least in my podcast landscape has dropped significantly. people can get involved in the conversation in the way that they couldn't have in the last election cycle and i think because the internet represents america much more than legacy media organizations represent america, diversity and inclusion and most importantly the two things together representation equal audience and if you show somebody enterprising that they can get an audience, they'll do whatever it takes to get an audience and i think some of the smarter organizations that i'm on stage with are realizing that and as a result are elevating people that are good at telling those kinds of stories and recognizing opportunities and who are part of -- part of the push towards being more representative of the kind of stories and the kind of people who should be more involved in

political conversations. >> and more representative of the electorate that is now going to be making decisions of who our next president is. i'm hispanic, we are still missing voices here. even as we do better, we have to do better. one thing i noticed working in a diverse room you think of diverse in terms of what you can see but there are a lot of conversations behind the scenes that are really important about which issues are important to cover, how you tell a certain story, whose opinion gets to be out there and what constitutes the news. and who gets to show up on screen, it's also about the production team that is making really core decisions. we have -- how many rounds did you and i go about whether we should ask a questions because it seemed radical? there was a question about how much space -- how in a hierarchy of issues do you place an issue

that often does not get spoken about and so the fact that you have a more diverse group of people making those decisions is -- is really just good business. >> can you also just talk a little bit about the focused groups you have worked on this season because i think that was also, i mean, a big effort to hear voices that you often don't get to hear in this phase? >> i've been traveling across the country talking to my generation, 18 to 34-year-olds about the election. we did a focus group in new hampshire, we did a focus group in iowa, young republicans that called the caucus which was crazy because it was a week out and they were telling me who was going to be number one, two and three and we have done with young latinos in vegas and when you talk about the young -- the most diverse generation in american history, we want to say, like, millennials they're all this and it's like no, every

other generation, where you live, your ethic group, socioeconomic status, level of education, really fine-tunes the issues that you are entrusted in and you see incredible fluidity within this generation. i just did a focus group that's going to come out with never hillary democrats with never trump republicans. i have young republican that is are going to vote for hillary clinton, i have young democrats that will never vote for hillary clinton. i mean, this is so wild and yet predictable in the sense that this is a generation that has a skewed political parties and does not want to be identified with labels and has a very complex set of believes about policy in the direction america should be going. , but rather realities of living in a generation where student debt becomes intertwine about

marriage, employment, about retirement and security. so this is just -- what happens to this generation is what is going to happen to america and the sooner we can come to terms with that the sooner we can begin building policy and politics that supports that generation. >> well, liz, what are you hearing when you're out talking to people? what do people want to talk about the most? >> i think they want to talk about issues like everyone else. i think they're sick of hearing what they're hearing on television and not to bash cable news, i go on cable news all of the time. [laughter] >> and i talk about my opinion and i'm very sorry you have to listen to me talk about it for that long. but unfortunately that's what drives still, i think, a lot of mainstream coverage and i think the fact that we have so much -- so many more women now working in the media and being reporters, i think nbc has an all-female campaign trail, they call them gladiators, i believe.

ithink that's amazing. i think that changes the narrative. i went to my first trump press conference a couple of months -- weeks ago. ted cruz had dropped out and all the people were asking questions about that, right, who is your vp, what do you think about ted cruz. i was like to talk about the fact that hillary used the woman card. he sort of said that and no one because he says so many things in one day was covering that and i was like wait a minute, we need to talk about this. so i ended up asking -- being able to ask him that question and that his response was very intense like i actually was just speechless by the -- and saying

she has it easier because she's a woman. anyway. that led to a few weeks of dominating the news cycle and us talking about the fact the way that donald trump talks about women. so, yeah, it's -- it absolutely changes the way we tell stories. we are the majority of the population. we are a majority of the electorate, we cast most votes. news stories like can we have an all-female ticket around hillary clinton perhaps picking elizabeth warren as her vp. it's just a weird news story. it's just weird. most voters are female. most women don't have a problem with women in leadership positions because a lot of us have in leadership positions. so i think it's -- and that in part is powered by social media, powered by the digital revolution. >> this is my -- i should have

said this earlier because from covering these past three elections, who has -- who has -- it sounds simple, but who has the power to say this is a story, this is not a story has radically shifted and therefore the stories that we are telling are radically shifting. but that's the biggest shift to me. that is the story and it sounds so simple but it's so powerful when you've been in the news room when you've been told from editor that that's not a story and then do you let it die or fight for it? now we have people say, that is a story, go. >> people on twitter and facebook, if something is trending on facebook or twitter, mainstream cable news has to cover it. we saw that and speaking of filibusters, this is a couple of years but the wendy davis filibuster. 12-hour filibuster about this abortion bill being passed in texas and no cable news was

talking about blueberry muffins. the calorie count of blueberry muffins while all of twitter was watching the filibuster on twitter. the next day wendy davis which before then was a nobody in terms of mainstream coverage became this -- it was the front page of every newspaper. so there is a lot of power on social media. >> ferguson happened the night that the white house was having the correspondence dinner and i couldn't find it on tv. >> right. >> on the social med affront we only have a couple of minutes left but i was curious, we obviously -- it's been a huge change to see how campaigns are using social too and sort of watching -- i mean, we know how trump is using it. it's like his statements are coming out on twitter constantly, but we also have this great moment last week with hillary clinton responding to donald trump with her now

infamous delete your account tweet. so i would -- i guess i'm curious from you guys what -- have there been other moments in this cycle that have felt like these epic social moments coming from the campaigns. i mean, it really feels to me that they've empowered some people on the staff to like, well, at least on hillary's staff and, you know, i feel like trump is -- doing it all. >> it feels like he's actually doing it but seeing -- seeing the campaigns try to sort of catch up on the platforms, do you think it's going well? we have also seen some pretty bad moments too, right, like what was the worst moment on this campaign on social? >> i think it was hillary. that's the worst part. remember chilling with chillary. i'm in cedar rapids.

it was the worst snapchat. i love my mother but not familiar with the platform. so it was just -- it was just so bad and then she also, i think, had the best moment, right, with the tweet where she told trump to delete account which is an inside joke for twitter when people -- when someone says something horrendous, delete your account and that was just like the most retweeted tweet that she's ever had. and one note is to say that social media is actually the only department in media where there are more women than men right now and it's the fastest growing portion of media. i don't know who is on hillary's social media or on trump but the fact that it's a female dominated space not just users but on staff is significant too. >> there's also a lot of funky going on. i don't know how many of you follow all of the candidates on facebook but a number of times i

will see, name hillary clinton or ted cruz be like, you know, tax plan called amazing and then the link is to ted cruz ted cruz.com or hillaryclinton.com. a lot is self-generated by the campaigns. >> we have like two minutes left. oh, there are questions. cool. we will take them. >> i'm puerto ricoan and found matter -- [inaudible] >> i'm so glad to have four mothers on stage and i'm going to philadelphia to cover the democratic convention. i would like to talk to you after the event but my first question is when you get started because i just got started in

march, what was the most difficult obstacle to get your voice across in a meaningful way ? >> for me -- do you want me to repeat the question? >> i think you need the mic. >> okay. my question is when you started careers what was the biggest obstacle to get their voice heard in a meaningful way and get a political voice that is worthy and powerful? >> my first campaign was in 2004. i had just gotten hired to work at the washington post and i got to go to a lot of the debates and so i had access. it sounds like you're going in the convention in pennsylvania because being there is a lot of it, i think. i remember being intimidated and feeling i'm not quite shy but i

remember feeling like, oh, i need to prove my job, i need to, you know, and i did, i did hard work and all of that stuff. that is actually when i got into podcasting, creating multimedia, working on our desk of continuous news coverage. i gravitated towards the stuff personally that people weren't necessarily doing because they all wanted to be in the print edition of the newspaper and i thought to myself, this is a crowded field, everyone in this entire washington post building that's existed for, you know, well beyond my life span is fighting for the same thing. i'm going to try to work over here and ask about questions over here whether it's video or podcast. that's my particular experience. you can find some space for yourself to do experimentation and innovation specially in the campaign space, you know, those moments are rare and look for them and seize them, i guess.

>> i have to degree. i-- agree. i think i was my biggest problem. [laughter] >> i still am the biggest problem. specially with politico coverage, my first time covering the election i looked at what other people were doing and i was trying to be as good as other people instead of of what i can bring to the cable. it's maybe -- could be improved by -- by difference and a different perspective so valuing that, i think, is important. >> do we -- i'm sorry. we are all done. i'm getting a signal. [laughter] >> thank you so much for your time. [applause] >> thank you. >> thank you, panelists. thank you. [applause] >> yes, backstage.

[inaudible conversations] >> house plans vote on guns next week, story says that speaker paul ryan told republican that is the vote on counterterrorism package will include suspected terrorisms on buying guns and mental health bill. republicans believe terrorism and mental illness has been cause of most mass shootings. republicans leaders are considering options if democrats consider protest over gun control. senate democratic leaders hold briefing this morning over funding to combat the zika virus. senate minority harry reid rounded to question about loretta lynch's meeting with bill clinton. >> loretta is one of the most outstanding human beings i have ever known.

no one could ever question her -- her strong feelings about the rule of law and her ethics. i repeat are the best. now she's from new york. chuck, you might want to say something. >> she said that nothing -- she's an honorable person. we know that. our republican colleagues have said it. she has said nothing was discussed related to the investigation. so you have two choices to say this didn't matter or she's lying, i think it didn't matter. i don't think she's lying. >> let me tell you about special rules. hillary clinton has put her soul out working in the campaign trail for more than a year now. and despite the fact that the koch brothers did something out

of benghazi, the e-mail something is drummed up by people trying to denigrate her for years now. she takes questions from press. she's not afraid to answer questions and looking on the other side, you've got this donald trump, so we are satisfied with our candidate. i think she's pretty damn good. >> ten navy sailers held by iranian forces back in january committed a series of errors according to nay ve report released today. chief of operations admiral richardson brief reporters at the pentagon this morning on the report which list a series of mistakes that led to the capture of the sailers in iranian territorial waters. >> all right. good morning, everyone. today we have the chief of naval operations add mirrorrial john

richardson and deputy, vice admiral here to discuss the results of the investigation in the detention of iranians sailers earlier this year. you all should have a handout that depicts the timeline of events and intended and actual route taken by the boats. they will review what happened that day, the findings of the investigation and any corrective actions taken. if time permits, we can cover other topics, we will have about 30 minutes. admiral rich. [laughter] >> the question is where are they. as don announced today we are releasing the results of command

boats on january of this year by iranian forces and the subsequent detention of ten sailers. the goal of investigation was to conduct thorough review of what u.s. navy actions may have contributed to this incident. we conduct these investigations to learn what we can in order to prevent similar events from occurring and necessary to hold people accountable where they fail today follow procedures and meet expectations. before i get into the additional details, i want to address the question of international law up front. as i said before, these two boats and crew members had every right to be where they were on that day. the investigation concluded that iran violated international law by impeding the boat passage transit and violated sovereign immunity by paragraphing and video taping the crew. having said that, the bulk of the investigation concentrated on our lessons learned and corrective actions to prevent

this from recurring in the future. with respect to the review of the boat's actions the investigation looked in-depth at both chains of command. just to set the scene here, two chains of command that are operative, one is the chain of command back here in the united states that is responsible for manning and training and equipping these units, preparing them and certifying them for deployment. and when they go over to the fifth fleet, they report to the fifth fleet commander and the task force commander in theater and they run their operations and the crews report to them while they're in theater. so we investigated both change of command. we began the investigation with the operational chain of command. so as soon as the incident had actually completed, the commander of the us fifth fleet,

determined the facts and circumstances surrounding the incident. and during the review of the investigation the vice chief of naval operations appointed the deputy commander of fleet fours command to conduct a supplemental inquiry to focus on command and control in all levels including the fifth fleet and form legal opinion on u.s. and iranian compliance with international law. the vice chief also expanded the investigation to include our four-star fleet commanders in the united states. the pacific fleet commander and commander of u.s. forces davidson to ensure that all aspects of the crew's deployment was addressed. the command investigation and supplemental inquiries ensured that we had examination of the incident from boat cruise up to fleet commander as well as

operational chain of command as well as the chain of command that prepared them to deploy. the investigation reviewed seven areas, manning, training, material readiness, command and control adherence to procedures while in theater, the rules of engagement and the code of conduct and then international law. and admiral will provide additional details about the root causes in each area and actions that are under way to address them. as i mentioned during recent testimony and in my conversations with you, my intent -- our intent today is to be as open and transparent as possible and hopefully you had the opportunity to review documentation that we distribute and address any additional questions that you may have at the end of the brief. today, though, we will have to be careful about covering specific accountability actions. that process is conducted separately.

i know you are very familiar and we can't bias the outcome of those actions in anyway so we'll be not commenting on the specific of those proceedings. so with that as an opening to walk you through details of investigation and corrective actions i will turn to vice admiral, my deputy for operations plan and strategy. >> thank you, sir, good morning. i would like to provide you an overview of the incident itself and talk about the issues -- the issues revealed by the investigation and the corrective actions implemented to ensure this event is not repeated. for reference today all times identified in barring local time. coastal squadron three deployed in august 2015. the riverring command boats operate and conduct escort of high value assets in and out of port as primary mission. in october of 2015 three boats deployed from barain to kuwait

to conduct investigations in iranian gulf. on january 11th, 2016 two boats directed in support of the mission tasked to the central arabian gulf. normally boats operate in minimum of pairs for mutual support. they planned to follow a standard navigation route used routinely. on 12 january two boats departed kuwait on 250-mile nautical transit, the longest the crews had ever executed. the boat deviated from their planned route in an attempt to make up some time. the crew's deviation caused them

to cross saudi arabian seas and iranian territorial seas off the coast. approximately a mile and a half south of fasey island one of the two boats suffered an engine problem. that was at 4:11 p.m. both boat stops, one to conduct engine repair and the second to provide support. at 4:20 two iranian revolutionary guard corp. patrol approached at high speeds with weapons uncovered. the u.s. crews attempted to communicate informing that they had engine issue. shortly thereafter the engine was prepared and the crews attempted to evade. one of the boats was physically blocked preventing from departingpartingparting the area when two other large vessels arrived.

the u.s. boats assessing that were overmatched were forced where crews were held overnight and interrogated after learned crews were detained a robust military response and search and rescue effort. as a result of these efforts and diplomatic negotiations, the crews were released the next morning. as described early the investigation reviewed seven focused areas and the cno has addressed international law but i will now describe the conclusions reached by the investigators regarding the remaining six areas as well as of the corrective actions taken or are currently in progress. some of those corrective actions are in the operational chain of command under fifth fleet while others are in the administrative chain of command as cno described under the direction of the naval expeditionary combat

command. report validated that it was man when they deployed in august 2015 and no corrective actions were anticipated with regard to manning. under training the report validated that predeployment training and certification was adequate and appropriate for the mission's expected to be assigned. however, the investigation also found that once deployed sustainment training including navigation, weapons, and rules of engagement training was not conducted. operationally the fifth fleet conducted reviews of the programs and provided additional training to personnel since the incident. to address this administrative team has made a number of changes to the training program. this includes navigation training improvements, operational risk management and increased simulator training in support of this effort.

additionally there's some actions that are ongoing and not yet completed but in work. monthly training assessment of theater forces is in development. the enhancement of predeployment training to more closely aligned with the missions assigned is in work and greater fleet training certification requirements are in place. under material readiness, material readiness within the squadron as stated in the report. of note, the boats. >> inspected during turnover in august when this unit arrived and the boats were found to be in good condition. the report found that the ready degraded during time in kuwait. in response to findings, programs have been implemented and no noticed inspection for

all deployed units has also been implemented. under command and control the investigation found a lack of leadership, a disregard for risk management processes and proper mission planning standards. one important note that the investigation stated was that if the guidance provided by the fifth fleet commander had been followed, this event could have been prevented. a lack of leadership for geographically distributed forces resulted in degraded maintenance, poor morale and declining standards and the investigation also found poor coordination and communication between units and the operation centers that oversee these events. fifth fleet has refused their training and leadership for operation centers and the

operation centers that support, ongoing actions include the revision of the fifth fleet operation's order which governs command boat operations and include overwatch procedures. greater oversight and leadership involvement for geographically distributed forces is in place and those who address deficiencies as outlined. the procedural adherence, the investigation leadership did not enforce proper navigation practices, no preparation of a concept of operation's briefing was developed, lack in communication plan, mission prebriefs and weapons postures have all been addressed. specifically once under way the boats crew felt to report deviation of plan route, uninspected land sightings or the engine casualty that required them to stop.

in order to prevent recurrence fifth fleet has directed assessment period for all forces going into theater. naval combat command has implemented requirements to continually update their readiness of forces and instituted formal reports back to headquarters. under rules of engagement the investigation determined that the rules of engagements in place are adequate but may not have been understood by the crews. the investigation also found that some crew members did not meet code of conduct standards while in custody. in addition to the changes to the training programs described, the command has increased the training required and they've added in person survival of resistance and escape training for all coastal forces that'll

deploy. in conclusion, investigation looked at seven areas of concern and the navy is taking actions of all levels in the chain of command that address those deficiencies to ensure this event will not happen again and cno thanks for the time. >> thanks, admiral aquilino. before we get to questions, let me say across the navy and across the globe hundreds of commanding efforts and hundreds of u.s. sailers are making tough decisions an performing their duties in a way that should make every american proud and strike fear into anybody who would want to take us on. those sailers clearly know our actions on that day in january and this incident did not live up to expectations of our navy but we are a navy that learns in order to maintain bond of trust and confidence amongst ourselves and the american people.

we have an obligation to continually examine our personal and professional conduct to ensure that we always execute our mission and behave with integrity, with accountability initiative and toughness. and with that, i will take your questions. [inaudible] >> in your opening statement you mentioned, i think you said it was commander of the fifth fleet ordered a robust military response after this encounter happened, was that executed in anyway and what was that and could you also elaborate about the point of the failures to add here to the code of conduct standards? >> yes, sir, with regard to search and rescue effort that was initiated, commander fifth fleet pushed u.s. ngo put in the area as well as coast guard vessel that supported this event. therethere were a letter launches from harriet truman

with f-18's to provide overwatch as well as nontraditional isr in an attempt to fill more information and lastly, the combined air operation centers supported it with a launch of f-15's. >> the point about -- that was military response, okay, and code of conduct question. >> so for the code of conduct, the -- the code of conduct is clearly utilized as a guideline for behavior in an an incident where soldiers, sailers are in custody. the area of concern was the potential to make statements that would harm or be disloyal to the united states. so that is what the investigation found. >> what were the statement that is were made? >> it's in the investigation, bob. we can get you that specific thing.

beyond that, the details of that are part of the ongoing accountable review and the subject of further action on the part of admiral of the naval combat command. so we will get you the quote in the investigation but it's quoted there. >> admiral, good morning, washington post. maybe so far announced to release cause as a result of this incident. are there any other that is we don't know about yet that have been made and i guess from a timeline perspective, where is the disciplinary process at this point? >> right, there was the task force commander for task force, he has been relieved as we have announced. the commanding officer has been relieved. additionally the officer in charge of the detachment in kuwait of those boat that is were deployed up there have been relieved.

there are six other people that are in process right now and that's being handled by the admiral. >> is this a criminal process? >> i believe it's proceeded down the ajp line is where they intend to go. >> admiral, this is not the first high-profile incident over the last three or four years. if i read the investigation and your comments correctly, either admiral, it seems like the investigation concluded that they were properly man trained and equipped before they left. but how is it that this is not the first incident in the last three years or even the last three months, really on behalf of the marines.

>> it was direct today review exactly those questions. how are the forces being trained and asked to evaluate whether that training arequested it to mask their missions. so right now i'm not prepared to say that there's a larger problem but i can confirm that we are looking very hard at that and we will make adjustments as needed. >> two questions, first on the code of conduct. there are report that is go into detail about one crew member giving his password to his personal laptop and giving information about the boat, the speed, i mean, is this sort of an isolated incident or are you looking at other incidents where crew members, you know, may give too much under when under interrogation? >> we don't have a big sampling of that. what we are doing is making sure that the training is as relevant as possible, right, you know,

there's the code of conduct as it exists and then we are working to ensure that how that code of conduct can operate in foreseeable situations so that these sailors and all service members have as robust training program that would be as realistic as possible to allow them to exercise these. so that's kind of the nature of the review that we are doing right now, to make sure our training is applicable as possible. >> second, if i may, second question on china actually. chinese have said that they are not going to abide by the ruling by the court of arbitration on july 12th. could you give some details what the u.s. is willing to do -- >> we generally don't anticipate things like that. i don't want to get out in front. >> so when the brits had their sailers snatched in 2007, sought

diplomatic with united nations and stuff like that, in your report say that iranian violated article 19 of sea convention. where is the diplomatic response from the united states, where is that readdressed and is that something that you're worried about and the administration is working on or is that the end of it? >> our investigation didn't investigate that so i want to confine our discussion today to what the investigation covered. >> but you're not aware of anything like that? >> i just stick to what we talked about here. [inaudible] >> the code of conduct thing, before they were deployed we always had to go through training which included code of conduct. any of these people not given training?

>> actually there's different levels of training, as you know. nfc corp. received a lower level. they will now receive the exact same training that you said. >> that includes the code of conduct -- >> they do have code of conduct training but not to the level prior to this event that we would have wanted, which is one of the results. [inaudible] >> for both of you. did it surprise you how many different things went wrong and nobody stopped this particular patrol from going out and i have a couple of clear-up questions on chain of command? >> yeah, i will tell you that having been around as long as we have been around, tara, these big incidents like this are always the result of the accumulation of a number of small problems and so it's just the nature of these things and

what we have to take aboard as a navy is you never know how these things are going to combine and we have to be diligent and this is the command responsibility that we sort of identify and fix problems wherever we find them. we have to be extremely aggressive. when you start living with problems as this team in kuwait started to do and you saw it in the training, in the material, you never know how these things are going to combine or exactly the wrong moment and result in a bigger incident like this. >> the task force commander who has been released, where is he in the chain of command? is he directly above -- >> he's right above the commander for the riverine command boats and just under commander.

>> directly beneath him, has there been administrative penalties taken or -- >> that's not a commander relieved. his boss the task force was also relieved at command. >> fox news. were you disappointed that one of the officers, lieutenant apologized by iranians and filmed apologizing? >> i think those questions are not helpful in terms of getting us back on track as a navy to take action to prevent this from ever happening again, my personal feelings really don't pertain to this and will -- absolutely, this will be a case study going forward. you can see that there are lessons that apply across navy, not just officers but the whole navy. this would be something that we can mind for a lot of lessons.

[inaudible] >> in the investigation it talks about the moment that the iranian both approached and, of course, many poor decisions have been made to get to that point, but, you know, it says that the crews were wrong to disobey the order to accelerate and get away. there was hostile intent. so there's a possibility of military response. i'm curious once you're in that position what the correct actions to be taken were rather than surrender if that happened. ..

i don't want to questions. one is when the rcb refilling both? did they ever communicate without the hassle and talk about their location? >> they did make the required reports during the transit every 30 minutes. >> and communicate their position? >> their communication goes back

to the operations center is sending that negation found that the operations centers did not properly plot the track and keep the required oversight over the bows were. >> they did not communicate back and you are off course in a dangerous position. >> one of the findings but the operations center was a squadron function was also found to be deficient in terms of their understanding of the antenna tracking the tracking of the actual track. the coast guard vessel did come up on the line and say it looks like -- they had contact on them, looked like the boats were off-track and were in iranian waters as well. the coast guard was aware of their position and did report that name. that's in the investigation. >> the coast guard prides itself on navigation and not sorted --

>> we do too, chris. this is an exception. >> have rcb's been operating around the island in the northern persian gulf again? >> at this point i don't think they push them forward to kuwait. they operated out of bombing. that is not a function of this event. there is no mission requirement. [inaudible] >> just to clarify, deal the equipment failure there were no communication failures in the entire time. >> there was an issue on one of the boats with the communication gear. one of the boats was unable to establish encrypted communications over the horizon with the headquarters. the other boats communications equipment was working fine. >> can you say which one had the

issue? >> i can get back to you on that. >> i know you don't want to get too far, but what is the last issue of having sailors at gunpoint by iranian forces? >> well, that is obviously to be determined. we will take that as an earlier question highlight it and make sure we learn every possible lesson out of this so we will make it vividly clear to the united states navy what is the expected standard and how to achieve that standard. >> we have time for one more. >> when he spouts you're ever in a counterpart to voice your displeasure. >> has anyone? >> we have made our views clear in forms like this.

in terms of direct communication, i'm not aware of anything beyond the secretary kerry did good >> the captain -- are they both still awaiting whatever punitive decisions there might be? >> yes, there are. >> thank you very much. >> we continue at the pentagon as we await live remarks from defense secretary ashton carter this afternoon. he is about to make an announcement on the military's policy on transgender servicemember.

he is life here at the pentagon. we will be hearing from him in just a moment. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> again, we're live at the pentagon is faster and is faster and as we await live remarks from defense secretary ash carter. we are told to make announcement on the military policies on transgender servicemember's beard is expected as a transgender service members may serve openly in the u.s. military. the announcement come in a year after the secretary announced his plans to make the change. some senior military leaders split the department is moving too fast and has to resolve a number of details according to "the associated press." under the new policy, transgender individuals will miss in the military and those already serving can no longer be forced to leave rates on their gender identity. we'll hear more on this from defense secretary carter when he arrives in a moment. this is live on c-span 3. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> hey, everybody. one minute warning. i know people at taking this life. one minute. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> afternoon, everyone. thanks for being here. i am here today to announce some changes in the defense department's is regarding transgender service members. before he announced the changes we're making, i want to explain why. there are three main reasons having to do with their future wars, current force in matters of principle. the first and fundamental reason is that the defense department and the military need to avail ourselves of all talent possible

in order to remain what we are now the finest fighting force the world has ever known. our mission is to defend this country and we don't want your ears on related to a person's qualification to serve preventing us from recruiting a retraining the soldier, sailor, airman or marine who can best accomplish the mission. we have to have access to 100% of america's population for our all volunteer force to be able to recruit from among them the most highly qualified and to retain them. while there isn't definitive data on the number of transgender service members, we have selected the existing studies out there and the best estimate of was about 2500 people of approximately 1.3 million active-duty service members and 1500 out of 825,000 reserve service numbers are

transgender. with the average range of around 7000 in the component and 4000 of reserves. although relatively few, trained and talented serve their country with honor and distinction. and that's hundreds of thousands of dollars to train and develop each individual and we want to take the opportunity to retain people whose tolerance people whose tolerance invested in and who have proven themselves. this brings me to the second reason, which is that the reality is we have transgender service members serving in uniform today. i have a responsibility to batman to their commanders to provide them both with clearer and more consistent guidance than is provided by current policies. we owe commanders better guidance on how to handle questions such as deployment, medical treatment and other

matters. this is particularly true for small unit leaders like her senior enlisted and junior officers. also, right now most of our transgender service members must go outside the military medical system in order to obtain medical care is judged by by doctors to be necessary in the have to pay for it out of their own pockets. this is inconsistent with our promise to all of our troops that we will take care of them and pay for necessary medical treat. i am the defense department's other senior leaders who have been setting this issue the past year have met with some of these transgender service members. they've deployed all over the world serving on aircraft, submarines, forward operating bases and right here in the pentagon. and while i learned in most cases their peers and local commanders have recognized the value of retaining such high-quality people, i also learned the lack of clear guidelines for how to handle this issue puts the commanders

and the service members in a difficult and i'm her position. one servicemember and that was described as some people urged him to leave the military because of the challenges he was facing with their policies and he said he just wouldn't quit. he was too committed to the mission and this is where he wanted to be. these are the kind of people we want serving in our military. the third and final reason for the change also important as a matter visible. americans who want to serve and can meet our standards should be afforded the opportunity to compete to do so. after all, our all volunteer force is built upon having the most qualified americans and the profession of arms no-space-on on her and trust. army chief of staff general millay recently reminded us of this when he died, and come in the united states army united states army and so prints while

american to meet the standard regardless of who they are. embedded within our constitution is the very principle that all americans are free and the old s. and army are sworn to protect and defend that very point bold and we are sworn to be than die for that print the bold. so if we in uniform are willing to die for that print the bowl, then we in uniform should be willing to this guy got prints of old -- principle. in view of these three reasons to change our policy, last july i directed to identify the practical issues related to transgender american serving openly and develop an implementation plan that addresses those issues consistent with military readiness because our mission which is defending the country has to come first. i directed the working group to start with the presumption that transgender persons can serve openly without adverse effect

impact on military effect to miss in readiness in months and except for object good, practical impediments are identified. it is fair to say it has been an educational process for a lot of people in the department, in putting me. we have to look carefully and deliberately at medical, legal and policy considerations evolving rapidly in recent years and we have to take into account the unique nature of military readiness and make sure we got it right. i am proud of the thoughtful and deliberate manner in which the department leadership has pursued this. i've been guided throughout by one central question. if someone the best qualified servicemember to accomplish our mission. that may not describe the process we used to study this over the last year. the leadership of the armed

services, the joint chiefs of staff, secretaries and myself together with personnel, training, readiness and specialists across the department of defense with all the data available to us. we also had the rand corporation analyze relevant data and studies to help us with our review and we got input from transgender service members were not tight expert groups and for medical professionals outside of the department. we looked carefully at what lessons could be learned from the outside, including from allied military majority allow transgender service members to serve openly and from the private sector also because even though we are not a business in important ways, their experience in their essays are still relevant. it is worth noting, for example, at least 18 countries already allow transgender personnel to serve openly in military.

these include close allies such as the united kingdom, israel and australia and we were able to study how they've dealt with this issue. we also saw that among doctors, employers and insurance companies today, providing medical care for transgender individuals is becoming common in our blithe in both public and private sectors alike. today over a third of fortune 500 companies including companies like boeing, cbs and ford offer employee health insurance plans that transgender inclusive coverage. that is up from zero such companies in 2002. similarly, nondiscrimination policies have two thirds of fortune 500 companies now cover gender identity up from 3% in 2002. for the public sector, all

civilian federal employees have access today to health insurance plan that provides comprehensive coverage for transgender related care of medical treatment. all this represents a change from even a decade ago. used on its analysis of valid military of the expected rate at which american transgender service members would require medical treatment that would impact their fit for duty or deployed ability in the rand analysis concluded they would eat minimal readiness impacts of allowing transgender service members to serve openly, end quote. in terms of cost on the rand concluded costs would represent an exceedingly small proportion of dod's overall health expenditures. as a result of this year-long study, i am announcing today that we are ending the ban on transgender americans in the united states military. effective immediately,

transgender americans may serve openly and they can no longer be discharged or otherwise separated from the military just for being transgender. additionally, i have direct gender identity in an otherwise qualified individual will not bar them from military service or for many accession program. in taking the steps, we are eliminating policies that could result in transgender members treated differently from their peers based solely upon their gender identity rather than upon their ability to serve and we are come earnings going forward we will apply the same general prints of old, standards and procedures is reduced to all service members. what i heard from the transgender service members i met with overwhelmingly with they don't want social treatment. they want to be held to the same standards and be treated like everybody else. as i directed them a steady identify practical issues that

arise with respect to transgender service and developed an implementation plan to address those issues. let me briefly describe the implementation plan. i want to emphasize that in this case, as in the department's decision fund "don't ask, don't tell" women in survey simply declaring a change in policy is not effective implementation. that is why we have worked hard on the implementation plan and must continue to do so. these policies will be implemented in stages over the next 12 months, starting most immediately with guidance for current service members and their commanders followed by trading for the entire forest and beginning to access new military service members who were trained gender. implementation will begin today. starting today, otherwise qualified service numbers can no longer be involuntarily separated, discharge or denied reenlistment or continuation of service just for being trends

gender. then, no later than 90 days from today, the department will complete an issue but that commanders guide book for the day and currently serving leaders are currently leading transgender members and medical guide and to doctors for providing transition related care if required to currently serving transgender service members. our military treatment facilities will begin providing transgender service members with all medically necessary care based on that medical guidance. also starting on that date, service members will be able to initiate the process to officially change their gender and our personnel management systems. next, over the nine months that follow, based on detailed guidance and training materials that will be prepared, the services will conduct training of the forest from commanders to medical now, to the operating

force and recruiters. when the training is complete, no later than one year from today, the military services will begin accessing transgender individuals who meet all standards, holding the same physical and mental fitness standards as everyone else who wants to join the military. our initial accession policy will require an individual to have completed any medical treatment their doctor has determined necessary in connection with gender transition and to have been stable and identified gender for 18 months as certified by their doctor before they can enter the military. i have directed this succession standard be reviewed no later than 25 more months from today to be sure it reflects what we learn over the next two years as this is implemented as well as the most up-to-date radical knowledge. i discuss the implementation plan with senior military

leaders including chairman dunford. the cheese that specific recommendations about the timeline and i made adjustments to the implementation to incorporate those recommendations. the chairman has indicated they support the implementation timeline that i've laid out today. overall, the policies we are issuing today will allow us to assess -- access transgender service members to strengthen accomplishment, clarified guidance for commanders and military providers and reflect better the department that our nation's principles. i want to close by emphasizing the deliberate and thoughtful implementation that would be key. i am the senior leaders of the department will of the department will of the department will therefore be ensuring all issues identified in this study are addressed in implementation. i'm confident they can and will be addressed in implementation. that's why we are taking step-by-step approach described.

i'm 100% confident in the ability of our military leaders in dollar men and women in uniform to implement changes in a manner that protects the readiness of the forest and also outpolled solutes cherished by the military. honor, trust and judging under virtual on their merits. i'm also confident we have reason to be proud today of what this will mean for military because it is the right thing to do and another's death in ensuring we continue to recruit and retain the most qualified people and good people are the key to the best military in the world. our military and the nation of defense will be stronger. thank you. now i'll take some questions. >> secretary, i know you had health care. other other costs associated with the implementation plan and could you elaborate on the

timing he spoke to? >> sure. with respect to cost, by the way i will mention that peter the theme will be here later and will be prepared to answer questions in detail. but the reason that rand concluded the cost would he minimal is that the medical treatment of service members who are currently transgender requires fairly straightforward well understood were able to make those estimates and that was, as they said, minimal. with respect to accessing new members as i indicated, they will have already completed and been stable in their transition for a period of not less then 18 months if where they can assess service is that medical costs associated with that. with respect to the timetable

for implementation, as i indicated in stages the medical guidance is up to the doctors who need to do that so that doctors and military treatment facilities have a standard protocol. that is what they asked for it. the commanders guide and -- as i indicated, the chairman and the chiefs asked for 90 days and not regard to prepare that commanders guide in. ..

>> a separate subject. a proposal to discuss coordination and military coordination with russia in targeting al-nusra nseers you. i'm just wondering, you've been a skeptic in the past about cooperating with russia militarily in syria, given that their motives are different than those of the united states. has something changed, which supports -- >> we do have a professional relationship with the russian military to make sure there are no incidents and no safety issues as we both operate in the neighboring areas. syria. but i said before that russians got off on the wrong foot in syria. they said they were coming in to fight isil, and that they would assist the political transition in syria towards a post-assad