so i would just like to go down the line. if you could tell us what -- your name and what mission you did and what years you were there in afghanistan. >> is this on? >> yes. >> my name is annie kleinman. i was in csd-3. so i was in the class -- or the group that took over for ashley's group. and i -- what was the other question? i'm sorry. >> what kind of -- what mission you were doing. >> i was on the dm mission. >> sergeant first class megan malloy. i was part of cst-5. so we just got back in '13. and i was part of the village stability operations mission. >> janise marquez. csd-2, which was ashley's mission. also the first set of all volunteers to go out to do the cst mission.

there are a few here who are from there as well. it's hard to listen to you talk about ashley. i see people getting emotional in the audience. and i'm like hold it together. i did the vso mission. >> i would now start with you because you're most recent and then i would just work out. what attracted you to the mission and who first told you about it? >> initially i heard about it with cst-2 was the first time i heard about it. and i had wanted to go then and my commander wouldn't let me and my commanders wouldn't let me and it was just -- >> because you needed -- let's explain to the audience. you needed to get -- because it was a one-year mission, you needed to get sign-off from your commander because they would just be down one person, right? >> correct. and so eventually my commander happened to be gone for a month and i got my x.o., who had responsibility -- >> that's innovative leadership. >> so she signed off on it and a couple months later i was at

selection. as far as what drove me to do it, this was -- i did three previous deployments all in iraq, and i honestly didn't realize that there was the gender issues as far as -- i was the only female out on most of them. as a medic they basically just yanked me from whatever unit i was at and were like hey, we need medics on this mission, whether 4th infantry division on my second deployment, one of the other infantry battalions needed medics to help search the females and we didn't have a team or anything like that and they were like, well, you can keep up plus added bonus you're a medic. so they just pulled me right in. and no issues. just i went to work and i was a professional and they were professional. the deployment with 3rd engineer battalion where i served as a medic with route clearance which officially is a position that's off limits to females, but again, they needed medics, they

couldn't leave the wire without them. so i got pulled. and shortly after i came back there was the whole thing about the combat exclusion. i was like, combat exclusion? i've been doing this for a while now. and i started hearing stories from friends of mine who had done it. demare was in the iteration before me and she had told me about it and she talked about like the sisterhood and about these wonderful things these girls were doing and these opportunities we would have. and i jumped on it as soon as i could. it was an awesome tonight. i'd do it again in a heartbeat. >> that do it again in a heartbeat i'd heard 750 times in the past two years. and that's the thing that struck me.

not just what you all had done but how much everyone missed that mission. there were people willing to tank their careers to just keep doing this mission alongside special operations. and i met them all the time and i'm sure there are tons i didn't have the opportunity to meet because it was like one after the other after the other. this was the thing that meant the most. and there are two things i want to pick up on before i ask you one more question. medics, and i know a lot of these people, long before there was a cst program there was hey, we need a female to go out tonight, you're coming out with us. i met so many people who had gone on these missions and who were just really glad to see it institutionalized by the cst program. one medic told me a story about her commander said hey, do you

want to go out and get bad guys? she said i knew the answer was yes. soon she left her base and i think within a week and a half was out on -- alongside rangers going out on these missions. and the second thing i want to pick up on is you talk about the combat exclusion policy. when secretary panetta announced the lifting of the combat exclusion policy and it was -- it's in the epilogue of the book, five months later special operations held a press conference and he cited all of you. i think it was major general michalek at the time. said these young girls of the cst may well have laid the groundwork for ultimate integration and specifically cited the cultural support team's work. and as a writer i was like oh, no, everyone's going to discover this story. but the truth was no one was paying attention. but you know, he -- it was direct credit. obviously there's so many people upon whose shoulders epa of you stands. right? that history is there p. and thanks to laura manning. but i do think it is important to know you all were singled out in the history of this whatever happens. can you just talk about why you wanted to do it? you said you immediately knew. did you immediately know you wanted to do that position? >> my husband was the one that first told me about this. the funny thing at the time is we both were in the air force

and he was trying to convince me to switch to the army. and he was like hey, check out this cultural support team thing. it's awesome. you get to go out with special operators and you've got to switch to the army, though, that was like his pitch. and i was like that's ridiculous, that's not going to happen, that's crazy. he actually flew reconnaissance aircraft that would provide overwatch for teams on the ground. and he was like, i'm telling you there are women on the teams, i can hear them on the raid, this is actually happening. i think i told him he was full of it. about a year later i started looking at the program. i would reads the website and read the instructions and i was like they're never going to let me go, i'm in the air forget, i'm a reservist. this is crazy. and no kidding, about two weeks later i got an e-mail from the air force special operations command because i was assigned there at the time. and it was asking for volunteers for air force women assigned specifically to adsoc. it turned out to be a one-time thing. it was really lucky that i volunteered for that.

that specific rotation. but it was literally -- i got the e-mail i think on a wednesday. and then on monday i did the army pft. on tuesday morning i did the march and then i submitted my package on wednesday and it all just took off from there. >> how long until you were deployed? >> i want to say i went to assessment and selection about a month later and then went through training two months after that and was out the door another two months after that. >> right. >> so it happened -- once it actually -- once the ball got rolling it happened really quickly but it was a little bit of a process. and i had this kind of weird cognitive dissonance going on. i was like i'm not going to be in combat. it says objective's going to be secured before they bring us in. and my husband was just like you don't know what you're talking about, like i see the group moving and there's no rear guard that comes up afterwards. and i don't think it was until i was actually running out the helicopter, like oh, that's what he's talking about.

>> and in fact, everybody had that moment. there are a lost expletives in the book. so forgive it. but you're all familiar with that language. one of the gals telling me the story, the book opens with a mission. and one of the gals telling me about it she walked in after the first combat mission and was like this shit is serious. than she didn't know but there's something about how quickly it all happened. right? and you know you're going to be there but there's still that moment where like oh, yeah. >> during training the way we talked about it was oh, you're going to walk with a platoon leader, that's going to be separate from the assault element. you're not going to be with the people in front. and at the time we were like oh, that's so -- like the platoon leader's right there. he's 20 feet back from the front squad but for some reason it was like we had bought into the whole combat exclusion thing, so we were telling ourselves it's not actually going to be combat, the objective's already going to be secured. it's not going to be -- >> and the reality was -- >> there wasn't bullets flying directly at me but it was 50 feet, 100 feet away.

the funny thing is the jag that briefed us right before going into theater, this is right before the combat exclusion was lifted, he goes, oh, you're not attached -- or you're not assigned to ground combat troops. you're ten feet back. we were like, oh. [ laughter ] that's good to know. >> one of the things that i was working on answering, i always had the question of where did the name come from, and it was really interesting because admiral olsen was talking about it was the best of a bunch of bad options. cultural because it was culture that meant that that was the whole reason for the rff initially. the request for forces. support because we didn't want people to think that -- we already were getting criticism. it was a back door way into front line roles for women. and team because everything in special operations is a team. so that's where the name came from.

but i mean you've seen these missions now. right? it's very hard to say that you're so far back that -- i mean, that's just not the way that that kind of combat is happening. what led you to do this mission, and what did it mean to you in hindsight? >> i was a student at the defense language institute in monterey. i was studying pashtu and my commander comes up to me one morning and says your scores are fantastic, he said, but i have bad news. he told me about my follow-on assignment. i was just devastated. because i wanted something exciting. everybody does after that. i wasn't scheduled to deploy for another year and a half, so i would be sitting on a base for a while, and i didn't want that. so the following week he comes into my classroom and he said, hey, we need to talk.

and i think i'm in trouble. but he sits me down-e said, so this flyer came across my desk and it's asking for women to serve with special forces. and i'm like, you're kidding. i thought he was joking for the longest time. until finally the message came out, and so i started to apply. but during the application process my branch manager denied me and i feel like every commander up above my company commander was just turning me down. i'd like to echo mary beth in this. it's that one person who mattered, who was willing to fight for me. so we took it up to the inspector general and finally my branch released me to do this mission. i had just graduated from the pashtu language course right before going to cst selection, and it was almost like i finally had a purpose. the military wasn't just being in the military, following

everybody. now i was able to be a pioneer in a program that hadn't started yet. i think actually the first group of girls were going through training as we were filling out our packets. so it's this brand new concept of putting them on these teams and training us and being able to go and fight in the front lines. and to me it was exciting. when we finally got out to afghanistan, it was this whirlwind of everything i thought it would be and also everything i thought it wouldn't be. >> tell me more about what you thought it wouldn't be. >> well, you don't really know. there was a lot of gray area, going through training. we were told our mission was supposed to be maybe this, we might be doing some of this, some of that, until you finally get out there and the team you're working with is like sit down, let us tell you how it's

done. and then you're like okay, i'm ready. and you get all of your training and you start to really go and practice and rehearse with these guys. i thought, like she said, i thought i would be out to engage with women and children, be with the mission commander, kind of standing away from everything. but that's not how it ever was. there were times when i was the gunner. the entire last three months of my deployment i was a gunner. and then i would also still go into these villages and talk to women and children and go into their homes and i thought it was pretty interesting to be able to talk to them in their native tongue and really bond with them without the use of interpreters and see who they really were. >> that is the best person for the job, is the theme that comes up over and over again. there are a lot of people i met who are in this story who were in jobs at one point or another that were coded for men. because their commanders were like you're the best person for the job, so you're in it. you know, there are people who served as xos or people who are doing -- number two roles or

people who are in holes that were really from an hr standpoint, from a human resources standpoint supposed to be reserved for men only. but their commanders would say this doesn't make any sense, you're the best person for, it we're going to leave the paperwork blank and one gal said, yeah, i'm going to have such bad language on c-span. one gal said yeah, i looked like a shitbag for two years because it looked like she had done nothing when she was in a job that was only supposed to be filled by men. i think it's a story -- you can say what you will but there is so much leadership that went on in terms of people saying i know what the regulations are but this is war that we're fighting and you have to be innovative and you need the best people. and so they were using the best people that they had and they were trying to give them opportunities and i really do think it's the stories of

leaders who were trying to be as flexible as they could given the rules. just like the attached thing. they went to the lawyers. the so com lawyer said you can attach them to special operations units. it's perfectly legal. and so that's how that happened. and i think that was -- you know, we can think of it what it will but that was a need from a battlefield commander in the field who needed a capability for his forces. and that was what was driving the decision while the combat ban was very much in place. and i do think that secretary panetta and general dempsey very much acknowledged that the reality had long surpassed the regulation when it came to these women. one of the things i just wanted to ask before we go to questions is how did this mission change you? because everybody i've had the privilege of spending time with

was profoundly changed by the experience of both their teammates and the men alongside whom they served. >> i have some very dear friends from the deployment i still keep in touch with. we talk about babies now and grad school and of what life afterwards, but we still keep in touch. i think the other thing is also everything else, it's a little easier. i'm in grad school now, and if i don't get my paper perfect, you know, no one's going to die. there's not bullets flying. there's no rpd -- it's a little bit lower -- i live in boston. so we had 100-plus inches of snow. i was actually wearing my afghanistan boots i was tromping around in. i was like, this is fine. i'm not falling in a four-foot pit. it's not a big deal. but everything else is -- it's just a little bit easier in comparison. >> it definitely made me think about things a lot differently. so i definitely had done a couple of deployments before, so it wasn't anything new, but on

those deployments it was a very cut and dry mission. if you go out and do this, if they shoot at you you shoot back. if someone gets hurt you fix them. i mean, it was this and that. and going into -- especially on the vso side -- >> village stability. sorry. >> on the direct action side i felt they had had a more cut and dried mission whereas on the village stability operations she hit it just right. they told us kind of one thing. when we did the pmt -- >> mission training. >> sorry. yeah. they told us something totally different. and when we got out to the actual o.d.a. they were like yeah, no. >> these are the teams -- >> the teams that we were

working at. >> at one point when we first got out there we were like you need to make yourself more important than the work dog because the working dog has a spot on the team to go out. you need to prove yourself more important and valuable than them because that's the only way you're going to go out on a mission. from then on -- and i was blessed with an absolutely awesome partner out there. and her and i got together and started coming up with what can we do for this team? how can we gather this intelligence and how can we gain that bond with the women and children out there so they're willing to give us this information that will potentially help out the team? that really makes you have to think hard. that is not an easy thing. i'm not a super creative person. and between the two of us that's helped me immensely with my career ever since then. i'm looking at things differently and definitely more in a leadership way. the girl i was deployed with down range is my best friend. we literally call each other every couple of days. you know, we talk together, we live together, we cry together. it's a bond. even just getting together with the other csts here who i've never met before, we all share that bond.

it's so easy to come together. we've all been there and done that. it's a very small group of people. >> that bond, i'm telling you, the first time i was in a room i really thought i was being pranked because as a storyteller you do not get to meet people who really have a connection that we have never seen in a way that we've never known and that has been so important through 14 years of war. it really is a very tangible thing, that connection to one another. and cst, you know, 2 to call a cst 8 and they would immediately understand each other. they would really be connected to one another. and they would be able to help one another in ways the members

of these teams in different classes would understand one another better than probably anybody else they'll ever work with ever again. and the dogs thing -- so that was actually a very real question. after ashley died one of the historians asked her replacement in kandahar, this is in the book, do you want to keep doing this mission? because you know, after vietnam the dogs program went away. we ended up needing to revive it. and she had a laugh like oh, we're dogs now. but the truth was the comparison was somewhat apt. it was a capability built for a specific mission. and she said nothing would dishonor her memory more, speaking of ashley, than shutting down this mission. we all want to go back out there and more. right? and i'm sure each one of you experienced that. and then that life-saving, you know, what is the information -- what's the value you add? i read ranger impact awards -- or not read. but i know of ranger impact awards where they said this

person helped us to get this information that we would not have found if this, you know, soldier wasn't there, about some of the csts. that there were people, there was information, there were things that were very relevant to achieving that mission that were found because those women were there, which is why i think we're sitting here today, why the program continued as long as it did. i'm going to ask you that question. then we'll open it up, how it changed you. >> i think first and foremost, i'm a lot more confident. and it's not that i wasn't confident before. but now it's just through the roof. and i think too it opened a lot more doors. doors that i don't think would have been opened if i didn't have the combat experience that i have today. for example, for a lot of the work i do in south america, foreign military commanders invite me into their offices to talk about my combat experience and talk about how to fix his programs because of what i've done. had i not been a cst, had i not fought on the front lines, i

wouldn't stand a chance. we wouldn't be talking to them. i wouldn't have a lot of the clout that i do. i think too that's the reason why i have a lot of the business partners and colleagues that i have, is they're willing to put that confidence in me because i was willing to put myself up front and i was willing to fight and learn. and no matter what it took -- like all of these girls, i know i spoke for all of them, we fought so hard to get into this program. it took so much energy and effort and mental exhaustion and you're learning something that is completely new to you. all the while knowing that you're not getting all of the training that you deserve but you're going to go out there and you're going to put your best foot forward. whatever foot that may be. >> my last thought is this was the most self-selecting group of people, who chose themselves and who -- all of whom got either forwarded the e-mail or handed the flyer and most of whom were told i would never do this but this sounds like it would be perfect for you. right?

seven and eight and nine times. some of the girls i talked to were like -- i had like six people forwarded to me within a 36-hour period because they were like, didn't you always want to do something like this? one of the gals in the book, when she was 19, she just hated being a girl because she said everything noble is out of reach. you know, she wanted to be infantry. she wanted -- all these things she wanted to do that she couldn't because she was female. and here was -- she was about to sign up for another mission. and as soon as she got forwarded the e-mail was like oh, no, started writing essays that were actually not asked for by the application, called everybody she knew who might be able to help her, and was like no one is

going to keep me out, i will seriously -- i will park myself in front of bank hall at bragg, at ft. bragg if they don't take me. so i just want to open it to questions and say this for me has been a huge privilege and a great responsibility to write a first draft of this history that we as a country should know about heroes we don't. so thank you so much. let's start with the white and blue dress -- oh, sorry. the mike. >> christie. congressional service and a veteran. when i was in the service if i had this opportunity i would have jumped at it. it sounds amazing. but i was wondering, we heard from mary beth about how being a woman was a distraction

sometimes and we heard from the woman at the ranger school what a great reception they had in the training pipeline. and i was just wondering what your experience was when you joined these special operations teams from the men in the unit. >> i had two vastly different experiences. i worked with two different teams, and you could tell the difference in the amount of training that the men had received on working with cultural support teams. in particular, the first team didn't even know they had women on their way, but we were already on the helicopter en route. so it was very, very difficult to convince them that this was -- this was the new thing, having women on your team is in. so it was a constant battle to get on patrols, to get respect, to become a part of the team. but when they left and the next team came in and took their place, they had been briefed on how to use a cultural support team, how to use them to interact with the women and children and really use us to benefit the overall mission. and it was amazing. probably the best experience i've had in my life.

we were active. we were used. they were professional. we never felt any sort of sexual exploitation or manipulation. whereas i feel like a lot of youths in the military do have things like that because the women aren't as respected as they should be. >> i was pretty lucky. same kind of thing. when i got there, we were definitely outsiders, but any of the enablers were. it wasn't just because i was female or -- we were definitely kind of -- you know, everybody wanted to know what was going on and who we were initially and i think that's just kind of normal, that's happened every time i've been to a new unit. but after that, especially once they realized how we could be used, how much information we could bring in, we were very accepted and really never had an issue. they treated us so well and always went out of their way to make sure -- i don't even want to say they went out of their way because really they treated us like they would have anyone else. not once did anyone have to carry someone else's pack or

anything like that. or -- i mean, it was -- stories out there with that. >> i had an easier time. one reason was cst-2 did a really good job of laying the foundation for us and really proving csts could perform and added value to the mission. i was on the d.a. side. so it was a much more well-defined kind of structured role for us. i know there was a lot of different stories out there with that. i absolutely had no issues with any of the teams i was with.

they were fantastic. they were super professional. and what really hit home was we had one particular mission and our acl, our aircraft load was really light because it was just altitude and weather and all these issues. they were cutting pretty much everybody they could. >> you have to fight for those seats on the helicopter if you want to go out on those missions, right? those are valuable seats. >> right. >> they cut the pj. and that -- at that point i really -- >> so pj is a pararescueman. that's a air force person. they go through two years of training. they're fantastically trained. their job is to be there to do

crisis management in case something terrible happens leek a helicopter goes down or something. they're the ones kind of managing all that. they're search and rescue specialists. they cut the pj from the mission and turned to me and said cst go get ready. and i went okay. so that really kind of shows, the first said you have a specific skill set, you know, we need you on this mission. and i was like, okay, i'll try not to mess up. but that definitely showed how much they value csts. >> you hear the stories that one gal said my biggest fear was not dying. one of the biggest csts on the direct action side. my biggest fear was not dying, my biggest fear was making a mistake and letting my teammates down. and you heard that over and over again. and they really were i think on the direct action side -- crystal jokes, general mcchrystal joked in our interview that the n in ranger stood for knowledge. and that was the joke. but they really did because it was such a transparent mission set, you either helped to find the person or the thing or you didn't. and if you did you were much more easily and -- a part of the team because you proved your

value. i talked to one ranger, first sergeant who did 13 combat deployments, and he said a job well done stands out. these girls wanted to be there and they had heart and grit and they paid the rent. so i think that sort of goes to it. i can go to the back and then come forward. >> so as the military looks at whether or not to create -- or to have no exceptions to the combat exclusion rule, has anyone from the services asked you about your experience and whether or not, you know -- looked for your input as they think about whether or not there should be further exceptions created. seems to me you all, you know, unlike training, you all have actual direct experience that would be very instructive. i'm just wondering if anybody's asked for that. >> no. me no. but i have also been out of the military since the end of 2012. perhaps their experiences are a bit different.

>> no one on my side. and honestly that was something a lot of us were really frustrated about when we came back, because we got together and put together about a 14-page a.r. with everything that we thought that could have gotten done better and some other things. and i kind of -- to be completely honest we were a little disappointed that that seemed to have gotten filed in a garbage can somewhere. that was a little bit frustrating. and i know i've heard that from a few of the other csts as well. but no. and again also getting back to when we did come back that was because we weren't assigned, we were just attached. it did kind of screw up, especially on the officer side, a lost them really got off on their k.d. time. and they weren't doing their command time. they weren't doing their x.o. time. not only did they make that year-long sacrifice and potentially sacrifice their lives, but a lot of them sacrificed their careers as well. because that's a big chunk of time.

because the cst program is not well known within the military. when i've got sergeant majors looking at my board to see if they're going to get promoted, they don't know what a cst is. and oh, by the way, i'm wearing a special operations combat patch but it's not on my ear because it's not allowed to be. that's an issue with coming back with that as well. kind of off track. but -- >> i was not approached by the military but because i was working at the air force special operations school i heard kind of through the grapevine that jsou was doing the university. i made the point to reach out to the guy and we did just a quick interview but i haven't heard what the results were or any follow-up from that. so. >> good afternoon. losing my voice here. major robin johnson. i'm actually here with my rotc roommate. served in the military together. we always talked about there's a linear battlefield and we'll be in the division rear.

in 2002 i was in a small outpost with 3rd special forces group. so i'm really, really grateful for this book to be written and for you to share your stories. thank you. i wanted to ask you a little bit to what the lady just before me asked but specifically if you had an office call with the joint chiefs what would be the one thing that you would tell them on the way forward? how did they as the senior leaders get it right? what would be your one talking point that you would start with? >> well, equality is not sameness. but in this i feel that women deserve the same amount of training. no matter how they receive that training that all men on the battlefield have received in the past. think of yourself as a military commander for a second. and you're in the middle of a mission. and the guy to your left and to your right has the exact same amount of training as you do. now, change those two people out to someone who has lesser

training. you'll have a little bit less confidence in that person. right? so just imagine how much we can amplify women on the battlefields if they just had an equal amount of training. >> and probably something similar. i just want the same opportunities that everyone else has. and i'm willing to -- if i need to work harder to get those opportunities, then that's fine. we talked a little bit about standards previously, and i absolutely agree with everything almost everyone on that panel had to say because it's really important that the standards are there but it's important we make sure we're using the right standards and not just something that's something based on research done 40 years ago. so i just -- yeah, i feel like those opportunities need to be there for those of us that want to go out and get them. and -- yeah. >> i would say as far as some of these assessments that are happening right now with ranger school and with the marine, you know, infantry office course i would say that once we have the

right standards in place that you just need to be patient, that maybe it's going to take a couple of iterations or whatever to have those women volunteer and to go through those courses and succeed but i would counsel against any sort of knee-jerk like oh, no, nobody made it through this first two tries, we're just going to shut it down. so it's going to take time. it's going to take, you know, a little bit of process to build that up. but i would just say be patient and you know, the right women for the right jobs are going to come along. >> i'm just going to close with one final comment which is that i was at benning two weeks ago. it was a terrific opportunity to go visit the last of the preranger schools. and there was a retired sergeant major really focused on standards and saying listen, if these women can meet the standard then that's great. and you heard that over and over again. and then you'd interview some of the observers there because you couldn't interview for very good reasons the actual students, the soldiers. and they said nothing would hurt our cause more than for the

standard to be changed. right? and that all we want to do is to be able to meet -- to have an opportunity to meet that standard. and one of the narratives i think that has been missing from the whole discussion of women in combat is the valor piece. because we've talked a lot about different stories that are incredibly important about women in combat but we've really missed the valor and the courage and the service and the strength and the grit in what they've already done. and relate privilege that so many of them that i've had the privilege of spending the time with by the people they've gotten to work alongside, who really are some of the finest writers in the united states military. i would just leave you with a thought that we could use right now a reminder of the power of character in action. and i really do think these women, this story are a reminder of that.

so thank you so much. i am so sorry that i am unable to be here in person but thank you for allowing me to participate in this discussion in regards to what i consider one of the most vital issues facing the u.s. military. the full integration of women. as you know, i have at time, been a lone voice on this issue. but i have always tried to be an extremely loud and strong voice on how women have become an integral part of the military.

it is important to show why it's time for women to finally be able to join any military occupational specialty if they are willing and able to do so. today, we have gathered to discuss where the services an deposits are as two dates approach. october 2015 is and january 2016. so in about six month each department will have validated its gender neutral occupational standards and completed all of these studies. in less than ten months, women will be integrated into what i hope will be all let me say that again all open position and units. leaders from all services committed to this deadline and i'm going to do my part to ensure that these deadlines are met. however, it's not just about

meeting these deadlines. each service will have the opportunity to present a case for exceptions to this policy. and i believe it is our responsibility to make certain, necessary expossession sepgss are not accepted. you see, time and time again female soldiers and marines sailors and air women have proven, gosh all we've got to do is look at iraq and afghanistan. they've proven that they are just as capable as their male counterparts and time and time again, servicewomen have been placed in combat, but they've been denied the recognition. so, we're standing at a critical point in this integration process. there is no time for services to question whether or not we should be fully integrateing them

into all spernlties. that question, that's been answered and now, it's time to act on it. i believe that it is a disservice to women in the military for any of the services to be dragging their feet in this process. and i know, i understand that many of you have concern, especially with the marine corps and their integration plan. well i'm here to tell you i'm aware of these concerns and i will continue to push for answers. in terms of their ground, combat element integrated task force and their resistance to opening certain specialties. i'll also be focusing on urging the department to be more trans parent on where we stand in terms of this process. along with working together to ensure that each service is doing its due diligence in educating and training its

members in order to conduct a smooth implementation. you see, we can allow women to be in, we can have women there who want to be there. but if the men around them make it difficult, then we're not going to get the results that we need. so before i conclude, i want to thank women in international security and its combat integration initiative, alliance for national defense, reserve officers association and no exceptions for organizing this discussion and especially to express gratitude to ellen herring, holly hemhill and gray jacob for all of your support these past couple of years on this issue. i look forward to continuing this work together and ensuring once and for all that women are provided the same opportunities

as men in our united states military. thank you for once again, for allowing me to participate in this discussion and i wish you all a successful event.

i'm currently a congresswoman for arizona commission district. >> provide a little information about your background and why you're interested in ground combat positions. >> great, so i was in the ninth class of women to attend the air force academy. graduated in 1988. when i went to pie rot training after graduate school, congress repealed the law restricting women from being fighter pilots. so i was in that leading edge of women becoming combat pilots and timingwise i was in the group of the first seven women selected in the air force to transition into fighters. and the first to actually fly in combat and later on the first to command a fighter squadron in combat. i flew the a-10 warthog, got my little necklace here, which is a wonderful airplane.

and i have 325 combat hours in iraq and afghanistan. and served 26 years in the military and retired as a colonel. you know, i've been deeply passionate about giving women opportunities to serve in any roles, in any capacity, in any service. i think we need to pick the best man for the job, even if it's a woman. and i personally experienced some of the emotional debates about why all women can't do certain things and therefore all men can. during the debates of whether women should be in air combat. and so those same flawed arguments have been used related to ground combat. and i've studied the issue. i published on the issue. and i've been a really strong advocate to make sure that any woman in our country who has the capabilities to serve is able to serve in any position she's qualified for. >> what was it like to be one of the first women who was actually able to fly fighter pilots within the area of operation during campaigns? >> well, the transition was one that really showed me as still a young officer that leadership makes the biggest difference. we previously during the debates had a chief of staff of the air force testifying before congress against women flying in combat

aircraft. and he would be asked things like, so you would rather pick a less qualified man over a more qualified woman to go fly these aircraft? and he would say things like -- i'm paraphrasing. yes, i would, and i know that's difficult to justify but it's just the way that i feel. and so this is our leader, who set the tone and the climate for the transition. of course, he had to get behind it once the secretary of defense changed the policy. otherwise, he needed to resign. so he sort of got behind it. but obviously he had been very vocal against it. and it was a challenging transition. there was still a tremendous amount of hostility, a tremendous amount of emotion about why women as a hole either couldn't or shouldn't be flying fighters. and that's really the same argument you'll see for ground

combat or other positions. the arguments are lumped into women as an entire group, as a class, can't do this, they don't have the ability, and so that doesn't treat people like individuals, which is like the foundation of what our country's all about. and then there's the women shouldn't do it, you know, the cultural women are not supposed to be warriors, that's up to the men and all the cultural things. and so we were fighting those two very emotional and irrational arguments as we transitioned into fighters. so there was a lot of hostility. a lot of people wanted us to fail. you know, it was a lonely journey but i was really honored and thankful that i had the opportunities. and once you prove yourself you see the guys i was in a squadron with, they very much respected me, and i really was a part of the squadron. it was often the people who were not in our squadrons, who were still dealing with their own insecurities, that would try to figure out how to derail us. especially when we started getting promoted to flight lead, instructor pilot, and getting promoted in the ranks. then some of the hostility got

stronger. but you know, you prove yourself and do your job and that's all that really matters. the airplane doesn't care what gender you are. >> now you are a congresswoman, how to do you view your role? >> so the way the founding fathers set p our divided government, we've got co-equal branches, the legislative branch provides oversight to the executive branch. we've got the defense department, starts with the commander in chief down through the operational chain of command down. but we have an appropriate role of oversight to the executive branch. so i'm on the armed services committee. and it's our primary jurisdiction to provide oversight to military policy, military spending, and you know, to be using legislative action

and our oversight role in order to make sure we have we've got the right military policy and the men and women are trained and equipped. we've got a tremendous role. we do that through hearing. we do that through meetings with senior pentagon leaders and through the annual defense bill which we're actually marking up this next week. in the house of representatives. and then a few weeks later in the senate. so that's where we actually get the abaya amendment passed, is attached to the defense bill back in 2001. to overturn the policy making the servicewomen wear the abaya in saudi arabia. i went on a one-woman lobbying campaign to do that. as a citizen i had to get sponsors in the house and the senate and have them shepherd it. the bottom line is congress has a tremendous role and we've got very few veterans in congress. we have very few female veterans in congress.

i'm the only female veteran in the republican side in congress. and so i am an important voice and a rare voice. we definitely need more of us there. having served and having served as a woman to be providing oversight to their policies related to how women are being integrated. so i intend to be doing that as an important voice. >> do you think the department of defense should allow any exceptions to full and complete integration of women into ground combat positions? >> no, i do not. i've been very vocal on this. i've published on it. back in 2007. continue to be a voice in the media, at these conferences in the past. i think we need to set standards across the board for every job and i think we need to pick the best person for the job and treat people as individuals. i saw that the secretary of defense made some comment in the last week about how women may be more susceptible to sexual assault if they're integrated into combat units, and i really am concerned about that line of thinking and have spoken out about this in the past. we have certainly a huge problem with sexual harassment and sexual assault.

but to think about this, that we would have a potential rapist or assaulter who is in a u.s. military unit and is functioning there and serving there and deploying overseas and as a part deploying overseas and as a part of our communities when they're back home and that we would put a female servicewoman, you know, in their midst and therefore somehow that would make her subjected to sexual assault and somehow that would then be like her problem when you have a potential assaulter and a rapist in your unit and you would be okay with him just staying there and maybe committing assault on other civilians somewhere else, i mean, i know that's not what they're saying, but the point is if you have a perpetrator or potential perpetrator in the unit we need to rout out the perpetrator. we don't need to close out the opportunities of women to be in that unit because we have potential perpetrators in that unit. that's the kind of logic that the taliban and other extremist organizations use in order to keep women segregated from men

in their societies, that we're trying to do it in order to keep women safe. that's really flawed logic and we shouldn't tolerate it and we shouldn't confuse the issues as we're dealing with sexual assault and women's integration in the military. >> what would your response be if at the end of this year the department of defense decides to keep some occupations or units closed to women? >> my response would be that that's unacceptable and i would look forward to certainly hearing them out as to what their arguments are but in my role of oversight we get to make the final -- you know, the final say. so i intend to work with my colleagues, and i like my new colleagues to make sure we give women every opportunity to serve. that's our plan. [ applause ] >> so in closing i'd like to say that we here at wise plan to continue the combat integration initiative, to have follow-up events like this, to stay on top

of this topic, continue to research, study, and publish on what's happening. and unfortunately, there's some rumors we're hearing that there's the potential to extend the deadline, that members of congress who have been lobbied i don't know by who, but there may be an amendment in the works to extend the january 2016 deadline for the services. so we definitely plan to watch this and try to figure out or understand why that might be happening. if you'd like to stay up with what we're doing, please go to our website. sign up for our newsletter and become a member of women in international security. and lastly, i can't close without saying thank you to the people who have been running around this room today. you see them. stephanie brightsman. brook steadman who actually isn't here but she did a lot to put together this event together.

julian denicky, gabe daily, mark kong. and chantal diunga ondrat, who almost three years ago she opened her arms and invited us in. the military, myself as the first military fellow here. and has really backed this initiative and effort to study and follow the combat integration of women in the military. so thank you all for coming. i've got to say this too. to the women in this audience who had really, really stepped out and been pioneers, we saw three on the stage, but there were many, many more of you in the audience. these ladies here who went to ranger school. there were other cultural support team members in the audience. i've gotten some marine friends here, cobra pilots who didn't even hear their stories, but there's just so many unbelievable stories in this room. and so thank you all for coming today, and i salute all of you ladies. [ applause ]

tomorrow declared and potential republican candidates will be at the south carolina freedom summit. potential candidates rick perry and rick santorum. live coverage begins at 10:00 a.m. on cspan. this sunday, mother's day, starting at noon eastern cspan presents the children and grandchildren of america's first families paying tribute to first ladies and remembering life in the white house. susan ford bales linda johnson rob, caroline kennedy, the bush sisters, jenna. here's margaret hoover on her grandmother, first lady lou hoover. unless you study lou henry hoover, you don't know that she was the first first lady ever to invite an african-american woman

to tea and it caused a tremendous scandal. it was called the depreast amendment. it was the tradition that first ladies invite them to tea. they were kwangquakers and socially progressive. they knew it would be a scandal or it could be a scandal so they tried to handle it in the right way but decided to go ahead with it because this would be a good move for the country and it did create an outrage and to make her feel better my great-grandfather the next day invited her husband to the white house. this was the first time an african-american was invited to the white house publicly. teddy roosevelt had invited booker t. washington but it was a secret meeting. >> more of this conversation with children and grandchildren of first families talking about first ladies sunday at noon eastern time on cspan.

jeb bush was one of the featured speakers at the national reviews ideas summit last week. the former florida governor discussed a number of topics including his potential run for the white house, the baltimore riots, immigration and simplifying the tax code. >> hi, everyone. so we're ready for the next portion of our program. our next guest needs no introduction. i'll say briefly in the time of two terms of florida governor, he was the most successful reform governor in the state of america and we're very pleased to have with us today former governor jeb bush. >> thank you. [ applause ] >> so we have some journalists. they have a news bill to fill. i'm trying to think of a question of sufficient gravity

to really drive the news cycle over the next say, two or three hours. this is what i came up with. has w ever painted you? and if you run for president and if you are elected will you consider having him do your official portrait? >> the answer to the second question is, heck, no. i think george's early works are a little too primitive. i'd like to wait until we get to the post modern era before he starts painting me to be honest with you. he got a little bit better. he started with dogs. now he did landscapes and now he gives paintings to people who are his friends and they put them up because they know ultimately they'll have quite a bit of value. >> let's talk what's been big news this week which is the situation in baltimore. >> yes. >> and it's become a little less a debate over what specifically might have happened in the terrible death of freddie gray,

a little less about the handling of the riots and more the bigger question of who or what is responsible for the state of baltimore and what can we do? >> it's important to reflect on the fact that a young man died and it's a tragedy for this family. this is not just a statistic, this is a person who died. secondly, a lot of people lost their livelihood. allowing the riots to happen was disturbing. you can't just push over that and go to the grand societal problems. i do think that public safety is the first priority for any city or any government jurisdiction. there are a lot of people that are going to suffer and hopefully order is going to be

restored. thirdly, i think i say it sends a lot of signals not to have a baseball game with people in it. i think we need to recognize that life doesn't get paralyzed. you can't allow that to happen because it might create more of that. now i got that out of the way. i do think the tendency particularly on the left, is to blame -- to create, you know, a set of reasons why this happens, and the president's view on this, i thought he started pretty well by talking about one sentence in his response about the decline of families in urban core america, and i think that is absolutely true, but there's much broader issues that go along with this, the pathologies that are being built of people that are stuck in poverty where you're born poor today and you're more likely to stay poor. we need to deal with this.

i believe conservatives have the better approach. his approach is to say conservatives haven't offered up enough money to give me to be able to create programs to let people be successful. well, at what point do we go past 10 trillion a trillion a year? at what point does it -- you have to conclude that the top down driven poverty programs have failed? i think we need to be engaged in this debate as conservatives and say there's a bottom up approach and it starts with building capacity and it starts with having achieved earned success and higher accountability and expectations and dramatically different kind of schools and the kinds of things that will yield a chance for families to be able to survive in a really difficult time. here's the big challenge i think for people born in poverty. if you're born poor today, by the time you reach 18 it's possible you'll never have an

job in your entire life. that's the world we're moving towards. dramatic disruptive technologies putting the first rung on the ladder higher and higher and higher. if we don't get this right we'll have an america that's radically different than what created the greatness. we'll be challenged in ways we can't even imagine. so having this conversation in the broader sense i think is probably not appropriate completely today but i hope conservatives feel compelled to pull back. we don't need to be defensive. it's the failed democratic policies. >> let me circle back to the rioting. i know you're not going to run for any municipal office, but mayor giuliani has said the right approach in that situation, first person that throws a rock is arrested, that's it. >> i completely agree that the broken window policy is -- has been proven successful. it's not -- you don't -- you

don't have to take it to the extreme of police brutality but there needs to be a certainty of punishment to create order and security. who are the people that get hurt by this? it's the shop owner, it's the person who now may lose their job and a business that can't reopen. it's the nursing home, it's the church. these are people -- this is the community that you know, creates the vibrancy to allow for these communities to be successful are always hurt the most in these kinds of events. so i think the mayor's record when he was mayor of new york creating the strategy with the police department was the right one. >> so family breakdown, as you mentioned, the president mentioned absent fathers. obviously a huge part of the puzzle there. is there any policy or anything public officials can do to help turn back what has been a rising

tide of family break downs? >> absolutely there is. my views were shaped by charles murray's book, stuff that i was reading the book, i was waiting for the last chapter with the really cool solutions. didn't quite get there. i think we need to have solutions. i don't think we can accept the themes here. i think there are things we can do as it transfers to our wealth transfer system, the welfare system. the highest tax rate would be someone trying to get out of poverty and the minute they start earning enough income they could in some states lose more benefits than they gain in net income. we have to change this and reward work rather than nonwork. we have to have a system and this is something that many of your colleagues are focused on,

the reformacons. how do you create a system of support that doesn't create dependency? that's got to be where the federal government plays a role. then in public life i think it's pretty clear that the way to break out of poverty is there's a higher probability of breaking out of poverty if you have two parents in the home that are focused on loving their children with their heart and soul and if that child gets a better education than the great majority of kids in the urban corsetings of our country get. if you do those two things you're likely to break out of poverty so let's encourage those two things to happen more often. i don't want to over simplify this. stronger family life and a radically different education system. the baltimore education system, best i can recall, is not a role model that anybody goes to travel to to see how they're educating low income kids. if you want to see that go to florida. go to miami-dade county where the greatest gains amongst kids

in poverty have occurred because we have high expectations high standards, robust accountability, we ended social promotion in third grade. this insidious policy that says you're functionally illiterate as a third grader but it's fine. go to fourth grade. no big deal. basically creating learning gaps from there on out that make it harder and harder to be successful. school choice both public and private. ultimately -- a girl can dream here so here it goes. ultimately we need to get to a system where time is the variable and learning is the constant. >> what does that mean? everyone else is thinking it. i have the courage to ask it. >> darn. i thought that was pretty -- i finally -- i've been using this line for so long and everybody has that same look. now i realize it makes no sense.

what it means is instead of having your little kid city butt sitting in the same seat, if you don't master the material you don't go on. if you do master the material you're pushed forward. you're not held back if you have the capability of learning and you're not pushed along if you haven't mastered it. in other words, a customized learning experience for every child in america. that's what we need to be doing. look, to suggest that we use an ago culture calendar and industrial model where it benefits both sides of the effort and there's no accountability, no rewards for improving student learning all that stuff you just keep doing it the way we've been doing it and we're going to expect a different result is not going to work. the model i'm suggesting is possible because of the ability to bring high quality, rich, digital content into the

classroom. every aspect of our life has been customized. why not the most important thing that we do which is to ensure that the children have the capacity to achieve earned success. let me hit something else and i should mention there are cards on the table. write your questions down. i'll think about it a little bit more tonight and see if i can grasp it. >> i was deeply worried. >> so the senate's engaged in this debate over iran policy and the consensus is the corker bill. there's criticism of it from the right which says as much qe, what it's effectively done is say you will need 67 votes to disapprove of any iran deal whereas traditionally when the

senate is giving assetcent to a treaty you need 67 to approve. what's your take? >> i do think the amendment process is helpful so that americans are educated about the disastrous nature of the treaty itself. i think the broader question is this is not in the national security interests of our country for all sorts of reasons so you know, this is democracy at work. the option i think is no congressional oversight at all, no congressional engagement at all, which would be worse than having some engagement. i think republicans need to be on record opposing whatever happens if there is to be an agreement and doing it in a principled way. it sets the stage for what the next president can do as it relates to changing whatever the outcome is. so the reason why this is a bad

deal is, you know, iran hasn't recognized israel and its right to be a jewish state. iran has destabilized the region that we're now engaged in. iran has missile capability to take their weaponry far into the region. iran is building a defense weapons capability that is apparently as good as what we have the russians top notch technology and we're going to give up the leverage that we have if they have that defense system and the other leverage of sanctions. so the net result of this is you're likely to have proliferation in the region, you're likely to have an emboldened iran, not a humble iran, and you're likely to have our strongest ally in the region be threatened. i think this is a horrific deal. i can't conjecture on what happens is but it looks as though the negotiations unfold we're pulling back making more

and more concessions, iran isn't making any. maybe they overstep their bounds. perhaps there's not an agreement at all. they don't really need one if you think about it. they can get almost everything they want without it. >> so would you recommend attempting to amend the bill to make it a requirement that iran recognizes israel? >> i understand the sentiment. i don't know if that kills the bill. we have no legislative oversight, no congressional work. there's some benefits to that because it would have to be done by executive order but the united nations would overturn the sanctions and the leverage we have would go away. this isn't an easy question. we shouldn't be negotiating. we shouldn't have started unless we were sincere about maintaining the objectives when the president started and today he's abandoned those. >> so if you're a president of the united states and a deal something like we think it's

going to be is in place and it's gotten some loose form of congressional inforadum, would you pull out of that deal? >> if it's in the security interests of the united states absolutely. another hypothetical might be that this is done by executive order. the president is proud of using authority he sometimes does and doesn't have. that can be undone by the next president as well. >> let's talk about something else in the news. it seems like every few weeks there's a horrific story from the broader middle east or africa having to do with massacre of christians or ethnic cleansing of christians. is the u.s. doing enough in this area? if not what can be done? >> i think it's shameful that the united states is not speaking loudly and acting forcefully on behalf of

christians and jews but in the case of the middle east principally christians. i think we have a duty -- we're the only country that can -- has the resources to be able to provide support. i have a personal interest in this. my -- i have a broad interest of being a christian and i think we all as christians need to be acting on our conscious as it relates to this, to provide support, but my daughter-in-law is of iraqi origin. she's a canadian. she's canadian born, lives in miami. her parents were iraqis and they moved to toronto. i was watching the efforts of isis to try to take out the entire christian community of one of the oldest christian communities in iraq, deeply disturbing because of this personal interest as well as my faith. and so i've helped raise money

but the united states government should be -- should be clear that we need to be supportive. i've always thought that we had the capability of providing support for the 200 christian girls that were -- that were kidnapped by boko haram in northern nigeria. i don't know why we wouldn't be aggressive and forceful in cooperation with these countries to act on our conscience who the people's only fault was that they had a deep abiding faith in christ. i don't know, youtube, you see these things it's so horrific. if it doesn't move your heart, not much will. coptic christians are being beheaded. you can see them mouthing the lord's prayer as it takes place. but for us who? who's going to stand on behalf of these folks across the board? i would add the same applies to we need to stand tall against anti-semitism in europe and other places as well. if we allow these things to

linger, they just grow and grow and grow. this is what happens when we disengage. this is what happens when we have a regime that can't -- excuse me, a government excuse me didn't mean that on purpose please. >> now you're speaking our language, governor. >> i think we just fed the news cycle right there. >> yeah. yeah. yeah. i was thinking of the regimes there. a country that cannot even say what the threat is islamic terrorism. the girl with the really cool glasses in the state department the spokesman -- spokesperson she can't say it. i think the -- i think the press when they go talk to her they torture her with asking these questions and she refuses to actually say what it is. no one in the obama administration for some reason can say what it is, and as a result, we don't organize against what it is. >> so let's run through some more. >> rewind the -- that regime thing, please. that is not my thought. >> let's run through some other policy questions and see if we can get you in more trouble.

so marco rubio has a tax reform plan out there. a central feature of it is a big increase in the child tax care credit, which has been very controversial within the right. do you have any view on that? do you like at it favorably not favorably? >> i have a favor orable view. we went to simplicity which helps create economic growth to now we have the most complex code in the world. a code that says that's so complex that $2 trillion of u.s. corporate cash is overseas because of our worldwide income and bringing it back is -- creates the most punitive

activity so jobs are created overseas, smaller foreign businesses are buying u.s. businesses to relocate them overseas. the next generation of job creators can't set up the job because of over regulation, complex tax code and obama care. those are the three things that suppress jobs. i think the focus ought to be not on targeted elements of the code but a broader conversation about how we can eliminate as many of these tax expenditures as possible and lower the rate as -- down as possible. that creates economic growth and if you want to create a rising middle class where disposable income is growing, where take-home pay is growing you have to fix the things that are the burdens on people's aspirations, like their health care insurance system and certainly the regulatory system and simplifying the code is part of that. i don't know where that puts me.

if i go beyond the consideration of running to be a candidate this will be front and center part of my advocacy. >> so if you become a candidate, in the past you've been critical of grover norquist tax pledge. is there any situation you would take that pledge? >> no. i cut taxes every year. $19 billion. we cut $19 billion in eight years. every year we cut -- we have all sorts of tax cuts. i don't have to be told how important that is. i did it. i think that's the better approach. it ends up creating enough revenue for government at least to allow it to function and puts more money in people's pockets. that's the right approach. so i'm not going to change my views on that. my record is clear. my record is as good or better than anybody. in fact, if you've served in the united states senate over the

last eight years or six years you haven't -- there's no tax cut that's taken place. this president has raised taxes $1 trillion to fund obamacare and just because he could he created another $600 billion tax cut. so anybody associated with washington, d.c. can talk about this stuff but the places where taxes have been cut are places like florida where they were led by a conservative governor that thought this was important. the net result was during my eight years 1.4 1.3 million net new jobs were created and five of those eight years more than any state. in the eight years more than texas. if perry comes, tell him that. >> so it's just -- >> you can tell my brother. either way. >> just to drill down on it a little bit. it's a principled opposition to pledges of that sort? >> yeah. >> so will you promise not to raise taxes?

>> i think we need to cut taxes and reform our codes. what ales us as a country apart from the pessimism that is freezing in place the annal spirits that typically allow americans to solve problems is the lack of leadership in washington, for sure, but it's also this tep pick economic growth. we're growing at 2%. everybody accepts it. i read about it in national review just for the record. it's called the new normal. the new normal makes me nauseous. the new normal will redefine america in a bad way. 2% growth compounded out will be overwhelmed by entitlement problems, by demands on government and crumbling infrastructure. 4% growth is what we should be achieving. so tax reform and regulatory reform embracing our energy revolution in our midst this will get you going reforming

our broken immigration system and fixing the fiscal structural deficits related to the entitlement is how you get to 4% growth. that should be the focus. >> scott walker has kicked up a bit of a fuss over -- >> you know what, you're trying to get me in trouble. >> of course i am. >> he said that when it comes to legal immigration we should think about what effect immigration has on american workers and their wages. do you agree or disagree? >> i don't think it's a zero sum game. i think if we start thinking it's a zero sum game we're going to play the game that barack obama plays oh, so well. it's the wrong approach. we have 3 to 5 million jobs unfilled that require skills in america today. think of had we fixed our immigration system in the way that i would propose it how much extra job growth and investment

would have happened in our country that would have provided opportunities for higher wages for people struggling near or at the bottom or people that are squeezed in the middle. this is not a zero sum game. if you want to grow at 4% per year instead of 2% per year you need younger more dynamic people inside of our economy that are productive to get the growth. soism my ismmmigration is not the end all be all. immigration that fixes the border creates a more secure america for all sorts of good reasons and then expands the number of economic immigrants and narrows the number of immigrants coming for family purposes. you follow this, you know this. a lot of people don't though. we have the broadest definition of family petitioning in the world. every country that i'm aware of, there may be one or two like

ours, i don't think there are most countries have the definition of family as spouse, minor children, we have spouse, minor children which is more than appropriate. then we have adult siblings and adult parents. it has created chain migration. this was started in the '60s. we've allowed it to continue because we haven't fixed this broken immigration system. then we put quotas on countries to deal with this. there are some countries where half the country would come. this wasn't working the way it should. better to narrow that to spouse and minor children and expand based on need a guest worker program, dealing with a shortage of technology workers. bring young people in and move forward. here's the deal. i love you and i love national review. >> this is going to be good. a wind up. >> i just think -- i just think

you're wrong on immigration to be honest with you and you think i'm wrong. i respect you for it. i honestly believe that if we fix the legal part that is not working we could grow our economy far faster. we'd be younger and more dynamic. the world that some argue for is a world of declining population. it's the world of japan. it's the world of europe in decline. i reject that. america doesn't do that well. america does -- we're at our best when we're young aspirational and dynamic. i hope we have a dialogue about this but if we're going to grow economically, we better figure out how to get this fixed pretty quick. >> let me push back a little bit. >> i wanted to get the thing going a little bit. it was getting kind of boring. >> i think the argument that walker would make or at least

senator jeff sessions would make is it's not an argument that it's necessarily a zero sum game it's an economic argument having to do with supply and demand. if you increase the supply of low skilled labor, of course low skilled wages are going to go down. >> who's suggesting that? that's the whole -- that's the false argument. >> comprehensive immigration reform. >> you're talking about the people here already? >> no it would have increased legal immigration and although they talk the game of high skills, it's always increasing low skills. >> look, i'm not a united states senator, thank god. just for the record here. you know i live in miami. i'm outside of washington. i've written a book about this. what i was describing was my idea. my idea is to narrow the number coming from family petitioning and get a number of economic

participants. we have huge shortages in all sorts of fields and if we -- i guess what i'm saying to simplify this. canada stole our immigration plan and made it better. we should resteal the canadian plan and make it american. there are more economic immigrants in canada coming in annually than we have and they're ten times bigger. which one is going to work? the one focused on economic growth or the one focused on family petitioning? >> one last question. i'll describe the position on immigration because i think it's reasonable. you tell me what's wrong. >> secure the border first we secure at the point of employment through an e verify system. we have an exit/entry system, visa system, that really works. >> yes. >> you pass this, it passes all the -- gets through the legal

issues from the acl ur and it works and you have amnesty for many legal immigrants that aren't going anywhere. now that won't be a magnet for new illegal immigrants. you do the amnesty in exchange for changes in the legal immigration. i would reduce total numbers but certainly emphasize higher skills. >> hey we're getting there. >> all right. >> i don't -- the details of how you -- at what point do you say the border is secure, i worry about, you know total security, which means that we probably have had to lose some of our freedom as a country. that bothers me a lit. i kind of like my freedom. i'm the kind of guy that doesn't like municipalities, like some in florida that put cameras on stop lights just to get another 85 bucks from you. i think we need to be focused on

liberty and freedom. another element should be to come legally as part of eliminating the magnet. there should be an option to come legally. it should be easier than coming illegally. that should be one of the guiding principles. we need to have much better enforcement. we have to solve this. here's the political side that i'm not sure everybody gets. by doing nothing, you have two things that happen at least on the age of obama. you have a president that uses this like he's a stratavarius violin. he's playing for some symphony. he uses this as a wedge issue. we always lose. he always wins or the democrats always win if you think about having family be the driver of legal immigration rather than an economic driver.

delaying this is what he wants. he and jeff sessions, they'd probably agree with this. i think what we need to do is say, let's fix this, grow the economy, lift people's spirits not exclusively because of immigration are we going to grow. we're going to turn people into republicans if we're much more aspirational in our message. our tone has to be more inclusive as well. >> let's try another sticky one. there is a movement among some parents to opt out of common core testing. if a parent said, governor i'm thinking of doing this, what would you think? >> i would say if it's going to make it harder for you to get into college or graduate, you should rethink it. we had tests long before common core. the idea that this is common core that you have assessments is really not true.

and people have been opting out. florida had the most meaningful and still does most meaningful accountability system in the country. we also had the greatest learning gains in the country. they go together, by the way. it's a comprehensive suite of reforms that creates rising student achievement. i'll recite a few of the statistics. on the nay test you can't teach to that it's administered for fourth grade and eighth grade. we were 29th out of 31. ten years later we were 6th out of 50. florida hispanic kids are two grade levels ahead of their counterparts. florida hispanic kids do greater than 33 states on the test. low income kids in florida are in the top 5. african-american kids are in the top five in these tests. the reason is that we have meaningful assessments and we have robust accountability and we have school choice that puts pressure on a system that

otherwise wouldn't move. so eliminating elements of the accountability system would get a bad result. california is a great example of this. they have good standards. they're replacing them with common core standards but they're on par. they're basically more or less the same. they have no accountability or little accountability to speak of. they have languishing results. who's fooling who? when 1/3 of our kids 40% at best are college or career ready, that's where we are. how do you know unless you measure? how do you know unless you test? the idea that you're opting out of a test because it's stressful, you know, think about this. i mean what's the world like? >> this is what my college career was based on, governor. >> opting out? >> yes opting out of tests that were stressful. >> i'm thinking -- i'm thinking how we're going to compete in this extraordinarily competitive global economy when we have large numbers of parents telling kids it doesn't matter and in korea they're sending their kids

to tutorials from 6:00 till 10:00 at night to be able to speak korean and english by fifth grade and they're doing math that is three or four grade levels ahead of us. who's going to be the competitor that wins? this is a i -- this works -- look, if you are in an affluent family and you nurture your child, you help them along the way, fine okay. that probably works for you, but what about the single mom struggling to be able to provide for their kid, where kids generally because they start in poverty are treated, well they can't learn. what my brother called the soft bigotry of low expectations. that exists in america today. you can't deny it. keeping these lowering expectations eliminating accountability is going to doom a whole generation of people and i for one won't take it. [ applause ]

it's a controversy that's sprung up in the last couple of weeks. is a governor ready to be president of the united states? >> wow, let me think. ronald regan. i don't know what else i have to say. you -- you can be prepared from day one from being a governor and governors actually have to make decisions. they have to say no to people. they have to speak in english. that's a novel language. once you leave washington you might actually hear it a little bit. they can't hide behind the collective skirt and say i passed an amendment about this, the cbo did blah, blah blah. they have to lead. they have to make decisions. they have to persuade. they have to convince. they actually have to compromise from time to time and those skills apply directly to the presidency. there's enough examples of governors who have been

extraordinary leaders in foreign policy starting with ronald regan. >> is islam a religion of peace? >> i'm sure for some of the practitioners, but it's been hijacked by people who have an ideology that wants to destroy western civilizations and they're barbarians. that part, the part that we need to attack head on is not. you're not speaking to the people that are peaceful when you say what i just said. and for example here's one -- this may -- you know, you think about all of the foibles of the obama foreign policy over the last six years. one that may not be on the top five list but it should be is egypt. we've gotten it wrong on egypt. this was secretary clinton's -- i think she was primarily

responsible for this. we dumped mubarak. muslim brother hood came in. we embraced them. al sisi is in power. we've just gun to get back into developing a relationship. here's a guy who should be the strongest ally we have because he for the first time at least that i've seen, i'm sure there's other arab leaders, but he for the first time has said it's our responsibility to confront radical islam. that kind of leadership is what we need to support. there should be no uncertainty about this. we should be a strong supporter of leaders like this. the option is the dismemberment of the modern states of the middle east. nothing good is going to happen when that happens. >> we have some questions on cards cards. this one must have slipped through from a journalist. dear governor bush we will

never forget your regime gaffe. what is it about your mother that makes men associated with her 10 times more likely to hold high office? >> well, i don't know. i'm actually kind of struggling with this these days because i know there are some people out there, particularly in the press, would love to make this if i go beyond the consideration of this to make it where i'm giving the impression somehow that i want to break the ties between the bush family and the adams family. you can say the same thing about abigail, right? i can't answer that question. it's different. it's unusual. i have enough self-awareness to know it's kind of strange but i know if i go beyond the consideration i'll count on my mom to help me deal with people internally and externally from time to time. i tell people which i have this -- whenever i start, which i've done today, tooting my own horn as my record about

governor. since no one else is going to toot it, i have to be the person who does it. every time i start i feel this presence behind my back and it's the looming -- you don't see it back there right? looming presence of my mother saying, don't brag. it's not about you. i'm almost feeling like she's about ready to do what that woman did in baltimore when she tried to get the -- i think my -- >> wasn't it w? i thought w got that treatment? >> we all did. i think my mom and the woman who was bringing her child back home have a lot in common. i admire what she did. that was a nice visual symbol of what needs to be restored. >> who is -- among current u.s. supreme court justices who is your model justice? >> wow. when i was governor -- i'm not a

lawyer but -- [ applause ] you've got to play one sometimes when you're governor because you're always getting sued and there's always a legal consequence to everything. i learned to get an appreciation. i made a lot of appointments. i learned about this. i started reading rulings. people were sending me rulings so that i could find interesting things. scalia is by far and away the most interesting opinion writer. probably informs his views in the most eloquent way. the opposite of that is clarence thomas, quiet, speaks with great clarity when he opines. there's a consistency there that i like and i generally share his views. >> peter schweitzer who is the author of "clinton cash" says

he's coming after you next. are you worried? >> no. i hope he gives me a heads up though. >> the controversy in indiana over the religious freedom act -- >> yes. >> -- you seemed to suggest if the press reports are accurate that that law needed to be fixed. what was wrong with it? >> no, i didn't say that. i supported pence. i think he needed to create clarity that this was not an attempt to discriminate against people, it was an effort to provide some space for people to act on their religious conscience. that's where we need to get. we need to get to where government is not going to discriminate against people because of their sexual orientation and at the same time make sure that there is ample space for people not just to have a religious view or just to be religious but to actually act on their religious view. conscience is what we need to protect. i fear that we're not finding that balance right now.

i just -- you listen to the solicitor general and with respect to the law here, again i'm not a lawyer, but i read some of the transcripts and the solicitor general in defense of the government's position i guess it was scalia or someone asked about this question well, does that mean that religious institutions, the church or other religious institutions are discriminating if they don't want to participate. he said that's not what's in front of you today. now maybe i'm misinterpreting that remark, but my interpretation was, well, that might be in front of you tomorrow. that's where i think we need to focus. i think a country as open big, tolerant as this country ought to be able to find open ground. >> something that has divided the right, federal reserve policy quantitative easing. some conservatives have argued

this is what the fed has to do in a low inflation environment or perhaps a deflationary environment. others have said, this is a huge risk, it's not working and it may debase the currency. where are you on that? >> i don't know. i would have thought based on the people that i admired and respect on the subject, smarter than me on it i would have thought we would have already gun begun to see the impact on that. the massive liquidity that the federal reserve has brought into the market has got to be of kerp. here's the problem with it. the economy is not growing. every time we have tepid growth, they say, we have to keep going. it has the opposite effect of what their intentions are. we're in a weird dichotomy where the fed policy is actually

creating really bad behavior in washington, dc. debt service today is lower than it was 12 years ago. i mean how can that be? we've doubled 250% rise in the debt but debt service is lower. well because we've shortened -- treasury has shortened the maturities. 60% of debt comes due in 4 1/2 years, something like that. interest rates in the low end -- the low side of the maturities is next to nothing. of course. so that -- basically the net result of this -- they complain that washington is not dealing with the structural challenges we face. i would argue that they're enabling bad behavior and not forcing the conversation we need to have, which is how do you fix the things that impede real economic growth. if we were growing at 4% per year, if we had an open kind of society where our tax code wouldn't create $2 trillion of cash overseas but did the opposite, imagine a tax code that created inversions coming our way which it would happen. i mean this country is big, it

is dynamic it's a huge market. we're productive. our labor laws are better than most of the countries, if not all in the developed world, we would get sizeable amounts of that investment if we changed how we regulated and how we taxed. that's the better way to get to low interest rates, by having demand of money coming in to invest, not created by printing money and holding it in banks. that has not created any economic activity. i do agree the risk over the long haul could be the debasing of the currency and penalizing savers. i'll be parochial for a second. i live in florida. the contract -- the modern contract in america would be you work hard, you save you -- you know, you buy your cds, you sell your home up here somewhere and you go live in paradise. that's the -- that's the american way american dream. it's worked out pretty well except when your 401 k went to a

201 k. the value of your home got depreciated because we had this huge excess of subprime loans so people paying their loans were penalized, people who didn't pay may not have been penalized as much. now you can't live off of savings. the savers are punished. because of dodd frank those trying to secure capital are limited because of this massive regulation. the monetary policy is not getting the desired effect. they should pull back. that would be my view. >> time for a couple more. here's another one from the audience. >> how do we go about improving the assimilation of immigrants? i would add on if puerto rico were to become a state -- >> first of all -- >> -- any concern about assimilating? >> first of all they are american citizens so that would be a separate -- this is not a sub of the first question, a separate question. >> okay. if you're going to get all technical for me. i have two questions for you.

>> puerto rico cans can buy a $79 ticket to florida. it's been the position of the republic can party and it's been the view that puerto rico can view if they want to be a state or not. if they do want to be a state just as ronald regan suggested and george hw bush and every republican candidate since the 1970s, i support that idea. there's one puerto rican guy in the room. it's a moral question. citizens should have the right and responsibilities of full citizenship. that's just a belief i have, a core value i have. the other issue is one of huge importance because our immigration works when people embrace a set of shared values. it doesn't work -- it doesn't

work when we divide ourselves up in disparate parts where we move towards the european model of multi-culturalism. it's a disaster when it works that way. so one of the answers to this is -- first of all maybe we should have a conversation about what our shared values are. one of them is learning english for sure. others is having i think being tolerant, having a respect of the bill of rights. understanding the uniqueness of our country where our freedoms are created to protect ourselves from an over reaching government. these are all part of what have been a set of shared values and today i think the set of shared values may be called into question. so part of any significant immigration reform would be make it -- create a deeper -- a requirement that's deeper in its understanding of the american experience. let me put it in perspective. to become a citizen you have to

take a test. there are 100 questions that you're given. you get 10 of those. you'll get asked 10 of them. if you pass if you get 6 of them right you're in. native born americans fail at a higher rate than immigrants because immigrants want to become a citizen so they memorize the question. i think we need to go deeper. i think we need to have a deeper understanding of what it is to be an american. if we don't do that we have problems. i think that's a key element of success. how do you do that? you make the test tougher. it was made tougher during my brother's administration. i think it can be made tougher again. i think we need to get back to civics education in our country in the k-12 system. look think -- i don't know, anybody do their kids' homework social studies? read the social studies books that your children, grandchildren read? not common core, by the way. nothing to do with common core. this crapola has been going on

for a long while. if you look at the lack of rigor. george watchingchgtching washington gets the same rigor as others. he created this country. we would be dramatically different if washington had not been or our mutual friend, abraham lincoln. there should be something about the courage, integrity of these great men and they should be held up high of what it is to be a great american in this extraordinary country. embracing that and making sure all of us understand the power has to be part of any reform on immigration. frankly, a more hopeful, optimistic america. there's no reason we should be moping around right now. i don't know, i don't think i'm naive to think this. we're on the verge to be the greatest time to be alive. we've had greater challenges in our country's history.

this is a time of abundance. we fix a few big things, part of it requires us to go back into history and appreciate the great bs. i'd rather be 21 than 62 with nothing to my name. i'd rather -- as long as i can go back with my beloved columba give me a credit card or two so i could play off one after the other on a monthly basis. this is -- this is the coolest time to be alive. we need to believe that and then act on it. >> couple real quick ones. it's called the paleo diet? >> yeah. >> how is it working out? >> i'm tired of talking about it. someone is going to catch me cheating. it will be a big deal. blah, blah. but it's worked. look at me. i'm skinnier. isn't that what diets are for? but it's a simple diet. they call it a diet because you're not eating processed

food. that's about the prirch ofnciple of it. it's meet, fish, nuts. lots of nuts. a whole lot of nuts. >> not that you have a lot of time for this, but when you have time what type of books do you like to read for fun? what books have had a big impact on you? >> i like the charles murray books to be honest with you, which means i'm a total nerd, i guess. let's see, what book am i reading right now? i never remember the name of this author. he wrote the book about the columbian exposition. chicago world's fair. >> [ inaudible ]. >> i love that guy. i'm reading all of his books. that's the one i'm reading. fantastic book. >> the trail of lusitania. >> i'm reading it. that's -- i'm not -- i'm reading about marconey. the next one is lusitania. >> very confident to tell you what book you're reading.

>> that's his most recent book. i recommend those books because they're nonfiction but they're written in a fiction kind of way. >> governor, thanks so much. >> i should have said the national review. >> have said "the national review." >> you blew it. >> thank you. [ applause ] tomorrow declared and potential republican presidential candidates will be at the south carolina freedom summit. ted cruz and marco rubio join other candidates in greenville, south carolina. live coverage begins at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span.

with live coverage of the u.s. house on c-span and the senate on c-span 2, here on c-span3 we compliment that coverage by showing you public affairs events on weekends, c-span3 is home to american history tv with six unique series. the civil war's 150th anniversary, american artifacts, touring touring museums history bookshelf, the presidency looking at the policies and legacies of our nation's commanders in chief. lectures in history, and our new series real america featuring archival government and education toolal films. c-span3. watch us in hd, like us on facebook and follow us on

twitter. more now from "the national review" idea summit with some of "national review's" writers. >> ladies and gentlemen. if everyone could stop socializing and take a seat. we're about to get started. wow. that's respect right there. look at that. the room just fell silent. welcome to the 2015 national review institute idea summit. the story goes that when the berlin wall was falling, a 90-year-old frederick hiak watched on tv and despite the fact he could barely speak at

that time looked away from the tv smiled and said, i told you so. it is the contention and perhaps the presumption of this conference we will be able to look back decades from now and say the same thing. and i'll be honest it's been a tough time for these national review institute idea summits, the last several years beginning in 2006, if memory serves the theme of the last three "national review" institute summits have been what went wrong, not again, and god help us. this one is different. but before i do anything else i want to thank the "national review" institute staff for the hard work they've done to make this possible. thanks, guys. [ applause ]

so why are we in a different cast of mind? just on a personal note, i'd i don't like to brag about my personal financial circumstances, but i was an early investor in uranium one. yes, my wife was a little nervous when it decided to make frank our personal financial adviser but you can't argue with results. and i'd like to mention for those of you who like to plan ahead that the next "national review" eurasian river cruise will be on the -- a very scenic and most beautiful waterway in all of eastern kazakhstan. and my next big move after this windfall, these should investment, we will be hiring al sharpton's accounts. if someone had told me 10 years ago that commentators on msnbc didn't have to pay taxes i never would've signed up for fox. let me just share with you by way of opening this event three

broad reasons i think we have to be optimistic as conservatives. one is just the pendulum swings in american politics are always based on which side has blown it most recently. you never get reagan without carter. you never get speaker gingrich without the tragic comedy of the first two years of the clinton administration. and what president obama we are looking at a failed presidency on his own terms. he wanted to restore faith in government, and despite all the hectoring on this score, despite all the activism, only 23% of people according to a recent pew survey trust government to do the right thing, at least most of the time. and why not? the stimulus made a mockery of

the phrase "shovel-ready jobs -- "shovel-ready projects" and "green jobs." we've seen an anemic recovery badly drilling the reagan standard. we have a health care program that has a reduce the cost of health insurance, involves massive new spending and taxes and parts of which are not even legal. we've seen a disastrous meltdown in our global position. the nation that will almost certainly have gained of the most by the end of the obama administration is the anti-american theocracy in iran. decades of progressive role in urban america have created and ab.e.t. cascading institutional and social break downs and whenever this comes to the nation's attention at a time of great crisis, we are told in a scolding tone that is it the fault of all the rest of us. and on top of all this, joe crisis,

we are told in a scolding tone that is it the fault of all the rest of us. and on top of all this, joe great crisis, we are told in a scolding tone that is it the fault of all the rest of us. and on top of all this, joe scolding tone that is it the fault of all the rest of us. and on top of all this, joe great crisis, we are told in a scolding tone that is it the fault of all the rest of us. and on top of all this, joe biden is vice president of united states, literally. so this is a poor record and a significant opening for the right which brings me to my second point. although it's less true than it once was and we've seen an erosion on this front, our ideas are still more with the grain of the american idea and the american character than theirs are. when it comes to dark theories about president obama's origins, my guess would be if i was going to play that game that he's a secret prussian. someone please get the word to donald trump right away. but the leading idea in 19 century prussian political thought was that the state was the vehicle of history with a capital h. for hagel, the state transcended, the particular interests of civil society and represented rationality and

progress represented god's march through the world. hagel, the government embodies the indwelling of the spirit and the history of the nation. obama, if the people cannot trust the government to do the job for which it exists to protect them and to promote their common welfare all else is lost. hagel, society and a state of the very conditions in which freedom is realize. obama, preserving our individual freedoms ultimately requires collective action. hagel, the owl of minerva flies at dusk. obama, you only live once. so okay perhaps this comparison isn't perfect but you get the point. and a modern american conservatism in contrast is in sympathy with the anglo-american tradition of liberty that is still written into the american dna and represents a system uniquely suited to human flourishing. it is a tradition that features

an inherent distrust of government and adherence to the rule of law, not of men. a constitutional system that gives an outsized place for deliberative assemblies, believe in certain unchanging truths about human nature and our god-given rights. and, finally, a concrete expression in the political economy what was once called free labor ideology, which rests on a profound belief in the dignity of all labor and the right to the proceeds of our own labor. and that brings me to my third and final point, which is the right is simply more vibrant than the left at the moment. and this is not just because the vanguard of the left is busy trying to carve out safe spaces from unwelcome ideas on college campuses, and is consumed with

debates over things like whether the bodies of transgendered men create unrealistic expectations for women's body images. to which i would answer, then i would whenture the answer yes. and these are questions we will take up in more detail at the next "national review" institute summits which will be held at ownerland. but the fact of the matter is that the right has the new ideas. the presumptive standard-bearer of the democratic party right now is a 67 year old grandmother who's been at the top of american life for 25 years, the chief challenger right now is a 73 year-old socialist, and the two of them are set to have a fascinating debate over whether their party's animating ideas should have their pedigree in 1965 1933, or 1789. at the moment among president obama's hot new ideas are infrastructure spending, the mi