PAGENO="0001" DEPOSITORY THE ROLE OF WOMEN IN THE MILITARY 9~ HEARINGS BEFORE TEE SUBCOMMITTEE ON PRIORITIES~, AND ECONOMY IN GOVERNMENT O~THE JOINT ECONOMIC COMMITTEE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES NINETY-FIFTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION `JUL~ 22 AND SEPTEMBER 1, 1977 Printed for the use of the Jolnl Economic Committee RUTG ERS LAW SCHOOL LIBRARY CAMDEN, N. J. O8102 GOVER~T DOCUMENT tLS. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 23-866 WASHINGTON; 1978 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Gove*nment Printing Office Washington, D.C. 20402 (~-"(5ce7 J PAGENO="0002" JOINT ECONOMIC. COMMITTEE (Created pursuant to sec. 5(a) of Public Law 304, 79th Cong.) RICHARD BOLLING, Missouri, Cha4rman HUBERT H. HUMPHREY, Minnesota, Vice Chairman SENATE JOHN SPARKMAN, Alabama WILLIAM PROXMIRE, Wisconsin ABRAHAM RIBICOFF, Connecticut LLOYD BENTSEN, Te~as EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts JACOB K. JAVITS, New York WILLIAM V. ROTH, Ja., Delaware JAMES A. McCLURE, Idaho ORRIN 0. HATCH, Utah JOHN R. STARK, Ewecutive Director Louis C. KRAUTHOFF II, Assistant Director. RiCHARD F. KAUFMAN, General Counsel ECONOMISTS KENT H. HUGHES SARAH JACKSON JoHN LXARLIK L. DOUGLAS LEB SUBCOMMITTEE ON Pnioarrins AND ECONOMY IN GOVEENMENT WILLIAM PROXMIRE, Wisconsin, Chairman SENATE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES LLOYD BENTSEN, Texas OTIS G. PIKE; New York EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts GARRY BROWN, Michigan ORRIN 0. HATCH, Utah JOHN H. ROUSSELOT, California HOUSE OF REPI~ESENTATIVES HENRY S. REUSS, Wisconsin WILLIAM S~ MOORIIEAD, Pennsylvania LEE H. HAR~LTON, inaiana GILLIS W. LONG, Louisiana OTIS G. PIKE, New York CLARENCE J. BROWN, Ohio GARRY BROWN, Michigan MARGARET M. HECKLER, Massachusetts JOHN H. ROUSSELOT, California 0. THOMAS CATOR WILLIAM A. Cox THOMAS F. DERNBUEG ROBERT D. HAMEIN MINORITT CHARLES H. BRADFORD STEPHEN J. ENTIN M. CATHERINE MILLER PHILIP McMARTaN DEBORAH RORELLI GEORGE B. THLER GEORGE D. KRUMBIIAAR, Jr. MARK B. POLICINSKI (II) PAGENO="0003" CONTENTS WITNESSES AND STATEMENTS FRIDAY, JuLY 22, 1977 Proxmire, Hon. William, chairman of the Subcommittee on Priorities and Page Economy in Government: Opening statement - 1 Nelson, Hon. Robert L., Assistant Secretary of the Army for Manpower and Reserve Affairs, accompnnied by Maj. Gen. J. P. Kingston, Assistant Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel, U.S. Army 3 Hidalgo, Hon. Edward, Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Manpower, Reserve Affairs and Logistics, accompanied by Vice Adm. James D. Watkins, Chief of Naval Personnel 6 Chayes, lion. Antonia Handler, Assistant Secretary of the Air Force fer Manpower, Reserve Affairs, and Installai~ions, accompanied by Lt. Gen. Bennie L. Davis, f~eputy Chief of Staff for Personnel, U.S. Air Force_. 9 TIIUR5DAY, S1r~?TRMBER 1, 1977 Proxmire, Hon. William, chairman of the Subcommittee on Priorities and Economy in Government: Opening statement- 69 Goodman, Jill Laurie, staff counsel, Women's T~ights Project, American Civil Liberties Union 72 Hallaren, Col. Mary A., U.S. Arm~y, Retired, and former Director of the Women's Army Corps 89 Hoim, Maj. Gen. Jeanne M., U.S. Air Force, Retired._ 90 Parr, Carol C., chair of the National Coalition for Women in T~efense, accompanied by Pat Leeper, military expert, i~atio~al Organization for Women 97 SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD FRIDAY, JrI~1? 22, 1977 Chayes, Hon. Antomia Handler, et ab: Response. of General Davis to Senator Proxmire's query regarding women having higher scores on standardized tests than men in the armed services - 25 Response of General Davis to Senator Proxmire's query regarding what specialty fields. are open to enlisted Air Force women and the number being~ trained -. 41 Response of General Davis to Senator Pro~mire's request for a break- down of women Air Force officers serving as line officers, doctors, lawyers, nurses, or other professions 46 Response of General Davis to Senator Proxmire'~ request for the percentage of the line officers women represent th~ the Air Foree.. - - 47 Respo~ise of General Daviw to Senator Proxinire's request for the percentage of women Air Force officers who are zr~ajors or above_ - - 47 Response of General Davis to Senator Proxmire7s request for the percentage of Air Force women who are master sergeants or above... 47 Response of General Davis to Senator Proxmire'~ request for a oom~- parison of the number and percent increaees ~moi~g Air Force enlisted women trained in traditional and nontraditional career fields for year 1977 versus year 1972 48 Response of General Davis to Sen~tor Proxmbe'~ tpiery regarding the number of positions in oversea areas not open to women in the Air Foree because of limited housing facilities 48 Response to additionti written questions posed by S~nator Proxmire.. 62 (III) PAGENO="0004" Iv Hidalgo, Hon. Edward, et al.: Response of Admiral Watkins to additional written questions posed by Page Senator Proxmire 57 Nelson, Hon. Robert L., et al.: Paper entitled "Utilization of Women in the Army, as of July 18, 1977" 5 Response of General Kingston to Senator Proxmire's query regarding what has happened, careerwise, to Army women officers who have completed the Combat Arms Advanced Courses 44 Response of General Kingston to Senator Proxmire's query regarding how many ROTC scholarships are awarded to women in the Army as compared to men 46 Response of General Kingston to additional written questions posed by Senator Proxmire 51 THURSDAY, SEPTRMBISR 1, 1977 ~loodrnan, Jffl,Laurie: Prepared statement with appendixes A and B 75 Hoim, lVEaj. Gen. Jeanne M.: Prepared statement 94 Parr, Carol C.., et aJ.: Prepared statement 102 Response to Senator Proxmire's query regarding lost time from duty by women in the military due to pregnancy~. 114 Response to Senator Proxmire's query regarding rules and regulations preventing women in the military from serving in roles for which they were trained 117 POINTS OF INTEREST FRIDAY, JuLY 22, 1977 Eisenhower quoted 12 wavy employment goal ` - 12 Percentage of women in the Navy 13 Danger of sea duty versus land duty examined 13 Number of women in the military 14 P~use in growth of women in the military 14 Growth of women in Army statistic through 1982 15 Assessment of women employability due 16 Congressional budget office study shows difficulty recruiting males 17 Services to fall 40 percent shy of recruitment goals through 1985 17 DOD study suggests changes in law barring women from ships 17 Proposed change in law would allow women duty on only 15. percent of ships 18 Definition of "combat" precludes women being assigned duty in some safe areas 19 Assistant Secretary Chayes agrees definition, of "combat" needs to be. resolved_ 20 Women characteristics examined for duty acceptability_ `21 Air Force goals could be more ambitiOus 21 The average female recruit tests better than male - 22 Admiral Watkins says present poor female retention, is a byproduct of .past prejudices 22 Proxmire suggests prejudices stifi exist -~ 23 Women' reenlistment rate lower due to limitations on upward mobility__ . 26 Army "policy .not law" restricts women's mobility -- 27 Army feels doors are open to women 28 Senator Proxmire disagrees with Army assessment of open door poliey_ - - 28 Army cites need to study stress 29 Senator Proxmire suggests gathering present material - - - - 30 Percentage of combat and support roles discussed 31 Army tests uses of women in the military 32 Air Force examining special "flight control pressures" for women_~ .~.. 34 Senator Goldwater cites women flight performance 35 Male "lost work time" twice women's lost time_ - 36 Army tests show only difference in sexes is physical strength . ~ 37 PAGENO="0005" V Brookings study concluc~es predominant male composition of Air Force is Page possibly the result of preference 38 General Davis raises question of resource availability 38 50 percent of Air Force jobs are mechanical and electronic 38 GAO study finds recruiters fail to inform women about all career options 40 Senator Proxmire suggests major efforts are needed to overcome bIases.. - - 40 Army figures show more women in nontraditional occupations 41 Enlistment standards higher for women 45 No surveys of public attitudes by services underway 48 Survey research oriented toward men 49 Women overwhelmingly desire flight duty 50 THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 1, 1977 Senator Proxmire questions physical perceptions of women 75 Participation of women cited as improving effectiveness of military - - 90 Decreasing costs to military 107 General Holm says women should be given jobs if capable 108 Procrastination by military seen by General Holm 109 The test of acceptability should be the individual not the gender 109 Senator Proxmire asks how to~ determine the thoroughness of the DOD report on recommendations to improve role of women in the military -- 110 Military issue examined 111 General Hoim makes reference to Eisenhower's views 112 Lawsuit challenges constitutionality of discrimination against women in the Navy 113 PregnancyissueexaminecL.~. - 114 Sex education programs effective 116 Parr suggests men ulso have single parent responsibilities 117 Limitation to training provided to women 118 Senator Proxmire examines the traditional perceptions of the military.. . - 120 Air Force promotions based on "rating" 121 Concern for women's safety not valid 122 Mood of the Nation toward women in combat -. 122 Few women promoted to top ranks 123 Lack of promotions laid to mistakes in the 1950's 124 Lack of housing restricts using women in military 126 Rate women enter military declining 125 Quotas and restrictions bar women from entering military 126 Racial experience showed integration encouraged acceptance 128 Effect of the equal rights amendment on the military 129 APPENDIX Letter from Ruth C. Clusen, president, League of Women Voters of the United States, dated September 16, 1977, endorsing the goals outlined in Ms. Parr's testimony at the September 1, 1977, hearing 131 Letter from Mira Nan Marshall, dated August 1, 1977, describing her recent experience with the Army recruitment process 131 Articles from the LAD YCOMmunications magazine, June 1977 edition: "Women Aboard Ships: A Positive Step," by Pat Looper 132 "Women Aboard Ships: A Serious Mistake," by Linda Pinegar 134 Text of civil action Suit No. 76-2086, in the U.S. District Court, District of Columbia, requesting that defendants, the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of the Navy, respond, under oath, to certain interrogatories in accordance with rule 33 of the Federal Rules of CivIl Procedure 137 PAGENO="0006" PAGENO="0007" THE ROLE OF WOMEN IN THE MILITARY FRIDAY, J~ULY 22, 1977 CONGRESS OF TIlE UNITED STATES, SIJBC0MMrrrEE ON PRIORITIES AND EcONo~tr IN GOVERNMENT OF ¶rmr~ JOINT ECONOMIC CoMMI'rTEE, Washingto~i, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at . :12 p.m., in room 5302, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. William Proxmire (chair- man of the subcommittee) presiding. Present: Senator Proxmire. Also present: Richard F. Kaufman, general counsel; Mark Bor- chelt, administrative assistant, and George D Krumbhaar, Jr, M Catherine Miller; and Mark R. Poiicinski, minority professional staff members. OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PROXMIRE, CHAIRMAN Senator PROXMIRE. The subcommittee will come to order. The Joint Economic Committee has done considerable work in the ~.rea of women in the labor market, including government service. As a mat- ter of fact, we have a study that has been in process for a~ very con- siderable period of time on women in the econemy. Today's hearing is on the role of women in the military and is açonti~iuation of those efforts. It is most appropriate that we study women in the military be- cause the military is the biggest single employer in our society. Far bigger than any company; far bigger than any agency of the Federal Government; and, if all opportunities are not ~vai1able on an equal basis, it obviously represents a very severe discrimination against women. After today we plan additional hearings to obtain information from spokesmen for women's groups and others. Today's proceeding is intended to elicit from the three military services their assessment of the changes that have taken place in recent years and present policies and prospects for the future. The subcommittee is interested in the results of the actions taken regarding the employment, and utilization of women and the results in terms of economics, econOmic savings, costs and productivity gains or losses. From the evidence I've seen, large savings and efficiencies can be achieved by greater utilization of women in the miIit~ry. Of course, there is a national security factor involved. There is too little known about the possible effects on military effOctiveness as the num- ber of women increase and as they occupy more than nontraditional (1) PAGENO="0008" 2 jobs and for this reason, changes in policy need to be well thought out. There has been considerable progress in expanding job opportuni- ties for women in the military and increasing the categories of jobs they are eligible to fill. Recognizing the steps that have been taken and without detracting from the importance of what has been accom- plished, a number of questions need to be raised. First, have we en- tered a pause, have we made progress in the past, but, this year, begun to slow up? After the strides taken from 1972 through 1976, have the services now decided to go slower, even to turn back the clock? Second, do we have a problem of inconsistent laws and policies as between the services? Third, are the quotas established for female participation arbitrary and unreasonable? For example, is it possible to greatly increase the number of women in the military without changing current policies regarding combat? One of the. objections raised by the services regarding expanding the role of the women is that it is against the will of the American people as expressed through the Congress. Now, I would like to put that to rest. As a Member of the Senate, I wanted to find out just what the will of the American people was on this issue. In June, .1 sent a questionnaire to my constituents in Wisconsin. Wisconsin is about as typical a State as I think you can find. It is a great cross-section of urban and industrial big cities and small cities and it represents 2 percent of the area, 2 percent of the population, 2 percent of the national income; so I think it is a good cross-sectional State. I sent a~ questionnaire to these constituents including the question of role of women in the military, and I asked two question in this letter. The first question was whether all noncombat jobs should be available to women in the military; 67 percent of all the answers said "Yes." Only 31 percent said no, while the remaining 2 percent didn't answer. What is more interesting, however, is the second question. I asked whether women should be allowed to volunteer for combat duty. The response to this was 67 percent, again, who said yes, and only 3 per- cent said no, far. better than a 2-to-i response. The people in my State have indicated they favor this. I believe the American public has made up its mind on the issue and we in the Government must now catch up with the public. We have been catching up but the question is are we moving fast enough? I might add that the results of the questionnaire are based on 10,000 responses, a very large number, much larger than the Gallup or ilarris polls which typically are based on about 1,700 responses. Finally, the issues of justice, equality and fairness have to be brought~ into any discussion of women in the military. Feminists' movements time and again have reminded the Nation and the Gov- ernment of discriminatory policies that were later corrected. The antiwomen discrimination practiced by the military in the past and to some extent in tht~ present, is not different very much than the un- reason~d discrimination practiced against various races, religions and ethnic groups. One finds many of the same kinds of myths, the same arrogance on the part of some males, and a quota system that ex- PAGENO="0009" 3 cludes qualified persons. Again, I don't want to belittle the progress made, but old prejudices, like old soldiers, sometimes never seem to die and they don't fade away. Our witnesses are six distinguished public servants representing the civilian and military side of each of the three military services. The assistant seerstaries each have brief written statements that they will present and we will get into the questions. ~ might conclude by saying that almost nobody in this society, particularly in the U.S. Senate, can speak by pointing to their own institution. Of the 100 Sena~ tors, there is not a woman who is a Senator. `This ihstitution is com- pletely male. We are ignoring half of our intel1igen~e, half of our population, half of our resources. The House ha~ ,a little better situation but not much, with just a very few women in the House. Only 2 of our 50 Gover- nors are women. So,' throughout our society, we have certainly failed to provide the opportunity tha~ we should provide that would serve our country so well. I am going to ask in orçler each of the `services to deliver their state- ment. The statements are all concise. Then, we will get into questions. Our first witness will be the Honorable `Robert L. Nelson, Assistant Secretary of the Army for Manpower and Reserve Affairs. STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT L NELSON, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE ARMY FOR MANPOWER AND RESERVE AP~IBS, ACCOM- PANIED flY. MAL GEN. S. P. ICINGSTON, ASSISTANT DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF FOR PERSONNEL, U.S. ARMY Mr. NEi~soN. Thank you, iMr. Chairman, it is `a pleasure for me to be here today to testify on the utilization of women,inthe Army. While I have been in my present position but a short time, I have had the opportunity to visit `Army units and observe soldiers-both men and w'omen-in garrison and in the field. I have been impressed. The Vol- unteer Army, insofar `as the active component is concerned, is, in my view, a great success, The soldiers `are motivated, disciplined, and well- led-the units are performing adm~rably. It is an Army of which we can all be proud. Much of that success is a d~irect resultof the interest and support displayed by the Congress `to~*ard, the vOlunteer concept such as are evident by this hearing today.. I look forward to working with you as we, together, work to improve further the Volunteer Army. Our leadership recognizes that women provide a significant man- power resource `that can perform a vital role in today's Army. The Army has been at the forefront in the utilization of women. The Ai'my policy is a positive one; providing full and eft~ecthive employment of women consistent ~yith our primary role of ground combat. Simply stated, the A~'rny `has a mission to perform; a mission which requires almost 800.000 people in the Active Force. If the Army's wartime mis- sion can be accomplished with increased numbers o'f women, the Army will take the necessary steps to enlist or commission them. Currently, 92 percent of all military, occupational specialties- MOS-are open to enlisted women and all but the combat armsr---in- fantry, armor, field `artillery, and air defense~artillery-are open to women `officers. Why `are they not all open `and why doe~ this, in fact, PAGENO="0010" 4 represent a relatively small portion of the force? By Army policy- based on the intent of Congress as reflected in the legislative history that established the Women's Army Corps and, the realities oc~ the battlefield-women are excluded from serving in a direct combat role- that is, they are excluded from those areas `and restricted from those positions the probability of becoming a combat casualty is the greatest. in 1972, the Army planned to level off its female strength at 12,500. This goal was sOon doubled to 25,000, which goal was soon again doubled to about 50,000 enlisted and 9,000 officers. This represented about a 300 percent increase from fiscal year 1972 female strength levels, but does not represent our final position on the issue. Although the principal reason for such increases was to `fulfill personnel require- ments of the Volunteer Army, another reason was to provide a data base so that the fu'ture direction for the utilization of women in the Army. could be `determined on `hard facts. As you know, we have more than 200 years of experience with millions of men, but little experience with large numbers of women. With national security at stake, the Army had to know how many women would enlist in what `skills, their effect on the force, what policies have to be changed, what reenlist- ment rates and loss rates we could expect and a myriad of other pieces of information. Moving too slowly was unfair to the women who desire to serve; moving too fast could result in decreased readiness. Where does the Army find itself today? We are learning how and where to use women; to lead them and to put them in positions to lead men. We hav~ women in ROTC, West Point, and have just integrated them in Officer Candidate School, Women are now trained alongside their male counterparts and work on a day-to-day basis with men throughout the Army. Women officers command males and male officers command women. There' are women military police. Women perform' as truckdrivers, mechanics, personnel administrators, finance clerks, military `attorneys, doctors, signal technicians, and in many other necessary functions. We know that women can serve effectively in a variety of skills. However, we have learned that about 10 percent of our women get pregnant and we do not deploy pregnant women; that there are certain positions- such as ambulance drivers whO must lift stretchers with wounded on them-~that many women do not have the physical strength to perform. Field commanders who praise their women soldier's ability to `accom- plish the individual facets of their skills-MOS-in garrison and on short-field problems, are also expressing doubts that under sustained combat conditions women have the physical strength and stamina nec- essary. We know `that loss rates among women of similar educational background and mental category are higher than for men and that women tend to move from the nontraditional to the traditional female skills. This phenomenon may be improved through changes in our manngement procedures, `and we are looking `at that now. All of these factors relate directly to increased costs and decreased readiness and are, therefore,.matters of concern. Since the picture is still not clear, we have a massive data collection and analysis effort underway to determine the appropriate number of women for the Army. In this effort, we* must consider and balance readiness, cost, and equal opportunity. This effort includes redefining "combat"; reexamining our combat exclusion policy; examining the PAGENO="0011" 5 . ~ perf~rrnancc of ~o~nen for prolonged pèrio4s imd~r shnui~t~d cornbat conditions ; c~11ecting and analyzing data ô~i 1r~ and nonproductive time-for both men and women-pregnancy, dependency, attrition, re- classification from "nontraditional" skills to ~~traditionaI~~ skil1~ ; cle- vek~ing `total c~ts tomparisons betw~n rn~n and w~xen ; and asscss~ ing the total impact on the Army of increased female strength levelS. In the cost assessment mentioned, we must consider the problem of oversea tour equity, promotion equity and professional development equity as between males and females. It is important that the Army know what the impact of 59,000 women will be before we program further increases in female strength level~. We know that we will al- ways need substantially more men than women to insure mission ac- complishment. I might stop there to say that, that is, if the mission remains the same. We must not institute polièies which will drive men away from the recruiter ana reenlistment counselor. We plan to be well on our way to answering many of the now unanswered ques- tions by early 1978, and, based on the results of Our study efforts, will modify our program aecordingly. In respOnse to the specific questions you asked be covered in the testimony, I have attached an information paper which should be both enlightening and useful to the subcommittee. While it does not answer all of your questions, as I mentioned previously, the answers are not yet available. The Army has, I believe, moved in a vei~ positive way and has been reward~d through the effective performance of thousands of outstanding young women. What the near future holds will be de- termined in the next 9 or 10 months. Again, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to be with you today and discuss this important issue. Thank you. Senator Pno~iwn~. Thi~nk you very much, Mr. Nelson. The paper you referred to will be printed in the hearing record at this point. [The paper follows :1 UTILIZATION or WOMEN IN nun ARMY, AS OT JTJL~t 18, 19~1 1. ~ottet 1971: MarrIed women allowed to enlist or be appointed; waivers of pregnancy! parenthood discharges authorized on a ease~by-~ase. 1972: Female ROTC program began; USAR female baste trainftg battalion formed; women eligible for overseas service immediately after completing train- ing; EW limited to peacetime assignment In about 25% of skills; WAC officers given equity In selection før command In oilier than cothbat nftit~ 1973 ir5In~ polieiee liberaliaed th'adual disestablishment of WAC units initiated, with woman being assigmsi to j~rInt-in~e using facffit1~s. 1974: Wea~ans familinrizatlon training with Mid ride ineludod In WAC basic training; Female line orneers permanently detailed to Army branches (except Infantry, Armor, l~1eld Artillery, and Air befente Artillery); duty assignment limitations fOr women liberalized 1915: Dtscontintied I olnntaty dimbarge for ~reg ney/~arentbood; manda- tory defensfve wenpoiis u~uaiiflCatioti training far women implemented; women ROTC cadets permItted to partielpate in summer training; women permitted to attend service academies further equalized treatment of males and females In correctional facilities pregnant sernicewomen inilgible for overseas assignment warrant o~eer ~togram fOr women expanded to about 80% of speelaities; women ROTC ead~tSDermitted to parttri~ats in ROTC fttght pr~gram. 1976: OrersOas tour length far men and women equatlzed; all females partici- pate In Individual weapons training, same as male cohnterparts; minimum en- PAGENO="0012" 6 listment age equalized for men and women at 17; Officer Candidate School beg~in Integrated program; Army established standing committee to identify and rectify Issues concerning women, in the Army ; 356 of 389 MOS (92 percent) opened to ~nIisted women. 1977: Concept approved to adopt a common basic initial entry training program for enlisted men and women; WAC officer OrientatiOn Course to be discontinued. 2. SPECIALTIES/M0S OPEN TO WOMEN Percent of population in Specialty/MOS specialty/MOS 1 Officer 52 of 56 (93 percent) 6. 4 Warrant officer 67 of 85 (79 percent) . 3 Enlisted 356 of 389 (92 percent) 9. 0 I Source: DCSPER-46, April 1977. 3. PROMOTION RATES (PERCENT) Primary zone Secondary zone Male Female Male Female Officer (fiscal year 1976): Colonel 23. 8 55. 6 2. 6 0 Lieutenant colonel - 47~2 50. 0 6. 1 18. 2 Major 47.3 68.4 30 8.0 Captain 90. 1 86. 0 (1) (1) Warrant officer (fiscal year 1976): CW-4 51.2 100.0 1.8 0 CW-3 68.2 100.0 4.7 0 Enlisted (fiscal year 1977): E-9 - 40.3 63.6 2.9 0 E-8 28.4 26.8 5.0 9.0 E-7 - 46.3 65. 6 4. 5 5. 3 E-6 (2) (2) (a) (2) No secondary zone. Cutoff scores are published by DA and promotions are then handled by field commanders. No rates available. Senator Pjtoxi~rnuo. Ou~r next witness is the Honorable. Edward Hidalgo, Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Manpower, Reserve Affairs and Logistics. STATEMENT OP HON. EDWA1~D HIDALGO, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE NAVY FOR MANPOWER, RESERVE AFFAIRS AND LOGIS- TICS, ACCOMPANIED BY VIOL ADM. NAMES D. WATKINS, CHIEF OF NAVAL PERSONNEL Mr. HIDALGO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is ~a pleasure for me to appear before the subcommittee today representing the Secretary of the Navy to discuss the employment and utilization of women in the De$rtment of the Navy. I am sup- ported by: Vice Adm. James D. Watkins, Chief of Naval Personnel, who will assist me in answering any questions that.you may have. Since you specifically requested only myself and Admiral Watkins as witnesses, I have limited my oral statement to the issueS as they apply to the N~v~ half of the Department. I ~ntend to review the various actions the Navy has taken since 1970 and will hig~ligh~t the initiat~ives taken since January to move forward in the aria of em- ployment and utilization of women. I wolild point outfor the record that, a~: you are no doubt already aware? the Marine Corps~, half of PAGENO="0013" 7 the Department of the Navy has made similar progress in its utiliza.~ tion of women. I will be happy to attempt to a~s~er.your questions concerning the Marine Corps today or for the record as you may prefer. ` In opening my remarks, Mr. Ohairman, I am mindful of your interest in this vital subject and of the fact that' it was your floor amendment to the fiscal year 1978 military procurement authorization bill concerning utilizatiOn of women in `the military that produced the ultimately adopted substitute language offered by Senator Nunn which now guides the study within the Department of Defense. I am also aware, of course, of the bill recently iiItI~odiiced by you, Mr. Chairman, designed to eliminate job discrimination against female members of the armed services. I believe, however, that any testimony concerning these two pending matters would be premature and there- fore have not addressed them in my statement. As I think you are aware, shortly after assuming office as Secre- tary of the Navy, Mr. Claytor moved forward with a proposal cur- rently before the House Armed' Services Committee, H. R. 7431, which seeks to amend title 10 of the United States Code, section 6015, in order to increase the role of women in the Navy and Marine Corps. We continue very `actively to sponsor that bill. In preparation for this proposal, the Navy has given detailed consideration to the complex issues surrounding the employment and utilization of women. Department of Defense policy calls for an integrated approach to total force manpower planning, programing and utilization. We are actively engaged in the process of integrating all our manpower assets, male and female, active military and reserve, civilian and con- tractual personnel. Within the active military portion of the total manpower requirements of the Navy, women have been assuming an ever-increasing role since the early 1970's. This expanding role has been driven not only by a desire to assure equity and equal oppor- tunity but also by the need to avail ourselves of a valuable source of talent `and productive capability. It is the policy of the Navy to expand reliance on the female manpower resource wherever practical and permissible by law. Early in the 1970's; a tasl~ force was convened by the Chief of Naval Operations with the aim of identifying legal, policy and regu- latory instructions requiring change in order t&provide equal opnor- tunity to Navy women. In 1972, as a result of that task force's find- ings, several administrative actions were taken which included: Entry of women into the chaplain and civil engineer corps. Entry of womefi into all the 102 enlisted ratings whereas previously they were only eligible for 24; 15 sea-oriented ratings were again restricted in 1975. ` Expansion of the number'of NItOTC units OPen to women students. increased assignment of women to service col'lOges. Assignment of women to prototype programs in aviation and on sea duty. The aviation program has become a p~rrnanent ongoing program with a yearly accession plan' for women. The sea duty experiment, `although successful, was terminated as you know after the decom- missioning of the tT.S.S. Sanctuary, AH-17, the last ship in commis- sion to which women could be assigned because of the 1948 Federal PAGENO="0014" 8 ~statute restricting the service of women aboard naval shipa to hospital ships and transports. ~t is this statute precisely-title 10, United States Code, section 1~015-which our legislative proposal, now in the form of H.R, U81, seeks to modify in order to provide appropriate latitude in the assign- ment of women to s~ duty. We seek to ali~w women to go aboard certain naval ships to pursue noueouibat~nt a~ssig~ients, 5jfl option which present law, as interpreted, precludes, .&ssigmnent of women to service craft such as tugs, and various harbor vessels continues and it is now a common sight in naval ports to see women working side by side with men, handling lines and operating deck eqidpment on these vessels. As a result of a 1974 special study group which considered career patterns for women officers steps have been taken to parallel, to the extent possible, the careers of male warfare specialists counterparts, to expand shore billets open to women line officers not possessing actual sea or aviation experience, and to select ~ number of Jine women in the rank of lieuteiaant commander and commander for an expanded number of execi~tive ollicer and command billets ashore. There are today, for instance, six women in cOmmand positions ashore. The Navy's first woman line officer has been appointed a rear admiral and currently serves as Director of Naval Educational Development. Other administrative actions taken to maximize the utilization of women in the past 5 years have included a liberalization of the pregnancy policy to permit women to be retained on active duty during pregnancy and after childbirth. To date, 1,070 Navy women have elected: to remain on active duty out of approximately ~000 who became pregnant. This policy alone has resulted in a cost avoidanc& of $7.5 million-4he estimated cost to replace those women had they been discharged. Congress mandated the opening of the service academies to women and I am p~leased to report that of the original 81 women who entered the Naval Academy class of 1980, ~63 have satisfactorily completed their first year and 90 have already been accepted for this year's start- ing class of 1981. Male and female officer training has `been consoli- dated at the Officer Candidate School in Newport, RI. and recruit training atthe ~ecruit Training Center in Orlando, Fla. Although there are no Navy billets specifically reserved for women officers, there are a number to which oniy enlisted women are assigned such as managers of w~omen~s barracks and women company com- manders at the recr~t training center. The billet hierarrchy about the enlisted company commander level at the training center Js completely integrated. Turning now tO promotional opportunities, male and female en- listed personnel compete for promotion together and must meet the same requirements, tests, and selection criteria. Criteria for manage- ment of officer promotion is contained in title 10, United States Code. That law provides, among other things, that women officers in all competitive categories except the line, supply corps, chaplain corps, and civil engineer corps will compete for promotion with their male counterparts. In the excepted comm-unities-which are important-. women officers compete separately from the males. The Defense Officer Personnel Management Act, DOPMA, pending since January 1974, PAGENO="0015" 9 would provide absolute equality for promotion of women by repealing such separate provisions and requiring all women officers to compete with their male counterparts in all communities. Although current law does not require the same promotion timing for women officers, it has been and will continue to be the policy of the Secretary of the Navy to provide such timing equity. Promotion opportuthty for women officers is similiarly protected by secretarial policy. Efforts to eliminate sexual discrimination have been reflected in the Navy affirmative action plan and in the ongoitig equal employment opportunity training programs. As I review our progress to date, Mr. Chairman, I believe the Navy can be reasonably gratified by the strides it has taken toward integrat~ in~ women into its total force. There is potential for, even greater utilization if we can obtain congressional modification of the 148 statute, as we have vigorously requested. The current contraint pre- cludes our assigning more women to a larger variety of jobs within the Navy and limits the number of women we can utilize. Our current plans call for increasing the number of women 63 percent over present levels by fiscal year 1983. That percentage can be increased by statu- tory modifications and the ongoing DOD study in response to the Nunn amendment concerning women may yield even greater possibilities. Sound management dictates an evolutionary process in the hitegra- tion of women into our total Navy, as we sustain steady progress in the utilization of rising numbers of women. Mr. Chairman, I hope I have generally covered most of the items in which you have indicated interest. Thank you~, Senator PROXMIni~ Thank you very much, Secretary Hidalgo Our last witness is Assistant Secretary of the Air F'orce for Man- power, Reserve Affairs, and Installations, Antonia Handler Chayes. We are happy to have you. STATEMENT OP EON. ANTONIA HANDLBB. cEA!~S, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OP TEE AIR PORCE POB MANPOWER, RESERVE APPAIRS, AND INSTALLATIONS, ACCO1~PANTED BY LT. GEM. BEN- NIE L. DAVIS, DEPuTY CETEP OP STAPP ~OR ~EItSONNBI, U.S. AIR FORCE Ms. CHAn~5. Mr. Chairman, I also welcome the opportunity to appear before the subcommittee. I am p~eased t~ focus on this very im- portant issue of the employment utilization of women in the military This is an issue that goes beyond simple equity to the success of the All-Volunteer Force. As you may know, I am ne~ to the .Air Force. I don't have all the details. But, I am not new to the area of equaLem- ployment and compliance. To assist me in answering your specific questions, I have brought with me Lt. Gen. Bennie Davis who is dep- uty chief of staff, personnel, headquarters, U.S. Air Force. The Air Force has made considerable progress in utilizino' women in recent years. Current plans or increases to the number o~ women are modest. The Air Force is committed, however, to the principle of equal opportunity and is working to expand the utilization of women in an orderly and in a systematic manner. PAGENO="0016" 10 Today, my.presentation will first cover some history and then briefly discuss three specific areas: One, actions taken by the Air Force since 1970 to improve policies and practices regarding the employment and utilization of women. Two, present Air Force policy on these matters. * Three, the future outlook. The Air Force had 12,265 women on active duty on June 30, 1969, or 1.4 percent of the active duty strength. Today there are approxi- mately 39,000 in the active duty force, or 6.8 percent. The major increase has been in enlisted personnel, which has risen from 7,400 in 1969 to over 34,000 currently. We plan to bring in 13,000 nonprior service enlisted women in the next fiscal year. This number of n~w women is an increase of 3,100 from fiscal year 1977 and establishes a rate. which we. propose to continue through fiscal year 1979. Thus, we have not slacked off in our increases. Women were admitted to the Air Force Academy in 1976, after careful preparations for integrating this traditionally all-male en- vironment. Planning began well before the attendance of women was authorized by Congress, and it was based upon an extensive study of the experiences of other institutions that had recently made similar transitions. It is the overall policy goal of the Air Force, as part of an efficient management effort, to match the qualifications of the individual with job requirements. developed by regularized and sophisticated indus- trial engineering techniques. Job requirements we feel should be job- related and not subject to stereotype by race or sex. There is, of course, in the Air Force', one exception to this general approach. Title 10, United States Code, section 8549', provides that: "Female members of the Air Force except those designated under section 8067 of this title or appointed with a view to designation under that section, may not be assigned to duty in aircraft engaged in combat missions." This statutory restriction has been interpreted by the Air Force to exclude women from positions where there is the high risk of captur~ or injury because of hostile fire. For officers, this has meant that women are not eligible for pilot and navigator training. The Air Force has also, as you know, excluded women from assign- ment as missile launch officers, categorizing these as combat posi- tions. The deeper.concern there is not only isolation, but the responsi- bility for release of nuclear weapons. Both military and congressional leadership at present seem* to feel uncomfortable about imposing this responsibility on women. For enlisted persons, the exclusions extend to the positions of aerial gunners, inflight refuelers, flight engineers, aircraft loadmasters, pararescue recovery specialists, security force specialists, and the radio operator/maintenance/driver specialists as-~ signed to forward combat control teams. * .* The Air F&rce recognizes.that the issue of women in combat needs further thinking. At a minimum, the exact scope of the exclusion' should be redefined. While this. process occurs, however, and to offer a more practical insight into both the possibilities and constraints, the Air Force has undertaken a test program to train and evaluate women as pilots and' navigators on noncombat aircraft. Of interest in this regard, is the experience `of World War II when over 1,100 women served with distinction as delivery pilots, flying all types of aircraft to sites both within the United States and overseas. In fact, current PAGENO="0017" 11 legislation before Congress to provide veterans b~neflks to the `WASPS is based on the superb record of their wartime service These women performed every kind of noncombat flying operatiOn. Not counting training missions, the WASPS flew 60 million miles for the Army Air Forces, or about 2,500 times around the Earth at the equator, including 30,000 hours in the multiengined B-26 and B-29 super- fortress. This experience should be considered as we look at the combat question. Since Congress has imposed the combat restriction, this crucial issue cannot be resolved within the military. We have to ask ourselves, are we ready to ask women to serve as crew members on aircraft that may be shot down in hostile territory? Are we ready to require women to turn the keys to launch nuclear missiles? O~ the other hand, I worry about any career restrictions since capable, career-minded women tend to veer away from professions where lines of advancement are closed. The vast increases recently in numbers of women entering business, law, and medicine have been a result of the expansion of cai~eer lines without restriction, albeit, under certain statutory requirements. These are value questions with the military, rather than matters on which professional military considerations are decisive. The Air Force believes they should be resolved in the light of the public guidance that only an open discussion will provide. Apart from combat-related restrictions, the plan used by the Air Force since 1972 to access and distribute women in the specialties open to them has been designed to achieve a distribut~on of women i~ tradi- tional and nontraditional specialties. Air Force job classification standards are carefully developed and regularly. updated' using a process that does not specify either a male or female incumbent, For example, some individual jobs require certain physical stre~igth qualifications. These are not sex-limited. To address this problem, the Air Force developed the "x-factor" medical profile to identify differ- ences in physical strength of new recruits without regard to gender. Continuing research is underway to refine the process and link it to our accesSion programs. The Air Force has removed many traditional barriers to the use of women in the Air Force since ouroriginal expansion objectives were developed in 1970. We have assigned greater r~umbers of women in nontraditional, blue-collar job areas, made our temporary duty as- signments equitable, and we have attempted to remove all vestiges of separate management systems. The May 1977 Background Study on the Use of Women in the Military, completed by the Office of the Assistant Secretary of De- fense, Manpower, Reserve Affairs, and Logistics, at the request of Secretary Brown, has been widely quoted and circulated. The study indicates that theAir Force has over 369.000 officer and enlisted posi- tions which could be filled by women. The background study is in- cluded in a soon-to-be-published bookby Martin Binkin of the Brook- ings Institute and Air Force Lt. Col. Shirley J. Bach. The Binkin and Bach study indicates that the Air Force could conceivably fill 363,000 jobs by men or women without' a change in title 10 or in current policie~. These figures represent the number of positions that hopefully could be filled by either sex. Howevet, I would need to see a careful analysis of the size of `the pool of wo~nen qualified for* the 23-366--78----2 ` ` PAGENO="0018" 12 many scientific/technical Air Force positions, and I want to assess the difficult question of the propensity of women to fill these posi- tions. These factors may mean that, as a practical matter, the figures included in the above studies require closer examination. I am confi- dent, however, that our goals can be more ambitious. In summary, the Air Force is committed to the All-Volunteer Force concept and recognizes that availability of enlistment-eligible youth and costs require adjustments in our personnel structure. While we have met recruiting objectives for both men and women, we do see problems ahead and agree that fuller participation by women is a key to the success of the All-Volunteer Force. We will continue to re- assess individual job requirements, career patterns and numerical goals, while cooperating fully with Congress in airing the issue and reaching a position that has public support. We would be glad to answer any question that you want to ask. Senator PROXMIRE. Thank you very much, Secretary Chayes. I understand Secretary Hidalgo has to leave at 4:10 p.m. We regret that but I understand you will leave the admiral here to take the heat. Mr. HIDAIoo. I am sorry. [Laughter.] ~~NHOWER QUO1~D Senator PROXMIR~. I understand why you have to leave. Let me say before I start the questions that I was very, very impressed by the statement of former general and former President :E~isenhower who has such admiration on the part of all Americans. He said: Like most old soldiers, I was violently against women soldiers. I thought a tremendous number of difficulties would occur not only of the administrative nature but others of more personal type that would get us in trouble. None of that occurred. In the disciplinary field, they were a model for the Army. More than this, their influence throughout the command was good. The point is that it is not only good to have women in the military because they do a good job and fulfill their responsibilities just as well as men but because their presence creates an atmosphere that is more wholesome and healthy, that improves the conduct and per- formance of men, too. J think all of us, male or female, are interested in impressing the opposite sex and I think that is a good motivation. And something we Should take advantage of. NAVY EMPLOY1~tENT GOAL Secretary Hidalgo, first I want to commend the Navy for the initia- tives it has taken to end discrimination against women and for the fine record you have established in recent years. In your statement, you say current plans call for increasing the number of women 63 percent over present levels by fiscal 1983. How many women will there be in the Navy at that time and does this figure represent a revision of the previous goal? Mr. HIDALGO. Mr. Chairman, it is currently planned that there will be 5,088 officers and 30,651 enlisted women. Senator PROXMIBE. And how does that compare with the total per- sonnel? `What percentage would you then have of women in the Navy, both in the enlisted positions and in officer positions? Mr., HIDALGO. I would like to have Admiral Watkins address that. PAGENO="0019" 13 P]~RCENTAGE OF WOMEN IN THE NAVY Admiral WATI~iNs. Mr. Chairman, that would be about 6.4 percent Navy wide, women, and in the event the legislation which we have asked for is passed, it. would move up to close to 8 percent, about another 6,000. Senator PROXMIRE. All right. Now that is 6 percent-plus without a change in the law, and 8 percent plus with a change in the law ~ Admiral WATim~s. That is correct. Senator Pnox~rum. But I asked for enlisted personnel in the first place and officer personnel in the second. Can you tell me that ~ Admiral WA~nuNs Yes, sir, I can The number of enlisted pio jeeted with the amendmeAt would be 36,529. Senator PROXMIEE. That is what percent? Admiral WATKINS, That would be 7.6 percent, sir. Senator Pnox~xn~. And how about officer personnel? Admiral WATKINS. Officer personnel would. be ~,Q88 women officers. Senator PRoxMn~. That is what percent? Admiral WATKINS. That would be 7.9 percent. Senator PROXMIRE. How many male officers are there? How many officers are there altogether in the Navy? Admiral WATEx~. Currently our male officer strength is 60,669, `and our total officer strength is 64,384. DANGER OF SEA DUTY VERSUS LAND DUTY EXAMINED Senator PROX~t Ii~. Mr. Secretary, the Defense Department study concludes that many ships could accommodate women easily They could serve on support ships without being directly involved in combat but during the Vietnam war the chance of women being ln)ured by the enemy was less for a male air controlled on an aircraft carrier than for women air controllers in Danang or Saigon. Do you agree with these conclusions, and d~ you also agree it would be far easier for an aircraft carrier to accommodate women than for support ships because of the problem of provichug separate facilities for men and women? Mr. HnALOo. Sir, I'. would like.to address that perhaps in two parts. Mr Chairman, first of all, whether women should go on aircraft car riers or other oombatant sh~ps essentially comes down to the question of whether the Nation wishes to put women into combat duty, poten- tially combat areas. Senator ~ROXMIEZ. Well, before yqu come to the judgment in that area-and I respect your desire to isolate that as a value judgmentr- first, it was the response with respect to whether or not you agreed with the conclusion that the chance of a woman being injured by the enemy was less for a male air controller on an aircraft carrier than for women air controllers in Danang or Saigon? Mr. HIDALGO. I can't speak from personal experience, sir. Senator PROXMIEE. Do you. have any reason to suspect that study may not have been true? Mr. Hrn~ioo. I have no reason either way, Mr. Chairman. I really have no- Senator PROXMIRZ. If the study is true, of course, it indicates the safer position would be as a controller on an aircraft carrier. PAGENO="0020" 14 Mr. HnALGo. i would think so, yes. Senator PROXMIRE. If that is the case, doesn't it seem. rather illogical to say that women couldn't go on an aircraft carrier because. some- how it is a combat ship whereas they could serve in other capacities m which their life and their limb is in greater dangfr? Mr. Hir~ioo. In that hypothesis, yes, sir, but in other hypotheses that'. we may not be able to predict that may not `be true. I was on a carrier in World War II and I don't think any woman~ would have enjoyed that particular experience. Senator PRoxMnu~. I don't think any man would, either. Mr. HIDALGO. That is right, Mr. Chairman. Senator PROXMIRE. So, it is not a matter of whether they would enjoy the particular experience or not, it is whether we should recognize these artificial notions of danger and if we are going to have the notion that women should be protected and should not have the same danger- suffer the same danger as men-we should do it on that basis rather than have some combat definition that doesn't apply. Isn't that correct? Mr. HIDALGO. I believe so, yes. I didn't answer the second part of your question. Senator PROxMmE. All right. Go ahead. Mr. HIDALGO. About `accommodating women on our ships that would' have to be the subject matter of `a very detailed study. On some ships women could be accommodated, again, drawing no distinction between combatant and' noncombatant ships. In other ships it might take a good deal of edjustment so that would be a matter for study if this legislation we strongly endorse is passed. There are already studies under way by secretarial directive and other studies as tohow women could be accommodated. . Senator PROXMIRE. You say the point there was the aircraft ca~rier could provide separate facilities more easily~ it is a la~rger ship and,,. more elaborate than some of the smaller support ships. Mr. HmALG0. That is right, sir. NUMBER OF WOMEN IN THE MILITARY Senator PROXMIRE. Secretary Nelson, from 1q72 to 1976 the numbei~ of women in the `military increased from 45,000 to 109,000. Enlisted women increased' from 32.4 to `954, althost a threefo'ld~ increase. . . But the goals for increasing the number have been on a plateau for' several years'and the period of significant expansion seems t~ be' over. This pause seems inconsistent with public `opinion and,the positive results of studies of women's performance ~iid, would be ironic if~ progress came to a halt in the Carter administration when the Presi-~ dent has emphasized the equal opport~mities for' women' and is very conscious of it, has made two of the only four appointments to the~ Cabinet of women in the history of this country. How do you explain this, what seems to be, this pause? PAUSE IN GROWTH OF WOMEN IN THE MILITARY Mr. NELSON.' Well, Mr. Chairman, first of all; I would like to saythat I don't believe that we have reached a firm plateau from which'we will not move. PAGENO="0021" 15 We have come to a point where we feel we must examine the results of changes we have made over the. past 4 years, which, as I pointed ~out &n my oral statement, has quadrupled the number of females in the Army. We are looking at various ways in which women might be even better utilized. During that period `we opened up a number of MOS's but we have to look at what the effect down the road is going to be. Senator PnoxMIrn~. Can you give me a schedule of your goals? When did you decide on the goal that roughly 59,000 would be in? Mr. NELSON. General Kingston might better be able to answer that question than I, sir. General KINGSTON. Sir, that goal was established in 1974 with an expectation that we ~vould reach it in 1981. We have now backed off and we expect that to reach that in 1979. I might point out, sir, that we are expecting in 179 to have a total of roughly 9,000 officers and 50,00~ enlisted. We currently have about 6,000 officers and about 46,000 enlisted. `Senator ,P1thxMIRE. Let me interrupt to say that I think my dis- appointment is whe~eas the Navy wasable to have 63 percent projected increase over th~ next 3 years, the Army, seems static. The actu~l'numb~ of eiilisted persontiel in the Army, for example, in 1976 was 43,900'~ in 1'977, 46,~OQ, and in 1982 it `only `goes to 50,000. It is on a very static basis, `it would seem. This is the projected ex- pectation that we have here. , ` General KINGsToN. ~Senator, the `key to this is the statement that Secretary Nelson made where we are currently. We have `a number `of studies ongoing in ~hith we are looking at where we should go from here. We had, at one time, projected that we would be at that figure in "1981. We have backed off to 1979, and now we are conducting, a number of ~tudies that will be completed early next y~ar and at that point in time we expect to make decisions and recommendations as to where to go in' terms of increasimlg thenumber of women. What has happened is we are ahead of our schedule and ,we are taking steps to do a- GROWTH OF WOMEN IN ARMY STATISTIO THROUGH 1982' "Senatoi PRoxMnu~. You, are not denying the fact that at the present `time as we look at this projection you seem to be ona flat trajectory, leveling off at about 46,000 in 1977, `48,000 in 1978, 50,000 In 1979, ~0,000 in 1980, 50,000, in 1981,50,000 in 1982. You have got'4 years there with precisely the same number. General KINGSTON. That isright,'sir. Seiiator PR0xMIRE. No increase. General KINGSTON. That is correct, sir. We have these tests ongoing that we will evaluate early in the next gear and make recommendations and decisions as to where' we ,go in `terms of increase. Senator PROXMrRE. When will those studies be available ~ General KiwosToN. In the spring of next year, sir. We expert them to be completed in early 1978, March or April of 1978. Senator PROXMIRE. I don't understand why you have such a much flatter expectation that we have had in the past in view of these, as you say, acknowledged successes of this program. PAGENO="0022" 16 General KINGSTON. Yes, sir. Senator PROXMTRE. The fact it has worked so well. There doesn!t seem to be abuses. There doesn't seem to be any economic problems in- volved here. The Army has the most serious probli~m of recruiting of any of the services as we know, and'you have done very well. I have been a ~ supporter of the Volunteer Army~ But, if it is going to work, it seems to me we should take advantage of the peter- tiality for women. I &n't see that you are doing so with that kind of limited horizon. ASSESSMENT OF WOMEN EMPLOYABILITY L)tJE General KINGSTON. Sir, I would likc to emphasize that we are not. fixed on that 50,000. We are assessing where we are, the successes we have had and where we shouldgo from here. That is basically where we are~ We are not fixed on that figure. That is a planning figure. I might also say that in the U.S. Army Reserve we currently have about 19,000 women and we are programed to go to 36,000 in fiscal year 1982. We have a major increase in imn~bers programed in the National Guard-approximately 11~000 and we are gthza~ to 20,~00 in fiscal year 1982; so we already have `definite pian~ to increase the number of women in the reserve components. Senator PR0XMIR~. As far as the Army i~ concerned, though, you have that fiat trajectory. Now, can we expect that there is `every likeli- hood when you have completed those studies you will revise these projections? General KIxGs~rôN. Definitely~ Senator Paox~m~. And we would expect, then, that you would have a sharp increase in the years 1979, 1980, 1981, 1982, something of the kind you have had in the past. I don't mean the same proportion but a very sharp increase.. Is that a likely conclusion? General KINGSTON. I wouldn't like to be pinned down to the term "sharp increase," but we certainly expect to have a reevaluation of that figure and an increase in the number of women. Mr. NELSON. Mr. Chairman, if I might add to the general's state- ment, I wouldn't want to leave here with the impression having been created that this goal that you have alluded to here is a static thing with which we are going to stick over the next few years. It is something that is under review, right now. We feel that before we come forward and say what number and what MOS's we should plan for, we would first like to have the results of the studies flow underway. In other words, what we are saving is that we know we have some very important information forthcoming and we would like to see what that is so that we can plan effectively for the utilization of women. That is the most important thing I think that we are doing right flow. PAGENO="0023" 17 CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OEFICE STUDY SHOWS DI1~FICULTY RECRUITING MALES Senator PROXMTRE. Let me ask General Kingston the Army plans, as you pointed out the problem on the projeetion.. You say you need further studies and I think you say we should err on the side of national security in the statement. Now, in view of the very serious recruitmeht problem I have alluded to, that the Army faces, I wonder which side of the national security you are erring on? The January 1971 Congressional Budget Office study shows a huge gap in the supply and demand of prime male recruits up to 1980, a 20-percent gap of unemployment at 7.5 percent, and 40 percent if unemployment is at 4 percent. Now, isn't the present policy getting to be a luxury we cannot afford? Don't you have to take this into consideration? General KINGSTON. That definitely will be one of the factors to be considered as a result of our tests and evaluation to determine where we go from here, sir. I might point out that we are meeting our goals on recruiting for the Active Army at the present time, sir. SERVICES TO FALL 40 PERCENT SHY Oi~ EBCRUITM~N~ GOALS THROUGH 1985 Senator PROXMIRE. I might point out, also, that I think it is prob- ably even truer of the Army than it is of colleges. I know that one of the reasons why young men go to a particular college or did a few years ago when so many of them were segregated was because it was coeducational and young women for the same reason. It would seem to me you have a better opportunity to attract male recruits in the Army if you had more women in the Army. Let me refer briefly to the OBO study. Beyond 1980 there is only a pessimistic assumption about the economy. Only at a 7.5-percent unemployment rate will the services fall ~0 percent below their pro- jected recruiting goals for high school graduate recruits in the middle categories 1 to 8. Then, at 4 percent, the services will fall more than 40 percent shy of their recruiting goals in those categories until 1985. GenGral KINGSTON. And we are extremely concerned about it and that is certainly a part of our evaluation of where we go from here, sir. Senator PROXMIRE. Admiral Watkins, the Navy has proposed revi- sion of the law barring women on ships. I am happy to see that. I congratulate you on it. But. it is a very modest revision. It would only allow temporary assignment on hospital ships and transports of which the Navy has none.and vessels [laughter] of similar classification not expected to be assigned combat missions. DOD STUDY SUGGESTS CHANGES IN LAW EARRING WOMEN FROM SHIPS The BOD study on the use of women in the military suggests in several places that the law be entirely repealed. PAGENO="0024" 18 What ships would women serve on if your bill is enacted and doesn't it make sense, Admiral, to repeal 6015 altogether, leaving it to the discretion of the Secretary of the Navy as to where women shouldbe assigned? Admiral WATKINS. I think there are two issues, Mr. Chairman. First, I think your interpretation of our proposed bill is erroneous. I think you are quoting the current law which in fact does permit women to serve only on transports and hospital ships, of which there are none. This is the very inequity we are trying to eliminate, sir; and, that is not what we are proposing in our legislative package. We are proposing to allow permanent duty in other than those vessels we expect to see engaged or that could be engaged in combat duty and we expect to be able to assign on a temporary duty basis women to any ship in the Navy. Senator PROXMIRE: Now, you said you still would exclude women from vessels to be assigned combat missions. Admiral WATKINS. Yes, sir, that is correct. Senator PROXMIRE. Let me read it, since it would only take 10 sec- onds to read. Be it enacted, et cetera, section 6015 is amended by deleting the last sentence and substituting the following: However, women may not be assigned to duty in vessels or aircraft that are engaged in combat missions normally assigned to other than temporary duty on these vessels of the Navy except for hospital s~iips, transports and vessels of a similar classification not expected to be assigned combat missions. Admiral WATKINS. Yes, sir, that is correct. Sena~tor Puox~rnm. That is what I said. Admiral WATKINS. Turning that around, then, Senator, the amend- ment states that we will permit the assignment of women to vessels, permanent assignment of women to vessels of a similar classification to transports and hospital ships which have been now redefined by the Secretary of the Navy. Senator PROxMIRE. Such as? Admiral WATKINS. These would be auxiliary and service àraft, sir. PROPOSED CHANOE IN LAW WOULD ALLOW WOMEN DUTY ON ONLY 15 PERCENT OF SHIPS. S Senator PROXMIRE. Can you give me any notion of how large a pro- portion of the fleet that would represent? Admiral WATKINS. Yes, sir, I could provide that for the record, if you would like. It would include billets for about 1,200 officers and about 80,000 enlisted, if you were to fully "man" all of those ships with women. Senator PROXMIRR. How many ships would there be under your legislation that would he available to women to serve on? Admiral WATKINS. I don't know the number offhand. Senator PROXMIRE. Do you have any rough estimate? Admiral WATKINS. Yes, I think- Senator PRox1~nuE. Ten, fifteen, one-hundred ships? Admiral WATI~INS. I think by the fact that we have 30,000 billets on the ships involved ari4 there are 200,000 billets at sea that gives you a rough factor of about- S PAGENO="0025" 19 Senator PRoxMIIm. You are saying about 15 percent of the ships; is that right? Admiral WATKINS. Yes, sir, that is correct. It sounds like it should be more than that. Senator PRoXMI1U~i. 30,000 to ~00,000 would be 15 percent. Admiral WATI~INS.. Fifteen percent, correct. `Mr. HmALoo. If I may add, Mr. Chairman, I think it is obvious that there is a further added element of flexibilty that we would then-if this provision were to go through-the Secretary of the Navy would then have the option of assigning women on temporary duty to com~ batant vessels. Senator PROXMIRE. How do you explain the fact that the Coast Guard p~rmits women to serve on the comba1~ ships? Why not repeal the law outright and leave it to the discretion of the Secretary? Admiral WATKINS. I understand, sir, but the Coast Guard- Senator PR0xMIRE. The Army doesn't have any law with respect to combat vehicles. Admiral WATKINS. Yes, sir; but on the other hand the Coast Guard in peacetirne.reports to the Secretary of Transportation and he reports to the Secretary of the Navy under mobilization, which means in a wartime ~tatus, This would, under the law, rearrange. the authority exercised and they would have to actually pull their women off those vessels assio'ned to combat missions. Senator ~ROXMIRE. So, you would take them off the Coast Guard ships?' Admiral WATKINS. I would not take them off, sir. The law would preclude their service on those ships. Senator PROXMIR]~. That is what we are talking about, your recom- mendatións to change the law. Admiral WATKINS. But we have not taken the law beyond combat exclusion-we have, taken it up to the combat exclusion feature, but not beyond it. Senator PROXMIRE. What kind of ships would women serve on on temporary duty? Mr. HIDALGO. Any, sir. They could go on submarines. Is that right, Admiral? Admiral WATKINS. That is right. Senator PROXMIRE. There is no limitation on temporary duty? Admiral WATKINS. That is right, sir. At the present time, women in the Air Force or Army, officer or enlisted, could be assigned to naval vessels' on temporary duty; however, women in the Navy cannot. With the. amended section 6015, women of `all services could be assigned to any naval vessel for temporary duty. DEFINITION OF "COMBAT" PRECI4TJDES WOMEN BEING ASSIGNED DUTY IN SOME SAFE AREAS Senator PROXMIRE. Secretary Chayes, you ask in your' statement, Are we ready to ask women to turn the key to launch nuclear missiles? By raising `this' question, are' yOu saying thdre ~re characteristics i,nherent in women that make `them less responsible or less capable of making decisions than men? PAGENO="0026" 20 Why in the world should we hesitate to give women this responsi- bility any more than say appointing women as Assistant Secretaries of Defense or Assistant Secretary of the Air Force? Ms. CHA~rES. There is no reason. The only issue here is the definition of "combat." I only raise it to indicate that currently it falls within the definition of "combat," and, because there is no clearcut definition, interpreta- tions do occur. Senator ]?ROXMIRE. I don't understand why you raised that as a question, a question apparently in your mind. Why do you ask that? Ms. CHA~rs. The question already has been raised, not in my mind, Senator, but as I said previously the question is in the minds of many Congressmen and in the minds of many military personnel. I only raised it to illustrate the deep concern of military and congressional leadership. At present they seem to have an uncomfortable feeling about imposing this responsibility on women. Senator PROXMIRE. What is your own personal feelingt Can you make a good, clear, strong recommendation one way or the other? The Congress is very much guided in these matters by the views of, you experts who have the responsibility of living with this every day, day after day. and not just on a part-time basis the way `Congressmen face these decisions. Ms. CHAYES. We are doing a hard study on the definition of combat now. That is what you requested us to do and I think that is a good request. T think this issue has to be resolved in that context. I think my own personal views, which you are welcome to, are the same as ~our views. Senator PROXMIRE. To wit, I want to get your views. I want to get your views. Ms. CHAYES. My personal views~ Senator PRoxMni~. Yes, indeed, your views on whether or not women should be in the position of turning the key OZL a nuclear missile. Ms. CHAYES. I guess I would be more comfortable with my views after the study. My view going in is really a wide open one1-4hat is, theoretically, I expect the study to offer a practical military viewpoint that will enhance my understanding. Senator PROXMIRE. I can't understand any `difference here. flere- some people argue that men have some different characteristics, cer- tainly, there may be a difference in characteristic with respect to physical strength, that is the only one I can think of offhand. I don't know how people can argue that women are more emotional or less emotional, whatever. This is the thing that concerns me as to the reason why some people in the services seem to think women shouldn't be allowed to have this critical position. Certainly, there is no greater danger than in many other positions and probably a lot less. ASSISTANT SECRETARY CHAYES AGREES DEFINITION OF "OOMIWL" NESDS TO BE RESOLVED Ms. CHAYES. Senator, I think really it is the combat definition that is clouding the issue now. I think that that issue is going to be cleared PAGENO="0027" 21 up and I. don't mean to duck your question in any way because I feel very strongly that women can do anything that men can do or I wouldn't be in this position in this agency. WOMEN CHARACTERISTICS EXAMINED roa DUTY AOCitPTABIUTY Senator PRONMIRE. Are there any characteristics of women which in your view would make them unacceptable in this position of being able to turn the key on a nuclear weapon? Ms. CIIAYES. Are there any? Senator PROXMIRE. Yes, you say that you have an open mmd before you see the study. Frankly, I don't have an open mind because I don't care-~ Ms. CHAYES. I didn't say I have an open mind. I think you have to look at the definition of combat in the context of the statutes. In my vieiv, there are no qualities which disqualify women from doing any job that a mtn can do except certam factors of strength In my personal opinion, there are no qualities of emotions, or atti- tudes that would seriously disqualify them froth any job. Senator PROXMIRE. Very good. I understand your position, then. That would apply in missile silos, too? Certainly, they have the strength to turn that key. Ms. CHAYES. And they need to be. able to obey orders. Senator PROXMIR~. What was that? Ms. CnAYES. I said they need to be able to obey orders and- Senator PROXMTRE Do you have any feeling there is any difference between men and women in obeying orders? Ms. CHAYES. If an~thing, women tend to be more obedient. [Laiighter.i Sehator PROIMIRE. I want to introduce you to my wife sometime. ILaughter.] Admiral Watkins, I understand in the test ueirtg the U.S.S. Sanctuary hospital ship, women performed every shipboard function with equal ease, expertise, and dedication as men Can you elaborate on the Sanctuary experience and give your opin- ion as to whether it makes more sense to assign women to airetaft car- riers and support ships? Admiral WATRn~ s. The Sanctuary experiment, Mr. Proxmire, was very successful. It was made Sup of :5 small cadre of about 60 enlisted women over and above those that would have reutinely been assigned to the hospital department of that ship. We found no significant problems that couldn't easily be overcome. The handholding in balmy seas was handled through regulation very nicely. Significant problems simply didn't arise. The commanding officer felt the morale was high, the interchange between the male and fe- male seamen was excellent and on a high level. I see no reason why that situation won't pertain as we move in an evolutionary fashion into our auxiliary and service force ships. However, the Sanctuary experiment was limited to a 400-day period in ivhich women were as- signed to the ship. Only 42 days were spent underway. AIR RORCE GOALS COULD BE MORE AMBITIOUS Senator PRoxMnmE. Secretary Oha.yes, in your statement y~u say that the Air Force goals for women can be more ambitious. PAGENO="0028" 22 Can you explain why the, Air Force goal was reduced from 74,800 in fiscal 1972 `as stated in the DOD' study of May 1977 to the present plan of the 48,200 and tell us how ambitious the goals should be? Ms. CHA~s. Those figures are not correct. The Air Force goal., for enlisted women, is now over 72,000 under our present plan. We plan an increase, and as I said in my oral statement, the increase is steady. It is moving up from 14.2 to 15.1 percent. Those are not accurate figures that you have quoted. Senator, PROXMrR.E. That is good to know. Then the figures that I have' from the Defense Department study use of women in the mili- tary, May 1977- Ms. CIIAYES. Those are old figures, sir. They have been changed. SenatorPRóxMnm. Since May? Ms. ~Jm&~r.s. Yes. Senator PRox~IRE. OK. Why were they changed? I am glad they were, but how did they happen to `be changed? Ms.' CHATIES. They were not sufficiently ambitiOus. THE AVERAOE FEMALE RECRUIT TESTS BETTER TIIAN MALES Senator PRoXMIRE. Very good. I am glad you are making progress. It is almost time for Secretary Hidalgo t6 leave. Before you leave, Mr. Secretary, I wanted to ask the panel of the three Secretaries to respond and perhaps you could respond and. then you are going to have to go because you said you have to leave at 4:10. Do you agree that for the 1972-76 period the average woman re- cruit surpassed the average male recruit in terms of educational at- tainment and' the standardized test and females more likely to have a high school diploma had a much lower attrition rate than men and that in general `the 1972-76 recruits raised the average quality of the militarv:'serviees and served longer than their male countei'parth? Mr.' TImALGO. Sir. I would like to ask Admiral Watkins to answer that in' detail but I think the answer to your question is "Yes." Senator PR0xMIRE. Thank you. sir. I want to thank you so much for your responses. I understand you have to leave, and so you are excused. Mr. ITIDAGLO. I am sorry I have to leave. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator Pi~ox~fmE. Admiral, please go ahead. Admiral WATKINS. Would you like me to `continue? Senator PROXMIRE. Yes; please respond. ADMIRAL WATKINS SAYS PRESENT POOR FEMALE RETENTION IS A BYPRODUCT OF FAST PRE.TUDICES Admiral WATKINs. The answer is "yes" in all areas, Mr. Chairman; with the exception of retention; which is a very difficult thing to moni- tor right now as~ we move out of the nontraditional or-~from the traditional into the nontraditional areas. For example,. the retention of women under the prior rules of the game was very poor,. for obvious reasons. Their upward mobility was simply not there, the attractiveness was not there. We have now offered that attractiveness in an effort to try to split out the group under the two different sets o'f rples. We sim~ly d~n't have the data base-i--' , . . PAGENO="0029" 23 Senator PRoxMIn~. I want to be sure I understand. rrhat seems to contradict a large paz~t of my question. The question was not only whether she was more likely to have a high school diploma and educa- tional attainment in the standardized test, but also she had a lower attrition rate and served longer than the male counterparts. Are you saying they did not serve longer in the 1972-76 period? Admiral WATKINS. N~o, sir. Their attrition rate is definitely better than males, but their retention is not up to the males at this time. Senator PR0xMIEE. Would you explain the difference between those two? Admiral WATKINS. The retention rate is a rate of those who after the end of their initial contract remain in the Navy for a career. That is what we normally refer to as retention in the Navy for their career. On the other hand, the attrition rate could take place any time within that first 4 years of enlistment. PROXMIRE SUGGESTS PREJUDTCES STILL EXIST Senator PRoxMinE. Are you saying women serve out their term better? Admiral WATKINS. Yes; that is correct. Senator PROxMIRE, Would you agree that they serve longer than their male counterpart in spite of the retention rate? Admiral WATKTNS. This would be speculative only at this time, sir. I believe they will serve longer, yes. Senator PnoxMu~E. Then you explain the fact that they didn't reen- list as commonly because their career opportunities are more limited than men? Admiral WAPKINS~ They were in the past, sir; they are not now. The new data is not clear as to whether or not the retention into the career force would be superior. It is very close to the male counterpart. Senator PEOXMIRE. Boy, I am astonished by that answer because it seems to me the women's opportunities in the Navy don't-or any service-we know that in all the combat positions with a great deal of opportunity for promotion and higher pay, women are denied the opportunity to volunteer for combat even if they wish to do so very vigorously. So, in that sense, they certainly are more limited than men in their career opportunities? Admiral WATKINS. Maybe I have not explained this correctly~ sir. In the past women have not stayed with us for a career, I believe the reason for that was because we did not offer the upward mobility opnnrtmiities. We have unlimited opportunities except in a handful of enlisted ratings today. The rest is wide open. We do not have the experience yet because we only started this experiment 5 years ago. We are just beginning to see women flow into the career force: so our data right now is not clear as to what the outlook is for the future. At present, we are feeding the career force with women at about the same percentile rate as the male. That is all I am saying, sir. PAGENO="0030" 24 Senator PRoxMIm~. I am still unclear in my mind. Are you saying that women have the same opportunity in the enlisted ranks? Admiral WATKINS. Yes, sir. Senator PROXMIRu. But, of course, many people in the enlisted ranks do move up to become officers. Are you saying that women have the same opportunity in the officer ranks~ too? Admiral WATKINS. They have the same opportunity, sir. In fact, you may bo- Senator PROXMIRL Why doesn't this contradict-you just agreed that they were denied an opportunity in combat area* even if they wanted to volunteer for it, where a great deal of rank lies? Admiral WATKINS. Well, that may be another factor, sir, which would be impacted on were the combat exclusion feature eliminated, without any question. I just don't know what it would be. I can speculate that combat op- portunities may improve retention for those who would aspire to duty at sea aboard a combatant vessel. I just don't know, sir. Senator PROXMIRE. All right. May I ask Secretary Chayes to re- spond, or General Davis? General DAVIS. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Let me address the first part of it in terms of quality. The women we recruit or bring to the officer corps are of the highest quality. Senator PRoxMIu~a. I am not talking about just generalizations with respect to quality, but as far as the objective test, that is, the number of proportion with a high school diploma, their score on the stand- ardization tests, and so forth. There they are superior; isn't that correct? So,it iS a matter of our just saying tMt the women you have attracted ar~ of higher quality. These are objective tests where it is not a matter of judgment. It is a matter of fact. General DAVIS. Yes, Senator. I wouldn't say superior, but let me furnish for the record the exact numbers. I would not say they were superior. Senator PRox~irn~u8 Well, we are told that more than half has high school diplomas and that isa superior achievement. More of them have higher scores in standardized tests, or is that not true? I want to know whether it is true or not. General DAVIS. All right, I will have to provide the standardized test answer for the record. Senator PnoxMiuu. All right. [The following information was subsequently supplied for the record :J PAGENO="0031" 25 MENTAL CATEGORIES AS DERIVED FROM ARMED SERVICES VOCATIONAL APTITUDE BATTERY [In percentj Mental category Male Female Fiscal year 1976 accessions: II 5.7 45.7 62 42.5 Ill 48.1 51.1 IV --,~-~-- Fiscal year 1977 accessions: .5 10.6 .2 11.8 II 52.5 53.7 Ill * IV 36.6 .~ 34.4 .i EDUCATIONAL LEVEL Male Female Fiscal year 1976 accessions: High school diploma GED - - 88.7 6.2 91. 4 6.0 Nongraduate Fiscal year 1977 accessions: High school diploma GED~. Nongraduate Fiscal year 1977 accessions (through ~une): High school diploma GED 5. 1 88. 8 4.1 7. 1 86.3 8.2 2.6 85. 8 6.3 7.9 37. 3 8.3 Nongraduate 5.5 3.7 AVERAGE STANDARDIZED TEST SCORES, FISCAL YEAR 1977 ACCESSIONS (JANUARY THROUGH MARCH) Male Female Requirements in aptitude area (percent) Armed Forces qualification test Mechanical 67. 6 69. 3 69. 0 37. 5 (1) 25. 5 Administrative 64. 3 73. 3 12. 9 GeneraL... 74.7 75.6 38.1 Electronic 73~8 61,4 23.5 I Not available. General DAVIS. In terms of the attrition rate, the percent lost in their first 8 years of service, women are slightly higher by about 1 to 2 percentage points. .~s far as turnover rates, our experience- Senator PEox1~nmo. When you say "higher," who do you mean? Do you mean the attrition is worse? General DAVIS. Yes. Senator PROXMIEJO. They leave more than males-- General DAVIS. Yes, slightly, more in their first term of service. Sena.tor PRoxMnm. I see. General DAVIS. When we are talking about departing the service- Senator PRoxMImo. You say the difference is only 1 to 2 percent, so it is almostthe same? PAGENO="0032" 26 General DAVIS. The same; that is right, Senator. Senator PROXMIRE. All right. General DAVIS. As far as the turnover rates, the percentage has shifted since 1972. For women, in 1972, the turnover rate was 26.6 percent; men was 20.2 percent. By 1976 women were down to 17.7 percent; men, 19.6 percent. Senator PRoxMrns. Let's see if I understand the turnover rate. That is theterm I didn't understand. What does "turnover" mean? General DAVIS. The men and women who are replaced each year. WOMEN REENLISTMENT RATE LOWER DUE TO LIMITATIONS ON UPWARD MOBILITY Senator PnoxMutE. Are you saying that in the past, more women would leave than men and now it is the reverse? General DAVIS. It's gradually shifted. Again, it is within 11/2 per- centage points of each other. Senator Pnox~rnu~. I want to make it clear that we are talking-that we agree because maybe we disagree. You are saying your latest obser- vations show that more women would not leave, now more men leave than women? General DAVIS. Yes. Senator Pnoxi~nnE. So in that sense the women's performance is better? General DAVIS. In terms of replacement; yes. Senator PROXMIRE. Because you want to prevent that necessity of turnover, it is expensive. General DAVIS. In terms of reenlistment, women reenlist the first term at a higher rate than men do. Now another phenomenon occurs and that is second reenlistment at the 8-year point, men reenlist at a higher rate than women. Senator PRoxMniE. All right, sir. Then I think we should hear from the Army. Secretary Nelson. Mr. NELSON. In the case of the Army, Senator, the attrition rate- and by attrition, I mean those who do not complete their first term of enlistment; those who for one reason or another leave the service early-is higher for women of the same mental, category and high school diploma graduate status than it is for men. Overall, when compared with the total number of men, it is a little bit higher. Were the Army not placing restrictions on the women, that is, limit- ing enhstmen to high school graduates in mental categories I through lIlA, female attrition would be significantly higher than that of men. Isn't that correct? General KINGSTON. Yes. Senator PROXMIRE. What you are saying, as far as wofrien attrition is concerned, women are better? Mr. NELSON. Overall, it is not. Senator PROXMTRE. Let me back up and start at the beginning. I *should have done this with each of you. Let me do this with you. PAGENO="0033" 27 In educational attainment, high school diploma, how do they com- pare inthe Army? Mr. NELSON. The women compare better than men. Senator PRoxMIm~. Because that is the requirement for women? Mr. NELSON. That is a requirement for women. Senator PR0xMIRE. In the standardized tests? Mr. NELSON. They also fare better than the men generally. Senator PRoxi~rIRE. Better than men in the standardized test. How about length of service? Mr. NELSON. In length of service in terms of retention, the women are reenlisting, if I can put it that way, at a higher rate than the men. Senator PE0xMIRE. Then in every category it seems the women im- prove the quality of the Army. Every one of these categories, at least, there may be other elements, but these are important objective criteria and you are saying their educational attainment is higher, because of the requirements, but it is higher? Mr. NELSON. That's right. Senator PROXMIRE. You are saying their performance in the stand- ardized test is better. Mr. NELSON. That's right. Senator PR0xMIRE. And their retention rate is better? Mr. NELSON. That's correct. Senator PROXMIRE. So in all these categories, the more women you get, the higher quality Army you got? Mr. NELSON. In terms of the mission that youhave to perform, if you had to-I would say that would be true if you had this case; if you had a 50-50 split, of course, it would be true. But now where we have what we feel is a limited amount of women we can access until we determine better the utilization of women, we have to fill the combat arms with men, we have to fill many of the direct support MOS's with men. As long as that requirement is on the Army- ARMY ~`POLICY NOT LAW" RESTRICTS WOMEN'S MOBILITY Senator PROXMIRE. Why do you have to fill the combat arms with men? There is no law with respect to the Army. Mr. NELSON. There is no law, but it is policy. Senator PROXMIRE. That is it~ we are asking about the policy. Women want to volunteer, why not let them volunteer for it? Mr. NELSON. Let me answer this way: The current policy is that there will be no women in the combat arms branches and that is, of course, based on the original legislative intent, plus the fact that there are laws in both the Air Force and the Navy that limit women in noncombatant roles and we assume there must have been some legislative intent behind that, and they were limited in the Navy and Air Force, and they would be limited in the Army, which has by far the largest combat role. Senator PROXMIRE. You are talking about policy, not talking about law? Mr. NELSON. Right. Senator PROXMIRE. You say there may be implication in the law, but there is no law which prohibits the Army from having women in com- bat roles if they volunteer or if they want to- 23-366---78-3 PAGENO="0034" 28 Mr. NErsoN. There is no law, that's correct. But as long as the policy is there, and as long as the policy- Senator PROXMrRE. The policy is only there because you and the Army want to keep it there. You don't have to have it there. The Secre-. tary of the Army and Secretary of Defense at present, if they wished, could say, "We are going to change that policy." They could do that tonight. Isn't that correct? It doesn't require an act of Congress to do it. Mr. NELSON. That's correct. Yes, it is. They could change the policy tonight, I suppose. But, you see, one of the things we are doing here- Senator PROXMIRE. So that when I ask you about the quality of the Army and you say that one of the reasons why you cannot improve the quality of the Army by having more women in it, and you admit nuder present circumstances the women that you bring in improve the quality of the Army, you sa~r you cannot do that because you have combat restrictions and you have combat restrictions because you chose to have those restrictions, not because of Congress or any other power imposing that on you. Mr. NELSON. Well, so there won't be any misunderstanding one of the reasons we opened up some of those MOS and are running these tests is to see exactly how many women we can access a~id still perform the mission of the Army. This is one of the t:hings we are doing now. This is what I alluded to earlier. Perhaps General Kingston might want to add to tha~-.-General Kingston at one time was commanding general at Fort McCleflan which, of course, was the WAC training center where a lot of the testing has gone on, and a. general officer who has been in combat and in the combat branches, he might add to this with his own experiences with women in the force. ARMY PEELS DOORS ARE OPEN !~O WOMEN General KINGSTON. I would like to add to that, sir, and say there is' no question about the high quality of the young women we `have gotten into the Army. The impact they have had has been a very favorable one generally speaking, both in terms of their retention and their im- pact on the men as you alluded to earlier. Where we go from here is the Army's situation now. We are basically assessing what the impact is of having 50,000 women in our Active Army and roughly ~,000 officers, and how far we go and still do the job from the standpoint of the physical requirements and the combat issue. I doii't think we have any doors closed as `far as how we are ap- proaching the problem, and we are prepared to make policy changes based on the results of the tests we are currently running. `SENATOR PROXMIRE DISAGREES WITH ARMY ASSESSMENT OP OPEN DOOR POLICY Senator PROXMIRE. Well, I get the impression, and I don't want to be unfair, but I get the impression you have closed the door as far as combat is concerned, even though it is not a law. It is very frustrating for us because even with the best success in the world, we can't do any- thing about a policy that you are stubborn about~ if it is not in the law. PAGENO="0035" 29 General KINGSTON. I think that is an erroneous impression because we are reviewing the whole definition of combat and the MOS, the few we have left, 83 we have precluded the women from entering be- cause of combat risks, we are now reviewing those to see if they should be opened up, some of them, at any rate. So real]y there are no doors clo~ed at the present time. Senator PR0xMIRE. I would like to ask both yo~u, Mr. Secretary, and General Kingston, how you personally feel about women in combat positions? Mr. Nelson. AEMY CITES NEED TO STUDY STRESS Mr. NELsON. Well, of course, that i~ difficult to answer. I have never been in the position of, say, a commander in the field or as a soldier. Let me say this, and I think it is importaht, that the combat role is one in which an immense amount of stress is found. In the testing we are doing, we are looking at that stress. trp until very recently women were not given ~ny combat training at all. They are now given 7 weeks basic training; the same basic com- bat training as men. This is being done because in today's world even those people in the relatively far rear areas could come under attack. We think it is very important for everyone in th~ Army to know the basics so that they can defend their positi~m and defend themselves if they have to. And I think that is important. That is a little bit different than carrying the primary responsibility of direct combat with the hopeful result that you will engage and kill the enemy. The defense is a little different. But we have changed many things; for example, not long ago women were not allowed to throw a hand grenade. That is no longer true. I was at Fort Dix yesterday wa~tching women, along with men, taking basic combat training. I also saw that at Fort Jackson. I think that women not only handled themselves ~veil, they did as well as the men. Senator PROXMIRE. Then you imply, however, in the first part of your answer that women might `stand stress less well than men. Mr. NELSON. I think that is something we are trying to find out. Senator PRoxMim~. Why should there be-is there any indication, any study anywhere-it seems to me with all the comprehensive stud- ies of sex differences, there should have been some finding on this,. I never heard of anybody making that contention, that women are less able to withstand stress than men. Mr. NELsoN. General Kingston. General KINGSTON. Not that I know of, sir. Senator PROXMIEE. ~I i~hink we ought tO make the assumption, unless there is evidence that there is a difference, that some women can stand stress and some can't, some men can stand' stress and some can't, there is no sex difference. Mr. NELSON. That's true. PAGENO="0036" 3Q But, as I pointed out, we have experienced in the Army over the years with millions of men, but we have handled few women. This is one of the reasons we are trying to run these tests. There are stress factors involved. For instance, some tests are for a 3-day period, some for a 5-day period; in the Reforger exercises which are longer and very difficult tests, where women will be a part of a heavy transportation company, for example, we hope to learn more. SENATOR PROXMIRE SUGGESTS GATHERING PRESENT MATERIAL Senator PR0xMIRE. Why wouldn't it be an intelligent thing to do to make a search of the psychological literature and find out if expert, competent, reliable studies have been made of stress to determine whether or not there is a difference between sex, and I think it would be helpful and save an awful lot of time, and also enable us to make decisions here we are not able to make now. General KINGSTON. We are doing that, and that is part of our studies; for example, at the military academies, and the other academies, as well. Senator PROXMIRE. When did you start making those surveys? General KINGSTON. This has been in the last year or two. Senator PROxMIRE. Why should it take that long? It would seem to be a matter of a few weeks for one good Ph. D. study. General KINGSTON. 1 think it is a little more complex than that, sir. Senator PROXMIRE. I bet if you sent a good scholar to the Library of Congress, he could tell you in a couple weeks, list all the tests, and in a couple more weeks he would give ~ou the conclusions of the tests. It wouldn't take 2 years. General KINGSTON. We can do that, sir. But we are talking about what the impact is in sustained environment of stress or in a combat organization. I have spent a little time- Senator PR0xMrnE. We were talking first about-that I agree, that is something we need to study and know about. But in terms of just plain stress, there it would seem to me that we can at least determine what the best findings are. General KINGSTON. Yes, sir. Senator PROXMIRE. Within a matter of weeks rather than years. General KINGSTON. There is very little data, as far as this situa- tion we are talking about, as far as the stress in a combat environment. We have some historical examples of the Russians and Israelis and so forth, and it might be interesting to note that Israelis do not have women in combat roles, and they are not even trained for the combat role, and this is based on their experience where there has not only been an adverse impact on the women, but on the men as well, because of the societal values and so forth. My personal view, and having spenta little time in combat starting as a second lieutenant in the Inchón invasion, I don't have any qualms whatever about women being able to withstand the stresses of combat and sustained hardships if properly trained for it and prepared. But the question, I think, is whether we really want to do that as a society and what is the impact on the men as well as the women? Senator PRoxMn~. Well- PAGENO="0037" 31 General KINGSTON. That is what we are trying to find out before we do something dumb, and we are trying to get the facts as best we can to make a sound judgment as `to where we go from here. Senator PR0xMIRL Well, I certainly wouldn't want you to do any- thing dumb. [Laughter.] General KINGsToN. We would rather not. Senator PRoxMIm~1. I don't understand, in view of that judgment, which seems a solid and sensible one of a man who has been in com- bat, it seems to me that you are requiring women, those who volunteer, I am talking about, who want to be in combat, you are requiring them to meet a tougher test for some reason I don't understand- General KINGsToN. No, sir, we are not- Senator PROXMIRE [continuing]. Tougher than men. You might argue that some ethnic group or racial group, you know how ridiculous that would be to say blacks are better or worse, that's nonsense, we know that. Or that some religious group is more or less cowardly or more or less brave. We know that is baloney. Why should we have that View that we have to test women at this great length and that somehow they perform' less well? General KINGSTON. I think the question is what is the type of train- ing, what is the interrelationship, and what' is the psychological and physical impact, physical strength requirements, for example, and to gear up our training programs that will fit those requirements. Senator PrtOxMIRE. Now we have devoted a considerable amount of time to discussing combat, and maybe we have gone off on the wrong tack because, after all, in a modern Army, I wonder what proportion of the jobs require physical strength. Certainly flying a plane, driving a tank, which are combat posi- tions, very important combat roles, require in most cases very little strength, or if they do, you can certainly adapt your equipment so the strength could be handled by an average young woman. Isn't that the case? General KINGSTON. Well, I would say this is part of what we are trying to figure out right now. PERCENTAGE OF COMBAT AND SUPPORT ROU~S DISCUSSED Senator PROXMIRE. Isn't it also true that the overwhelming majority of positions in the military, Army, for example~ don't `require direct combat activity? So many of us think of the Army-I was in the Army in World War IT-think of the Army as a fellow carrying a bayonet and a rifle and the typical foot `soldier, and ther~ was a day when he was the overwhelming majority;, but he certainly is not now. Isn't that correct? General KINGSTON. Sir, our combat-to-combat support is about a 5O~-5O ratio. Senator PROXMIRE. How about support now, cofnbat support? General KINGSTON. Yes, sir, I- Senator PROXMIRE. How big is that? What percent does that repre- sent of combat? ` General KINGSTON. 50-50, sir, between the combat elements and combat support in broad terms. About 25 percent of the Army is the PAGENO="0038" 32 relement that closes with and destroys the enemy, the infantry and the armor. Senator PROXMIRE. 25 percent? General KINGSTON. Yes, sir. Senator PROXMIRE. And the women now represent what, 7 percent? General KINGSToN. 6.6 percent of the Active Army, and they will represent about 7.5 percent in fiscal year 1982. Senator PROXMIRE. And 75 percent are not in the position where they close with and destroy and engage in combat with the enemy; is that correct? General KINGSTON. In direct combat where you move out to take the hill, close with and destroy the enemy. This doesn't mean other elements won't be involved; for example, military police that have missions in the combat zone. Senator PROXMIRE. Of course. Wouldn't you agree with the exception of that 25 percent, where I think it may be debatable, although it is not in my mind, but it may well be debatable, a lot of people feel as you do, that this is some- thing women shouldn't serve in-except for that 25 percent, there is no reason that women can't do anything men can do? General KINGSTON. As far as I am concerned, if properly trained, sir. Senator PRO~MIRE. All right. Fine. Now, 6.6 percent of the Army are women. General KINGSTON. Right. Senator PROXMIRE. And 75 percent of the functions in the Army can* be performed just as well by women as well as men, without involving the combat issue? ARMY TESTS USES OF WOMEN IN THE MILITARY General KINGSTON. Yes, sir. But it is much more complex than that when you look at the whole thing in the terms of your interchange- ability of positions and the strength required and so forth. This is why we are doing these tests to determine just how far we can go between the 6.6 percent and the 75, is what you are talking about. Senator PROXMIRE. General Davis, the Air Force advises the inter- pretation of barring women from serving as crew on combat aircraft in 1976, and began a training program for women pilots and navigators. General DAVIS. Yes. Senator PROXMIRE. What are the results so far, and does the Air Force intend to cut back the program, enlarge it, or keep it the way it is? General DAVIS. Our training program was comprised of 20 women. Now, the program is a continuum. Those 20 were broken into 2 groups of 10 each entering in September and the following February. The first group of women will be concluding their pilot training next month. Our experience so far is that they have done very well. We knew women could fly airplanes ~`i~om our World War II experience. PAGENO="0039" 33 Senator PRoxMIItil. You say they have done well. Is it better, the same, or not quite as good as men? General DAVIS. I would say about the same, Senator, in the train- ing environment. Senator PROXMIRE. What do you expect to do, what assignments will these women have? General DAVIS. These women will have assignments in our non- combat aircraft, transport support, 0-441's, KC-135's, and 0-9's. Senator PROXMnIE. Have you cut back the program? General DAVIS. No, sir. We have not cut back the program. We had two increments of 10 each. We initially publicly released 9 because the other two programs of 10 each had 9 active duty candidates and 1 from the Reserve Forces. Our Air Reserve F'orces were not sure whether they wanted ~ slot in the next group entering. It appears now, Senator, they will have, so the next one should include 10, so it is 10, 10 and 10. Senator PROXMIRE. Let me read from a brief article that appeared in the Washington Post, July 9, this year. The Air Force has secretly cut back the women's pilot training progran~. The program will be continued with a selection of nine officers in October for un dergrad pilot training, the Air Force announced. The program was announced with selection of 20 women officers scheduled to complete that training this fall. The Air Force spokesman gave no reason for the reduction* in number. General DAVIS. The wording in the release is bad, Senator. As far as the 9, the Reserve forces will participate so we will have 10. The total 20 will not graduate this fall. Ten will graduate thjs fall, the next 10 will graduate after the first of next year. It is a continuum. Senator PROXMIRE. That sounds like a really tiny program. General DAVIS. Yes, it is a small program. Senator PiioxMIRn. Considering the size of the Air Force, 10 officers- General DAVIS. It is a test program while we determine assignment factors, utilization factors, We are planning to continue the program and it will probably dovetail with our first women graduates from the Air Force Academy so that they can enter their T-41 training if, in f'iet, we decide to continue the program, if it is successful, Senator We have not gotten the first graduates out of pilot training yet to integrate them into the units. Senator PnoxMmu. What percentage does this represent of the num- ber of men pilots that you have trained, or overall pilots? General DAVIS. The number of overall flying authorizations is in the neighborhood of 24,000. It is a small group. Senator PRoxMIru~ I am talking about the comparison of this 10 graduates to compare with what? Generai DAVIS. Of the 10? Senator PRoxMIim. Yes. General DAVIS. 1,050. Senator PRoxMImc. So this is less than 1 percent. General DAVIS. Yes, sir, it is, and it is a test program so we can de.. termine a lot of utilization factors. Senator PnoxMuuc. And you can't tell us whether you expect to ex- pand the program and move ahead on that? PAGENO="0040" 34 General DAVIS. Not yet, sir. Senator PROXMIRE. Do you favor modifying the legal restrictions or would you favor repealing the law entirely? General DAVIS. That question is under study. Senator PROXMIRE. When would you expect to have a decision on that? General DAVIS. I believe our requirement to report to the Armed Services Committee is 6 months, Senator. Senator PROXMIRE. Didn't the Navy make that decision without a study, without this kind of a study? Admiral WATKINS. Yes, sir, we did. Senator PROXMIRE. Why, then, is the Air Force dragging its feet, comparatively speaking? General DAVIS. We wanted to make sure, Senator. AIR FORCE EXAMINING SPECIAL "FLIGHT CONTROL PRESSURES~~ FOR WOMEN Senator PROXMIRE. Well, it seems like a very limited slow way to see. General DAVIS. There are some unknowns, Senator, that we will only find out- Senator PROXMIRF~. Such as? General DAVIS. WelL control pressures, for instance. Senator PROXMIRE. Control pressures? General DAVIS. Flight control pressures. There are differences now that we are just; not sure of, Senator. Senator PROXMIRE. Women pilots have been flying ever since the Wright brothers or shortly after the Wright brothers went up in the air. General DAVIS. I understand. Senator PROXMIRE. And we have two or three generations of women fliers. General DAVIS. Yes, sir. Senator PROXMIRE. And no indication of any difference in terms of their being female. General DAVIS. No. Senator PROXMIRE. What is control pressure? Why is that a factor you suspect might be different? General DAVIS. I use that as one example which has to do with physical strength. We are not sure, but we are testing it to find out. We are talking about large aircraft now. Senator PROXMIRE. Did women fly in great numbers in World War II? General DAVIS. Yes~ sir, they did. Senator PROXMIRE. Was there any indication of a problem with con- trol pressure for women pilots or anything else? General DAVIS. I am sure there were problems. I don't have the de- tails. Senator PROXMIRE. How can you be sure there were problems? Every~thing I heard, there was no difference. General DAVIS. Well, not everybody-I believe you flew, Senator; not everybody completed pilot training. There were problems, and PAGENO="0041" 35 even after you got out of pilot training, you have varying degrees of proficiency. Senator PROXMIRE. Well, we have had now 30 years since the end of World War II. General DAVIS. I realize that. Senator PIi0XMIRE. And no indication that I have ever heard of that women had problems or had any kind of a deficiency or weak- ness or anything of that kind in all that period. General DAVIS. I am not aware of, for instance, Senator, of defini- tive studies done in the commercial world of flying large multiengine aircraft by women. I am not aware of that. That is what we hope to find out. Senator PRoxMnm, Again, just think, if we were talking about blacks, or we were talking about Spanish-speaking people, or talk- ing about some other minority group, how ridiculous this would seem. It seems to me the same thing here. I have never heard of or seen any projection, any theory, any notion of why women should not be able to fly just as well as men, and why pressure should make a difference. Maybe there is. But I think that the ethnic difference, as well all know, is ridiculous. General DAVIS. Senator, if the question is a resource issue-and I believe the question is-and if we attach it to the All-Volunteer Force as a resource question, then we should look to the larger numbers that we can take. We think the test is the way to go, at least at this juncture. I think we will not string it out forever. We will be making a decisiOn as soon as we get some experience. We don't have that experience yet. SENATOR GOLI~WATER CITES WO~EEN FLICHT PERFORMANCE Senator PR0xMIRE. Well, I just would like to suggest you might read the speech that Senator Goldwater made on this magnificent performance of women on flying in World War II. General DAVIS. I have read it. Senator PROXMIRE. You have? General DAVIS. Yes. Senator PRox1~xniE. Isn't that kind of-after all, Senator Goldwater is not one who is biased against men, exactly- General DAVIS. I understand. [Laughter.] Senator PnoxMIRi~. And he has a great experience in this area. General DAVIS. Yes, sir. Senator PROXMIRE. Very cautious, careful man with careful judg- ment. All right, Secretary Nelson, studies have c~nsistently shown that recruiting women is less costly than recruiting men, that there is less lost time with women in the military considering alcohol abuse, drugs, desertion, and other problems considered along with abortion and pregnailcy and women have fought well during periods of national crisis. Do you disagree with any of those studies? Mr. NELsoN. Would you care to comment, General? PAGENO="0042" 36 General KINGSTON. Could I ask you to repeat your last statement again, sir? Senator FROXMIRE. I will state it more slowly. The studies show that recruiting women is less costly than re- cruiting men. Do you agree with that? General KINGSTON. We have not been able to determine, for ex- ample, sir, what the specific costs of recruiting the woman versus the man is, because we have a recruiting force in the field-but that is probably correct, because the women are volunteering well. But I couldn't give you specifics on that. Senator PRoxMmi~. And there is less lost time with women in the military than men, with alcohol abuse. General KINGSTON. That is true. Senator PROXMIRE. Do you agree? General KINGSTON. Yes, sir. Senator PRoxMn~. Drugs? General KINGSTON. Yes, sir. Senator PRoxMrms. Desertion? General KINGSTON. Yes, sir. SenatOr Piox~ru~is. And then the other is other problems are con- sidered along with abortion and pregnancy which, of course, is strictly a female problem; but you might balance that and tell us whether that would counterbalance the alcohol abuse, drugs, and desertion or not? General KINGSTON. That is one of our studies now, that we have the large' number of women we have, we feel we can get definitive statistics on those particular points. Senator PRoxMIm~. I am sure that women won't be happy about comparing alcohol abuse and drug abuse with pregnancy. General DAVIS. I am sure you are right there, sir, but we are taking a very objective look at it~ MALE "LOST WORK TIME" TWICE WOMEN'S LOST TIME Senator PRoxMn~. Now let me say I have a study that we just got today from the General Accounting Office, I just received it. It says- and I will read one short paragraph: The services provided by the Department of Defense with lost time data on women for the background study. All four services have found that pregnancies account for most of women's lost time, and desertion, alcoholism, and drug abuse resulted in most lost time for men. According to the study, women lost 0.63 per- cent of total diays available, and men lose 1.10 percent of total days available. In~ other words, men lost just about twice as muOh as women did, including the pregnancy situation. All services are initiating studies to specifically compare lost time for m~n and women. So that would seem to me to be a rather interesting and relevant statistic.' General KINGSTON. Yes, sir, that doesn't surprise `me, but, frankly, sir, what `we are doing now is-there are more women in the nOn- traditional skills in units out in the field for extended periods and PAGENO="0043" 37 we do not know exactly what the impact of pregnancy and so forth in those areas are. That is part of the data we are collecting. Whether it will a~ect that particular ratio or not, we don't know. Senator PROXMIRE. I understand also that the Army's MAXWAC study `measuring performance of women in support units showed very favorable results for women, and the basic entry training test was favorable to women. Can you tell us the results of the two studies and when MAXWAC will be released? ARMY TESTS SHOW ONLY DIF~ERE~CE IN SEXES IS ~HY$ICAL STRENGTH General KINGSTON. Sir, we have just basically completed the MAXWAC test and `we are evaluating the data now. We are cop~ tinning a part of that with the Reforger exercise to take place in Europe this fall, which will be a large unit and they will be in the field for a sustained period. I wa~ the director of the basic initial entry test run by the Army at Fort Jackson when I was the commanding general of Fort McClel- lan and it was a very successful test. We took 880 men and 880 women and found that the women had no particular problems even including throwing the hand grenade, all of them successfully threw it, The only difference, of course, is the physical area, and again the question of training, not only in terms of what we do in the Army, but what they have done prior to coming into the Army, and this is an area we just don't know what women; are physically capable of yet. We .are already seeing the results of those women who have been required to take physical training programs in high school under the new law, and those that were not in terms of what their physical level is as they come into the service. Then as we train them, they become much `more capable of doing the jobs we .are asking them to do. Senator PROXMIRE. This is very helpful, General. It seems on the basis of the studies you have, you find that women who are trained the same as men are-there is not any significant difference in performance. General KINGSTON. Yes, sir. And we huve apProved the basic en- trance test, in fact, you have heard of the BCT, but it will no longer be used in the Army; It will be basic training and women and men* will receive exactly the same basic training, the first 7 weeks of training. We also have integrated the women into several, what we call one- station unit training programs, and this is in those branches that have women and men; for example, the Military Police,' the Engineers, and Signal Corps. Those tests-or those programs which have just been tested and approved will be starting, in fact they are starting at Fort McClellan this month. Senator. PROXMIRE. Now the. ~rookings study concludes that 175,000 noncombat jobs for women in the Army in units expected to operate outside the area cOuld be open. 175,000. PAGENO="0044" 38 As women were assigned to Vietnam during the war, what is the ra- tionale for the present restriction? Why should't those jobs be opened up to women? BROOKINGS STUDY CONCLUDES PREDOMINANT MALE COMPOSITION OF AIR FORCE IS POSSIBLY THE RESULT OF PREFERENCE General KINGSTON. I think the present restriction was our best judg- ~ment as to what to shoot when we started taking a large number o~ women in the Army. All of the studies we have ongoing at the present time are designed to determine just how much further we should go in that 175,000 area. Senator PROXMIRE. General Davis, the Brookings study, "Women in. the Military," by Martin Binkin and Shirley Bach, concludes the Air Force could open up 450,000 enlisted jobs to women without changing the law barring women in combat, without changing the law. Yet only a small percentage of that number are planned to be filled by women by 1982. The study concludes that the sex composition of the Air Force is possibly the result of the Air Force's preference to remain a predomi- nantly male institution. how do you respond to that? GENERAL DAVIS RAISES QUESTION OP RESOURCE AVAILABILITY General DAVIS. I believe the Binkin-Bach study also, Senator, did not consider the resource availability. It looked at the jobs that were not closed in terms of combat. What I `am talking about is a concept that looks at resource factor times opportunity factor in order to take a look at those~-~-- Senator PROXMrRE. I am not on your wavelength. You are talking about resource. What do you mean by resource? 50 PERCENT OF AIR FORCE JOBS ARE MECHANICAL AND ELECTRONIC General DAVIS. I am talking about over 50 percent of the Air Force skills that are open to women are in the areas requiring aptitudes in mechanics and electronics. When you look at the qualifications of women who take the voca- tional aptitude battery and score high enough in those particular skills, then you look at the number that enter the labor market, plus the number who want to go in the service, the number comes down quite considerably. We have done a great deal of analysis on that. Senator PROX~IRE. Are you saying as far as jobs like being a me- chanic for an aircraft- General DAVIS. Yes, Sir. Senator PROXMIIIE. It seems to me that we really have a cultural block that is the problem there. There is no reason why women can't be good mechanics. I always thought I had no aptitude in the me- chanics area. When I went in the Army, I took a test and found I did PAGENO="0045" 39 have the aptitude but like so many people, I didn't want to do it, so I just said I wasn't able to do it. General DAVIS. That is the point. You took that aptitude test. All our applicants take the same aptitude test and what I am telling you, Senator, is they do not have the aptitude. I say they do not, plenty of them do, but th~ percentage, if you look at just jobs, aptitude aside, you can come to that conclusion. What I am telling you, Senator, is that, based on extensive testing, the resource is n.ot there. Senator PROXMIRE. But of such a small quota of women who come into the Air Force-are you really tapping the high number of women, the high proportion of women to do these jobs? General DAVIS. I thought we were in agreement at the outset that our program of 18,000 in fiscal year 1978 and~at the end of the 5-year period, upwards of 80~000, was fairly good progress, Senator. No? Senator PRoxMIim. I didn't mean to imply that at all. General DAVIS. We didn't agree? Senator PR0xMIRE. It is better than the Army, no question about that. General DAVIS. Right. Senator PRox~rIRE. But I think it is not nearly as good as it can be. General DAVIS, And I think our experience has told us that-we have tripled the number of women in the Air Force since 1972. Senator PROxMIRE. They did in the Army, too. What disappoints me in the Army is their goal. That is something they explain on the basis of taking a look at oiif goal. General KINGSTON. We are so far ahead already. General DAVIS. If we could get back to the basic question, Senator- Senator PROXMIRT~. All right. General DAVIS. The resource to fill that 450,000 jobs, if that is the right numher,.is not there. Senator PROXMIRE. How do you know? Hay~e you made any real survey, market survey to find out whether or not there are women to fill these jobs? General DAVIS. We make market surveys- Senator PROXMInE. And tried to recruit them for these jobs? General DAVIS. Oh, yes, sir. Yes, sir. We have been doing that since 1973. Senator PR0xMIRE. How much money have you spent an recruiting women? General DAVIS. How much money have we spent? Senator PnoxMn~E. On recruiting women? We spend a whale of a lot of money on recruiting men. General DAVIS. It is part of a total budget. We don't break it out for men and women. When you say recruiting wom~, you are obviously talking advertising dollars, and our advertising dollars have been so constrained, $7 million for Air Force recruiting- Senator PROXMIRE. I am not talking about advertising dollars. There are ways to recruit women besides running ads. Let me read what the General Accounting Office says in this report: PAGENO="0046" 40 Although we do not know exactly how many positions are available to women, both the Defense Department studies in the past indicate that most women enter the traditonal occupational areas such as administrative, clerical, medical, dental. The GAO study revealed that in the recruiting of women, the women `did not elect other areas because combat requirements for men re- strict the jobs open to women, and that many women preferred the administrative, clerical, medical, dental jobs and in the past recruiters failed to tell women about the occupational options open to them. So what we are trying to find out here is that there is just a kind of a lethargy, an inertia that women have done in the past, they will continue to do this, and the opportunities in the other areas are not. called to their attention. General DAVIS. Oh, no, Senator, just the opposite. In 1973 we estab- lished goals across all of our career fields. As a matter of fact- GAO STUDY FINDS RECRUITERS FAIL TO INFORM WOMEN ABOUT ALL CAREER OPTIONS Senator PROXMIRE. You might have established the goals, but the GAO-which I have found to be completely responsible, I have never seen them in error in a significant way in the 20 years I have used them, and I have used them a lot-they say recruiters failed to tell women about all the occupational options open to them. I think it takes a particularly aggressive action and attitude on the part of the recruiter because you can almost assume that a recruiter is going to say "Women are all right for clerical jobs, typing, medical work, nursing, period." And unless you break through that bias that so many have, women are not going to know about these other jobs. General DAVIS. I don'tthink you understood my point, Senator. My point is we have a specific objective in nontraditional areas in order to spread women across all except the 7 combat specialties-only 7 out of 234 job specialties are closed to women. Senator PROXMIRE. Again, I don't mean to push .that, I know you have that intention, but the GAO finds that as a matter of fact- General DAVIS. What is the date of the GAO report, Senator, and does it refer specifically tothe Air Force? Senator PROXMIRE. The date of this is July 22, 1977, today. That is when I got the.letter. General DAVIS. And is it service-related? Because I have 1974 and. 1975 GAO reports that say just the opposite. Senator PROXMIRE. Well, this is later than yours. General `DAVIS. I mean say just the opposite.. SENATOR PROXMIRE SUGGESTS MAJOR EFFORTS ARE NEEDED TO OVERCOME BIASES Senator PROXMIRE. You apparently are getting worse. I don't mean to be too critical. And I must say, with all of you witnesses, 1 am im- pressed by your own personal determination to provide giE~eater op- portunities for women. I didn't mean to be critical in that way `at all. I just think there is a lag in the service, and we have to make extraor- dinary efforts to overcome it. PAGENO="0047" 41 Mr. NELSON. Mr. Chairman, can you tell me, the GAO study that came in today, does it say the Army discourages or has more women in the traditional than nontraditional fields? Because our figures are that less than 50 percent of the women are in what you call traditional skills for women. I would be interested if that goes for the Army, too? Senator PEOXMIRE. I will read the paragraph: Although we don't know exactly how man~v positions are avaihthleto women, both the Defense Department studies in the past indicate that most Women enter the traditional occupational areas. AIIMY FIGURES 5110W MORE WOMEN IN NONTRADITIONAL OCCUPATIONS Mr. NELSON. We have figures here-and that part is not correct as to the Army. I can't speak for the other services. Senator PROXMIRE. You mean most women are not in administra- tive, cleri~aJ, dental or medical? Mr. NELSON. No, sIr. Senator PROXMIEE. Can you give us a breakdown? General I~INGsTON. 20,000 are in the traditional skills, and the rest, 25,000, are in the nontraditional skills. General DAVIS. Senator, I would like to furnish ~ou for the record- Senator Pu0XMIRE. Very good. I congratulute you oi~ that.. General DAVIS [continuing]. A list of the specialties open to women, and the numbers in them. Senator PROXMIRE. Fine. [The following information was subsequently supplied for the record:] The following includes those Air Force Specialty Codes (AFSC's) open to enlisted women. It should be noted that the figures for 1972 and 1977 do not include women who were being included under miscellaneous reporting identi- fiers (e.g.: patients, officer trainees, etc.). For 1972 there were 877 and in 1977 there were 1013 women in these categories. Information follows: Wo men as of Juno 30 AFSC Title 1972 1~77 202X0 Radio communications analysis 203X0 Linguist/interrogator 204X0 ntelligence operations 205X0 Electronic intelligence operations 206X0 Imagery interpreter 207X1 Morse systems operations 207X2 Printer systems OPR 208X0 Voice processing 221X0 Photo cartographic 222X0 Geodetic specialist - 231X0 Audiovisual media specialist 231X1 Graphics 231X2 Still photo helper 232X0 Motion picture camera specialist 232X1 TV production 233X0 Continuous photo processing 233X1 Photo processing control 231X0 Safety 242X0 Disaster preparedness 251X0 Weather 252X1 Weather observer 27lX1 Airfield management 271X2 Operations system management 272X0 Air traffic control 274X0 Command and control 276X0 Aerospace control and warning system operator 276X1 Electronic warfare countermeasures - See footnotes at end of table. 0 129 38 12 7 95 0 43 5 67 107 299 1 112 0 1556 14 3 0 6 12 52 74 60 74 1 6 O 2 38 90 4 1 (1 3 0 8 6 . 310 176 21 291 150 0 256 263 . 411 3 . 101. 45 389 4 13 PAGENO="0048" C,, C) -4 CD 3 - N) -------- N) - - - - C,) - -- N) C~) C~C) - ~ N)~ ~4C~ (J~ OOC)~ ~C-~ 00 ~ N~ -4 ~ o-~N) ~J (Y~Q~ N)N)~-~ C)~ 0)0) (DC0(O NOC,) CJ~0 N)o~ ~ C) Co c' ~C) PAGENO="0049" £1 - N) ~N)-)I~) ~ -~ C~ ~N) CO~-~2~ C) ~O ~ -4 N) c~ .~ Cb N)~O ~ -J~ON)~ N)~) )~`-4~ ~`-4N)C~Q c~C~)~4~D ~ C~CD~ ~~(31 ~ a~N) ~O1 )-~N)OOC)(~N~ N)~ ~ ~- ~ O)N)'-~-4 ~Q~CQ (.fl~ *-~) CO~ N) C,) -4 3 PAGENO="0050" 1 The majority of persons processing through the 203X0 field were converted to the 208X0 field in 1976. Hence, when 203X0 and 208X0 are compared, women actually increased from 38 in 1972, to 558 in 1977. 2 The 252X1 field is being phased into the 251X0. Therefore, women actually increased from 176 to 311. Senator PR0xMIRE. General Kingston, the Army reversed its policy on entrance of women to the Combat Arms Advanced Courses despite the fact that all those who entered in the 1972-74 period successfully completed those courses. Why the reversal? Was it a factor that Congress was debating the bill allowing the women to enter the military academies? Was that a factor? General KIN+sToN. Senator, I can't give you a specific answer to that question because I was not involved in the policy at that time. But I think it had to do with the spaces available at the schools and the fact we were opening up all the other branch schools to women. We needed them in those areas more than we needed them for cross-training with the combat arms. Senator PR0XMIRE. It seems to me, I think, a decision certainly in the wrong direction. General KINGSTON. It is a decision that is open for review. Senator PROXMIEE. What happened to the women who completed those courses? General KINGSTON. They were then assigned-one of them, I know, who went to the Infantry Advanced Course, is now assigned at West Point as an instructor. I can't tell you about the rest, sir. There were only a handful, but I will find out and finish it for the record. Senator PnoxMixic. Fine. [The following information was subsequently supplied for the record:] Two captains were permitted to attend the Infantry Officer Advanced and one captaiti the Field Artillery Officer Advanced course. All graduated in 1973. Subsequent to graduation, the artillery schooled officer remained at Fort Sill and served as an instructor in the Target Acquisition Department of the Field 44 AFSC Title Women as of June 30 1972 1977 904X2 Cytotechnology specialist 905X0 Pharmacy - 0 45 1 108 906X0 Medical administration 907X0 Environmental health 908X0 Veterinary specialist 909X0 Nuclear medicine 198 29 45 1 768 49 120 3 909X2 Neurology spemalist 911X0 Physiological training specialist 912X& Ophthalmology 912X1 Otorhinolaryngology surgical 912X2 Urology surgical specialist 912X3 Orthopaedic clinic specialist 912X4 Allergy/immunology specialist 912X5 Optometry specialist 913X0 Physical therapy 3 0 0 1 4 1 7 4 15 4 1 6 2 10 6 30 33 32 913X1 Occupational therapy 913X2 Orthotic specialist - 914X0 Mental health clinic specialist 914X1 Mental health ward specialist 4 0 15 22 9 4 47 65 915X0 Medical material specialist - 916X0 Cardiopulmonary laboratory specialist 917X0 Physician assistant - 921X0 Survival training specialist 922X0 Aircrew life support 67 14 0 0 0 148 10 4 3 139 981X0 Dental specialist 231 618 981X1 Preventive dentistry 982X0 Dental laboratory specialist specialist 41 33 79 42 983X0 Dental assistant - 0 4 PAGENO="0051" 45 Artillery School; commanded a WAC battery; and was assigned. as Ihe Army Emergency Relief Officer before departing for United States Army, Euroje and Seventh Army in November 1976. She is now the commander of the Headquarters Detachment of the Regional Personnel Center in Prankfurt, West Germany. Since graduation, one of the infantry schooled officers h~s performed duties as a division education officer, S-i (Personnel Officer) of a divisional Supply and Transport battalion, Assistant G-i in a division, and is currently a personnel staff officer in a support battalion. The other officer has performed as an Adjutant General Branch Advisor in a Readiness Region headquarters, as an admissions officer at the United States Military Academy, and is currently scheduled to begin the Command and General Staff College course at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas in August 1977. All three officers are basic branch Adjutant General Corps and their assign- ments have been generally in consopance with normal career patterns for that specialty. ENLISTMENT STANDARDS HIGHER FOR WOMEN Senator PROXMIEL Secretary Nelson, is it correct that women are required to meet higher enlistment standards than men in the Army, and with low quotas they must wait 6 months to a year before going on active duty, and as a result many give up in discouragement? Some jobs are closed to women for long periods because of the quotas, and everywhere there are low quotas and very few women are s~lècted? Mr. NELSON. As to the first part of your question, Senator, it is true that their standards,, if you put it that way, are higher. As to the other part of the question, I really don't know the answer to that. General KINGSTON. Sir, I think what you are referring to is the delayed entry program we had and have, because so many want to come in, we have had them delayed as long as 8 to 10 months. We have tried to reduce that down to a maximum of 6 months because a lot of things happen to people in terms of their career goals and so forth in the interim. Senator PEOXMIRE. What I am saying is this: that the Army does not have a problem of recruiting personnel. Weknow that. At the same time, we are turning away women who want to come in who are qualified, and who will improve the quality of the Army. That seems to be true. General KINGSToN. I would say we are not turning away- Senator PR0xMIRE. You got low quotas and where you don't have a quota, you recruit very few women. General KINGSTON. That is true, sir. Senator PRoxMniE. It seems to argue you are not making the service in the Army available to women in the way it would seem logical to do. General KINGSTON. Well, I think there are very few women in that category, sir, frankly. There are a few, but that is part of our evalua- `tion to see if we cannot open up and take care of more of those women and, of course, by virtue of opening up all these nontraditional:MOS's, we can give them options. Senator PRoxMniE. Let me give a specific example: The legal educa- tion program that sends officers to law school at Government expense is an example. It is true that there is a much lower ceiling on ROTC scholarships for women than for men. Isn't that true? Mr. NELSON. I imagine scholarships would reflect at this point the number we need for combat-trained officers. General KINGSTON. That is certainly part of it. PAGENO="0052" 46 Mr. NELsoN. I suspect that; I don't know that. General KINGSTON. We have about 517 with ROTC scholarships now, sir, and we have about 11,000 women out of our total of 54,000 who are in ROTC. Senator PROXMIRE. How many women get scholarships per year compared to men? General KINGSTON. Of course, we have only had women in ROTC since 1972. We now have about 517, and they compete and there is about 100 or 200 per year, I will have to find the exact figure, but they have to compete for those scholarships. Senator PROXMIRE. About 100 for women, 470 for men? General KINGSTON. Yes, sir. It is actually more for womenbecause we have a total of 517 now. It is about 200 a year getting the scholar- ship. Senator PR0xMIRE. Are more men or more women? General KINGSTON. More men, of course, are getting scholarships. We have 54,000 in ROTC, of which 11,000 are women, sir. Propor- tionately they have about what you expect in terms of scho]arships now. I will update that for the record. Senator PROXMIRE. Thank you. [The following information was subsequently supplied for the record:] Approximately 200 scholarships are awarded to women each year. The policy followed by the Army in awarding ROTC scholarships must best use. that tool to meet the Army's requirements for officers, both men and women. The Army needs a mix of officers to serve in combat arms, for which men and women serve according to a prescribed pattern. In this regard, based on our current ability to attract male and female officers to meet noncombat requirements the available scholarship for women considering their exclusion from the combat arms and their density in the officer corps, is about right. The women get their fair share of scholarships based on noncombat arms requirements. Each year 2,200 scholar- ships are awarded. Of this number approximately 2,000 are awarded to men and 200 to women. During school year 1976-77, 14 percent of the men enrolled in ROTC were on scholarship compared to 4.4 percent women. Senator PROXMIRE. Secretary Chayes, the overall percentage of women, 6.8, is an improvement from what it was in the past. We would all agree it is much too low, and we are hopeful it goes much, much higher than that. But when that number of the 5,000 is officers, how many are nurses and how many are line officers? Ms. CHAYES. Do you have that information, General? General DAVIS. I don't have it readily available, but I can provide it for the record. Senator PROXMIRE. Thank you. [The following information was subsequently supplied for the record:] The following numbers show women line officers, nurses, and other professional women (e.g. lawyers, doctors, etc.) in 1972 and 1077: Line Nurse Others Total 1972 1977 1,213 1, 842 3,371 3, 084 182 336 4,766 5, 262 PAGENO="0053" 47 The decrease in women nurses is attributable to two factors. First, as a part of overall strength reductions, there has been a reduction in the authoriza- tions for nurses. Second, there has been a gradual increase in the number of male nurses entering the Air Force. As of 30 June 1977, males comprised 17.2 per- cent of the nurse corps, Senator PR0xMInE. General, I would also like to know what per- centage of the line officers women represent in the Air Force. General DAVIS. Senator, I will provide that for the record. Senator PRoxMIrnll. Thank you. [The following information was subsequently supplied for the record:] 1972 1977 Number Percent Number Percent Female Male 1 213 1.1 105,534 1,842 2.2 82,974 Total 106, 747 84, 816 Senator PR0XMIRiI. Now, how many of these officers are majors, lieu- tenant colonels, colonels; what would be the percentage for women colonels against the percentage of all line colonels? General DAvIS. Senator, we will provide that for the record. Senator PR0xMIRE. Fine. [The following information was subsequently supplied for the record:] Female Total Percent Major Lieutenant colonel Colonel 86 40 4 15, 655 10, 982 4,534 0. 6 . 4 .09 These figures are low due to the small numbers of women competing for pro- motion to these grades. We must remember that the officers being considered for these grades entered the Air Force 10-20 years ago and their numbers represent the policies in existence at that time. For example, 64 women were commissioned in fiscal year 1957. Additionally, prior to 1968, a legislative ceiling limited total women line officers to 700. Today the increasing number of women in the officer corps are receiving more responsible and demanding jobs. As a matter of fact, for the last three promotion boards to Oaptain, women have had promotion rates equal to or higher than men. The Air Force is confident that this trend will continue and, as a result, more women will be promoted to the senior grades. Senator PRox~rInE. General, how many enlisted women are master sergeants, and senior master sergeants, chief master sergeants, and what are the percentages for each grade as against the total percent- age? General DAVIS. We will provide that for the, record, Senator. [The following information was s.ubsequ~ntly supplied for the record:] ` 1972 1977 Female Total Percent Female Total Percent 6-7 E-8 E-9 122 29 10 43,330 11,945 6,054 0.28 .24 * 17 87 30 9 33, 553 9,496 4,692 0. 26 .32 .19 PAGENO="0054" 48 Senator PROXMIRE. Since the Air Force implemented its plan to triple the number of women in 1972, for the record, how do each of these numbers.and percentages compare to 1977? General DAVIS. Yes, sir; for the record. [The following information was subsequently supplied for the record:] The information provided in response to the pi~evious questions includes available data for 1972. In 1972, the Air Force had 10,728 enlisted women in traditional jobs such as administration and medical fields. By June 1977, that number had increased to 17,809. Additionally, in 1972 thei~e were 904 women in non-traditional jobs such as aircraft and vehicle maintenance. By June 1977, that number had increased to 15,344-a `nearly 16 fold increase. These increases, by number and skill placement, represent positive movement in opening all career fields to women. As these women gain experience on the job and time in service, their promotion opportunities should concurrently increase. Senator `PROXMIRE. Secretary Chayes, is it true that 83,000 jobs are closed to women because of limited housing facilities overseas? Ms. CHATYTES. Well, there are many. General DAVIS. I believe that number is a little high but we will have to provide that for the record. [The following information was subsequently supplied for the record :j In the overseas areas, we have 72,200 positions which are not open to women because of limited housing facilities. The locations vary from 18 remote sites in Alaska and the Pacific where the modification cost to llniited dormitory space is the primary constraint, to overseas bases where bachelor housing policy in conjunction with facility renovation is the primary constraint. We are cur- rently reviewing our housing facilities to see where we can decrease the restric- tions and thereby open more overseas assignments to women. Senator PROXMIRE. Tell us, if you can, how much it would cost to provide facilities to accommodate women? Ms. CHAYES. Sir, I have just `asked my deputy assistant for installa- tion's to ~-et that information. We do not have that information now. We cannot furnish that for `the record because it requires an ins'talla- tion-bvin'stallatio'n analysis, and When we have it we will `supply it for you. NO SURVEYS OP PUBLIC ATTITUDES BY SERVICES UNDERWAY Senator PROXMTRE. Let me ask one final question and start with the Army and go right across. Secretary Nelson, have you done any surveys to try to ascertain what the attitude of the general public is toward increasing the role of ~omep. `in the military? If so~ what are the results, and what about the surveys of possibility' of women even volunteering for combat and the results? Mr. NELSON. Not to my knowledge, sir. We will check on it. General KINGSTON. If I could, sir-. Senator PROXMIRE. I have great confider cc in my survey but I can understand why it might be challenged. I thought we were careful about how we `asked questions. We realize if you ask the question a certain way-we were careful to make the question as objective and balanced as possible. As I pointed out, we got overwhelming response in favor of the' women in the military having the opportunity in the military and also being allowed to volunteer for combat. PAGENO="0055" 49 General KINGSTON. Sir, we are starting a study right now to deter- mine just what is the propensity of women to enlist in the Army and also if we opened more MOS, particularly in the c'omba~t arms for women. This is a very easy subject to talk `about but I am not sure we would have a rush to the enlistment booths if we opened it up to combat. We don't have the men knocking down the doors, either. Senator PROXMIRE. I am talking about the attitude of the public be- cause this is a democracy and we are governed whether we admit it or not by public attitude to' a very considerable extent. I think one of the inhibiting notions is that well, people don't want it, they want women in the kitchen. I think that is a vicious `attitude that some have that makes it so hard for us to make progress. I think maybe `a survey, if it were objective and accepted, would be very helpful. General KINGSTON, I have done a couple of informal surveys similar to yours and I found the women say yes, they ought to have the op- portunity to go into the combat arms but for somebody else, not for me. So, it is very interesting. Senator PnoxMIm~. I can tell you a lot of men feel the same way. [Laughter.] The way I felt about combat in World War II I didn't wantto go `in. Nobody else I knew wanted to go in. Maybe a few, but it wa's a rare guy that wanted `to go ou't and get in combat. Mu~. NELSON. No question about that. We have to pay bonuses to' get men in the infantry and so on. SURVEY RESEARCH QRIENThD TOWARD MEN Admiral WATKINS. All surveys we have deal with persons in the military. We have not embarked on public surveys. It is my under- standing that this will be one of the elements of the Department of Defense review under the Nunn amendment; We in the services normally do not embark on surveying people outside the military family. However, we do have internal Navy surveys that are valid. We are people also, and also citizens. For example 50 percent of our women, on informal surveys we con- ducted re'cently, in the Navy, do not desire to serve `at sea. This may be- Senator PROXMIRE. Do not desire to serve at sea? Admiral WATKINS. Serve at sea, yes. Similarly, we have found that 30 percent of o'tlr married women, the wives of our career force, are very vocally opposed to women serving at sea. Furthermore, 11 percent of the wives `state that they would not support their husband's decision to reenlist if women were assigned to sea duty. Senator PnoxMniE. I can understand that, but- Admiral WATKINS. Now, wait a minute. `I am trying to say, `Senator, we have internal attitudinal surveys we must consider irrespective of what the public says. We also have to ~m'aitLtain military effeOtiveness. `Senator Pa0xMIRL But if' you ask the que~tion differently, snot whether they favor permi'tting women to volunteer to serve at sea, that's quite different. PAGENO="0056" Admiral WATKINS. We have no such survey. Senator Pa0xMIRE. If that is what they like, why shouldn't they be allowed to do it or you might get a different response. Admiral WATKINS. I understand, sir, but our primary responsibility has been to spend our limited survey dollars within the Navy to deter- mine our own attitudinal difficulties in instituting our women in the Navy programs. We have not embarked on any external surveys. Senator PROXMIRE. All right. Secretary Ohayes. WOMEN OVERWHELMINGLY DESIRE FLIGHT DtJTY Ms. CHAYES. The only study I am aware of done of Air Force women officers indicated by a margin of-well, by 73 percent, 12 percent against, that women should be- Senator PRoxi~rieE. Say that again, I missed it. Ms. CHAYES. All right. A study in 1973 was done by the Air Force and of the Air Force women 73 percent said yes, women should be permitted to fly in combat and 12 percent said they disagreed with the proposition that women should fly in combat. Senator PROXMIRE. You say 73 percent agreed that they should be allowed.? Ms. CHArns. Yes, should be allowed. Senator PROXMIRE. Should be allowed to fly in combat and 12 per- cent disagreed? Ms. OHAYES. Right. That is the indication of the then current atti- tude of women in the Air Force. We have not and should not be doing, I think, public surveys at this time so long as the restriction is congressionally imposed but I do think those public surveys are very important and they may, you know, help clarify the debate which is bound and should take place. I would like to ask you, sir, to repeat again the questions in your seurvey on women in combat because it had something about it that troubled nije. Senator PROXMIRE. All right. Let's see if I can dig that out. The first question was: Should all noncombat jobs be available for women in the military. Ms. OHAYES. It was the other question that I was concerned about. Senator PROXMIRE. The second question was: Should women be al- lowed to volunteer for combat duty. Ms. OHAYES. That is only part of the kind of question that really has to be asked, I believe. The question also should be asked not only can they~volunteer but should they be assigned to combat, because it seems to me that that would be inevitable if the combat restrictions were removed. Senator PROXMIRE. I see your pointS and it is a very good point. I think you are right. However, I think that it is possible that you should ask both questions because it is very possible that you might adopt a policy of saying that if women can volunteer for combat duty, they should not be restricted from doing it. I think that might be a logical approach, at least for the transition period. PAGENO="0057" 51 Ms. CHAYES. That is right. Senator PRoxMniE. Maybe a final approach for that matter. Ms. OHAYES. As far as the Air Force is concerned, I think your question is good because the Air rorce personnel do volunteer to be rated as I understand it. General DAVIS. That is right. Ms. CHAYES. So, that would be a sufficient question. For the other services, I am sure it would be a sufficient question to give you the insight you need. Senator PiioxMIm~. These hearings have been extremely helpful and useful. There is nothing harder in our society than change, partic- ularly to change something as imbedded as you pointed out~in civiliza- tion as having men do the fighting. The only example of the contrary I know of is that in the Amazon the women did the fighting. This is something encrusted in yeai~s of habit not only in our country but in our civilization, so it is something that is very, very hard to modify and change on the basis of reason and logic. I think that while the services could have done better, they can always do better. To say that the typical person doesn't reach more than about 10 percent of his potential and very few go more than about 40 or 50 percent, I think you can do a great deal better in the military than you have done to date. You have every reason to do it, the Army, particularly, where you have recruit problems and where women improve the quality of the service and where women are pounding on the door to get in. I think it is true across the line. I think General Eisenhower's notion that not only did we find women could perform every function in the military as well as men, but it ini~proved the quality of men, too, and that is something we shouldn't forget. We can have a better military force-certainly a better allocation of our economic resources which is the responsibility of this Joint Eco- nomic Committee, if we open our minds and try to overcome the habits and prejudices that unfortunately plague us. Thank you very much for testifying. The official r~ecord will remain open temporarily and we will submit written questions to you for your response for the record, if you would be so kind as to respond. The subcommittee is adjourned. [Whereupon, at 5:18 p.m., the subcommittee adjourned, subject to the call of the Chair.] [The following written questions and answers were subsequently supplied for the record :1 RESPONSE OP MAJ. GEN. J. P. KINGSToN TO ADDITIONAL WRITTEN QuEsTIoNs POSED BY SENATOR PRONMIRE Que~Uon 1. What is the primary role of wometi in your service? What do you think their role should be? Answer. The Army is committed to providing for the fpli and effective em- employiiient of women consistent with the Army's primary mission of ground combat. The over-riding requirement of the Ar~ny is to be able to flgbt and win, hence, the ~perntional effectiveness and readiness of the Army to execute this primary mission governs its policies for women. The Army's stated position with the American public and the Congress is that of unequivocally opposing the PAGENO="0058" 52 use of women in combat as active fighters. The Army believes it is clear that the original intent of Congress and, by extension, the intent of the American people was that women perform in noncombatant roles; and recent Congres- sional vommentary ~4lsQ supports this position. Exclusion of women from direct combat is also prudent and reasonable until more is learned about the physical limitations of women in comparison to men, and the psychological and socio- logical impact of women in tactical units. Therefore, the Army believes that the basic premise upon which its policy concerning women is founded, that is, exclusion from direct combat roles as active fighters, is a sound one. For these reason, the primary role of women in the Army is that of a non- combatant and should remain so. Question 2. The "Women in the Army Study" refers to "maximum female con- tent." What is this? How is it computed? Does this computation limit the num- ber of women who can serve in the Army? Is there a similar computation for men in the Army? Answer. The Army's program that determines the number of women who may serve in the force has always been based on, two factors: the primary mis- sion of the Army is combat and the nation does not support using women in direct combat roles, or as active fighters. Accordingly, a minimum number of mep are required to maintain the Army's combat readiness. Because of the Army's manpower ceiling, there is ~t maximum number of women the Army can absorb and use. "Maximum female content" refers to the maximum number of enlisted women possible for each skill (MOS) and grade consistent with total active Army strength authorizations and male combat requirements. The number is determined using the Army's Woman's Enlisted Expansion model .(WEEM) ~which involves a data base and a fifteen step process. During model simulation, each enlisted grade is processed separately by MOS from the data base until all MOS (skills) are completed. The WEEM compares two continuing routines en `women. The first is the application of maximum female `content in unit percentages to documented interchangeable positions (as identi- fied in unit authorization documents). The second is consideration of promo- tion equity, rotation base, and career development assignment equity to pro- vide for full professional development. In comparing the two routines, the model is programmed to select the approach which provides the lesser female content `by grade in order to ensure maximum support of combat positions. This number is then run through a grade/space ratio (GSR) routine which ensures that the' MOS grade structure for women mirrors the Army-wide structure for that MOS. Once this is accomplished, the total number of available positions for women is configured to ensure that there are sufficient positions to support the upper grade levels (based on the Army's Enlisted Force Manage- `ment Plan). The computation just described does limit the npmber of women who can serve in the Army, but for the reasons indicated, No similar computation is made for the men. however, the female strength acts to constrain the number of m~n in an MOS and grade. Que,~tion 3. Have there been any projections regarding the potential of men and women for your service? Would a change in the policy regarding women affect the potential pool? Answer. Yes, to both questions. The Army I~ecruiting Command ~eriodieally analyzes the recruiting market to estimate the number of potentially available qualified men and women. The Army establishes recruitment policies to allow the enlistment of the most highly qualified available applicants with the highest probability of completing their enlistment, from that pool. As an example, we cur- rently require women enlistees to be high school graduates who have a signift- eantly higher likelihood than non-high school graduate women to complete their first enlistment. If we' removed that criterion, a significantly larger number of women would be eligible to enlist. However, we currently do not need to enlist women with high loss potential, since more IISDG women are aunlying for enlistment than we are able to.. accept due to the prohibition of `assigning women to combat nnits. Question 4. What studies have been done to `show the nropenslty of women to join the Army? For example, has the Army done any national surveys of high school girls * * * similar to the surveys of high school boys * * * to determine the potential job pool of women? If so, what were the results? Answer. There have been two surveys of the attitudes of women toward enlisting `in the Army. The first was in 1971, the latter in 1974. The earlier PAGENO="0059" 53 survey observed that military service did not, at that time, figure prominently in the minds of young women. Relatively few women had a true knowledge of or familiarity with what the Army offered, expected, or entailed. The latter study Identified a small but measurable increase in the awareness of, familiarity with, and considerations of military service; however, it revealed that the Army could expect to appeal to only a narrow segment of young women. In order to obtain mere current informatioi~ and account for any changes in young wimen's perceptions, expectations and Interests * * * toward life in general and the military in particular * * * the Army is cooperating with the Navy to develop and conduct a new study for the Department of Defense. In addition to the areas of interest cited earlier, this survey will investigate the nppeal of non-traditionti jobs for women in the military. Questioa 5. What effort has been made to recruit qualified men tO your service? Qualified women? What qonstitutes a qualified man? Qualified woman? What are the differences in qualifications for men and women, and why do they exist? Answer. To recruit qualified men and women for the Army, the Recruiting Command has a field recruiting force, of ever 5,000 men and women. The Army has placed great emphasis on maintaining the assigned strength of the field recruiter force who must "close the deal" with the potential enlistee. In the volunteer envir'onment~ ~lt is~tbe recruiter who finally sells the Army to every young person who enlists. Chapter 2, Army Regulation 601-210 (Regular Army Enlistment Program) provides the basic qualifications for enlistment in the Regular Army for men and women. The only difference between male and female basic enlistment criteria is ~n the mental category and education level require- ments, The rationale for these differences stem from the objective of the Army recruiting effort to recruit the best qualified volunteers in sufficient numbers to accomplish the Artay mission. To achieve this objective, standards are set which allow us to choose the best qualified men and women based on how many we have to select from and how many are required. The standards for women are higher because there is a larger number of women interested in joining the Army in proportion to the number of women required. Since fewer women are required and there is a relatively large pool from which to choose, we are more selective and set the standards accordingly. Question a. Does Army advertising-In posters, TV spots and the like-promi- neatly show women in a variety of duties? Please be sp~clfic. Answer. Yes, Department of the Army guidance for the Army Recruiting Command regarding female advertisement states that It will display a male, female, and )ninorit~r subject mix whenever appropriate. Specifically: Group plc- tures include women whenever possible. Such advertising reinforces the theme that people in~ today's Army are working and serving together toward a common goaL Women are shown in a wide array of roles. Men and Women working to- gether, In different but mutually supporting skills, are depicted. Women are shown performing duties, not posing for pictures, Advertisements using phote- graphs which blur female ~oldiers are `not used because of the secondary role connoted. Women are shown ifi skills which are likely to be available to them throughottt the year. Eoth field and office environments are used. Female adver- tisements focus on achieving the career management field content goals. Women are depicted in leadership roles when appropriate. Questl~n 7. How do you specifically recruit women? What type of guidance do you give a woman seeking to join your service regarding the life she might expect? Answer. Women are recruited In much the same way as men. No special re- cruiters, `either male or female, are d'esfgnated to exclusively recruit women. All appfl~ants are rejtiired to read job descriptions of the skills for which they enlist. If they or their parents have female-unique questions regarding Army life, they are~ able to discuss them with one of the female recruiters or Army guidance counselors. The Army attempts to depict to all potential enlistees as accurately as possible the life they might e~perienèe during their enlistment. This follows the answer to the preceding question regarding advertisement. Question 8. The "Women In the Army Study" recOmmends that all MOS's be reviewed periodically for possible participation by women ,and that the rea- Sons for closing an MOS to women `be clearly stated. Has this been `done? How often is the list of MOS's reviewed? In the year and a half since publication * of the "Women in the Army' Study" have more MOS's been opened up to women? PAGENO="0060" 54 Answer. The periodic review of MOS's for participation of women recom- mended in the Army Study (December 1976) is being accomplished. A review was conducted between March and lune 1977 that validated the list of 29 MOS's to be closed to women (two of the MOS's previously closed, 12D and 12F, have been deleted from the Army MOS Inventory). These 29 MOS's are presently closed to women because they are designed for direct involvement in combat (i.e., contributing to the act of inflicting casualties on the enemy) or structured pri- marily for utilization and assignment in areas where close combat operations would occur. The Army is currently considering 13 of these MOS's to determine if they could be opened to women. In addition to the 29 MOS's closed for combat and combat support purposes, selected MOS may be temporarily closed based on a quarterly evaluation of rotation equity, equitable career progression and ab- sence of entry level positions. The list of MO'S's closed due to the combat exclu- sion policy are reviewed semi-annually, the next review being scheduled to begin September 1977. Question 9. Are women required to meet the same training and performance requirements as men on the jobs assigned? Answer. Army training is designed to prepare soldiers with the technical skills and knowledge necessary to successfully perform in their MOS at increasing levels of responsibility. Training provided to male and female soldiers for the same skill (MOS) is identical except where physiological differences dictate otherwise. The same is true for the training provided to male and female of- ficers. Inasmuch as the training is identical, men and women are expected to meet the same performance requirements. Question 10. What are the educational opportunities that the Army provides for men and women? Are there professional school programs? How many women and men are selected to attend these? What are the criteria for selec- tion and admittance to these programs? How many ROTC scholarships go to women-number and percentage? Answer. Educational opportunities that the Army provides to its soldiers (as distinguished from skill training) are offered first to meet Army requirements and next to satisfy personal development aspirations of individual men and women. The service colleges constitute our most important source of individual professional military development education for officers. Each y~ar about 1,400 officers are selected to attend the senior service colleges and the Command and General Staff College. Students are selected `by bOards of officers based upon demonstrated performance and potential for advancement. Results of the School Year 1977-1978 `boards reveal that female officers receive an equitable share of educational opportunity. For the senior service colleges 8 percent (2/25) of the eligible females were selected compared to 5 percent (284/5,816) of eligible males. For the Command and Staff College the selection rates were 22 percent female (13/60) and 14 percent male (1,027/7,381). In addition to service colleges' certain officers are selected each year to re- ceiv'e advanced civil schooling. Each student is educated to meet specific re- quirements and is used following the schooling in the advanced degree discipline. Women compete equally with men in this program. Selection is based on aptitude for advanced education, specialty designation, overall demonstrated potential for continued military service in more responsible positions, and personal interest. About 500 officers enter this fully funded program each year. So far In 1977 six women have entered this program. Additionally about 800 officers and warrant officers attend full time degree completion programs each year. These students are selected from applicants in accordance with the criteria above without re- gard. to sex. 10 female students entered degree completion programs ~this . year. The low, number of women in civil schooling programs can be explained in part by three characteristics of female officers. Until recently all female otficers were required to have undergraduate degrees, and few need undergraduate degree completion programs. Recently, female officers were assigned to branches, as yet few are branch qualified, and it is inappropriate to send them to civil school- ing until they have gained proficiency in their newly assigned branches. Most Army requirements for advanced civil degrees are in the engineering and science disciplines, yet few female officers have the undergraduate background to suc- cessfully undertake advanced schooling in these areas. Professional military education for enlisted soldiers consists of the Sergeants Major Academy, Attendees at the Sergeants Major Academy are selected by a Department of the Army board based upon the best qualified criterion considering overall demonstrated performance of duty and potential for further service in PAGENO="0061" 55 positions of increased responsibility. The school year 1977-78 Sergeants Major Academy selection board chose 10 percent of eligible female master sergeants (2/22) while 6 percent of eligible male master sergeants were picked (336/6,000). The number of women eligible for the Sergeants Major Academy does not reflect the percentage of women in the Army largely because of the recent expansion of the female content of the Army, the increased number of skills for which women are eligible, and the length ~f time required to reach the senior grades. The pro- portion of women will increase as the recent female accessions age. In addition to these formal education programs there are a variety of volun- teer programs available at each installation worldwide providing educational opportunities equally to men and women who are eligible based upon previous educational attainments and who are willing to devote the off-duty time to self- improvement. Participation rates are not maintained by sex. The available pro- grams range frQm remedial education through degree completion to graduate academic programs as well as technical, vocational and language courses. Coun- seling and testing services are also provided. Each year about 200 ROTC scholarships are awarded to women. This is approximately 10 percent of the total number of scholarships awarded each year. The policy followed by the Army in awarding ROTC scholarships is that thi.s tool must be used to meet the Army's requirements for officer accessions, both men and women. A significant fraction of our officer requirements is for officers to serve in the combat arms, for which only men are eligible. Scholarship must be allocated to support both the combat arms and noncombat arms requirements. Thus, based on our current ability to attract male and female officers to meet noncombat requirements the available scholarships for women, considering their excluSion from the combat arms and their density In the Officer Corps, is about right. Question 11. While the Army has increased the nnmber of enlisted women, has the number of fema~e line officers increased proportionately? Does this, or does this not, include Army nurses? Answer. Since 1972 (when the Army revised and expanded Its objectives for Women in the Army), the increase in female line officer strength has not been proportionately as large as the increase In enlisted women, as shown below. Fiscal year- Percent change 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 TQ Enlisted women Female line officers 12, 349 894 16, 457 1, 066 26, 328 1, 229 37,703 1, 428 43, 806 1, 726 44, 461 1, 873 +260 +110 These numbers do not include Army nurses, nor do they include female ofi~cers of the other special branches (Chaplains, Judge Advocate General's Corps, Medi- cal Corps, Dental Corps, Medical Service Corps, and Army Medical Specialist Corps). Question 12. In regard to the turnover rate in the Army, how many men fail to reenlist? How many women? Have you looked at the reasons why men leave the service as opposed to women? Answer. Through June 1977, there were 44,492 first term males and 4,792 first term females, who were eligible to reenlist in fiscal year 1977. From these eligibles 14,859 males (33.4 percent) and 2,171 females (45.~ percent) reenlisted. The female reenlistments were primarily In the traditional skills; we will not have any significant data of female reenlistxnents rates in non-traditional skills until 1979. We have looked separately at the reasons why* men and why women do nOt reenlist. The most recent Army-wide survey administered in February 1977 to first termers leaving the service suggests that a higher percentage of women than men In this group intended only to serve one term, and that more husbands wanted their wives to get out than vice versa. The same survey also suggests that among those leaving the service a higher percentage of males than females considered, primary among other factors, that their pay and allowances were too low. Question 13. What studies have been done, or are now underway that look at the overall performance of men and women in .your service? What were the results of these studies? PAGENO="0062" 5~ Answer. In its planning for the entrance of women cadets, West Point initiated ProJect 60 in 1975 to determine what minimal adjustments were n~ces~ary to existing standards because of physiological differences between males and fe~ males. Fifty-eight volunteer women students, 16-18 years of age, participated in seven weeks of experimental training. Additionally, an extensive review of literature relating to the physiological differences between men and women was considered. A substantial amount of Information relating the physical capabili- ties and limitations of young women was provided bytbis project. The results revealed that the women involved were, in many Instances, far more physically proficient than a review of the literature on the physical abilities of women would have led West Point personnel to believe; and on a number of tasks, even above average women physical performers performed at a level below that achieved by the average male cadet. This led to mOdifications of the Cadet Basic Training (CBT) program. Women were equipped with the lighter M16 rifle for physical training, rifle exercises and bayonet training WhereaS the men used the larger M14 rifle. The operating rod spring and hammer spring of the M14 rifles were modified for women in an attempt to equalize the difficulty men and women experience in performing inspection arms. Women opposed women in pugil training. Although women still had to work harder to accomplish the physical aspects of CBT, the minor modifications made appears to be sufficient. A survey of major Army commanders in 1975 indicated general satiSfaction with the performance of women, but identified a need to set minimum physical standards for all personnel in each MOS. Two studies are underway that address the physical performance capabilties of men and women. The first was under- taken in 1976 to examine the requirement for physical training in the Army in order to design a* more satisfactory program. This study separates physical fitness and training into a Baseline Program to maintain a minimum level of fitness; an MOS Program to meet the physical training requirements of com- mon MOS related jOb tasks; and a Collective Program related to MOS task performance in a battlefield environment. Models for the MOS and collective programs are being field tested during the period June 1977 to' March 1978. The other study also began in 1976 and is designed to establish the physical fitness standards for each skill (MOS). Implementation of a six months pilot physical screening program in selected Armed Forces Examining and Entrance stations (AFEES) is scheduled for 1 October 1977. The results of these studies are expected in late 1978 and should lead to improved physical entry standards for skills and physical readiness training within the Army as a whole. A field test of a Basic Initial Entry Training Program (BIET) was conducted at Fork Jackson, S.C., during the period September-December 1976. Its objec- tive was to measure and compare the performance of male and female non-prior service (NPS) accessions against standards of a common course of instruction and identify needed changes in female basic training. Identical training and preparation will enable both men and women to participate equally In follow-on and unit training and unit defense should this be necessary. Results of the test revealed that women perform comparably with men on basic critical tasks, except for physical readiness training (PRT). PRT events can be modified for women, however, without changing the content of the training, reducing the value of the training received or lowering the male standard. As a result of this test a decision was made to design a common basic training program for men and women modified only to accommodate physiological differences. This com- mon-core entry level training is planned to begin in September at Fort McClellan and `October at Fort Jackson. A force development test and evaluation (MAX WAC) was conducted during the period October 1976 through June 1977 to determine what effect varying the' enlisted female strength of a company level unit will have on unit per- formance. The purpose of the test was to assess the effects that varying the percentage of femala soldiers (0-35 percent) assigned to representative types of combat support and service support units will have on the capability of these `units to perform their mission under field conditions during a 72 hour period. The last of fifty-five planned company-size teats was completed 1 July 1977. Data are currently undergoing statistical analysis with a final report scheduled for late 1977. Another comparison of the performance of men and women will be undertaken during Reforger 77 to' assess the effect of overseas deployment and extended field conditions on the stamina of female soldiers assigned to combat support and combat service support units. The exercise will be completed in October1977 with a final report expected in July 1978. PAGENO="0063" `57 RESPONSE OF VICE ADM. JAMES D. WATKINS TO ADOITIO~AL WRITTIIN QUEsTIoNs POSED BY SENAPOR PROxMIRE Question 1. What is the primary role of women in your service? What do YOU think their role should be? Answer. The primary role of women is basically to serve on an equal basis with men, to the extent they are qualified and permitted by law, in meeting th~ total manpower requirements of the Navy. As indicated by Mr. Ilidalgo in his statement, the utilization of women has been increasing since the early 1970's with a 63 percent increase planned through fiscal year 198& I think the Navy should continue plans to expand in an evolutidnary manner the integration of women into the total force~ In this regard, Congressional approval of the Navy proposal to amend Title iO, U.S. Code, Section 6015, would facilitate such expansion by permitting the temporary assignment of women to all Navy ships and permanent assignment to auxiliary and service craft. Question 2. Have there been any projections regarding the potential of men and women for your Serrice? Would a change in policy regarding womer~ affect the potential pool? Answer. Senator, I assume the first part of your question pertgins to projec- tions for increasing the utilization of women in the NaVy, thus w~aximizing one valuable manpower asset in view of the dwindling supply of qualified males generally projected to occur during the 1980's. The Navy has participated in numerous, wide ranging seminars and studies on women and is in basic agreement with the Bro0kiñgs In~tjtute Researeh Study. The Navy is planning a 63 percent increase in women by fiscal year 1983. This objective is in close agreement with BrOokings estimates of the potential utilization of women in the Navy, under both current Statutory restrictions as well as in recognition of the necessity for providing shore billets for males rotating from sea duty. With respect to policy changes and the utilization of women, ~e have learned that it is necessary to move in an evolutionary mannOr in order to successfully integrate women into the total force. Women strength increases .pjanned through fiscal year 1983 represent the maximum we can manage undçt current legal restrictions. However, Congressional approval of the Navy propbsál to amend Title 10, United States Code, Section 6015, permitting the permanent assignment of women to auxiliary and service craft and tOniporary assigpnue~t of women to all Navy ships, would allow the Navy to more properly ntiljze the women planned through fiscal year 1983 and to permit an additional Increase of 6E women while reducing the demand for male personnel. Question 3. What effort has been made to recruit ~uaiifled men to your service? Qualified women? What constitutes a qualified man? Qualified woman? What are the differences in qualifications for men and Women, an~l why do they exist? Answer. Navy recruiting efforts for qualified men and women do not differ ex- cept in intensity. The major thrust of our recruiting effort is directed toward procuring required numbers of qualified young inàle~. The female recruiting effort is essentially a process of screening and and selecting the best qualified among the applicants which currents exceed female, Técruiting requirements. Qualified men ~ind women must satisfy minimum age, mental, physical and background criteria, the details of which are readily available, if desired. Be- cause supply exceeds demand, the Navy requires that all female recruits must be high school diploma graduates and quality ~or scho9l training. On the other hand, because 100 percent male high school graduates and scj~ool elig1~les cannot be recruited, the Navy must accept a minimum number of males Who do not meet these criteria, sufficient to attain recruiting goals. For example, in fiscal year 1976, 76.5 percent of all non-prior service males were high schoolgra~uates and 88 percent were school eligibles. With respect to ph~sical qua~ifi~~~ions, p~e~ scribed height and weight Standards recognize physiologiCal differeiices between males and females. Otherwise, there are no differences in required qualifications ~or males and females in the Navy. Question 4. flow do you specifically recruit women~ What type of guidance do you give a woman seeking to join your service rcg4rding ~be life s]~e might expect? Answer. Women and men are recruited through the saipe procedures. These procedures described herein are tailored to the fem~4e candidate. Women are made aware of Navy opportunities through direct recrtiiter contact, nat~onal PAGENO="0064" 58 advertising, literature available at the recruiting stations, high school career days, college campus visits, and other women already in the Navy home on leave and as a part of the Hometown Recruiter Assistance Program. For female enlisted applicants, all recruiting stations show a film depicting the life of a woman recruit at Recruit Training Center, Orlando, Florida. All women applicants ar.e required to view this film, They are also briefed by recruit- in~ personnel about the conditions of Navy life and possible duty assignments for women in general. Prior to enlistment, all women must be interviewed by a specially trained Navy job classifier. Each applicant is counseled regarding Navy training available depending on aptitude test scores, physical qualifications, the applicant's desires, anti other factors such as security clearance requirements. Eased on the. results of thie job classification interview, each applicant qualified for enlistment is enlisted with either a written guarantee for specific training or for general duty assignment leading to on-the-job training. For officer applicants, we inform the young woman that she will not serve aboard a ship or in a combat designated aircraft squadron, but she will be expected to contribute to the team effort in support of the operating forces. T'he woman candidate is also briefed on the rigors of officer candidate school and the fact that the co-educational academic and physical requirements are equally applicable to bOth men and women. The women are apprised of the career fields available to women and sub-specialties which they might attain in the future. Question 5. What percentage of the Naval force is now women? If 10 U.S.C. 6015 were modified, would it enable the Navy to recruit a larger number of women? ~Answer. Currently, 4.3 percent of the total Navy strength are women. Without a. modification to 10 U.S.C. 6015, it is planned that Navy women will increase 63 percent and constitute over 6 percent of the total force by fiscal year 1983, with a required annual accession of 6,600 female recruits. If that statute is re- vised as proposed by Navy, approximately 6,000 additional women could be utilized, thus ~necessitating additional female recruits. Question 6. What is the greatest number of women that could serve in the Navy without changing current laws? With a change in law? Answer. Without changing current laws, the Navy can utilize 30,651 enlisted women and 5,088 women officers for a total of 35,739 women by fiscal year 1983 (currently, the Navy has 19,342 enlisted women and 3,713 women officers). If 10 U.S.C. ~015 is amended as Navy has proposed, an additional 6,000 enlisted women and 122 women officers could be utilized to fill billets at sea and ashore. Question 7. Are women required to meet the same training and performance requireiuents as men on the jobs assigned? Answer. Yes, sir. Question 8. What are the educational opportunities that the Navy provides for men and women? Are there professional school programs? How many women and men are selected to attend these? What are the criteria for selection and admittance to these programs? How many ROTC scholarships go to women- number and percentage? Answer. The Navy has a number of voluntary programs which provide educa- tiona). opportunities to navel personnel. Full-time Navy funded duty under in- struction includes the programs listed at Table A with statistics for 1976. Medical education prOgrams also exist for professional development of naval personnel in the healing arts. (Statistics for male/female participation in these programs are not available). Off duty programs include the Navy Campus for Achievement and Tuition Aid Program, both of which provide opportunities for naval personnel to attend college courses in their free time. Educational oppor- tunities are available to all naval personnel, regardless of sex. General criteria for selection/admittance are based on academic qualification for the specific program concerned, professional qualification including perform- ance record and future promotion potential, appropriate grade of rank eligibility, willingness to accept a service obligation, and the status of Navy specialist personnel inventory vs specialist requirements. As formal screening procedures are not conducted for these programs, male/female statistics are not available. A maximum of 264 women may hold NROTO scholarships of the total 6,000 authorized. This represents 4.4 percent of the total. (At the present time, women officers comprise 5.8 percent of the total officer corps). As of 30 June 1977, fol- lowing graduation of the Class of 1977, women held 106 Navy/Marine Corps Scholarships of a total 4,262 (2.5 percent). PAGENO="0065" 59 TABLE A Calendar year 1976 Educational! Male Female professional Considared Seletted Considered Selected Reñiarks Service college (professional 3, 118 872 ~6 15 military education) Postgraduate school 7, 014 2, 134 318 60 The smaller percentage of women selected as compared to men generally reflects a lack of math/science under- graduate courses completed by women. Current recruiting goals for aN potential naval offieers emphasize ~the desirability of technical under- graduate curriculums and/or courses. Scholarship 22 8 No women applied for any scholarship programs in 1976. College degree program 107 64 The college degree program leads to a baccalaureate~lgveJ degree forofficers who have entered the service with tess than an Undergraduate degree. Women officer dp~llcants are required `to possess this level of education pricrto commigsioning. Law education program 89 15 3 1 In addition to general criteria, appli- cants must possess appropriate potential fo~designatioq aq~a member of the Judge Advocate General Corps. Advanced education program The advanced education program will conduct itS 1st selections in Septem- ber 1977. Men and women are eligible to appIy~ Question 9. While the wavy has increased the number of enlisted women, has the number of female line officers increased proportionately? Does this, or does this not, include nurses? Answer. No, sir; there has not been `a proportionate Increase in female line `officers compared to the growth of enlisted Navy women. Nurses are not Included in this comparison. The growth in women officers has been sl'o*er than enlisted women since many officer billets ashore require warfare specialties which women are restricted from obtaining by 10 U.S.C. 6015. The enlisted billets are not so constrained and, ac- cordingly, proportionately larger numbers o'f enlisted women may be utilized. Question 10. How many women are in the Navy, aviation program? What has been `their record? Are there any limitations imposed ott these women, `and, if so, what `are they? If 10 U.S.C. 6015 were repealed or modified, would it `affect the roles the women aviators have? Answer. There `are currently 21 women offlcer~ in Naval Aviation. With respect to their record, thirteen women officers have co~pleted flight `training, ten in the prop pipeline and three in helicopters. Eight women officers are currently under- going flight `training. Of the 23 women officers who have entered flight training, there have been only two a'ttrites, `a rate of' 8.69 `percent. This compares most favora'bly with the 27.5 percent overall `attrition rate `experienced in the flight programs. All women who have completed the training have successfully served in jobs with duties involving flying. Limitations `on the utilization of women in the aviation program stem `from the "Combat" provisions of 10 U.S.C. 6015. Wo'men may no't be assigned to' bbip- board duty, including squadrons that land on ships, other than transports and hospital ships. If Title 10 U.S.C. 6015 were repealed, there *ould be 710 restrictions on the as- signments of women `avia't'ors. If Title 10 U.S.C. 6015 were modified to remove the shipboard duty restriction but not the combat restriction, women aviators could be assigned to squadrons in support `of Fleet `Operations and could land on carriers. Question 11. Describe the potential difficulties and problems `that might arise if w'omen were `assigned to ships. What reasons do you have for making these assumptions? Answer. The `assignment of women to auxiliary ships and service craft, as well as combat vessels, could present man'y and varied command problems resulting from reactions of me~ and women serving long per~o'ds at sea in confined spaces 23-366---78----5 PAGENO="0066" 60 under arduous conditions. In the absence of experience of any duration, the identification of difficulties and problems which might arise would largely be pure speculation.- We do have the limited experience with women at sea which was undertaken on a hospital ship, the U.iS.~S. ~a4wtuary, during the 1972-1975 period. A small cadre of about 60 women over and above the women normally assigned to the hospital department were involved. We found no significant problems which couldn't be overcome. The Commanding Officer felt morale was high. The inter- change between male and female seaman was was excellent and on a high level. Minor problems of a hand-holding nature were handled satisfactorily through regulation. However, no finite conclusions from the Sanctuary experience as to what might develop from assigning women to sea duty should be made in view of the fact that of the 400 days women were assigned, only 42 days were spent underway. Even so, `I see no reason `for not proceeding in a calculated and evo- lutionary mansier to assign women `to auxiliary and service craft, with the pos- sible subsequent inclusion of combat vessels a matter for determination by the Congress and the American people. Question 12. Do women in the Marine Corps have special problems and restric- tions? If So, please identify them and tell us what `the Navy is doing `to deal with them. Answer. I am advised by General Schulze, Director Manpower Plans and Policy Division, Headquarters Marine Corps, that the Marine Corps is experiencing no major problems with respect to utilization `of women. In fact, the present plan calls for more than a 100 percent increase in the woman Marine population by 1983. There are combat restrictions that prevent women from being training in infantry, artillery, tanks and amphibian tractors and as pilots and naval flight officers. In addition to these specific skill restrictions, women cannot be routinely assigned to combat units since such as assignment would place them in a poten- tially combataht role. The Marine Corps does not have a `blanket combat unit `restriction, however, and has identified approximately 3 percent of the manpower spaces in the Fleet Marine Force as suitable for assignment of women Marines. The combat restriction is the overriding constraint on the employment and utiliza- tion of women and the legal limitation of 6015 does not have a major impact on the Marine Corps. Combat action ashore is the key Issue. Amendment of 6015 to provide for temporary additional duty aboard certain ships would be of some `benefit to the Marine Corps by permitting amphibious movement of women Marine personnel to the objective area. This does not contemplate the participation of women in ami~hibious assault operations. While women will be assigned to combat support and combat service support units, the Marine Corps steadfastly maintains that women will neither be employed nor trained as combatants. Question 18. At this point, it does not look like D'OPMA will pass this Congress. What alternative plans has the Navy made to equalize promotion opportunities in the event that DOPMA does `not pass? Answer. In the event DOPMA does not pass, the Navy has taken steps within the limitations of current promotion laws to provide for the continued growth o'f the women officer communities through increased promotion opportunity. Women officers are appointed to the Medical, `Dental, Nurse, Medical Service and Judge Advocate General Corps and compete with their male counterparts in these competitive categories. By law, women officers are appointed to and com- pete only among themselves within the categories of the line, Supply Corps, `Chaplain Corps and Civil Engineer Corps. The Secretary of the Navy designates the number of officers that `the selection boards may recommend for promotion to each grade in each competitive category througis establishment of promotion opportunity. The following promotion oppor- tunities were apprved for fiscal year 1978 selections for women officers of the line, Supply Corps, Chaplain Corps and `Civil Engineer Corps as contrasted with pro- motion opportunities for most other communities: [In percentj ` To- ` Women Most other communities Captain Commander 100 80 90 60 70 85 Lieutenant commander Lieutenant Lieutenant (junior grade) 100 (1) 95 (1) 1 All qualified. PAGENO="0067" 61 The increased promotion opportunities for women were auth~rized by ~ECNAV in recognition that the women officer communities are email, but grow- ing, with f~w officers in senior grades. For the next few years the small numbers coming into the promotion zones will be insufficient to permit growth in the ~senlor grades. Increased promotion opportunity to the three senior grades will provide the capability for some measure of growth. The promotion opportunity to lieutenant for women officers is specified in law. Question 14. What has been the performance of the female Midshipmen at Annapolis? What do you envisage as the future role of these women. in the Navy? If 10 U.S.C. 601.5 were repealed/modified, bow long would it take before the wOmen would take their place on shipboard? Answer. The programs at Annapolis for both men and women are "single track" except where physiological differences occur. The same standards for men and women are maintained for training, graduation and commissioning. The performance of the female Midshipmen at Annapolis during the academic year 1976-77 was on a par with that of the men. The attrition rate for women was slightly higher than the men but the reasons for attriting were similar to the male Midshipmen. The women have performed well academically, profes- sionally and athletically. Their summer training is currently being performed aboard yard patrol craft. The future role of theSe women, assuming 10 U.S.C. 6015 is not modified, would include assignment to unrestricted line non-combat billets ashore depending on their educational backgrounds, desires, and types of first tour billets which are available, at time of graduation. Flight training will also be available. Progressive assignments during their careers will include division officer, cle- partment heads, executive officer and commanding ofticer billets ashore. On the other hand, if the U.S.C. 6015 were modified as recommended by the Navy, as- signment would also include certain shipboard duty. If 10 U.S.C. 6015 were repealed, through the evolutionary process involving training and qua;liflcation programs, men and women would be assigned all jobs in accordance with their qualification. If 10 U.S.C. were repealed/modified, the length of time before women would take their place aboard ship would depend on several factors. For example, training, to compensate for the lack of experience and training not needed for shore duty assignments, required for shipboard duties would have to be pro- vided. This would be in addition to training required for the billet regardless of whether it was filled by a male or female. Therefore, the specific length of time could vary from immediately after 10 U.S.C. 6015 is modified to several years depending on past experience and training of the females concerned. Question 15. What studies have been done, or are now underway, that look at the overall performance of men and women in your Service? What were the results of these studies? Answer. The Navy has never conducted a study evaluating overall perform- ance of men and women and no overall study is currently in progress. The Navy is conducting the following research on specific areas of the performance of. men and women: Eeasons for separating during first enlistment; los:s of productive time comparison with males; physical requirements of Navy jobs. The Navy has completed some research on loss of productive time comparisons between men and women Which showed women had less time loss than men when pregnancy and other factors such as unauthorized absence, accidents, alcoholism, etc. were included. However, this survey compared men at sea and ashore with women ashore, so the comparison is not completely valid. Current research is directed toward the development of a more accurate evaluation of lost time. Question 16. What is 10 U.S.C. 5767? Does this affect women in the Navy and marines? If so, bow? Answer. This statute permits the Secretary of the Navy to designate a woman to hold a position as a rear admiral or brigadier general if: (1) There is a position of sufficient importance and responsibility to require an incumbent in the grade of rear admiral or brigadier general and (2) There is a woman officer of the Navy or the Marine Corps who is best qualified to perform the duties of the position. With the exception of Women in the Medical Corps and Dental Corps of the Navy, women are excluded from the normal selection and promotion process to flag grade by law. There are two women rear admirals presently on active duty, one in the line and one in the Nurse Corps, who were appointed under this authority. There are presently no female Marine Corps generals. PAGENO="0068" 62 RuSPONSE' OF HON. ANTONIA HANDLER CITAYES TO ADDITIONAL W1IITTEN QUESTIONS POSED BY SENATOR PROX~UR1s Questio~.z 1. What is the primary role of women in your service? What do you think their `role should be? Answer. The primary role of women in the Air Force is no different from the primary role of men in the Air Force. That role is to provide a trained and moth. ~~ted personnel resource tO accomplish the Air Force mission. There is a legal con- straint on the eYtent of the role of women in the Air Force. Section 8549 of Title 10, U.S. Code, specifies that women may not be assigned to dut~y in aircraft en- gaged in combat missions. Air Force policy further sttates that women n~ay not be àssignêd toduty where there is a high risk of capture or injury due to hostile fire. DOD has initiated a study requested by Congress of the proper defivition of "combat." The results of that study should clarify `the extent of utilization of women within the present statutory restrictions, therefore Congress will be in a better position to address the actual combat restrictions. Question 2. What major changes in policy have occurred since 1970 regarding any modifications in Air Force policy regarding women? Answer. The following major changes have occurred: 1970-Women Air Force members adopting or acquiring minor children could remain on active duty unless they requested discharge. 1971-Pregnant Air Force women could request waiver `to manUatory separa- tion to Stay on active duty. 1972-Plan to~triple the number of women and expand their utilization was approved. 1974-Publlc Law 93-4~20 established uniform enlistment standards for men and women. 1975-Pregnant Air Force Women could remain on active duty unless they re- quested voluntary separation. 1975-Public Law 94-106, Title VIII, Sec. 803, provided that women were eligible for appointment and admission to service academies. 1975-Test program to train women pilots and navigators for non-combat air- craft was approved. 1976-Test of 100 enlisted women to be trained as security force specialists was approved. Question 3. Have there been any projections regarding the potential of men and women for your service? Would a change in the policy regarding women affect the potential pool? Answer. The Air Force has been committed to expanding the use of women and therefore expanding the size of the total available pool. A change which would allow commissioned women to participate in combat missions in all types of air- craft would open 18,000 rated officer positions to women. While the size of the potential pool would be increased by opening these rated positiOns, we cannot ac- curately predict the propensity of women to volunteer for such positions nor the will of the American people as expressed through Congress to support the use of women in a combat profession. A change in law involving women in combat would have little impact on the number of enlisted women that could be used since all except seven Air Force'en- listed specialties are open `to women. There are, however, factors which indicate the capability to expand the potential pool significantly may be limited. The com- bination of vocational aptitude test score results, labor force entry, and propensity to enter the military are all considerations when the' actual size of a qualified and available female resource pool is examined. The Air Force has large require- ments for personnel in scientific/technical fields, areas for which women currently demonstrate significantly lower aptitudes than men. For example, in recent Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB) results only 4 percent of females qualified in the electronics area, yet 25.5 percent of all Air Force enlisted skill re- quirements are in this area. Latest available Department of Labor figures for high school graduates (age 20-24) show 64 percent of women enter the labor force compared to 94 percent of the men. Finally, ASVAB data reflects 3.4 percent of fe- male high school juniors and seniors indicate future military plans versus 8.2 percent of males. Question 4. What effort has been made to recruit qualified men to your serv- ice? Qualified women? What constitutes a qualified man? Qualified woman? What are the differences in qualifications for men and women, and why do they exist? PAGENO="0069" 63 Answer. Air Force Recruiting Service directs the e1~orts of its recruiters, to select, from civilian sources, suthcient numbers of men and women who meet the required mental, moral and physical standards in order to meet programmed `Air Force objectives for nonprior service, prior service, Officer Training School, and nurse, medical, dental, veterinary, and biomedical science corps. Air Force recruiters also provide qualified referrals to the Reserve ~orces for enlistment. Additional efforts to attract men and women include recruiting advertising, assistance from active and retired Air Force members in stimulating support and applicant referral, and the development of enlistment incentives, In order to qualify for enlistment in the Air Force, men and women mfist achieve a General Score of 45 and a Composite Score of 170 on the portions of the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB) used by the Air Force. Further, men and women must achieve a Score of 21 to 99 on the Armed Forces Qualification Test if they are high school graduates or State certified GED. Non- high school graduates must achieve a score or 65 to 99 on the same test. Men and women must be between the ages of 17 and 28 with parental consent required for those under 18. Only American citizens, citizens of American possessions/ter- ritories and registered aliens may be enlisted in the Air Force. In all cases, enlistees must be of good moral character while meeting the medical fitness standards as identified by the Air Force Surgeon General. The only differences in required qualifications for men and women are physical. Although the minimum and maximum height requirements are, the same for men and women, the maximum weight by health and age differ due to the differ- ence In male/female anatomical structure. Other biological differences between men and women dictate dissimilar physical examinations. Question 5. How do you specifically recruit women? What type of guidance do you give a women seeking to join your service regarding the life style she might expect? Answer. Women are actively recruited from civilian sources' in the same manner as men. Our recruiting objectives are based on `~klll requirements needed to support the Air Force manpower structures. Each field recruiting unit is then given specific monthly objectives for men and women, Men are recruited Into all available skills; women are recruited into all available skills except those prohibited by law or policy. Women (and men) are provided information concerning the Air Force through advertising media, films and personal interviews. The purpose of this information is to depict the Air Force life style to include pay, promotion, career and educa- tional opportunities in a factual "tell-it-like-it-is" manner. Additional emphasis is given to explaining to women those opportunities in "non-traditional" fields which are available to them. Question 6, What is your position on the issue of keeping legislative statute versus vesting policy decisions in* the Secretary of the Air Force on the use of women? Do you feel that this should be out of the hands of the service secretaries and vested in the Secretary of Defense? Answer. The Air Force has not requested a change to Section 8549, Title 10, U.S. Code. If Congress concludes that legislative restrictions are no longer appropriate, Congress should eliminate or amend the statute. The Air Force envisions no policy difference between SecAF and SecDe~. Question 7. The Army and Navy have a number of studies available on the use of women in a number of of non-traditional areas. What studies have the Air Force done that deal specifically with the role Of women in the Air Force? What are the conclusions of these studies? Answer. The Air Force has made periodic assessements of the role of women in the Air Force. The findings from these reviews have been to use developing plans for progressively increasing the participation of women in the Air Force. Significant assessments occurred in 1965, 1967, 1972, 1974 and ~1975. The exten- sive study concluded in 1975 resulted In a quantitativO methodology for estab- lishing accession objectives for women. This methodology specifically considers the resource pool, labor market entry and propensity to enter military service. It also considers the limits resulting from combat and facility restrictions. There Is an inherent adaptability in this methodology. An annfial review is scheduled to update the factors in the methodoolgy as well as incorporate any new ones. As a result, any changes in societal trends or Air Force policies can be on better utili- zation of women as a personnel resource, increases in the tota1~iumbers of women recruited, opening of mo~re job specialties to women, apd conversion of housing from male to female dormitories to house more women at more locations. The PAGENO="0070" 64 total number of Air Force women on active duty has increased every year since 1965 (from 8,841 on 30 June 1965 to 39, 650 on 30 June 1977). The Air Force position has been to continue to strive toward balancing cost- effectiveness, equal opportunity, and military. preparedness while responding to the will of the American people as expressed through the Congress. Question 8. Are women required to meet the same training and performance requirements as men on the job assigned? Answer. Yes. Each person who enters the Air Foce is assigned an Air Force specialty. Prerequisite qualifications for entry into a specialty and the duties and responsibilities to be performed are contained in Air Force Regulation (AFIt) 39-1 (Enlisted Personnel) and AFR-36-1 (Officer Personnel). There is no differentiation in the entry requirements or tasks to be performed based on sex. Question 9. What are the educational opportunities that the Air Force provides for men and women? Are there professional school programs? How many women and men are selected to attend these? What are the criteria for selection and admittance to these programs? How many ROTC scholarships go to women- number and percentage? Answer. The Air Force provides an extensive network of voluntary and pri- marily off-duty educational opportunities for men and women through the Air Force Education Services Program. These range from high school completion and basic skill development (i.e., reading skills), through certificate, associate, bac- calaureate and graduate programs. Many of these programs are conducted on Air Force installations, by civilian schools, world wide. The Air Force encourages the educational growth of its people by providing 75 percent tuition assistance for voluntary off-duty study. Those eligible may choose to use in-service Veterans Administration educational benefits. The Air Force also provdes for its men and women to engage in full-time study in a variety of degree and non-degree pro- grams to meet our education requirements. These programs are primarily in the professional (medical, legal, etc.) and scientific and techneal management areas. The Airmen Education and Commissioning Program provides for highly qualified enlisted personnel to attend college full-time to obtain technical degrees needed by the Air Force followd by commissioning through Officer Training School. Addi- tionally, the Community College of the Air Force enables our enlisted personnel to integrate technical training and voluntary off-duty civilian college education into programs that lead to Associate in Applied Science Degrees related to their Air Force specialties. Professional military school programs for officers are provided at `three levels. The basic level is represented by the Squadron Officer School for which officers with over 2 and under 8 years of commissioned service are eligible to attend. Selection for each of four offerings annually are made by major commands on a best qualified basis. During academic year 1976-77, 2,522 men and 104 women attended the school. The intermediate level of professional military education is presented by the service and joint command and staff college. 1JSAF officers primarily attend the Air Command and Staff College at Maxwell AFB, Alabama. Eligibility begins at selection for promotion to the grade of major (0-4) and terminates at 15 years commissioned service. Selection for school attendance is on a best qualified basis from among those officers promoted to major. During academic year 1977-78, 620 male and 4 female USAF line officers will attend the various intermediate colleges. The 4 selected to attend represents 4.6 percent of the 86 line female majors on board as of 30 June 1977, while the 620 males represents 4 percent of the line male majors. Senior level officer professional military education is provided by the National Defense University and the War Colleges operated by each military department. Eligibility begins at selection for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel (0-5) and terminates at 21 years of commissioned service. Selection to attend is on a best qualified basis from among promotees to lieutenant colonel and early promotees to colonel (0-6) who were not previously nominated to attend. During academic year 1977-78, 326 male and 3 female USAF line officers will attend the senior service colleges. The 3 selected to attend represent 6.8 percent of the line 0-5 and 0-6 females on board as of 30 July 1977, while the 326 line male officers represent 2.2 percent of the line males in these grades. In addition, through correspondence courses and seminar programs at base level, all officers have the opportunity to complete initial, intermediate, and senior service schools. Those who successfully complete these courses receive a diploma from the appropriate PME school. PAGENO="0071" 65 Non-commissioned officer (NCO) professional ~illitary education Is a fully integratqd five phase program designed to prepare NCOs for positions of responsi- bility by broadening their leadership and management skills and b~ expanding their perspectives of the military profesison. Phase I consists of an 18 hour NOO Orientation Course conducted at base level. It is required for all E-4/Senior airmen prior to appointment to NOO status and approximately 48,000 attend yearly. Phase II consists of a 52 hour USAF Supervisor's Course at base level and it is required for all NOOs upon first reenlistment. Approximately 21,000 attend annually. Phase III is the 3-week Command NCO Leadership SchooL Eligibility includes all 131-4/Sergeant and E-S's on second or subsequent enlist- ments. During fiscal year 1976, 12,115 males an~1 594 females attended the schools. ~?base IV consistS of the 5-week Command WOO Academies. Eligibility includes all E-6 and E-7 and selectees. During fiscal year 1976, 5,799 males and 68 females attended the Command Academies. Tb~e final course is 9 weeks and E-8 and selectees and E-9's are eligible to attend, Selections are made by major commands selection boards on a best qualified basis. During fiscal year 1976, 1,202 males and 3 females attended the Senior NCO Academy. Selection opportunity for females for the WOO professional military education programs is comparable to or exceeds that of males. Women compete on an equal footing for ROTC scholarships in fields for which they are eligible. They are not currently eligible to compete for scholar- ships in the pilot, navigator, or missile categories. These categories account for 2,124 scholarships. For academic year 1976-77, the majority of the remaining 2,237 scholarshIps were in the scientific/technical fields-fields with low female representation. Women held ~43 (15.3 percent) of the 2,237 scholarshIps, Question 10. While the Air Force has Increased the n~imber of enlisted women, has tile number of female line officers increased proportionately? Does this, or does t1~is not, Include nurses? Aus~er. The number of female line officers, excluding nurses, has increased approximately 52 percent from fiscal year 1972 to end June 1977, compared to an increase of about 193 percent In the number of enlisted women. Many factors have influenced the lower proportional gain in the line officer force. Most important is the fact that roughly half of the line officers are pilots, navigators and missile launch officers, fields not currently open to women. However, line women accessions have steadily increased since 1973. The increases occurred despite sharp reductions in officer strengths and accession levels. Since line accession requirements are driven by specific skill requirements, we had to use male resources where the resource of qualified women is limited-specifically in the engineering skills. Additionally, in fiscal year 1976, a prioritization of skills needed at a low procurement level resulted In heavily decreased procure- ment objectives in management areas-where the bulk of the qualified female resource exists. In terms of increased representation, 1,842 line women officers were serving in June 1977 versus 1,213 in June 1972. The category of line officers does not include individuals serving in legal ,cbaplain or health related profes- sions. Total women officer representation was 5,262 IA June 1977 versus 4,766 in June 1972. Question 11. How are women promoted in the Air Force? Are the promotion boards for women different than promotion boards for men? Are men and women promoted by the same criteria? Answer. All officers eligible for promotion to a given grade (men and women) are considered at the same time by the same board without distinction. Air Force officers are assigned to one of nine promotion categOries, within which they compete equally: Line of the Air Force, Medical Corps, Dental Corps, Nurse Corps, Biomedical Science Corps, Medical Service Corps, Veterinary Corps, Chaplain Corps, and Staff Judge Advocates. Although tile needs of the Air Force determine the specific quota for each promotion category, men and women are considered under the same criteria. The "whole person concept" is used to assess each officer's potential to effectively serve in the next higher grade. This Includes a subjective evaluation of his or her record of performance, professional and academic education, breadth of experience, job responsibility, professional com- petence, combat/achievements, and leadership ability. If selected, all officers are promoted sequentially based solely on seniority as vacancies occur. Air Force enlisted women are promoted under the same criteria as men. All (male or female) must be eligible and recommended by their immediate com- manders. Following information relates to promotion to specific enlisted pay grades: PAGENO="0072" 66 To E-2 and E-3: Based on individual attainment of minimum six-month time- in-grade and inp~nediate commander's recommendation. To E-4 (Below-the-Zone): Unit commanders may nominate up to 10 percent of those airmen who meet the criteria and who are within six months of the date- of-rank cut-off as announced by the Air Force Military Personnel Centers (AFMPC). The Central Base Selection Boards are held quarterly and they select 10 percent of the total nominated for Below-the-Zone promotion to E-4, To E-5 through E-7: All airmen compete under the weighted airman's pro- motion system. Individuals are aligned in merit listings based upon total scores and quota supplied. Those above the quota cut-off line are the selectees. To E-8 and E-9: Promoted by a combination of board evaluation and weighted factor scores. The Board scores and weighted scores are combined to establish an order merit listing and the persons above the quota line are selected. Men and women are promoted by the same criteria with no distinction in regard to sex. Question 12. A recent article stated that the Air Force has selected the people who will be included in the space shuttle program. Who has been nominated? How many of these are women? What were the criteria used in making the selections? Who chose the persons involved? Answer. 133 Air Force officers were chosen for nomination to the space shuttle program. 68 out of 348 applicants were chosen in the pilot category. 65 out of 578 applicants were chosen in the mission specialist category. One woman mis- sion specialist applicant was chosen for nomination out of 15 female pilot and mission specialist applicants. To identify officers who would be nothinated to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), board members selected applicants on a best qualified basis. Application criteria are shown below: Pilots U.S. Citizen. 5-13 years' service. NASA Class I PhysicaL Bachelor'~ Degree in Engineering, Math, or Physical Sciences. 1,000 Hours First Pilot in Jet (Note 1) Fighter Type Aircraft. 2,000 First Pilot Hours (desired). Test Pilot Experience (desired). Combat Experience (desired). Mission ,~1peeiaZists U.S. Citizen. 5-13 years' service (Note 2). NASA Class II Physical. Master's Degree in Engineering, Math, or Biological or Physical Sciences (Note 3). Notes: 1. Waiver for Extensive Multi-Engine Time. 2. Waiver for Exceptional Candidates. 3. Masters Can be Waived for Extensive Experience. The Air Force Astronaut Nomination Board convened on 16-20 May 1077 at the Air Force Military Personnel Center at Randolph AFB, Texas. Former Astronaut Major General Thomas P. Stafford presided over this board of 2 Brigadier Generals and 9 Colonels. Question 13. Are women at the Air Force Academy trained precisely the same as men? If there is any difference, what is it? Why? If 10 U.S.C. 8549 were repealed modified, would this difference still exist? Answer. The academic and military training programs at the Air Force Academy were unchanged by the entry of women. Accordingly, the training re- ceived by the women in these areas is identical to that received by men. Minor changes were required in the physical training program to accommodate for phy- siological differences as authorized by Public Law 94-106. Specific changes in- clude the substitution of fencing and body building for women in lieu of boxing and wrestling. In addition, flexed arm hangs have replaced pullups. One objec- tive of the physical training program has been to insure an equal amount of physical effort is required by both the men and women. rather than equal per- formance. The Air Force believes this objective has been met. PAGENO="0073" 67 A repeal of 10 U.S.C. 8549 would have no Impact on the academic, military, or physical training programs currently In effect at the Air Force Academy. Question 14. What studies have been done, or are now underway, that look at the overall performance of men and women in your service? What were the results of these studies? Answer. There are no specific studies, which have been done or that are now underway that look at the overall performance of men and women in the Air Force. Performance expectations and measurements are Identical without regard to sex. PAGENO="0074" PAGENO="0075" THE ROLE OF WOMEN IN TIlE MILITARY THURSDAY, SEPTE1VLBER 1, 1977 CONGRESS OF TIi]~ UNITED STATES, StECOMMITTEE ON PRIORITIES AND ECONOMY IN GOV]~RNMENT OF THE JOINT ECONOMIC COMMITTEE, Waelth'bgton, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 a.m., in room ~302, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. William Proxmire (chair- man of the subcommittee) presiding. Present: Senator Proxmire. Also present: Richard F. Kaufman, general counsel; G.. Thomas Cator, William Chastka, Deborah Norelli, Ron Tammen, and Annie Lesher, professional staff members; and M. Catherine Miller and Mark R. Policinski, minority professional staff members. OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PROXMIRE, CHAIRMAN Senator PROXMIRE. The subcommittee will come to order. The Subcommittee on Priorities and Economy in Government of the Joint Economic Committee meets today for a second hearing deal- ing with the issue of women in the Armed Forces: It is the responsibility of the Joint Economic Committee to inves- tigate instances of economic discrimination in various sectors of the labor force. The military is this country's largest employer, with over 2 million personnel. Of this total only about 6 percent are women. Now, the Congress of the United States has made it clear that we are `opposed to discrimination on the basis of sex as well as on the baths of race, and this has been a long, hard fight in the private sector. It would seem very clear that, if the Federal Government means what it says, it should have the largest employer that it has, to wit the military, fol- low that practice of no discrimination. It's obvious that the military has not been able to achieve that as yet, although some people have made commendable efforts, and I think we have made some progress. But we want to see that that progress continues. During the first hearing on the role of women in the military on July 22 the assistant secretary for manpower of the three services, accompanied by deputy chiefs for personnel, presented testimony which in some cases called into question the commitment of the De- fense Department in moving toward equity for women in the miiltary. For example, Air Force testimony indicated that there was con- siderable question as to whether or not a woman should be allowed to (69) PAGENO="0076" 70 fire a nuclear missile if so ordered by the President. One Air Force general suggested that there were undefined "flight control pressures" which might disqualify a woman from being a pilot. The Army confirmed that, although faced with a serious potential shortfall in recruiting, the number of women projected for Army service will remain constant at about 50,000 through 1982. The Navy took the most aggressive and corrective stance of the three services. By seeking legi~iation to allow placing women on board ships and as pilots, the Navy has attempted to open up new job classifications for women and overcome some of the inequities that result from uneq~ual promotion policies. But the Navy still has not resolved the question of how many women to place on temporary duty on combatant ships or what kind of ships would be used for this purpose. The issue of women in the military is a critical ingredient in our future decisions on the All-Volunteer Army. The July hearing con- firmed that women recruits surpassed male recruits in terms of educa~ tion and scores on standardized tests. Women have a higher retention rate than males. And women lose about 50 percent less time than men while on the job-including the pregnancy factor. The facts are that women lose 0.63. percent of days available for service, mainly due to pregnancy, while men lose 1.10 percent of days available for serv- ice, mainly due to desertion, alcoholism, and drug abuse. So that would indicate that the more women we recruit, the higher the quality of the military, and in very important terms of intelli- gence, education, and retention. To show the absurdity of the current situation, just imagine a uni- versity which allowed women to hold a variety of jobs but explicitly excluae.d them from teaching, the primary role of the university, just as fighting is the primary role of the military. Or, to carry the analogy a step further; imagine a trained surgeon being barred from the operating room simply because she is a woman. It has been asserted that most people argue there is a strong public distaste for women in combat. Well, I question the people, as many people as I can in Wisconsin every 6 months, and in my last question- naire I got a response from over 10,000 people. One of the questions was should women be. allowed to volunteer for combat. The answer to that was more than 2-to-i yes. It's overwhelmingly in favor. There certainly isn't any indication of public opposition and to the extent we could determine this, there was no difference in the attitude be- tween men and women. Before I introduce the panel this morning, I would like to make one other point. The case, I think, for better opportunities for women in the mili- tary is overwhelming, but the road is far longer, the climb is much steeper than we might expect. Women have had the door to advancement slammed in their faces not only in the military, but in every position of power and influence, not only in this country, but in most countries and virtually through- out almost all of human history. We are trying to overcome a deeply ingrained process where, through decisions made in our country and other countries, women are left out. PAGENO="0077" 71 Co~isider this body in which I serve, the U~S. Senate. There are 100 members. And how many women? None. How many of our 38 Presidents of the Un~1ted tStates have been women? NOne. How many Vice Presidents have been women? Not one. How many have been seriously considered? None. How many Supreme Court Justices have been women? None. Of the 50 Gov- ernors. only 2 are women. Of our 435 Repre~entataves, only about 3 percent are women. Of the top 6,000 people in American bi~ business, Fertune maga~. zine found only 11 women and 10 of those 11 were in positions of authority because they were the daughters or wives of the owners of the corporation; and only 1 had been promote~l to her position of authority on her merits; all of i~hich seems tO me a terrible indict- ment of the prejudice and great ecou~mic less that we suffer in this co~intry by not recognizing literally half of etw talent. So, in all fairness, the military is not alone in eiciuding women from positions of authority. An~1 because of the p~ropensity to vio- lence and physical strength that. war hi~toricaRy demanded, because those qualities have been deemed to be masculine ehar~cteristics- and in cray view they z~re emphatically not in any relevant sense-this prospective discrimination against women in all countries and every phase of public and private life must be faced if we are to realize the long, long way we have to go and the mountain we have to climb to give women something like equal opportunity iii the U.S. military in this century. Let me just say in conclusion the subcommittee indicated during its first day of hearings, such provocative testimony frou~ the Defense Department requires equal time from public witnesses. Therefore, we have with us today representatives from several national women's organizations and women who have held high rank in the Armed Forces. The subcommittee looks forward to hearing their testimony so that their ideas might be incorporated in any legislation to be presented to Congress. By law, the Secretary of Defense is required to present the Congress with, a report by November on. the status of women in the military with recommendations for increasing job opportunities, eliminating diserimination, and redefining the term "combat." We have with us today Jill Laurie Goodman of the American Civil Liberties Union Women's Rights Project; Carol C. Parr, president of the Women's Equity Action League and National CoalItion for Women in Defense; Maj. Gen. Jeanne M. Holm, U.S. Air Force, retired, former "Women In The Air Force," Director and Special Assistant for Women to President Ford; Col. Mary A. Hallaren, U.S. Army, retired, former Women's Army `Corps director; and Pat Leeper of the National Organization for Women~ I will ask that all witnesses first present their oral statements in sequence, limiting that testimony to 10 minutes each, and then we will move to the question-and-answer period. The prepared state- ments will be printed in the hearing record. We don't want to make you nervous but, so that you have a notion of how your time is running, we will start the clock when you begin. The green light will go for 9 minutes, the yellow light for 1 minute, PAGENO="0078" 72 and then the. red light will go on; and, since men usually overrun the time, feel free to do the same. [Laughter.] Our first witness is Jill Laurie Goodman of the American Civil Liberties Union. STATEMENT OP JILL LAURIE GOODMA1~, STAFF COUNSEL,. WOMEN'S RIGhTS PROJECT, AIVIERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION Ms. GooDMAN. I am Jill Laurie Goodman, staff counsel to the Wom- en's Rights Project of the American Civil Liberties Union. The. American Civil Liberties Union is a nationwide, nonpartisan organization of over 250,000 members dedicated to the protection of individual rights and freedoms. Recognizing that restrictions on the opportunities availa~ble to women are a pervasiv&problem, the Amer- ican Civil Liberties Union established the Women's Rights Project to work toward elimination of gender-based discrimination. In furtherance of the goaJ of full equality for women in the mili- tary, the Women's Rights Project has filed suit on behalf of a group of Navy enlisted women and officers challenging a statute, 10 U.S.C. 6015, which bars Navy women from service aboard Navy ships. This suit, Owens versus Brown, CA 76-2086, D.D.C., now before Federal District Court Judge John Sirica, requests a judgment declaring the statute m constitutional on the grounds that it denies Navy women the equal protection of law. As staff counsel for the Women's Rights Project, I have seen the difficulties faced by military women whose careers are hindered by legal restrictions imposed solely because of sex. My remarks today will draw heavily on that experience and knowledge. The basic lesson to be learned from the experiences of Navy women are important in considering the overall role of women in the military. While women in the Navy may not serve on ships because of statutory restrictions, women in the Army are barred from combat, and Air Force women may not fly planes. Thus women in other services find they, too, are welcomed into the Armed Forces and then told they may not participate in the essential missions of the services that recruited them. The experiences of Navy women show that equaiity of opportunity is impossible so long as a restriction as fundamental as that barring women from ships remains. Such restrictions necessarily generate further restrictions and quotas which drastically limit opportunities for training, education, assignments, and promotions. These difficul- ties are described in detail in appendixes A and B of my prepared statement, which I have submitted to this subcommittee. In the Navy, we find that over half of the total billets-job assign- ments-are found aboard ships. Thus, women find the total number of jobs, as well as the kind of jobs, for which they may compete, greatly restricted. Often the precise kind of training or the particular billet they need. to develop skills to further their careers is outside their reach no matter how skilled or promising they may be. Promotion becomes more difficult in both overt and subtle ways. For example, enlisted women in the Navy advance in part through a series of examinations which test practical knowledge about shipboard equip- ment which men-but not women-see as a matter of course in their PAGENO="0079" 73 everyday life. A Navy woman, who has been permitted to board a ship only as a guest, faces a severe disadvantage when she sits for that examination. Occasionally, the ordinary requirements for advancement are simply waived. For example, early in their careers Navy pilots must qualify as aircraft commanders, which requires a~ tour of sea duty. A few women have been permitted to train as pilots and have been allowed to qualify as aircraft commanders without meeting that requirement. Nevertheless, women who must depend for advancement upon the waiver of ordinary requirements find themselves in an awkward posi- tion. Because they achieved their positions through special rules, the suspicion remains that they could not otherwise compete equally with their male counterparts. * The problems that have attended attempts on the part of the serv- ices to offer equal opportunities while basic and pervasive restrictions on the service of women remain may be the reason for the retreat from earlier initiatives. The Navy, for example, opened all ratings-enlisted occupations-to women in 1972, but as women found themselves with shipboard skills they could not develop or use and the Navy found itself with skilled craftswome.n it had trained but could not employ, entry into ratings was again limited. Despite the obvious and difficult problems created by partial inte- gration, the armed s~vices are reluctant to accept women as full part- ners in the military. The current approach seems to be to leave open the possibility for ~!ull integration while experiments are designed, studies made, and reports supplied. Two objections must be raised to this approach, which says that all possibilities must be studied in abundant detail before changes can be made. First, the approach begins with an incorrect assumption. The assumption underlying the call for more studies is that women must prove themselves in each separate job, task, and assignment be- fore the armed services can be expected to change. Second, this approach demands a degree of certitude impossible to satisfy. The performance of women has been studied repeatedly and the anticipated problems never proved insurmountable. Underlying the call for more studies is resistance to the idea of women in combat. This resistance reflects three separate concerns. First, are women sufficiently fit in terms of strength and other physical characteristics to serve effectively? Second, will problems develop if both sexes work side-by-side in the military, no matter how fit women are for military service? And third, is it moral for women to be in combat, no matter how effectively they would serve? Turning first to the question of physical strength, we find, as Senator Proxmire pointed out, in a modern armed services, which depends on sophisticated technology, the concern that women may not be strong enough should not carry the weight it might have in the days when wars were primarily hand-to-hand combat. `For the few occupational specialties that do require substantial phys- ical strength. women should be judged on the basis of individual abili- ties rather than class characteristics. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 requires civilian employers to do this. We should expect as much from the military. PAGENO="0080" 74 Turning next to the concern about men and women working side- by-side, we find evidence from experiments with integrated units that integration does work. The Coimnand~r-in-Ohief of the United States Atlantic Fleet, for example, concluded his report on the U.S.S. &inctui~ry experiment with women aboard ships with the statement that: "In summary, given the Sanctuary's conclusion that both men and women have merged into members of a common disciplined crew, thc pilot program has clearly been a success." But, even if difficulties do develop in integrated units, women alone should not be blamed for creating those difficulties, nor should they alone bear the consequences. Solving those difficulties, which may well be the result of inexperience with integration ~rather than with inte- gration itself, is the responsibility of all personnel, particularly offi- cers who are trained to handle personal and managerial problems. Faced with the question of racial integration, the armed services made a commitment to racial integration based not on military neces- sity, but on the principle of equality. The potential for serious difficul- ties was tramendous. Relations between races in this country have al- ways held a high potential for violence. The confined .&trn~osphere of a ship or the strained pressure of combat increases this potential. But the armed services did not suggest that the answer was to restrict opportunities for blacks. Rather, commitments of time and money were made to make racial integration work. The Navy, for example, devel- oped a sophisticated training program in rac~ relations including classroom, seminars, and workshops for all personnel. The program, prompted in part by shipboard disturbances, has an annual price tag of $850,000 in direct costs. If it should prove necessary, the same kind of commitment could be made to insure the success of ~exual integration. Sexually integrated combat units also raise the specter of a changed image of the U.S. military. There is no simple answer to the question of how friend or foe abroad will perceive the use of women in com- bat; no `one knows for sure what would happen. A recent article by George Quester suggests the impact might well be favorable; Mr. Quester says: ~ * * an all-male military force smacks of an imperialist army, while female participation in combat signals a defense of what is one's own-a signal we wish to send." Furthermore, according to Quester, "other nations may well perceive the increased u~e of women as proof that the United States is at the forefront of social progress." Turning last to the question of the morality of having women in combat, we find this concern is the hardest to answer. It springs from deeply felt and strongly held convictions about the nature of men and women, The question of the rightness of women in combat, apart from the feasibility, is based on two concerns. First, should women be the ones to be killed in battle? And, second, should women be the ones to do the killing? I suggest that concern for exposing women to the dangers of war is misplaced. It is based on the untenable proposition that the lives of women are more valuable than the lives of men. But I find it doubtful that mothers or fathers weep more for their daughters than for their Sons. PAGENO="0081" 75 The question of whether women should be permitted to kill is more difficult to answer. The only response I suggest is to return to simple and basic principles. Characteristics of bravery, strength, intelligence, and aggression are not assigned ~t birth according to a scheme based on sex any more than they are assigned according to race. By the same token, a democratic society committed to the principle of equal pro- tection under law has no justification for allocating obligations, re- sponsibilities, or privileges according to sex. Congress ne,ed not at this time determine the difficult question of whether women should be required-as opposed to permitted-to go into combat. Neither men nor women are currently required to serve in the Armed Forces. Congress should, however, permit women to vol- unteer for service on the same basis as men, and, once in the service, women, like men, must then accept the a.ss~gnments given them. In short, women are entitled to assume a role of full and equal part- nership with mcli in the Armed Forces of this country. Congress and the executive branch should move toward that goal with all the speed which is deliberate and due. SENATOR PROxMIRE QUESTIONS PHYSICAL PIRCEPTIO~S QF WOMEN Senator PRoxMnu~. I want to commend you, Ms. Goodman, on a fine oral statement; but you skipped over one part of your prepared statement that I think deserves to be underlined and emphasized. Let me just quote from your prepared statement where you say: Even If the average woman recruit is "smaller, weighs less, and is physically weaker than the vast majority of male recruits," it does not follow that the woman who is big, heavy and strong should be restricted In her opportunities. The average woman recruit is also "much brighter, better educated~-a high school graduate-scores much higher on aptitude tests and is much less likely to become a disciplinary problem." But no one has suggested the armed services should restrict opportunities for men in the miljtary because most women are smarter. I think it is a point that we should not miss. Ms. GOODMAN. Thank you, Senator. [The prepared statement, with appendixes A and B, of Ms. Good- man follows:] PIUePAIiED STATEMENP OF JILL LAIJItIE GooDMAN I. INTRoDuCTIoN I am Jill Laurie Goodman, staff counsel to the Women's Rights Project of the American Civil Liberties Union. I welcome the opportunity to address you on the issue of women in the military. The American Civil Liberties Union is a nation-wide, non-partisan organiza- tion of over 250,000 members dedicated to the protection of individual rights and freedoms. Recognizing that restrictions on the opportunities available to women is a pervasive problem, the American Civil Liberti~s Union established the Women's Rights Project to work towards elimination of gender-based discrimination. During the past decade, lawyers associated with the ACLU have par- ticipated in many of the landmark constitutional cases challenging sex-based discrimination on equal protection grounds, including Reed v. Reed, 404 U.S. 71 (1971), Frontiero v. Ric1~ardson, 411 U.S. 677 (1973), Kahit v, S'he'vin, 41~ U.S. 351, Weinberger v. Wierenfeld, 420 U.S. (336, and (iaIif~no v, GoZdfarb, - U.S. -, 97 Snp.Ot. 1021 (1977). In furtherance of the goal of full equality for women In the military, the Women's Rights Project has Illed suit on behalf of a group of Navy enlisted 23-366---78---6 PAGENO="0082" .76 women and officers challenging a statute (10 U.S.C. 0015) which bars Navy women from service aboard Navy ships. This suit, Owens v. Brown,1 now before federal district court Judge John Sirica, requests a judgment declaring the statute unconstitutional on the grounds that it denies Navy women the equal protection of law. According to well established constitutional principles "classi- fications by gender must serve important governmental objectives and must be substantially related to achievement of those objectives." Craig v. Boren, - U.S. -, 50 LEd. 2d 397 (1976). From the information gathered to date in the course of litigation it appears that no governmental objective is served by the restriction. Instead, it serves only to make full equality for Navy women impossible. As staff counsel for the Women's Rights Project I have seen the difficulties faced by military women whose careers are hindered by legal restrictions im- posed solely because of sex. My remarks today will draw heavily on that ex- perience and knowledge. IL EXPERIENCES OF NAVY WOMEN The lessons learned from the experiences of Navy women are important in considering the overall role of women in the military. While women in the Navy may not serve on ships because of statutory restrictions, women in the Army are barred from combat and Air Force women may not fly planes because of a combination of statutes, regulations, and policy.2 Thus, women in other services, find they, too, are welcomed into the armed forces and then told they may not participate in the essential missions of the services that recruited them. These lessons take on particular significance now when proposals are being made to increase the number of women in the military wIthout changing the restrictions that preclude women from the essential work of the military. Tue recently published Erookings Institute report, for example, advocates expand- ing the number of women in the military until women make up 22 percent of the armed services. This can be accomplished, the report suggests, without lifting the most basic and crippling restriction which haunts women in the military- the combat restriction.3 The ex.periences of Navy women show that equality of opportunity is impos- sible so long as a restriction as fundamental as that barring women from ships remains. Such restrictions necessarily generate further restrictions and quotas which drastically limit opportunities for training, education, assignments and promotions.4 Over half of the total billets in job assignments in the Navy are found on ships.5 Thus, women find the total number of jobs, as well as the other kinds of jobs, for which they may compete greatly restricted. Often the precise kind of training or the particular billet they need to develop skills to further their careers is outside their reach no matter how skilled or promising `they may be. Promotion becomes more difficult in both overt and subtle ways. For example, enlisted women in the Navy advance in part through .a series of examinations which test practical knowledge about shipboard equipment which men-but not women-see as a matter of course in their everyday life in the Navy. A Navy woman, who has been permitted to board a ship only as a guest, faces a severe disadvantage when she sits for that examination. Occasionally, the ordinary requirements for advancement are simply waived. For example, early in their careers Navy pilots must qualify as aircraft corn- nianders, which requires a tour of duty at sea. A few women have been per- mitteci to train as pilots and have been allowed to qualify as aircraft command- 1CA 76-2086 (D.D.C.) 2 Some of. these barriers are beginning to fall. The Army now trains women to throw hand grenades (see testimony in the first phase of these hearings). The Navy has re- quested changes in legislation which would permit women to serve in some instances on non-combat ships (see New York Times, March 3, 1977). And the Air Force has begun a small, experimental program to train women as pilots and navigators in support aircraft (see testimony in the first phase of these hearings). But the numbers of women in these programs and the situations in which they are permitted to use their skills are painfully limited and too insubstantial to have any impact on the services or the women in them. 3Binkin and Bach, Women in the Military, 1977 (hereafter, Binkin and Bach). p. 109. The kind of difficulties Navy women confront is described in detail in the Complaint, `pp. 4-12, and in the Memorandum in Support of Motion for Class Certification, pp. 3-6, Qwens v. Brown, supra, appended to this testimony. ~ The Navy has 272.715 sea billets and 238,943 shore billets, Discovery obtained by the plaintiffs in Owen8 v. Brown, supra. PAGENO="0083" 77 era without meeting that requirement.~ Nevertheless, women who must depend for advancement upon waiver of ordinary requirements find themselves in an awkward position. Because they achieved their positions through special rules, the suspicion remains that they could not otherwise compete equally with their male counterparts. Dispelling that suspicion is virtually impossible no matter how competent, intelligent and professional an individual woman may be. These limited opportunities resulting in the partial integration of women In the military, have recently been described by a Naval officer in the Judge Ad- vocate General Corps as causing "disharmony, hostility, disenchantment, and disillusionment among both senior and junior, male and female, officer and en- listed personnel." The problems that have attended attempts on the part of the seryices to offer equal opportunities, while basic and pervttsive restrictions on the service of women remain, may be the reason for a retreat from earlier initiatives. The Navy, for example, opened all ratings (enlisted occupations) to women in 1972,~ but as women found themselves with shipboard skills they could not develop or use and the Navy found itself with skilled craftswomen it had trained but could not employ, entry into ratings was again limited. Now 24 out of 102 ratings are entirely closed to women, and even in the ratings technically open to women, the quotas for women are often small. Thus the. problems encountered by Navy women show that partial integration which permits women to serve but precludes them from the essential missions of the armed services does not work. Equal opportunity is impossible when women are subjected to special rules, exceptions and restrictions. III. FULL INTEGRAPION Despite the obvious and difficult problems created by partial integration, the armed `services are reluctant to accept women as full partners in the military. The current approach seems to be to leave open the possibility for full integra- tioti while experiments are designed, studies made, and reports filed. This, for example, is the i~pp'r'oach recommended in the I3rookings Institute report.8 Two objections must be raised to this approach, which says that all possibilities must be studied in abundant detail before changes can be made. First, the ap- proach begins with an incorrect assumption. The assumption underlying the call for more reports is that women must prove themselves in each separate job, task and assignment before the armed services can be expected to make changes. As far as the ~ir Force is concerned, it is not sufficient that women flew virtually every kind of military airplane, including combat aircraft, in World War II.~ Nor is it sufficient that the Navy has successfully trained women pilots. This com- mittee was told that the Air Force needs more studies because no "definitive studies" have been done "in the commercial world of flying multiengine air- craft by women." 10 Second, this approach demands a degree of certitude impossible to satisfy. The performance of women has been studied repeatedly and the anticipated problems never proved insurmountable. The Navy experimented with women aboard ships and concluded that "women can perform every shipboard function with equal ease, expertise, and dedication as we do." ~ Under new legislation and in the glare of great publicity, women entered the military academies last year. They performed with distinction, and the academies weathered the storm of change without undue hardship.~ This subcommittee heard testimony about an Army emparing the performance of women and men in basic training which concluded that women had no particular problems, "even including throwing the hand grenade."13 During World War II the Army compared women and men operating just behind the front lines and concluded that women presented fewer 6 Hoover, The Disadvantaged Navy Woman, U.S. Navy Proceedings, July 1977, p. 120 Testimony of Robert Ti. Nelson, Joint EcOnomic Committee, Subcommittee on Priorities and Economy in Government, July 22, 1977 (hereafter Testimony on Women in the Military). 8Blnkin and Bach, pp. 109-112. 0 IbId., p. 7. 10 Testimony of Lt. General B. Ti. Davis, Testimony on Women in the Military. 11 Third Endorsement on CO, USS &tnciuary (AU 17) Ltr ser 351 of 19 Nov. 1973, from Commander-in-Chief, U.S. Atlantic Fleet, to Chief of Naval Personnel, Documents pro- vided by defendant in Owens v. Brown. 12" `So Far, So Good,' A Report on Coed Military Academies," U.S. News & World Report, July 11, 1977, ~p. 26-31. ~ Testimony of General J. P. KIngston, Testimony on Women in the Military. PAGENO="0084" 78 problems for the Army than did men.14 ¶1~he military's response to those studies is to order more. Underlying this call ~or more studies is a resistance to the idea of women in combat. This resistance reflects three concern's. First, are women sufficiently fit in terms of strength and other physical characteristics to serve effectively? Sec- ond, will problems develop if both sexes work side by side in the military, no matter bow fit women are for military service? And third, is it moral for women to be in combat, no matter how effectively they would serve? A. Physical strength In a modern armed services, which depends on sophisticated technology, the concern that women may not be strong enough should not carry the weight it might have in the days when wars were fought primarily by hand-to-hand com- bat. Nor should that concern be used to restrict opportunities for officers who, presumably, are called on for their technical, Intellectual and leadership skills rather than for their physical strength. For the few occupational specialties that do require substantial physical strength women should be judged on the basis of individual abilities rather than class characteristics. Civilian employers are required, by the Civil Rights Act of 1964, to do precisely that. The Air Force, Is currently developing methods for testing individual physical abilities.' The other services can surely follow its lead. Even if the average woman recruit is "smaller, weighs less, and is physically weaker than the vast majority of male recruits." ~ it does not follow that the woman who is big, heavy and strong should be restricted in her opportunities. The average woman recruit is also "much brighter, better educated (a high school graduate), scores much higher on aptitude tests and is much less likely to become a disciplinary problem."17 But no one has suggested the armed services should restrict opportunities for men in the military because most women are smarter. The possibility that women may bear children also calls into question their fitness for certain kinds of service. Again, each woman ought to be judged on the basis of individual, rather than class characteristics. Some women may choose not to bear children; others may be unable to. Even if class characteristics are taken into account, the capacity for childbearing does not justify denying women equal opportunity. In fact, women lose fewer days from military jobs than men, even when time lost because of pregnancy is included.18 B. Working side by side The armed services anticipate problems from sexually integrated units such as the resentment of service wives and the chance for mischief caused by in- creased sexual relations. The experiences with integrated units like the IJSS Sanctuary should lay these fears to rest. The Commander-in-Chief of the United States Fleet, for example, concluded lids report on the Atlantic Sanctuary experi- ment with the statement that: "In summary, given the Sanctuary's conclusion that both men. and women have merged into members of a common disciplined crew, the pilot program has clearly been a success." ~° The integration of the military academies is another example of the ease with which women can take their place beside men. But even if difficulties develop, women alone should not be blamed for creating those difficulties, nor should they alone bear the consequences. Solving those difficulties, which may well be the result of inexperience w~th integration rather than. with integration itself, is the responsibility of all personnel, particularly officers who are trained to handle personal and managerial problems Again, the USS Sanctuary experiment is instructive: "While numerous difficulties developed, all are capable of solution or tolerable * * ~,` 20 Faced with the question of racial integration, the armed services made a com- mitment to racial integration based not on military necessity, but on the principle of equality. The potential for serious difficulties was tremendous. Relations be- tween races in this country have always bad a high potential for violenc~e. The 14 Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Manpower, Reserve Affairs and Logistics), Use of Women in the Military, May 1977 (hereafter, Use of Women in the Military), p. 6. ~ See Binkin and Bach, pp. 81-82. ~° Use of Women in the Military, p. 2. 17 Ibid. isBinkin and Bach, p. 63. 19 Endorsement on CO. USS Sanctuary (AH 17) ltr ser 351 of li~ Nov. 1973, from Commander-in-Chief, U.S Atlantic Fleet, to Chief of Naval Personnel, Documents provided by defendant In Owens V. Brown. ~°Ibid. PAGENO="0085" 79 confined atmosphere of a ship or the strained pressui~e of combat lacreases this potenttal, But the armed services did not suggest that the answer ~vas to restrict opportunities for blacks. Rather, commitments of `time and money were made to make racial integration work. The Navy, for e~ramI~le4 developed a solhlsticated training program in race relations including classroom, seminars and workshops for all personnel. The program, prompted in part by shipboard disturbances, has an annrtal price tag `of $S~O,OOO in direct costs.22 If it ~botild prove necessary, the same kind of commitment could be madO to Insure the success of sexual inte- gration. Sexually integrated combat units also raise the specter of a changed Image of the United States military. There is no simple answer to the question of how friend or foe aboard will perceive the use of women in combat; no one knows for sure what would happen. A recent article by Professor George Quester suggests the Impact might well be favorable: "a' * * an all-male military force smacks of an imperialist army, while female participation in combat signals a defense of what is one's own-a signal we wish to send." ~ Furthermore, according to Quester, other nations may well perceive the Increased use of women as proof that the United States is "at the forefront of social progress." 28 Certainly, the attitude uf the armed services would Influence whether the fuU participation of women in the armed forces is seen as a symbol of strength or weakness. C. Moralitjj This concern is the hardest to answer because it springs from deeply felt and strongly held convi'ctiOn~ about the nature of men and women. General Kingston in his testimony before this committee voiced these concerns when he said: "But the question, I think is whether we really want to do that as a society and what is the impact on the men as well as `the women?" The question of the rightness of women in combat, apart from the feasibility, is based on two concerns. First, should women be the ones to be killed in battle? And second, should women be the ones to do the killing? Both the Army and the Air Force, in testimony before this subcommittee, expressed concern for exposing women to the dangers of war. According. to As- sistant Secretary Antonia Handler Chayes, Air Force regulations were writ- ten "to exclude women from positions where there is the high risk of capture or injury because of hostile fire." Assistant Secretary Robert Nelson testified that women are "excluded from those areas and restricted from those positions where the probability of becoming a combat casualty is the greatest." The Army's position is translated ~into complex formulae which permit an increasing per- centage of women as the distance from the battlefront increases. That concern for the safety of women Is misplaced. It Is based on the untenable proposition that the lives of women are more valuable than the .lives of men. But it is doubtful that mothers-or fathers-weep moi~e for their daughters than their sons. The question, whether women should kill which Assistant Secretary Chayes ex~ pressed when she asked: "Are we ready to require women to turn the keys to launch nuclear missiles ?", is more difficult to answer, The answer Is to r&turn to simple and basic priticiples. Characteristics `of bravery, strength, intelligence and aggression are not assigned at birth accord- ing to a scheme based on sex any more than they are assigned according to race. By the same token, a democratic society committed to the principle of equal protection under law has no justification for allocating obligations, respon- sibilities, or privileges according to sex'. Congress need not at this `time determine the difficult question of whether women should be required to go into combat.~ Neither men nor women are currently required to serve In the armed forces~ Congress should, however, per- mit women to volunteer for service on the same basi~ as men, and, once in the service, women, like men, must then accept the assignments given them. Our recommendations, then, are these: statutes, rules, regulations and policies that restrict the service of women should be abollsh~d. Title X of the United 21 Defendant's Answer to Plaintl~'s Second Interrogatories, Owens v. Brown~ CA. 76- 2086 (D.D.C.). 22 Onester, Women in Combat, International ~8ecurity, Vol. 1 (Spring 1977), p. 91. 24 The policy of the American Clvii Liberties Union on conscription states: "Military conscri~ption Is a severe infringement of individual liberties, at best the resort of a patlon facing an immim~ent threat. It must rest upon the Interests of national security, what James Madison called `the impulse of self-preservation." ACLU believes that government has the duty to prove to the public that so drastic a step as conscription Is required today." PAGENO="0086" 80 States Code should be revised to give the Navy authority to assign women to ships, including combat ships, and the Air Force authority to assign women to aircraft engaged in combat missions. The experiences of women in the military in World War II, in other countries, and currently in the United States armed services should be studied in order to understand how to make full integration of. the services work, not to question whether .there should be full integration. In short, women are entitled to assume a role of full and equal partnership with men in the armed forces, and Congress and the Executive branch should move towards that goal with all the speed which is deliberate and due. APPENDIX A United States District Court, District of Columbia YONA Owsxs, NATOKA PEDEN, SUZANNE HOLTMAN, KATHLEEN BYERLY, SUZANNE RHIDDLEHOOVER, and JOELLEN DRAG, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, PLAINTIFFS. V. HAROLD BROWN, individually and in his capacity as Secretary of Defense, and G. WiLi~iAir CLAYTOR, individually and in his capacity as Secretary of the Navy, DEFENDANTS. Civil Action No. 76-2086 AMENDED COMPLAINT I. NATURE OF ACTION 1. This class action challenges the constitutionality of 10 U.S.C. § 6015, which forbids Navy women from serving aboard United States Navy vessels. The statute deprives plaintiffs and the members of their class of their right to the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the due process clause of the fifth amendment to the United States Constitution. Plaintiffs seek a judgment de- claring the statute unconstitutional, an injunction forbidding the defendants from enforcing the statute, and damages to compensate them for the denial of theIr constitutional rights. II. JURISDICTION 2. This action arises under the fifth amendment to the United States Con- stitution. The court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The amount in con- troversy, exclusive of costs and interest, exceeds the sum of $10,000. Declara- tory relief is sought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §~ 2201 and 2202. III. CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS 3. Plaintiffs bring this action pursuant to Rule 23 (a) and (b) (2) of the Fed- eral Rules of Civil Procedure on their own behalf and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated. The members of the class are too numerous to be joined in one action, although the precise number of class members is not known at this time. 4. The class is composed of all past, present, and future women serving in the Navy who have been, are, or will be adversely affected in their educational, employment, professional service and career advancement opportunities, both in the Navy and in their subsequent civilian careers, by the enforcement of 10 U.S.C. § 6015. 5. The questions of law common to the class are whether 10 U.S.C. § 6015 vio- lates plaintiffs' right to the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the fifth amendment to the United States Constitution and., if so, what relief is appropriate. 6. The named plaintiffs have claims typical of the class. 7. Counsel for plaintiffs have extensive experience litigating sex discrimination cases. The named plaintiffs are wholly committed to the goals of ending the sex discrimination caused by enforcement of 10 U.S.C. § 6015 and of obtaining ade- quate relief for themselves and the class. The named plaintiffs can therefore fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. 8. The defendants have acted on grounds generally applicable to the class, thereby making appropriate final injunctive and declaratory relief with respect to the class as a whole. PAGENO="0087" 81 IV. PARTIES. A. Plaintiffs 9. Plaintiff Yona Owens is a woman. She enlisted in the United States Navy on June 1, 1973, and resides at 1200 South Court House Road, Apartment 705, Arlington, Virginia. 10. Plaintiff Natoka Peden is a woman. She enlisted in the United States Navy on September 7, 1973, and resides at 91-886 Makule Road, Apartment 103~ FIwa Beach, Hawaii. 11. Plaintiff Suzanne Ho*ltman is a woman. She enlisted In the United States Navy on November 23, 1973, and resides at 1200 South Court House Road, Apart- inent 137, Arlington, Virginia. 12. Plaintiff Kathleen Byerly is a woman. She enlisted in the United States Navy on February 21, 1966 and was commiSsioned August 18, 1966. She resides at 8008 Driscoll Drive, San Diego, California. 13. Plaintiff Suzanne Rhiddlehoover is a woman. She enlisted in the United States Navy on December 15, 1971 and was commissioned on June 9, 1972. She resides at 2250 Flushing Drive, San Diego, California. 14. Plaintiff Joellen Drag is a woman. She enliSted in the United States Navy on January 3, 1973 and was commissioned May 16, 1973, She resides at 912 Pomona Avenue, Coronado, California. B. Defendants 15. Defendant Harold l3rown is Secretary of Defense and, as such, is ultimately responsible for the enforcement of 10 U.S.C. ~ 6015. He is sued individually and in his official capacity as a representative of all other administrators, officers, and agents charged with enforcing 10 U.S.C. ~ 6015. 16. Defendant G. William Claytor is Secretary of the Navy, and, as such, is directly responsible for the enforcement of 10 U.S.C. ~ 6015. He is sued individu- ally and in his official capacity as a representative of aU other administrators, officers, and agents charged with enforcing 10 U.S.C. § 6015. V. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS A. Defendants' treatment of the class of Navy women 17. Defendants, by enforcing 10 U.S.C. § 6015, .forbiddi~ the service of women aboard Navy vessels, have denied plaintiffs and members of their class educa- tional, employment, professional service and career advancement opportunities given to similarly situated men in the Navy.. Because of the discriminatory statute, plaintiffs, and the members.of their class have been denied opportunities given similarly situated men to tráiii for certain jobs, to enter certain occupa- tions, to compete for and hold particular jobs, to receive* re-enlistment bonuses for those jobs, to use and develop the skills for which they have been trained, to taivance within the Navy, and to take part in life at sea, the most crucial experi- ence for understanding the Navy's history, traditions, and mission, and the core experience of Navy life. B. Pla4ntiff Yona Owens 18. Plaintiff Yona Owens is an Interior Communications Electrician; Navy members with this occupational specialty (hereafter, "rating") repair and main- tain complex electrical equipment, much of it essential to the navigation of Navy vessels and found only aboard ships. 19. Plaintiff Owens has requested that she be assigned a job (hereafter, "billet") on a Navy ship, but the Navy has refused her request because 10 U.S.C. § 6015 prohibits the assignment of Navy women to Nav~r ships. 20. The Navy has assigned Plaintiff Owens only to shore billets; theSe assign- ments have given her less opportunity than similarly trained men in shipboard billets to use, maintain and improve the skills and knowledge required for her rating. 21. The Navy's refusal to assign Plaintiff Owens to a shipboard billet has also deprived her of the supervisory experience given her male colleagues assigned to shipboard billets. 22. In order to get promotions in the Navy, Interior Communications Elec- tricians must pass exams which require mastery of the electrical work on com- plex electrical navigational equipment found only aboard ships. Men assigned to shipboard billets have virtually daily experience working on such equipment and thus acquire a competitive advantage in passing such tests over women who do PAGENO="0088" 82 not have such daily experience. Plaintiff Owens has achieved promotions., but only by expending extra time, effort, and money-not required of her male col- leagues-to acquire the requisite skifls and information during her off-duty hoflrs. C. Pkth~tiff Natoka Peden 23. Plaintiff Natoka Peden is a Navy photographer (the Photographer's Mate rating). 24. Before enlisting in the Navy, Plaintiff Peden told a Navy recruiter that she was interested in career opportunities in both photography and diving, but he informed her that the Navy cUd not allow women to be divers. On Information and belief, the Navy has this policy because 10 U.S.C. § 6015 prohibIts the assign- ment of women to Navy ships, and divers must work predominantly from ships. 25. Because of this policy, Plaintiff Peden did not apply for and was unable to attend diving ~ehool after completing her training in her assigned rating, although.a similarly, situated man could have done so; instead, ~he immediately began work as a Photographer's M~ate after completing her training. 26. Subsequently, Plaintiff Peden sought training in Explosive Ordnance Dis- posal diving, work involving both the handling of underwater explosives and sophisticated diving techniques. Plaintiff Peden attempted to apply for training in this diving specialty, despite her knowledge that the Navy trained only men for this work, but her Navy superiors actively discouraged her from completing the application process. Defendants have denied Plaintiff Peden training in this diving so~ecialty. On information and belief, the Navy still refuses to train women for Explosive Ordnance Disposal diving because of 10 U.S.C. § 6015. 27. The Navy has, however, trained Plaintiff Peden as `a Second Class diver, work involving the diving techniques-but not the handling of underwater explosives-In ~v~hieh she was interested. However, the Navy has not assigned Plaintiff Peden any work as a diver, unlike similarly trained male Second Class divers. 28. The Navy frequently `assigns male Second Class divers as a fourth support diver to three-man Explosive Ordnance Disposal diving teams; `the team is de- ployed with a ship, and the support diver is assigned working dives along with the Explosive Ordnance Disposal divers. However, the Navy refuses to assign Plaintiff Peden as a support dIver to such a team because of 10 U.S.C. § 6015, and Plaintiff Peden is consequently denied occupational experience given to men with~the same training she has. 2. The Navy refuses to assign Plaintiff Peden any working dives, and allows her to dive only for recreational parposes and to maintain her qualifications as a diver. 30. When Plaintiff Peden lc~aves the Navy, she expects to become an oceano- grapher. Lack of diving experience will severely handicap her in this career, but the Navy refuses to give her this professional development oppOrtunity it gives to similarly placed men. D. Plaintiff Sluzanne Holtnian 31. Plaintiff Suzanne Holtman is a Yeoman. 32. Plaintiff Hoitnian joined the Navy fOr adventure, greater educational op- portunities, and* the chance to be treated equally with men, with'~ut the dis- crimination bated on sex she had encountered in her civilian jobs. She- would like to serve a-board s-hip, as male Yeomen do, but is precluded from such an assignment by defendants' enforcement of 10 U.S.C. § 6015. E. Plaintiff Kathleen Byerly 33. PlaintIff Kathleen Byerly is an Unrestricted Line Officer who holds the rank of lieutenant commander. Unrestricted Line Officers are the officers trained to take command on the front lines of battle and to assume primary resp'onsthil- ity for management of Navy operations. 34. As a lieutenant commander with eleven years of Navy experience, Plaintiff Byerly has reached the middle stages of her career. A distinguished officer, she is now serving as the Aide and Flag Secretary to Commander Training Com- mand, U.S. Pacific Fleet. This position entails acting as the administrative li- aison officer between the admiral and his staff and the admiral and his ten subordinate commands. She is the first women to hold such a position. 35. Plaintiff Byerly would like to take command at sea. For male Unrestricted Line Officers, command at sea is one of the most prized assignments. Unlike male PAGENO="0089" 83 officers, Plaintiff Byerly knows she cannot receive such a command because of defendants' enforcement of 10 U.S.C. §6015. 36. The most important assignments in the middle stages of Unrestricted Line Officers' careers are tours of duty as Commanding Officers and Executive Offi- cers. Commanding Officers are the officers charged with the ultimate legal and moral responsibility for the safety, well-being, and efficiency of all personnel and operations under their command. They are the officers who take command of a ship, base or unit. Executive Officers are second in command ~nd act as direct representatives of the Commanding Officers. 37. Performance in tours of duty as Commanding Officers and Executive Offi- cers Is the prime criterion for assessing the abilities of Unrestricted Line Officers and judging their capabilities for advancement to top Navy positions. 38. Most Commanding Officer and Executive Officer billets are either billets aboard ship or billets on shore which require an officer who is eligible for com- mand at sea. As a resnit of defendants' enforcement of 10 U.S.C. §6015, Plaintiff Byerly has not and will not be permitted to serve In most billets for Commanding Officers and Executive Officers. Thus, Plaintiff Byorly will be denied the most challenging jobs and the jobs which woujd most enhance her opportunities for career advancement. 89. Throughout her career, Plaintiff Byerly has been denied most of the assign- ments which would haVe allowed her to develop skills and establish leadership credentials necessary to compete with male Unrestricted Line Officers for future command level positions. Defendants' enforcement of 10 U.S.C. §6015 will con- tinue to bar her from many challenging jobs available to male Unrestricted Line Officers. These restrictions on job opportunities Injure Plaintiff Byerly's oppor- tunities for advancemei~t. 40. Plaintiff Eyer'ly has also suffered the same Injury from the refusal of de- fendants to allow her to earn a warfare specialty as alleged In paragraphs 42-44. P. Plaintiff Suzanne Rhiddle1~oover 41. Plaintiff Suzanne `Riddlehoover is an TJprestricted Line Officer who holds the rank of lieutenant. 42. Plaintiff Riddlehoover, like virtually aU women in the Navy, Is prohibited from earning a designation as a warfare specialist because 10 `U.S.C. §6015 bare women from service at sea. Male Unrestricted Line Officers, in contrast, are all permitted to work for designations as warfare specialists and learn bow to take command ol! a surface ship, a submarine, an aircraft squadron, or a special war- fare unit. Thus, male Unrestricted Line Officers all enjoy opportunities for train- ing denied Plaintiff Rhiddlehoover. 43. Lack of a warfare speciality injures Plaintiff Rhiddlehoover's opportuni- ties for advancement In the Navy. Gaining competence in a warfare specialty is the chief way junior Unrestricted Line Officers prove they are capable of as'~nm- ing greater authority and responsibility. Because Plaintiff RhiddlOhoover has no warfare specialty, she cannot follow the normal path, available to all male Un- restricted Line Officer's, for proving she is a good candidate for command. This will injure her when sihe competes with men for assignments as Commanding Officer and Executive Officer. 44. Most Unrestricted Line Officer billets are reserved for officers with a spe- cific warfare specialty. Unlike male Unrestricted Line Officers, Plaintiff Riddle- hoover cannot serve in many of the billets coded for warfare specialists and `thus cannot hold most of the jobs she would like in `the Navy. 45. As Plaintiff Riddlehoover advances In her career, she will experience the same injuries `alleged in paragraphs 35-39. G. Plaintiff Joellen DraO 46. Plaintiff Joellen Drag is an Unrestricted Line Officer who holds the rank of lieutenant, junior grade. Defendants have permitted Plaintiff Drag to earn a warfare speciality designation in aviation as part ol! t4ie initial group of women in a limited experimental program. 47. Plaintiff Drag is a helicopter pilot. She was recruited Into the Navy to be- come a member of the first group of women trained as Navy pilots. 48. After completing flight training, Plaintiff Drag was assigned to a helicopter combat support squadron in San Diego, California. The principal work of the squadron is supplying ships in the Western Pacific. Helicopter pilots In Plaintiff Drag's squadron are temporarily assigned for six to eight months to supply ships PAGENO="0090" 84 situated in the Western Pacific and assist thOse ships by transferring supplies to the cruising vessels. Defendants' enforcement of 10 U.S.C. ~ 6015 prevents the a$signment of Plaintiff Drag to the supply ships, an assignment routinely given to male helicopter pilots. 49. A secondary duty of Plaintiff Drag's squadron is supplying ships which operate off shore in the area near San Diego, California. Pilots assigned to this work take off from the squadron base, deposit supplies on the cruising ships, and return to the shore bases; they are not assigned to ships. However, defend- ants refuse to assign Plaintiff Drag to this work, commonly given male helicop- ter pilots, because defendants assert that 10 U.S.C. § 6015 bars Plaintiff Drag from landing on or hovering over a vessel at sea. 50. Plaintiff Drag's opportunities to accumulate flight time and obtain addi- tional qualifications within her warfare specialty have been and will be severely limited by the restrictions on assignments mandated by 10 U.S.C. § 6015. Heli- copter pilots, in the early stages of their careers, must qualify as aircraft com- manders. This requires 300 hours of flight time. Because the Navy has so few opportunities for flying helicopters which do not entail serving aboard a vessel within the meaning of 10 U.S.C. § 6015, Plaintiff Drag qualified as an aircraft commander much later than male pilots with similar training and capabilities. 51. Because 10 U.S.C. § 6015 restricts opportunities for women in the Navy, Plaintiff Drag's opportunities for advancement will continue to be harmed by her difficulty in finding Unrestricted Line Officer billets where she can develop her skills as an aviation warfare specialist and an officer. 52. Plaintiff Drag will also suffer injury from the refusal of the Navy to per- mit women to command at sea and to serve in most billets for Commanding Officers and Executive Officers as alleged in paragraphs 35-39. VI. STATEMENT OF THE CLAIM 53. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate each allegation in paragraphs 1-52. 54. Defendants' enforcement of 10 U.S.C. § 6015 discriminates against women in the Navy on the basis of their sex by denying them educational, employment, professional service and career advancement opportunities available to simi- larly situated men. 55. Accordingly, defendants have denied plaintiffs and the members 1f their class the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the fifth amendment to the United States Constitution. VII. RELIEF Wherefore, plaintiffs respectfully request that this court: A. Certify this case as a class action. B. Enter a final judgment declaring invalid 10 U.S.C. § 6015, to the extent that it forbids women in the United States Navy from serving aboard Navy ves- sels, because it denies plaintiffs and the members of their class the equal pro- tection of the laws guaranteed by the fifth amendment to the United States Constitution. C. Issue a preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining defendants, their agents, employees, and successors from enforcing 10 U.S.C. § 6015 by refusing to assign Navy women to serve aboard Navy ships and by otherwise adversely affecting the educational, employment, professional service and career ad- vancement opportunities of Navy women. P. Award damages to plaintiffs and the class they represent for violations of their constitutional rights, in an amount to be determined. B. Award plaintiffs the costs of this action together with reasonable attorneys' fees. F. Grant plaintiffs and the class they represent such other and further relief as may be just and proper. Respectfully submitted, Ju~L LAURIE GOODMAN, SUSAN DELLER Ross, KATHLEEN WILLERT PERATIS, American CiviZ Liberties Union Foundation. KATHERINE MAZEAFERRI, TRUDY LEvY, League of Women Voters Education Fund. PAGENO="0091" 85 APPENDIX B United States District Court, District of Columbia X~ONA OwENs, NATOKA PEDEN, SUZANNE H0LTMAN, KATHLEEN BYEELY, SUZANNE RHIDDLEHOOVER, and JOELLEN DRAC, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, PLAINTIFFS V. HAROLD BROWN, individually and in his capacity as Secretary of Defense, and 1. WILLIAM CLAYTOn, Individually and in his capacity as Secretary of the Navy, DEFENDANTS Civil Action No. 76-2086 MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT or MOTION FOR CLAss CERTIFICATION INTRODUCTION This action, now before this court on a motion for class certification, chal- lenges the constitutionality of the provision of 10 U.S.C. § 6015 which bars Navy women from serving aboard vessels of the Navy. The named plaintiffs are enlisted women and women officers who have been injured by defendants' enforcement of the statute.1 The enlisted women are an Interior Conimunicatlons Electrician who services electrical and electronic equip- ment, a Navy photographer who Is also qualified as a Diver, abd a Yeoman who does secretarial work. The officers are a lieutenant commander at the middle stage of her Navy career, a lieutenant who is still in the early stage of her career, and a helicopter pilot, recently trained as part of an initial experimental group of women pilots in the Navy. All of these women have discovered that the chal- lenged statute is a major obstacle to receiving training for certain jobs, entering certain occupations, competing for particular jobs, developing skills for which they have been trained, advancing within the Navy, and taking part in life at sea. PLaintiffs seek to maintain this suit as a class action, pursuant to Rule 23 (b) (2), Fed. R. Civ. P. The class the named plaintiffs propose to represent includes all past, present, and future women serving lb the Navy who have been, are, or will be adversely affected In their educational, employment, professional service, or career advancement opportunities, both In the Navy and in their subsequent civilian careers, by the enforcement of 10 U.S.C. § 6015. Since the action satisfies all prerequisites of Rule 28, Fed. R. Civ. P., it should be certified as a class action. POINT I-THIS ACTION SATISFIES THE PREREQUISITES OF RULE 23 (a) OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE A. The cLass is so numerous that joinder of afl members is impracticabZe The six named plaintiffs, three enlisted women and three women officers, seek to represent all women adversely affected by the statutory prohibition which bars Navy women from service aboard Navy vessels. Because the restrictions flowing from the challenged statute affect every phase of Navy life, the proposed class encompasses virtually all Navy women. This vast number, including nearly 23,000 women now serving in the Navy,2 is far too large to join in a single action. In a service whose statutory purpose Is organizing, training and equipping operations at sea, 10 U.S.C. § 5012, it is entirely predictable that women would find themselves handicapped by 10 U.S.C. § 6015, an absolute prohibition against service at sea. Tudeed, Navy women do find their opportuntles for job training, advancement and service in desired assignments greatly curtailed by the statute. The 18,3292 enlisted women experience the effects of the statute as soon as they enter the Navy, when they are denied entrance into and training for Navy occupations. Many enliSted personnel are assigned ratings or job categories when they enlist or during boot camp. The Navy then trains these people, through both formal school instruction and on-the-job experience, in the skills they need 1 The suit was filed on behalf of a group of enlistea ~omen. An amended complaint, add- Ing a group of officers. was filed simultaneously with this motion. Counsel for defendants, pursuant to Rule 15(a). Fed. R. Civ. P., has consented to the filing of the amended comulaint. 2 Women in the Navy In 1976 numbered 22.832. Defendants' answers to Plaintiffs' First Interrogatories (hereinafter "Answers to Interrogatories"), No. 1. Answers to Interrogatorles, No. 9. PAGENO="0092" 86 to perform their jobs. Often this includes training in highly sophisticated and technical skills and crafts. The training is vftluable both in the Navy and after a stint in the Navy when it serves as the key to well-paying civilian jobs. But, because women canflot go to sea, women are barred from certain ratinga and job training altogether, and their numbers are strictly regulated by quotas in other fields. Women may not enter 15 ratings while entrance into 44 other ratings is strictly limited; ~ women may not attend certain Navy schools.5 In short, the Navy quite naturally refuses to train women for the jobs they cannot do. Enlisted women who manage to train for shipboard ratings in spite of quotas find themselves trapped in other ways. Plaintiff Yona Owens, for example, wits sent to school to learn how to service and maintain complex electrical equipment much of which is found exclusively aboard ships. However, when she finished school she could find few billets or job assignments where she could use her skills and translate her schoolroom knowledge into on-the-job competency. As a result, women like Plaintiff Owens find their skills lie dormant and eventually diminish from lack of use. When these women take the competitive tests necessary for advancement to a higher paygrade, they find they lack not only practical knowl- edge of sea life and shipboard procedures but essential knowledge in their own fields. Only through expending extra time, not required of men, have women like Plaintiff Owens achieved promotion. When these women re-enter civilian life, they too cannot draw on Navy training to get decent jobs because their theoretical knowledge has never become practical competency. The 364336 women officers in the Navy feel the effects of the challenged statute In different but equally painful ways. Most women officers outside the Nurses Corps are Unrestricted Line Officers.~ The distinction of the Unrestricted Line Officer is eligibility for command at sea; the goal of such an ~dficer is such a command.8 Women Unrestricted Line Officers, however, are nqver eligible for command at sea; they may never aspire to such a goal. Instead, their career consists of trying to fit into a pattern which was never meant for officers who cannot undertake sea duty. Because women cannot go to sea, women, with a few rare exceptions ~, are not permitted to earn a warfare specialty and learn how to take command of a surface ship, a submarine, an aircraft squadron, or a special warfare unit. The training in a warfare specialty serves as the foundation for a male Un- restricted Line Officer's career.'° Women have no comparable foundation and thus no way of fitting into the normal pattern. Even without this handicap, officers without a warfare specialty are barred from most Navy assignments because billets for Unrestricted Line Officers almost always require an officer with a specific warfare specialty. When women pass the hurdle of finding a billet which a non-warfare spe- cialist can fill, they find additional roadblocks. Many of the prize middle level and top billets are either billets aboard ships or billets on shore which require art officer who is eligible for command `at sea. Under the challenged statute, women are not allowed sea duty nor are they eligible for command at sea. Thus, they are excluded from most of the challenging jobs and the jobs most likely to enhance their opportunities for career development. As a result of these severe limitations on the billets women Unrestricted Line Officers can fill, women have few opportunities to develop managerial skillS and prove their value in difficult jobs. This in turn, hurts their `opportunities for advancement in the Navy. Thu~, women in the Navy, both enlisted women and officers, live in a world where outright prohibitions and strict quotas block their paths for training, jobs, and advancement. These quotas and prohibitions hurt all women, because when opportunities for certain training and jobs are restricted, competition for the remaining opportunities becomes stiffer. In addition, because women cannot ~Answers to Interrogatories, No. 4, enclosure (3). Answers to T,nterrogatories, No. 12. 6 Answers to Interrogatories, No. 9. Of the 3,663 women officers, 1,195 are Unrestricted Line Officers and 2,112 are Nurse Corps officers. Answers to Interrogatories, No. 6. This statement of the purpose of goals of an Unrestricted Line Officer is found in Officer Professional Development Division, Bureau of Naval Personnel. Unrestricted Line Officer Carreer Planning Guidebook (hereinafter "Unrestricted Line Officer Guidebook") which is prepared by `the Bureau of Naval Personnel as the basic manual for career planning for Unrestricted Line Officers. See pp. 7, 33. ° Plaintiff Joelien Drag, who has a warfare specialty in aviation, Is one of the rare excep- tions. Only 15 out of the 1.195 women Unrestricted Line Officers have warfare specialties. In Contrast, 85,060 out of 35,908 male Unrestricted Line Officers have warfare specialties. Answers to Ipterrogatories No. 6. 10 See Unrestricted Line Officer's Guidebook, p. 7. PAGENO="0093" 87 go to sea, they are all àenied the adventure and extra pay a that service at ~es. entails. Because the effects of the challenged statute reach into every corner of Navy life, all of the nearly 2~,000 women now serving ~n the Navy are part of the pro- posed class. This alone makes a class obviously far too large to contemplate joi~Uer. in addjtion, the proposed class includes all past and future Navy women who have suffered tho effects of the chaflonge~t provision, which further aug- ments the size of the class. See Wetzel v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Go., 508 F~ 2d 239 (3d CIr, 1975), and 4fro-American Patrolmen's League v. Duck, 503 F~. 2d 294 (lth Cir, 1974). Thus, the proposed class, without questiQn, meets the numerosity prerequisites of Rule 23(a) (1), B~ There are questions of la~w and fact common to the c~ass The significant quesilons in this case are those common to the class as a whole, The dominant question is the constitutionality of a single statutory prohibition. This question Is cotamoli to all members of the proposed class, all Navy women who have been adversely affected by the enforcement of the statute. The justifica- tions the defendants will offer in de1~ense of the statute will present questions, both of fact and law, w~lich again will be common to the entire class. Of courSe, the precise nature of the Injury varies from class member to class member, but every Injury emanates from a single ~tatutor~y policy. In analogous stdts, alleging other kinds of discrimination, courts have certified classes in com- plex actions presenting varying fact patterns and raising diverse questions ~f law, Bairnett v. W. T. th'aat Go,, 517 F. 2d 543 (4th Cir. 1975), and Johnson V. G~orgia Highway likcpress, lao,, 417 F. 2d 1122 (5th CIr. 19~9). In this case, where the challenge Is directed toward a single statute lnjury~ng ati entire class, the pre- requisite of commonality is easily met, C. The claims of the named plaitatijys are typical of the claims of the class The named plaintiffs are six Navy women wh~ occup~y different postions within the Navy structure, who have been injured by the statute in different ways. To- gether they present claims typical of the claims of the class they propose to represent, The named enlisted women hold a range of jobs typical of the kinds of work done by Navy enlisted women, Plaintiff Suzanne Hoitman is a secretary; her claims are t~ypical of women with jobs traditionally held by Navy Women. Plaintiff Yona Owens, in contrast, is an electrician trained to service complex electrical equipment; her claims are typical of enlisted women Who are allowed to enter fields tradifionally reserved for men. In addition, these women have claims typical of women serving in both shipboard job ratings requiring sea duty and shore ratings. Plaintiff Owens, an Interior Communications Electrician, has a shipboard rating while Plaintiff I~ollman, a Yeoman, and Plaintiff Peden, a Photographer's Mate, have shore ratings. All three enlisted women have been Injured in ways typical of the ways different groups of enlisted women have been injured by the challenged statute. Plaintiff Natoka Peden has claims typical of those Navy wom~xi who have been unable to obtain job training. Plaintiff Peden sought training lb explosive Ordnance Dis- posal diving, work involving both the handling of underwater explosives and sophisticated diving techniques. She discovered, however, the Navy refused to train women for this job because of the challenged statute. Plaintiff Yona Owens, as well as Plaintiff Peden, have claims typical of women wh~ have managed to ac- quire some technical training but are barred from using that training to develop practical competency. Plaintiff Owens is trained to sOrvice equipment which she can neither see nor handle because it is found only aboard ships; Plaintiff Peden is supposed to service, As a result, passing competitive tests and gaining the prac- Plaintiff Owens also has claims typical of enlisted women who find their paths to advancement blocked by the challenged statute. She can acquire neither the prac~ tical sea experience her rating demands, nor ihe experience with equipment she is supposed to service, A~ a result, passing competitive lests and gaining the prac- tical experience necessary for promotion are both difficult, And Plaintiff Suzanne Holtman has claims typical of the women, both enlis1~ed and officers, who want the adventure or experience, of life at sea In order to uuderstand the full breadth of Navy life. "~ Nav~y personnel receive up to $245.00 a month In incentive pay `for serving aboard ships. Answers to Interrogatorles, No. 15, enclosere (21). PAGENO="0094" 88 The officers, like the enlisted women, represent a range of Navy experiences typical of Navy women. Two plaintifts, Kathleen I3yerly and Suzanne Rhiddle- hoover, have no warfare specialties. Their situation is typical of most women Un- restricted Line Officers, who have traditionally been barred from earuing warfare specialty designations because they cannot go to sea. One plaintiff, Joellen Drag, has experiences typical of women who are part of the experiment in expanding horizons for Navy women. She has a warfare specialty, aviation, and she is a pilot, a role formerly reserved for men. Her situation is typical of women holding non- traditional jobs in the Navy. These officers also have claims typical Of women in different stages of their careers as Navy officers. Plaintiffs Drag and Rhiddlehoover, both relatively new to Navy life, have claims typical of women beginning their Navy careers; Plaintiff Drag has been an officer in the Navy for three years and Plaintiff Rhiddlehoover for five Plaintiff Byeily in contrast has claims typical of women in the middle stages of a Navy career. A seasoned officer with eleven years of experience, Plain- tiff Byerly now faces problems typical of those encountered by women Unre- stricted Line Officers as they move toward the top of the Navy structure. The injuries the named officers have suffered are also typical of the injuries of the class they propose to represent. Plaintiffs Byerly and Rhiddleboover, like most Navy officers, have been denied the opportunity to qualify in a warfare specialty and thus face the difficult task, typical of that faced by other Navy women, of building a Navy career without the structure and goals which mark the career of male officers. Plaintiff Byerly has the additional problem, faced by all women. Unrestricted Line Officers in the middle stages of their careers of. competing against men who have been able to distinguish themselves by serv- ing aboard ships for positions as Executive Officers and Commanding Officers. Plaintiff Drag's claims are typical of those of women who have, in the name of equality for women, been permitted to enter new fields but find the challenged statute restricts their opportunities to develOp the skills necessary for proficiency and advancement. These six women, who have seen widely different corners of Navy life, together satisfy the requirement of typicality. D. The name plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. Fair and adequate representation of a class requires competent counsel and plaintiffs with interests coinciding with those of the class. In Wetzel v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., supra, the court said: "Adequate representation depends on two factors: (a) the plaintiff's attorney must be qualified, experienced, and geuerally able to conduct the proposed litigation, and (b) the plaintiff must not have interests antagonistic to those of the class." See also Eisen v. Carlisle t Jacqueline, 391 F. 2d 555 (2d Cir. 1968). Plaintiff's attorneys have had extensive experience litigating constitutional claims on behalf of women. The named plaintiffs are all deeply concerned about the position and future of women in the Navy. Their interests are in harmony with those of the class, without antagonism or conifict. The named plaintiffs can fairly and adequately represent the interests of the class and thus satisfy the prerequisite of Rule 23 (a) (4). POINT Il-THIS ACTION SHOULD BE CERTIFIED AS A CLASS ACTION UNDER nui~ 23 (b) (2) OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE A certification under Rule 23 (b) (2), Fed. R. Civ. P., requires a case where defendants "have acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class" and where plaintiffs seek "final injunctive relief or corresponding declar- atory relief with respect to the class as a whole." Fed. IL Civ. P., 23 (b) (2). This case fits squarely within that description. Defendants have refused to permit any member of the class to serve aboard Navy vessels because the chal- lenged statute prohibits them from doing so. Plaintiffs seek a declaration that the statute is unconstitutional and an injunction forbidding the enforcement of the challenged statute and establishing procedures for women to begin serv- ing aboard Navy ships. Rule 23 (b) (2) was enacted to facilitate litigation like this. According to the notes of the Advisory Commitee, Rule 23 (b) (2) was designed specificafly as a tool for civil rights litigators, Notes of the Advisory Committee on Rules Relating to the 1966 Amendments of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 39 P.ILD. 102. Relying on the Advisory Commi Ltee's description of the purpose of Rule 23 PAGENO="0095" 89 (b) (2), courts have found suits challenging discriminatory practices particu- larly well suited to class treatment under Rule 23 (b) (2). Wetzei v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., supra, and Jenkins v. United Gas Go,, 400 F. 2d 28 (5th Cir. 19~9). This case, which fits so precisely the language and purpose of Rule 23 (b) (2), shOuld be certified as a (b) (2) class. CONCLUSION This suit satisfies all the prerequisites for a class action under `Rule 23 (a) and (b) (2). Thus, this court should certify the action as a class action under Rule 23(b) (2). Respectfully submitted. JILL LAURIE GOODMAN, SUSAN DELLER Ross, KATHLEEN WTLLERT PERATIS, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation. ~ATIIERINE MAZZAFERRI, TRUDY LEVY, League of WQmen Voters Education Fund. Senator PROXMIRE. Colonel Hallaren, go right ahead. STATEMENT OP COL. MARY A. HALLAREN, U.S. ARMY, RETIRED, AND FORMER DIRECTOR OF TEE WOMEN'S ARMY CORPS Colonel HALLAREN. This will take about 3 minutes, and I concede the other 7 to anybody who wants them. I am Mary A. Hallaren, executive director of Women in Community Service, and a former director of the `Women's Army `Corps. I understand that the utilization of women in the military has been fully covered, and that I am to speak about women serving under stress during World War II and their reactions. I have not made a study of the subject, but I served overseas during the war years. I will cite a few examples of stress and then be available for questions. I might add that I was working this out under stress at 2 a.m. this morning, when I got home. I am a Johnny-come-lately as a witness. I received the notice to appear before the subcommittee yesterday. I di'dn't know abou't the press release. Senator PR0xMIRE. You certainly are working under stress then. Colonel }IALLAREN. Yes, so I would rather answer questions and not go into too much detail. I was coimnanding officer of the first battalion of American women to ship overseas during Wo'rld War II. When the Women's Army Auxiliary `Corps was established in 1942, apparently no one thought that WAAC's would be `serving in an overseas theater of operations. But a requisition arri~red from England `and the first Women's Army Auxiliary Corp's battalion was mobilized. Before we embarked, how- ever, the War Departmenb-with great concern-sent representatives to advise us that we were free to drop out of the shipment. As aux- iliaries, we were not in the Army. If captured, we would not be pro- tected by the `Geneva Convention. I suppose we would be considered "camp followers." The women's responses was typical, "We knew that when we joined." When we boarded ship, the troop commander asked for the list of women AWOL's. He said that we `should not `be surprised at any losses, ns there were always AWOL's from the men's units. He may have been thinking, also, about the effect of the training film we were `sbewn-of PAGENO="0096" 90 an American troopship torpedoed in the North Atlantic. But we were not surprised. The women were all present and accounted for. Parenthetically I should state the WAC's `became part of the AUS while overseas, `and none of us was captured-WA'C's served under the buzz bombs and the V-Vs and V-2's in London. During a raid, there was a slight stiffening of the backbone until the bombing stopped. Then everyone breathed freely again-until the next raid. However, no one ever asked for transfer to a safe billet. I don't know whether that could be said for the men or not. Those women were superb under stress. Of course, they were volunteers-which may have accounted for their fortitude. There are women-as there are men-who crack under stress, who cannot take pressure; but working with men and women over the last .50 years-~both in `and out of the Army-has convinced me that it is the individual and not the gender that determines a per- son's strength under pressure. Thank you, Senator. Senator PRoxMnu3~. Thank you very much, Colonel. [Applause.] General Holm, please proceed. STATEMENT OF MAJ. c+EN. JEANNE M. HOLM, U.S. AIR FORCE, RETIRED General HOLM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to start out by saying that I fully agree with your open- ing remarks. I am pleased to have the opportunity to appear before you today. I propose to skip over some portions of my testimony in the interest of time. Senator PROXMrRE. I might point out, as you may have noticed, the light is broken. That is what happens when you have 100 men in the Senate and no women to fix them. General HoLM. How is this one Senator PRoXMIRE. Just speak into the mike; either one is fine. PARTICIPATION OP WOMEN CITED AS IMPROVING EFFECTIVENESS OF MILITARY General HOLM. There is ample evidence today that economies can be realized and effectiveness enhanced by expanding the participation of women in the Armed Forces. We are all acutely `aware that serious implications of national secu- rity are involved, and I doubt if anyone who `appears before this sub- committee would suggest that the capabilities of our forces to perform their operational missions should be sacrificed to expediency or good intentions. As you have pointed out, Mr. Chairman, little is known about the possible effects on military effectiveness as the numbers of women increase and as they occupy more of the nontraditional jobs. Certainly we need to move with caution where our combat capabililties are involved. I shall not take the time to relate how we got to where we are today other than to say that the services have come a long way in the past 10 or 12 yearS. PAGENO="0097" 91 In fact, I know of no other institutions in ourcountry that have ac- complished what the Armed Forces have in this area during that time. Having said that, the question before us today is not where we have been but where we are going. I would like to touch briefly today on what seems to me to be the central issues. One of the questions you posed at the outset of these hearings, Mr. Chairman, is ~hethe~, after the expansion of the past few years, the services haven't decided to slow down, level off, or even turn back the clock. Some of the data would jndicate that a leveling off may have been contemplated. However, in view of the findings of the excellent study conducted by the Brookings Institution and the latest Department of Defense * study, and, in view, of the interest showh in this matter by your sub- committee, and the Secretary of Defense, renewed efforts on the part of the services can probably be expected. Increased utilization of military women has always been a difficult concept for the military to accept. Military clecisionmakers have tradi~ tionally thought of military women as the resource of last resort, after substandard males, minorities, and civilians. The fact that women improve the quality and cost effectiveness of the force is a concept that military personnel planners have been reluc- tant to accept. At the root of these attitudes is, I believe, a sincere but unsubstan- tiated conviction that somehow women will jeopardize the ability of the Armed Forces to perform their operational missions. Also, there is adeeply held belief that national defense is a man's job. In their final report, the Defense Manpower Commission observed that, "The underlying concern in any discussion of military women is the fear that too many women will lessen combat effectiveness." Yet, they go on to point out that, by even the OSD definition of combat forces, over half of the total active military strength is defined as "support forces." They make the observation that the percentage of women projected for 1978 "should have little, if any, impact on combat Both the Brookings study an4 the recent OSD study indicate that the ability of the services to effectively utilize military women within current policy and statutory constraints far exceeds future program objectives. I agree with their assessments of the enlisted programs. I only regret that neither study addresses the officer programs which have generally been overlooked and ignored. The imbalances here and the equal opportunity implications are far greater than with the enlisted force. In any discussion of expanding. the roles of women in the military, the bottom line isalways combat. Arguments for and against are largely ideological and emotional. One of the problems is that distinctions between the various forms of combat are usually~not drawn.. The vision of the foot soldier in the foxhole is the most often~eIicited, , Qbvioualy,~the~e is ~ wi~e~pectrum~ between the largely physical roles of~ the infantry rna~n and. the technological role o~ the mi~sil~- launch officer, so generalizations only cloud the issue. 23-366---78----7 PAGENO="0098" 92 * The present combat exclusion~ seem to be based more on policy cen- sideratiôns than on law or on known data concerning women's physical capabilities, or-I must add-~emotional stability. The services have consistently asserted that their policies concerning women and combat express the "intent of tbe Congress" and the "will of the people." But I have never known the services to be shy about expressing their views to Congress on other subjects. Nor have they been reluctant to exert their influence on either the Congress or the public. As you pointed out, Mr. Chairman, Congress must rely on the military experts for advice in such matters. So must the public: I know of no surveys that the services have conducted to determine the will of the public on this subject. And I might add I know of no~ conducted for the Congress, for that matter. But both the Army and Air Force have asserted that military womei't should not be assigned tO lOcations where they might be subject to hostile fire for fear they might become combat casualties. Now, I ~- sume that does~ not apply to nurses. In this day of mobile strike forces, tactical ãhd strategic bombing, guerrilla warfare, and guided missiles, the rationale behind this policy simply escapesme. In view of the contribution of military women in every combat theater during World WarP II and their service in Southeast Asia, including, I might add, the Tet offensive, it seems to me that the services are, indeed, trying to set the clock back. American serviCe women have been shot at, some have died, froth enemy action, some have been prisoners of war, and many have received combat decorations. As you know, there are two major statutory constraints on the utilization of military women: * Sections 8549 and 6015 of title 10 of the United States Code. The former prohibits their use as members of combat air crews engaged in combat missions. The latter applies to service on combat ships of the Navy. No similar legal constraints are imposed on the Army. Without getting into the pros and cons of women in air crews and combat ships, it seems to me that from a purely management point of view the Secretaries of the Navy and the Air Force ought to enjo~ the same prerogatives as the Secretary of the Army in determining personnel policy and that they should have the same latitude under the law to explore the fpll range of options in the utilization of ththr people, subject always to the scrutiny of the Congress and policy guidance from the Secretary of Defense. I recommend that bOth statutes be repealed. Repeal would not settle the combat issue, however. There is a lot we don't know about women as combatants because there is so little experience or data to go upon. Certainly, where is reasoBable doubt about their impact on combat effectiveness, caution would be in order. As General Kingston has said: "We don't want to do anything dumb." * Studies and tests that the services are currently doing could provide very useful information and avoid serious mistakes. * On the other hand, it seems to me that the services ~ould make some ~commonsense judgment calls and not wait to be forced into decisions; as PAGENO="0099" 93 `with the academies, and, in some `cases, without exhaustive studies and test programs. I do not need a fancy study or a test to, tell me that a woman could perform as well as man as missile-launch officer. I `have been in missile~- launch facilities and have talked, at length to .the men with the keys. There is nothing inherent in that job that a woman coud not or should not do. I' agree with Secretary Chayes that this is a value question for the military. However, I do not agree with the Air Force contention that it needs to be resolved in the ligbt of public discussion and guidance. This is a management issue. in which the, Air Force. can and should take the initiative as it does in other more weighty matters. The Air Force should bite the bullet and do it. I applaud the Air Force's decisioi~ to train a few women as pilots and navigators, but I am mystified by what their best program is ex- pected to prove; certainly not that women can fly airplanes. We al- ready know that. General Davis has alluded to possible "control pressure" problems. Now, if that means what I think it does, it should apply e~pralIy' to men and women. When I enlisted in the Army in 1942 and became a truck drive~ I suspect I had wh'at might be classified as "control pressure" problems driving a 2½-ton Army truck tha't had neither power steering nc~r power brakes. The lesson I learned from that experience was that a 5-foot 3-inch, 115-pound person, male or female, probably didn't be- long behind the wheel of a 21/2-ton 1942 Army truck. It was simply poor classification. I think I would have been better suited to fly a B-29. [Laughter.] `In short, 1 see no reason why the Air Force progra~m for trairthig women pilots and navigators needs to be so tiny. The restrictions that keep women out of the cockpit have so pro~. found an impact on opportunities for commissions and upon career opportunities that early resolution of this issue is of paran~ount im~. portanco to the women officer program of the Air Force.. Full resolution, `however, hinges on repeal of the law and resolution of the combat issue. I have no problem with the idea of womei~ as members of combat air crews. Rated officer training programs are voluntary. Anyone who applies must face up ~o the restrictions in- volved including the possibility of being shot down over enemy territory. As for the Navy, I recognize that they do have special co~iic~rns with assigning wome1~ to combat ships and that accommodations represent unique problems. However, these problems are not insurmountable and could probably best be resolved on the larger surface ships like aircraft carriers, at least initiafly. One of the most Pressing arguments for repeal of section 6015 is the realization that in the eve~at of war when the Coast Guard is trans. ferred to Navy `control, Coast Guard women w~uid have to be removed from their shipboard duties. Th'is is a "Catch 22~' situation, tt simply makes no sense. The change to section 6015 that has been proposed by the Navy~ would nQt resolve this problem aud~ i~ any oase~ is' only a half-way solution. PAGENO="0100" 94 While on the sthjeet of the Navy, I am gratified that the Navy has proposed, as a part of the Defense Officer Personnel Management Act, DOPMA, to make provision for women officers of the line, supply, chaplain, and civil engineer corps to compete with their male contem- poraries for promotion. However, the history of DOPMA, as you probably already know, has not been encouragrng. I would recoinmeid that separate legislation be introduced to remove the current restric- tions. I am also gratified that the services are making conscientious efforts to move women into the more nontraditional specialties. I fear, how- ever~ that the systems they have set up may be too restrictive and that opportunities for female applicants who are qualified for the more traditional jobs may be unnecessarily limited. I am sure that all of us here today share the same objectives. In the name of national defense we want to insure that the services maintain forces of the highest possible quality and morale. All recent studies on the use of military women indicate that they enhance the quality of those forces and that the services, while they have made commend- able progress in recent years, still have a long way to go in realizing the full potential and benefits to be gained by expanded utilization of this resource. In the name of justice, equity, and fairness, we need to insure that America's women are given the same opportunities to serve their country and to share in the benefits and rewards that are derived from such service. All myths must be separated from reality and then reality must be dealt with in a manner that assures employment equity to all human beings. Thank you. I shall be pleased to respond to your questions. I assure you I shall be as candid as I know how to be. Senator PROXMIRE. Thank you, General Holm. [The prepared statement of General Helm follows :.] PREPARED STATEMENT OF MAJ. GEN. JEANNE M. HOLM Mr. Chairman. I am pleased to have the opportunity to appear before you today on a subject that has long been dear to my heart: The role of women in the military. There is ample evidence today that economies can be realized and effective- ness enhanced by expanding the participation of women in the Armed Forces. We are all acutely aware that serious implications of national security are in- volved and I doubt if anyone who appears before this committee would suggest that the capabilities of our forces to perform their operational missions should be sacrificed to expediency or good intentions. As you have, pointed out, Mr. Chairman, little is known about the possible effects on military effectiveness as the numbers of women increase and as they occupy more of the non-~traditional jobs. Certainly we need to move with caution where our combat capabilities are involved. I shall not take the time to relate how we got to where we are today other than to say that the services have come a long way in the past 10 or 12 years, much farther than I envisioned in 1965 when I was appointed Director, Women in the Air Force. Discriminatory policies and laws have been changed, career and `jeb opportunities have expanded enormously, and the strengths have nearly quadrupled in tile intervening years. Not all of tbi~ was welcomed with open arms by the military nor by all of the women themselves. But I kpow of no other institutions in our country that have accomplished what the Armed Forces have in tbi~ area during that time. Having said tllat, the question before us today is not where we have been hut where we are going. PAGENO="0101" 95 I would like to touch briefly today on what seem to me to be the central issues. Most have already been touched upon in other testimony. One of the questions you posed at the outset of these hearings, Mr. Chairman, is whether, after the expansion of the past few years, the seryices haven't decided t o slow down, level off, or even turn back the clock. Some oi~ the data would indicate that a leveling off may have been contemplated on the assumption that the heat would be off, However, in view of the findings of the excellent study conducted by the Brook- lug Institute and the latest OSD study, and, in view of the interest shown in this matter by your committee, and the Secretary of Defense, renewed efforts on the part of the services can probably be expected. Increased utilization of military women has always been a difficult concept for the military to accept. They have traditionally thought of military women as the resource of last resort, after substandard males, minorities, and civilians. The fact that women improve the quality and cost effectiveness of the force is a concept that military personnel planners have been most reluctant to accept Negative attitudes and cultural bias run deep and are difficult to deal with. Unfortunately, they are held in varying degrees by most of those who are in positions to make or influence decisions. At the root of these attitudes is, I believe, a sincere conviction that somehow women will jeopardize the ability of the armed forces to perform their opera~ tional missions. Also, there is a deeply held belief that national defense is a man's job. In their final report, the Defense Manpower Commission observed that "the underlying concern in any discussion of military women is that fear that too many women will lessen combat effectiveness." 3?et, they go on to point out~ that by even the OSD definition of combat forces, over half of the total active duty military strength is defined as "support forces". They make the observa.- tion that the percentage of women projected for 1978 "should ha~te little if any impact on combat effectiveness". Their contention was supported by a survey they conducted of unit commanders. Of the units surveyed that had women assigned, 53 percent said women had no impact on unit effectiveness, 27 percent ~ positive impact, and 20 percent a negative impact. The Commission made no attempt to determine what that negative Impact might be. Of the units surveyed that had no women assigned, many commanders indicated unsubstantiated fears that women "might hamper effectiveness". Both the Brookings study and the recent OSD study indicate that the ability of the services to effectively utilize military women within current policy and statutory constraints far exceeds future program objectives, I agree with their assessments of the enlisted programs. I only regret that neither study addresses the officer programs which have generally been overlooked. The imbalances here and the equal opportunity im- plications are far greater than with the enlisted force. In any discussion of expanding the roles of military women, the bottom line is always combat. Arguments for and against are largely ideological and emotional. One of the problems is that distinctions between the various forms of combat are usually not drawn. The vision of the foot soldier is most often elicited. Obviously, there is a wide spectrum between the roles of the infantryman and the missile launch officer, so generalizations only cloud the issue. The present combat exclusions seem to be based more on policy considerations than on law or on known data concerning women's physical capabilities. The services have consistantly asserted tha't their policies concerning women and combat express the "intent of the Congress" and the "will of the people". But I have never known the services to be shy about expressing their views to Con- gress on other subjects. Nor have they been reluctant to exert their influence on either the Congress or the public. As you have pointed out, Mr. Chairman, Con- gress must rely on the military experts for advice in such matters. $0 mttst the public. I know of no surveys that the services have condttcted to determine the will of the public on this subject. Both the Army and Air Force have asserted that military women should not be assigned to locations where they might be subject to hostile fire for fear they might become combat casualties. I assume that does not apply to nurses. In this day of mobile strike forces, tactical and str~ttegic bombing, guerrilla warfare, and guided missiles, the rationale behind this policy escapes me. In PAGENO="0102" 96 view of the contribution of military women in every combat theater during World War II and their service in southeast Asia, It seems to me that the serv- ices are indeed trying to set the clock back. American service women have been shot at, some have died, some have been prisoners of war and many have re- ceived combat decorations. As you know, there are two major statutory constraints on the utilization of military women: sections 8549 and 6015 of title 10, United States Code. The former prohibits their use as members of combat air crews engaged in combat missions. The latter applies to service on combat ships of the Navy. NO similar legal constraints are imposed on the Army. Without getting into the pros and eons of women in aircrews and combat ships, it seems to me that from a purely management point of view the Secre- taries of Navy and Air Force ought to enjoy the same prerogatives as the Secre- tary of the Army in determining personnel policy and that, they should have the same latitude under the law to explore the full range of options in the utilization of their people, subject as always to the scrutiny of the Congress and policy guidance from the Secretary of Defense. I recommend that both statutes be repealed. Repeal would not settle the combat issue however. There Is a lot we don't know about women as combatants because there is so little experience or data to go on. Certainly, where there is reasonable doubt about their impact on combat effectiveness, caution would be in order. As Ad- miral Wa'tkinssaid; "We don't want to do anything dumb." Studies and tests that the services are currently doing could prove very useful in avoiding serious mistakes. On the other hand, it seems to me that the services could make some common- sense judgment calls and not wait to be forced Into decisions, as with the academies, and, in some `eases, without exhaustive studies and test prQgrams. I don't need a fancy study or a test to tell me that a woman could `per~ form as well as a man as a missile launch officer. I have been in missile launch facilities and have talked at length to the men with the keys. There is nothing jinherent In that job that a woman could not or should not do. I agree with Secretary Chayes that this is a value ~~uestion with the mill- -tary. However, I do not agree with the Air Force contention t'hftt it needs to be resolved in the light of public discussion and guidance. This is a manhge- inent issue in which the Air Force can and should take the initiative as it does in other more weighty matters. The Air Force should bite the bullet and ~do it. I applaud the Air Force's decision to train a few women as pilots and navi- gators, but I am mystified by what their test program is expected to prove; certainly not that women can fly airplanes. We already know that. General Davis has alluded' to pOssible "control pressure" problems. If that -means what I think it does, it should apply equally to men and women. When I enlisted in the Army in 1942 ~uid became a truck driver I suspect I had what could have been classified as "control pressure" problems driving a 2% ton Army truck, that had neither power steering nor pqwer brakes. The lesson I learned from that experience was that a 5 foot 3 inch, 115 `pound person, male ~or female, didn't belong behind the wheel of .a 2'/2 ton 1942 Army truck. It was -simply poor classification. I would have been better suited to fly a B-29. In short, I see no reason why the Air Fo'rce program for training women -pilots needs to be so tiny. The restrictions that keep women out of the cockpit have so profound an un- -I~act on opportunities for commissions and upon career opportunities that early fesolution of this issue is of paramount importance to the women officer program -of the Air Force. Full resolution, however, hinges on repeal of the law and resolution ,of the combat Issue. I have no problem with the idea of women as members of combat -airerews. Rated officer training programs are voluntary. Anyone who applies must face up to the risks involved including the possibility of being shot down' over -enemy territory. As for the Navy, I recognize that they do have special co~icerns with assigning -women to combat ships and that accommodations represent unique problems. However, these problems are not insurmountable and could probably best be re- -solved on the large surface ships like aircraft carriers, at least initially. The question of boy/girl relationships as they might affect orderly operation are `matters of leadership, discipline, and counseling as was proved in the sanctuary .experience. PAGENO="0103" 97 One of the most pressing arguments for repeal of ~ctton 6015 is the realization that in the event of war when the Coast Guard is transferred to Navy control,~ Coast Guard women Would have tO be i'ethoved frOm their ship-board duties. This is a "catch 22" situation, `It simply mak~s no sense. The' change to section 6015 that has been proposed by the Navy would not resolve this problem and, in any ease, is, only a half-way solution. While on the subject of the Navy, I am gratified that the Navy has proposed, as a part of the ~efens~;OftIcer Personnel 1\iaçnagement Act (DOPMA), to make provision for women ofiic'ers of the tiile, supply, chaplain, and civil engineer corps to compete with their n~ále counte~parts for promotion. However, the history of DOPMA has not beefl encouraging. 1 would recommend that separate legisla~, tton be introduced to remove the current restrictions. I am also gratified that the services are ma~1cing consclentious efforts to, move women into the more nontraditional specialties. I fear, however, that the' systems they have set `up maybe too restrictive and that oppOrtunities for female appli- cants who are qualified' for the more traditional jobs may be unnecessarily limited. I am sure that all of us here today share the, saipe o1~jectives. In the name of national defense we want to insure that thC services maintain forces of the high- est possible quality and morale. All recent studies on the use of military women indicate that they enhance the qtiality of ~tbose forces `an~d that the services, while they have made commendable progress in recent years,, still have ~, long way to go in realizing the full poteutial and bene~ts to be gained by expanding utiliza- tion of this resourCe. ` , ` , In the name of justice, `equity, nud fairness, we need ~to ensure that America's women are given the same opportunities to serve their country and to share in the benefits and rewards that are derived, from such service, All myths must be separated from reality and then reality must be dealt with in a nianner that assures employment equity to all human beings. Thank yOu. I shall be pleased to respond to your questions. Senator PROXrnIm. J~ts. Parr. STATEMENT OP CAEOL C. PARE, CHAIR 0]? THE NATIONAL COALI~ TION POE WOMEN IN D~PENSZ~ ACCOMPANIED BY PAT LEEPER, MILITARY EXPERT, NATIQNAL ORGANIZATION FOR WOMEN Ms. PARR. Mr. Chairman and members of the, subcommittee, thank you for this opportunity to testify on the utiliza~tion of women in the military. I am Carol C~ Parr, elected Chair of the National Coalition for Women in Defense. Th~s is a recently formed, organization whose purpose is to expand and protect the rights of women in the military, farnilies of military' members and civilian women e~nployed by the military. The prepared statement that I present today is endorsed by a number of organizations, and I woi~ld like to name them, as well as request permission to `submit for the record later on the names of some additional organizations which are considei~ing endorsement and have not yet been able to move towards a deoi~ion. So today's written testimony is endorse by the following organi- zations which are participants in the National Coalition for Women in Defense. They include Women's Equity Action League, educa~ tional and `legal, defense fund, WEAL fund~ the organization which employs me; the National Council of Jewish Women; the National Organization for"Women; the National Women's Political Cat~ous; Wider Opportunities for Women; the Women's Equity Action League and Women's Lobby. PAGENO="0104" 98 We all know that women as well as men love this country and have defended it and have served it very well in countless ways going back to the time of the Revolution when Molly Pitcher took over her fallen husband's cannon. If we are to maintain a volunteer armed forces, Congress and the Department of Defense must make some critical decisions about the role of women in the niilitary. Recently published projections, which have been alluded to here earlier, suggest that withm 5 years the services will be able to attract only 75 percent of the highly qualified male recruits that they need. Therefore, in order to meet personnel needs, the services must either further lower their standards for male enlistees or accept more women. At this time the enlistment standards, as you know, are such that males who are high school dropouts are being accepted for military service while bright, capable women whG have graduated from high school and wish to join are being turned away. And despite the shortage of qualified male recruits, the military services-except for the Navy-are planning no further increases in female personnel. In hearings before this subcommittee last July, representatives from the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force described the improve- ments they have made in the utilization of women. These depart- ments cluim to provide equal opportunity for women. They tell us that the women they enlist are better educated, attain higher scores on standardized tests of mental ability, and have lower attrition rates than their male counterparts. Furthermore, the Binkin and Bach analysis of economic factors relevant to the utilization of women estimates that the average annual per capita costs associated with housing, medical care, and transpor- tation are roughly $982 less for military women than for men. Thus, based on differences in dependency status, the average military woman costs the Department of Defense about 8 percent less. In sum, at the present time it is more economical and cost effective to recruit and enlist women than men. And although the services admit that the women are doing an excellent job, they contend that making better use of 51.3 percent of our population is somehow con- trary to our national interests. We believe that better utilization of women in the military may, indeed, be contrary to certain military habits, but to allow these habits to dictate public policy is intolerable in a free society. Let us look carefully at the increases in the utilization of women in the Armed Forces. In 1971, 1.6 percent of the military personnel were female; by 1976,.. 5.2 percent were female; by 1982, under cur- rent goals, 7 percent of military personnel will be female. In the civilian work force women now comprise over 40 percent of it. To put this all in another perspective, we are progressing from a mili- tary force that was more than 98 percent male to' a military force that will be 93 percent male. That can hardly be called a fantastic increase. It can more appropriately be described as a slight change in the degree Qf tokenism. *We urge the Congress to address these issues: Is it necessary for the Armed Forces to continue to be more than 90 percent male? Are the military services being overly cautious in their reluctance to admit women? Is there any rational basis for the fear that increasing PAGENO="0105" 99 the utilization of women will impair the accomplishment of military missions? Are the Army, Navy, and Air Force underestimating the capabilities of American women? We believe that the armed services are greatly underestimating the capabilities of women. It is time for the Dspartment~of Defense to stop basing its judgments on narrow and stereotypical views of women and start basing them on women as they are-a diverse group of individuals, with~a great variety of skills, capabilities and motiva- tions. Therefore, we make the following recommendations: One, Congress should repeal sections 6015 and 8549 of title X of the United States Code. As has been described by Jeanne }iolm, these laws greatly restrict the assignment of women. Without repeal of section 6015, for ex- ample, the Navy carniot enlist more than* 10 percent women. But the effect of the laws is far greater than the actual congressionally- mandated restrictions. They have been used as an excuse, particularly by the Army, for restricting even further the utilization of women by all the services. The law governing the Air Force states that females "shall not be assigned to duty in aircraft while such aircraft are engaged in com- bat missions." The Air Force has defined combat in such a way as to exclude women from assignment as missile launch officers. The As- sistant Secretary of the Air Force who testified earlier during these hearings stated, "The deeper concern there is not only the isolation, but the awesome responsibility for the release of nuclear weapons." The result of this kind of emotionalism is an extreme interpretation of the law whereby 40 percent of officer jobs and 6 percent of enlisted jobs in the Air Force are closed to women. This still leaves 60 percent of officer jobs and 94 percent of enlisted jobs in the Air Force which could be held by either men or women. But can women compete for those jobs? No. The Air Force uses the law as an excuse to keep the personnel structure 92 percent male. As you know, there is no law restricting assignment of women in t.he Army. The Secretary of the Army has total authority to assign female personnel as he sees fit. But the Army uses the laws restricting the other services as an excuse to exclude women from the many jobs `they could perform and to keep the numbers of women very low. As recently as 1976, the women in the Army study stated, and I quote, "It is clear that the original intent of Congress and, by extension, the intent of the American people, was that women perform in concom- batant roles." Thus, the Army, with no legal restrictions on the utilization of women and in the faqe of evidence of the~ economies that might be realized, arbitrarily limits the nature and extent of women's roles. Do the legal restrictions placed upon women's roles in the military reflect the will of Congress and the will of the American people as the Army asserts? If we take a brief look at the legislative history, we might find some of these answers. These restrictions were passed as part of the Women's Armed Forces Integration Act of 1948. The bill as originally. drafted would have left the assignment of women up to the service secretaries. One member of the House Armed Services Committee, Congressman Vinson, had the bill amended because he personally did not want women to serve PAGENO="0106" 100 ~on ships. During the hearings,. Mr. Vinson made the following state~ ments-ref erring to. women: Of course, they should not be permitted to serve on any ship. Just fix it so they cannot go to sea at all. As a result of Mr. Vinson's pressure, the bill was amended to ~xciude women from sea duty and from service in combat aircraft. In view of legislative history, it is accurate to state that ~keeping women off ships is the will of the American people? Or was it simply lhe will of one member of the House Armed Services Committee Tnearly 30 years ago? Repeal of outmOded legal restrictions would give the Secretaries of the Air Force and Navy desirable flexibility in the assignment and utilization of women. Even more importantly, it would remove the justification for the severe restrictions imposed by all the services on the number of women they will take, as well as on the assignment and `utilization of the wOmen who enlist. Our second recommendation is that the armed services should enlist men and women according to ability, and do away with the ceilings placed on thO number of women they will take. The major restrictions placed on the recruitment and assignment of women in the military are the policies established by the military ~service~ themselves. The services* go far beyond the letter and the spirit of' the law. Those restrictions could easily be removed by the services. The major barrier seems to be the military establishment's desire to remain predominantly male. Congress has given us several hints of a change of attitude toward women in the military since 1948. For example, in 1967, a law was passed which struck down the 2 percent limitation on female enlisted strength that had been in effect for 20 years. The Senate also defeated the Ervin amendments to the equal rights amendment which would *have exempted women from combat duty and from the draft by very wide margins. The bill to permit women to enter the military acad- emies passed the House by a vote of 303 to 96. Despite these actions by Congress, the military services continue to prescribe a very limited role for women and use the will of Congress to justify their discrim- inatory policies. We are hoping that one effect of these hearings will be to make it clear that Congress envisions a greater role for women in the mili- tary than that reflected in the services' current goals. Our third recommendation is that all of the military departments ~should conduct market surveys to determine the potential number of female recruits. `They should also be required tO keep records on the numbers of qualified women who are turned away or put on a wait- ing list because of low quotas for women. The services have said that they cannot `increase the number of women further because they do not know how many women would be interested in enlisting. We ask: Why haven't they made an effort to find out? We know that the services are turning women away because we receive complaints from women who have not been permitted to serve their country. ` The fact that the services do not know how many women would be `interested in enlistment is no excuse for not trying to attract more PAGENO="0107" 10~1 ~women. In 1971, when the Department of DefQnse decided to increase the number of ~women from 40,000 to `100,000, they did not know if they could recruit that number of women. They learned that women were so interested in the military that the services had no problem in meeting their goals. The Army was able to raise its standards for women and stiij increase its female strength from 12,000 to 44,000 ~eniisted women in 5 years. Our fourth recon~mendation is that the military services should provide high school students and guidance counselors with informa- tion about the opportunities for women and the abilities and apti- tudes required to enter and succeed in the military. We believe that the military services could do much more than they are currently doing to educate young women and guidance coi4nselqrs about the military. The Department. ~f Defense High School News Service, publishes a magazine called Profile which is distributed free to junior and senior high schools, colleges, and universities. This publication does show a~ few women in some nontraditional and traditional jobs in the military. It would be immensely useful to include more informa- tion about the requirements fOr enlistment and success in those jobs, and to give increased coverage to opportunities for women in this `publication. I am fascinated `by a recent survey of 17-year-olds that revealed that only 3 percent of the young women listed housewife as their pre- ferred career. This suggests to me, among other things, that if all young women were better i~iformed about the opportunities avail- able to them in military careers, many of them' would give serious consideration to joining the.armed forces. Contrary to the testimony presented by General Davis of the Air Force earlier this summer to the effect that women lack aptitudes for `technical fields, we contend that women do have the potential to per- form, most jobs, especially technical jobs~ as ~ell as, ipen, provided `that they are given appropriate training. Furtherthor~, `the tests given by the military, while' called aptitude tests, ,actually test familiarity `with male-oriented subjects, like automotive mechanics, that young women have not traditionally been allowed to learn. Our fifth and final recommendation is the military services should improve their research on women, better utilize the research that has already been done and, most important, stop using the need to research ~as an excuse to drag their feet in taking more women. Throughout the July hearings, the Army and Air Force continually referred to the need to conduct more research. The Army spokesman said, "The picture is still not clear. We have more than 200 years of experience with millions of men but little experience with large num- bers of ~ They speak of "unknowns" vague "problems," the need for "more ~experience," "more tests," "resource availability." Fuzzy statements abound. Actually the services have over 30 years of experience with women. We question `the validity of much of the research on women con- ducted by the military. We believe there is a clear bias against womei~. ~evident from the testimony presented during these hearings by the military departments. The assumption was made that women cannot PAGENO="0108" 102 withstand stress, are not ready for awesome responsibility and that they cause problems. Can an institution with these biases be trusted to do objective research? Indeed, is some of the so-called research really research? A case in point is the Air Force pilot testing program to tram women as* pilots. According to the testimony of General Davis, 20 women per year will enter pilot training, as part of a test program to determine the optimum assignment and utilization of female pilots. As Jeanne Holm pointed out, we are not trying to prove that women can fly airplanes. So, in closing, we would just like to emphasize some of the negative consequences of any delay in implementing policy and legal changes that will expand opportunities for women in the military. Present policies which are based on the military's underestimation of the capabilities of women, and the unfounded fear that greater utilization of women will impair military effectiveness, are damaging to women and the Nation. Not only are American women being denied access to training, military careers, and the many benefits provided `by mili- tary service. In addition, the Nation is losing the potential contribu- tion women can make to its security and missing opportunities to operate in a manner that is both efficient and cost effective. Senator, Pat Leeper has accompanied me today, and both she and I will `be available to answer any questions you might have. Thank you. Senator PRoxMnus. Thank you, Ms. Parr, we are honored to have Ms. Leeper here today. She is a military expert, I understand, for the National Organization for Women. Is that correct? Ms. LEEPER. That is correct. Senator PROXMIRE. We are happy to have you. Ms. Leeper. [The prepared statement of Ms. Parr follows:] PREPARED STATEMENT OF CAROL C. PARR Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, thank' you for the opportunity to testify on the utilization of women in the military. I am Carol Parr, elected Chair of the National Coalition for Women in Defense, a newly-formed organiza- tion interested in the status of women in the military. Our purpose is to protect and extend the rights of women in the military, families of military members and civilian women employed by the military. We wish to thank you for holding these hearings to explore issues relating to women's present and potential contribution to the Armed Services. Women, as well as men, love this country and have defended it and served it well in countless ways such as when, during the Revolution, Molly Pitcher took over her fallen husband's cannon. If we are to maintain a volunteer Armed Force, Congress and the Department of Defense must make some critical decisions about the role of women in tho military. Recently published projections suggest that within five years the serv- ices will be able to attract only 75 percent of the highly qualified male recruits that they need.' Therefore, in order to meet personnel needs, the services must' either further lower their standards for male enlistees or accept more women. At this time the enlistment standards are such that males who are high school dropouts are being accepted for military service while bright, capable women who have graduated from high school and wish to join are being turned away. And despite the shortage of qualified male recruits, the military services- except for the Navy-are planning no further increa sen in female personnel. In hearings before this subcommittee last July, representatives from the Army, Navy, and Air Force described the improvements they have made in the utiliza- tion of women. The departments claim to provide equal opportunity for women. They tell us that the women they enlist are better educated, attain higher 1 Martin BinIdn and Shirley F. Each. Women and the MiZitary, The Brookings Institu- tion, Washington, D.C., 1977, p. 68. PAGENO="0109" 1Q3 scores on ~tandardized tests of mental ability, and have lower attrition rates than their male counterparts. The l3inkin and Bach analysis of economic factors relevant, to the utilization of women estimates that the average annual per capita costs associätèd *ith hous- ing, medical care, and transportation are roughly $9~2 less for military womefi than for men.2 Thus, based on differences in dependency status, the average military woman costs th~ Department of Defense about eight percent less than the average military man. In sum, at the present time It Is' more economical and cost-effective to recruit and enlist women than men. And although the services admit that the women are doing an excellent job, they .contend that making better use of 51.3. percent of our population is contrary to our national interests. Better utilization of women in the military may indeed be contrary to certain mi'itary habits, but to allow these habits to dictate public policy is intolerable in a free society. Let us look carefully at the increases in the utilization of women in the Armed Forces. In 1971, 1.6 percent of military personnel were female; by 1976, 5.2 per- cent were female; by 1982, under current goals, 7 percent of military personnel will be female. To put this in another perspective, we are progressing from a military force that was more than 98 percent male to a military force that will be 93 percent male. That can hardly be called a fantastic increase. It can more appropriately be described as a slight change in the degree of tokenism. We do not understand why the Department of Defense cannot expand the per- centage of women more than this. We urge the Congress to address these. issues: Is It necessary for the Armed Forces to continue to be more than 90 percent male? Are the military services being overly cautious in their reluctance to admit more women? Is there any rational basis for the fear that increasing, the utilization of women will impair the accomplishment of missions? Are the Army, Navy, and Air Force under- estimating the capabilities of American women? We believe that the Armed Services are greatly underestimating the capa- bilities of women. It i~ time for the Defense Department to stop basing its judgments on narrow and stereotypical views of women and start basing them on women as they are-a diverse group of individuals, with a great variety of skill~, capabi1i~ies and motivations. Therefote, we make the following recom- mendations: 1; Congress should repeal Sections 6051 and 8549' of Title 10, United States Code Those laws greatly restrict the asignment of women. Without repeal of Section 6015, for example, the Navy cannot enlist more than 10 percent women.3 But the effect of the laws is fax'. greater than the actual Congressionally-mandated restrictions. They have been used as an excuse for restricting even further the utlization of women by all the services. The law governing the Air Force states~ that females "shall not be assigned to duty in `aircraft while such air~raft are engaged in combat missions." The Air Force has detihed combat in such a way r~s to exclude women from assign- ment as missile~ launch officers.4 The Assistant Secretary of the Air Force who testified earlier during `these hearings stated, "The deeper concern there is not only the isolation, but the awesome responsibility for the release of nuclear weapons." ~ The result `o~ this kii~d of' emotionalism Is an. extreme interpretation of the law whereby 40 percent of officer jobs and six percent of enlisted jobs in the Air Force are closed to wthnen. This still leaves 60 percent of officer jobs and 94 percent of thilisted jobs in the Air FOrce which could be held by either men or women. But can women compete for those jobs? No. The Air Force uses the law as an excuse to keep the personnel structure 92 percent male. The Army is even more interesting. There is no law restricting asignment of women in the Aritty, The Secretary of the Army has total authority to assign female personnel' as he sees fit. But the Army uses the laws restricting the other services as an excuse to exclude women from many jo'1~s ançl to keep the numbers of women very low; As.~ecently as 1976~ th~ Wbinen in the Army Study stated, "It is clear that the ori~thal Intent of `Congress and, by extension, the intent 2 Binkin, andBacb, o~p~ ci:t~, p. 58 Binkin apd Bkch, eli.' cit., pp. 106-107. 4 Binkin and Bach, oS. cit;. p. 22. ~ Statement of Antonia Handler Chayes, Assistant $ecret~ry of the Air Force for Man- power, Reserve Affairs and Installations, before the Subcom~nittee of Priorities and Econ- omy in Government of the Joint Economic Committee, July 22, 1977. PAGENO="0110" 104 of the American people, was that women perform in noncombatant roles." ~ Thus, the Army, with no legal restrictions on the `utilisation of women and in the face of evidence of the economies that might be realized, arbitrarily limits the nature and extent o~ women's roles. Do the legal restrictions placed upon wOmen's roles in the ihilitary reflect the will of Coiigress and the will of the American people as the Army ~sserts'? Let us lOok "at the legislative history. These restrictions were passed as part of the Women's Armed Forces Integration Act of 1948. The bill as originally drafted would have left the assignment of women up to the service secretaries. One mem- ber of the House Armed Services Committee, Congressman Vinson, bad the bill amended because he personally did not want women to serve on ships. l~urin~ the hearings, Mr. Vinson made the following statements: "Of course, they should not be permitted to serve on any ship." "I think the Congress should take a positive stand on it and not leave it to~ the discretion of the Secretary. . . Of 4~ourse you can {sicj serve at shore estab- lishments, but they have no place at all on ships." * "Just fix It so they cannot go to sea at all."7 As a result of Mr. Vinson's pressure, the bill was amended to exclude women' from sea duty and from service in combat aircraft. In view of legislative history, is it accurate to state that keeping woihen off ships is the will of the American people? Or was it the will of one member of the House Armed Services Committee nearly thirty years ago? At the time those hearings were taking place in the aftermath of World War II, the retention of women in the military was being questioned. There have been many changes lii the roles of women are playing in our society, in the variety of jobs held by women and In the aspirations of women themselves since the passage of the Women's Armed Forces Integration Act. Certainly, the retention of women in the military is no longer in' question. The question before the Congress now is this: Is the utilization and assignment of men and women in the Armed 13'orces `going to be governed by the prejudices of thirty years ago? Are women going `to be denied, opportunities today because of an outdated law? Are the military services going to be denied a great potential resource-our nation's womam power-because of one man's limited vision? Repeal of outmoded legal restrictions would give the Secretaries of the Air Force and Navy desirable flexibility in the assignment and utilization of women. Even more important, it would remove the justification for the severe restric- tions imposed by all the services on the number of women they will take, as~ well as on the assignment and utilization of the women who enlist. 2. The Armed services should enlist men and wOmen according to ability, and do away with the ceilings placed On the number of `women they will take The major restrictions placed on the recruitment and assignment of women in the military are the, policies established by the military services themselves. The services go far beyond the letter and the spirit of the law in placing' restrictions on women. Those restrictions could easily be removed by the serv- ices. The major barrier seems to be the military establishment's desire to remain predominantly male.' Congress has given, several hints of a change of attitude toWard women in the military since 1948. For example, in 1967, a law was passed which struck' down the two percent limitation en female enlisted strength that had been in effect for. twenty years. (The law set no limit on the percentage of women `that the Armed Forces could take, yet the services did not increase the per-~ centage of women in uniform until 1972.) The' Senate `defeated the Ervin Amendments to the Equal Rights Amendment which would have exempted' women from combat duty and from the draft by very wide margins. The bill `to permit women to enter the military academies passed the House by a vote of' 303 to 96. DespIte these actions by Congress, the military services continue to pee- scribe a limited role for women and use the will of Congress to justify their discriminatory policies. We are hoping that one effect of these hearings will be to make it clear that `Congress envisions a greater role for women in the military than that reflected~ Denartment of the Army, Women in the Army Rtudy, 1976, p. 1-6. U.S. Congress, House of Representatives, Armed Services Committee, Subesminittee No. 3, Orranization and Mobilization, 80th Congress, 2d Session, pp. 5689, 5711. 8Binkin and Bach, pp.. 22-30. PAGENO="0111" 105 in the services' current goals. Martin Binkin and Shirley Bach, in the `Brook- ings Institution study Women ~d the MiUtar~, estimate that "the number of military enlisted women could ~ventuâIly reach 40~,000, or 22 percent of the ~ even without removal of the legal restrictions prohibiting Navy and Air Force women from serving in combat positions. We would see that as an interim goal-at least until the Title 10 restrIctions are repealed. 3. All of the military departments should Oo4id'uct market surveys to determine the potential number of female recruits. They should also be reqwired to keep records on the numbeis of qualified women who are turned away or put on a waiting list because of low quot?as for women The services have stated that they cannot increase the number of women further because they do not know how many women wo~tlçl be interested in enlisting. We ask why haven't they made an effort to find out? rrhey routinely survey men of enlistment age, and these surveys can and should be broadened to inClude women. We know that the services are turning women away beca~ise we receive complaints from Women Who have been told by recruiters that the field they are interested in Is closed to women for six months~ or that they will have to wait many months to enlist because the quotas for women have already been met. The Air Force claims that they cannot increase their goal for women because many women do not have the mechanical and electrical aptitude required for Air Force job~° The Air Force has flo idea how many women with thOse abili- ties Could' be attracted because the Air Force has not yet made a concerted effort to recruit them, Sinci the Air Force potentially conld open most of their jobs to both sexes, they should find out how `many women with mechanical a~d electrical ability would be interested in an Air Force career. The fact that the services do not know how ~nany women would be inter- ested in enlistment `is no excuse for `iiot trylñ~ to attract more women. En 1~Z1, when the Department of Defense decided, to Increase the number of women from 40,000 to 100,000, they did not know if they could recruit that number of women. They learned that wonlen were so interested In the military that the services had no problem In meeting their goals. The Army was able to raise its standards for women and still increase its female strength. from 12,000 to 44,000 enlisted women In five years. When the military services want to attract large numbers of women, when they believe it is to their advantage to do so, they are able to find them. They did this In World War II `and they can do it today. 4. The military services should provide high school students and guidance counselors with information about the opportunities for Women and the abilities and aptitudes required to enter and succeed in the military The military services could do much more th'an they are currently doing to educate young women and guidance counselors about the military. As a start, recruiters need to emphasize the opportunities for women in their con- tacts with high school personnel. Pamphlets and brochures address to young women could be developed. There are pamphlets available now, but they stress the traditional jobs for women. They do nOt contain sufficient information on the physical and mental preparation needed fo'r military services. The Department ~of Defense High School News Service publishes a maga- `zine called Profile which Is distributed free to junior and senior high schools, colleges, universities, libraries, career centers and ]?~OTC units. This publi- cation does show a few women in some'~ non-traditional and traditional jobs in the military. It would be immensely useful to Include Information about the requirements for enlistment and suCcess in those ,jobs, and to give increased coverage to opportunities for women In this publication. A recent survey of 17-year-olds revealed that Qnl~? three percent of the young women listed housewife as their ~preferred career,°°, T~ all young women were better informed about the opportunities available to them in `military careers, many of them would give serious consideration to joining the armed forces. `Moreover, with appropriate information and encouragement from guidance counselors about the relationship between technical and physical proficiency and succe~s in military service, they could better prepare themselves. Contrary to the testimony presented `by General Davis of the `AI~' Force earlier this sum- °Binkln and Bach, p. 1O9~ ,` ` ` 10 Lt. General B. L. Davis, Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel, Air Force, l~ear1ng5, `op. cot., pp. 85--8a ` n National Assessment of Ilducatlonal Progress. , ` PAGENO="0112" 106 mer to the effect that women lack aptitudes for technical fields,12 we contend that women do have the potential to perform most jobs as well as men, pro- vided that they are given appropriate training. Furthermore, the tests given by the military, while called aptitude tests, actually test familiarity with male- oriented subjects that young women have n~t traditionally been allowed to learn. 5. The military services should improve their re,~eare1i on women-, better utilize the reearch that has already been done anA, most important, stop using the need to research as an ea~euse to drag their feet in taking more women The Air Force and Army throughout their testimony at these hearings con- tinually referred to the need to conduct more research. The Army spokesman said, "the. picture is still not clear. We have more than 200 years of experience with millions of men but little experlence with large numbers of wometi." ~ They speak of "unknowns," vague "problems," the need for "more experi- ence," "more tests," resource availability." Fuzzy statements abound: "There are differences now that we are just not sure of." "I am sure there were prob- lems. I don't have the details." Actually the services have over thirty years of experience with women. There were over 200,000 women in the military during World War II. Women in the Army served in every theatre of the, war-North Africa, France, the Southwest Pacific-often close to the front lines. They lived in tents, followed advancing field armies, endured hardships ahd stress. Every detail and aspect of this ex- perience was exhaustively researched, and findings were published In the Army's eicellent study, The Women's Army Corps. Many of the questions the Assistant Secretaries claim to. need answers to were answered in that book. Instead of spending money on further research, they ought to read it. Some of the con~lu- sions and recommendations are outdated-largely because social attitudes to- wards the role of women have changed so much-but much of the study is sound and relevant today. The services now have five years of experience with their expansion program. What research have they been conducting during this time? Have opportunities for research been missed? Where is the published report on the Navy's Sanctuary experiment? As far as we can determine, the only evaluation of the Sanctuary is an internal memorandtim. It appears that the reason the "picture is still not clear" is that there has been little effort on the part of the services to test and find out about the capabilities of women. Tests which show that womer4 do well are "buried." Now, faced with pressure to take more women, they have suddenly discovered the need for "research." We question the validity of much of the research on women conducted by the military.. A clear bias .against women is evident from the testimony presented during these hearings by the military departments. The assumption was made that women cannot withstand stress, are not ready for awesome responsibility and that they cause problems. Can an institution with these biases be trusted to do objective research? Indeed, is some of the so-called research really res.earch? A case in point is the Air Force program to train women as pilots. According to the testimony of General Davis, twenty women per year will enter pilot train- ing, as part of a test program to determine the optimum assignment and utiliza- tion of female pilots. We have two comments to make concerning this test. The first is that it is totally unnecessary. All General Davis needs to do is read Army 4ir Force Historical Study No. 55 to learn that over 800 women served as Women's Air Force Service Pilots (WASPS). They ferried all types of military aircraft, and in all have compared favorably with male pilots. The data are there-in great detail. Our second concern is the size of the sample, You do not have to be a sociologist or a statistician to know that ten women per training cycle is not a meaningful sample size. As a research project, this test is ludicrous. It makes no sense at all.. If the Air Force truly wants to find out how women perform as pilots, this is not the way to do it. With the historical evidence already ava4l'able~ no test is~ needed but if the Air Force insists on researching again what is already known, a minimum sample of 100 women is needed. So if this is not a test program~ but in fact a pilot training program, when will it be open to' women, ant1~ partieniarly to women who complete ROTC progranis, and women w1%o receive training at the aealemies? ~ Lt. General B. L. Davis, Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel, Air Force, Ilearings, op. nit., pp. 85~-86. `~ Statement of Robert L. Nelson, Assistant Secretary for Manpower ~nd Reserve Affairs; and. Major General J. P. Kingston,' Assistant Deputy Chlet foD Personnel, Artny, Hearings, op. cit., p. 9. PAGENO="0113" `107 ~.`Phe Mr. Force pilot training program is a typical example of inadequate i~e- search and exercises in foot*dragging. The services repeatedly state that women have done well in every program in which they have been evaluated, Women performed well on the &~nctuary, in the Army's Basic Initial Entry Test, and the early reports from the M~AX/WAO test are favorable. Yet the services still don't know, aren't sure, can't say. How many more tests, more research projects, more studies will it take befOre' women have proven themselves? In closing, we would like to emphasize the negative consequences of any delay ~n implementing policy and legal changes that will expand opportunities for women in the military. Presentpolicies which arc based on the military's under- estimation, of the capabilities of women, and the . unfounded fear that greater utilization of women will impair military effectiveness, are damaging to women :and the. nation. Not only, are American women being denied access to training, military careers, and tlie~many benefits provided by military service. In addition, the tiation `is losing~~ the potential contribution women can make to its security and missing opportunities to operate in a manner that is both efficient and cost- effective. DECREASING COSTS TO 1~[ILITAEy Senator PROxMIRE. Well, all these statements have been so thought- ful `and helpful. I might say, Ms. Parr, you added for us a statistic whjch had not been called to' our attention, at least not to my memory. That is the fact that women cost less to the military. You said 8 per- cent, and that is logical because, of' course, the dependency element is not as heavy with women. This is a very, very important considera- tion .whdn' you recognize that so many people have pointed out that 56 percent of our military cost is personnel cost, and here obviously `is an area where we can make some real economies without in any way decreasing the strength' and force of our military. .1 `will ask each of you; I am going to ask you questions by name. Don't feel inhibited.to comment on any question I ask another `panel- ist, If you want to step in and comment, that would be very welcome. General Ilolm, Ms. Goodman challenges the current approach fol- lowed in the Brookings' report that full integration of women should be post~óned while `experiments are designed, studies made, and. re- ports filed.' She says this approach is based on the false assumption that women `must prove themselves in each separate job and that it demands a. degree of certitude impossible to satisfy. What is your view about.this? General HoLi~f. I think the Brookings study is the best' thing that has ever been done on that subject historically. I think there are un- ahswered questions with regard to women in combat that still need to be answered. Whether or not the Army stttdies or the tests they are conducting now are going to produce the, answers remains to be seen. I have a feeling these tests they are conducting, as has been implied, may be weighted' against the women..Whether they' will be objective or not, I don'f know. But there are still unanswered questions about- "Sen~tOr PiioxMniE. What are the answers, do you feel? ~`Gën'erài'HoL~. `The'fundamental requirements in a combat infantry environment, for example- ~Senator PROXMIRE. About their combat physical abilities? General Hor~. About h'ow they could perform'iñ the combat infan- tryman role. I think that remains to be seen~ ~Senator PROXMTEE: Ms. Goodman, would you like to comment? Ms. GooDMAN. I would"begin by saying that'I am ~sure General Hoim and I agree on the basic issues. I don't think we are adversaries 23-366-78-8 PAGENO="0114" 108 in this matter. Whether women have the physical capacity for a par- ticular job can be tested. Any person undertaking a physically diffi- cult job, man or woman, should be able to handle it. My point is that characteristics, including characteristics of physi- cal strength, are not distributed according to sex, and the fact that on the average women are weaker should not in any way hamper the women - Senator PROXMIBE. Could I interrupt? Why can't this be done on an individual basis? Why say that women are necessarily incapable of a particular physical job? Can't you develop a standard-undoubtedlY there are men who are a lot weaker than many women are. To say that all women would be excluded until you can make this test, it seems to me is a clear discrimination of a group. GENERAL HOLM SAYS WOMEN SHOULD BE GIVEN JOBS IF CAPABLE General Housi. I have no disagreement with that in philocophy. I think any woman who is capable of doing the job ought to have the job. But unfortunately the services don't really have physical stand- ards. That is, they have health standards and general height and weight standards, but as of today, with the exception of the rather shallow standards that the Air Force has developed, the services have never established physical standards for most jobs, physical stamina and strength standards for men or women. Senator PROXMIRE. Let me give an example from my own experi- ence. Running, jogging. Until about 4 years ago, no woman had run a marathon, that is 26 miles, in less than 4 hours. Today you have women who have run the marathon in about 2 hours 80 minutes. Their time improvement has been far, far greater than men. Many people think within a few years women will beat men as the top marathon runiiers in the world. This is clearly a physical capability that people didn't envision. But the overwhelming majority of men couldn't come close to running the marathon in 4 hours; now many women can. The point is this should be an individual determination, not a deter- mination of a group by sex. But you feel that these studies should be made first., before we proceed? General H0LM. I think it isthe wise route to go. Senator PROXMIRE. At any rate, if you did, you confine this pri- marily to infantry combat, which is a relatively small proportion of the combat area. General HOLM. Yes, it is. Senator PRoxMIm~. There was a time when that was the overwhehn- ing field, butit is no longer true. General HOLM. ~ it involves, only a small percentage of the. armed services. One of the figures I say was 8 percent of the total Armed Forces would be combat infantrymen of all the forces. Senator PROXMIRE. And you have no probleru with women in com- bat other than the one you specified here, in the infantry? General H0LM. No, sir. Senator PRoxMnu~. General Holm, you said the Air Force pilot training ~program is-Ms. Goodman. Excuse me. PAGENO="0115" 109 Ms. GOODMAN. I would like to add something to the subject of physical strength. The experience of women in the armed forces has been that many of the tasks that men have traditionally relied on bruite strength to accomplish~ can be done equally well without e~- pending as much strength simply by changing procedures. For ex~ample, the Navy told us that one of the problems women had w~s carrying heavy mail sacks~ The solution to this problem was simply to use two mail sacks instead of one. In short, you can use your brains to overcome work problems as well as your `back muscles. Senator PROXMIBE. Very good. PRocRAsTINATION BY MILITARY SEEN BY GENERAL HOLM General Hol'ni, you said the Air Force pilot training program for women is' too small. Ms. Parr, I believe, stated the research problem, that as a' research project it is, as she said, ridiculous. it is based on too small a sample and makes no sense at all. Do you agree with Ms. Parr and would you say that it illustrates foo~dragging and dilatry `tactics on the part of the Air Force? General HOLM. Yes, sir. Senator Pi~oxMnu~. Now, Colonel Hallaren, Ms. Goodman sum- marized the objections'to women in combat quite well. She said that the question of the rightness of women in combat is based on concern over whether-this is the first time I have seen this confronted so bluntly and directly, it was refreshing to get it-was over whether women should be killed in battle or should be the ones to do the killing. I think that is something that is in the minds `of many people. But it occurs to me that `women are now employed in the front ranks of many police forces in major cities `where there is a possibility they may be killed and some have been killed, and where they may have to do the killing. Would you discuss this analogy and state whether you agree with Ms. `Goodman that all statutes, rules, regulations, and policies that restrict the services `of women should be abolished? TIlE TEST OF ACCEPTABILITY SHOULD BE THE INDIVIDUAL NOT THE GENDER Colonel HALLAREN. Well, in the first place, I fe~i as that the utili- zation of women should be limited only by the physical and mental capacity of the individual. I' am with you all the way `as far as apply- ing the individual measure to the person. I don't think combat service has anything to dO with seZ or gender. I would agree with Jeanne Hoirn in establishing the physical capabilities for `all jObs. I would rule out specifications as to who is going to kill here, there, or some- where else. I don't' think it has anything to `do with the point. Future warfare will be in our own back yard. I don't think we will go out with gun to Europe to shoot anybody. I' ,think we are going to be under the buzz-bombs as we were in World War II. I think in the future women should be trained in any element of the military services for whidh they `are physically `arid mentally compe- tent. I don't think that combat per se has anything to do wit'h it. PAGENO="0116" 110 SENATOR PROXMIRE ASKS HOW TO DETERMINE THE THOROUGHNESS OF TIlE DOD REPORT ON RECOMMENDATIONS TO IMFRQVE ROLE OF WOMEN IN THE MILITARY Senator PROXMIRE. Ms. Parr, as a result of an araendment I intro- duced in the Senate in May of this yenr, the Secretary of Defense will soon release the report on how to improve the role of women in the military. That report could be very good and conclusive, or it could be very inconclusive and just a snow job. What are the telltale signs we should watch for in the report to determine if it is thorough, cOnclu- sive, and a real effort on the part of the Department of Defense to im- prove the role of women in the military? Ms. PARR. Well, as you know, Senator, we have had a number of th~se studies already conducted. To' determine whether or not this par- ticular study is thorough and conclusive, one matter we can look at is the data they provide. We can look at the actions that are planned and the policy changes that are planned to implement some of their recom- mendations that come along with the report. Senator PROXMIRE. May I interrupt to say that I didn't ask for the study; it got amended on the floor to got the study~ I wanted this action taken immediately. and, unfortunately, the only way tie get it through the Senate last year, this last May, was to accept that amendment. Ms.. PAim. Yes, sir, I recall. Mr. Nunn, I believe. Senator PROXMIRE. That is right. Ms. PARR. But the effectiveness of studies-regardless of how effec-, five this study is, we just hope it is a terrific study, we hopethat it is fantastic, we hope it contains a number of well-documented recom- mendations, about increasing the utilization of women in the military. But we have studies, we have stacks and stacks of studies, we have the Binkin study, the GAO studies, a lot of. other reports, and the question is really how the studies are translated into policy decisions and then some sort of followup on that. Senator PROXMIRE. You would say `that whether or not the study triggers a policy recommendation that would' represent `progress is one guide? Ms. PARR. That would be my measure, my personal measure of its' effectiveness. General IHoL1~r. May I comment on tha't, Mr. Chairman? Senator PROXMIRE. Yes. General IIOLM. It `has been my experience throughout the years that whenever someone asks for a study in the Department of Defense, those who conduct it end up learnmg things they had `hoped not to learn. ILaughter.] Usually the study is done with a weighted notion In mind; it's de- signed to prove preconceived notions, and inevitably they learn more than' they had hoped to learn supporting the opposite point. Every time you ask for these studies the services learn something from it. So it's not a wasted exercise. . Senator PROXMIRE. Well, that is a very refreshing viewpoint. Ms. ,Leeper, Ms. Goodman mentioned the morality issue, the boy- girl problem. PAGENO="0117" 111 Ms. GOODMAN. I am sorry, Senator. That is not what I meant by the "morality" issue at all. The moral question to whiç~h I referred was rightness of women in combat. MILITARY ISSt1~ ~X~MINED. Senator PROXMIRE. Then I will mention the morality issue, the s~- called boy~girl problem, because I am sure this is in the minds of many, many people, whether we want to face it or not. But it is a fact of life, particularly with respect to the Navy and women on ships. They are concerned there may be a very serious problem here. "Morality" may not be the proper word, but a problem df disciplin& and problem'o~ efficiency, and so forth. , I understand that you are a Navy wife. Ms. LE~PER. True. . " . . Seflator P~oxi~rnu~. Has there been a survey of attitude of Navy wives of the prospects of women serving on board shi~s,With Navy husbands? Ms. LEEPER. There has been recently, I mentioned that briefly, and I am"running on the rising stress between the two groups. The study that I saw was taken in San Diegcr.and'a~tuailysurprised me.. It `indicated' that' about 50 percent., about split down the middle, 50 percent of the Navy wives do, not mind if their husbands serve on board ships. Some women would actually ask their husbands to get' out `if. they wer& so" assigned. I think what it comes down to,' though, are we going to limit' the careers `of active-duty career women, are their careers going to be determined by other people who are nbt even really directly involved in the services. I think that is really the crucial issue. I think we have seen this before in police departments'where women and men have been assigned to the same squad cars,' et cetera, et cetera. I think it's something that is simply going to have to resolve itself out and come out in the wa'~h. But I would' not expect in the long run that the Navy wives will determine whether `N~avy' women serve on board ship. At least, even as a Navy wife, I would be very disappo.iiited if that were so. ` ` ` `` Senator PROXMIE1~. You are `a Navy wife? Ms. LEEPEIt. That, is right. `S'eiiator PROXMIRE. Let me ask General Hoim. Well, you indicated your personal view is that you would be disappointed, yOu say, if they were determined on that basis. `.Yoñ would not be-wou]d you be. concerned `as a Navy wife? , ` ` Ms. LEEPER. Would I be concerned? I am sorry. I am afraid I thought you were addressing General Holm. Senator PitoxMIm~. I want to get to General `Hoim, but' a staff mem- ber suggested I follow up, and'I think I should. Whitt is your personal view? Ms. `LEEPER. My, personal `view is that woen `should serv~ in the military any place they are qualified'to serve. I do not say it does not present in some certain areas practical problems. There are those prác- tical problems when men and women work together in `offices any place else. And, of course, they will come up. Not everybody is re- sponsible, not every individual is moral. They `will come up. PAGENO="0118" 112 However, to blame these problems on women alone and to solve the problem by simply excluding women is vastly immoral. Senator PROXMIRE. General Hoim, would you address that problem, in the course of your statement you didn't read it directly; you skipped over it. But would you give me your response ~ You seem to feel that matters of discipline, that the Navy with the proper will and determination could undoubtedly solve the problem. * . GENERAL HOLM MAKES RKYERENCE TO mSE~HOWER'S VLEWS General Horar. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I don't think the situation is diff~rent from what we have in the Air Force at isolated radar sites, many of which I visited while I was director of women in. the Air Force. There was much concern about putting women at these isolated sites, on tops of mountains, say, in Taiwan where they have small organizations, very tightly knit communities. Wherever the corn- manders were properly briefed and wherever they briefed their troops, as to the purpose of having women there, thatthey were not there to "service the troops," that they were there to be qualified members of tke organi.zation, we found there were no problems. As a matter of fact, none of the problems envisioned so far as I know ever came up. In fact, as General Eisenhower pointed out in his testimony in 1948, the units, in fact, improved in morale and attitude toward their jobs and they, in general, shaped up. Senator PROXMIRE. So it's a matter of leadership. I was impressed by the Eisenhower statement, too. General Eisenhower indicated, as an old Army man at first, I think, he said he was violently against having women in the military, but he changed his mind completely because of the experience in World War II. As you say, not only did women do a fine job, but they improved the performance of men; they gave men more pride and more concern with their performance than they had otherwise. Colonel Hallaren? Colonel HALLAREN. If I may comment on this boy-girl relationship in a very general way. Back in the Women's Army Auxiliary Corps we had a regulation in the Army that women's barracks had to be at least 150 feet from the nearest male barracks. Well, this was fine in Iowa and Nthraska, but when we landed in England, we found the situation a little bit different. We found that if you reached your hand out the window, you could practically touch the boys' barracks next door. The British apparently had not heard about our regulation, so we were housed there. Or perhaps the British men had more self control than the Americans. [Laughter.] But; at any rate, the commandants over there were very much con- cerned. I remember the first post I went to for the assignment of a company. The commander of the post had hung up GI blankets, one story high, between the men's and women's barracks. Well, it wasn't long before the walls of Jericho came tumbling down. At the next post, the commander said, "We are going to post MP's all around the women's barracks because it isn't safe for them here." It was wonderful the way they were taking care of us. "Wait," I said, "until we have the first incident." He agreed to compromise. We had the first incident that week. A couple of GI's who had been on the PAGENO="0119" 113 town came back after midnight and not identifying their home, since the barracks all looked alike, crashed into the WAC barracks. Well, they came out feet first, and we never had any more arguments about posting MP's. They had everything, including barbed wire, they wanted to put up for protection of the women. Now we have gone by all that. The Army today puts women and men in the same buildings. I as- sume they are on different floors. Of course, the colleges don't abide by that. But we have changed, and I think for the better. Senator PROXMIRE. That is very helpful. General Holm-then I would like to ask others to comment-I was glad to hear your statement about the Air Force policy excluding women from being utilized in certain positions. As you know, Assist- ant Secretary Chayes told this committee, and I quote: The deeper concern, and there is not only Isolation, but the responsibility for release of nuclear weapons. Both military and congressional ieadersliip feel wicomfortable about imposing this responsibility on women. Do you see any reason, mental, emotional, physical, or social, why wOmen should not be in a position to turn the keys to launch nuclear missiles? General HOLM. I have no reservations about that whatever, Mr. Chairman. Senator PRox~ITRE. Any other comment from other panelists? Does your silence indicate your agreement? * Ms. PARR. Yes, indeed. Ms. GOODMAN. Yes. Colonel HALLAREN. Yes. Senator PROXMIRE. I gather you do not feel that a pilot flight con- trol situation would cause women pilots to burst into tears and become helpless. Is there any situation that they might not be able to meet? * GeneraiH0LM. I don't know of any. LAWStTIP CHALLENGES CONSTITUTIONALITY OF DISCRIMINATION ~GAINST WOMEN IN THE NAVY Senator PRoxMurn. Ms. Goodman, I understand your class action lawsuit against the Navy is still in litigation. I wouldn't expect you to give us your side of the argument at all, but could YOU give me an idea of the issues at stake in that suit? Ms. GOODMAN. We are challenging the constitutionality of the statute which says that, with very small exceptions, women cannot sePte aboard Navy ships. This statute violates the rights of women in the Navy to equal protection of the law. According to well-established constitutional principles classifica- tions by gender must serve important governmental objectives and mt~tst be substantially related to achievement of those objectives. As far as we have been able to determine to date in the course of our litigation, there are absolutely no governmental objectives served by that statute. Indeed, as far as we can see, the interests of government are defeated by enforcement Of the statute. We have heard testimony, for example, that women cost the armed services less and that women recruits are at least mentally more ca- pable than male recruits. PAGENO="0120" `114 Sehator.PROXMIRE. And, of course, what this does, is it not true, not permitting .w~meri to serve aboard ship greatly limits their promotion .opportun.ities~ it means they not oniy have lesser opportunities for ~Wofl1en to serve in the Navy, but it also means that the opportunitiesto serve in positions: which pay mre and which have more authority and more responsibilities are denied women. ~Ms GOODMAN. The tales of the.women who are plaintiffs in this suit ~re very interesting. Yona Owens, the woman who originally came to the ACLTJ and asked us to. take her case, was trained as an interior electronics technician. She was trained at great expense to the. Govern- ~ment to service and maintain .elDctronics. equipment found only abOard ~ships. : . Yet. she"was never allowed on a ship except ns a guest. As a result, she has never u~ed'the skills the~Navy.sent.her to school'to learn. Her in- ability to use her skills alone was very frustrating to her. But, in addi- tion,w'hen:she:.took the examinations which are required to, ndvance to higher pay grades; she was tested on equipment she had never actually se~en. Tier, male counterparts sitting for that same examination had had dMly experience, with that equipment. Obviously her chances of ad- vancement were greatly restricted. She did manage to pass those tests .bn~ only, by putting in extra hours of studying, not require4 of a man. PREGNANCY ISSUE EXAMINED Senator PROXMIRE. Ms. Parr, `I want to confront another bugaboo. It may be unpleasant to discuss it, but I think it is necessary for us to bring it out and look at it. How does `pregnancy of soldiers affect military operations? How much time is lost from duty and what are the costs of pregnancy to the ~ervices? ` Ms PARR~ I can provide you with some of those statistics, Senator Proxmire. .~4.The following infGrmation was subsequently supplied for ,the record:] . , . The following information is from the May 1977 report of the Office of the As- sistant Secretary of Defense entitled "Use of Women in the Military" (pp. .27 and 28): . ~.The Army. cOllected data during fiscal year 1976. For pregnancies terminated in ~bOrtiOi1,~the lost time approximates that of a minor fflne~s,' averaging 10-12 daya, including 4.8 days of hospitalization. "According to the' Army,' approximately 8 percent of the women. become preg- nant each year and 5.4percent'of the women on active duty go'to term and deliver a, child each year. The average pregnancy carried to term causes 105 days lost time or 29'percent of a' maliyear. At any given time, 3~8' percent of the women can be, ex- pected to be pregnant or on postnatal convalescent leave. For the Army, some 40 percent' of' the. women giving birth on active duty request release from active duty after postnatal leave. The Air Force reported similar results with approximately 8 percent of their women' becoming pregnant each year. The Air Force reported that women have about"twice the lost time as men due to medicaj absence. Much of this lost time is due to pregnancy and related female medical care. The pregnancy problem `i~ similar in the Navy and Marine Corps, but the Navy pointed out that lost time due to pregnancy and ahortlon should be weighed In the context of tota,l lost time. The following table compares major lost time categories in the'Navy for enlisted men and women, PAGENO="0121" 115 COMPARISON OF LOST TIME FOR ENLISTED MEN AND WOMEN IN THE NAVY Los Lost time category t days as a percent of total days available Women Men Alcohol abuse Drug use... Unauthorized absence (AWOL) Returned deserters AbQrtion Pregnancy 0.09 .02 05 - 07 . 03 . 37 0.12 . 12 . 24 .62 0 0 Total .63 i.iii Even though pregnancy is the major cause of lost time among women, they lose, on the average, only about half as much time as men. Men's lost time to desertion, alcoholism and drug abuse tend to result in the loss of several con- secutive months, similar to pregnancy. Lost time for unauthorized absence Is usu- ally a matter of days lost, as is abortion. However, both desertions and unau- thorized absences may correlate with unpleasantness of an individual's job. Women are less likely to be in such jobs than men, especially in the Navy. All Services are Initiating studies of comparative lost tune for men and. women. Ms. PARR. As far as pregnancy, I want to make a few statements. One is women do have some choices about pregnancy. I can think of few institutions outside the military that are as superbly qualified to provide information and training. I have had a phone call from a friend in the service who said: "You know a lot of women, a lot of my friends, here are confront- ing this. It is a difficult issue for us. But we believe that a~ lot of the women who are getting pregnant are women who are not choosing to become pregnant." And my friend said, "If the military were doing a better job of providing information and training about contraception, the preg- nancy rate would decrease." She cited a small unit where this, in fact, had happened. A lot of the young women who went to the military are from parts of the country like I am from, the South, where sex education is prohibited in the public schools. So the information that they have about their own sexuality, about how they get pregnant, is extremely limited, and for the most part it is very inaccurate. Now, the military, as I understand it, provides about an hour of training in boot camp about human physiology and about the repro~ ductive system. I think that if the military wanted to address this issue squarely, that they could do it by providing more information and training and not just once a year, but perhaps provide some sort of counseling services along these lines and certainly provide more information. I think the pregnancy rate would probably drop, but I can't say for sure. Senator PRoxMIRn Let me give statistics. According to the Army, full-term pregnancy resulted in 106 days lost, about 8 percent of women in the Army get pregnant each year. The Army estimates that over 12 months, 200,000 days are lost as a result of pregnancy. So it is a problem. At the same time, again to put it into perspeetive, when you corn-. pare it with the days lost by males, it is far less, including that and all other reasons for women losing time. . 23-366--78---9 PAGENO="0122" 116 `Ms. PAIu~. Right. ~Senator PROXMIRE. Because of the greater probleni that men have with alcohol abuse, drug abuse, and AWOL in general. Ms. PARR. When you compare the averages, male to female averages. of course the female average-in the female average pregnancy is what raises it. But, nevertheless, on the average, men lose more time than women do, but the causes are different. The causes there are for the most part alcohol and drug abuse. Senator PR0xMIRR. Then I understand, also, that the Air Force policy-I would like you to comment on this-women getting pregnant or otherwise acquiring minor children may remain on active duty unless they request a discharge. Is this a proper policy? Ms. PARR. Yes; I think so. Senator PRox~mu~. Ms. Leeper. Ms. Li~PRR. I have done a lot of looking into this matter, and I believe that it is a problem. Apparently the Army believes it a bigger problem than the other services, and it may be for them. Senator PR0xMIRE. Speak a little louder, please. Ms. LEEPER. I think this area in the military is one of the most im- portant areas where women have to realize that equal rights means equal responsibility and even where pregnancy in the military is a choice, one of the things I believe they need-the women in their classes in basic training in sex education in basic training need to be taught, though they have individual rights to be pregnant, that it is immensely difficult for many of them, motherhood is, combined with service life. Some of them do cope and cope very well. But many, we have to face the fact, do not; many of them can, I think, look ahead and make appropriate arrangements, the same as when a man is sent overseas and he is doing his duty.. If a mother is sent overseas without her child, she is going to get a great deal of criticism for being an unfit mother andY deserting her child. Very few women have the emotional strength to stand up under that. I do think that all. of these things, what the practical implications of pregnancy are for service women-maybe they might want to `delay it until they set their career patterns or when they are fairly sure they will be on a large `base where it is practical. I think all these thIngs, the practical applications of what will happen to them when they make this choice, must be taught at the basic training level. That is one of the major reasons, though it's often a choice, it's one In which you find women dropping out as soon as they are shipped overseas; it's causing problems, and I think we have to admit that. Senator PROXMTRE. General Holm. SEX EDUCATION PROGRAMS EFFECTIVE General HOLM. Mr~ Chairman, I would like to agree with everything that the otlrer two witnesses have said and enlarge a little on the experience in the Ajr Force in the late 1960's when w,e found the preg- nancy `losses were inordinately high; at least we thought they were. `So' we embarked upon a rather effective sex education program for the women, and we found that the bases where we had effective pro- grams Lhe pregnancy rate was cut in half. PAGENO="0123" 117 Another interesting thing we learned was that contrary to the myths in our culture, young people are not as sophisticated on the subject of sex as we think they are. Particularly those fresh out of high school. They exchange ignorancies in the dormitories. We found' that `by hav- ing an effective sex education program `we were able to reduce losses rather dramatically. I think it is a management problem more than anything else. PARR STJGGESTS MEN ALSO HAVE SINGLE PARENT RESPONSIBILITIES Ms. PARR. I think, too, as far as single parents are concerned, that we should consider that a management issue, not necessarily a women's issue, but with divorce rates increasing, the way they are, there are increasing numbers of men who are serving in the military and who have total responsibility `for the care and well-being of their children. I think this is an issue that does have to be addressed, but I, don't think it is necessarily a women~s issue. It is a parents' i~sue. Senator PROXMIRE. I would like to ask both Colonel Hallaren and General Hoim, Ms. Goodman discussed the case of: the woman who' was trained as an electronics expert, and then not allowed `to ,serve on ships where she could have practical experience in certain electron- ics equipment. From your knowledge, is this an isolated case or does it happen fre- quently? Do the present rules and regulations prevent women from serving in roles for which they were trained? Colonel HALLAREN. I have been out of the service for 17 years and I am not up on the latest, but I do think that there are many in- stances of this kind I have heard of instances, but I don't know whether they are isolated or represent large numbers. I cannot say today. I think, Jeani~ie, who has more recent~experience in the Air Force,' could tell you. General H0LM. It is a problem. It is a problem for officers as well as enlisted personnel. This is what I refer to as "~job shuffling," par- ticularly with officers. Officers with backgrounds in intelligence, for example, being shifted to protocol or administration, there is a general reluctance on the part of local comm~inclers often to accept a woman as a professional in a nontraditional field. There is a tendency to move them into the more traditional jobs after they have been trained at great expense. Of course, this ha's a distinct effect on their career progress. Senator PROXMIRE. Ms. Parr, do you have any observations along this line? Ms. PARR. Well, no, sir; but I would like the opportunity to go through our files and look for letters and correspondence that provide examples of these kinds of problems and submit those for the record.' Senator PROXMIRE. Fine. [The following information was subsequently supplied for the record:] thgh loss rates of women from non-traditional accupation groups is a problem of concern to the Nationaj Coalition for Women in Defense. The ettent of the difficulty was documented iii the previously mentioned OASD report "Use of, Women In the Military." Before quoting from that report, however, I want to PAGENO="0124" 118 emphasize that the statistics are somewhat misleading inasmuch as they are' based upon very small sample sizes. The data are as follows: Losses from the most non-traditional skills are much. higher for women than men. In electronic equipment repair, 76 percent of the 1973 female accessions had. left the occupation group by the end of fiscal year 1976 as compared to 51 jpercent for male. In the same year group, 90 percent of the women had left maintenance as compared with 53 percent of the men. In crafts, 88 percent of the women were gone and 55 percent of the men. Even in services and supply handling, 77 percent of the women had left that skill as compared with 58 per- cent of the men. Those women in the more traditional skills bad much lower loss rates than men. In administration, only 30 percent of the women had left at the end of three years as compared to 60 percent of the men. In communications/ intelligence, 31 percent of the women were gone as compared to 57 percent of the men. In medical/dental, there was a 25-percent loss rate for women and 54 per- cent for men. In interpreting this data, the military offers the explanations to the effect that "many women who do not adjust well in non-traditional skills may' be leaving the Service" and "women who try non-traditional occupations may be migrating to the more traditional ones." I believe that negative attitudes of supervisory personnel toward women in non-traditional jobs and a working climate that produces isolation of these women are factors that contribute heavily to this kind of job shuffling. In this regard I would liketo call the attention of the subcommittee to regulations pro- posed by the Department of Labor, Office of Federal Contract Compliance Pro- grams on Women in Construction (Federal Register, vol. 42, No. 158, August 16, 1977, 60-4.3(a)7a). Here it is proposed that construction contractors and subcontractors be obliged to "ensure and maintain a working environment free of harassment, intimida- tion, and coercion." Moreover, the contractor, "where possible, will a~isign two or more women to the construction project. . . and shall specifically ensure that all. . . supervisory personnel are aware of and carry out the contractor's obliga- tion to maintain such a working environment, with specific attention to minority or female individuals." Anecdotes informally relayed to me and other Coalition participants by women currently serving in the Armed Forces support the argument that Inade- quate training of military personnel to overcome sex-role stereotyping and need- lessly Inhospitable working environments, as well as the Services' narrow inter- pretations of rules and regulations, prevent women from serving in roles for which they were trained. LIMITATION TO TEAINING PROVIDED TO WOMEN Ms. GOODMAN~ Mr. Chairman, I would like to add these comments. Yona Owens, the lead plaintiff in our Navy suit, was put in an awk- ward position by the Navy. She enlisted soon after all the ratings were open to women, was assigned to a shipboard rating, trained in skills required abroad ships, and then never permitted to use those skills. I don't know how many women are in precisely her position. How- ever, the alternative to putting women in Yona Owen's position is to restrict their opportunities, to say they may not learn electronics skills, they may not get the kind of training that men who enlist in the Navy can expect as a matter of course. One of our other plaintiffs, Natoka Peden wanted to train as a diver when she entered the Navy. She was told no, she could not train as a diver because she is a woman and could not go aboard ships. Only much later did she managed to get that training. The situations of these two plaintiffs illustrate the alternatives open to the military as long as there is only partial integration: either to train women for jobs they cannot do, or to' refuse to give them the PAGENO="0125" 119 very valuable training the armed services offer. Neither solution is good. Senator PR0xMIRE. General Holm, 11 occupation fields are closed to enlisted women by the Air Force. Do you think women should be allowed to enter any of these: Aerial gunner, in-flight refueling op- erator, flight engineer, aircraft load master, pararescue recovery teams, ground radio communications equipment repairman? General HoLM. Yes, sir, I think they should be authorized to enter any field in which they qualify, on the same basis that a man would have to qualify for the same job. Senator PR0xMIRE. What were your actual responsibilities when you were director of the Women's Air Force and assigned to staff duty in the Pentagon and overseas? General HOLM. I was the titular head, if you will, of the women in the Air Force. I had no command responsibilities whatsoever. I was on the staff to report to the deputy chief of staff for personnel, and I also advised the Secretary and the Chief of Staff on the utiliza- tion of military women. I traveled a great deal to find out firsthand what ~as going on in the field at base level; I made recommendations for policy changes; and made* recommendations concerning strengths, and recruitment policies; uniforms; any policy that affected women either directly or indirectly. Senator PR0XMIRE. Were your duties the same as a man's in a sim- ilar position? General Ho1~M. I don't know of any similar position in the Air Force. Senator PR0xMIRE. Were you ever assigned duties you could not handle because you were a woman? General H0LM. No, sir. The final job that I had before I retired was as Director of the Air Force Personnel Council that had been heldby maTe major generals and I think I did that job as well as any of them and better than some. Senator PR0xMIRE. I would like each of you to comment on this observation~ No less than the commander of the Marine Training Base on Parris Island has stated, "There is no reason a female cannot fight just like a male." I wo~ild Jike to ask each of you to say whether you agree, what jobs, if any that women might not be able to handle. Ms. Leeper. Ms. LEEPER. Hooray; and, none. I think you had two questions therç~. Senator PROXMIRE. Yes; we are ready. Ms. L~rER. I said, "Hóoray, and none." That is really my only comment. I am glad he made the statement; and, no, I don't think there are. any positions that they. cannot serve. Ms. PARR. I agree, but perhaps you would like to repeat it since we havehad the break. . Senator PROXMIRE. The statement was, the commander of the Marine Training Base at Parris Island said, "There is no reason the female cannot fight just like the male." Ms. PAim. Well, I agree. There is no reason a female cannot fight just like a man. Senator PrtoxMIRE. General Holm. PAGENO="0126" 120 General H0LM. There is an assumption there that all men can fight. {Laughter.] And I don't buy that. I think some people can and some people cannot. I don't think it is necessarily limited by their sex. Senator PRoxMurs. In fairness to the commander, he didn't say "all," he said, "There is no reason the female cannot fight just like the male." He wasn't saying "all men can fight." Obviously, you are right, they all cannot. General HOLM. I think there are some men who can fight, just like women. * Senator PnoxMnlE. What you are saying is that women as a group can fight- General H0LM. I am saying that generalizations are not terribly useful. Generalizations are not terribly useful at all. Ms. GOODMAN. His statement is a hard one to argue with. I think we have all said today the same thing in different words. Senator PRoxMinE. Now, you have the other extreme. For example, when William Westmoreland, the former commander in Vietnam, acknowledging he never would have made such a statement while on active duty, said: Maybe you could find one woman in 10,000 who could lead In combat, but she would be a freak; and we are not running a military academy for freaks. The pendulum has. gone too far. We are asking women to do impossible things. I don't bWieve women can carry a pack, live in a foxhole, or go for a week without taking a bath. Do you have any comments on that? General HOLM. I think that General Westmoreland, when he said that got into bed with General Hershey [laughter], who is known to have said that he thinks that women are nothing but defective men and that the Armed Forces could be run by defective men. He also compared women to men in wheelchairs and he said you cannot run the Armed Forces with men in wheelchairs. I cannot agree with Gen- eral Westmoreland on this. Senator PROXMIRE. Any other comments? Ms. GOODMAN. He is wrong. f Laughter.] Ms. PARR. I think that women at the academies this first year are providing abundant evidence of just how wrong he is. I understand these women are, doing very, very well, particularly academically, `but they are also measuring up physically. I am sure they are carry- ing packs and doing all those things he said they couldn't do. Senator PROXMIEE. I don't know where he got the idea they couldn't go for a week without taking a bath. Unfort~nate1y, I have known a few who have been capable of that. [Laughter.] SENATOR PROXMIRE EXAMINES ~JIE TRADITIONAL PERCEPTIONS O]~' THE MILITARY Do you have any figures, General Holm, on how many soldiers will be sent in direct combat? General H0LM. No, sir,I do not. Senator PROXMIRE. Any notion of how small' a percentage that is, in direct combat? ` * ` ` PAGENO="0127" 121 `General H0LM. TheY latest combat information I have is based on the Gates Commission study and maybe the Manpower Commission study that estimated it in the neighborhood of 8 percent actually will see direct combat in terms of infantry combat. Senator PRoxMIR1~. That is my understanding. That is a very sig- nificant point because people still think `of the military as being a job for the person who is down there in the foxhole, as ~xeneral West- moreland might put it, in a front line with a bayonet or rifle shooting at somebody who is 100 feet away. As you say that iS 8 percent, I think probably that is a high figure, it is probably less than that. In fact, the supply, support logistic tail is very long and- General H0LM. And gets longer. Senator PROXMIRE [continuing]. Gets so complicated, and so on. Then, take the other areas, driving a tank, flying a plane, working with missiles, submarines and so forth- General HOLM. Or flying an airplane. Senator PRoxMIRE. All of those, it is certainly something a woman can handle as easilyas a man. AIR FORCE PROMOTIONS BASED ON `CRATING" `General I-I0LM. To point out how insidious this restriction with regard to flying combat aircraft can be, since they have interpreted the law to mean women may not fly any kind of aircraft, approxi- mately half of the officers in the Air Force are pilots and navga- tors, known as rated officers. Senator PROXMIRE. The rest are not in combat. General HOLM. Nonrated. The rated officer has a leg up on `every- body else. As in all organizations, there is a pecking order for promo- tions,, particularly for career advancement. The top of the pecking order in the Air Force officers' structure is the rated officer. Next is the academy graduate who usually is a rated officer as welL Next would be the regular officer. Academy men are the only ones `with regular appointments as second lieutenants. Next, I think you might say, those who have had combat duty and the services have done their best to keep' women out of combat duty. Also, pilots have preference ~for command jobs, very important for promotion to general officer rank. , It is difficult to be a comman4er of a wing or base commander if you are a woman and nonrated and those: are the `best jobs in the Air Force. You also get preferential treatment in selection for the, top professional schools. So, it is an insidious thing. Also, you go back over to the procurement process for the last 20 years and you will find that women were ciimin'~ted from most of the procurement programs for the Air Force. One of the excuses for using so few, putting so few into the Aca- demies, has been that they may not fly airplanes. It was also a reason for excluding them from any scholarships offered by the ROTC. Anyone who applies for commission through OTS a's a rated officer, has a better opportunity to get into `the officer training school than one not qualified to fly. So, it is an insidious thing. PAGENO="0128" 122 Senator PnoxMnu~. Let me ask you, are women promoted to the general and flag rank in the same way as men? General HOLM. I am the equal opportunity example today. I am so far the only women in all of the Armed Forces who has ever been promoted to the rank of major general. I find it hard to believe that I am the only one qualified. I don't think they have equal opportunity to achieve the top ranks. In the Air Force, one of the reasons they don't is they are excluded from rated officer jobs. Senator PRoxMnu~. When you retired from the Air Force, what rank had been attained? General HOLM. Major General. Senator PRoxMnu~. If you were to reenter the service, to what rank would you be assigned? General Hoi~t. Major General. Senator PROXMIRE. The only one? General HOLM. Yes, sir. CONCERN FOR WOMEN'S SAFETY NOT VALID Senator PROXMIRE. Ms. Parr, it seems that many types of duties are closed to women not because women are unfit, but because of fears for the wOmen's safety. Is that a valid concern? Ms. PARR. I think it is a concern of the military, some of our mili- tary ~Ie~ders. I don't believe that it has any validity. I think women now are actively seeking a number of jobs where physical danger is involved. We. have women on police forces; we have women State troopers; we have women climbing mountains; women are falling out of air- planes women are crop dusters. As a parent, I suppose I would have some qualms if either my daughter* or my son was to choose a hazardous occupation, whether that would be to be a crop duster or even to be an X-ray. technician, I understand, their longevity on the average is less than other people's. But. to deny these opportunities to all women on the basis of per- hapS some parents' fears or grandparents' fears is really outrageous. Senator PR0xMIRE. Do you think that most mothers feel that way about both' their sons and daughters? They have the same feeling of care and concern about their well-being, but do you think it is a feel- ing of more concern for a daughter than for a son or do you think it is about the same? Ms. PARR. Well, I think Jill said it very nicely. She said, "Parents don't weep more for their daughters than for their sons." Indeed not. We want our children to have equal opportunities to succeed profes- sionally and personally, and we don't want them to come to any harm, but we don't make distinctions on the basis of sex, at least in my fam- ily and in the families that I know about in `terms of whose life is more valuable. MOOD OF `THE NATION TOWARD WOMEN IN COMBAT Senator PROxMIRE. Could I ask, Ms. Leepe.r, how do you think the American people as a whole would react to allowing women to volun- PAGENO="0129" 123 teer for combat? I mentioned it in my survey and Wisconsin respond- ents indicated they approved it, but how do you feel the reaction is likely to be? Ms. LEEPER. I think you would have to phrase the question very carefully so that it was apparent that it was voluntary and it was ap- parent that only those qualified and had the. ability. If you say, women in combat, I found that it does tend to be a red flag to many people. Therefore, as I say, if we are to run a poll, let's make sure that it is understood it is voluntary. I think there is a philosophical problem in many people's mind that in essence, what you are saying is it may be unfair to men because you are asking it if women may voluntarily do things where men have no choice. Senator PROXMIRE. Now, let's confront that p~nrt of it. How do you think the American people as a whole would feel or are they likely to change their mind on whether or not women should be in on exactly the same basis as men and being required to serve under circumstances in which the country's life is at stake? Ms. LEEPER. I have learned over and over again, and I am not an expert on what the American people feel, because they constantly sur- prise me-and I suspect they surprise you-I don't think we will know until we ask. I did notice one thing, the Pentagon or the various services, when they were making their arguments about keeping women out of the service academies made the same argument, that it is not the will of the American people. The women went into the academies and there was no uproar from the American people and that is about as close an indication as you are going to get. Ms. PARR. I think, too~ back to the 1964 Civil Rights Act, would, that ever have been passed if we had to rely on our judgment and our assess- ment of the will of the American people I think sometimes people need to be led and we look to you in Congress to provide that sort of leader- ship that we have a democratic system, but sometimes this Congress passes legislation that is extremely unpopular but it is important to explore what the American public think or believes about a particular issue, but if you, here in Congress, in your wisdom, we believe that it is in the best interests of this Nation to use women in combat positions, then I believe you have the responsibility to make that possible. PEW WOMEN PROMOTED TO TOP RANKS Senator PROxMniE. General Holm, I want to get back just for a min- ute to the very interesting point you raise on the opportunities for women to be promoted to the top ranks in the military. I think that is not only important in itself, but it is important in making it obvious to women throughout the country that here is an areas where they can aspire to a top rank. It may be very discouraging for women to. feel they can serve in a subordinate position. but not achieve what their capability should permit. There are now only four female colonels out of 4,534. In other words, one-tenth of 1 percent, in the Air Force. PAGENO="0130" 124 The Air' Force claims this is true in part because of a ceiling on the/ number of women officers that existed before 1968 is that true? General H0LM. No, sir, it is not. First of all, there are only two colonels left as of today as far as I know. Senator PROXMIRE. One retired? General H0LM. One retired, but I don't know where they got the four. So far as I know, there are only two left. One recently retired and another was promoted to brigadier general. There has never been. a ceiling on the. officer strength of the women in the Air Force, refer- ring to the line, of course, as opposed to the medical and professionals. There is a common misconception that the 9 percent imposed by Piibli~ Law 625, the Womens Armed Services Integration Act~ of 1948, on the regular officer structure should be interpreted to apply to the total force. It has never been so. The 700 they talk about was a result, the strength of 700, which existed in 1965 and 1966 was merely the result of gains and losses. We had very few gains and the losses compensated for the gains. LACK OP PROMOTIONS LAID TO MISTAKES IN THE 1050'S Senator PRoxMnre. Do you see the promotion rate for women officers in the Air Force improving now? General }I0LM. It is. difficult .to tell because the number of eligibles is dwindling so rapidly. One of the reasons we have only two colonels now is we procured so few officers in the 1950's. We are paying now for the mistakes we made in the 1950's and early 196O~s by not commissioning more women officers. It, depends on their rate o~ selection from among eligibles. I would say probably with the colonels and lieutenant colonels, it is probably e~ual~ I would question, however, whether the selection to major pro- tides equal opportunity and, of course that is the crunch.. If you don't gel selected fOr major and you get passed over a couple tImes, your chances for a future in the Air Force are nebulous at best. Senator PROX~N1IRL I would like to ask yOu and Colonel Hallaren and Ms. Goodman to comment on this in light of what you have told Row would the defense personnel management act work? How would that work to equalize promotion~ between men and women in view of the poor prospects for the Defense Officer Per~onnel Manage-, ment Act, what method yould you recommend to increase the opport- unity for advancement of women officers? General HOLM. I don't think it would affect it, Mr. Chairman, ex- eep~ for the Navy. I think it would be helpful for the women in the Navy to be considered for promotion in the line along with their. con- temporaries, today they have to be selected separately. Whether or not they would fare as well remains to be seen because I assume that when women are competing with one another, they probably have some kind of a quota or cutoff system that would provide them with the same opportunities as the men in the line. I think it is a career progression kind of thing that is involved here. If you don't compete with your contemporaries, male and female, you don't know whether you got your promotion on an equal basis or whether you were as qualified as your male~ contemporary being pro- moted or vice-versa. PAGENO="0131" 125:, Senator PROXMIRE. Colonel Hallaren. Colonel HALLAREN.'I don't know anything ~n the act that would im~ prove the current situation. Senator PROXMIRE. Thank you. Ms. Goodman. Ms. GOODMAN. I am ~not familiar enough with the act to comment intelligently on that.., LACE OF hOUSING RESTRICTS USING WOMEN IN MTUTAR1~ Senator PROXMIRE. Again, 72,'~OO Air Force positions overseas, are closed to women. because of limited housing facilities. Does that seem reasonable to you? General Hor~. No, Sir, `it does not. Se.n~tor PROXMIRE. What can be done about it? General }toLM. Thcre are misconceptions that exist in the military about ,what is required to house women. The fact is that most women in the military live in buildings built for men~ so I don't know what the hullabaloo is about. , , `I don't know what the problem is. Most of our dormitories these days' are, coeducational. Now the, women in the enlisted' dormitories live on one,floor, the men on another. Officer quarters have `always been coeducational. So I don't understand the problem. It is consistently used,, however, as an argument against assignment of women~ Sen~'tor PROXMIRD. Any problem you feel ~anbe handled by proper leadership `and discipline which you think the services are capable of achieving? ` ` General HOLM Yes, I think we should plan our facilities around the indivj,duals~ not, the reverse. Housing should not dictate how the seryices usetheir people. `The reverse should'be the case. Senator PRoxMnm I would hke to ask every one of you five wit nesses to comment on the fact that 1976 brought a marked decrease in the percentage of women as total recruits to the Army, Navy, and Air Force.' I, would like to, ask you ,wh'at you think the reason for that is. We will' ~tart oft~ with Ms. Goqclman and go down the line. , Ms. Ooorn~AN. I don't think I `understand the question. is it that fewer women have been' accepted into the military or fewer women are ~ntcrested in the military? , ` *, . . Senator. PROXMIRE. Well, the total,number of women recruits, that would perhaps be a product of the number who tried to, be admitted, but it could als9 be a product of whether the services would take them or not. ` , ,` ` ` ` ` ` As you pointed out, some of them `are turned down who were quali.. fled. But I would like to have your notion as to how, this developed. I am talking about the rateof increase in women recruits. Ms. GOODMAN. If we are talking `about the nl3mber of women actu~ ally entering .the~ rniiitary,'I think we can .find-~ , ... " RATE WOMEN ENTER MILITARY DECLINING Senatoi PROXMIRE Let me correct what I have said, because what I have's.aid was not phrased properly the first time; I said,a marked de- crease in, `the percentage of women;' I, should have said a marked de- PAGENO="0132" 126 crease in the rate of increase; isn't that correct ~ That is quite different. These things-these statistics are sometimes confusing. I will give you the figures and you can give me your reaption from that. In the Army., the percentage of total recruits in 1972 was 3.8 per- cent women. For 1973, it was 4.1; 1974, 8.4; and .in 1975, 10.3 per- cent. In 1976, it. declined to 8.8 percent. In the Navy, 2.5, 5.3, 7.5, 6.7, and declined to 5.9 percent. In the. Marine Corps, 1.3, 1.4, 1.9, 2.3, and then it was 2.4 percent, a slight increase in that case, that was exceptional. The Air Force, 5.4, 6.8,. 11.1, 13.2, then it declined in 1976 to 12.0 percent. The Department of Defense total was in percentage, 1972, 3.3, 1973 up to 4.6, 1974 rose .to 7.9, 1975 rose to 8.8, 1976, it. declined to 7.9 percent. So, we have more women in the military than we .had before, but the rate of actually, going in is less. So I hope my question is clear. Ms. GOODMAN. I think I understand the question, now. The number of women entering the military is determined by the military' itself. The military has very strict quotas. Women, often very qualified women, at least in the Navy, are turned away all, the time. . So, what we are talking about is a decision on the part of the armed services to slow the growth that we have seen in the percentage of women. , I believe, as I have said in my testimony, that that is a direct result of the problems that come frOm partial integration of women into the armed `services, where, for example, women are accepted into the Navy and then told they cannot go aboard ships. They are accepted into the Army and told they cannot fight. They are accepted into the Air Forces and are told they cannot fly. This creates an absolutely impossible situation not only for the women involved, but for the armed services themselves. There is a maximum number of women the services can use as long as their roles are so drastically restricted.. For example, in the Navy, where half their billets are billets at sea, there is no way on the face of the earth the Navy' can have more than 50 percent women. But, in addi- tion, the Navy must also reserve a fair number of shore billets for men whO are on shore duty so that men are not forced to spend all of their time at sea. ` I see the decrease in'initiatives concerning women as a direct result of the problems that arise from partial integration. And I see the answer as full integration. SenatOr PRoxMnu~. Colonel Hallaren. . Colonel Hi~u~i. I think that the lower figure recently is due to the lack of upward mobility and I think the women are alert to that. I think, that when opportunity is opened up, there `will be more coming in if the services lift the quotas. QUOTAS' AND RESTRICTIONS BAR WOMEN FROM ENTERING MIUETART (3'eneral H0LM. Mr. `Chairman, I think we ~iave always historically undCrestimated `the resource that'is Out there that is willing t& join the Armed Forces. In 1966, When I did the first interservice `study on the PAGENO="0133" 127 possilility of expanding the utilization of military women, we tried to estimate what that capability was and we fell far, far short of what it really was. I think the services, with all due respect, have tried to guess what they think, the avallaible resource of interested pe~ple will be. By the same token, I also feel there is a sense that maybe, by the outside pres~ sure will be off, off from the Congress, off from the press, off from the Secretary of Defense, so they can resume business as usual. But, basically, I think it is an educated guess on what they think they can recruit. Senator PROxMIRE~ Well, ~h'at they actually did recruit was less in 1976 than in 1975. It was the ~rst dropoff in `a long time. That is what concer~is me. General H0LM. I couldn't answer that questioii. Senator PROXMrnE. Ms. Parr. Ms. PAuR. I think there are prob'ably a number of very complicated and interrelated factors entering into this decrease, hut I tinuk one of the most important faotors is the military policies and the quotas they are establishing. We `have heard from individuals, one in particular, who tried to enlist and was told-and she was a college graduate. She was a magna corn laude college graduate, she was told she would have to wait 6 months before she `would be taken in because the quotas were `full `and `even if she waited 6 months `she `was waiting 6 months for a job as a cook because the quotas for theothei~ speci'ai'ties which did interest `her, the quotas for women were full. I would like to, if I could, read something" ~ here. I think it helps make the point `about the relationship betweei~ unemployment and `recruitment. ` ` ` When unemployment rates go up, the military `has traditionally found it easier to `recruit volunteers.. The `unemployment rates for women `have `been much, much higher than' those for men, so theoreti- cally, it should be easier to recruit' them; plus the military jobs are good jobs for women. ` There' was a "Dear Abby" column recently in Teen maga~zine and Dear Abby said. Looking for a job-she was saying tbis to teenagers- use this check list on your job interviews. ` ` ` ` First, ask for at least'$374 a month `plus free room and loard. Second, insi'stôn 30"daysvacation in the `first year. Third, demand $300 for new clothes upkeep allowance. Fourth, be sure full and free recreational fuciiiti'és' are available, golf, theaters, horseback riding. Fifth, scream ~f you `don't have a'free meal `mad dental plaft with unlimited sack leave Tell your boss you expect $150 a month raise if you get married. ` Sixth, don't be hassled because you are without experience Pound the table an'd let it be `known' you expect to learn a skill at his expense with full pay. ` ` ` And, seventh, finally, `insist on the option of quitting after 3 years to go to college' and `you expect'' him to contribute two4hirds to `an educational fund of more than $8,000. , The punchiine' is, if an employer agrees to all,these terms, you are in the U.S. Army. [Laughter.] PAGENO="0134" 128 Senato'r'ERoxith~. Terrific. Very good. Ms `PAR~. Wh~t'jths ~an provide these opportunities iii the civilian sector? So, again, I believe that these decreases are more a result of military pthic1ès~and `~i'rocedures than disinterest on the part of young ~omen. General ETOLM It may also, Mr Chairman, be a result of the recruit `ing philosophy which is' basically~a walk-through-the-door philosophy. ~t is much e~sier for the reci'üitcr to have the applicant walk through the door. I seriously doubt if there is much of an outreach program particu- l~i~l~'in vie~~of the èeiliuigs they have imposed ~n the more technical jobs and the t aditionally~women's jobs. I think arbitrary~ceilii~gs they have established by career field have turned many women away who could qualify for the moretraditional jobs, but have been~turned away because they don't qualify as engineers, scfrientists or mathematicians. RACIAL DXPRRIENOE SIIOW~D INTEGRATION' ENCOURAGED ACQEPTA~CE Senator PRoxMn~. I understand that certain Army and Air Force training films promise to make a man Out' of the redruit, `That' isn't much incentive for a woman, is it?. General HoL~. That is not untypical of many of the `recruiting programs. ` Senator PROXMIRE. I lust have a couple of more questions;, Ms. Parr, at least one study'has shown that as racial segregation decreased, and as integration increased in the military, so, too, did acceptance of blacks by the whites increase.' / Do .you anticipate the same trend with women? Ms. PARR. Yes; indeed I do. But I do believe there is a need' for t1~e military to provide moretraining o,n the subject of Sex discrimination and sexual stereotype roles~ Senator ~ROXMIRE. Not only that, don't you think there is a clear, positive element here; don't you think it is more attractive;it seems to me, to go into the armed forces if there are women in the armed forces, t~o just as it is more attractive to the majority of men who go to col~ege.who wantto go to a college where there are women also, and the same thing for women. , `.` , They want to go to a college, by and large,,that isn't segre,gatsd. The segregated women's colleges have almost disappeared now. As you have an opportunity for, people to meet others of the same age of the opposite sex, it seems `to me that is a, positive and wholesome ,and proper appeal. `Mr. P~u~R. Yes, indeed, it is but perhaps some of the Marine re- cruiters might not agr~ with you. Senator PR0xMIRE. Unfortunately, that is true. One of you, I know ~who it was; did discuss the fact. that we have overcome quite sucoess- ~ui1y the,rac~al~ d~serImumtion which was such a pain, snch,'a great cOst to our country in the past. :And~ now, it would be shocking not to give aix' eqttal opportunity for the blacks and Spanish speaking people and so forth to serve equally with whites, with the majority~in the miiitar~'iii eirery ~apa~ity. And, yet, we don't have that feeling about women It is a st~ange sort of discrimination. : PAGENO="0135" 129 `Ms. PARR. IthinJ~ there sl~ould;~b~ some speoial `efforts made *ith regard to ~uinqrity ~yomen and in spite of my ea~iier elaims ab~u% the fact that we have probably had e~iough research~ on a~ lot of `sub~wcts, we have done preliminary studies, which show that minority `womeu are underrepreseuted in a lot of the areas that., evefl other wo~ien are finding in the military in some of the training opportunities a~id so on. Whe~i we have tried to~ get..~ mOre informatjon about this si~b~ct, we have received `the a1~swer th~t~ data is often not ~broken .:down by both se~. andy rac~ I think it is important, that as a ~general polity matter that this information is kept in that particular form so. we can get the answers to some of these qu~stions~ EFF~OT OF THR E~YAL KEGiIPS. , A~tRNDMENT. ON TIlE. MILITARy ~enathr PROXMIRE. As you kiiow, the equal ~~ights am~ndinent is still in the ba1anc~, It ueeds~tlire~States to ~on~1rm it. How would passage d ~tlie equal ~ights. `amendment affect women in the military? Ms. PAER. I' am not a,legal scholar, and all I can do is report. some of the, things that I have~read. I think you probably read the same things. Before I answer that question directly, I would like to digress for a moment to say that some of us ~believe that, pex~haps, passage of, the* equal rights amendment would be easier if, the~ women-in-combat issue were separate4,frorn it. I just came back `from Louisiana `wtiere I: lived and worked sev- eral years and worked very hard for the equal Hghts amendment. It is still not ratified there and o~ie ~f the main reasons for that is because' of the women-in-combat issue, because the. State legislators are ~very fearsome of that issue and very much opposed to women playing a com- bat role. ` ` . But if' the women-in-combat issue were separated from the~ equal `rights amendments if. we dealt with £hese i~ues as twd separate ones-and, indeed, they ~re-I believe that passage of the, equal rights amendthent would be easier as far `as what effect it has. Perhaps, Ms. Leeper wdi~ld like to speak to that. Senator Pi~oxMIRE. `Yes. Ms. LEi~rEE. I agree with Ms. ,Parr; I do think that I-.-I some- time~ say I think ,the. only valid claim of our opponents in the ERA is the. combat issue. `But the point, w~ have in response is that Congress has had the~power always',to draft worpen' if they desire and if they need to, they; in fact, will, regardle~s o!= whether the amend- ment passes. I believe that the time. may well come' i~ we reinstate the draft just ~fOr ~neu, we may fifld men bringing suit as being unfair not t'o also draft women because I believe we hav~ actually in this society dome that far. , , ` Ms. GOOD~rAN. I would like t~ point out 1~hex~e have been ,sucl~ suits on behalf of men. If the ERA were `pass~d, t~ose suits woul4 be won `by those plainti~fs. And, I have n~ question if' the ERA *ere passed that I would not be litigating this case about worben abo~ard ships the way I am before Judge Sirica right now, PAGENO="0136" 130 Senator PnoxMnu~. So you think the ERA would be very help- ful in providing greater opportunities for women in the military ~ Ms. GOOIMA~. Absolutely. We would win the war instead on en- gaging in endless trench warfare.. General H0LM. As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, it has already helped enormously. Senator PROXMIRE. Even though it has not become law. General H0LM. Yes, sir; when it was being debated in the Con- gress, many of the services went back to do their, what I referred to as, "what-if studies," to determine what would be the impact if the ERA is ratified. As a result of some of those studies, many of the policies that we had had a very difficult time with, that we had proposed changes to, were changed almost overnight because the services did these "what-if" studies and determined there wasn't much logic to those policies any- way, so they changed them. I would expect that if ERA could be postponed another 3 or 4 years, the issues that presently are holding up ERA, which I agree are combat and drafting women, would be overtaken by events and that those issues would be settled by changing the laws and policies. ERA would then merely be a capstone. Senator PnoxMnu~. I would like to `ask both General Holm and Colonel' ilallaren to comment on this last question; in view Of the `anticipated shortfall of qualified men in the early 1980's, do you think the All-Volunteer Army can survive as an All-Volunteer Army without attracting large numbers of qualified women~ General HOLM~ I don't think it is possible, Mr. Chairman. Senator PRQXMIRE; Colonel Hallaren. Colonel HALLAREN. I agree 100 percent. Senator PR0xMIRE. Thank you. First, I want to thank you panelists. This is as fine a panel as I have heard in a long, long time. You have all done an excellent job, I think, in expressing your views and responding to questions on this issue. It is clear to me that we need to attract more women to the military to preserve the all-volunteer force concept. More importantly, it is time to extend full and equal opportunities to women in the military, an institution which. happens to be the largest employer in the Nation. It makes no sense economically or militarily to maintain the anti- quated, backward, unfair restrictions against women. The military, despite notable progress made hi `the past several years is a bastion of myths and mindlessness where women are concerned. This is unacceptable to the American people and to Congress. The Defense Department seems to be slowly seeing the light, and I am con- fident the light will dawn if not on the Westmorelands, on the :Browns. Surely, in the present situation, it is'inconsistent with the ideals and policies of President Carter. The subcommittee plans to hold ad4i- tional hearings which I hope to announce in the near future. I want to'thank you all very, very much. ` The subcommittee is adjourned. " .. . [Whereupon, at 12:07 p.m., the subcommittee adjourned, `subject to the call of the Chair.] . ` ` ` PAGENO="0137" APPENDIX LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTEE5~ OF `rilE UNITED STATES, Washington, D.C., September 16, 1977. The Hon. RIOHA1W BOLLING, Cha%rmo,n, Joint Economic Committee, Dlrksen Senate office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR Mn. CITAUIMAN: The League of Women Voters of the TYnited States would like to be listed as endorsing the goals outlined in testimony presented by Ms. Carol C Pair on behalf of the National Coalition for Woipen in Defense The Coalition s testimony was heard Septembei 1 1977, before the Subcommittee of Priorities and Economy in Government's hearings oi~ "TbeRole of Women In the Military." Sincerely, RUTH 0. CLUSEN, President, WASHINthON, D.C., August 31, 1977. JOINT Eco~oMxo COMMITTEE, Ejubcomtn'ittee on Priolities and Economy in Government, U.S. Congress, Washington, D.O. ~DEAR COMMIT~VEE MEMBERS: The following statement is submitted for the record of the Septembei~ 1 hearing on "The Role o~ Women in the Military." My name is Mira Nan Marshall The following is a descuption of my recent experience with the Army recruitment process I hope it will illustrate ~or you the impact of current military personnel policies on women who might Wish to serve in the United States AripedForces. My background 25 yeais old bachelor s degree in urbAn studies magna etim laude, University of Massachusetts employed since age 17 at ~i variety of )obs including factory machine operator gas station attendant and assistant hotel housekeeper; ACTION volunteer, 1974-75; female. Em currently employed by an organization which is a membei of the Coalition for Women ~n Defense My father recently retired after more than 30 years servtce in the. Army., In October .1976, after spending the previous 12 months in an unsuccessful search for full-time, permanent employment that would be in some way related to my education, experience and interests, I decided to try joining the military. My interest in nillitaryservicO stemmed from a variety of factors, listed below. Underlying all of these reasons was an assumption that since the military was now all-volunteer, there `would always be immediate openings for people willing to make certain trade-offs. This was later proven to be false in the case of women enlistees. Why the military? (All these are selfish reasons. I also wished to use my skills and talents for the "good" of the people/community/nation.) (1) Acquire a ~kiU.-I had been brought up to be~ independent and self-sup- porting. If 1 couldn't spend my life getting paid to. do exactly what I cared about, I thought that I should at the very least provide myself with a skill that could be traded for a reasonable paycheck. (2) Leadership training.-I enjoy leading people and managing operations, so I thought the military could provide me with experienOe in this, If I became an officer~ (3) Opportunity for advancemeivt.-Tbe Idea of steady advancement, If one does well, where "the rules of the game" are set out In advance, appealed to me. (4) Educational assistance.-Tbe various programs of educational assistance were another attraction, since I wotild like to contInue my education, but Would like to avoid any further Indebtedness (I worked thr4mghout my undergraduate career, but still required edticatlon loan assistance.) (131) 23-866---78-1O PAGENO="0138" 132 (5) clkallenge.-Being unemployed was painfully demoralizing. I thought the challenge of the discipline and completely new environment of the military would help shake me up and get me moving again. (6) Steady income.-Of course, while I wanted all the other opportunities, I really needed an' income, so I could pay my debts and no longer be dependent on my parents for the necessities of life. Following up on my interest in becoming~an ofilcer, I investigated the oppor- tunities in all the services. All of them, except the Army, made it abundantly clear that the soonest I could actually get in would be six months from that time. The Army gave that time-frdiné for their "direct commission" program for women, but the local reerulter in Alexandria did not have clear informa- tion on, .a time-frame for the `enlistment/OOS option. I chose to attempt the Army enlistment process, because' it seemed to offer the most imn~ediate9ppor- tunity and because I believed it would offer the most roaiisti~ a~1d s~rloU~ intro- duction to service life I took the Armed Forces Vocational Aptitude Test ahd qualified for all military occupational specialities (MOS'). The local recruiter `then toOk tile to ~althnore. Here `I was gIven a physical examination. (I was in perfect health except for my poor eyesight) I was then told about current available training oppor tunitiès. There were very' few-the Only one that ~tIeks `in my mind Is "c~ok." `I "had previously `cothposed"a list of thOse M.'O.S.s Which were of ~ny interest to me (taken from the list of those available to women). They ranged from data processor to draftsperson to law clerk. When I inquired about' their future availability, I was told that'none of them would be available for at least a year. But then I got a real shock-even the most immediate opening, that of cook, wasn't really available for six months. For women entering the Army, there was at least a six months lag between date of enlistment and date of actually beginning `basic training. let, ,male.enlistees can enlist and leave for boot camp on the same day, if they choose certain M.O.S'.s (not all'o,f which are currently available to women). , `Quite frankly,'I would' rather bea root soldier i~ the Infantry than a cook in a mess halL I certainly wasn't `about to wait six thonths to let the Arthy waste Its money training me to do something that I `bad `no interest in and would con- sequently use for the briefest time possible I needed some sort of paycheck as soOn as possible plus I wanted a skill that I had a reasonable expectation of enjoying performing How many other women must reach these same conclusions'? Senator Proxmire, members of the subcome-ittee,' why can't women who want to be soldiers be ~iudged by the same Impartial criteria men are'? What nlakes a young man who's' a'.hlgh scbQol drop-out a better soldier than a young' college- educated woman? The military was once known as the great `equallzer-'why can't It perform this' same function for men and women? Respectfully,' ` ` ` MIIiA NAN MARSHALL jFrom the LADYCOMmunications magazine, June 1q77] WOMEN ABOARD Snws:, ,A PoarrIvfi Srni' `(By Pat Leèper) ` Ten years ago, I *oiild' have been ` among those Navy wives who oppose the assignment of women to sea `duty. I was eveil guilty at the time of stating that . "a woman' belongs to a .man,'but a man belongs tO the world." `It is an `understatement to `simp'y say my wliobe philosophy has changed"over the years. Therefore, I would* like to share my feelings on the question, as well as examine the practical problems,' historical precedents' and political implications. . .. `. . ~, ` At the emotional level I want women to serve on board ship because of past limitations I still resent in my own life. `Long ago, I may have accepted them like' most women but I never foruot Later I was to work hard to make sure that younger women' could fuiñli one of' my old dreams--nttendlng' the'. `Naval Academy. . ` ` ` . . " `Second, :1 have always despised the double standard, sexually applied. Many arguments against permitting women to go to sea are based. on the `fear that the servicéwomen will `become sexually involved with the men. Søm.etimes `this "suspicion" is couched in subtle w~ys~ For example, a poll was recently taken PAGENO="0139" 13~ c~ Navy women and `N~vy' wIves in `San' ~iego 86 percent ~f the `wives and 90 percent of the active duty women thought women should' be allowed to work at any job they are ~ápabie of performing. However, 15: percent of the wIves thought ~vothen joined the Navy to find boyfriends' er 1~usband~, 46 percent of `th~ Navy wotheil said they have experi- ended resentment from Navy `wives ahd `24 percent of th~ wives believed that somehoW Navy woined behave differehtly than they would In a civilian job. Obviously some hostility Oxists between the two groups, *` ` "Th sex the issue?' If So, let's look at' the practical p~oblems involved. Consider th&following: (I), There `will be far fewer `women than men on board each ship. Some of the `women will be married or have emotional ties elsewhere. The rest, `i~ `they are interested in forming personal relationsbips~ aregoing to be far more interested in single meri than married men. (`2)' The retry closeneSs `of the quarters will actually rob' ship'~ersOnnel of the pr acy needed for romance. It' will be difficult, at best, to ~pursue romantiC inclination's, even if they surface.' tains are `used' to dealing with personnel problems. If and' when the "untbink- able" happens, both' parties will get into troublCd Once. It is made: Clear that troublesome "attachments" wIll be cause for punishment, moat concerned will comport themselves accOrdingly. (4) `~clembCrS of the crew `will be more tightly controlled at sea `thab on shore,"because they have to be. The safety of the ship depends upon strict discipline. ` While tbere'wlll always be those Immature individuals who will find some way of making a mes~ of things, I am' confident that this venture `will not dissolve into the Sodom and `Gomorrah others seem to fear, Some will say, why not just eliminate the problem by not letting womOn serve at all? What this really means is that only women will be `penalised for the weaknesses of both sexes. It also means that the Navy cannot utilize `its best and brightest' Women due to problems that" may occur because of the antics of a few men and women.. This `discussion overlooks the fact that, just as there are practical problems to overeOme, there are good practical reaSons why wOmen should go to sea. `The military Is having no trouble at all' recruiting high quality women~'It `is having tr~ubIe recruiting high quality men. Women are needed to fill the jobs that must be done. Unless the bar to sea duty is removed, the expa~sIon of the numbers of women cannot be accomplished without affecting the sea/shore rOtation sched~ ules for men. Conversely, the more women at sea, the more time the `meli and women get at home-certainly a desirable by-product, It has been argued that an increase `In the numbers of women will decrease military ~readIness~ As .long ~as they are qualified arid Well-trained,' I believe that just the opposite is true. Surely any nation who can count on the resources of both sexes is better off than one forced to rely on only onb'half'of the population. I suspect we dOn't worry about ~thls because we'.ha~re been able to export our wars, and `our women have not bad to face the prospect of being either com- batants or victims. ` ` . ` . ` ` Those. who oppose any more expansion of the role of military women are fond of citing "negative" statistics and studies.' ~SVomen, they' Say, have trouble per- forming certain taSks Or have more emotional problOms. What they don't men- tion is that men, a~ ~ gronp,.tend to specialize' fri problems of their own. A recent DOD study showa that men lOse more time and' cost' the services thorn because of AWOL, court martial, drug abuse;and aleoholism4I' subthit that we have no cause for alarm unless~ proportionate' to their numbei~s, ~onien'actually lose more time, get into more trOuble, `or do poorer work than men, hi all sittiatlons. For example, some Will assert `that `some women have trouble with .the physical re- quirements and are therefore "holding back" the men. Ironically, at the academies, the women are out-performing the men'nch'blastically, yet no one accuses the men of lowering the standard set by the womep. It is helpful Ltty put the'wholC issue into hiStorical perspective. This century has seen an unprecpdented moveipent of women into:all phases of social and working life. And every move-.-from the vote, to higher education, to women's work in "untraditional" jobs-has been met with `cries of outrage. Do~m, societal break- down and untold disaster have been predictçd. One would think that the survival of' civilisation depends on tightly controllii~g the fiuriction and whereabbuts of women. ` Even today there are those who reftise to hceept the fact~thàt thOst' women work out of need, and that millions lack that economically solvent mate who makes a "traditional" life, in which husband is the sole wage-earner, possible. PAGENO="0140" 134 This attitude or bias of perception exists widely. Nevertheless, we have come to the point in America where only the military has the right "legally" to limit the numbers of women, set higher standards for them and to refuse their admittance into certain job categories. It Is highly unlikely that the military will hold out forever against political pressure and the overall movement for change. Politically, the issue of women aboard ships would seem to be an emotional one. Opponents of the ERA have had great success In making military service for women a source of terror. However, I believe that shipboard duty for women will not be denied simply because Navy wives don't want it. Nor will It be granted solely because women's rights groups are pressing for it. No, Oongr;ess, the courts and the Pentagon will act according to their own prejudices and in accord with what they believe to be In their own best interests, They are rela- tively immune to emotional arguments from both sides, unless those arguments serve the policymakers' own ends. For this reason, those of us who are "pro" try to present our case as a logical way to benetit the military, as well as demand it as an ethical "right" I believe that both a real need and the winds of change make it likely that women will be serving in expanded roles in all branches of the armed services. The Navy has proposed Its own legislation to allow womep to serve on board ships not expected to see combat. The Army Chief of Staff recently stated that he sees no reason why women cannot serve in combat units in support roles. Many observers support an increase in the numbers of women as a way to save the all-volunteer force. This movement for military women is "historical," but really no more remarkable than the whole history of women in this century. My ftnal point is philosophical, and is inseparable from my deepest held con- victions that cover the whole area of human rights, not just sea duty for women. 1 believe that there are no guarantees in life for most. people. There Is no God given right to own or possess another, even one's spouse. There is no law, rule, regulation or church doctrine that will assure we will be loved forever or that our sex "guarantees" that we will have emotional or economic security. I fur- ther believe, with all my heart that the greatest gift we can give ourselves or another is freedom to create, achieve, work, experiment and, yes, the right to make our own mistakes* and learn from them. I believe that spontaneity and freedom, rather than creating chaos (barring criminal acts, of. course), will enrich us all. In times of rapid change, our peace of mind comes from our attitude toward change. If we are fearful, we will want to restrict those who disagree with us. Do I have the right to. tell a housewife she must be a welder? Does the house- wife have the right to tell me where, how and with whom I. can work? Do any of' us have the "right'?., to try to control the possible behavior of our husbands by curtailing the placement and jobs of other women? Is It futile anyway? Life is an ongoing experiment. Do we really want to keep other women from following their own destiny because of our fears? Are we not in~ danger of treating other adult human beings. like children, denying them their own choices and talents because "we don't l.ike it" or. "we know best"? Do we have the right to deny .them? I say no. I will always say no. I. may envy these women their adventure, but I will never begrudge it. If my husband is stationed on board ship with Navy women, I will be happy he is learning new ways . to relate to women professionally. He will go with my blessing. I not: only support the right of women to serve on board ship, I will actively work for It, and for any women and all women striving to take their full place in the sun and `in the world, as fully equal partners with men. (From the LADYCOMmunicatlons ~nagaz1ne, Jane 1077] WOMEN ABOARD SHIPS: A SERIOUS MISTAI~E (By Linda Pinegar) In the wake of the debate over the Equal Rights Amendment comes the ques- tion of the advisability of having women serve aboard Navy ships. The positive resolution of this question will have an effect on me, as a Navy wife. But more PAGENO="0141" 135 important, it will `have far-reaching consequences for ~be Navy and our national defense. In my opinion, the real issue i~ not whOther women should have the equal right to serve ou ships, but rather whether thE~ benefit to ~ the Navy will outweigh the draWbackS . . As with any pOlicy change, without `qtestion, the `first consideration must be the combat readiness of each individual ship and the overall effectiveness of the Navy. The United States is currently trailing the Soviet Union in numbers of ships and in some weapons capabilities. If women are allowed to go to sea, extensive alterations will be necessary to provide privacy for sleeping and personal hygiene. A' recent totr of the berthing and lavatory facilities aboard an aircraft carrier proved to me, at least, that major changes will have to be undertaken at considerable expense before `most ships will be suitably equipped for women. Is it logical then to take funds now earmarked for new ships, up- to-date weapons systems, and other modern equipment, and .redirect It to the renovation of existing ships, simply' to accommodate females? Should we trade overall strength and' capability for the personal rights of women, who :niake up only four percent of the total Naval force? Next on the list of priorities is the effect any policy change .would have on morale. Everyone agrees that the' demands of a Navy career place unusual hardships on the men and their families. In a Navy marriage, se~aration's con- nected with sea duty are especially difficult to cope with. There are stresses for the men, who must adapt to living and working aboard ship, and stresses for the wives, who must accept additional re~ponslbility~for `the family and' the house- hold. The importance of a wife's psychological well-being, In particular, can- not be over-emphasized, because a man's morale Is directly related to that of his spouse. Ills morale, In turn, affects his ability to carry out his duties. If his concentration is broken due to domestic problems and worries, he is more likely to make a mistake In judgment that could jeopardize his. mission, en- danger his shipmates, or cost him his life. If women were allowed to go to sea, the morale of the Navy wife would be seriously eroded and `possibly `even totally destroyed. My contemporaries take a dim view of having their husbands go to sea with other women. Their attitude is overwhelmingly negative. One friend put it very simply `when sho said, "We've got enough problems. Who needs that kind of aggravation?" Many Navy wives are seriously concerned about the~ probability of an in- creased rate of extra±narital affairs if women are allowed to go to sea. The isolation, sexual deprivation, and loneliness which characterize sea duty would most certainly tempt even the most faithful husband to stray. (I do not suggest that the rate of Infidelity among Navy men 15 any greater than in any other segment of society, but merely that the probability Increases due to the un- natural lifestyle and expanded opportunity connected with sea duty.) In ten years as a Navy wife, I have survived my husband's twelve-month tour of duty in South Vietnam, a subsequent two-and-one-half year sea tour off the coast of North Vietnam, a tour in Japan, the unique experience of living in Patux- ent River, Maryland, and a move `to our newest Navy home, Jacksonville, ll~lbrIda. Through the years, I `have observed that men who wOttld not think of having an affair at home become the most aggresisve Lotharios ~when their ships pull into foreign ports. It is reasonable to assume that a wife could forgive an Indiscretion with someone thousands of miles away. On the other band, not evOn the most tolerant wife could readily cope with the' idea of her husband having continual access to a lover aboard ship with him, while she sat at home alone with the children, baking brownies,' and writing him newsy nOtes. Infidelity is a faCt of life in the Navy, but putting females aboard Navy ships would add insult to Injury for Navy wives. Because they view female crew- members as a threat to the already precarious marital relationships they work so hard to preserve, wives' ~morale will be adversely affected. In turn, their husbands' morale `and concentration will deteriorate, threatening his safety and his ability to carry out his duties. Such a negative ~ha1n reaction would have critical consequences for morale, readiness, and retention throughout the entire Navy. Whether you agree with this way of~thlnk1ng or not, the fact remains that these feelings do exist; they run deep, are widespread,, and are not likely to change dramatically. Not even the ~Equal Rights Ariendrn'ent can reverse the PAGENO="0142" 136 natural sexual attraction between men and women. No amount of legislation or social change can alter the fact that jealousy is a very real part of the human condition and can destroy even the most stable marriage if given the proper fuel. Adding females to ship's crews will be emotional dynamite. It will dredge up in- securities that most of us don't even know we have, and fuel the fire of jealousy, resulting in destructive side effects for individuals, units, and whole ships. It sim- ply Is not worth the risk. In considering morale, we must also be aware of the effects mixed crews will have on a single Navy man. Certainly in this day and age of the so-called "new morality," we cannot realistically expect single men and women not to develop emotional and/or sexual relationships among themselves. Emotional entangle- ments between crew members aboard operational Navy ships would destroy in- dividual objectivity and adversely affect the ability of crew, members to function in emergency situations. Since every ship has the potential of becoming drawn into a combat situation, total objectivity arnj strict discipline are essential to combat effectiveness and to routine operational efficiency as well. Romantic ties would destroy objectivity and contribute to the breakdown of discipline. Another threat to morale aboard ship is the problem of ego. In any mixed group of males and females there is inevitably competition among both sexes for the attention of the other. In an all-male or all-female environment egos are ,a con- tributing factor in the competitiveness which is directed toward accomplishing the tasks at hand. In a mixed environment some `of that same ego-directed energy will be spent competing for the attention of the oppesite sex. Those who lose out on the attention will suffer a blow to their pride and thus their morale. Those who win will have gained an ego massage, but,the Navy will have lost `the time and energy spent in its pursuit. At sea, dedication to the mission is neces- sarily total. There is little leeway for individual p~suits not directly related to the business at hand. Until ships are .mauned .by, robots, problems of this nature must be taken into consideration. Recently I had the opportunity to discuss the issue of women going to sea with a group of Navy women. I was also able to observe them at work. There is no question that these young women are capable of "pulling their weight" in typically male specialties they are conscientious and sei~'ious about careers in the service of their country They expressed the willingness not only to go to sea, but to participate in combat, if necess~~y. There is nq ~`Oubt that they deserve the same opportunities for trafilking and advancement as their male counterparts Though all of the women I spoke to were eager to, go to sea, I noted with interest that none had even visited a ship,' inspected its living quarters, or observed its operations. The onë.important conclusion that I can draw from the women them- selves is that if the opportunities for advancement were available ashore, they would have little or no interest in sea duty. I respeetftilly suggest that it' Would be In the best interest of the Navy to make these opportunities available. Unfortunately. the subject of Navy women serving aboard ships cannot be separated from the haue of whether they should serve in combat. We have only to think of the U.S.S. PucbZo (a non-combatant auxiliary ship), and the men who were held prisoner in North Korea for eleven months, to appreciate the dangers involved. The Defense Manpower Commission study of AprIl .1976 concluded that societal attitudes including that of many women do not find the combat role for women to be acceptable." Nevertheless, the question is not whether women have the ability to serve in combat They have proved In the past that they are capable of performing under fire and eaC endure combat conditions for long periods. The question is the acceptability to society,, because society as a whole is not,. prepm'nd to accept women In combat roles inter~hangeably. `with men. The Defense Manpower Commission recommended that the prohibition regard ing assignment of women to combat rules should continue.'? It is my personal opinion that wornenshould not be assigned to sea duty. ~he cost of adequate accommodations would be prohibitive The effect oil the morale of the men and their wives u ould be adverse The neg'itive effect oh combat readi ness would be unacceptable, and societal attitudes woi~ld present a, substantial barrier to `their acceptance aboard ship. In today's Navy, the disadvantages of allowing, women to pursue equal rights aboard ships outweigh the advantages. PAGENO="0143" 137 United ~tates District Court, District of Columbia CIVIL ACTION NO. 76-2086 YO~cA OWENS, NATo1~A PEDEN, SvzAN~m HOLTMAN, K$IILEEN BYRRLY, SUZANNR RUIDDLEHOOVEE, JQELLjsN DRAG, XNI$IVIDIJALLY AND ON REHALF OF ALL OTHER ~ER5ONS SIMILARLY SIT(~ATED, PLATNT~FF$ V.. HAROLD 1~BOWN, INDIVIDtTALLY AND II~ HIS CAPACITY AS SuCRETARY OF DEFENSE AND G. WILLIAM CLAYTOn, INJ)IVJDtJALLY AND IN 1115 CAPACITY AS S~CR11TARY OF THR N~VT, DEFENDANTS PLAINTIFFS' SECO~D INTEE1IOGATORIJiS TO DEFENDANTS AND REQUE5T~ FOR PROrrLJCTION OF DOCUMENTS Plaintiffs hereby request that defendants respond, under oath, to the following interrogatories in accordance with Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Proce- dure. These interrogatories shall be deemed to be continuing so as to require defendants seasonably to supplement or amend their ~nswers thereto in aècord- ance with Rule 26(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Unless otherwise specified all Interrogatories refer ~to the Department of the Navy. in a~swerlng these Interrogatories, If any Information ealled~ for has already been provided in answers to Plaintiffs' First Set of Interrogatorles, defendants may incorporate any such answer, If responsive, b~ reference herein. In these interrogato1~ies "jOb" is used interchangeably with "billet" and "occupation" is used interchangeably with "rating." Please. take notice that copies of defendants' answers' must be served upon the undersigned within 30 days after the service of these interrogatories. It is requested that `defendants' answers restate each of these interrogatories. in full before respOnding to it, . 0 Plaintiffs hereby request `putsuant to Rule 34 of the Federal ttules of Clyil Procedure, that defendants produce for copying all documents requested herein within 30 days at the offices of `the American~CiviL'Llberties Union, 22' EAst 40th Street, New York, New York. I. Please state the name, official position `and `locatiob of `each person who has prepared or is the . source of information used in preparing the answers to each of the following interrogatorles. . . . 2. With regard to any recOmmendation (s) made by the Department of the Navy to any other governmental agency, including the President of the United States or the Congress of the United States, that 1G U.S.C. §`6G15 (hereafter § 6018) be amended or mOdified in any way, state:' (a) Who made the recoinmen~1ation, to. WhOm it wks made, and the date(s) on which It was made; (b) `ESch and every basis or reason why the `recommendation was made; and (e). The ezact contents of the recommendation (s) or,~in the alternative, attach copies~~ ` ` 3. With regard to the most recent recommendation referred t~ in answer to Interrogatory 2 (hereafter "the proposed amendment"), state whether defendant Claytor or any `other official `within the Navy "or the Department of~ Defense has asserted the proposed amendment to § 6018 would allow the Secretary of the Navy to take fuller advantage of the skilled talent available in the female .Navy personnel and Increase `the `operational e~~ctivene~s~and fieTibilitV of available forces (as quoted in the New York Timea on )~1ai~eh `8,177). If so, (a) Attach' a copy of any written statement~maclc by any official'or any "news- gram" 1ss~ed~ and , , ` .` ` ` (b) `State how the proposed modification or amendtaent to §~6015 would ac- complish the goals referred to in Interrogatory & ` "4~'State"whether defendant Claytor or any other offici~l'within. the Navy or the Department of Defense. has asserted that the proposed. amendment `tç § 60a5 would provide a broader training base for women midshipmen and junior officers PAGENO="0144" 138 and insure they have the best career opportunity feasible in naval service? If so, (a) Attach a copy of any written statement or "newsgram" issued to this effect; and (b) State specifically how the legislation proposed would (i) provide a broader training base for women midshipment and junior officers, and (ii) insure that women have the best career opportunity feasible in naval service. 5. State specifically each and every Navy career opportunity, i.e. opportunity for training, opportunity for entry into any rating and opportunity for promo- tion, which is presently unavailable to women because of § 6015, but which would be available to women under the proposed amendment to § 6015. .6. State whether there are any Navy èareer opportunities which would be unavailable to women if the proposed modification of § 6015 were enacted. If so, state each and every such opportunity which would continue to be unavailable. 7. State whether defendants maintain that it is not feasible for women to have any of the career opportunities referred to in response to Interrogaotry 6. If so, state, (a) Which career opportunities defendants maintain it is not feasible for women to have, and (b) For each career opportunity, every reason why defendants maintain it is not feasible. 8. State each and every reason why defendants have not recommended that the provision of § 6015 which forbids women from being assigned to Navy ves- sels other than hospital ships and transports be eliminated. 9. State why the proposed amendment to § 6015 provides for: (a) Temporary, not permanent, assignment of women to combat vessels dur- ing peacetime; (b) Assignments at the discretion of the Navy, rather than~ on; the same basis as men; and (c) Non-assignment of women to combat vessels during wartIme. 10. Does § 6015 have the effect upon the Navy of making it "turn away skilled women" (this statement was attributed to a Pentagon official In the New York Times, March 3, 1977). If so, . (a) Explain in detail each and every way in which § 6015 produces this effect, and . (b) Indicate specifically how and why admitting more than the number of women set by the Navy as a goal (see Answer to Interrogatory. 2, Plaintiffs' First Set of Interrogatorles) is "necessary to preclude ,a dispropo~tionate ad- verse affect on male seashore rotation in popular ratings." 11. (a) What is a critical rating? (b) What steps does the Navy take when a rating becomes critical?.. (c) Is it anticipated that the proposed amendment to § 6015 would serve to reduce the number of critical ratings? If so, explain in detail how it would have this effect. 12. Is It anticipated that permitting women to serve aboard ships (other than hospital and transport ships (a) in accordance with the `propOsed. amendment to § 6015, or (b) with no restrictions on service by women would result in any savings or benefits to the Navy, e.g., by reducing the costs for re-enlistment bonuses. If the response to a) and/or b) is affirmative, describe fully and separately for a) and b) all such changes or benefits and provide copies of any studies or reports on this subject. . . 13. Describe all changes which you anticipate in female enlistment goals (De- fendants' Answer No. 2 to PlaIntiffs' First Set of Interrogatories stated "female goals are under periodic review and future changes are expected"). 14. State In detail all preenlistment criteria for: (a) Men, `and (b) women. 15. If the preenlistment criteria for women are stricter, explain whether these stricter criteria are applied because of the effect of § 6015. If they are not, describe fully the legal justification for the ~tricter or higher, standards for women, and provide copies of all applicable statutes, regulations, and legal memoranda. `" ` ` 16. As to any quota, limit or goal established by the Navy on: (a) The admission of women into particular (I) ratings; (ii) career classifi- cations; or (iii) training schools; or PAGENO="0145" 139 (b) Promotional opportunities for women, state what the quota is and whether it is imposed because of § 6015. In any instance where the quota is not imposed because of § 6015, describe fully the legal justification for the quoth and provide copies of all applicable statutes, regulations and legal memoranda. 17. (a) State whetbëy women are ever denied enlistment into the Navy be- cause (I) quotas for females at particular recruiting stations are filled; (ii) there are r~o openings for females in the occupations desired by the female enlistee. (b) If the answer t~ (a) (1) or (a) (Ii) Is affirmative, state how often women were denied enlistment in 1976 for the reason referred to in (a) (I) or (a) (ii) and compare the frequency with which women were denied enlistment with the frequency with which men were denied enlistment for each of these reasons. 18. State whether the Navy has validated the relationship between any of its admissions standards and performance in the Navy. If so, (a). State the extent to which the standards have been validated (i.e., the degree of correlation between the standards and subsequent performance) ; and (b) .Attach copies of any validation studies. 19. Have any plans or projections been made concerning the number of women who would serve aboard ships if the proposed amendment to § 6015 were enacted? If so, state: (a) Each and every such plap and projection; and (b) ¶J~he basis for it. 20. If the proposed amendment to § 6015 were enacted, (a) What jobs would women be permitted to perform that `they are not, now permitted to perform? (b) (i) What jobs would `they continue to be restricted from performing.; and (Ii) State each reason why any job restriction would be imposed. 21. If the.proposed amendment to § 6015 is enacted, state whether: (a) The Navy would assign women to ships; or (b) The Navy would give women the option of serving aboard ships? 22. Ider~tify by title, author and date, each study performed by or for the Navy since 1970 concerning the Navy's future personnel needs. 23. (a) Has It been projected that the number of males in the Navy enlist- ment eligible `pool will decrease approximately 15% or by any other percentage in the mid-1980's? ` (b) If so, state the projected percentage decline and whether it is a primary reason for. wi~h~ig to expand the number and utilization of women in the Navy? 24. (a) Would tb~ ability to assign women t~ ships permit the Navy to in- crease the amount of shore duty assigned to men? (b) If. so, state whether it is' believed that the ability to assign an increase amount of shore duty to men would enhance the Navy's ability to retain male personnel. 25. , (a) Describe in detail each and every difficulty you anticipate would arise if,women.were assigned to ships; and (b) .~State the reason why you believe each difficulty would arise, including any supporting data or studies substantiating the. basis for such reasons. 26. `State whether the Navy would undertake any training or planning pro- grams prior to assigning women to ships. If so, state: (a) The nature of the training or planning; (b) .What'Nayy persOnnel would be involved; (o) The'length of time which the `training or pl'ttnning. would take; and (d) What the planning or training would be expected to accomplish. 27. State' whether defendant Cláytor. made, the statement, with reference to the assignment of women to Navy ships, that "any time you have boys-girls It's a little dIfficult but the problOn~s'I gue~s are no different from what's happening In college dormitories" (as quoted in the l~Tew York Times on May 1, 1977). If he cUd not make the quoted statement, state any remarks be made on or about April 30, 1977 concerning the assignment of women to ships. 28, `State `whether defen4ants or any official authorized by defendants has made ány.statement(s) in any form to any person or group'regarding § 6015, the proposed amendment to § 6015, or' the assignment of women to Navy ships. If so, (a) State (I)' The name and address, of each person who made the statement; (ii) The name and address of each group of persons to whom such statement was made; and (iii) The date of each such statement was made. (b) Attach a copy of each such statement. PAGENO="0146" 140 29. Has the Navy had training programs in race relations for Navy personnel? If so, state: (a) The reasons for the programs; (b) The nature of the training programs; (c) What Navy personnel have been involved; (4) The length of time the training programs have been in existence; (e) The cost of the programs; (f) The goals of the programs; (g) Whether cost-effectiveness of the programs was considered; and (h) Whether the programs are considered cost-effective. 30. Have there been any studies or projeetioith of the length of time it, would take to integrate women to serve aboard all ships, Including combat ships? If so, (a) State how long it is projected thatintegration would take; and (b) Attach a copy of any studies which have been performed. 31. Were women ever assigned to Navy transport or hospital ships? If so, (a) When were they assigned; (b) How many were assigned; (c) What jobs did they perform; (4) Was their performance in these positions ever evaluated by the Navy and, if so, attach a copy of each evaluation. 32. (a) Is there any type of ship in the Navy now which Is the equivalent in function of the transport ship in use in 1948? (b) What is this type of ship now called? (C) When and why did the Navy cease referring to such ships as transport ships? 33. When and why dld'the Navy cease having: (a) Hospital ships; and (b) Transport ships? 34. (a) In terms of problems that might exist with having women serve on ships, is there any difference between (I) hospital and transport ships; and (ii) all other Naval ships? (b) If so, explain each and every asserted difference. 35. Describe what "temporary" duty on a combat ship in peacetime woul~ consist o~. 36. (a) What are auxiliary ships? (b) How many are there in the Navy? (c) How many positions are there aboard these ships? (4) flow many positions arO there aboard non-auxiliary ships? 37. Has defendant `Olaytor prepared or submitted any statement to the effect that the Navy's experiOnce to date indicates that sea service women are highly motivated, dedicated and very capable (quoted in Washington post, March 18, 1977). If so, (a) State the basis for theconclusion he reached, and (b) Attach a copy of the statement. 88. (a) State whether, prior to the experiment in which women were utilized aboard the U.S. Sanctuary, any reports, hypotheses or projections had been made or prepared by the Navy or the Department of Defense concerning prob- lems which were anticipated during the experiment. If so, attach a copy of each such report (b) Were there any reports or studies prepared on the results of the U.S.~. Sanctuary experiment other than the Navy Ships Engineering Command Report supplied in response to Plaintiffs' First Request for Production of Documents? If so, attach a copy of each such report or study. 39. Describe to what extent and in what manner the experience of the TJ,S.S. Sanctuary experiment haS been considered in determining that an amendment to § 6015 is appropriate. 40. (a) Are .there physical requirements for entrance. into the Navy of (I) enlisted personnel; and (ii) officers? (b) If so, what are those requirements? (c) Are they the same for men and women? If not, state all ways thè~ are different. (4) Do women and men pass these requirements in equal proportion? If not, describe all, differences fully and provide copies of all stqçlies and reports relat- ing to such differences. . . 41. Are there tests measuring physical ability administered to potential re- cruits? If so, ` ` . . PAGENO="0147" 141 (a) Describe these tests; (b) State what physical characteristics they measure; and (c) State whether they are administered to men arid women. (d) If there are any differences between the tests administered to men and Women, (i) describe any differences; and (ii) state the reasons for the differ- ences. (e) Do women and men pass these requirements ilX equal proportiou? If not, describe all differences fully and provide copies of all studies and reports relat- ing to such differences. 42. Ar~ there additional physical re4uirements beyond those listed in response to Interrogatory 40 for Navy personnel entering particular ratings? If so, (a) State how many and which ratings have special physical requirements; (b) Describe the te$ts and the characteristics the tests measure; (c) Are they the same for men and women? If not, state all the ways they are different; and (d) Do women and men pass these requirements In equal proportion? If not, describe all differences fully and provide copies of all studies and reports relat- ing to such differences. 43. If a potential recruit or officer fails to meet the physical requirements set forth in response to Interrogatorles 40 arid 42 what is the Navy's response? State the answer separately for officers and recruits. 44. Are there any jobs aboard ships which the Navy maintains that most or all women could not perform? If so, state, (a) Whatarethose jobs; (b) What are the reasons why most of all women cannot perform each such job.; (c) What per~ntage of women could not perform each such job; and (d) Provide copies of all stridies substantiating that some or all women can ~ot perform such jobs. 45. (ian all men perform each job listed in responSe to Interrogatory 44? If all men do not have the physical ability to perform ea~th job, state, (a) The method used to ensnre that the then who are a~sign~d to those jobs have the physical capacity to perform them; arid (b) What percentage, of men are unable to perfçrni each of the jobs refçrred to in response to Inter~ogatory 44? .46. What percentage of the total number of jobs aboard ships l~ it maintained women could not perform? State how this figure was determined. 47. Is it maintained that there are more jobs aboard ships engaged in combat than there are aboard ships during peacetime that women would be unable to perform? If so, state the basis for this conclusion as to each job which it is asserted women could not perform aboard ~t ship engaged in combat, and supply copies of any substantiating studies. 48. If it is contended that women cannot perform combat jobs on Navy.vessels, state, . (a) ~Thich'combat jobs women canpot perform; (b) The specific duties oJ~ each stich job women, cannot perform; and. (a). The reasons why ,it is contended that women cannot perform these dutjes. 49. Describe fully all studies documenting that some or all women cannot perform the duties described in response to Interrogatory 48, including the per- centage of women determIned to be unable to perform each of the duties. Provide copies of all `documents reflecting such studies. . 50. What is done at present with crew members who become ill or injured while at sea? If the answer depends, on the sise of the ship, explain fully for each type of ship. , 51. If a crew' member is so Seriously ill or injured that be cannot continpe to serve on that voyage, is r~ replacement always seenréd? (1). If not, how often is a replacement secured; and (2) What factors are considered in determining whether a replacement will be secured. , ` 52.' State' the' number of times during 197~ that a crewmember became im capacitated and had to leave h1~ ship. . . 53. Describe' the system the Navy maintains to ensure that sufilcient replace- ments for ill or injured personnel will be available on a systemwide basis. 54. (a) As, to each of the following categories of vessels state whether It is sent to sea with every bunk filled: (I) Ships;' (ii) aircraft carriers; and (iii) submarines. , PAGENO="0148" 142 (b) For each category of vessel which is sent to sea without every bunk filled, state how often it Is not staffed to that extent, and the percentage of open bunks maintained. 55. (a) Can a submarine function adequately if one crewman is not available? (b) If the answer to subsection (a) depends on which job is being considered, state what positions are considered so essential that if Qne crew member with that job Is absent the mission will be jeopardized. 56. (a) Have there been any studies done of the comparative number of days lost from work by women and men (I) officers; and (ii) enlisted personnel? (b) If so, describe fully the results of these studies and provide copies of any documents reflecting such studies. 57. Have there been any conclusions reached about whether the figures con- cerning the days lost from work by women would change if women were as- signed to ships? If so, state the conclusions reached and the basis for them. 58. Are there situations in which having women aboard ship would place them in greater danger than that faced by men in the same positions? If so, describe: (a) In which situations this would be true; and (b) The yeasons why it would be true, and (c) Describe any studies documenting the existence of such greater danger and provide copies of any documents reflecting such studies. 59. For each of the following wars, state how many and what percentage of Navy personnel on ships engaged in combat were taken prisoner: (a) WWII; (b) Korean War; and the (c) Vietnam War. 60. (a) In order to permit women to serve aboard ships, what ship modifica- tions or adjustments has the Navy concluded would be necessary for (I) officers; and (ii) enlisted personnel. (b) State the reasons why each of these adjustments or modifications would be necessary. (c) State the cost of each of the proposed modifications, and the percentage of the total Navy budget for fiscal year 1976 that such cost would represent. (d) Does the Navy renovate or refit its vessels on a regular or periodic basis? If so, state (i) How often each type of vessel is refitted; (ii) What the refitting consists of; (lii) How many ships were refitted in 1076; and (iv) The cost per ship in 1976, and the percentage of the total Navy budget for fiscal year 1976 that such cost represented. 61. Is the Navy engaged In or does it have any plans to undertake any pro- gram to increase the amount of privacy available on its ships for male person- nel?If so, (a) Describe the plans or program, and (b) State the reasons for it. 62. (th) State which shore command billet assignments women officers have been precluded from holding because they are ineligible for command at sea (referred, to in the 1976 Navy Affirmative Action Plan, E-9 at p. 89). (b) Of the shore command assignments referred to in response to Subsection (a), how many have duties and responsibilities which make It essential that they be filled by personnel who are eligible for command at sea? (c) For each such assignment, state (1) what the assignment is, (ii) which of its duties and responsibilities demand fulfillment only by persons eligible for command at sea; and (iii) why eligibility for command at sea is essential for those duties and responsibilities. 63. (a) Have there been any changes made In 1977 to eliminate the re- quirement of eligibility for command at sea for any of the shore command assign- ments listed in response to mt. 62. (b) If so, describe each such change fully. 64. Are there any statutes or regulations, other than 10 U.S.C. § 6015, which prevent the assignment of women on the same basis as men to jobs in the Navy? If so, identify each statutory provision and regulation and attach a copy of each regulation. 65. State in detail each and every fact relied upon by defendants for all allega- tions in defendants' answer which deny any of the allegations in plaintiffs' complaint.. 60. (a) Th it contended. that § 6015, insofar ~ it prohibits the assignment of women to veseels other than hospital ships or transports, bears a rational rela- tionship to a legitimate governmental objective? If so, state what the legitimate PAGENO="0149" 143 governmental objective is and each and every way in which § 6015 is rationally related tQ it. (b) Is it contended that § 6015, insofar as it prohibits the assignment of women to vessels other than hospital ships or transports, substantially furthers an important governmental objective? If so, state what the important govern- mental objective is and each and every way in which § 6015 substantially fur- thers it. MARJORIE MAZEN SMITH, SUSAN DuLLER Ross, JILL LAUVR GOODMAN, KATHLEEN WILLERT PERATIS, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation. KATHRBINE MAZZAFERRI, TRUDY LEvY, League of Women Voters Education Fund. JUNE 14, 1977. 0 PAGENO="0150"