annual exams. then, of course, if they're sick, then the other things. so the institute of medicine sat down with the gynecologists. and they said, what are the essential things that a woman needs for women's health? of course, they had breast cancer screening and ovarian cancer screening and pap smears. and they said birth control is an essential part -- and family planning is essential part of a woman's reproductive health. if you can't plan your pregnancies. if you have unwanted pregnancies, that causes severe effects to women's health. women who aren't planning to get pregnant may not be physically healthy and ready to have a baby. the babies may be placed too close together which causes risk to the mother and the infant. all other kinds of health care risks. so they said this is an essential part of women's health and, therefore, it must be covered under any insurance

policy that's offered. >> arthur is an independent in strassburg, pennsylvania. arthur, you're on the air with representative degette. >> caller: i'm concerned about religious freedom issues here. what's happening, if the church-run hospitals are there just to serve people physically, that's one thing. but these hospitals aren't. i don't care what the court ruled. the court is wrong in that. hospitals from the catholic church or presbyterian or baptist or adventist or whatever else, they're there to treat people physically and spiritually. all i know of all the hospitals, they're there as an extension of the church. when you start meddling around no matter what i might think about birth control and all that stuff, you're dealing with an issue that this country came into existence for in the first place, and that's religious freedom. i totally disagree with this issue of forcing the hospitals to deal with that. >> well, remember what we're

talking about. and we've had the debate, sometimes a painful debate about what services religious hospitals have to provide. if a woman wants into the hospital bleeding to death, do we require the hospital to perform an abortion? issues like that that are very difficult issues and hard to think about. but this is even a step beyond that. this is -- do these hospital systems that are run by a religious institution, do they have to provide insurance plans that cover what has been scientifically determined to be a full range of women's health care? the point i'm making is, when you're talking about an insurance plan for the employees, i think it's the employee of that hospital that should be exercising the conscience. they're the ones who might be any religion at all. and they might say i want to

have birth control or i don't. to me, it shouldn't be the employer putting that onto the employees. it should be the employees deciding whether their conscience allows them to have that or not. >> and finally representative degette, toad on a wire tweets -- >> we'll break away from the last couple minutes of this. you can watch it on our website, c-span.org take you to the defense department recommending new combat rules for women in the military. live coverage from the pentagon on c-span3. as a result of these changes, more than 14,000 additional positions will now be open to women across the force. secretary panetta strongly supports these changes. he recognizes over the decade of war women have contributed in unprecedented ways to the military's mission.

they have put their lives on the line to defend the country and demonstrated courage, patriotism and skill. they have proven their ability to serve in an expanding number of roles on and off the battlefield. these changes will allow them to accomplish even more. as we make this announcement, i would like to stress that secretary panetta leaves this is the beginning, not the end of a process. the services will continue to review positions and requirements to determine what additional positions may be opened to women. our goal is to ensure that the mission is met with the best qualified and most capable people regardless of gender. to that end while practical barriers do still exist to removing other restrictions on women serving, we're reviewing those to see if more opportunities can be opened. we need time, experience and

careful review to ensure we do so in a way that maximizes the safety and privacy of all service members. as a result of today's announcement, the services will gain further experience that will help determine how to implement additional changes down the road. we're also taking new steps such as developing gender neutral standards to develop the groundwork for changes in the future. this remains a priority for secretary pan net tachlt he's directed the services to update him in six months on assignment policy implementation and on the progress made in developing gender neutral physical standards. with that, i'd like to turn it over to two of the leaders who guided this review. joining us here today is vee penrod deputy undersecretary of defense for military personnel policy and major general gary patton who serves as principal director for military policy. they can detail the specifics of the changes and will be happy to

answer your questions. ms. penrod, general patton, thank you for taking the time to join us here today. good afternoon. today the department of defense submitted the report to congress. the department in coordination with the military department's reviewed laws, policies and regulations as required to determine if any changes were needed to ensure female members have an equitable opportunity to compete and excel in the u.s. armed forces. while the services have opened additional positions to women over the years with this report, congress provided us an opportunity to review all gender restrictive policies from a broad departmentwide perspective with all services senior leaders at the table. the report was anticipated to be delivered to congress in october. however, the department required additional time to ensure this important issue receive the

fullest consideration within the department of defense, military departments and chiefs of staff. i will provide a brief overview of the report which reflects the provisions of preventing members from hizing to the highest levels that their talents an capabilities warrant. the reports' findings represent the concerted efforts of all the military services and have the highest confidence of both the department's civilian and military leaders. the report recommends changes to current assignment policies and includes the required notification of congress of our intent to open over 14,000 positions to women. these positions were identified pursuant to two policy related changes each significant in their own right. opening these positions implements lessons from over a decade at war where women were proven exceptionally capable and successful to mission accomplishment.

let me begin by describing that enacted in 1994 by then secretary of defense less aspen. it's also referenced in paragraph one of the executive summary. this policy expressly prohibits assigning women to direct combat units below the grig gaed level. the army, marine corps and navy have identified positions at the battalion level which should be open to women. these positions are in occupational specialties currently open to women to include intelligence and communications. but women were prohibited from being assigned there because the positions are in direct combat units below the grig gaed level. the secretary of defense has approved exceptions to this policy al and the report contains the required notification of congress for this change. the experience gained bias signing women to these positions will assess the suitability and

direct relevance of the direct assignment prohibition and inform future policy changes. the 1994 policy which remains in force today also contains four provisions that allow the secretaries of the military departments to restrict certain positions based on gender. the secretary of a military department may restrict a position to women if the costs of birthing and privacy are prohibitive, units or positions are required to co-locate or remain with direct combat units, units are engaged in long reconnaissance and special operations forces missions and job related physical requirements exclude the vast majority of women service members. it is the second reason relating to co-location shown on the chart in red which drew considerable attention during our review. as you can see from the chart -- and this is the upper chart here, the battle space at operation desert storm was generally linear in nature. that's the upper part of the

chart, and provided for secure areas where forces could recover and perform general combat support functions such as maintenance. since that time, the battle space we have experienced in iraq and afghanistan is quite different. as depicted on the bottom of the chart. the enemy is highly mobile and travels amongst the civilian population. counterinsurgency and stability operations missions to combat such an enemy require our forces to be distributed across the country in large and small bases. these bases are now the locations where forces recover and general combat support functions occur. as you can see, there is no rear area that exists in this battle space. forces of all types and missions are required to be in close proximity and flow between locations. continuing to restrict positions based solely on being co-located with direct combat units has become irrelevant. as a result the department determined the co-location provision of the 1994 policy should be eliminated.

this change in policy is communicated to congress in our report. eliminating the co-location provision will now expand career opportunities for women, provide a greater pool of qualified members from whom our combatant commanders may draw, reduce the operational template by reducing the total number of personnel available for assignments and provide greater flexibility in meeting combat support mission requirements. the elimination of this provision will result in over 13,000 oerm positions being open to women. these positions were previously closed because they were required to co-locate with direct combat units. the army is the only military service who has identified positions that were closed solely due to the co-location provision. the department is committed to continuing our efforts to open additional positions by replacing gender restricted policies with neutral physical standards based on tasks our military members are required to perform in the course of their duties.

this is an area of emphasis for us as we move forward beyond the initial steps reported as part of this review. the department intends to implement the changes discussed today upon the completion of the statutorily required congressional notification period of 30 days of continuous session of congress which is expected to occur later this spring. this concludes the overview of the report. general patton and i would be happy to take your questions. thank you. >> what is -- given your description of the lack of clearly defined front lines in the past decade of war, what is the reason for not simply lifting the combat exclusion altogether? >> we have talked about the numbers of positions opened by the elimination of co-location. and then we have the exceptions of policy to the exclusion piece that you've mentioned. that's addressing the top point

that prevented women from being assigned below the grig gaed level. what the exceptions to policy do is allow us the opportunity to place women in specialties if they've already been assigned to, been working in but not working at that level below the brigade. it allows us to put women in those positions. in the marine corps, army and navy they're generally mid grade noncommissioned officers or junior officers. as the secretary said, this is the beginning, not the end. what we'll do, we'll be able to look at the experiences from those women, combine that with the collective experiences from the war and then use that to inform future policy decisions and changes that may occur. >> about 18 months ago the military leadership diversity commission came out with this report that said -- recommended eliminating all the bans and said some of these restrictions were limiting women's ability to

rise to senior levels in the department. i'm wondering if after the department's internal review, did you find that that was the case, that some of these restrictions are, in fact, limiting women's abilities to be promoted into the senior levels of the department or do you just disagree with that analysis? >> what we did is we asked rand to help us review the data. you look at promotions in fields where women currently serve or are partially open, that there was no disadvantage in the promotion rate of women. you look at the requirement for general officers in the army. most come from the combat arms. however, the career fields women currently serve in, they do very well. we believe this is a right step forward as we open these additional positions to women, and that is part of the assessment as to how that will work for women. >> first of all, do you have any sense when you're going to come

up with these gender neutral physical standards? if you could discuss, what would they likely look like? >> we do not have at this time a time frame. however, what the secretary has asked us to do is -- the services will report back in six months and we'll continue to have this report on their timeline for developing the standards. again, we asked rand to help us gather the data and we're basing this on physiological standards. we know there's a lot of material out there already. we know cannon, australia, have looked at this. we know the marines are already stepping out in looking at those standards as is the army. >> it would be like running the same pace, carrying the same load? >> no. that's different. it's more for your military occupational specialties. currently you have -- all specialties have standard. if you look at the chart at the fourth reason for women to be restricted, it's -- if you

looked at a specialty that pre dom meantly the majority of women couldn't serve in that specialty, the services close that specialty. what's happened is fast forward ten years with the experience of combat, what women have been able to do, also equipment has changed, just like the battle space, warfare has changed. we also find both men and women are coming back with physical injuries due to the nature of warfare, backs, knees, and the services have decided that you need to look at the standards both for men and women and determine what the right standard should be. >> one last thing, could you give us a sense when you hope to have enough information to at least address the issue of whether women can serve in infantry units and other combat units? >> we don't have that data at this time. >> two years, three years? any sense? >> i think with the six-month update we can provide you more information. at this time we can't provide that information. >> can i ask dan's question again and try to get a really clear answer. what is the reason right now

that women are not allowed to serve in the infantry? what is the reason you have concluded right now that you didn't change that? >> actually -- if you look at the chart, there's a couple reasons. one is the direct combat rule, performing -- >> i'm saying the rationale behind it. i understand the rules as written. what is the rationale behind it? >> the current standards that exist for infantry, all men cannot meet those standards. if you look at the fourth reason, again, if the majority of women cannot serve in that mos the service secretary may restrict the mos. >> how do you know if you can't open it up to them? how do you know they can't serve? >> that's based on experience with the leadership and experience in combat. i trust that the service leadership understands those standards. >> based on the belief that they can't serve? is that what you're saying, the experience? i don't understand the

rationale, if you could say that again. >> if you look at the standards, every mos or military occupational specialty has a standard. you probably can help me out with the army standard for infantry, because there's so much weight. >> right, say if you have to carry 100 pounds. if you don't -- what about opening up and giving women the chance -- there wouldn't be that many women. what if you got ruled out even offering women the opportunity to try to serve? is that based on the basis that they probably can't, is that what you're saying? >> no. that's not what we're saying. we're saying we're opening positions that they already serve in and assigning them below the grig gaed level to infantry battalions. the services will assess that performance which will look to further open up more specialties.

>> let me add to what ms. penrod said. the exception of policy, we took, the marines come in with a number at officer and nco. the army came in with a similar request. so the service secretary maid a request for exception to that policy. they picked positions where women have already been serving. i'll give you an example. one example is a medical nco. women have been serving as medical ncos, that has been an open specialty for women for quite some time. now we're taking a woman who is already experienced in that at the nco and officer level and assigning them according to the exception of policy to an infantry battalion. experience of those bim and others in specialties like that generally in the support area will inform future policy changes. i think that's the key point the

secretary has made, is that this is the beginning, not the end. we'll start with women in specialties they've already specialties they've already been serving in, they're already experienced and we put them in an infantry battalion, i they'll help us make decisions that will affect other changes. >> i just want to clarify something on that. if i read this correctly, correct me if i'm wrong. a woman who's an intelligence officer could be an s-2 or an s-1 under the new policy, correct? >> yes. let me just expand on that. the army and marines have identified a number of specialties, these are specialties women are already serving in. the intelligence field, you take an intelligence officer that's

been serving in somewhere on the infantry battalion. women haven't been doing that. on the n.c.o. it could be an intel analyst. they're serving at that battalion staff level, where they haven't been assigned in the past, but we're moving women into those positions that have already been trained and have already gained experiences in those specialties in other units. >> in iraq and afghanistan, one way that the military got around that rule was to have attachments to these rules where women were actually serving alongside combat soldiers every day, just an attachment of the definitions that you're spelling out today. why can't that be a measure of whether women can serve in combat now. >> the exceptionsa we're seeing

here, they probably don't have the depth of experience, that's why the army asked for an exception of policy, in a number of -- health, noncommissioned officers, logistics, supply, administration and intelligence and so forth. and so, it -- the experiences of those women who have been attached in those units, combined with the ones we're going to be assigning here, with this exception of policy, their collective experience is going to inform the future decisions we're talking about. >> why -- i mean it seems to me we're winding down in iraq, we're winding down in afghanistan, wouldn't those be the best metrics in terms of whether women can serve in -- the attachment units, those who are already serve until combat and at the brigade level? >> i think what we're gaining here is the assignment of women

in those positions and secondly, in the area that we're addressing the co-location elimination, women have not been serving in those specialities. we have had zero tank mechanics in the army. that has specifically been excluded to women. this is an incremental step of taking experiences of attachments, the future experiences of the women we assign. recruiting, assigning women in these brand-new specialties because of the elimination of co-location, i think all those combined is why the secretary wants us to come back and report on how we're developing this, how we're doing in developing standards and identifying newt could be open to women. >> so when you talk about gender neutral standards, does that mean that this rule that if 50% of females cannot pass the

standards, the whole nls would be closed to females. the reference to me males would be excluded, that if there are standards that anybody could meet--i guess i don't fully understand why that's not the case already. >> if you go back to when the policy was written, 1974 and the armed services looked at what nlss may i open if a specialty at this time where the majority of women could not be assigned to that specialty, it just remained closed. and i just want to piggy back on what you said. exactly it, what women have been doing in the last few years has been informative and they not only realized that we needed to look to those standards, but also for the change in training

equipment, in how it would conduct operations. so we see that as a very positive move, step forward. >> ms. penrod, as general patton said, this is the beginning of the end, you're going to come back in ten months from the secretary. you've been at war for more than ten years, you served in the military. >> i did. >> are the services dragging their feet on this? >> i think to make a change this large while you're at war is difficult. with the draw on iraq, you had the experiences from combat leaders come back. you have experiences that women have come back anecdotal stories, with all that information and the congress, you know, you need to look at this. i'm very pleased about it. and i believe that when i came in, it was, you know, i hate to

date myself, but in 1971, we were 2% of the force, and supply was considered a radical change for women. and i went to minot, north dakota because women could not be assigned to minot, north dakota before, it was too cold. so when i look at this, i think it's very exciting for me to see that not -- we weren't telling the services to do this, the commanders were coming to us saying, look, we need to change these policies and sometimes, you're right, when we're at war, a lot of things going on and it may appear too slow to some, but i see this as a great step forward and the secretary is committed to removing i would report on that as well. our career infantrymen and through the lens of 45 months in combat in the last number of years, i think this is the right thing to do. we recognize the expanded role of women in the military, but,

you know, the way i look at it as a former infantry battalion commander, i wish i had the opportunity to bring women in my -- it expands my talent pool. we're now expanding the talent pool where now you have all qualifieded people regardless of gender being able to compete or be assigned to those key positions in infantry battalion. >> if women could meet the gender specific requirements, could they be able to serve in those companies? >> i think we'll look at that in the future, and the secretary wants us to come back with that feedback. i have seen women in combat perform in an expanded way,

there's a lot to be said to their contributions and experiencings over the last decade of war and i'm proud of what we're doing here today, it's the right thing to do. >> how many positions will still remain closed after today's change, closed to women, and how many of those are available for attachment, if not assignment? if that's a correct distinction. >> i can't break out the attached versus assignment. but in terms of positions to be remained closed, about 238,000 across the force, all services. >> but 14,000 are open. >> we want to focus on the ones that are open. and the air force already has 91% open. the ones that are exclude reasonable doubt generally in the special ops arena, combat and so forth.

the army with this move today will have about 69% open. those that remain closed will be infantry, artillerymen, cabinet try and in the navy, the navy will have 88% positions open and those that are closed will be in the submarine and special warfare category. and we can go into a specific breakdown if you need it. >> how soon are we going to some of these things? at the etched of 30 days, will we see women immediately going into these roles? >> the services plan to start it immediately, but it will be part of their normal rotation. let's say a man is occupying a position, they're not going to move them out to allow a female to take that position, so it will be part of the nl