generation, that evil must be confronted that courage is the greatest weapon in the arsenal of free men and women, then america must always lead. if we are to always be free. and i know the answer to that. the answer to that is an overwhelming yes we will deliver this country back to the track and to the people who gave us the opportunity. the best days of this country are ahead of us. the best days of the world are ahead of us. because we're going to make the right decisions and we're going to elect the right leader to lead the country as we go forward. god bless you and thank you for letting me come and be a part of this today.

okay. now the fun part. where? >> right here, governor. >> have a seat for a second. raise your hand. >> okay. >> holler it out loud. >> thank you for your service.

>> as an inventor, serial entrepreneur and writer, i believe i'll come up with a solution to the immigration problem. can i hand this to you? >> sure. and tell me what you think. >> if we eliminate the magnet that the problem resolves itself. it's very simple. costs zero dollars and will resolve itself very easily. thank you. >> let's talk about this issue just a second, if you will. what i happen to see as a -- that may help a bit right there. the point with this is to have this -- this country has got to be secure. when you look at the constitution, the constitution tells us a few things that the

federal government is supposed to do. stand a strong military and secure our borders are two of the most important things enumerated in the constitution. and we've got to get back. i got to think that steve king touched on this about the rule of law and doing what the constitution tells us to do. it gets right back to that issue about do we want the federal government telling us how to educate our children, how to build our transportation infrastructure, how to deliver our health care, and the answer is no. protecting and defending our border is a federal responsibility. that's the reason that last summer, when the president of the united states was in dallas, he was on a very important mission because he couldn't come look at the border with me. i asked him to. i really wanted h imto see, because i think it would have been incredibly instructive for him to come and see see the vastness. the challenge that we have in texas.

but he was busy. he had a very important mission raising money for needy democrats in dallas. i get that. but the point is i told the president. i said mr. president. if you will not secure this border, texas will. and that's exactly what we did. you can secure the border. i do not buy into those that say you cannot secure the border. yes, you can. you must first have the will. the will that has to be exhibited from the highest office in the country. and at that particular point in time, a president that gives clear and unequivocal direction on how to do it and you do it with personnel. we basically have. and the third thing completely missing today from my understanding is the aviation assets. flying that 1800 mile border.

looking down. analyzing what's going on and having fast response teams to go direct. when you see illegal activities occurring. at that particular point in time, you can secure the border, and that's what must happen before this country is ever going to have a conversation about immigration, because the american people do not trust washington, d.c. to deal with the issue of immigration until the border is secure. mr. ambassador how are you? >> welcome back to the state of new hampshire. >> welcome back. yes, sir. >> you know and it's great to see you feeling better again. >> healthy is good. two things i learned in 2011. you have to spend a lot of time in new hampshire. you have to be healthy and spend years here. >> yes, sir. and now that you're not

governor, tell us a little bit about how your campaign is going to be different from last time around. our family supported you. many folks in this room supported you. great to see you again. let us know what are your new thoughts here? >> there's a good segue. being healthy is really important. i had back surgery in june, july of 2011. thinking i can do this. broke my arm in high school. i was back to play in six weeks. you have to be healthy. tough be on your game. more importantly is the preparation side to this. to be prepared, to stand on the stage and talk about this myriad of issues. whether it's domestic policy, foreign policy, it takes year of intense study. i spent the last three years in that mode. being able to stand up and discussion all of these issues and do it in a way very profound and impactful. from the hoover institute to the brookings institute and everything in between. whether aai or -- i mean all of

those individuals sitting with richard fisher and jim ricards to talk monetary policy, all of those in that preparatory time. the next president of the united states really needs to be someone who has deep experience as an executive. i'm talking oobt inging about things you can't just learn with a book. things you can't just learn sitting down. they didn't hand me a manual and say here's how you deal with a space shuttle disintegrating. they didn't hand me a manual when katrina came into louisiana and there were literally hundreds of thousands of people. that were displaced. all those people showed up on the border for ma matter.

or when ebola ended up on the shores of america in dallas, texas texas. that executive experience that you get from those years of work are invaluable. if i decide to run, the value that i'll be able to lay in front of the american people. not only a record that i will suggest. i happen to think from a job creation standpoint, from an educational standpoint, from creating an environment where people are free. and the fact is if that is what americans would like to see for the rest of the country then that is where we need to have the conversation and talk about it in a zil and a thoughtful way. that that executive experience is incredibly important to this next leader of this country. because we've spent eight years

with a young inexperienced united states senator and i will suggest to you economically militarily and foreign policy wise we're paying a tremendous price. how are we on time there? minute 30. i will be quicker. >> yes ma'am. >> really quick. i yell pretty loud. >> she's coming. >> governor. mary ann turner connecticut. couple things. common core worries the hell out of me. number two when we talk about obamacare getting out getting rid of it. we need to keep in mind that the insurance companies are pushed against the fence. they can't come back. and we need to talk about that. thank you for being here. >> common core and obamacare. i addressed those earlier.

the old supreme court justice lewis brandeis. a very liberal supreme court justice, but he respected the constitution. and he said the states were the laboratories of democracy. he said they should be allowed to experiment. to come up with different ideas on how best to do things and deliver things. and i agree with that. there are going to be states that make mistakes, but at least they don't destroy the republican. i fear greatly if obamacare is left in its form it has the potential to destroy this country. from access to health care, i know how how to expand access to health care. we did it in my home state. we passed the most sweeping reform in the nation. a decade after that passed there's over 35,000 more

licensed physicians practiceing medicine. that access to health care is not about forcing people to buy insurance. it's about putting thoughtful practices into state. common core is every bit as problematic as obamacare. god bless you and thank you. >> thank you all very much. again, i am the state party director for the rnc. and in my role, i walk up every morning worried about the health and well being of states all across the country. i can tell you your state is in great hands with jennifer orrin. also want to give a shoutout to other rnc members that are here. we have 168 members on your rnc.

the 168 people that get together and do your party business nationally. so those that are on the rnc, if you would please stand up. i see john up here. please. and certainly want to give a shoutout to the cochair. sharon will be addressing the summit tomorrow. but as jennifer said this is the stop hillary panel. and it is true. we have a great panel here to talk about that. i want to introduce who we have up on stage here first. i'll go from here down. sean spicer is with us, the director of communications. but also now the chief strategist. he's a big deal inside the rnc. during a presidential cycle. kind of a big deal.

we have jim who is our regional political director. rour regional political director in the region. he was the ed last cycle in michigan, which was one of the better run state parties jesse campbell is the director -- let me get this right. chief data officer at the rnc. again, we've been talking about data now for about four years. what obama did. what we're doing and jesse is really the leader of that. and rob, the director of media training and education at the rnc. let's give these guys a round of applause. they haven't done anything yet. but it's great they were able to be here. so sean, let's start with you. let's discuss this stop hillary movement. again, there's been a lot in the press over the last 72 hours. and really the last week. just the amount of earned media number one that you all have

gotten on this. but this is a big deal. what is it about? tell us a little bit about it. >> thanks, matt. look. i think we -- you've got 19 or so folks coming here, potentially running for president on our side. they're sitting out and arkansas ticklating their vision, where they want to take this party, where they want to take this country. they're talking about their ideas and policy and their vision. on their side, they got one kand candidate. and they are desperately trying to talk about the fact that it's going to be ra competitive primary in the worlds of debbie wasserman-schultz. where it gets funnier is last week she said, you know, because governor governor chaffey is going to get in. as a mative rhode islander, i laughed very hard at that. a lot of rhode island's former

governors have gone to jail. link was such a bad governor, that they did a better job, almost all of them as he did as a nongovernor going to jail. but that being said, it is laughable. so we know hillary clinton barring some kind of huge catastrophic failure which is always possible, will be their nominee. in some cases that could be a very positive thing. but the one thing about hillary that we know. if you look at the trajectory of her poll numbers. every time she becomes more public and more in the limelight, her favorability dips and her unfavorable numbers go up. she left office as secretary of state with 67% approval rating. last week it was in the high 40s. the more she talks, the better we do. it's true. so getting to the point, we knew our opponent, what she was going to do, and we know her weaknesses. her number one weakness is the

american people don't find her honest and trustworthy, for a variety of reasons. too long for this panel to discuss. but so from an rnc standpoint we knew we had one candidate. we knew what the weaknesses were. we started what we call the stop hillary campaign. so this is the one part where you can be rude and do what you're not supposed to do. if you pick out your phone and go to stophillary gop. there's a petition there says i want to sign up and join the army to stop hillary. and for every single person that says i want tohelp stop hillary i want to win the white house, the first -- the number two and

number three objective was to stop hillary. the majority in the house of representatives and 54 united nations senators. this party is on the march forward. but it won't be good enough if we don't win the white house.

we spent virtually zero dollars on advertising. that's up to the super pacs for the most part. what we invest in is people and data. so we rolled out the stop hillary campaign. we went out and bought these drives. spend $2,000 on them. we delivered them to every news organization reporter covering hillary. and as you saw, we put out a video the other day. we generated $10 million in earned media the day she rolled out. so without paying for the kos of thumb drives we put video on the hillary e-mail file.

i think most of you get the joke. and we sent it out to reporters. and we said hillary mibl be able to delete her e-mails but we want to make sure you can back up yours. so it was playing on fox news, meet the press. the "today show" covered it. but for no dollars, we generated over $10 million of earned media. last night while rob and i and the rest of the time we flying up here we sent the team out to nationals park. we handed out over 2,000 coozies that said stop hillary, sign the petition. those tr the things. but it's not about spending money and buying ads. it's about sharing information with our friends, getting people to sign the petition making sure people get the record straight. if you go back to why we won in 2014 it wasn't because we spent more many unon tv and we had the flashiest ads. we had better information, more committed folks going door-to-door.

that's the way we're going to win. if anybody thinks different they're wrong. it's not about how many ads you place. if we go out and talk about the record and expose hillary clinton's record and pro mote the positive vision that our candidates have, we will win. so i'm glad to take any questions. but i'll let the train roll down the tracks. >> we will roll down the tracks. we'll have time for questions. there's all the excitement around all the candidate who is will all be here. wlast the one thing right now that activists the folks in this room, as sean said you're all are going to make the difference. you're go back to the communities. what is the one thing they need to be doing now to prepare for that general election? >> sure. great question. i -- there's two things actually, i can think of. i'm going to piggy back off what john said. one is talking to your neighbors and friends. the rnc is rolling out great information every day. sign up the petition.

it will arm you with the information that you need. i know a lot of you are focused on the primary process. while you're working through the primary process, you're talking through volunteers and recruiting people. you need to continue the conversation, not about how your chosen candidate is the best nominee, but finish the conversation about how important it is to stop hillary. the other thing we could do right now to prepare for the general election is voter registration. in new hampshire we have a slight advantage. there are few more republicans than democrats. the vast majority are registered as unaffiliated voters. even though we have a small advantage, we have not been successful in general elections. so what we need to do now is start growing the gop base through voter registration efforts. one of the easiest ways to do that is the rnc tracks voters across the country through the national change of address file. we provide that to each state party, including new hampshire. those folks are here in your

state now. they have not yet registered in new hampshire. there's about 5,000 of them today that we can start talking to enencouraging to register in preparation for next year's election. >> good. good. jess see, again being the chief data officer, again, we -- we've had to hear now after that 2012 election, about how what a robust data operation they had. all the data scientists in caves somewhere working on the data. what are your thoughts on that? because again, it's something that is still out there and i know we're working on. >> yeah, absolutely. i'll be the first to say i'm not a good public speaker. blind day behind data set is where i should be. i'm going to pace a little bit. it was a robust operation. pretty phenomenal. but i don't know why it's relative anymore. it was designed for one candidate and one candidate only

in a few number of states. essentially we have this term that data can get stale quickly. we have a very changing environment. but let's say you fly an airline and the airline really makes you upset and you never fly the airline again. eventually you're going to change to a different airline. this is a data point that needs to be captured on all sorts of issues. it could be education. whatever you want. so essentially what we need to do is we've been capturing the data for the last 20 years. and we continue to do it. most data has become stale. it hasn't been changing. it hasn't been dynamic whatsoever. it really gives us a good advantage. the one reason we may be stale is i don't have customers. so i might be three days blind. >> now following up on that, though. na data can be rebuilt. i know it was specifically for obama before. but you know, following up on that, could it be rebuilt?

>> in some ways yes. in most ways know. a lot of this stuff is coming from government entities that you cannot get again. they're just losing time. so essentially, you can buy a lot of this data. so they are going to be way blind us for a very long time, i believe, because they didn't take the actual steps to keep the upkeep of data. >> now and again, yen there's been a lot of stories, again, we've had media push, but there's also been a lot of positive stories about how the rnc has caught up after 2014. we went head to head with them in these targeted races. we've in some ways surpass maryland the data front. that's where all this money we've been able to raise. the biggest portion is going to the rebuild on the data side. where are we now? is and is that again? we caught up and in a lot of ways surpassed where they are.

>> i completely believe we got hem them in the data front. one advantage that we have just to give an example, is back in 2008 when hillary was first running for president, we're collecting a lot of data on her and the president at the time. i doubt they were doing it for the same candidate. so we're going into the election knowing people in new hampshire were supporting hillary at that time. we want to identify why they were supporting hillary and see if they can change their minds. why would they do that? i would be very surprised if hillary had the same information on any one of our candidates. if she does, it's sitting on saerver in her basement somewhere. >> thank you, jesse. >> rob, he goes all across the country. we do regional fly-ins. and rob and one of the guys that i use to come to these and use a lot of the training, and on that

front, we touch on a lot of times on the social media side. rob, tell me again, on that because that is a big part of the presidential campaigns and obviously a big movement. but what are some of the rules that have changed on the social media side and some of the most effective strategies, frankly, that we can be doing right now on the social media front? >> can can everybody hear me okay? >> no. no. >> there we go. for people on their phones, how many people use twitter or facebook on your phones? if you don't, how many use it on a desk top or laptop? >> what's a desk top. >> i know. i'm 27 and sound like a dinosaur. how about pinterest instagram, not so much? social media and how it's going to impact this election is a hot topic, something we talk about. about ap month ago we did a longer presentation on it. but one of the things that's changed about 2016 is the impact that every one of you can have

socially. social media is social. amongst your friends. media. we have cameras in the back. we have print reporters web reporters. i saw scott with the huffington post walked over there. reporters of all outlets as well. they get to influence people. you have your own accounts. and your friends, your family are probably more likely to agree or passionately disagree with what you share. so your able to share information to help the candidates. win votes influence hearts and minds and help us raise money. it's something never experienced at this level before. and i think right now the people who build strong social media accounts, not just a part of the conversation. but if done correctly, they can control it. sean talked about the stop hillary campaign. it wasn't just that we had a petition up and videos and graphics to share online. it's that people took the time and effort to share them. if you think back to what

president obama did in '08. they built an online army of people who were excited. they were talking about him. they weren't all talking about the the same issue. they all had issues important to them. and the more we have our friends talk online the better we're going to do. right now digital and mobile are becoming people's first screens. it's the technical term for the media they're spending the most time in front of. alex is not in here, but he founded the review. he said people on average now are checking their phones 100 times a day. i can see people doing it right now. and facebook they're going on 10 to 15 times a day. that number could be greater. that stat is from a few months ago. the facebook guys, their team is here. you can ask them. but assume people may miss the nightly news. and take it and share it. if it's a good article the people here covering this write something good, share it. so we have a phrase that sharing is caring.

i encourage you to share it. i encourage you to check out the the content we continue to put out. and i'll turn it back to matt. >> and a lot of what this plan, what we are talking about a lot of it was birthed out of the grout and opportunity report that reince priebus put out after 2012 election. how many of y'all read the growth and opportunity report? it's important particularly for you all. out of that is really how we are funding state parties, how we are funding the rnc, and why we're raising those dollars. and again, it was something we really put into work this past cycle, implements this plan early and often. the type of staff we are hiring in state to give us feedback. and i know people get up here all the time from different organizations and tell you all, well, you're the backbone. i hear that all the time. right? st thank you for doing what you do. we have do put up the yard signs, make the phone calls give the money. but we really mean that at the rnc. every week we're on multiple

phone calls, conference calls where we are talking about the metrics from state parties. where are we on staffing in this state party? it's absolute a bottom-up party. it's the only way we're going to get this done. it's the only reason we were able to identify all the voters. with the efforts of you all on the ground. we mean it. that's where we're investing the dollars. and i want you to know that. i know people say it all the time. but your rnc really means it. i can tell you because again i'm probably on 15 to 20 conference calls every week where we're talking about it. it's something we are going to continue to do and we are committed to this cycle. so with that let's open it up for a few questions for the panel. right here. >> thank you very much. on the data side. have you looked at voter fraud data? >> absolutely.

one of the big things that we do essentially is -- it's a really hard thing to track torks be honest with you. every state has very different election laws. you get a state like wisconsin, new hampshire with the same day elections. it's really hard to actually prove that at the time, which they're registering to vote. so we do try to figure out exactly who was voting in multiple locations. but you have to do a lot of research into it. so we did he feel do take that into account. it's really only 1%. but we do take that into kd. especially in these states. zbl right here, ma'am. >> i'll just point. >> this is for the data also. dough you know what happened with the campaign in 2012, where a lot of us were trained to work

at the polling booth, and then we were supposed to get numbers and call them back, and it was supposed to be a really big deal, and it was going to really help them to identify who to call, because they hadn't voted yet and stuff. like it was a big failure. >> i know what you're speaking of, the the program. that was actually imbedded in the romney campaign. the rnc actually cannot engage in election day operations. so we were not part of that said program. so did we advise prior to technology and things like that, of course. but on the actual whatever class of program, or whatever you know did not work i can't speak to that because i'm not a romney representative. >> do that point, 2014. targeted u.s. senate race. we went head to head with the democrats. their data versus our data.

their people versus our people and we won. correct or not correct? >> completely correct. if you take the data, especially in north carolina, we actually had us and north carolina the whole time. not the whole time, but the last stretch of it. there's no public poll out there that had the same data. we were very close in virginia as well. we need public polling probably 95% of the time, giving some data resources that we had. so given that our robust operation has gotten bigger and more accurate. and we just hired on more data incentives, we're going to be able to beat them at a much bigger degree, i believe in 2016. so i'm actually really excited about going head to head with hillary and the operation she put together. >> scanning. scanning. right? hold on. right here? you're closer here. i'll go here and then here. we have another one?

the speakers, all who are republican. i would like to ask the panel a couple of questions. please answer. what would the inflation at the supermarket counter in 2013 and 2014? >> what? >> the inflation rate. how much did food go up in cost for the average person? >> 6%. >> it's 2.7 nkt in 2013 and 4.6 in 2014. what is the deficit? >> this year's deficit? >> 1.1 million. >> it's going to be about 3.5. >> okay. >> in 2013 the average hourly adjustment for inflation. less money than the hourly

worker. >> i'm sorry. i can't -- >> less money in 2013 than they did in 1972 and 1973. i have yet to hear any candidate do that. if you cannot explain to people that the price of the the food is not going up, the value of their dollar is going down. if you cannot explain to the average hourly worker, their salary is not going up we are losing value every day. and if you cannot explain to them that every dollar -- will ultimately come back. we're not going to win. >> to that point our communication, two democrats. two swing voters. we're going to hear about the

voters. the gentleman is correct. we're going to hear about swing voters for the next two years. what are some of those points. what is the plan on the ground? that communication effort there. i think that you're right. in terms of how we -- there's a lot of different reasons, or ways in which we talk to folks better. i think as republicans, too often, we try to win arguments, we go through and talk about math. why we want to balance a budget. why it's 27% raise is not acceptable. whatever the number is. we get wrapped up in numbersment no one wants a balanced budget because we're really committed to math. and balancing a budget is really simple. if you're a democrat, you can be

for a balanced budget, too. they do it differently. but we all agree that you want a better vision for the country. a better life for families. the next generation is better. you want the most prosperous country in the world. you want other companies for around the world relocating here. you want job growth. you want it because it's good for people. it's good for our families. and i think that how we communicate to others and what values we're espousing is critical. so i hope that you press those candidates for the one unique thing about new hampshire is you're first in the nation. the opportunity that you have to talk to these, you know, 20 plus candidates are going to come through at some point and telling them what to hear is more than most people around the country will ever get. so i would press them on that kind of stuff. because i would agree that we need less math and more heart. >> okay. hold on.

there was one down front. yeah. one down front and then -- one more? okay. >> i just wanted to know, you had mentioneded your data collection and that you were going to beat the polls. do you think you could beat the q polls coming out of connecticut, and what is going to be the difference in yourday that collection technique, specifically for the independent variables of how a voter identifies with their political party? because that's a very fluid independent variable, as opposed to age and gender chrks is pretty fixed. >> absolutely. we struggle with this all the time. fortune 500 companies all the time. i will be at a big data company in a few weeks. they're actually jealous. they say that to us.

the reason why is, have you had anyone knock on your door to drink pepsi over coke or coke over pepsi? probably not. right? we have a volunteer base. we have people passionate. our data collection is out of this world. i collect data because the fact we sit on so many records. back in october, we were processing about a million records an hour. of just raw voter contacts which is crazy. at the same time, we realize our volunteers don't want to talk to democrats. they want to talk to swing voters and republicans. so we do it on our own to make sure we're talking to democrats. we also had to make sure that we were democrats were not churning out. so we plead to keep an eye on both sides of the aisles to make sure what we're doing are fulfilling. that's why we were able to beat public polling because we were

getting a broad base. and when they were doing survey sample sizes we were doing a thousand a week, plus the voter contact that the political team was doing. so we have so much information. >> -- hours and hours i spent making phone calls. they were dead hits. the majority of my hits were dead hits. if you don't get the cell phone you're losing a substantial portion of the population. >> we guarantee every single sample is at least 30% cell phones, mobile. we will also make sure we have an online audience as well. for people like me, who is not going to answer my cell phone. i'm not going to answer my land line. i don't have a land line. you have to reach me online. we've accounted for that. that's why we're able to beat public polling. yes, it's a little bit pricey but it gives us more accurate

results. >> okay, this is a question i'm worried about. in contract, they were badnecticut, we went after them and after them and after them. got them out of the race. big loser. i'm worried about this game with hillary. hillary said we got it. we believe you. we do this go get her petitioner up. if they the democrats, make a wild guess, they'll put in the pretty whatever the hell they pull off the shelves. what are we going to do? >> that's a great question. let's look at vp, joe biden. mark o'malley who let's just look at mark o'malley's record in maryland. lieutenant governor goes to run. he was the architect of the obamacare rollout, which was an

abysmal disaster. republicans won in maryland over anthony brown. i only said that because o'malley couldn't carry his own lieutenant governor in maryland. that's insane. i'm not too worried about him. again, i'm not going to spend -- i say that because i think you have a very good question but you start to look at their -- i mean, they can't get anyone up to the plate. and if they were able to convince elizabeth warren, at the end of the day, my friend, to your point if america wants to go down the path of elizabeth warren, then we've got bigger, bigger problems than -- i mean, if you right now -- i do think that they're going to have very buyer's remorse when they realize they put all their eggs in the hillary basket. that basket has a lot of problem holding eggs.

but if you look at their b-team normally that's a big concern. right now they have wagner. their b-team. look at this. we have up to 20 people you're going to see this weekend. there's none of them i couldn't see being an amazing president. they're fighting you guys over ideas and votes. they're having coronation. you look now for literally whoever doesn't make it on our side, you've got at least 10, 15, 20 years of top tier candidates on our side. on their side they got hillary or nothing. they're basically trying to figure out how to groom chelsea. >> i will be careful with jim

webb. i have someone who interacted with jim webb a few times. i know he's a smart man. he's not very people friendly. he chose not to seek re-election. again, i'm not saying i'm taking them lightly. don't get me wrong. it's a very insightful question. you can never ever vote and not take it seriously. but there's a reason no one stepped up to the plate on their side so far. they can't raise money. there's no enthusiasm. their own base won't give anybody a few points that's not hillary. so i don't discount it, but when you look at their teams and what the operation is that we have on our side, we're built to take on hillary. we have a strong strong team on the data side, communications side. if they don't run their a-team, we still have the varsity team on the field. so i don't discount their other folks. but i'm very proud of the team

that we've built. >> another round of applause for the panel here. i know there were other questions. we'll be out in the lobby to answer the questions and look toward to it. and again, good luck with the rest of the day. >> today's officials provide an update on where they stand with integration in the 2013 decision allowing women to serve in combat. that's live beginning at 12:30 p.m. eastern. >> here a few book festivals we'll be covering this spring on c-span- 2's book tv. then we'll close out may at book e expo america in new york city, where the publishing industry showcases their upcoming books. on the first week in june we're

live for the chicago tribune, including our three-hour live in depth program with lawrence wrigt, and your phone calls. that's this spring on c-span 2's book tv. last week defense secretary ashton carter delivered remarks on sexual assault and prevention. he spoke to an audience of 250 members at georgetown university, suppressing the need for leadership in the military as it pertains to sexual assault crimes. this is about 45 minutes. ladies and gentlemen please

welcome to the stage, professor of military science from georgetown university. good morning, ladies and gentlemen. students, faculty, officers noncommissioned officers and cadets of the joint force, distinguished guests. on behalf of the beattalion, welcome to the hill top and thanks for joining us for this great occasion. in his three decades of service to the nation from academia to service, secretary carter has been in front and center as our military tackled the most difficult challenges. from redefining america's engagement abroad in the wake of the collapse of the soviet union, as president clinton's assistant secretary of defense for international security policy to tackleing acquisition reform including spearheading the push for critical life saving mind resistant ambush

protected vehicles. to jointly spearheading the department in the more than 3 million men and women families military and civilian personnel as the deputy secretary of defense. and the department's chief operating officer. secretary carter has anticipated change. he ceased upon the opportunities and never shied from a challenge. and he has, as president obama noted in his nomination speech a relentless dedication to the safety and well being of the men and women and families who serve this nation. and for those reasons, and to commemorate sexual assault awareness month and discussion with us the challenge of sexual assault in the ranks, he's joining us at george town. it's my distinct pleasure to introduce secretary of defense ashton carter. [ applause ]

>> good morning, everybody. thank you, mr. donahue. appreciate those kinds words and for your leadership. this is a great crowd. big crowd for many universities and many would be here early morning, but not for you all. certainly not for me. we have cadets here. we have mid shipmen here from georgetown, university of maryland, howard university, george mason and george washington university. all here today. wonderful. it's a privilege to be with you. the reason our military is the finest fighting force the world has ever known is its people. and taking care of our people,

whether that's in afghanistan or bases around the country or studying here in the nation's capitol, taking care of them is my highest priority. taking care of them is my highest priority. and i want to thank you each and every one of you, you and your families for your hard work and service. do you know there's a lot going on in the world, a lot on my plate as secretary of defense. we have challenges in afghanistan with isil russian provocations and cyber attacks. we're also working to reform how the pentagon spends money. recover from 14 years of war and at the same time build the forest of the future all of this in front of us, serious business. i know all of you and all of

those american men and women all over the world who will hear this message take it seriously. can't let problems including the scourge of sexual assault in the ranks undermine that important work in our vital mission. instead, we have to confront them. ending sexual assault in the military won't be easy, but none of you signed up for easy. instead you signed up for rotcy and volunteered for early mornings, plenty of runs on the mall and weekends in the field and classwork on top of already demanding course loads. ending sexual assault in the military will require leaders leaders like you. your part of rotc programs and have led troops into battle and

become flag officers and served as army chief of staff, and advised presidents and secretaries of defense. you made clear you were a leader the moment you chose rotc. and you'll be some of our brightest and best prepared junior officers when you're commissioned. because you're studying in washington at a time when sexual assault has gotten much deserved attention on campuses and government and military conversations, you will have the understanding and urgency to be leaders on this issue as well as leaders in every other way for years to come and i'm counting on you to become one of those leaders. now even though sexual assault is a disgrace in any form it happens too often across the

country, including on college campus campuses campuses, it's a particular challenge and particular disgrace to our institution, the military, for a few very important reasons. the first is that our military is based on ethos of honor. and this is dishonorable. and second, we're based on trust. we have to have trust. you have to have trust in the soldier in the fox hole next to you and have trust in the sailor you're under way with and trust in the airmen on your wing. you have to have trust the marine on your flank. and these violations and these assaults are not just violations of the law, but violations of that trust, which is essential to our mission. next we of course, have put

people in situations that are unlike any other. you all serve in a rigid chain of command and for good reasons you'll likely be separated from your family for some period of time and probably at some point live and work in aus tear conditions. those type of environments are essential but they present opportunities to put our people at risk and compromise our missions and values. and so our institution has a particular reason to combat sexual assault. and last, we need to rekrut the force the future and sexual assault is an issue for

recruits. at a at high school in an auditorium like it talking to students. and one of the students asked me about this issue. she asked whether it was safe for her to do. i was sorry she had to ask that question but it is an issue and we can't let sexual assault make our all volunteer force a less attractive path for the next generation of talented dedicated individuals that we need. for all of these reasons and threat sexual assault posing to the well being of our men and women, the department of defense has been working pretty hard on this issue implementing over 100 congressionally mandated provisions and 50 advanced directives and made some progress. seemed to have seen some decrease in the estimated number

of assault ss and increase in those reporting assault. last year we estimated 18,900 service members, 10,400 men and 8,500 women experienced unwanted sexual contact and two of them -- too few of them particularly men reported these incidents as assaults. so all together that's 18,900 too many. no manor woman who serves in the united states military should ever be sexually assaulted. because of our code honor and code of trust and also because we're known as a learning organization we strive to understand and correct our

flaws, as we spend more time and resources to better understand sexual assault in the ranks we learned some lessons and here are a few of them. we've learned that prevention is the most important way to eradicate sexual assault. we've learned that prevention requires not just to stop assault but stamp out per missive behaviors like tolerance for degrading language, inappropriate behavior and sexual hars. that too often contribute to and lead to sexual assault. we've learned that the perception of those reporting trying to prevent responding to an an assault may be retaliated against is a challenge for all of us. from all our institutional efforts, limiting sexual assault

requires individual action. we need leaders in the ranks with the courage to stand up to the behaviors that contribute to sexual assault, the courage to step in and step up and stop assault and courage to act when others try to retaliate against those reporting responding to or preventing an assault. one key to prevention the environments were crude and offensive behavior unwanted sexual tension and sexual harassment are tolerated, ignored or condoned. these by haf yors detract from our mission and put our people at risk. you have to be a part of the solution solution. to learn how i encouraged you to look at our sexual prevention strategy we released last ma.

it provides ways for you to create a appropriate culture and meet standards of behavior and uphold our core values. we have serious work to do and i need you to say enough, to dirty jokes, excessive drinking and hazing and sexual advances and to any suggestion that coercion is appropriate. i need you to intervene when you think an assault may occur. and if for some reason you're concerned about taking action, i need you to get help from a friend law enforcement and chaplain or more senior officer. sadly, for too many of those assaulted, the crime is made worse by he or she is treated after the attack, after they've reported it. when victims are most vulnerable, their leadership and sailors and marines need to

stand by them in solidarity not turn their back and turn away. we need those assaulted to count on and it may not be easy but i need you to be one of them. in person and also online. i know young people live their lives online many ways, snapchat, tweet your every move, share the day's news on facebook, instagram pictures from events like the military ball you had this weekend. that's why i need you to be leaders and online also. i truflt you would intervene if you saw someone being bullied around the campus but too many people let that stuff slide online. we know that. and sometimes offline too. we can't allow -- either reporting a assault, to be

belittled on facebook ignored at chow hall passed over at promotion time or mocked in the officer's club, that's counter to the ethos you signed up for. it's just plain wrong. our nation is looking to the defense department to lead boldly on sexual assault because they admire our institution and it's values and its culture of learning. every one of us has to know and do our part. stopping sexual assault will be a focus of my time as secretary of defense. as leaders of the future force i ask that you too make eradicating these crimes, one of your personal missions. foster of culture of prevention response and accountability dignity, respect and integrity. communicate clearly to what's right and what's wrong and everything you do. not just by your words but also

by your actions. aimed to make a difference in your units throughout the force and throughout the country none of this is easy, but you won't be alone. you've made great friends in rotc and at your schools. i want you to know i'm standing with you and expect that of you. courage is fektous, i've been encouraged by those who stepped forward with stories of assault and courage of those who stepped in to protect their fellow service members. their examples give us all the courage to do our part. when you do and because you do, your courage will in turn inspire others. let me take some questions.

>> good morning, i'm a sophomore here at georgetown economics. first of all thank you so much for coming to talk to us, it's a huge honor and privilege to have you here. my question is on a strategic level if that's okay. >> sure. >> how can we get europe more committed to their own defense given their low defense budgets ongoing debt crisis and especially in light of the war in ukraine? >> very good question. i don't know if everybody can hear that. first of all the honor is mine to be with you. question is, european defense spending base beingally how -- they are not doing enough. they are spending a smaller shade of their gdp than they have in the past that we do now and that many like russia if

europe wants to be a force in the world, it needs to be more than a moral and political force which europe is because it shares many of our values. it demonstrates them around the world but has to be the military power that goes to that as well and military power to be a capable ally of ours. we see that slipping and it's got to turn around. it's not -- they don't have the money to do it. i realize they are still suffering from the economic crisis to a greater extent recovered a lot less than we have in the united states but they've got the money to do this. when the cold war ended, they are beginning to wake up. the "charlie hebdo" incident was a wake-up call. russian behavior in ukraine is a wake-up call. you see what's happening in north africa and the refugees into southern europe which has

many on the southern part of nato concerned. you have turkey a nato ally, right there on the front lines with syria and iraq and fight against isil not like they don't have plenty to do and we have to do everything ourselves, it's a very good question and something that i press on them and the president presses on them to do and my predecessors did all the time. they've made some pledges to turn things around get up to 2% of gdp each at the last summit and got to carry through on that. thank you. >> i'm from the george washington university i was wondering what skills you think for those who commissioned now opposed to ten years ago? >> that's a good question. i'm trying to give you a good answer. i think one way to approach that compared to earlier periods in my own career is you will

quickly as i have found that the people you're leading on a generation younger than you and you have to really stretch to understand what's going on what their lives are like. things more so fast that every generation gets different really fast. so i can give you an answer from my point of view and you see if any of this is useful to you. as i look out on all of you, i know you have grown up in a an environment drastically different from mine. i have to find the common points with you, which are to me american values military ethos, commitment to service you find all of that in every generation you've got to kind of see where people's heads are and how they spend their time and reach them and what kinds of issues really matter to them.

and it's -- that's why i talked about us learning institution, you're constantly learning about -- you're going to command people who aren't like you, didn't grow up like you and have a completely background from you and they are americans too and american service members and you have to try to understand them. it's a real stretch and i can tell you when you're winning my age, it's an even bigger stretch. but you in the course of your career will get here too. it gets tough and you have to commit yourself to learning about them so you can lead them properly. >> i heard you touch on some of the challenges for department of defense issues and north africa and middle east and abroad, i'm

concerned with how we're supposed to maintain and continue to train effectively with the economic issues such as sequestration facing us. >> good question and it's a big challenge. let me explain why sequestration is so bad. it's a sudden and arbitrary cut in the defense budget that we can't predict and this comes up year by year. as a manager, you've got to -- where do you get the money from? do you grab it mostly from readiness or that's where you can get your hands on the money quickly and see our readiness go down because training levels go down? you begin to curb the rate at which you buy weapons systems which drives up the unit price of them.

you find yourself extending the period of contracts which makes them more expensive. in short doing all kinds of stupid things that if you had a longer period -- we still wouldn't like reducing our budget even if we had extra time but if we had stability, at least we could do it in an intelligent way. i believe that it's -- the suddenness and the level of sequester, we still have the greatest fighting force the world has ever known and will for a very long time, but we need to spend an amount of money that's adequate for the nation's defense in our missions around the world. there's a difference where you ask skim when the world as tu multiuous as it is and we have as much leadership responsibility as we do is false. the last thing i'll say, i'm always careful to say and mention this in my remarks.

at that point at the same time we have to show we're aware it's the taxpayers dollar. and we don't always, we make mistakes and cost overruns and such. here's the deal, you give us the defense budget, the law enforcement budget takes a lot to make a country secure these days. you give us that money and we'll do a better job at spending it and i'm committed to that to the reform side of things as i am to fighting sequester but i take every opportunity to condemn. it's no way to run a government. no way to run the greatest country in the world. >> thank you, sir. >> thank you. do you believe in january 2016 comes around all positions will be open to women or will some still remain closed? >> that's a very good question. i think most maybe all will i

don't know. they are working through the practical of some of the most difficult moss and the most difficult from the point of view of reconciling traditional at least gender roles with combat effectiveness and unit cohesion and those kind of things. those are the things people are grappling with. i think they are grappling with them in good faith. i'm certainly grappling with an intention to do the maximum practical because i think for way too long we have -- i think we've underestimated how well we can do. i talked about us being a learning organization. we can learn this too. i'm optimistic. >> good morning, sir our army's current deployment in eastern

asia and europe and iraq and afghanistan are focused on training and building military capacity of our allies. how can we as second future lieutenants ensure the success as to engaging and destroying the enemy? >> it's a great question. it is kind of the secret sauce of the amazing military. not only prevails when it has to engage itself but we are the best trainers and mentors of others in the world. we've gotten really good at it iraq afghanistan, and it's important because we can't do everything. we can't keep the lid on everywhere. we can't combat extremism, terrorism everywhere around the world. we need other people to do their part. a question was raised by the

europeans for example, when it comes to other countries, we need them to keep the lid on and keep order and decency in their own countries we can't be everywhere. it's got to be part of our defense strategy and our military strategy to help others help themselves. we just can't do everything ourselves and i'm proud of how good we are at that. i'm proud of also how rewarding people find it they think it is -- when -- i've been pretty obscure places around the world in the years i've been doing this and you see an american unit and training people and it's really inspiring and they love it by the way, they love it because they can point to a unit that they train and say, wow, that wouldn't exist if it weren't for me. it's very rewarding part of work and it's necessary because it's the force multiplyier for the air force. >> thank you, mr. secretary. >> good morning, mr. secretary

my name is cadet austin, from american university. in the same vein the department of defense is leading the nation on the issue of sexual assault and also on climate change with the recent report naming climate change as a threat to our national security. how is someone with a scientific background do you think -- do you think our military is properly preparing itself and the nation for this threat? >> it's a good question. we're trying to. i can try to speak for us. i can't speak for the nation as a whole. it's a challenge because it changes the -- the topography of the world, literally. islands wiped out, threatens people's livelihoods threatened which always leads to the possibility of violence and disturbance. in the arctic it's a very significant issue because whole

new shipping lanes will be opened up whole new strategic vistas that we have long been a guarantor of freedom of the seas and freedom of commerce and we have a whole new ocean to guarantee that in. many ways drought, water shortages and all of these things put pressure on human beings around the world. that pressure can lead to violence and we need to anticipate that if we're going to do our part to make the world safer and ourselves secure. it is a big deal. we're trying to stay ahead of it. zblg thank you. >> i'm a masters student here at georgetown. can you speak as to opening combat positions around the women helps in the fight to end sexual assault in the military. are there challenges or opportunities for those to work together? >> i think -- it's a very

insightful question because it actually cuts both ways. obviously as we get women into more unaccustomed positions, maybe dangerous isolated positions or positions where they are fewer in relation to the number of men. it opens up opportunities for predators as i said earlier that they don't have in ordinary life. they do have military life especially of that kind. in the one hand it can lead in that direction, on the other hand, it i think it kind of signifies to -- everyone will get used to working, men and women together to defend the country and do these things and i can't help but believe for many people they'll learn better how to conduct themselves, how to interact across gender lines and so forth.

and that will contribute to prevention eventually eradication of sexual assault. you can see it heading in two directions. we want to have it head in this direction and not this direction. in addition to of course the principle benefit, we get the benefit of more talented people eligible to serve in certain military roles. as i said people are the key. that's what makes our military, not the airplanes and tanks and the technology and so forth. it's the people that make us the best. >> good morning, my question relates to your essay in foreign affairs in which you said the pentagon had issues reacting to threats on the ground immediately, for example, the ied threat in iraq and afghanistan. what the department of defense is doing for emerging threats, perhaps that the uab proliferation expected in the world in the wake of recent

budget issues? >> it's a great question. what i was pointing to as a challenge for us in war time is as your question indicates also a challenge in peace time or where you're not in a war but trying to deter a war or prevent a war or prepare for a war if one occurs. for those of you who didn't read the article what it was saying was that we had more difficulty than probably any fl you would think. responding to the ever changing needs of the wars in iraq and afghanistan, we were running into problems we never run into before like ieds. and i was extremely frustrated at our institution's inability to rapidly adapt and adjust. why is that? well, two reasons, one is that we come from a cold war heritage in which things change very slowly, if you had a problem you would have a 10-year or 15-year program and make this fantastic

do dad 15 years from now and that would be okay. we need the things in 15 weeks. and the system couldn't move that fast. it was very frustrating to me and my boss at that time, bob gates, and the other thing is in washington, people even in the pentagon get involved in washington, get involved in budgets and squabbles and testifying on the hill and what's in the newspaper and so forth. i found that every once in a while you had to shake somebody and say, remember what this is all about, people ever risking their lives for us. get up in the morning and make them job one. of course you said that somebody would say, of course i understand. that's why i love this institution. but you had to remind people more times than you think you would. what does that mean for going forward? it means that let me take

examples of china or russia or iran. now, of course nobody wants to have a conflict with any of those but we have to be ready because readiness is part of deterrence. they are constantly changing like the taliban did. they are changing tools and techniques technology moves fast now. in order to have a deter ent that keeps up, we need to be agil with the day to day basis and we can't go back to the old cold war model. that was okay in the technology eras of decades ago and slow and stoggy soviet union, it won't work against today's terrorist groups. we have to be agile and we're still fighting that fight and i am and the department we're getting better but still not

good enough. >> good morning, mr. secretary i'm from the george washington university. my question to you, what specifically does the administration envision for the united states army in the -- asia and what are concerns with the long-term viability with regards to continued crisis in the middle east and now ukraine. >> let me take the second part of that first what's the purpose of the repivot to the asia pacific. it's as simple as this. half of humanity and half of the economic activity in the world upon which we depend is in the asia pacific region. much of the future lies there. so its security and our role in it are central to the american future. you have to keep that in mind

even though what's on -- on tv every night is the middle east. that's where there's a lot of violence and not belittling the importance of that but you have to remember when you think doing strategy, you have to remember what the fundamentals are and one of the fundamentals, this is an important part of the world. and so the rebalance is -- was a word used to signify our awareness that's as the wars in iraq and afghanistan wound down and even as the fight against isil begins and there's continued turmoil there, we have to have pay attention as a country to the aidssia pacific -- get out your globe and look at the asia pacific, it's all water, right? and so you think, it's all water and air. what's an army going to do out there? but actually the army has found plenty to do and one reason for that is almost all of the

militaries in the asia pacific region are dominated by their armies, that's kind of history at work. and one of the earlier questions was asking about partnership and building partner capacity and working with other militaries. if we want these countries to be our friend to be strong and stable and be able to stand up with us against threats then we need to work with them and the army has fantastic relations -- they call it pacific pathways and they are working out there in the pacific. it's a great thing. one last note is always got to remember that the asia pacific has no nato. there's no structure there for security. and in nato, the wounds of world war ii were healed over decades with france and germany and united kingdom and so forth all working together. and there was a structure there

for reconciliation to be made after world war ii. that never happened in the asia pacific and you still see them pointing fingers and still a lot of residual hostility there. why has the peace been kept in the asia pacific for decades and decades which led to all of prosperity there? us, it's been the secret has been the pivotal role of american military power. and the rebalance seems to do is keep that good thing going. >> thank you. >> good morning, university of maryland, a lot of focus for foreign affairs and crises have been in asia and europe and north africa. what about south america and central america? they are our closest neighbors and a lot of turmoil down there. whats our interaction with them? >> it is a very good question

and your question is a reminder, we're talking about the asia pacific, you can't take your eye off anywhere because all of the world is connected in a way it didn't used to be and we have global responsibilities. for south america and central america, instability fueled important by by narcotics, the narcotics trade is a centrally important dynamic there and it leads to terrorism the revolutionary groups to migrants illegal migrants into the united states and so forth. it would be really unfortunate if we found -- let me put it this way the kind of thing you see every day in the middle east in that close to our own

borders. so what we're doing there is working with the militaries of that region, trying to build their capacity, make sure that they behave with the same skill and same values that we do which are necessary to long-term -- even keep short term order by force. want to keep long term order you have to have goodness behind it. we try to instill that in them and it worked incredibly well. the best example is colombia. it was a mess and it's a lot better now and wouldn't be that way without the partnership of us and the forces of the colombian government. this is why you can't take your eye off any part of the world in my job. this will be our last question. >> one of the obstacles that

existed in previous sexual assault reporting indications is the fact that the jury, judge executioner is oftentimes the same person within the chain of command. i was wondering what you thought of efforts to make the adjudication case for outside of the military for us in the chain of command? >> it's a good question. it's been a point of study and debate and let me give you the two. it goes on. let me give you the two sides of the coin here. the one side of the coin is the one you say namely that if there is a commander in the chain of command who isn't doing what i've asked you to do today then since it is a chain of command and military organization depends upon chain of command. we have a problem. so we're attacking that in two different ways one is to make

sure there are fewer commanders who don't know what they are doing or duties are or aren't aware of what their duties should be. and the second is to give an alternative to the victims and their helpers and that's what some of our counselors and special victim counsels are about, to give another chain -- not another chain of command per se but another avenue for reporting, redress punishment and above all care for the victim. the other side of the argument is that chain of command is essential to our ethos.

if you don't hold people responsible for everything about their command, the welfare of their people including sexual assault prevention, that is not what we want from commanders. we want commanders who have all of those responsibilities together. we consider it not only important part of military proficiency but an important part of instilling culture of proper command. so we're trying to do that and at the same time trying to provide alternative avenues. we're still studying it and still debated as you know and differences here in our military community and in washington about the approach to it but that's the essence of it to try to have it both ways, have the virtues of a chain of command and command of culture without the possible abuses when you get a bad apple in the chain of command. it's the essence of it.

>> okay, well, listen, let me thank you all first and foremost for being a part of our wonderful institution and for being the leaders you will be in the future. i hope you took on board this topic, it's an important one to be on top of and reflect in your own conduct and in your command conduct. we have great, great expectations of you, you're what make us great and i'm confident looking out on the faces here that you'll make us proud in the future. thanks very much. [ applause ] >> now a look at the changes in

the role of u.s. servicewomen since dod expanded their role. live at the carnegie endowment in washington, d.c. >> under the initiative i would like to take this opportunity to thank you for your efforts on this program and for more on this program, i would like to refer you to the website. we're quickly approaching january 2016 the day when all positions are to be opened and it's clear that women have served in combat positions. they have done so effectively and heroically. and the cultural support team described in the book are a vivid example of that. i think it is also clear that in the 21st century the military

cannot afford to lose out on those most talented regardless of their gender. no one wants to compromise the readiness and the effectiveness of u.s. armed forces and i think least of all the women who are willing and eager to serve. but change is difficult for any institution and any organization. particularly a large organization such as the u.s. military we hope this will help answer some of the outstanding questions and some of the services, may still have with regard to full implementation of the new policy. this afternoon, we have a very full program and rich program. we will be examining three key issues that keep coming up in this debate. one is about the standards for occupational positions. the second is about unit cohesion and the third is about issues of leadership.

we will also hear about the actual experiences of women in combat and we'll be joined later on by gail lemon, the author of "ashley's war" and speak with three women who have served in cultural support teams in afghanistan between 2010 and 2013. finally, we will also hear from a few members of congress who have been closely following this debate representative loretta sanchez of california and marta from arizona. i would like to take this occasion to thank them for their support for this particular issue. i'd also like to thank our co-organizers and alliance for national defense no exceptions and initiative of the truman national security project and

reserve officers association. and last but not least, a big thank you to robert kaufman and the fund in the new york community trust. we will start off this discussion this afternoon, we should begin with the department of defense and see where we stand. and we're very happy to hear from two people first of all we'll hear from major general o felts who's serving as advanced director of the joint staff and as such potential for a whole range of issues including some of these issues, she started her career in the u.s. air force. afterwards, we'll hear from julia bylo, enlisted personnel management at the office of the secretary of defense and prior to her current position was senior policy adviser in the

office of senator jim webb. but she also has a 23 year career in the marine corps. so without further ado general, please take the floor. >> thank you and good afternoon. thank you, fellow security professionals, thank you for inviting us here today to discuss the rescission of the ground combat rule. as an air force pilot removing gender related beararriers for all women is important both professionally and personally. in 2013 secretary panetta and general dempsey announced a decision to rescind the direct combat definition assignment rule. 2013 also marked the 20th anniversary of opening combat aviation to women, including

enlisted female members and allowing women to begin flying combat missions. i highlight this milestone because i stepped through that door and it too presented its challenges. we got it right. women jumped at the opportunity to be the first to enter but no one wanted to be the first to fail. if one of us failed it rereflected poor will be on all of us. if a male failed, he was just a normal statistic. successful integration into the career fields required thoughtful implementation, as a captain i was oblivious to the efforts taken to ensure my success, the right policies and preparation and training and viable career path, engaged leadership and mentors and robust communication across the force. today i'm inspired by the young women across the services who

desire to serve in these critical ground combat roles and i both as senior leader as a woman invested in their fully successful implementation. today 95% of all military occupations are open to women. in unprecedented ways to the military's mission of defending our nation women have achieved the rank of four-star general and flag officer and they've been top senior enlisted positions. women are commanding major combat units and navy warships. some have asked why now. over the last decade more than 280,000 women have deployed in support of our operations in iraq and afghanistan. military leaders across all services saw firsthand that women were already performing a growing number of critical roles on and off the battlefield. our military women are a force multiplier and to quote general dempsey, women strengthen the

force. the pictures here remt a few examples of the function women are performing sints 2013, they have notified of the intent to oppositions that were previously closed. in the top photo the marine corps allowed enlisted women to participate in basic infantry training to determine what additional combat jobs may be open to female personnel. approximately 34% completed the course. the enlisted infantry school includes a mix of physical training and classroom work overnight field exercises that involve live fire events. those who completed the training will not be assigned the infantry as a military occupational specialty or inside a unit but critical to assess and valid date the gender neutral standards. a female senator was

participating in a navy coastal crew member course at acamp lejeune. navy notified congress of the intent to open 267 positions in the marine force and one example of a field now open and implemented. here a female attending the riverine course patrols grounds during an exercise. the skills force is a five week training class that teaches combat skills and weapons fundamental as and equipment and land navigation urban operations and offensive and defensive patrols and communications. the navy commodore of the marine group one commented on personal experience in a combat environment. he said his biggest mission weakness while commanding a squadron in al anbar iraq was the fact he had no women assigned. he recognized its less effective to change hearts and minds of villages on the river banks when you only deal with 50% of the

population. one of the most heartening things he has seen upon his return as a quest coast commodore has been women graduates of the riverine pipe line and populating his units. in the bottom photo the army noujsed its intent to open combat engineers to enlisted women. they are engaged in providing offensive, defensive and stability operations. such as reconnaissance, mobility countermobility and survivability. these engineers operate mounted or dismounted and employ demolition explosives and u.s. land mines and mine and counter mine ops. detection of ieds, basic combat construction rigging and field fort fictions to our combat forces. women already attend the army's combat engineer school and considered a model for developing standards. our military leaders strive to ensure that operations are carried out by the best

qualified and most capable service members, period. this has not changed as we continue to open more positions to women in fact, the guiding principles established by the chairman and joint chiefs center around maintaining a strong military. ensuring the success of forces by preserving unit readiness and cohesion and equality of our all volunteer force. we're not lowering standards nor are we compromising our military doctrine. the key is to have the right standard for the right occupation. when we have done so the general neutral standards for oppositions provide a wider pool of skilled military personnel and provide commanders more flexibility not less. although some expected the integration to occur immediately, the joint chiefs remain committed to a deliberate process to ensure women are fully successful. the joint chiefs are closely monitoring the program towards full interest teg race of women within our armed forces and

continues to be a key player as the senior military adviser to the president and secretary of defense. the most anticipated decision of course will be whether or not to open combat arms and infantry armor in occupations to women. as part of his assessment, general dempsey not only engages the military leaders but also actively seeks the opinions of men and women of all ranks and genders and occupational specialties. i'm inspired by the chairman's leadership and commitment to work with the services to get this right. i can assure you his recommendations to the secretary will be based on rigorous analysis. but the work will not stop on 1 january. we've all learned lessons from previous integration efforts this is a journey that requires continuous assessment and refinement. leadership engagement and motivated female volunteers to institutionalize our progress with the right policies. with that in i'd like to turn it

over to julia to talk about the policy aspect. >> thank you very much. julia, please. >> thank you. so good afternoon, thank you and the rest of the co-hosts thank you for the invitation to talk about our work. so similar to the general and like many of you as you heard, my 23 years in uniform i lived the evolving changes to women's assignment policy from the low as a suggest platoon sergeant only woman being told being dumbfounded and told it was too logistically difficult to take me to desert storm and one of the first women when they opened combat engineers to female marines and getting the privilege of leading marines in iraq. getting this effort right and i'm talking about the elimination of these remaining

gender base matters to service, it matters to me. it is often referred to as historic and it certainly is but in my mind it was also very much the next logical step in assignment policies for women. the experience gained in iraq and afghanistan in discussions in the department of defense throughout 2010 2011 and 2012 led the joint chiefs to the unanimous conclusion that the time had come for us to change our thinking on this. the tipping point had been reached where it no longer made sense to oppositions to women by exception. we flipped that presumption on its head. instead the presumption is everything should be open unless a case can be made to keep it closed. a big change in the department's thinking on assignment policy. so to that end as the general has already said on january -- in january 2013, secretary panetta and dempsey rescinded the 1994 combat definition and assignment rule and directed the development of plans, describing

how each service and special operations command intends to integrate women into the previously closed jobs and occupations and how they are going to review and valid date their occupational standards to ensure they are current, operationally relevant and apply gender neutrally by september of 2015. they were also directed to complete all of their studies by september of 2015 and ensure as you know full implementation by january 21st 2016. since that time in 2013 the department and services have been thoughtfully implementing this policy change. where are we now? since the ground combat rule was rescinded rescinded, we have notified congress of our intent to open 91,000 positions. prior to that in 2012 which i consider to be still part of the initial stages of this effort, we opened another 14,000 positions. each service continues to manage the opening of positions

requiring notification in two general category, the first currently open occupations closed by virtue of the unit of assignment. for example, an administrative clerk in a tank battalion or truck driver in an artillery battery and 100 closed operations, ground combat, arms and special operations. those 106 positions are mostly in bin one. those currently open occupations however the department opened a whole host of previously 100% closed occupations as well. for the marine corps they opened up ground intelligence officer and light armor vehicle repair and ordinance maintenance chief and army tank maintainers and multiple launch system member crew member, artillery officer. the navy opened all eight enlisted submarine ratings and seven classification codes that go with those ratings, all significant changes in and of

themselves. one of the chairman's guiding principles is to determine members are set up for success. with viable career paths. not only are we opening the positions and occupations but we're identifying and opening all of the schools and professional development pass, it's a holistic effort. so yes approximately 240,000 positions are still closed. most of those reside in the closed occupations again infantry, armor, artillery and of course special operations. from the beginning the most difficult to review and we also fully expect the last to be addressed. the services and special operations command and department as a whole are on track to announce the final decisions on opening or integration of those 2 -- all 240,000 of those remaining cloegsed positions or any improved exceptions to policy in accordance with the rescission memo. as we move towards the end of the year each service and

special operations command is working to conclude various doctrine training, education facilities and policy study and analysis, all again parlt of that deliberate process. lastly, each service continues to work with their various agencies as they review and valid date their occupational standards, as you've seen in the news, each of them are nearing completion of their associated study efforts, most notably the ground combat element task force currently finishing up work in california and then be moving to their final phase in camp pendleton and bridgeport to do the amphibious and mountain warfare sections of that assessment and ongoing army ranger assessment due to conclude in the june time frame. they have taken different approaches, which i know you're going to have a panel to look at that later this afternoon -- i'm sorry, lost my place sorry

about that. the end result is going to be the same. all occupational standards will and must be validaltded to the prior decisions. i think that's important point. the service is reviewing all of the occupational standards, not just the occupations currently closed. it's given us the opportunity to really look at our standards and training pipelines to look at it all with a fresh eye. and to have those difficult conversations that were never possible because that outdated policy barrier we used to have. so through this we expect to learn a lot. possibly even more about our existing forces and training pipelines as we will about gender valuation. it will only enhance the quality and readiness and overall effectiveness of our force. so in conclusion, a constant for the department since 2013 is that this effort again is not about raising or lowering

standards. but rather ensuring that we have the right standards and right policies. this coupled with expanding the talent pool for which we can recruit and assign will help ensure the continued success of and our individual services members. i, like you, look forward to the end of this year but this will continue long after january 1st, 2016, as we recruit assess, train, and grow those leaders of tomorrow. some say that we're going too slow, some say that we're going too fast. we think that we've got it about right. our goal is to take a measured and responsible approach, again to have those hard conversations, and to really look closely at this issue and i am comfortable that we have succeeded there. as i mentioned in the beginning this is a historic effort and senior leaders across the department of defense recognize that. they are personally engaged. they are constantly talking to each other, and they are leading on this evident. and so again, thank you for having us, and we look forward to your questions.

[ applause ] >> thank you very much. we have about 20 25 minutes for questions. i would like to group them by two or three. please introduce yourself, and who would like to start off? please. >> hi there. i'm anna mullrine with the christian science monitor. i just got back from ranger school this past weekend so watching some of the first women go through, and now there are eight remaining. in talking to some of the rangers who are running the school and some of the senior military leadership, you know, even about the women who have not made it through. so of the 20 who started out the school one week ago today there are eight left. and they said the ones they talked to as they were leaving and the ones they watched, even as they went out of the school, that they -- that they would be proud to serve with them on the

battlefield anywhere, anytime, and that they would love to see them come back to ranger school because such a small percentage of people who go through ranger school make it through the first time. so what i'm wondering is what are the criteria that is going to be used to allow an exception to policy, an exemption? saying are women going to be allowed to be rangers or not? is it going to be based on their success, given that a lot of these guys need a second, third, fourth try to get through ranger school? >> okay. any other -- yes please. >> i'm jen neat haney, a marine corps reserve lieutenant colonel. like both of you, i have extensive experience in units without any fellow female officers and definitely no female superior officers. i have a question about one of the terms that's been thrown around, the critical mass or sufficient cadre. i was wondering if you all could

offer a definition of that or how it might be universally applied and if there's been some kind of information recently that's brought the import of that to light because obviously it hasn't really been something that's been employed within dod before. >> let's start maybe with these first two questions. so it's about the criteria in terms of exceptions and the issue of critical mass. >> i'll start out on exception to policy. first of all, thank you for going out and participating in the ranger day and thank those who went out for the marine corps version as well. i think it was very enlightening, and i thought we got pretty good coverage and i think they were fairly transparent in who they talked to and getting the word out and to show the attitudes of the men and the women that were going through the course. so thanks for that. so as you aptly pointed out less than 50% even make it through the first gates of the ranger school. we're sitting at a 43% successful rate for women 48%

successful rate for men that is within historical norms for the course. so we are pretty proud of the eight that are still in the game there. so you ask about what we're going to do with that. what ranger school is doing, it is identifying validating, and assessing the core tasks that folks do as a ranger and that will allow us to then baseline on the standards that are required, one, through the pretesting -- there was a pre-ranger phase as you probably know, and for applications throughout the mo ss, the application skills. the data will be used as a reference for the general neutral standards. it will not necessarily be the be all, end all as to whether they get through. if you get eliminated from a phase, there's an opportunity later to come back and to retry and we certainly hope the few women that have gone through that may want to retry in the

future to get the ranger tab, that they would. so because of that, there's no penalty for it. we're just pretty excited about the women that went through. anything else with that? >> so i guess i would just add so on your question regarding the exception, there is no simple answer to that. so as laid out in the secretary and the chairman's memo so any request for an exception to policy which would be to keep a position or occupation closed has to have a rigorous justification, it has to be based on the knowledge, skills, and ability to do the job. what i would tell you it will be multilayered. it's not a simple binary answer and it will be thoroughly reviewed and discussed across the department before any decision is made there. >> what about the issue of critical mass? is that important? >> thanks for the question on critical mass. that has been -- each service is going to come back with their impletation plans by occupational specialty. we certainly don't want a

blanket number put against a specialty because it's all going to be different whether it's in the field or not, whether it's on a ship or two officers four enlisted, it's submarine piece is going to be different than the service ship. it's going to be different than a marine corps infantry unit, different than a combat unit or a so com task force. but the important thing is we have a structure there. as we have learned through previous lessons learned, we need to have a support structure there. there are some strategies there whether we place women with similar occupational specialties in the unit, whether they're co-located with similar occupancy, or just leadership being there because i have personally watched a woman crash and burn because she didn't have the support structure necessary because we moved out a little too quick. and this was -- granted its 20 years ago in '83 -- or '93, but it was important that we have the structure there. so when they come forward with

the occupations that were previously closed they're going to have deliberative implementation plans that are going to be looked at and in stride we're going to be evaluating them every step of the way to make sure the women have the support they need to do well because if they fail because we haven't placed the right support there it would be very hard for us to get motivated volunteers to follow that same path. so we want to do it right the first time so we're continuing to generate the folks that want to come in behind them and do well. >> do you want something to add? >> no. >> let's go for a second round. yes, please. >> i'm annie climan a reservist in the air force assigned to the air force special operations school and i was also part of csd3. my question is when i was assigned to air force special operations school, i was able to work with some of the researchers from the joint special operations university who were looking at some of

these implementation plans and part of the studies as they mentioned cultural studies. so what exactly does that mean? what kind of data has come out of those studies, and how is that being used in the implementation plans going forward? >> and lady in the back. yeah, please. >> my name is lisa dollza. i'm a contractor. i have a question regarding the best practices mentioned earlier. you mentioned open communication and proper training. i was hoping you could elaborate on that and what you found with best practices that might be institutionalized to help support success in the future. >> let's go with these two first. >> okay. so why don't -- i'll try to tackle the studies question first. so from the beginning even back in the 2011-2012 time frame$2,012 time frame we envings all the services and special operations command would want to do studies, surveys to

try to identify where the issues are. we've done this before and there's a lot of lessons learned from before. so the army did a lot of surveys initially to kind of find out where people perhaps had misperceptions, where there might be issues that might need to be addressed and so so com, again, they also wanted to do a study given so com's very unique needs and the way they operate in small teams. they wanted to do studies to understand how this would impact the special operations community and how they could develop plans to best implement it. that's the reason behind the studies. >> could i ask you are some of the results of these studies going to be made public at some point? >> at some point yes, but that was one -- we have not made any of the them public yet because of course, the services, the chiefs the commander of special operations are going to use the results of those studies one to develop mitigation strategies if they identify something that needs to be addressed so they can address it and make sure

we're successful and then of course, two, to use those studies to help inform any final recommendations they may make to the secretary. >> i'd like to address the training and communications piece which is key. so thank you for keying in on that. that's a key part of the implementation plans. the services need to bring forward for every one of the specialties, and i say that because, first of all, as we spoke about, all the standards are going to be gender neutral standards. that's just not focused on the occupations that are closed right now but all of them. so as we produce those by the end of september each serviceman and woman has to be trained to that standard, and they will help us better identify where the special areas are where people may need preassessment training like the ranger schools where we do preassessment work to make sure that folks understand what the physical activities of the course require so they can be more successful when they