Transcripts For CSPAN3 Key Capitol Hill Hearings 20150318

Sitting around, and we were writing regulations for i dont remember if it was the Fair Housing Act or the housing part of the americans with disabilities act, but anyway we were there and we were deciding you know what the rule should be for employers when it came to ramps and door knobs and sunken living rooms and all kinds of stuff like that. And it was appalling. You know, none of us knows at that table knew anything about the business of how to build an apartment complex. Why were we sitting around, you know making up all these rules . It was just very scary. Hes another part did i hear you say earlier in your testimony that you didnt have to have a familiarity with something in order to do the job . Well, no, i didnt say that. I said that you didnt think you had to be to put it bluntly, i dont think that you have to be a black person in order to be able to sell pepsis to a black person. And this notion that only members of a particular group can effectively market to members of that group is something that i have a problem with. But if youre a nondisabled person trying to figure out how a disabled person would be able to interact with their surroundings . It wasnt that we werent disabled. Although thats also, i think, a fair point. The problem is we didnt know anything about building. Thats the point that im making here. And the point you know, likewise, were not people i mean, were not in the caregiving business. The hypothetical that i gave about a caregiver and whether people might have preferences about, you know, who is going to bathe them. You know i think that those kinds of decisions should be made by people who are in the caregiving business not by a bunch of bureaucrats. Heres another part of the of enda. And you tell me whether this belongs in the u. S. Code. Nothing in this act shall prohibit an employer from requiring an employee during the employees hours at work to adhere to reasonable dress or grooming standards not prohibited by other provisions of federal, state or local law. During the time of employment and any employee who has notified the employer that the employee has undergone or is undergoing gender transition to adhere to the same gender standards to the employee for whom the employee is transitioning. I dont think that thats the kind of micro management that congress should be putting into the u. S. Code. To govern the grooming standards and dress standards that hundreds and thousands of employers and hundreds of thousands of different workplaces have to commit every day. I think thats a decision that ought to be left to individual employers in businesses. I just think you said earlier, though, people should be allowed to figure out what they do with their own private property. Lets let the market decide. If we adhere to that, there would still be people today who would be considered property and we wouldnt have fought a civil war to change what the market is. So i think theres an Important Role that government has to play in the regulation of how we interact with one another and the rights that are forfeited by individuals in the workplace. Absolutely. And i agree. You know i talk in my written testimony about that. I think that the and commissioner kirsanow alluded to this also in his question. I think that the situation that was presented and is presented by race discrimination in this country is special and different. And i think that it makes all the sense in the world to you know draw distinctions between what was going on in this country with respect to Racial Discrimination and things like Sexual Orientation and gender identity. You know, Racial Discrimination presented an extraordinary situation, justifying departure from the usual freemarket presumptions. It was widespread, blatant and often governmentally your microphone. Im sorry. Racial discrimination presented an extraordinary situation justifying departure from the usual freemarket pruchbltions. It was widespread, blatant and often governmentally codified and mandated. It was irrational in the 20th century by no moral or religious convictions. It was a historic problem, national in scope, which was clearly not susceptible to state, local or private resolution. Discrimination against homosexuals is simply not in this league. I was wondering if anybody else on the panel would like to respond to mr. Cleggs partial reading of enda and the dress code and things like that. I have one quick response. Well, i guess two quick responses. Even as a lawyer, i would love nothing more if we could pass a bill that said dont be mean and that would be sufficient to treat People Fairly with a recognition of their humanity but obviously we dont have that in our history and race discrimination is a perfect example of that. Were not dealing with a blank slate here. We have a number of states that have passed laws based on gender discrimination using Something Like the definition that mr. Clegg read and there hasnt been a huge flood of litiation. Nor has there been inane interpretation. What these laws do is they set a tone for how we think people should be treated on the job. And by existing they stop the very discrimination that theyre meant to redress. And then in extreme cases people then are free and have the ability to bring cases. The ability to answer the question, what kind of country do we want to live in, with a statute that says, we want to live in a country where people all sorts of people, including people based on Sexual Orientation or gender, live free, honored for who they are and able to do their jobs to the highest of their ability. And their ability is what matters, not who they are. That seems to me to be a good thing for this country to do. Anybody else . Theres also a dramatic difference between regulating bad Business Decisions that impact only the employer. Right, an employer who is foolish enough to require all of their employees to wear chartreuse uniforms. Thats a bad employment decision that the government should not be engaged in. Its radically different when were talking about bad Employment Decisions that have negative lifelong consequences for the individuals that they are choosing to fire, refuse to hire, or fail to promote. There should be in our laws a do no harm principle. Thats what nondiscrimination laws in employment attempt to do. To create a level Playing Field that ensure that Employment Decisions are made on the basis of an employees merits talent skills and background rather than on who they are. The only thing i would add and i know this is a different context, not Congress Passing a law, but companies implementing their own nondiscrimination policies as they relate to Sexual Orientation and gender identity. Im often frustrated, not when people disagree with me, because that happens all the time. I have twin boys who are 12 and a half and they disagree with me all the time. Thats okay. But its when there are spurious arguments about why someone would disagree with me. Thats what i find somewhat unnerving. So to go back to, not the legislative language that mr. Clegg referenced, but the Business Practices that large, medium, and Small Businesses today have adopted for Good Business reasons because it makes sound sense to have a Nondiscrimination Policy based on Sexual Orientation and gender identities those business policies often mirror the language that mr. Clegg referenced in terms of the employment and nondiscrimination act. That is what a business use to describe and to define gender identity in that case. And what we see is not businesses falling all over themselves and not being able to figure out what the policy means, but rather providing a level disPlaying Field for all employees, that those gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender employees, it doesnt just benefit them, but it benefits the entire culture of the large medium, and small business, because it says to any employee that youre here to work and were going to judge you on your skills and thats it. Nothing irrelevant, but your job performance. And so i think again, the Employment Practices and the employment policies, of nondiscrimination, and theyre by private companies, that they have to set their own Playing Field for their own companies, often mirror the language and what we dont see in those companies from major fortune 100 companies to Small Businesses around this country, is, we dont see the kind of interpretations that mr. Clegg says will happen. Is that like a meritocracy . Kind of Something Like that. I think the problem, though is that to the extent that thats true, youve undercut the argument for the necessity to pass this bill in the first place. And, you know its a rational thing for all companies to do, to do the kinds of things that this bill requires. Then you dont need to pass the bill. Not passing it is not going to have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. Discrimination is not going to have a substantial effect on interstate commerce, because companies are going to be taking steps to get rid of it anyway. I think there are going to be situations where taking Sexual Orientation into account is going to make sense. It may not be common. It may not be something that involves what most companies do. This is another problem with passing one size fits all federal legislation. It may be that people who make airplanes have no reason to consider, you know, Sexual Orientation. But people who are in the caregiving business might want to consider Sexual Orientation. It just depends. Theres thousands of businesses out there theyre all different. And i dont think that we should be passing a federal one size fits all bill in that situation. If i could just one size fits all and it seems to work. Miss stackelberg. Similar arguments to that were raised when president obama decided that he would considering lifting the ban on gays and lesbians serving openly in the military, one of our nations largest employers. And people said, this shouldnt be a one size fits all. We have men and women in fox holes together. This is not what we should have. We should have people on submarines and Sexual Orientation will absolutely undermine morale and unit cohesion and we havent seen that come to pass. Im going to move on now. Several commissioners want to ask questions. Commissioner herot. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I guess i wanted to ask about this notion that this can be intercepted in unpredictable or counterproductive ways. You mentioned that some corporations have adopted similar language but they get to interpret their own policies and they wont have that luxury if theres an congressional enactment. The chairman just mentioned that title 7 has worked out well. I guess i would disagree with that. We need title 7, but there are lots of ways in which it has been intercepted in unpredictable and counter productive ways such as the difficulty that employers have in taking into consideration felony convictions by job applicants. I dont want that to occur here if enda is passed. Because of the way that gender identity is defined in the current version, enda prohibits discrimination on the basis of quote, gender related characteristics. Can you give me some help on what that might mean . For example, in the price water house case we had a plaintiff who argued that she had not been promoted because she was i guess we could call it you know, she was pushy as a female, and she said that same characteristic would be regarded as a assertiveness in a male. So is assertiveness versus nonassertiveness, is that a genderrelated characteristic. Is it long hair versus short . Employers are going to look at that and want some guidance as to what that means. Anyone . Well if genderrelated means gender correlated which i think is certainly one way you could interpret this then i agree that, you know this is opening a real pandoras box. You could probably find social scientists or statisticians that could find all kinds of characteristics that have some kind of correlation with gender, with sex. And if all of those are now characteristics that you cant discriminate on the basis of then youve made it very hard for employers to make decisions on the basis of any characteristics at all. I mean, for instance, i should give you an example. Criminal behavior. Your mike went off again. I promise you im not trying to turn you off. I wouldnt blame you. Criminal behavior. I think that everybody would agree that men are more likely to commit crimes than women are. Okay . So is criminal behavior a genderrelated characteristic . Well its certainly a gendercorrelated characteristic. So does this now mean that employers cant discriminate at all, not just on the basis of the disparate impact, but that its disparate treatment now to discriminate against somebody on the basis that they have murdered their last employer . Sounds like a reasonable interpretation of the definition of gender identity to me. But not a very reasonable example. Well tell us what i think thats a little bit ridiculous. I think what it means in terms of how weve seen it interpreted. What i understand that it means i wasnt involved in the drafting. But i understand its very much along the price water house. Its draft its presentation. It could be interpreted as characteristics involved in the price water house case, a woman that does not wear makeup, is not sufficiently feminine assertiveness is two sides of the same coin. Would you say thats part of a genderrelated characteristic that men tend to be more assertive in certain situations and women are sometimes less assertive in certain situations . What does it mean . People dont always con form to gender. [ laughter ] i feel like thats what this is trying to get to, is that when one doesnt con form price water house stands for the theory and i feel like the language that jerntrelated characteristics is about ensconcing that, if someone either con forms to or does not con form to gender stereotypes, they will be protected. It doesnt say anything about gender stereotypes here. This is not title 7. See, thats the problem here. If assertiveness is something that is considered to be a more masculine characteristic you know calmness less assertiveness, something considered to be more feminine it looks to me that under enda, it doesnt matter who you know which person has the problem. A male job applicant could say i was rejected because i do con form to gender stereotypes and especially assertive. Hypermasculine. And yet there are lots of jobs where being hyperassertive would be a very bad thing. I understand the hypothetical. Its not something weve seen in states that have had similar language. On the other hand, with title 7, it takes 50 years sometimes for these things to work themselves out. Thats the thing about passing language, it becomes part of the law. It doesnt go away. But you do have case interpretations of state law language that is similar to this, that can be used to rebut a nonsense claim, for example. Because, again, the good news is this isnt a blank slate. Its not as if this the first incursion into understanding how we would protect transgender or gender noncon forming employees. We have a body of law and several years at least of experience. But title 7 has been worked out perfectly but its very controversial. One of the things that developed quite late sometimes 50 years after it passes. For example, right here, weve been told that title 7 can be used in terms of Sexual Orientation and gender identity. Nobody would have thought that in 1964. And maybe thats the right way to interpret it, or maybe its the wrong way. But its wrong to suggest that the language is not going to be a problem, because its not a problem now. Thats not the way statutes work. I understand that but i think its more important in your considerations to address what is the real problem now that we are trying to ameliorate. I think thats the wrong approach. We have a problem we have to deal with it right now. Lets go with whatever good language we have. We want good language. That wont be abused in the future. We want it to cover only the things we want it to cover. Do we have that now . I would say no. We dont know what genderrelated characteristics are going to mean. Dont we need to develop that . We have over 20 years of experience. Minnesota adopted a law including Sexual Orientation and gender identity more than 20 years ago. And the reason that youre seeing Sexual Orientation and gender identity being incorporated into an interpretation of title 7 is because the similarity between sex discrimination and gender discrimination is bound up with one another. What is discrimination on the basis of sex is also discrimination on the basis of gender identity. 20 years and one state like minnesota, is nothing. Very, very very small. When you multiply that over the population of the United States of america, and you run it for 50 years there are going to be a lot of cases. We want to get this right the first time. Weve also been looking at legislation for more than 20 years to address discrimination. In congress, theres been ongoing conversations. This is not a new topic not a new idea. We have changed language over time, hashed things out, based on best practices that we have seen in states in municipalities. And laws are not static. They dont exist forever. While title 7 has not been amended, certainly congress has gone in and changed other statutes to deal with changes in interpretation, Bad Supreme Court decisions, address additional statutes, to rectify those situations. It is not a static and permanent forever. As a again a former bureaucrat i will point out, when i was in the Civil Rights Division at the justice department, it was rare that we looked at how analgous state statutes had been interpreted in the state court. I think that commissioner heriot is right the notion that youre going to be able to fix, vague, ambiguous, or problematic language, in a federal bill by saying that oh well heres how the statute that was kind of worded the same way was interpreted by state courts in minnesota, is being way too optimistic about how this process works. Well i think what youre faced with is, do you respond to what you know and what we have experience with . Or do you respond to what you fear . And there is a body of law, theres experience with cases that have been brought under the law and there is a problem that needs to be addressed. I am i am perfectly willing, given my own organizations position on enda to have another, you know go at language that could be more clear, or could be more specific. But i feel like the language that youve got is based on significant experience of individuals who have been involved in litigating and involved in these cases and involved in this area of law for several decades. Im going to move on but if i have time ill come back. Commissioner kladney. I guess i want to ask mr. Clegg all the questions i had. But i will ask you it seems to me that your agreement with commissioner herot regarding language means youre trying to craft a bill under which there will be no litigation or definitions when in fact our entire judicial system on a daytoday basis issues decisions and looks at statutes and defines them every day. I mean, statutes that have been around 50 years or a hundred years. I mean, not just discriminatory statutes. Labor law tort law, contract law. I dont understand the objection, i guess. I mean, verbiage is verbiage and i understood when you were talking about the dress and all that. It wasnt that difficult for me. But thats what we do have courts for. And from your document, you obviously dont trust courts. You think theyre liberal. I guess the Roberts Court must be too liberal for you. But my point being is, dont you think that thats what lawyers and courts are for . I mean, the legislative process to be perfect is, i mean, they talked about stuffing a sausage. So i just asked you to define why why you think that we shouldnt litigate these things and define them over time. Well, i dont want to fix the statute. I dont want to pass the statute at all. Well that i understand. And i dont think that the reason that we have courts and lawyers is to figure out how companies ought to deal with employees who have this or that Sexual Orientation. I think that should be left to companies to do. I think there are some extraordinary situations where we have to have laws that tell employers things that they can do and cant do. I think we had to have a federal statute that told employees that they could not discriminate on the basis of race. But those instances are rare. But arent we protecting 5. 4 million workers here as opposed to the 600 splanets . I mean, who are we protecting . The 5. 4 million llth llth workers . Or. The question is whether this legislation has a substantial effect on interstate commerce. And actually the number of employees who are going to be protected by this law is all of them. Because its not just discrimination against Sexual Orientation is described as being homosexual, bisexual, or heterosexual heterosexual. So anybody can sue under this statute. If you have if youre straight and you want a job in a gay book store and you dont get hired and you think the reason you werent hired is because you were straight, you got a lawsuit too. So i dont think you can really put it in terms of the number of employees who are being protected from discrimination. Potentially all employees are being protected from discrimination. The question is whether the underlying problem here is one that has an potential effect on interstate commerce, and whether there is whether circumstances are such that the only way to address this problem is through federal legislation. I think the answer is to both those questions is no. Well, clearly when Corporate America institutes their guidelines and rules and regulations, thats not really endorsable enforceable by the employee in most cases, is it . Why does that matter . If the problem is discrimination against gays if thats whats being asserted as the problem that is affecting interstate commerce if that problem is being alleviated by companies enacting unilateral policies, then what difference does it make whether theres a private right of action on it or not . Its not enforceable by the employee. You can have a rule and ignore the rule. You can have a law and ignore the law too. Yeah, but then theres a remedy. We talk about remedies in the law, we dont just talk about rules. Fine. My point is, theres slippage in both instances. Just because you have a statute doesnt mean that youre not going to have any more discrimination. Even if you can bring lawsuits. And i dont know, and Different Companies may structure these guidelines differently. If you were a company, you could structure so that, heres our policy. If youre an individual and you think that your immediate supervisor has discriminated against you on the basis of Sexual Orientation, you can file a complaint with the hr department. Things similar to that are done in this area already [ inaudible ] okay, thank you. Sexual harassment if you are sexually harassed by your immediate supervisor and, you know, you can most companies now have mechanisms where you can complain about that to some person other than your immediate supervisor. So i think if a company wanted to, it could set up protections against Sexual Orientation discrimination the same way. Many of those cases still end up in the courts. Yeah. So mr. Kladney, any more questions . I pass. Commission actenberg. Miss warbelow and others if you care to comment, its been asserted by those who oppose uniform federal standards that the adoption of same will lead to Sexual Harassment in the workplace as opposed to redress Sexual Harassment in the workplace. Is it your interpretation of this proposed federal standard that this would be the case and if you would comment as well on the issue of whether or not the existence of a uniform federal standard would prevent persons with a particular religious point of view from expressing that point of view in the workplace, because such a thing would then become defined, ipso facto, as creating a hostile Work Environment as some opponents have argued. So theres absolutely no evidence, despite the fact that we have 21 states and the District Of Columbia that prohibit discrimination on the basis of Sexual Orientation that has led to any rise in Sexual Harassment. Sexual harassment is a very real and pervasive problem. It is something that disproportionately affects women in the workplace. I did not come prepared with those statistics in terms of what were discussing today. But wed be happy to get those two to you. To the extent that somebody who is straight is experiences Sexual Harassment from a colleague, who is gay, lesbian, or bisexual, they have remedy currently under title 7, and any decision of protection on the basis of Sexual Orientation as mr. Clegg pointed out, covers not only lgbt people but straight people as well. So those individuals would have a remedy not only through their employers, but through the courts if it were a persistent problem. Thats correct. The United States Supreme Court has already addressed the issue of Sexual Harassment between people of the same sex. In the oncali decision more than two decades ago and those are remedies that exist currently for individuals and this will not change those access to that remedy. So if theyre the same sex or opposite sex, or if theyre gay or straight adoption of a uniform federal standard has no impact, is that thats correct. With regards to Sexual Harassment i do want to tease out as a little bit different from harassment on the basis of Sexual Orientation. So someone whos engaging in the behavior based on the sex of the individual and in sexual terms and sexual nature as opposed to an employee who is harassing another employee who is gay and using derogatory terms for someone who is gay in an attempt to drive them out of the workplace. And it would be the use of derogatory terms that would be addressed if we were to adopt the uniform federal standard . Thats right. The uniform federal standard would erase or at least give people remedy to address harassment that is based on the Sexual Orientation of the individual, rather than harassment that is just sexual in nature. And happens to occur between two people who are of the same sex. So calling someone a dike or a fag in the workplace . Thats what this law would allow people to have a remedy for, if their employer refused to address. Would you talk about then the relationship, if any between that and the assertion that persons of a particular, deeply held religious belief would be have their First Amendment rights circumscribed in the adoption of a uniform federal standard to protect lgbt in the workplace. Religious employees are already protected under title 7 and have the ability to make assertions about their religious beliefs in the workplace. I will say that there is a huge difference between asserting within the workplace an employees opposition to marriage for samesex couples or a belief that homosexuality is immoral, than calling someone dike or fag. That we can make distinctions between what is assertion of a persons religious beliefs and what is harassing behavior. Now, certainly if an individual posts passage of a National Federal standard for nondiscrimination in the workplace were to target an lgbt individual to enter their work space on a daily basis or routine basis and say to them, i think youre going to burn in hell because youre gay, that would create liability for the employer, and the employee would have ability to sue for harassment and discrimination in the workplace. But i think that we can draw and certainly the courts have shown the ability to make distinctions between what is an individuals assertion of their religious beliefs and where that steps into harassment and abuse of another employee. And we see this in the context of sex as well. We do have many individuals throughout the United States who have sincerely held religious beliefs that women dont belong in the workforce, that only certain types of activities are appropriate for women that men deserve higher pay because theyre head of household. We allow for religious individuals to express those views in limited ways in the workplace. But when they are targeting an individual or they are acting in such a way such as actually providing women with lower salaries, that result in harm to the individual that is where we draw distinction. Commissioner achtenberg just to note, in my testimony, i talk about some of the ways that i think enda would complicate the Sexual Harassment issues and the two append seize i have are pieces from hans bader, the Competitive Enterprise Institute and professor eugene volic on some of the First Amendment issues. I know you do and i thoroughly reject the rationale proffered in those statements. Now everybody else knows that too. Thank you very much. Commissioner narasaki. I join commissioner achtenberg in her thorough rejection. Add me as well. Why are you having a briefing . Because there are some actual serious issues about how you best implement this, and as you and i, who have debated many of these issues knows there are a lot of gray areas, that even if you disagree on some things, hopefully we can find some Common Ground on others to improve the entire framework. So i think this is in fact, a very important enterprise. I want to start by addressing commissioner kirsanows concern regarding the makeup of the panel. I believe that staff did invite a broad range to be present and all commissioners are invited to present ideas for staff of people to be invited and to help staff actual recruit people, and of course, we ask many groups who are interested, and stakeholders who may be watching on air to know that they have that they have is it 30 days . Yes. Trouble with the mike. It wont stay on. Here. We have another. Use this one for now. That we have 30 days for people to submit written comments. So if youre out there and you have a different view and you want to make sure that the commissioners and staff take that into account, please avail yourself of that opportunity. Second i know that theres joking about this, but i am concerned about disparagement of the dedicated staff at agencies as being nothing but ignorant bureaucrats. Many come with a lot of Life Experience and of course we also have a process of consultation when we do regulations. And we propose new policies that take into account input from employers and affected communities. So i dont want to leave the general public with the view that somehow bureaucrats put together laws that really are not based on any kind of reality. That is far from the case. As mr. Clegg knows doing regulations is a very long and painful process. So that is actual an oversimp livication and a view that i dont subscribe to about how the government actually tries to play a helpful role on the issues that are important to everyones daytoday livelihood and nothing can be more important in the employment context. So roger, im just curious because your argument against covering lgbt people seems to also apply to religious discrimination. So is it the view of the center for equal opportunity that title 7 should, in fact, not be trying to stop discrimination based on religion . No. Im not sure how that follows. No, the center for because you argued that the lgbt status is not immutable which i actually dont necessarily agree with. You argued that it impact i did not say that. Well in your comparison with lgbt q status and race, you try to draw this distinction about how race is very different. But title 7 covers more than race. So im just trying to understand the boundaries of your argument because you try to make the point that we should not burden im not sure that you accurately characterized what i said. Thats what im asking you. Please characterize where ive gone astray. The center for equal opportunity does not object to the fact that title 7 makes it illegal to discriminate against employees on the basis of religion. And i dont see how theres an inconsistency between thinking that that kind of prohibition is acceptable in saying that we should not add an additional prohibition against discrimination on the basis of Sexual Orientation and gender identity. The reasons that i give for being opposed to enda i think would would not apply to discrimination on the basis of religion. So im i mean, i want to be clear that i think its appropriate to cover religion. And the reason im asking you is because you put enormous trust in market in free market, to do the right thing, and youve made the statement that its very clear in the case of race to you why title 7 is important. And im trying and the reasons you give are because of the long history that weve had with discrimination which weve also had against lgbt people but you make the argument that race is not an immutable characteristic where its more difficult i dont think i used the word immutable in my testimony. Well thats how i interpreted it. Im just trying to interpret why race is different from lgbt q status and also but yet the basis on which is different is the same reason that you could look at religion in terms of the smallness of the number of impact, whether or not government should be involved in that. So i just wanted to make sure i understood where you were coming from. I wanted to ask you whether whether if enda were to happen, so youve raised the issue of bona fide occupational qualification. Right . And so i want not in those terms, no, i did not raise that. You did not raise the i thought you did in your testimony. I dont think so. No . Okay. But im happy to talk about it. And i agree with the point, i think it was in the Previous Panel that there is no bflq in enda. Im familiar with that. Yeah, maybe it was in the attachment to your testimony, but okay, let me just ask the question. So do you feel like there should be bflgs for enda . Well, again im not particularly interested in finetuning enda to make it a better statute, because i think its a bad statute from beginning to end. I dont think congress has authority to pass it. I suppose that if enda were passed, i would want a bflq in it, yes. And what would that look like to you . Well, i think it would be parallel to the bflq language in title 7, which follows the prohibition in title 7, of discrimination on the well, it lists the kinds of discrimination that are illegal. But then it says that this is 703e. And it says that theres an exception where religion, sex, or National Origin is a bona fide occupational qualification reasonably necessary to the operation of that particular business or enterprise. And what kind of religious accommodation, if any, would you think would be appropriate . Again it would not be limited to religious context. I mean, i think that there could be other instances where there would need to be a bflq for discrimination on the basis of Sexual Orientation, and i describe some of those in my oral testimony. For instance, if you had a caregiver and the customer who was being given the caregiver said you know im really not comfortable. This is a very intimate situation. Im going to be getting a bath by this person. I dont want the caregiver to be somebody that i think is going to you know where sex is going to be an issue. Where theres any likelihood of sexual attraction, you know, by the individual to me. And so im a straight male. Therefore, i dont want women to be i mean, basically i want a straight male to bathe me. And i dont want you know women to bathe me, because for privacy reasons and also because i dont want them to be attracted and i dont want a gay man to bathe me either. Now, theres nothing religious about that. Okay do you have aging parents . Yeah. I have a very aging mother, and if we dealt with all the people that she didnt want touching her, she would get no help at all. Think there should be a federal law that requires your mother to have to hire whomever my question is would you say, if someone said, its very intimate, that gee, i dont want a white person touching me, would that would you feel like that was okay . Well, thats a good question. But there is no bflq for race in title 7. And the reason is because the people at the time that the statute was written were afraid that that exception would spoil the rule. I think that at the time that was a reasonable call. But there is a cost to that. And thats the point im trying to make here. Can i ask the other panelists to answer the question about what kind of do they see whether theres any room for a bflq and what kind of bflq would you think was appropriate if you felt one was going to be necessary. Um the only bflq that we think would be appropriate would a bfoq continuing to sex, but where gender identity is treated consistent with the persons actual gender identity. So, if for example if you have a bfoq for Prison Guards that requires only men to be staffing male prisons then you would need to hire a transgender man to staff or permit a transgender man to be a male prison guard. Can you clarify for the record what you mean by a transgender man. An individual assigned female at birth and transitioned to male at some point in life. Can you clarify that . People transition in multiple ways but frequently individuals who are transgender take hormones consistent with the sex they have transitioned to and some also have surgery on their bodies to conform their bodies to the new presentation. So some that you would be considered to be transgender would not have any surgery and still have the biological equipment they had at birth. I cant hear her question, your mic is off. Sometimes, it wont go on. Sometimes it goes off. Just to clarify you would talk about a transgender man, someone with a female body or female organs but taken hormones to make them is that correct . Yes. So they may have had some surgeries, they may have had some surgeries to have their bodies changed so that all of they are jenity alia may appear male but it varies from individual to individual. And in terms of medical best practices, it is absolutely best for individuals to be able to determine what level of surgery is right for them. And again to clarify for the record, would you include someone who has not had hormonal treatment or surgery, but dresses and otherwise identifies with the sex they were not born with . Commissioner, ill ask you not to ask any more questions because were already over the panel time and i just want the panel to i just want to try to understand what the terms mean here. Sure. So going back to the original question, we would support a very limited bfoq. Wait, did you answer my question . I believe that i have. But but could somebody be transgender who had neither hormonal treatment but surgery treatment but in other ways they have expressed their their gender identity as different from the one they were born with . Typically we understand that be gender nonconfirming but different individuals do identify differently. But for the purposes of the law . Im sorry, can i get my question done . Lets just finish with the questions, commissioner narasake and any that want to answer that questions and then wrap it up. We would support a limited bfoq. It doesnt seem there is an appropriate arena in which someone would be rejected based on their Sexual Orientation or gender identity from engaging in employment context. The very narrow instance even with sex there are very few legitimate bfoqs. And what will religious accommodation . With the bfoq . Religious any exemption or accommodation of religious views . Right. So as i put in my both oral and written testimony, the title 7 standard is an ideal model and it allows religious employers so those religious organizations to provide preference to their own religion and we have robust case law around the ministerial organizations as well. Miss sideneidenberg any more questions. No. That was just the ministerial admission. And the only thing i would add is mr. Clay said something earlier about working with Young Children i wasnt quite sure whether the comment meant to suggest that i did not say that. I saidolescentsadolescents. With adolescents. I wasnt sure whether it had something to do with the ability or inability to work with adolescents. I think that i said i think that the medical profession and those who work with children from the pediatricians to the American Psychological association to the American Medical Association and all of that have put those doubts to rest. All i was saying was that straight men are more likely to be attracted to adolescent females than gay men are. And that straight and gay men are more likely to be attracted to adolescent males than straight men are. Well, i think miss stackleberg refuted that point. You think so. A very robust point. And including the rebust care for all. And well take a break for lunch and well return at 1 00 p. M. With panel number three. Thank you. On our next washington journal, congressman Scott Garrett talks about the republicans budget blue print for 2016. Congress garrett serves on the budget and Financial Services committee. Then reaction to the gop budget plan with democratic representative mark pocan of wisconsin. And a look at alternatives to looking up juvenile offender. Christian science monitor stacy tiker joins us. Wash journal is live every morning on cspan. Defense sect Ashton Carter and joint chiefs chair testify before the House Armed Services committee. The hearing will propose on the 2016 Defense Budget and the president s request for authorization to use military force against isis. That is live at 10 00 a. M. Eastern here on cspan3. This weekend the cspan cities tour has partnered with media com to learn about the history of columbus, georgia. Right here inside of the museum is remains of a confederate ironclad, the css jackson and this was an ironclad built here in columbus during the war. The ovalal shapes are the gun ports of the jackson. And the jackson is armed with six brook rifle tz rifles. The brook rifles are built specifically for the jackson. It was cast at the selma naval works in selma alabama, and completed in january of 1865. The real claim to fame is directly connected to the fact there are only four ironclads from the civil war that we can study right now and the jackson is right here and this is why this facility is here. Its first and foremost to tell the story of this particular ironclad and to show people that there are more than just one or two ironclads, there were many. Watch all of our events from columbus saturday at noon eastern on book club and on cspan3. Illinois congressman aaron schock announced on tuesday he will offered to from the u. S. House effective march 31st. Representative Aaron Schocks resignation comes from accusations of mileage on his personal vehicle. He has the subject of excessive spending of Campaign Funds and inconsistent labelling of purchases on Campaign Finance documents. U. S. Secret Service Director Joseph Clancy testified on monday about problems in the organization. He was questioned about an incident about agents driving drunk and driving into a white house barricade. Here is a look. Im frustrated. Im im very frustrated that we didnt know about this, i didnt know about this until monday. Im frustrated that i cant act until we get all of the facts. Because i know that our work force is waiting what is your action going to be . But i just dont want to act improperly too soon. Let me just say this the president , the first family, they are safe. Weve moved these individuals to nonsupervisory positions rather than administrative leave where they are getting paid for no work. We can still get work out of them. But in a different capacity. They are still getting paid . Yes, sir. No reduction in pay no penalties, financial or otherwise, right . No financial penalties. Sir, i would say that im sure they are paying a penalty right now. Well, unfortunately, this is the last in a long line of episodes somewhat similar drinking carousing on and off duty that this agency has suffered these last few years. It is not working right mr. Director. Yes. We have to have some changes. And you got to be the one that makes those changes. And i dont sense at this moment that you have the determination to make that happen. Am i wrong . Sir i would disagree with you, with that, with all respect. Ly say that there is an element within our agency there is an element within our agency that does cope with the stresses that many of you have mentioned today by using alcohol. There is no question. We have that element. We also have other elements that in our agency that go to a different route. Some go to exercise and some go to religion and some go to their family but we do have an element that goes to alcohol. Three or four weeks ago we kicked off a work Life Initiative to look at the stresses our people are under and they are considerable. There is no excuse for the actions. We have to take there has to be selfdiscipline and selfaccountability, but weve got to find a way to help some of these people going towards alcohol to solve their as a coping mechanism. Well im concerned about their health as well. But im more concerned about the health of the president of the United States and who is protecting him from harm. Yes mr. Chairman. And if we have special agents on the grounds, at night in the white house, ramming a barricade drunk, it seems to me that the only discipline that you could exert would be caused by the ability of you and your staff to terminate as punishment, so that every other agent knows, boy, i dont want to go there. That director is going to fire me. That is what makes the mind work. What do you think about that . No i agree with you. I think deep down, within our agency as in others people want to see discipline. People want to be disciplined. They want to have people held accountable. I just want to respect the due process, as frustrating as that is. And then let my actions speak for how were going to move forward in this agency. Well be watching. Yes, sir. And waiting. Yes, mr. Chairman. The secretaries and chiefs of staff for each of the military branches testified before Congress Tuesday about the risk posed by seek restoration cuts. This appeared before the House Armed Services committee on budget requests. This hearing is just over three hours. Committee will come to order. Today the full committee will exam the president s budget request for the Armed Services of the United States. Im pleased to welcome each of the Service Secretaries and most of the Service Chiefs today. On behalf of the committee and the people re went, i we represent, i want to thank each of you to your service to the nation. Since january this committee is focused on understanding the strategic environment and the complex security challenges facing the United States. I believe in order to fulfill our responsibilities under the constitution to raise and support, provide and maintain military forces that meet the president s needs it is important for us to spend time understanding the specific challenges staring us in the face today and as well as the longer term trends and where they are taking us. So over the last two months the chitty has closed and open, classified and unclassified sessions with government and nongovernment witnesses as well as foreign leaders. We held a firstever committee retreat with a number of distinct wished speakers, including general dempsey and examined the past, the present and the future. Weve had sessions on the worldwide threats facing us and the status and trends of islam extremism and threats in status regions and the status of conflict in various regions and Technology Superiority and the pace of change. Weve also received the recommendations of the compensation and retirement commission, heard from outside experts on the budget and have studied ways to improve the departments acquisition of goods and services. All of that work i think, puts us in a better position to consider the administrations proposed budget. Im sure members will have questions on specific programs that were included or left out of the administrations budget. I strongly believe that the job of the congress under the constitution and of this committee is to exercise independent judgment on how best to meet the nations security needs, giving a great deal of weight, of course to the judgment of our military leaders but not being a rubber stamp for any administration. History has proved a wisdom of having a separate branch making independent decisions. But whatever the details of the ultimate decisions i believe we today to look at the total resources we devote to defense, which is now about 15 of the federal budget and we also have to consider the consequences if Congress Approves significantly less defense spending than the president is asking for. And i would say to our distinguish witnesses especially those in uniform this is the time to speak plainly. You know the dangers we face around the world. You know the damage already been done by Defense Budget cut by onefifth in real terms since 2010 and you know the difficult choice as head of us, even under the president s budget request. Finally, as i have thanked each of our witnesses for their service, i want to express appreciation to all members of the committee on both sides of the aisle for your work this year. On both sides members have worked very hard and asked probing questions to try to find answers for the security of the country and im proud to work with each of you. As you know Ranking Member smith is dealing with health issue and not able to be with us and ably sitting in his chair is the distinguished lately from california, miss sanchez who i recognize for an opening statement. Thank you, mr. Chairman and we do wish the quick return of adam smith. Mr. Chairman thank you. And thank you for acknowledging this has been a very tough year already and that we have some very severe Budget Constraints that may be coming out of the Budget Committee with respect to our resources here and how we allocate them for our military. And youre right, it is in the purview of the congress to make decisions about where we place the money so this committee has a very difficult task ahead of it. I want to also thank our witnesses today. It is rare that we have Service Chiefs and our secretaries all in one room, so thank you so much. Today is, i hope, a hearing for some constructive discussion about how we move forward. I also just want to acknowledge that it is also nice to see women on the panel. So thank you for that. And were thrilled to have you. Sequestration, i think that has become such a distraction for the congress. Certainly i believe that we have to look at smarter and more efficient ways in which we can invest and also save. We do not have the capacity as a country to hand anybody, even our military a blank check. So i hope that the department, along with the congress, can Work Together to invest in resources that will give us the best value for our money. We have to invest in r d, we have to make sure that we dont have a hollow force and we have to ensure that we can be an effective piece of what it takes to protect america and americans. And i hope todays hearing will not only focus on the threat of sequestration, but that well have a discussion about our economic state where we can invest and where we must save. And again, i thank all of you for being before us and i look forward to having a good discussion and im glad so many members have shown to this hearing. I also request unanimous consent to place mr. Smiths opening comments into the record, mr. Chairman. And i yield back. Without objection, so ordered. Again let me welcome our distinguished panel of witnesses today. We have the honorable john mc mchugh, rayo deer know. And so standing in admiral michelle howard, vice chief of Naval Operations, from the marine core, dunford, and mark welsh, from the air force. Thank you for being here. Without objection, your full written statements will be made part of the record. And the only other comment i would make is when we get to questions with this many members and witnesses, im going to have to be careful about the clock. So if you want to spend three minutes asking your question youre going to get a very abbreviated answer. And i appreciate our witnesses as well as our members respecting the gavel as we try to give as many members as possible the chance to ask questions. Again, thank you all for being here. Secretary mchugh the floor is yours. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. And miss sanchez good to be with all of you. Please pass our best wishes on to mr. Smith and his speedy recovery. And to all of you, the distinguish members of the committee, i would say how much we appreciate the opportunity to be here today and to talk very frankly about the danger that lies ahead should this budget not be enacted and sequestration allow to be returned. In short it is amazing how much can change in a year. Over the last 12 months, we have seen the geopolitical landscape morph at an astonishing pace. From anewed aggression by russia and to radical terrorism in iraq and syria and yemen and the fight against ebola the army has managed to tackle contingencies around the world even though theyve grown at an alarming rate. Far from being foreseeable, our requirements have been more unexpected and our enemies more unpredictable and our ability to handle multiple simultaneous operations more uncertain. And yet with more opportunity and unstability around the world Americas Army is faced again with an enemy here at home the return of sequestration. Unprepared units and unmaintained equipment and untrained soldiers. Ladies and gentlemen, our army, your army, faces a dark and dangerous future unless the Congress Acts now to end these illconceived and inflexible budget cuts. And i want to be clear every instillation and every program will feel the brunt of these cuts. Under sequestration by 2019 well reduce our end strength to unconscionable levels, likely losing another six bcts and possibly a Division Headquarters and to the to mention the cop tracts, fas contracts and facilities and civilian personnel. But let me share the accomplishments of the army this past year. As russianbacked forces rolled into ukraine and crimea and threatened stability our soldiers demonstrated commitment and resolve. From lith yu eye an and soldiers from the 173 airborne shows we would stand with our nato allies and respond to unbridled aggression. In west africa as thousands suffered from the scourge of ebola, your army reacted. Those led by the 101st airborne provided support to stop the deadly and destabling disease. In response to rapid gains by isil, your soldiers quickly returned to iraq to advise Security Forces to train against terrorisms. We strengthened our partnerships an increase our substantial presence. Today the headquarters of nine active army and two guard divisions are committed to combatant commands and some 147,000 soldiers are deployed, forward station or committed including over 19000 mobilized reservists. Moreover, weve done all of this while continuing to transform our formations to make them meaner and more agile and more lethal. As you know, such success comes at a price. For at the end, the young lieutenant leading his or her platoon and the sergeants training their soldiers an the valuable civilian work force laboring countless hours to support them and the young family waiting patiently at home are human. The stress of war and multiple deployment and unpredictable requirements doesnt face cuts and through it all we have and remain committed to our warriors from programs to increase resilient and to Behavioral Health and the prevention of Sexual Assault and retaliation we will keep faith with our soldiers and rest assured the return of sequestration will directly impact critical installation and programs armywide. Simply put we need the president s budget. Our 126. 5 billion request is as you know some 6 billion over the potential sequester level and specifically designed to preserve our modest gains and readiness over the last year and take care of our soldiers. Moreover this requires the compensation and structure to support near term readiness and place the army on a predictable path to balance. For modest changes to pay in allowances to our Aviation Restructuring Initiative and reforms are both necessary and prudent to sustain the readiness of our forces and move the army toward eventual balance. I cannot emphasize enough how critical the funds and reforms are to ensure that the army has sufficiently trained and ready soldiers to protect our nation. This is a historic moment. We need to stop talking and start acting. We need wisdom not words. And we need results, not rhetoric and as i said this to Committee Last year, we need predictability, not politics. As we face instability around the world we must have stability here at home. I know you are to agree to what i am about to say. Your soldiers deserve no less and their families deserve no less. We must have an end to sequestration this year and must have this budget. So thank you for the amazing support that i know personally each and every one of you provide to the men and women in uniform and their families and civil yaps and thank civilians and thank you to the work this committee has done time and time again on behalf of the 1. 2 million of army active guardian and civilians. Thank you. I look forward to the questions. My understanding is Opening Statements are just provided by the Service Secretaries, so secretary mavis. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Ranking member sanchez and members of the committee thank you so much for this opportunity to discuss the department of the navy. With the chief Naval Operations John Greenert and joe dunford, i have the privilege of representing the sailors and the marines and those that support them. And though greenert could not be here due to a death in his family but im joined by admiral michelle howard. Uniquely, the navy and marine corp provide presence around the globe, around the clock. The nations first line of defense. Presence means we respond faster, we remain on station longer, we carry everything we need with us and we do whatever missions are assigned by our nations leaders without needing anyone elses permission. Weve always known americas success depends on exceptional navy and marine corp. Article one of our constitution which you coated, mr. Chairman and enshrined in this Committee Room authorizes congress to raise an army when needed but directs it to provide and maintain a navy. From the first six frigates to our growing fleet of today to afghanistan, sailors and marines have proven the founders wisdom. American leaders across the political spectrum have understood the vital significance of cpower. We deploy in peace just as much in war and we have boosted our own and the worlds economy. That is why our National Defense strategy is focused on the maritime domain and that provides the best value for peace, prosperity and security. And i want to join secretary mchugh in thanking this committee because you, through your actions have shown that it shares the view of a Strong Defense and a strong navy and marine corp and thank you for your support for our sailors our marines an the things they need to get their job done. The presence that our navy and marine corp so uniquely deliver is built on four foundations. People platforms power, and partnerships. Our sailors and marines are wellknown for their ability to exercise independent judgment and the flexibility to face changing circumstances. We remain committed to providing our sailors our marines and our civilians with the training and support they need to maintain that naval presence. But our people as good as they are, cannot do their job without platforms, providing presence and being where we are needed, when we are needed, requires those platforms. On september 11th 2001, our fleet stood at 316 ships. By 2008 it had declined to 278 ships. Our focus on two ground wars only partly explains that decline. In the five years before i became secretary, our navy contracted for only 27 ships. Not enough to stop the slide in the size of the fleet. In my first five years we have contracted for 70 ships. And have reversed that decline. By the end of the decade our fleet will once again be above 300 ships. For the past few years the department of the navy has attempted to minimize the impact of an uncertain budgetary environment marked by numerous continuing resolutions. Imposition of sequester level funding and the threat of the return of sequestration. In this environment cutting ships is the most damaging and least reversible course of action. Im committed to preserving our ship building following the naves watchword dont give up the ship. Fuelling the platforms of our navy and marine corp is vital to our Global Presence and that is why navy has a long history of innovation by being more efficient in fuel usage, we are working to bring competition less an the lessen the volatility in fuel crisis and using fuel as a weapon. Our ability to maintain presence in advanced Global Security will be augmented through partnerships cooperation makes us more effective. Overall, the fy 16s president s budget balances the need to execute the assigned missions of today while rebuilding our highly capable fleet. But it is the minimum that we must have to do that. Todays tough fiscal climate demands our most rigorous examination of every dollar we spend and we have and will continue to do just that. But we are at the point where we can no longer do more or even the same with less. With less, we will be forced to do less. When america is called, the navy and marine corp have always answered. In order to ensure that we continue to provide the naval force our nations leaders and the American People expect we look forward to answering your questions and to working together with this committee and with congress to maintain our great navy and marine corp. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you. And now to a former Staff Members of this committee well take credit for all sorts of you folks, secretary james. Thank you very much, mr. Chairman, congresswoman sanchez, it is a pleasure to come before you today, to come home where my roots began. And an honor to sit here with my colleagues with my Sister Services and to be a with my wingman, general mark welsh. Im still a rookie among the services and ive been in my seat for 15 months and i would like to tell you my Key Takeaways from the top things ive learned in the top 15 months as being the secretary of the air force the privilege of my professional lifetime. The fir thing i learned which was a shock when i first got in the seat is todays United States air force is the Smallest Air Force that weve ever had since our in sepgs as a inception in the year 1947. We have been building down our air force for the better part of two decades an today we are the smallest in terms of people. Secondly, i have learned that our aircraft are the oldest that they have ever been with an average age of 27 years. But of course average is average and that means quite a few of the fleets are substantially older than that. Here is a shocking statistic i think. More than half of our combat air forces are not sufficiently ready today for a highend fight. Meaning a fight where the enemy has the capacity to shoot back at you to shoot you down to interfere with you, through integrated air defenses and the like. More than half of our forces are not sufficiently ready for such a fight. We all know budgets are extremely tight and i think we realize that demand for what we do in the United States air force is at an alltime high all around the world. And this is certainly the most dangerous and complex and constantly changing world scene than i can ever remember, certainly in the 34 years that i have been an observer on the scene in defense. Now, your air force is working very, very hard to meet the Combatant Commanders most urgent requirements and needs but i have to join with my colleagues and say that a budgetary trajectory that results in sequestration will not allow us to sustain this pace. Let me now do my plain speaking. I believe sequestration is going to place american lives at greater risk both at home and abroad if we are forced to live with it. In fact if sequestration remains the law of the land, we will not in the United States air force, simultaneously be able to defeat an adversary in one part of the world deny a second adversary the objectives they seek in a second part of the world and defend the homeland. That is our National Strategy and im telling you we wont be able to do it under sequestration. Mr. Chairman, you recently said at aei that the problem with sequestration is whether we have the capability to do what the nation needs and the times demand. It is also very much about the increased danger that comes to our people and i couldnt agree with you more. I think you are absolutely correct. And under sequestration the air force cannot guarantee well meet the nations demands and our people will definitely be in more danger and i think this is not acceptable. Something has got to give. And we thank you and we thank other members of this committee because we know you are pushing hard to try to get sequestration lifted permanently. Please, please keep it up. Now, as you know, rather than living with this level of a budget, we are asking for a budget figure in fy 16 which is substantially closer to what we need in the United States air force. For us the additional monies equate to about 10 billion more in fy16 than what sequestration funding would provide to the air force and this 10 billion more would provide both the forces that we need to do the most pressing Combatant Commander requirements and allow us to invest better and more appropriately in our Top Priorities which are, number one, taking care of people. And there is an awful lot in this budget for taking care of people but the number one priority from mr. Welsh, we have to stop this downsizing. We have to stop this downsizing and in my opinion weve gone too far and this provides an uptick for our National Duty and reserve and we want to go up slightly and if we are allowed to do so this will alleviate operational strain we are feeling in a number of areas to include our Nuclear Enterprise, the world of cyber and the world of maintenance particularly across the combat air forces. Turning to second priority, which is getting the right balance between our readiness of today and building a modern air force of tomorrow. Both general welsh and i consulted very closely as we built our budget, not only with the folks at this table, but also with our Combatant Commanders and as a result our budget is going to ramp up support to the most urgent needs that the commanders identified to us which basically equate to one thing isr. Isr, isr, isr. That is what they tell us they need more for air force. We have 60 isr patrols an extending the life of the u 2 and wax budgets. We need so support space and provide fund flying powers to the maximum level and ensure combat exercises like red and green flag programs remain strong. All of that is the readiness of today and we have to modernize for tomorrow. And so when it comes to modernization, again, we have decent funding to share with you. The Nuclear Enterprise is our Number One Mission and so we have redirected substantial resources toward that element. Moreover we have our top three programs, the tanker the f35 and the Long Range Strike bomber and making important investments into modernization of space our science and Technology Budget as well as other areas. And our third priority, mr. Chairman, the number three goal is to make every dollar count because we precisely understand we get it that the taxpayer dollar is precious and we cant afford to waste any of it. And so we are constantly looking for efficiency and ways to do things differently, to free up resources and give back to our people some of their precious time. So for example, we took an aggressive 20 reduction in our headquarters funding which includes civilians and contractors and redirecting military personnel. We didnt have to do it in one year, but we did because we thought it was the right thing to do. We would be able to free up those resources more quickly to plow back to important things we need to do. Not only that, over the last three years weve reduced our contract by 7 billion so weve reduced contractors substantially and well continue to scrub this as time goes by both on the contract and the civilian work force over the next seven years. Were striving to introduce servicewide acquisitions. We call it bend the cost curve. Building affordable into new systems right from the beginning and driving toward auto ability and maximizing savings and this comes in line with your maximizing thrive force and we are on line. And there is massive forces. We didnt want to paint rosie pictures. So we are proposing to retire the a10 fleet gradually over the time and to slow the growth in military compensation and we know those are not popular decisions, popular choices, but we would ask to you keep in mind that if you dont like these choices, hold on to your hats because under sequestration, it gets uglier and uglier and uglier. So for example under sequestration, our air force would not only have to retire the a10 as well as slow the growth in military compensation, but in addition we would be facing the following actions divest the u2 and the global hawk 40 and the kc 10 patrols and our reerp and ped tors up to 10 or bit and defer 14 f35s and drive up costs and cancel the adaptive Engine Program and then have to in some sort of not across the board equal percentage but in some fashion have to reduce our investments in space and cyber and nuclear and science and technology and readiness and people. In other words i think everything is threatened, mr. Chairman, under sequestration. And most of all, i fear that american lives would be at risk. So i ask you, again please continue your leadership to get sequestration lifted permanently, please keep on pushing. Thank you very much and we all look forward to your questions. Thank you. Im going to ask the staff to put me on the clock, because i really one question directed to each of the Service Chiefs. At our retreat general dempsey said, and he said we could quote him, that the budget request was the lower ragged edge of what it takes to defend the country. So if you were talking to my constituents or some of our colleagues who dont deal in this area every day and had one minute to describe what the consequences to the country would be for not approving the amount the president or the administration has asked for in the department of defense or for your service, how would you do that . Again, in one minute in plain language general . Chairman i would say unpreparedness, inability to react to the unknown contingencies, and stress on the force would be increased significantly. Admiral . Thank you, mr. Secretary. I am more of a rookie than second james. Strategic deterrence is our number one priority but the impact on the rest of the force our ships and submarines would be tremendous. Youre talking about impact on readiness and the train people and deploy and be where we need to be. All of that would shrink. Our ability to respond to the nations needs would be greatly diminished. It is it would be devastating. General . Chairman, i think i would use an anecdote. We are Forward Deployed and forward engaged and ready to respond to crisis at a moments notice and there are two models for that. There is the model over the past year where the marines have responded to evacuation in libya and yemen and in those cases we havent heard much, it was in the news for about a day and then moved on. There was a case in benghazi when marines werent ready to respond on a moments notice and we heard about that particular incident for years. That is the difference between funding the budget in support of marines and not being engaged. Those two models of response and i would outline those for your constituents. Thank you. General i would agree with what the commandant said and i believe the fundamental issue is that the American People cannot expect their military to do what weve been asked to do in the past if we stay at these funding levels. Thank you. As you all were talking i thinking about comments made by one of our Committee Members earlier today that basically it means that lives are at greater risk and more lives are lost because that is what the bottom line to what we ask you and those who serve under to you do. Miss sanchez. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I have two questions for general odierno and howard. I have a letter from the gem and admiral greenert sent to secretary hagel november of last year indicating your concerns about how much we are investing in Missile Defense and the growing challenges that you both see in terms of our capacity to continue to invest in Missile Defense at the current rate considering the fiscal environment that were in. The letter states our present acquisitionbased strategy is unsustainable in the current fiscal environment and favors forward basis of assets to meet contingency demands. Now is the opportunity to develop a longterm approach for homeland Missile Defense and regional Missile Defense priorities, a holistic approach that is sustainable and Cost Effective and incorporating launch and that is from your letter generalo deer know. Ive argued that missile approach is only one of the threats that face us and as indicated in your letter could you expand on that, please . Yes. So the basis of the letter that we cannot sustain the rate of deployments of the current Missile Defense capability that we have. We simply are overstressing the force. We dont have enough. Were not meeting all of the requirements. So in our mind we have to come up with a new concept that allows us to use a air Defense Committee that allows us to deal with the growing threat because the threat is growing. So what we want is a study that enables us to come up with new techniques and procedures and capabilities that enable us to provide proper defense for this nation using a variety of capabilities, to include current Missile Defense assets but other capabilities. Cyber, and other things that have to be integrated into this that enables us to deal with these problems. We are on a path that we cant sustain and the threat the Missile Defense threat is growing so we have to come up with a more Cost Effective means of dealing with this issue and that is the basis of this letter. So you would like a study. General can we wait to put that in the ndaa and go through the funding process for a year or prefer we get a study up on that as soon as possible. I think we need to do it as soon as possible, maam. Okay. My second question is in regards to where each service is in fully integrating women into the military. You know this is a big deal from my standpoint for a long time. There is about 15 of the military comprised of women, over 200,000 women have dedicated their lives to serve our country and have died while serving on the front lines. So it is womens hist ory month and the quality of women the equality of women extends to the military and by the end of the month all gender equality standards are to be set and all position should be open except an exception to the policy are requested. Are all services on track and if not, why. And from what i see most wont be open by the january 21st 2016 deadline so what are you doing to provide service and in compliance with the directive and why are women in open specialties Like Communications and logistics still barred from serving in marine corin factory infantry in any capacity even when a male public officer requires no training beyond what all officers receive at the basic school and women in these open specialties are not allowed in any capacity in infantry battalions . Cana dress where we are can you address where we are where were going and what we feed to do . Maam if i could. Were on track. We have to make our recommendations to the secretary. This year were continuing to finish up the testing through for all of our mos. Currently we have engineer and infantry and armor that are currently not yet open. We are running tests with women in these positions now. We sent a note to congress recommending the opening of combat engineers already so we finished that. We expect that to be done in the next month or so and we expect armory and infantry to provide a recommendation in september or october time frame. That is the time line we are on. We are comfortable with where we are in assessing and were doing a test right now in Ranger School where for the first time females will participate in Ranger School. If you all could just have in fairness to her, i did not alert miss sanchez i was going to put us under the clock too. But if the other services have a really brief answer and then im sure we can expand. The navy and the marine corp are absolutely on track to meet the deadlines. In the navy, we have opened every single occupation to women, including submarines and river marine and the only thing is the trigger pullers for the seals. All of the support like intel and communications for the seals are open. Ill let general dunford give you an update on where the plebe marines are. But the one thing i would ask this committee is we dont have enough women in our service and the reasons we are having problems is we do not have enough flexibility in how we manage our force and more women leave than men and we have some legislative proposals in to address that. Congresswoman, thank you. And as the secretary outlined to where we are. And i would go back to the public affairs. And due to the lifting of the public qualification officers there is no difference today. So today there is no restrictions. A commander can, do to the lifting of the policy assign women anywhere in the battlefield where he or she believes it is necessary. An that has and that has been in effect since the secretary signed his letter. And there are vast positions. We have seven closed afscs at present and we are on track to meet the deadlines and i have personally received an interim update about how it is all going and i feel pretty good about it. As you pointed out, miss sanchez, we do need to work closely with the special Operations Command our seven afscs relate to the world of special operations and were working through that right now. Mr. Chairman, thank you for your indulgence and i think it is an important issue and i hope our Personnel Committee will continue to be on top of this. I just think it is so important. Theyre on top of everything. Theyre good. They do a good job. Mr. Forbes. Thank you mr. Chairman. General dunford if i could go back to the line of the questioning aboumpact of the budgets. You stated about as articulately as ive heard it stated a few weeks ago. As i understood you to state, you said this that even if we were to get the full amount of the president s budget, that the best that could do for us would be to reset us to where the military was a decade ago. That it still would not enable us to begin to reconstitute to where we need to be to fight tomorrows wars. And that if we did not get the amount in the president s budget we couldnt even reset to where we were a decade ago fighting wars a decade ago. Is that an accurate statement . Congress, it is in many functional areas and very briefly why i say that is because we have learned that today we must operate in a greatly distributed manner. That is both the sea and at shore and that has implications for command and control systems and implications for fliers and our organizational construct and our equipping strategy as a whole. And currently, even at the president s budget, were not making the kind of changes to facilitate and optimize challenges in a manner necessary for the current fight and the future fight. If you look at the examples of our special Purpose Marine Air task forces the one in the Central Command is spread across three Different Countries and that is an organization spread across three Different Countries and when i was trained, that was about 3000 meter of frontage attacked on 600 meter frontage and i dont think were making the kind of changes to facilitate that as quickly as necessary so fundamentally we are building capabilities that are applicable to yesterday rather than today or tomorrow it the budget restraints. I can say for the record that i heard the cmo a few days after dunford made that statement, he quoted it and agreed with it. And generalo deer know, i think i said you would agree. And i would agree. And for the army, we dont even get reset for five more years. And it takes us to 2020 to reset to try to move for the future. So for the next four or five years we have significant issues in terms of readiness. And general welsh i havent had an opportunity to ask you that, but how do you feel about the statement that general dunford made . The problem we have is if we dont invest in readiness today, we lose the fight today. If we dont invest in today, it will take eight to ten years for the readiness. We havent been invested in the Training Space launch black and white world Test Infrastructure and those kind of things the entire Nuclear Infrastructure you are familiar with, those things must be persistent persistent consistent investment for us and or we will fail down the road and that is what we are lacking down the root right now. And secretary james you gave a statement of where the air force is in your comments. As you know, the budget the president sent over, even if we pass that budget would not become law unless we do away with sequestration. Are you aware of any proposal the president has sent over here that would do away with sequestration for National Defense and if not, if we were to pass such a piece of legislation that would do away with sequestration for National Defense . Do you have any indication that the white house would sign that legislation . Mr. Chairman, it had at least been my impression, but i want to go back and double check what im about to say here is the over all plan the president set forth would involve the lifting of sequestration, not only for defense but for the whole of government. So my belief was that the president s plan did include the lifting of sequestration for all of us but please allow me to check that. I would ask all three of our secretaries if you could give us any indication the president would be willing to sign a piece of legislation that would do away with sequestration at least related to National Defense because as i take your statement that we cant defend against an adversary in one part of the world and hold another one at bay and defend the homeland unless we do that, i hope the president wouldnt hold that hostage he might want for the epa or irs or for something else. And with epa, irs or something else. So with that mr. Chairman, i yield back. Appreciate. Ms. Davis. Thank you mr. Chairman, thank you all very much for being here, of course for your service. Secretary mabus, you mentioned just briefly and you dont have to respond right now, that there are some authorities that you need in order to do a better job hiring women into the navy particularly. And if you could i look forward to seeing that. So that we can work on that in the upcoming ndaa. I wanted to ask you, secretary mabus, and certainly to general dunford. We know that sequestration will decrease readiness and place our personnel at risk. I wonder if you could speak more directly though to the fact that marines 60 are first enlistments. And as we move forward with the environment we have, the up tempo environment, the changes to future benefits, perhaps, what are we doing to ensure the quality and the high standards of the marine corps . Do you see that that could be effected by the way that we move forward today . Congresswoman, thank you. Today 60 as you pointed out of our force is first timers. In terms of quality we are absolutely recruiting and retaining high quality marines. Im confident of that. However something weve spoken about i also believe the demographics need to change to account for the increasingly complex security environment. Today maybe a 60 first term force but i dont believe it should be that case in the future. Were in the process of increasing the number of sergeant, staff sergeant, gunnery sergeants. Those are the middle grade enlisteds and reducing the lance corporals and the privates, the bottom three. And that is in line with the Technological Developments and Cyber Capabilities as well as infantry squad leaders who today have responsibilities frankly that are probably more in line with a lieutenant 15 or 20 years ago now is on the shoulder of a sergeant i think requires some changes in the demographic and construct of the marine corps. So skill sets are important in terms of how you do that. Part of my question. And its been raised in the last few questions is, you know, maybe it is not your area of responsibility to look at nondefense impacts of sequestration. But when we talk about the young people that were recruiting today, certainly our domestic budget has an impact on that as well. And i know that in the past admiral mullin specifically comes to mind. But others have really spoken to the needs of, whether its in education, whether its in fitness, whether its in health. All of those areas. So do you feel comfortable saying that in fact it does matter what we do in terms of sequestration and the non Defense Budget as well . Does that impact on our military . Does it impact on the young people who are going to be recruited . Congresswoman, ill give you a very specific example how it has a tremendous impact on us. 75 of Young Americans 1825 years old do not qualify to join the american military. It is either for the lack of educational requirements that we have. They have a health problem. Usually obesity. Or they have a criminal record. So if you want to help us continue to recruit the very best, that we believe we are recruiting today. But we are drawing from a very small pool of americans. You have to Pay Attention to education. You have to Pay Attention to health. You have to Pay Attention to the domestic side. Thank you. Anybody else want to comment briefly . Id be happy to, ms. Davis. Obviously the army, all the services are laboring under the same 1 and 4 constraint that secretary mabus mentioned. I can tell you, both in talking to new recruits but also those who served some time in the United States army, that they are very mindful on the discussion on sequestration. They are also very aware of the cuts that we in the army have already had to take. The loss of training opportunities that they have had to endure in other programs. And while they want to stick with us, it becomes more and more challenging for them to do that. They want to secure a future for their families. And they are very worried about how this may turn out. As for recruiting, similarly, recruits and their influencers, particularly parents, are mindful of these discussions. And coupled with the fact of a totally uncertain fiscal future as well as the danger. So it is a difficult challenge right at the moment. Thank you. Thank you mr. Chairman. Thank you. Chairman millar. Thank you mr. Chairman. I want to go a little bit further out than the budget that were discussing today but talk a little bit about the audit. One of the things that absolutely shocked me when we started talking about auditing dod a few years ago, we were told it would take years to get the agency into a posture that we in fact could audit them. So weve got a couple of deadlines that are approaching. I think 2017 is the first to get ready. And then 2019 when the results have to be given to congress. Bit want to talk a little bit about risk allocation or hear from you that may come from the dod audit. Two quick questions. One is i understand that the leadership is supporting the audit. But im a little concerned about the ses level and commitment to making this happen. So i want to know your feeling on the commitment from the senior level. And then any tweaks that you may have done since the november report that congress received on the financial improvement and audit readiness plan. I could start, mr. Miller. As to the larger question of the armys posture in achieving the milestones that you described, i feel we are on track. Weve gone through pardon me. Weve gone through a series of both mock audits and outside examinations that have proven very, very positive on qualified findings of a number of areas but identified a number of area and equally if not more important, shown us weaknesses where we need to do better. On the sess, i think we have buy in. What were challenged with is helping people operating under the new paradigm and getting away from business as usual. So what we have done in response where we witness it through the mock audits and other examinations is to go back in and reemphasize training. And to the extent weve been able to measure that to this point, we think we are on the right path. But this is an incredibly complex endeavor, as you noted, particularly for the United States army. But weve made great progress and we feel we are moving forward as you would want us to. If i could add one comment to that. The vice chief of staff to the army and undersecretary to the Army Quarterly are doing specifically on this issue so they all understand the importance they play in moving forward with this and it is helping us to move this along. As a former state auditor, i dont take anything more seriously. As, you know, the marine corps got a clean audit on their statement of budgetary accounts for fy 12. Theyre almost finished with the fy 13 audit. Navy has its first budget adudit under contract now and moving forward. And in popular ses, understand the importance of it and moving forward. The concern that i have, very frankly, is that there is at least one area that we dont control that could have an impact on whether we get the audit. The defense finance and Accounting Service that writes our checks that we pay the navy and marine corps 300 million to last year to write those checks j nine out of their 10 internal controls have been found to be inadequate. The numbers we received from them that we are dependent on cannot be validated. And so the navy and marine corps are absolutely on track to do it again. Im concerned about that outside our control. And congressman miller, i first want to agree with my colleague ray mabus on that last point. But on behalf of the air force were fully committed to the audit. I mention that in my opening statement. I come out of Business World so i personally am devoting time to this as well. I do monthly meetings to keep my finger on the pulse of how were doing. Were under way of the schedule with budgetary activity which is the precursor to doing the audit. And we have a new Accounting Department which we call deems in the air force. A year or two ago was quite messy but doing much better now and it is goings to help us get there from here. On balance im cautiously optimistic but with several of these caveats that you heard that were on track to meet the goals laid out in the law now september 2017 specifically to reach the full Financial Statement audit. Thank you the gentlemen. Thank you. I want to thank all of our witnesses for being here today, your testimony and of course your Enduring Service to our nation. Secretary mabus, if i could start with you. First i want to thank you. Recently you were in rhode island for the keeling ceremony for the u. S. S. Colorado. Along with your daughter, ship sponsor and your family. You wa