654. i applaud the professionalism and seriousness of the men and women of the united states navy as they participated in an unprecedented survey of our armed forces. i'm satisfied with the methodology and execution of the service member and spouse surveys and the extent to which they engaged sailors and their family. i believe the appropriate issues have been researched, examined, and necessary courses of action have been considered. the responses help me to assess the potential impacts to effectiveness, readiness, unit cohesion, and morale on our navy. 76% of sailors believe that the impact on these force characteristics to be neutral or positive. there will be issues to be addressed. especially in a period immediately following repeal. there's a sizable minority of the navy, 24%, who believe the

impact of the repeal will be negative. areas of greatest concern expressed in the survey include social cohesion, privacy in sleeping and showering facilities aboard ships and submarines, and increased stress on the force in periods of high tempo operations. i believe the concerns can be mitigated through engaged leadership, effective communications, training and education, and clear and con size standards of conduct. what we will engage all sailors regardless of their points of view, it's this minority upon which leaders must focus. we all understand and appreciate the critical roll of families in support of our sailors. the assessment of the spouses is important because of the support to sailors and role in the decision that navy families make. of more than 7500 navy spouses that responded to the survey, 81% told us they did not expect family readiness to be impacted

as a result of the appeal. 10 u.s. code 654 is ongoing, and i cannot predict the outcome. i do believe any change in the law is best in the legislative process and not judicially. legislative repeal affords the time to implement the significant change within our armed forces. should the law will repealed, the u.s. navy will continue to be the professional, global, and effective relevant force for the nation. repeal of the law will not fundamentally change who we are and what we do. the u.s. navy can implement the necessary changes to policies and procedures even in a time of war and increasing global commitments. with the exception of the moderate risk associated with projected retention, i assess the risk to readiness, effectiveness, and cohesion of the navy to be low. based on my professional

judgment and informed by the inputs from our navy, i recommend repeal of ten u.s. code 654. i have the ultimate confidence in the men and women of the united states navy and in their character, discipline, and in their decency. navy leaders will continue to set a positive tone, create a conducive work environment, and enforce our high standards of conduct throughout the navy as we serve the nation. our sailors will continue to live by the core values of honor, courage, and commitment which are fundamental to our character and conduct. >> thank you. general amos. >> thank you members of the committee thank you for the opportunity to appeal before you and discuss the working group's rereport of the issues associated with repeal of section 654 title 10 u.s. code,

policy concerning homosexuality in the armed forces. i would like to begin by stating for the record that the study conducted by the comprehensive working group is a valuable examination of the issues associated with appealing the policy and serves to usefully frame the perspectives of the service members and their families. i am grateful for the efforts of honor jeh johnson and carter ham. as team leaders, they let their groups effectively. they provide useful information about attitudes and the implementation of repeal across the marine corps. i would like to share what it says about our marine's opinions. viewed holistically across the corps, approximately 45% of

marine surveyed viewed repeal negatively regarding unit effectiveness, unit readiness, and cohesion. five to 13% viewed repeal positively in those same categories. a particular concern to me is that roughly 56% of combat arms marined voiced negative concerns. negative benchmarks for combat arms and marines range between 66% per unit effectiveness and 58% for cohesion. these negative perceptions are held almost equally by aural ranks within the combat arms communitied. what the survey did not identify is the risk to the force should repeal be under taken while the corps is engaged in it's 9th year of combat operations. with half of the marine corps operating forces either engaged in fighting in afghanistan, returning from theater, or preparing to deploy to combat

again, the readiness and associated focus are foremost in shaping my implementation assessment. my experiences throughout nearly 40 years in uniform tell me that young men and women who volunteer to be marines do so with patriotic differences. even the personalities can be bridged. that said, if the law is changed implementing repeal and assimilating openly homosexual marines into the tightly woven fabrics has strong potential for disruption at the unit level as it will no doubt divert leadership, attention away from, and almost singular focus of preparing units for combat. i do not know how distracting the effort will be, or risk it pretends, i cannot turn my back on the negative perceptions by

the marines that are most engaged by the hard workday to day in afghanistan. we asked them for their opinion. they gave them to us. the potential exists for the disruption to the combat mission should repeal be implemented at this time. and the final analysis, i'm faced with two questions. the first is could we? could we implement repeal at this time? the answer is yes. despite the challenges i have briefly outlined above at the end of the day, we are marines. should congress change the law, then our nation marine core will faithfully follow the law. marine corps authorities, even it's existence in law flow from congress. we will follow the law. :

today your marines continue to faithfully served around the globe partnered with our sister services and allies protecting our freedoms and way of life. the focus of my complete energy is to ensure our marines are properly led, trained and equipped and that their families are cared for so that our marines can focus their energy on the vital task they are assigned. i can report to you the combat

effectiveness, readiness and health and welfare are as high as it has been in my nearly 40 years of service -- four years of service. your men are accomplishing their missions with professionalism and high morale, confident in their families, a fellow citizens and elected leaders. finally, on behalf of all marines, their families and civilian marines i want to thank you for your continued and faithful support. i know the real issue has been difficult for all concerned. i am grateful for the opportunity to represent the marine corps on this important matter and i look forward to your questions. >> thank you, general amos. general schwartz. >> senator mccain, members of the committee, if you for allowing the chiefs to offer testimony and best military advice from the proposed repeal of ten united states code 654. the dot study confirms that air force attitudes run roughly 70- 30 to those who see positive, next or no effect with respect

to allowing open service by gay and lesbian eminem air force. the fever ability distribution runs slightly higher for the spouse survey at about 75, 25 and lower for close combat air force skill sets about 60-40. the study recognizes there are a number of complicated factors, cohabitation, privacy and universal benefits among others. each of these complicating factors will require focused attention, and in time will be accommodated satisfactorily. thus, it is my assessment of the united states air force can accommodate to repeal "dont' ask, don't tell" with modest risk to military readiness and effectiveness in cohesion retention and recruiting of your air men.

the air force will pursue implementation of repeal if the law changes thoroughly, professionally, and with conviction. nonetheless, i do not agree with the study that the short-term risk to military effectiveness is low. it is inescapable that our officer in the in co leaders in afghanistan particular are carrying a heavy load. while the demand of close combat affect fewer air men and contrast personnel of the other services that were remained concerned with the study assessment that the risk of repeal of military effectiveness in afghanistan is low. that assessment and my view is too optimistic. i acknowledge the findings of the study that under the pressures of combat and attitudes of close combat skilled personnel regarding

"dont' ask, don't tell" seems to moderate. after all, survival is a powerful instinct. still, it is difficult for me as a member of the joint chiefs to recommend placing any additional discretionary demand on our leadership cadres in afghanistan at this particularly demanding time. i therefore recommend deferring full implementation and certification until 2012. while initiating training and education efforts soon after you take a decision to repeal. finally, i would like to emphasize and at my strong endorsement to secretary gates advice that legislative action on this issue is far preferable to the decision by the courts from which we would enjoy much

less latitude to properly calibrate implementation. precipitous repeal is not. it is not a place where your armed forces wants to be. mr. schramm, along with my colleagues, i look forward to your question. >> thank you very much, admiral schwartz. of papp to the islamic khator in german, senator mccain and distinguished members of the committee. thank you for inviting me and the coast guard to participate in today's hearing. i am grateful for the opportunity to provide you with my view regarding the report's findings and the potential impact of repealing "dont' ask, don't tell" and the recommendations for implementation. let me start by saying i'm very proud of our coastguard men and women. they are individuals of external character and ability to engage in the communities in which they live and served. i'm particularly proud of the strong response by the coast guard's and family members reply to this service put out by the

report to read our active duty response rate was 54%. our preservers funds rate was 39% and our spells response rate was 39% which demonstrates their understanding of the importance of this issue. i concur with the report's recommendations on how to implement the repeal of the law allowing gay and lesbian americans to serve on the coast guard openly will remove a significant barrier to those coastguardsman who are already serving capably and have been forced to hike or even fly about their sexual orientation. forcing these coastguardsman to compromise our values of honor, respect and devotion to duty and continue to serve as a choice they should not have to make. i'm very respectful of the unique challenges facing each service and i do not for the second suggest my circumstances and judgment would inform our very different responsibilities. my professional opinion is my own and comes from the two

worlds in which i sit. the coast guard is tall times a military service covered by the law of this committee had chances to ensure the effectiveness of our armed forces. though small in numbers, we are integrated with our sister services and around the world. but we are also tightly woven into the law enforcement and first responder communities and our nation. we work with federal, state and local forces where gay and lesbian americans serve with distinction and terrorism. while i concur with the report's recommendations, prudence dictates that implementation must be with caution. i infer from the data relating to the coast guard that many coastguardsman and their family members find gay and lesbian citizens and our service acceptable, however, minority views cannot be ignored. moreover, there is no total force view. use within our service communities vary to some degree. we must therefore fashion and

implementation strategy that takes into account the attitude that vary among our command based on where our people live and where they served together. thus i ask the committee to avoid injuring from the report the implementation of this rather significant decision will be easy. i describe myself as a pragmatist, which i define as an optimist with experience. my experience leads me to conclude we must inform you, our civilian leaders, that implementation will not be achieved without encountering challenges along the course ahead, some of which, despite our best efforts we can offer see and which will likely take considerable time and resources to overcome. with that, i am absolutely confident that the coast guard leadership is prepared to implement any change that you direct. moreover, i do not harbor this latest of coast guard men and women will be of to the task and will sustain their high levels of professionalism and effectiveness should the law change. they prove every day they are

among america's best and i have unshakeable confidence in their ability to weather changes this magnitude. again, think you for the upper to indy 500 to testify today and i look forward to your questions. >> five minutes is fine with me. whenever you want. [inaudible conversations] i.t. -- we are going to start on around one with a seven minute round. and if we need a second round, we will have a second round. let me start with you, general cartwright. yesterday as secretary gates and admiral mullen clearly and forcefully articulated that with proper leadership, education and

training, the repeal of "dont' ask, don't tell" can be done without an acceptable risk to standards of military readiness and effectiveness. and your testimony indicates your agreement with that. my first question to you is this, you are a marine. general amos is a marine, sitting right next to you, and i know you admire and respect each other briefly, not just because you're marines, but as human beings for all the great professionalism and experience that you've had. but your view is very different. apparently, general cartwright from that of general amos, his testimony is that the, particularly the negative perceptions that are held by marines create -- could create a problem for the day-to-day operations in afghanistan. can you comment on general amos's testimony?

>> well, first out, we sat next to each other as second lieutenants overseas in our first overseas deployment and we served together ever since, and we do, at least from my perspective, share a great deal of respect for each other. mauney view on this issue was shaped by the contrast and the questions and the way they were asked in the study, and then by my own opportunities to go to the field and talk not only to the marines but other services, and i tend to reflect probably because of my time joined a broader perspective than just one service but i certainly still wear this uniform and do so proudly and will always consider myself a marine. as i said in my statement, senator, i think the difference here is the look at what the perception of the future might be, the ambiguities that introduced when someone tries to

guess what the future might be. as the study indicated, the likelihood that stereotypes' and mr. shipp since hall actions might occur in the future have some influence on how someone might mark in the perspective. on tended to favor strongly the views of those, the question that was put to them in the study was a few suspected or knew that someone in your unit was gay or a lesbian, did it affect their combat effectiveness, the unit's combat effectiveness, and the study numbers swing drastically when you ask them for their actual reflections, and they generally came in and around the 92% level of it had no effect on the unit. it had no effect on their ability to conduct combat and in fact there were anecdotal comments in the study that were called out. one of them that is very memorable to me is from a navy seal, who reflected that a

member in his unit he suspected to be gay was the biggest and the meanest and killed the most people and he wanted him in the unit and that -- the individual carried a large portion of the unit's effectiveness. i weighed heavily, senator. i weighed the opportunity to understand the difference between the actual and the perspective, looking forward into the future. my conversations, when i went out to visit marines over the past year, most recently over the thanksgiving period and helmand province, talking to the marines. and i found that the studies insights were held up, those that had not have any experience or didn't believe the had any experience tended to believe that the future was more ambiguous. the rand study also pointed in the same direction that if you don't know, you tend to be more conservative in your opinion.

if you have an opportunity to understand and served with someone who is gay and lesbian, then the facts tend to weigh heavy on your mind and the study the showed again, 92% of the respondents believe that it would not have an affect. that is what we've my opinion, senator. >> i would like to ask each of you a question about the other military use transitions to policies equal treatment without regard to sexual orientation had been successful in the military of our allies, even though the opposition to change in their military was higher at the time that the change was made in those military than it is now for our military. that i think shows to an significant extent the change in

attitude is over the last ten years or so. but putting that aside for a moment, these military's report that when it came after implementation that the attitudes were not only different, but most importantly that the change in those militaries' had no negative impact on morale, recruitment, retention, readiness or overall combat effectiveness. so i'm wondering whether or not -- let me start may be at the other end of the line here, general casey, let me start with you. have you discussed the impact of repealing "don't ask, don't tell" with your counterparts in these other militaries? >> i have, senator. in fact, i think it was a few months ago at a hearing center wicker asked me to do that, so in october i sat down with my counterparts from the united kingdom, germany, france,

netherlands, canada and denmark and purposely to talk about this particular issue. they told me that the execution was with minimal disruption, pretty much as you had discussed. they suggested to me that when we do execute we keep things as simple last possible and keep the fraternization policy absolutely consistent. the date, however, point out to me the two key differences. and they said, you know, in our cases, in almost every case, there was broad national consensus before the law was repealed. and in some cases, the country's actually had laws that supported civil unions comes of the was a giffords i took back and we should take a different consideration. >> at mulken have you talked to your counsel? >> i have and i have long maintained that our military is different than the other militaries of the world, but the way that i would characterize

the response from those chiefs of needy that have a policy that allows gays and lesbians to serve, the term that i would bring to mind is mauney -- non-event. i think it's also interesting to note that most of those changes have occurred well over ten years ago and in that time with most of these navys we have exchange programs where our officers serve on their ships and vice versa, and so we are exposed in a routine way if you will to the navy's that have a different policy. >> general, i'm not sure who your counterpart is, but -- >> i do have counterparts in each of the country's, and i have talked to a good number of

them. i tend to find the same consensus that that model roughead just reflected. i will also highlight that particularly with several of our nato allies the issue of serving side by side integrated with their forces on the battlefield has not been a problem for our forces or for their forces. >> general amos? >> mr. chairman, we have so few marine corps and around the globe i did not ask their opinion. i have no reason to doubt the efficacy of the report as it talks to the ease of transmission from the other services around the world. so i find no fault in that and i suspect it's factually correct. but we are the united states marine corps and we are heavily involved in combat right now. it would be difficult for me to reach back and look at the periods of time when these other services, these other nations

made their transitions. i can only speak for where we are today with over 50% of my combat forces heavily engaged. >> thank you. >> mr. chairman i have chatted with my counterparts and they have indicated relative ease into the transition, but i must state for you that i am not sure that that evidence is necessarily compelling. i find actually the fact that police departments and fire departments, municipal public servants, that that case with in the united states is a more compelling and a lot to the transition. >> thank you. adderall papp? >> search, it might not be expected, we actually exchange quite a bit with foreign countries, primarily with canada but we also put law attachment on the british ships, dutch ships. we work with the australians and others in the arabian gulf and counter piracy and other operations, as we have pretty good exposure to other navies

and coast guards around the world, and in my discussions with some of their leaders it would reflect the same as admiral roughead, pretty much a non-event. i would also have i come from a department where we have other operating agencies as well, all of which employ gay and lesbian members the secret service, customs and border protection, etc., and i work on a daily basis with services that have openly gay or lesbian members, and we actually see no effect. >> one of the conclusions of the working group report is that leadership is key to successful implementation, the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell." a couple of you have commented on that issue, but i want to ask all of you about that. so let me ask you again, starting with you, general casey. would you agree if "don't ask,

don't tell" is repealed, that successful implementation depends upon leadership? >> i would, senator. leadership is the key to everything. the leaders have to embrace of the law or the policy that comes out and move forward to effectively implement it. i will tell you so that as i mentioned in my opening statements, one of the concerns i have is that our captains or company commanders and first surgeons and mid level leaders and officers and noncommissioned officers have a lot on their plate right now and this will be another element that will be put on their plate. operations in iraq and afghanistan are hugely complex already. if we do this, it will get done and it will get done well, but other things are not going to be done, and i worry about the implications of that in iraq and afghanistan. >> what will not get done? >> i am talking about the broad

numbers of tasks a company commander has to do in general and in combat in particular. and when he is focusing his efforts on implementing the new policy he won't be able to deflect the intellectual effort to some others things and i can't tell you specifically what it will be. i'm talking about the fatality of the tasks. >> at morrill roughead? >> leadership, absolutely critical, senator, but it's critical to everything that we do. it's about setting the standards, and during to the standards and training your people to accomplish the mission and i have faith in officers and enlisted throughout the navy. >> does anyone else want to add a comment on this, because i want to go on to just one other question. let me ask about the need for congress to act. a number of you have commented upon the importance of the congress taking this action the alternative and in some cases and in the even if the alternative is going to be the possibility of a court decision.

for those of you that have not commented on that, because i fink two of you have, could you come if you not commented on that, ase statement about the relative importance of doing this legislatively with an implementation certification requirement that there will be no negative impact on recruitment retention more now that the certification will to time and there's a 60 day delay after that is of great value in this process and that that is not assured at all if there is a plan to be a court opinion. for those of you who haven't commented, and i forgot frankly who has and hasn't, please, give us the importance of that. you will remember -- >> senator, i believe that in

the course of action that gives us appropriate time to prepare is the right course of action and its the preparation time and with it comes from congress or the courts, i think it is immaterial but no matter what happens, we have to have the time to appropriately prepared. >> is that time which is part of a certification process that the chairman of the joint chiefs -- excuse me -- and the secretary defense must go through plus the deily after that. is that certification process with the time required before certification and the fact that the chairman must certify no impact, does that give you some reinsurance as well? >> it does. it gives us the time we need. >> and i.t. to colin general amos or general schwartz in terms of the certification process, the implementation process, the time that's involved in that as well as the fact that there must be a certification by the chairman of the tried chiefs of no impact or

minimal impact moral or recruitment, is that important to you in your judgment, general amos, let me start with you. >> i think it absolutely goes a long way towards me be easing some of the pressure. i felt a lot about the question if not now, then, which is the second part of what i think you're asking, german, and from my perspective and look at it is my concern is singularly those combat units that are in combat preparing to go or just coming back resetting their clocks getting ready to go then if that is the case, and it is for me, as i represent, and that is what the service came back and told me, then it would stand that what i would want to have with regard to implementation would be a period of time where our marines are no longer focused primarily on combat.

i think the iraq drawdown model for the marine corps would be instructive. the last year and a half, the year fall of the marines and iraqi things have settled down for us. there were fewer and fewer operations and we began to dramatically drawdown the size of the force. so my recommendation would be not necessarily -- i can't tie a timeline to the certification process, but my recommendation, chairman, would be that it begins when our singular focus is no longer on combat operations or preparing units for combat. at that point then i would be comfortable with implementing the retial. >> thank you. that's very helpful and i apologize to my colleagues. i didn't know these slips had been placed in front of me and i obviously went over my time and apologize for that. senator mccain. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and i thank the witnesses for their testimony and their courage. i think it's pretty obvious from

the comments made by certainly the chiefs of staff, the service chiefs of the army navy, air force and marine corps today that there is significantly divided opinion on this issue and there is a lot more scrutiny and work to be involved before passing this legislation. it's why we see such a diversity of views here among the service chiefs. and i also think it would be helpful, and i would imagine that our witnesses, or at least most of them would disagree we hear from the senior enlisted people, the sergeant major of the army and marine corps, senior enlisted personnel who will bear the brunt of their

responsibilities for the training and implementation of any change in the law. i think we need to hear from the theater commanders, the various commands throughout the world who also play a major role in ensuring the the security of our nation. i noted that on the "don't ask, don't tell" law originally passed in 1993 there was some 14 hearings held on this issue and much more extensive examination. so why don't have a lot of questions. general cartwright, i guess when you look at in the report, it's a little bit like studying the bible. you can to almost any conclusion from what part of it that you examine, but i don't understand your allegation on question

number 66 treatises those who serve in combat with the service member believed to be homosexual affect on units combat performance, mostly negative, army combat arms 58.8%, the marine, 57%. that's it seems to me a pretty straightforward indication of with those in combat arms fell about those who served with a service member to be believed homosexual. significant in both army and marine corps was negatived. general casey, this is a very tough issue for you. i know it is tough for all of our witnesses. and i especially appreciated if no way that you presented your testimony. you said i believe that

implementation of the repeal and the near-term will, quote, add enough of their level of stress to an already stressed force and that is one thing we can all agree on that the force is very badly stretched and be more difficult for the army and then to report suggest to the general case, what is your personal opinion about repeal at this time? >> senator, i believe that the law we should be repealed even chollet and as i read through the report, it seemed to me that the report called into question the basic presumption that underpins the law, and that is that the presence of a gay or lesbian service members creates a unacceptable risk for good order discipline. i don't believe that is true, and from the survey appears to be a large number of our service members don't believe that is true either.

steven chu we believe it should be repealed. the question for me as i say is one of timing. about whether we can do this in the near term. >> and at this time your opinion of whether it should be repealed at this time? >> i would not recommend going forward at this time given everything that the army has on its plate. >> thank you. general schwartz, and i don't usually like to do this but could i have your personal opinion about repealing at this time? >> as i indicated, i agree with general casey that we should repeal plan will at some point, and i suggested perhaps full implementation could occur in 2012, but i do not think it's prudent to seek full implementation in the near term. i think it is too risky. >> repeal at this time?

>> no. senator, if you calibrate this, if you would allow us to begin a process of training and education but do not mandate that it happened in the very near term, i believe not in 2011 but 2012 at the earliest, that would be an acceptable approach to me. >> thank you. i must say that volume largely in agreement with those opinions to rush this through in a lame-duck session would be of course - an action that would not have taken into full consideration, again, particularly the views of our senior enlisted personnel and ensure at least some of the witnesses at the table would agree that everything we learned about leadership, the young officers is from our senior enlisted personnel, and i think

that they could contribute enormously to this discussion as well as our senior officer corps. so i want to thank the witnesses and those of you that have given us a very frank and forthright opinion, and we appreciate your service to the country. >> thank you, senator mccain. senator lieberman. >> thank you to all of you for your testimony. you are obviously the leaders of the uniform of the three of the united states of america. i think this morning you've represented the best values of the u.s. military and have shown a slight the armed forces of the united states remain in my opinion the one central institution of our country that continues to burn the respect and trust of the american people, and i see that specifically here you'll know my position. i am for the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell."

but you have come before us and stated your opinions, some have a support of repeal, some of kirsanow, leader. in the end of each of you, regardless of your position have said you will not only follow the judgment of the congress, you will begin work -- make it work and that is a powerful statement. general amos, you have spoken with the most concern about repeal, but i found your words very moving and to set could we implement repeal at this time and the answer is yes despite the challenges of briefly outlined above the end of the day we are marines. should congress change the law in the nation's marine corps will faithfully supported the law? the first thing i wanted to do is think you come all of you, for the honesty of your

testimony, and your ultimate respect for the law for civilian leadership, for congress, and for the larger mission to which you are committed. i am repeating and that is why a tough time in our nation's history the u.s. armed forces remain the one institution that brings us to gather for common cause, which is of the security of our country and the freedom that is our blessing as americans, so i first wanted to thank you for that. i thought the question senator mccain asked was quite interesting about the positions you all have, and because as i heard the testimony, with apologies if i am misleading ad model roughead and admiral papp has said, three of the six of you, favored repeal at this time. general pc and general schwartz

expressed concerns but in response to senator mccain's questions said they would favor repeal of don't ask don't tell but not now. for the reasons that you stated and even general amos but i want to let you respond to this. you sit at the end of your testimony which is the second question you answered could we at this time of repeal, you said we should not implement repeal at this time. do you want to state an opinion as to whether you think at some time -- and i believe in saying this time you are talking about the combat the marines are involved in now whether he would favor repeal at a future time off "don't ask, don't tell." >> senator, you have captured it my concern right now as we talked before we walked in here on the forces that are tightly focused right now, and i spent yesterday, a portion of yesterday morning talking to a commander on the ground who many

of you know, major general richard mills, and then i talked to the battalion commander who is absolutely in our zone in the most dangerous fight and tightly focused. interesting i asked both of them i sit knowing i was going to appear before the committee today if they had any opinions on the task don't tell both of them said we are so busy right now with doing the business in afghanistan that i promise you there has not even been 1 ounce of discussion in afghanistan. you can interpret that a couple of ways, you can interpret it as they don't care. i chose to compare it to the survey results which said they are concerned but back to the issue at hand this is from my personal perspective, senator, this is a social issue across our country, it is transcended into becoming a political issue.

and my suspicions are that bill law will be repealed, and all i am asking is the opportunity to do that at a time of choosing when my marines are not singularly tightly focused on what they are doing in a very deadly environment. that battalion i was talking to you about has been on the ground three months of the seven month deployment. they lost 18 marines and had over 100 seriously wounded. so this is serious business for them. so - it will be repealed eventually. i just ask for the opportunity to be able to do it with my forces when they are not seen clearly focused on combat. >> i appreciate that answer, senator mccain and senator gramm and senator gereed and i visited that unit. they are doing a remarkable work initial in progress on the ground in afghanistan. so, my conclusion is that really in the and all six of you favor the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell." i don't mean to put words in

your mouth with the questions that of the three of you have to do with timing. yesterday secretary gates -- let me step back and sure you know what i want to state for the record that the provision in come national defense authorization act before us that repeals "don't ask, don't tell" does not implement repeal and so the president of the united states considered a defense and chairman of joint chiefs of staff certified through a series of affects or non-affects on military effectiveness, unit cohesion morrell, etc.. i was part of drafting that and we intentionally did not get a time limit in that. we didn't say they had to do it by 90 days after the law secretary gates said that he would not certify until he had

engaged in full conversation with the chiefs of the services and i just wanted to give you a quick chance going down the road indicating where you are reassured by that and whether that gives you some greater confidence we do repeal that we can review it in a way that does not interfere more than your worry of operation. general casey? >> i am very comfortable with my ability to provide military advice to secretary gates and have it heard. >> at morrill roughead? >> the same for mechem center. this is been an ongoing discussion at the department, access and freedom to talk about the issue in a way that we believe has been on a question, so i have no concerns about that at all. spec general kortright? >> i have no concerns and i look

at this as an opportunity to tailor the mitigation and to tailor the timing so that we can in fact accommodate the fact that our forces rotate, so to me that is where the opportunity for timing comes to we estimate that is an important point because secretary gates was asked yesterday tv crew yesterday whether he thought it was in the purview of the path to fees and the repeal in different ways for different services or different units, and i wonder whether you would respond to that. for instance, it is possible that psychiatry gates and the chairman might decide not to immediately implement this for the marines or army and combat, but to do it over a period of time. how would you respond to that, general amos? >> i think that would -- it sounds very selfish. that would probably be

acceptable for us. back to your first question we've agreed opportunity to the secretary and the opinion to be a disconnect general schwartz? >> i would repeat that, but i would suggest that having some differences between implementation time lines with in different communities of the armed forces is not a way to proceed. >> a year you're point. admiral papp? >> i know the committee knows full well domingo of the coast guard is now a member of the joint chiefs of staff, however, i am given the great courtesy of sitting with great joint chiefs of staff with regularity and secretary gates has given me the privilege to speak to him personally and with service chiefs on these matters and the coast guard has been a full participant and i would add i do have my own secretary napolitano who is very receptive and listens wisely and supported the effort as well. >> thank you. senator, if i may on the phased implementation i had 15,000

sailors on the ground in iraq and afghanistan. they are mixed in i think to parse it out by surface would cause confusion and inconsistencies that would not be helpful to the budget force. so if the repeal is adopted, you would say it may be the sector chairmen may want to implement, but when it is implemented >> yes, sir. >> thank you senator. senator inhofe? >> let me ask the first question to the ground guys, general casey and general amos. both of you in your opening statement talked about your great percentages and recruitment and retention and that goes all the way across the services and the report states that there are 23.7% with lead or think about leaving sooner than planned.

the question i would ask the two of you is how would you face a 23% drop in retention? would that do to you, general casey? >> senator, projections on the retention or historical overstated. in other words, just in our normal retention -- >> let's assume it is overstated by 50%. how would you handle the 12%? >> it could have an impact on a senator and that is why i see in my statement i thought there was an increased level of risk over low for our ability to recruit and retain the force, so i think it would be an increased level of risk, but because they wouldn't all walked out the door at the same time, i think it would be in acceptable -- >> that's on retention now. also to add some figures that would cause the drop in

recruiting, too, so i would assume you feel the same way about that. do you agree, general amos? >> on the agree with my colleague, general pc and that i think it is overstated. my instinct is i read those figures and knowing marines for 40 years, i don't sense the same level of impact on retention or recruitment. if you want to join the marine corps you're going to wait eight months from the time you sign up today in the recruiting office of the eight months before you can ship. i don't see that would have an impact. >> that's fair. >> general roughead, or in sorry, admiral roughead, you see to 60% of the sailors believe the impact on effectiveness and readiness coercion would be positive. now on the chart, 71 it shows positive would be 13.8%, - 35.3%. now, i can see you also said

natural commesso if they did that, it still is more positive than negative. how can you go up 6%? >> when we have looked at in all areas where i have to detention to our series of questions in the survey that captured the general attitudes were what i would consider the negativity -- >> it appears, admiral, that you put in the category equally as positive and negative we all in the other category the debts of 60%. i thought there might be something -- >> no, sir. as you look at the positives and the neutral, we see within the navy a positive to neutral effect on this. there are certain areas as i mentioned, specific areas we looked at more deeply. >> i appreciate that and i don't want the answer now, admiral

papp that before the record and noticed the same chart and i didn't notice until we sat down to do that for some reason the coast guard, the positives are 10% to 44% comes over the record i would like to know why so many of the coast guard people are opposed to the repeal as compared to the other services to read just for the record if you could give that to me. >> we talked yesterday about the fact that only one-third of the people responded to this survey, and i had felt the reason for that was the asked the right questions. i mean, they didn't -- the never asked a question to you think we should repeal don't ask don't tell. the question they asked was, and this is in the instructions come in next our mandate was to assess the impact of the repeal

of "don't ask, don't tell" and how best to implement and work the repeal should it occur. we were not asked to determine whether the "don't ask, don't tell" wall and policy should be repealed. can anyone tell me why that question shouldn't have been asked? were let me ask you, general casey, should that have been asked? >> i don't think so. i don't think the survey should have been a referendum of the poll of our soldiers. a democracy in the military, and i believe the way that the survey was executed gave sufficient information to make a were judgments. some of anybody else think the question of should it be repealed should have been asked? how about you, general amos? >> during my confirmation i was asked a similar question and i made the statement at that time i was pretty confident after having gone through the questions myself that i would come away as the service chief with a real sense whether they should or not so line with the

secretary defense and my colleagues. i don't think we needed a referendum type of question on that. i got the information on needed. with regard to the low turnout, i would suggest perhaps there was a sense of inevitability. when the survey went out. >> i think that's right. >> and that was sent by certainly then, not conaway and he went to his marine corps and said okay, this is -- you know, set that aside. we need your honest opinions on this and then our inputs jumped up almost two or threefold. so i think we have about what we need it, senator. >> going from the time back when i was in the united states army if they wanted to get some results the would give a survey and say fill it out. we could have had 100% response. i think that is probably what should have taken place to live on the information exchange for an a lot of work was done. the comprehensive review working group conducted 95 information

exchange for mom's, the contact over 24,000 service members, 140 smaller focus groups. this was quite an extensive thing and they came up with a lot of information but not the information i thought we could have come up with. in chapter 6 of the report at page 49 states if the working group were to attempt to numerically defined the sentiments we heard expressed and information exchange for rim's online entries, focus groups, confidential online communication between those who are for or against "don't ask, don't tell" our sense is that the majority of views expressed were against the repeal. >> against the repeal would any of you like to have the information as to what is to quantify that in some way?

is it going through all of these working groups? i would ask the question shouldn't that have been quantified in some way or if not, why go to all this expensive time in having this if we are not getting any results from it? anyone want to respond to that? general amos? >> i read some of the anecdotal comments that came back that were recorded. i think there is value to get a sense for what the services fell, with the servicemen and women felt really think they got that. i don't think there is any question the sense that i got that was probably predominantly negative costs related to the marines. i think there is also a group of dynamics that in any group when you bring in much of marines together you bring three of them together there will be a sense of a little bit of the stampede you become and so i don't know how they could have done that. i thought about that. i wonder because it would have been my sense is probably a long

your lines. wouldn't it be nice to quantify that? i just of know how they could have because it was all verbal and it was done in a group sitting with a group dynamic. >> i would only say it's an awful lot of extensive work for not getting out specifically getting results in my opinion. >> thank you, senator inhofe. senator reid. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. general casey, i think in response to a previous question you made a comment i want to be clear about what the last several months if not several years has been indicated as the presence of gay and lesbian service members does not undermine readiness or combat effectiveness. is that, again, is that your conclusion? i don't want to read -- >> what i said, senator, is i believe what the survey indicates, what the report indicates is the presumption that underpins law that the

presence of a gay or lesbian service member may unite the because the six and a unit causes unexpected risk to discipline and after reading the report, i don't believe that is true anymore and i don't believe a substantial majority of our soldiers believe that. >> i think it is a significant point because i think it's -- again, i want you to respond, but all i think what it shows is that obviously there are individuals in units that are perceived even though they do not proclaim it as either be gay or lesbian, and that perception is relatively common in every force in various numbers in the military. and yet, with the survey seems to suggest to you coming in by the last your colleagues, too, is that that has not caused significant problems through the readiness of good order and discipline. what it has, and would go back

to the basic leadership issue is and it's not for us or even to you gentlemen is going to be for the company commanders and platoon leaders and how you deal with an issue where at this moment there is the perception that there are gays in the unit and it doesn't seem to affect a good order of discipline and we are giving about whether that individual, you know, we can be sort of truthful about the situation or assume are bound it or in fact, in some respects it might cause more leadership and more convolutions and trying to keep this policy going forward than simply admitting what seems to be the conclusion that you have reached that we are at a plant now we can accept the service openly. can you comment on the general casey? and i ask this as a question, not a conclusion or rhetorical

-- >> the only thing i would say, senator, what you just talked about was that i do think we need to be careful with say and do you feel this way if you believe someone is a gay or lesbian soldier versus do you know someone is a gay or lesbian soldier, and i think there's a difference, and i saw it with the survey said about that but i put a little times by that because there's a difference between thinking someone is gay or lesbian and knowing it, and i think the soldiers might react differently to that. >> your comments? this is a rather open-ended question, i admit. >> i think fundamentally the military that we serve today does not prohibit gay and lesbian from serving in the military. it is whether that orientation is disclosed or not, and what we are fundamentally talking about

the standards of conduct and behavior that will be acceptable in the force should the law be repealed and that gets to leadership. we have taken our services through significant change before, and i have confidence and the ability of leaders in the navy to be able to do this to the estimate. >> i like at merkel roughead and others believe it is going to be the determinant factor. i have, however, when i look at this and i had this exchange and senator mccain commented on it , liked your saying if you believe there is someone in your unit did that affect the behavior or the efficiency and effectiveness of the unit and by large everything i salles said no.

>> is the difference between the meeting and knowing? how do you believe? do you believe in constant with the rule? if you do and it didn't affect readiness, then i believe that leadership is going to take care of this and that is the ne attribute. >> on trying to recollect back 30 years but my sense of small units and platoons the difference of believing and knowing is quite small. some people because the mannerisms and implications made these are tight knit units that know what you're doing, so this distinction at a high level -- i think if we are talking of people who is believed have some

basis in kind of behavioral or supporting this evidence and yet there still seem to be tolerated or the response seem to be saying when it comes down to the unit effectiveness that isn't what i'm worried about. >> again, this is a rather open-ended question on your advice the smallest force as you know, we've recruit a little bit differently. we regret principally on the retail so we take less than one-tenth% of the american population so that automatically begins to wane large portions of the american society. the survey said that across all mos, military occupational specialty some 75% of the marines coming and i am going to quote in this, have not served with a gay or lesbian. 80% of the combat forces said they had not served with a gay or lesbian, so we have less

experience at this and i think that's intuitive. my focus again in combat effectiveness of the units, and i would like it if you would bear with me one of the comments that came in on the online survey, not the town halls, this came from a marine lieutenant whose platoon commander, my team's effectiveness is directly tied to its cohesiveness, despite differences we are so close that we anticipate each other's next move and garrison and combat, our ability to do our job is predicated on this kind of relationship. if you were to add any element of sexual competition, in tribunate sexual woody or hesitance and trust, it would unquestionably prevent those bonds destroyed and then it introduced. my concern or those units that are involved in combat right now. that is the cohesion that

concerns me most. .. >> i think what's been repeated in terms of the policy, the change in coming. i think you all recognize, i think what you've just said is that it has to be done in a way that does not provide such an immediate disruptive.

i think frankly, that's the way we would hope every policy that affects marine, soldiers, airmen, sailors in combat. >> thank you, senator. senator chambliss. >> thank you, mr. chairman. gentleman, as always we appreciate your service. particularly on an issue like this, it's very sensitive, very emotional. you've always played an awful lot of attention to it. whether we agree or disagree at the end of the day with the result, your service is what's important, your commitment to your soldiers, your sailors, your airman, and marines is unquestioned. mr. chairman, i want to correct something that you i inferred in your state. it said a majority support. as senator inhofe reported from page 39 of the report, not the

case. after talking to all of the individuals through the ief, online box, focus groups, confidential online communications between those more and against the repeal, it's the consensus of the authorities of the report that a majority of the views nor opposition to repeal of the current policy. it's pretty obviously that general casey and the general amos, that comeback troops, the guys in the foxhole are the ones that have the largest percentage, at least in the sir ray, of objection to this. as i've been in theater and had soldiers come up and talk to me, it's been primarily in theater where i've had this issue brought up. so i wanted to direct this yes, general casey to you, and general amos, would the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell" at this time have a positive or negative impact upon the readiness of your troops?

>> senator, i think you could take from my testimony that i believe that it would increase the risk on our soldiers, particularly on our soldiers that are deployed in combat. and as i said, we could execute it now at a lier level -- higher level of risk than in the survey. >> would that higher level of risk, general casey, put soldiers in loss of injury or life? >> it could. but i couldn't want to make that as a projection that it would. >> general amos, would it impact readiness of marines? >> sir, i don't -- i don't -- would repeal impact the readiness of marines?

is that the question? >> yes, sir. >> i think it would absolute have an impact on the combat farces, senator. forces, senator. i'm not convinced on the remainder of the corps. but the combat, it would. it goes back to the issue of cohesion, bonding, element of trust for those units that are heavily involved in the come -- combat. that's where the impact would be the greatest. >> let me ask the same question, would the troops in theater have the potential of increasing the risk of injury or perhaps loss of life to those marines? >> senator, as i read that quote that unique fabric, the tightly woven fabric, i think the potential for damage is there. >> thank you very much. i think that's the heart and

soul of this issue at point in time. i appreciate the frankness of each and every one of you. thank you, senator. >> thank you, mr. chambliss. mr. webb. >> thank you. let me begin by saying that i think we have an enormous amount of valuable material in this report. we can talk about what the response rate was, what it could have been, whether you could have set people down and made every person in the military fill out of form. we have 160,000 responses here in -- and it's given us the capability of really examining this issue and discussing it, a lot of it is in the manner that we've discussed it already this morning. i hope that on any side of this issue and i think they are really valid concerns, people will take a look at the in depth and read some of the numbers. question have a tendency to

cherry pick one item or another out of the survey. i said again yesterday i want to repeat today that this is a valuable piece of work. so that we can evaluate this issue in a proper way. and i have tremendous regard, particularly for general ham. when you think about the jigty that he brought to this process, as he said yesterday, he didn't exactly seek this task. he was the best employee to ask. he's a former infantry. i listen to him very carefully in his remarks yesterday. i would like to actually focus on two different questions. and one is this notion of the ability to tailer this process as it's been said today or to

structure it if it were to occur. and from what i'm hearing, my initial impression on this, there might be the ability to do this service by service or looking at the difficulties of implementing it into combat arms as general amos has pointed out, where the need for cohesion is paramount and the amount of command attention that would be put into this and this environment. from what i'm hearing, general cartwright, that's not on the table. >> i want to make sure i'm answering the right question. >> let me restate it after all of that rambling in one quick sentence. what i'm hearing here is that this talk of being able to structure any implementation of this process does not mean that it would be structured even in a

time sequence for different services or for operational units. am i correct in that understanding? >> as i read the plan as it was recommended by the study, the opportunity is there to structure the implementation phase. >> service by service or combat arm by combat arm. >> we would look at it. and i think we would look at it from the perspective of the chiefs but also the combatant commander, centcom, and the isaf commander to ensure that whatever implementation plan made sense on the battle field. >> it's not off of the table. there's mixed opinion on it. >> i think where our opinion probably varies is in the how. whether it's time, whether it's by service, whether it's by unit, whether it's by deployment cycle, where you have elements of the force. because most of our service

elements are mixed. they have liaisons, multiple types of particularly airmen for the air services, et cetera. so what we are trying to understand here is what would, in fact, be a logical implementation structure that by which we could work for. >> right, if the certification went forward, we're talking about the certification process. the deliberations had been made. the certification went forward. does that go to all units in the military the next day? that policies. >> that's what we'd have to work our way through. the question here is we're trying to understand in the rotation cycles since they don't all line up and we do it by different elements. >> right. so basically it's not. it's not being. >> but it's not being restricted either. in other words, we are not being -- that opportunity is not being taken away from us. the chiefs when we sit down together are both service chiefs

and joint chiefs. and we look at the problem that way. >> so the correct interpretation of the way the process is being considered as of today is -- could be considered service by service or combat arm by combat arm or unit by unit. that's on the table? >> yes, sir. >> the second question. >> may i make a comment? >> i know you don't like that general. i heard you say that earlier. i'm short on time here. i want to put this other issue out on the table. yesterday, i asked general ham what percentage of the military he believed or that the statistics showed were gay or lesbian. and his comment basically was just about the same as in society. a little lower on the male side, higher on the female side. that was his comment. well, i don't think anybody at the table is advocating that those people who are now in the

military under "don't ask, don't tell" should leave other than on -- for the reasons of conduct. is there anybody that would disagree with me on that? so here's the ultimate question on this policy as it evolved. and that is when someone is serving well, and if they are gay or lesbian, and they get through the wickets that general amos so clearly points out in the small unit deployments, what is it that we should be doing? when they are 15 years into their service and they want to be able to live an open and honest lifestyle? what should we be doing? what do we -- what should we do with them? general casey. >> senator, you are talking

about the period between now and the time the law might be repealed. >> if we keep the policy as it is now, "don't ask, don't tell." you have someone who has given 10 to 15 years service, their are valuable to the military, they want to be able to live an honest and open life, their conduct inside the military is above reproach. how do we do that? >> senator, we'll follow the law. we'll do what the law says. if the law changes, we'll follow that. >> i'm not talking about changing the law. we'll keep the law. under the present law, do you see the dilemma? >> i understand the dilemma. >> that's basically the challenge, i think, that we all have. >> right now we are in a position that we need to follow the law. >> i understand that. i'm talking about the human dimension of having -- someone having to live under the law. >> i understand that, senator. i'm saying as chief of staff of the army, i'm bound to execute the laws of the land.

>> right, do you understand the human dimension of the point? >> i do. >> does anybody have a comment? >> yes, i come at this with a slightly different perspective. i agree with all of the aspects. where i come from on this, all of our leaders, whether it's senior leaders or senior enlisted leaders that senator mccain spoke about, they need clear and unambiguous direction in terms of what they are supposed to enforce. i would suggest that right now we find ourselves in a very ambiguous position in terms of those people who are gay and lesbian in the service and those people who are supposed to enforce the law. what i think we're doing is putting people who are gay and lesbian, they are forced to compromise our core values. we have leaders who are getting ambiguous signals in the leadership in terms of the law they are supposed to support which puts them in a position of being obedient. i think for those of you who

have served in leadership position, you understand when you allow selective obedience, that's insidious thing that hurts our overall military effect iiveness. i would say we need to give them clear and unambiguous guidance in terms of what they are supposed to enforce. >> thank you, mr. webb. >> thank you. i've made reference to the opening statement that the report confirms that large majority of troops believes appeal is consistent with effectiveness. i'm going to put the entire report in the record at this point, as well as the plan for implementation. but the specific reference and statement in the report that i was referring to said quotes the results of the service member survey reveal a widespread attitude among a solid majority of service members that repeal

of "don't ask, don't tell" will not have a negative impact on their ability to conduct their military mission. but the entire report, again, and the plan for implementation will be put in the record. not at this point obviously, but at an appropriate place in the record. senator thune. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, gentleman, for your great service to our country and for appears here today to answer question on a very difficult issue. secretary gates told us yesterday that the service chiefs are less than the working group about the level of risk of repeal. with regard to combat readiness. we've heard that in testimony today as well as in previous testimony. many of you have offered in front of the committee, you told the committee a few months ago in your view, and i quote, the policy and unique requirements of the marine corps, thus, i do not recommend it's repeal. end quote. and your prepared system for

today's hearing repeats that view. i guess i would just pose the question of you that i did of the panel yesterday. secretary gates and admiral mullen, how should we as members of congress weigh the fact that there isn't consensus among the service chiefs and secretary on this important issue? general casey? >> senator. i think you should be grateful for that. i think we are trying to provide our military advise, our informed military advise so that you can understand all of the aspects of the problem. i think you will get a better decision out of it. >> do you believe the implementing legislation, if, in fact, this moves forward should allow for the chiefs, the service chiefs, any of you to certify. i asked the secretary yesterday about whether that ought to be a requirement. he said it should not.

i think senator lieberman asked the question earlier about consulting with the chiefs. there's a big difference between consulting and having the chief certify this can be done without impacting military readiness. >> yes. as i said to senator lieberman, i am very comfortable with my ability to provide input to secretary gates and to the chairman that will be listened to and considered. so you could put it in there. but i don't think it's necessary. >> would you agree that's a very different standard though? if you had to certify as the secretary and the president and the chairman have to that this would not impact military readiness? >> for me to certify rather than just provide advise -- >> right. >> >> -- it might take it up a notch. believe me, i will make sure my views are heard. the other thing, if you put that in the law, i think it under cuts the goldwater-nichols,

we've been trying to put the chairman as the principal for advise. >> anybody else care to comment? >> i'm comfortable with the access and input. in fact, as the report came along, i could see the changes that we are recommending. i have no concerned, whatsoever, about my advise not being heard. >> the survey is -- been talked about a lot. yesterday there was some question about there's a statement that i think that senator chambliss mentioned earlier today that there, other comments that were provided, e-mails, et cetera, through the process, that suggested that the majority view was against repeal of the current policy. and it was mentioned yesterday that wasn't scientific because it wasn't part of the quote survey. and the statistical, you know, the integrity of the survey was the important part of this process. do you all believe that there ought to be some consideration given to -- we all here, you

heard many people traveling abroad and talking with troops individually and the information and feedback get. i'm sure many of you get as well. that type of input also is important in formulating an opinion of this nature? >> senator, i'd say that that type of input is infortive -- informative, as is hands call, where we talk to our sailors. that all comes together to inform the opinion and the recommendation that i make up the chain of command. but it's all inclusive. >> the survey itself and 28% response arguably that means there's 72% of the people that didn't answer. there are a lot of people that didn't register the opinion. the point was made yesterday, that's not how we do business. i understand that, it's the

mill. -- military. you don't ask for opinions. there were a lot of conclusions drawn from what the contents and the ultimate outcome of that survey was. and the number that's been thrown out is the 70% approve of the change in the policy. very different numbers when you talk about marine corps, army, people engaged in combat, 57% was the number for army and 66.5% for marines and people who thought this change would impact negatively or very negatively. even if you take the broader number, question 68a which discusses the effect of repeal on the ability to get the job done. you add up mixed, negative, or very negative responses, you get 61%. that means that 61% said would have a mixed or negative, and yet the working group focused on

the positive and mixed number at 70%. it seems that as is the case with a lot of the surveys, draw very different conclusions. i'm curious about the chiefs perspective on that issue and how you reconcile the different and almost in some ways opposite conclusions that were from what the -- from the working group survey. anybody want to? >> senator, my take is that the categorizing the mix group on the positive side is -- does not undermine the basic credibility of what -- of the conclusions of the report. and i might also add that it's important to read all of page 49 in context. >> right. and i understand that. i've read the context of page 49. but it's very clear that a lot of the information that was received through these other sources, that quote nonscientific part of this. >> yes, sir. >> anecdotally.

>> yes. i addressed my comments in the inbox. we looked at those, digested those as well, the statistical data in coming to the conclusions. i also gathered information from the leadership team just as each of the others have. this was a fairly comprehensive effort on everyone's part. >> i would just add, senator, just real quickly that we had innumerable meetings to highlight what we were trying to bring out. what we interpreted numbers. we compared back and forth. that's not all goodness. it's not always bad. we all got a chance to come pair with each other when we saw numbers. what does it mean? what does it mean to the service? that helped us also. >> good. well, and i appreciate the fact that not all of this entirely can be -- i should say i don't

think this is entirely scientific exercise. i think there's a lot of input that comes. and the people who express their views which was discounted yesterday because they are motivated to express their views. i think they are people that have to be listened to. i appreciate your testimony. i think i know where all of this is headed. but i would simply say that the bottom line, in my view, is combat effectiveness. the military is a unique and distinction group of people whom we tasked. i know you all take that responsibility seriously. as you consider final conclusions, i hope that will be -- that the bottom line consideration is to make sure the men and women in uniform in this country can serve and defend this country as effectively as possible. thank you. >> thank you, senator. senator udall. >> thank you, mr. chairman. good morning for all of you. thank you for the way in which you've brought this difficult

but important discussion forward. i have admiration for every single one of you and your service. mr. chairman, i'd like to enter into the record a statement which was released by faculty members that serve academies in response to some of the conditions expressed yesterday at the hearing about the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell." if i might, let me summarize briefly some of their points. they pointed out that concerns that their repeal would undermine combat effectiveness inconsistent with available evidence, it would be hard to understand why gay discharges always decline during war time. secondly, they point out that concerns that we do not know what the troops would say whether they support repeal based on evidence. they point out that three different polls found the same result that the working group did. these surveys included combat groups.

the faculty members went to point out about the response rate and they were not reflective of the views. in fact, 28% response rate is above average for surveys. response rates have nothing to do with validity, as far as the sample size is large enough and sampling is done properly. in this case, the survey has a margin of error that's better than most, and gallop's editor and chief said the survey represented a huge sample compared to most surveys. the director of maris polls wondered why the survey included as large of a sample as it did. finally, mr. chairman, the faculty members pointed out that the claim that "don't ask, don't tell" is effective is inconsistent with the evidence. the u.s. district court found that according to all of the research, it has armed -- it has

harmed in wasting talent and undermining cohesion and morale. it has led to dismission of critical specialist. no evidence has been provided to show that "don't ask, don't tell" promotes or is working in any way. i wanted that to be in the record, mr. chairman. if i'd like, i'd like to move to a follow up on what senator lieberman discussed and that was the timing of certification. it seems to me that for implementation to work, the military needs a lot of planning and training and changing of regulation time to make sure it's done right. and none of that will begin to occur until there's a certainty that the law will change. and since most of you if not all share the view that the law should be repealed, but some of you believe it just shouldn't be implemented right now, does it make sense for the congress to pass the pending legislation

right now? that way you could lay down some of the groundwork necessary for change which might be good to do anyway given the concerns of court action. but you wouldn't have the flexibility not to implement right away. and i -- in that context, i move to what secretary gates said yesterday. he said that the certification process is a critical piece of the legislation and that he would not sign any certification until he was satisfied with the advise of the service chiefs that was sitting here today that we had, in fact, mitigated if not eliminated to the extent possible risk to unit cohesion and effectiveness. i'd like in that spirit to ask each of you if secretary gates comments alleviate some, if not all of your concerns. general casey, perhaps i can start with you. >> secretary gates comments that he's not going to certify until implementation is -- we've told

him we're okay with it. >> so i'm fair to secretary gates, the quote that i have in front of me, general, he would not sign any certification until he was quote satisfied with the advise of the service chiefs that we had in fact mitigated if not eliminated to the extent possible risk and unit cohesion effectiveness. >> i would agree with that statement, senator. i would also agree what i've said several times here already. i'm very comfortable with my ability to get my opinions and advise to secretary gates and have them listened to. >> i agree with that statement, sir. >> i agree with that statement. >> senator, i absolutely agree. >> likewise. >> i agree too, senator. >> i would add, and i'm going to editorialize and then i have one final question that there's concern here expressed in the

committee that i've been honors to serve on the committee. we are moving too hastily in the congress to repeal "don't ask, don't tell." my worry is the for congress to act now and put in place directions to how we proceed with the repeal, we could do it in a way with keeps faith what you have outlined today. with a particular focus on combat effectiveness. and that's my appeal to my colleagues in the senate that we've actually act before this session of congress adjourns. so let me end on this note with a final question, i just like to go down the line and ask each and every one of you. if we change the policy can your branch until the u.s. military make it work? this end of the line, admiral pat. >> yes, i have complete confidence that we could make it

work. >> as i indicated earlier, we would execute thoroughly, professionally, and with conviction. >> senators, indicated in my written and verbal statement we will follow the law and execute it fatefully. >> -- faithfully. >> i concur. >> we can make it work and my most senior commanders believe that as well. >> i believe we can and will implement the policy with moderate risk to short term effectiveness and long term health of the force. thank you, gentleman. >> thank you very much, senator udall. senator wicker is next. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. i have the greatest respect for my chairman. he's aware of that. i do have to wonder if the american people watching are thinking where why are we here?

our best military minds should be concentrated on winning in afghanistan, winning the global war on terror, making sure our success in iraq stays and is guaranteeed. are we taking the time and energy of this committee and these talented military people away from that central mission? and we are doing it in my judgment because a political decision has been made in the white house that now is the time when we have the votes to do this to push this through. and if i might say so, all difference to my colleagues, it reminds me of the time spent on the health care debate last christmas and during the early months of this year at a time

when the unemployment rate of this country was hovering near 10%. and we were in one of the most serious recessions in any lifetime. we talked about that -- we talked about an issue that had issue with unemployment and creating further recession in the country. to paraphrase the members of the joint chiefs of staff, really the question before us, and i suppose the question during the lame-duck session is should we with all that's going on and all of the demands made on the military, should we accept the strong risk of disruption? should we divert leadership away from the combat effort? those were the words of the

commandant in the marine corps. to paraphrase general casey, is that the time to add another level of stress? it's time to be making things more difficult in combat units or to paraphrase the words of general schwartz, place additional, discretionary demands on our personnel we ought to be asking them to focus all of the effort on winning the war. i wonder this, general amos, you read a very compelling statement of a marine. and i might ask you to read those words again. concerning a unit that is as in combat now, can you give us the

most compelling sentences of that quote, sir? >> senator, the lieutenant said that his teams, his team, his platoon, his squad, his fire teams effect i haveness is directly tied to it's cohesiveness. i think that's for me to work through the issues today. that became center part of my concerns. despite the differences, we are close that we anticipate the moves. that's the intricate woven where everybody thinks as one instead of as ridge -- individuals. our ability is predicated on the kind of relationship. we would all agree on that.

any element of sexual to add any element of sexual competition for sexuality or hesitance and trust, it would prevent the bonds. and the bonds in the unit, from forming, it may destroy them. >> thank you for reading them again. i have to ask myself, there seems to be a resignation around this table and the panel that this is going to happen eventually. it's just a matter of time and just a matter of timing. let me be somewhat of a contrarian here, i can't imagine that situation is going to be that different in 2012 for that marine lieutenant or in 2013. we're always going to be asking that type of fighting man to operate under those types of

conditions. and i wonder if 2012 or 2013 is going to make that lieutenant is going to make it better. would you care to comment on that general amos. >> sorry, it goes back to the if not now, then when? having worked my way through that, my recommendation would be not to do it as long as we have forces that are involved, similarly focused to where they are right now on combat. i'm assuming it's sometime in our future that we wll come out of afghanistan. i think we all know that and believe that. i'm looking down the road at is there a more favorable time when our combat units have more time at home and we have more elasticity and flexibility in

the training schedule. this particular unit, not the unit that i quoted early, had been deployed 21 of 23 months, three deployments, two of which involved in combat. so in that very short period of time, their kick bag is pretty full. highly focused on reconstituting the force, training the force, language, culture, ied training, all that goes on to bring the uniting to and make it cohesive. as long as that's the case that we are in today, then my recommendation would be this is a bad time, senator. if we get to a point down the road where that is not the case, then i think probably we could do this. >> okay. i appreciate your answer. one final line of questioning. it's been suggested that "don't ask, don't tell" has hurt

military readiness by the separation of many individuals who are mission critical. the facts are that 13,000 service members has been separated on the basis of homosexuality? 17 years, that's certainly far less than 1,000 per year. i was a judge advocate in the united states air force involved in separation of homosexualities back during an earlier law. i didn't serve on active duty during "don't ask, don't tell." it was frankly my experience that many military members who were separated because of homosexuality, actually came forward of their own volition and asked voluntarily to be

separated and cited the requirement in the military at that time as the reason for their requested separation. would any of you care to comment on that? or would any of you take a stab at the circumstances under which these 13,000 or the majority of these 13,000 have been separated over time. certainly, i think we would agree they were not rounded up in witch hunts. we didn't didn't -- under "don', don't tell" if they are not willing to admit it, there's no separation. how many? let my ask you, general schwartz, since we are both air force, i would -- am i incorrect in assuming that a significant portion of the air force members who were separated during the

last 17 years actually voluntarily came forward and asked for separation on those grounds? >> separations in support of 654 where less than 1% of the entire flow of individuals who separated and yes they were predominantly voluntary. >> anyone else care to comment on that? general admiral roughead? >> our were statement, as opposed for acts were marriage which is the actions. >> desiring to be separated, they came forward. >> people came forward claiming to be homosexual or admitted to be homosexual and asked to be removed. >> that's correct. yes, sir. >> anyone else? >> senator, the marine corps has since 1993 discharged a little over 625,000 marines, not for this, but just normal discharges. honorable discharges, retirements, so -- and of that

625,000 plus marines that have returned back to the united states of america, we have discharged 1304 marines were homosexuality. of note, in that 1304, 400 of them happened at boot camp. the first 12 weeks of a marines career. i was at paris island about three or four weeks ago. i was there talking to the senior drill instructor. it just happened. he talked to me about a young marine that came forward. the rest of them i can't comment. the remainder i would suspect as some were outed. i suspect a majority of them were volunteers. but i don't know that for a fact. >> thank you very much. >> thank you, senator wicker. senator manchin. >> first of all, let me say thank you for all of you who are here and the branches that you

represent. i would say that every west virginia is proud to be an american because of you. i want to thank you for your service. yesterday we had some questions and i'd asked secretary gates. and it was based around a cost in time of dire financial challenges that we all have for the armed services. you know, they were talking about $100 billion in reduction of defense spending. is this going to be a cost effective measure for those of you in your branches to represent? and whoever want to smart and comment, i'd appreciate it. based on cost. >> i think, senator, if i may, one the things that we have to understand before we get into cost will be the issue of benefits. and what are the costs associated with putting in place the cadray that provides

additional medical counseling? but that's always going to be a function of what the benefits are that are decided upon. i think there are some unknowns. and that would be part -- at least from my perspective, of what would be involved in the certification process as well. in other words, if we are going to go forward, if the law is repealed and we are going to go forward, one the things that i think is important so that the combat effectiveness and cohesion is not effective is that we can provide our people across the board the types of benefits, services, that maybe -- >> you budget. there's no. i guess it's fair to say that nothing have been budgeted in each branch for this? >> that's correct. >> you assume there will be an additional cost? is it fair to say? >> senator, the report by my reading indicated a cost in the

neighborhood of $40 to $50 million. i don't know what the constituent pieces of that estimate are. >> is that just in the air force? >> no, sir. department wide. the other thing we talked about also is the effect it has on our clergy. have you spoken to the clergy what this would do to them and how it might cause attrition there? more rapid than intended? general casey. if you want to start. >> i have. senator, welcome to the committee. >> thank you. >> my chief of chaplain was involved with the survey grown up. he assured me if the law is repealed, that our chaplains will be able to serve and conduct religious services according to their faith. and that they will perform in accordance with the law and with army regulation. >> did you have -- and i asked

this question because it came to me yesterday afterwords, i had a few phone calls that they believe there was some concerns about you might have more of the chaplain corps if you will than all of the branches muster out quicker and at a higher percentage. >> his assessment, we have about 2800 army chaplains from about 200 different faith groups. he thought the attrition, if the law was repealed, would be small, in his words. >> we are seeing the same thing in in the navy. the data that shows how many would leave is relatively small. >> sir, i got to talk to the sponsors. their input is they believe they would be able to continue to sponsor if "don't ask, don't

tell" were repealed. >> senator, for us, similar to the others, the impact would be modest based on feedback that we've received. the understanding is the chaplains practice the protocol and the discipline of their faith. and what have you. but they also have a mandate to minister to the entire flock. and that is an ethic which all of our chaplains share. >> senator, our chaplains in the coast guard are detailed from the united states navy as to the marine corps as well. we have 42 chaplains. i've spoken to senior leadership and just as general schwartz indicates, they understand that they are to minister to everyone regardless of their faith. and i don't expect much of a change. >> and everything that we've been hearing and, i think, that some of the senators that

commented on this is a matter of time. it looks like it's a policy that sooner or later is going to take effect. whether it's by the courts or by this body, if y'all would see fit to do it yourself. with that being said, if we took in action whatsoever as a body, as congress, and the president, as i understand it, has the statutory authority to promotion, retirement, or separation of any member of the armed forces who the president would determine is essential to national security would -- if we don't repeal this, would still be in the per view of the president to make that decision if he thought it was national security? or need for us to act on it? and i'll start, general amos. >> senator, i can't comment on that. because i don't know the law that well. i just can't give you an answer. >> let me ask you, does it

commander in chief see it as a statutory authority to suspend certain laws relating to promotion retirement or separation? is there anyone that can comment to that? >> sir, i'd like to take that question for the record to give you an accurate answer. >> you may have come up with the question, senator, that is above our pay grades. [laughter] >> i wasn't sure that was possible. >> me either. [laughter] >> i meant the pay grade. if y'all could. that would be very helpful. i just being the newest person on the block, if you will, what we have in front of us right now, i was wondering the time. i've heard loud and clear, y'all would like to have that time guidelined in your per view, rather than ours. i think that's a very, very

worthy consideration that we would have for y'all. i appreciate very much your appearance and the job you do and the service you perform for our country. >> thank you very much. senator manchin. senator sessions? >> a little league advise. [laughter] >> i would just observe that i believe senator chambliss is correct, the report says total evaluation of the members of the military, a majority of them opposed the change. we don't need to be in a misimpression that there's some great ground swell of support for this. and i -- talk a little bit about how hard our military men and women work to prepare for combat. i mean how many hours they work,

how many hours they work during the combat period, and how anything that adds to that can be a difficult thing. i would observe that the army, marines, and air force chiefs of staff all have question that this change. and that represents 75% of the men and women serving our country today. and i think on the governor's question about our cost is something that we probably should look at a little more. there are many other factors, i think, that go into that. i want to take general schwartz. one quick question for you. on a different subject. i know there was an inadvertent, i believe inadvertent disclosure of competitive data in the air force tanker competition. and i accept that you've taken

remediation, you've got a plan for that, one of the competitors and supporter, mr. loren thomas of the lexington institute has complained about this. i want to give this an opportunity to say at first can congress have integrity in this procurement process as it goes forward? >> senator, a couple weeks ago, we had an inadvertent disclosure that was a profound disappointment, considering the diligence that our program office and source selection team had demonstrated up to that point. what occurs -- if i may, sir, what occurred was the inadvertent release of a single page of nonproprietary data that

involved our analysis of the efficiency of the offers proposals, but it did not, it did not include any offer of proposed prices. >> do you have any information that would indicate either competitor has acted inappreciately when they received the data that should not have been sent to them? >> both offers reacted in a responsible manner and returned the discs that are mistakingly forwarded to them, to the air force, and we have confirmed that by forensic evidence. >> thank you. admiral papp, you talked about some confusion in the law. all -- almost every one of you in previous panel has talked about the uncertainty of the law that somehow the courts are

liable to make this happen. therefore, it would be better for the military to act on it's own. and get this done on congress act. i just want to say to you, i've been -- i've looked at that law carefully. i am absolutely convinced that the aclu who lost the first circuit case 13 of 14 individuals, who complained about the constitutionality of the law, found the law constitutional. and they did not appeal. why? because they thought the supreme court was going to affirm as it has consistently done throughout the history of this country that being in the military is different than civilian life. a private, a sergeant, can't go out and attack the president of the united states whereas an individual american citizen can.

there's always difference. so this is -- i just want to tell you to the extent to which that has caused you to believe this is somehow inevitable because the supreme court is going to rule otherwise, i don't agree. i am very critical of solicitor general alaina kagan were so well known that she did not defend the united states and the military and the department of defense effectively in the california case and the way that was done was to obtain a letter from the chief counsel at the department of defense to say they thought in the wic case, it should be sent back to the lower court for further hearings. that was mr. jeh johnson, who the president and secretary of defense has chosen to co-chair. he should not have done that. the proper thing to do was to

seek an appeal of the 9th circuit. so i do not believe that under the present state of the law, is that the supreme court is likely to over throw the statute and i think i'm in accord with the aclu in that view. i saw in the report here general amos question. i'm not here to condemn anybody. we live in a great country. we have all kinds of people with

different perspectives and lifestyles and dues and we accommodate that as best as we can. but i did notice that in one of the questions where they ask individuals who had served with homosexuals in units how did it work? and was it -- did it affect the morale or efficiency of the unit? and the numbers were pretty high. i think in the range it was 45%, i think the army was around 30%. it was either affected adversely the morale of the unit by a lot, a little, or somewhat. and in that range. so it's a little bit different from some of the testimony that i've heard that people who have served in units with homosexual members, it made no difference to them.

is that a correct interpretation of that question that you recall it? general amos? >> sir, i -- i'm drawing a blank on that. i just -- i mean i know that how many of our marines have answered saying they have served with gays. that they are aware of. drawing a blank on the question that you are talking about. >> i'll submit that for the record. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator sessions. senator hagan. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i wanted to thank all of you for being here today and for your service and for your leadership. i also know that -- i want you to know i'm extremely proud of all of the great men and women that we have in our service now and the job they are doing on behalf of our country. and you've all mentioned that leadership is going to be the determining factor in effectively implementing a

repeal of this existing law. you also mention the importance of not phrasing the implementation among military branches,units, or ranks if it comes to pass. will the joint chief of staff and the service chief coordinate the execution of this implementation and plan so it would be universally implemented at the same time? how would that actually happen? >> go ahead. >> yeah. >> i'll take the first swag at it. we would get together and sit down and work our way through an implementation plan to understand where the challenges would be. and i think each of the members here have highlighted various challenges. we know we would have to take on. the rotation rates, the intermixing of units where you have different services and different skills that rotate at rates. trying to understand the likelihood of trying to do it while deployed and when at home is it appropriate?

those are the things we would have to sit down and talk our way through. i understand at that point. >> senator we -- chapter 13 has a good framework to initially get started on implementation. it talks about one the major muscle movements. i think certainly with each one the services we have an operational planning team that have been looking at this trying to determine the marine corps, what do the instructions say? :

there were to be revealed it would be a matter of months in the case of the navy taking into account some of the units that may be forward and how we would want to work them in, but i think it's important that if, in fact, we were to go forward, we should -- we should do it relatively directly because i think long periods of uncertainty are not helpful in any military organization. >> senator hagan, i agree with that, except in my case the case and might miss the most challenging unit, not even the average units and our armed forces, and those are probably, again, those which practice close combat in any of the surfaces. >> as a senator lieberman has

said, the provision in the existing version of the national defense authorization act will not implement the repealed until the secretary of defense science a certification that among other things, effectively negates impact to unit cohesion, effectiveness and readiness. and we've been talking about courts also, and i was just wondering, do you believe that the unpredictability of the courts to overturn the existing the law is negatively affecting our forces? and would it be preferable to congress to repeal the existing wall now with implementation taking effect after the secretary defense feels comfortable in citing the certification? so the impact of the uncertainty that we are operating under right now. general cartwright? >> my sense is that the uncertainty really surfaced here in the most recent court case, and i am not sure that it is really permeated the service down to the individual members.

speaking for myself i would say it certainly caught my attention and that has a leader and sitting where i do, that i want to make sure if, to the extent i can, our preference would be this body to the implementation, not the courts. >> and senator, i would say the uncertainty does permeate down because as we had to a couple of months ago, we had to provide additional guidance to recruiters, we had to make sure that everyone understood what any of the disclosures would be, and i would say even today it's more pronounced because of the access that all over forces have to instantaneous information, not necessarily good information. and so as that's turning around, i think it injects an u.n. uncertain area into force that isn't helpful. >> i would just say, senator, i

agree there was some uncertainty, but i couldn't grasp farsi it had a negative impact on the force. and as i said earlier, with her, no matter how the law is repealed, we need the implementation time to properly do it. >> man, i would say that injunctions and quick successions were disruptive. >> yes, ma'am, exactly and as i stated earlier, this ambiguity that is created for particularly our jr leaders, people on the front line need to be clear so they know where they stand in terms of enforcement in the way ahead. >> i don't think anybody as a recruiting officer would have certain uncertainties with the law changing or the thing is back-and-forth but it would certainly be a problem. yesterday, admiral mullen and his eyes to implementing a repeal of the existing law and the time of war is not an issue. he put forth an example that in

1948 when president truman ordered the military to racially integrate our forces, which was implemented throughout the caribbean war, and admiral mullen added that war facilitates change and i were forces are completely different than they were back in 1993 when this existing law was passed. secretary gates indicated with enough time and preparation, the dod could mitigate all concerns, even those of our combat and special forces units were up to of this year. could you describe how the forces of evil to since 1993 and being receptive to change regarding this issue and maybe describe how the war has facilitated change in this regard. i know some of the answers are different from what i've read in the report. >> senator, i didn't necessarily cure chairman mullins statement in its entirety. but i would say as i said in my testimony i believe the fact that we are up for war

complicates repealed, and i described the additional tasks that we've placed on small unit leaders in a combat zone to implement this and how that would detract from their ability to the broad range of complex tasks are required to do in iraq and afghanistan. now, that said, i can understand what the chairman was saying about there is a tight bond and close-knit bond, and in some cases that may facilitate it. but frankly, i think that is a bit of a stretch. >> senator, my sense is that the on known here is the implementation plan. other words, what does that implementation plan allowed us to do in mitigation, and the secretary was very clear about what he believed it gave us which was he was not going to sign until service chiefs were ready. if that's the case i think that makes me very comfortable that the fact that there is a war

going on the there's an implementation plan each of the service chiefs have had in put and felt the have mitigated and can give that kind of offense to the secretary that we could in fact do this. >> senator, on the areas of specialty i'm most concerned in talking to those commanders, i am assured that the affect of the front line would not be that great because of their focus and their current level. >> i think the secretary defense indicated some measure of caution with respect to implementation and i think that is warranted. >> yes, ma'am. as i sit in my opening statement, there's just things that we cannot foresee, even when we try very hard to. while it's not directly translatable, we've had experience of too long ago introducing women into the services and fully integrating

them into our -- >> [inaudible] >> yes, ma'am. and even with -- the coast guard academy was the first federal academy to introduce women coming and we put women out to the fleet very early, and even with a lot of thoughtful consideration, there are things that you miss that you don't learn about until you actually go ahead and implement the plans. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator hagan. senator brown. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i actually agree with senator wicker, in that in the worst recession we've had in quite awhile, and we seem to be doing everything except working on the one thing that can get our economy moving, which is jobs. so i'm hopeful that when we get working that we will actually start to work on one issue, but i do certainly appreciate participating in this process as well. as i said, long before i got elected and then when i got

here, being inquire about this and many other issues many, many, many times, and i always said i would pledge to have an open mind and learn and try to understand the intricacies of this very important decision and -- excuse me -- a meeting with you and speaking with you about this and secretary gates and petraeus and mcchrystal in the whole list of probably a thousand people now in congress but outside congress as well. and it seems to me one of the things in following up with senator inhofe ase i've been in the military 31 years, so we understand this issue i think maybe more than some folks or some leaders here in the house and senate that haven't had any military experience. dalia understand it, i observed it, as a jag, i read the rules concerning this issue.

i am a little -- senator inhofe asked a question, and i've done many surveys in the army and don't remember them being voluntary. i always remember them saying here's a survey, get them, as a company commander, get them done. i'm a little confused, still, as to why we didn't just say here's a survey. we are spending a ton of money. it's a critical piece of what we are dealing with in society and the armed forces. get it done, company commanders. so, any thoughts on that, general casey, as to like why we didn't just say here's a survey, get it done. we will see you next week. >> i honestly don't know why they chose to do it the way they did. >> anyone else have any thoughts at all? >> i think, senator, from our perspective we use surveys for various purposes, looking at personnel issues and things like that, and this is very consistent with the way that we

-- we survey our force, and figures that we've seen in these surveys are free consistent, and the patterns are very consistent, so this, in our opinion, was a good way to sample the force. >> it's interesting. like i said, i've been 31 years and i've taken a ton of surveys, voluntary gorgeous to get it back. one thing we're dealing with is a very important part for our military is going not only not in the future. i would have thought it would have said get it done, period. i would note that for the record. and it seems and listening, as i said, i've read the report, i've spoken with at least a thousand people, afghanistan, national guard, reserves from active army, etc., in getting their input. it seems to me that each and every one of you says yeah, not opposed to the repeal, however, i do have very serious concerns about the battle readiness and effectiveness of the repeal on our battle troops. the troops are actually on the front lines fighting. is that an accurate representation of your position,

and if it isn't, if someone could clarify that for me. general cartwright, did you have a comment? >> my sense is that each of us have represented what we think are the key areas that either the mitigation has to handle or some other method has to handle before we are ready to move forward, and clearly this issue of can we put one more stone for the implications, not knowing what the the implication is until we go forward with it. >> thank you for that. mr. chairman, one of the things that concerns me greatly after speaking and doing my due diligence is the one issue is senator thune also pointed of is the only issue that's the important issue in my mind right now and while fighting the to wars is the safety and security of the men and women serving, regardless the sexual orientation. i want to make sure we give them the tools and resources to do their job safely and come home. and to implement social change in the middle of two battles,

you know to i think quite eloquently, not only to everybody in this committee, but to anyone who's listening. you're very real concerns, and quite frankly, i'm a little surprised at the kortright nature in which you have conveyed that to us and i appreciate that. i'm hopeful that if in fact we do move forward with this at some point, i know speaking with counselors, you said march is when they felt the next court battle would be done and then thereafter i sure there would be an appeal. i hope if in fact this -- when or if this "don't ask don't telstra quote to be given the three signers to certify to let them know what you're very real concerns are because on the and many others share those concerns

so let's assume argument's sake it's been repealed and we all agree it's time. one of the things i need to be made aware of and be very, very comfortable with, sirs come izzie will do your utmost to convey to the certified years that we are ready. we are ready to implement the beckham trips first. we have a plan for education, we have a plan for implementation, we have done our due diligence, this is our strategy, this is what we are going to do. we are going to focus on the troops that are home first, the kind of back mind, you know, transportation, you know, those kind of units, service and support units, and then with the rattle units we are going to leave them as is. they just have too much on their plate. we are going to leave them as is and let them do the force, but then when they come home we are

going to implement them and get the training. we are going to give them the education, we are going to work it through and cyclist in. i think it would be potentially detrimental to gistel for sutphen if the courts in fact do something like that to just go over my to think it would be exceedingly disruptive to the force, and i am basing that on everything i have learned, forgetting my personal opinion, but everything you in your 100 plus years of testimony have indicated. is anything that i have said, sirs, is their anything there that night said that you feel needs to be corrected or is anything different from your positions? >> my sense first is that none of us will be shrinking violence in this activity. we all feel like we have the access that we need and the opportunity that we need in order to give advice. i would put that up front. the details of exactly how we

will do the implementation i think remain to be unfolded. >> anyone else? >> i agree. we often gather -- often are in agreement, but in seldom in complete disagreement, but we have the opportunity, each one of us have been hired for our own roles confirmed by the senate. i've got great confidence in the leadership of the department of defense to do this thing the right way. >> general casey, i've got to hear from you, the last person, before we wrap up. >> and injury comfortable that we have access. i said that several times today, and we will have access and take great interest because as you say, it is about the safety and security of our force. i just wouldn't commit to any kind of implementation plan now because we really just haven't had enough -- >> it's premature obviously. well listen, in conclusion, mr. chairman, like i said

yesterday, you know, on an approach to be on this committee, and i am glad that we have had an opportunity to participate in this process. timing is we are here, it is our work. so, i want to thank you all for your accessibility in answering it not only me but my staff's questions and getting us the appropriate information and guidance, and i also want to say thank you also to you in your family service to our country. it makes me very proud to be here. >> thank you very much, senator brown. let's have a second round now. one of the real issues that people have focused on is the question of the war fighting units, and i want to read you, from this report on page six, while the higher percentage of service members in war fighting units predict -- and that word

is in italics, the emphasize it -- predict negative effects of repealed, the percentage distinctions between war fighting units and the entire military are almost nonexistent. when asked about the actual experience of serving in a unit of some believed to be gay. for example, for those in the overall military who were asked about the experience of working with someone they believe to be gay or lesbian, 92% stated that their units, quote, ability to work together was a very good, good, or neither good nor poor. meanwhile, in response to the same question, the percentages 89% for the was an army combat armed units a and 84% for those

and marine combat armed units are jury high percentages. close quote and then the report continues anecdotally we heard much the same. as one special operations force war fighter told us, we have a gay guy in the unit. he's big, he's mean, and he kills lots of bad guys. no one cared that he was gay, end of quote. well, general amos, that guy was not apparently in the marines, he was a special operations force war fighter. i'm not sure what force he was in. but would you say that that expression of his about no one cared he was gay. we have a gay guy here. he's big, he's a mean and he tells a lot of bad guys.

should that be read two or three times also? >> chairman, i don't doubt at any given base or combat outpost that we will find men and women that are out there just exactly like that special operations soldier, marine concealer, whatever he was. >> what about the percentages that i read? >> i can't comment on that, but i can see that 80% of our combat marines say they've never served with the or lesbians -- >> the ones who have? >> the ones who have a suspect or a more tolerant of it. that probably is where you are going at this point. >> it's not where i'm going, it's where the reports went. >> well, i understand that, sir. >> it's critically important, it seems to me. and it really needs a great deal of focus. i couldn't agree more with the colleagues who say that we've got to look at this entire

picture. i don't know what percentage of our men and women in the military are in kind of a point of this speaker. do you know how many people in the military altogether how many are there? >> somewhere in the 2.2 million. >> what percentage would you say are in combat arms units? >> i would have to go back and look. >> it would be a minority that are in combat? >> yeah. >> so we have to try to do this right for everybody. general schwartz, you said that we ought to be paced by the people who are in combat. okay. obviously we ought to consider them. you sit 2012, that's the right date. do you know how many people will be in combat in 2012? >> i don't. >> why is 2012 the right time?

there may be people in combat. >> there may well be, sir. it's my conviction so that in 2011i have enough confidence in what is going to transpire in 2011 that i think that is too soon. >> i understand that, but you said it should be based on the number of people in combat and you don't know how many people will be in combat in 2012. and yet, pay, do it then, not now. >> there is uncertainty here, no question, but it is clear to me that you cannot disaggregate the force, the joint team -- >> i have to agree with you on that, by the way. i agree with your point that you cannot, i think, kind of have a different phase in for a different place. i think admiral roughead, you also made the same point. i have to agree with that. you know, we like to say one

size shouldn't it all and one size can't fit all. there are ways we think in the implementation that will be able to do some sensitive response to where the various people are in terms of their education. i don't think you can have an education program when people are in a fight. you've got to wait obviously for them to come home and be rotated. so there are things you can do. i just think the latest until 2012 is totally arbitrary -- >> what i offered in my testimony was that we would not execute full implementation until 2012. we could begin education and training soon after you act to repeal. >> you have to repealed before the implementation stage comes. >> absolutely. and my forecast would be, unlike

others, that it's not a matter of months. >> for the implementation stage, even if it takes a year to begin, you've got to repealed or you can't be implementing a repealed. so first step is to repeal. why now? waukee in a lame-duck? that wasn't our timing. we have this bill, i believe in march? what was the month? de remember? okay. six months ago we adopted a defense authorization bill. a majority of the committee, i think's 16-12, said we should repeal a provision which the committee had adopted it years before, more than that. 18 years before.

the bill contains -- and i agree with what senator brown said -- the tools and resources that need to be given to our troops are in the bill. if people want to vote against this provision, fine. we are trying to get the bill to the floor so they can vote against the provision if they want to, but in the meantime, the bill is being held up from getting to the floor. a bill which contains the provisions for the tools and the resources for our troops. you can't get to the floor. you've got 57 or 58 votes. the last time i was brought up. we are trying to get the bill to the floor. we've been trying for a long time. we didn't pick the lame-duck to bring this up. people understandably said wait until we have the report. okay. there was a reasonable request. many felt strongly it was important we have a report. well, we didn't set the time for the report. the report came in michaud believe it was due december 1st. and we got a bill which contains

a central provision for the men and women in the military. training, benefits, health care for them and their families and many more things beyond that. and so we are trying to get the bill to the floor where people who oppose this provision could either vote to strip it or modify and that is what we are trying to do. the timing isn't our choice, the timing we've been trying to get this to the floor for six or eight months, and we are going to hopefully find a way to get this to the floor this month, but there is a lot in that bill is essential for the well-being of our troops. and for those who think this is a mistake, and i respect their position of the white disagree with it because of the caution that's in there in terms of the implementation phase and the certification, and i commend all of you for saying that you feel very comfortable about having

access before this is a certified, if it is, that this can be done without any negative effect on capetian or on readiness, and i thank you all for your testimony in that regard. >> but that is in the bill. that needs to be strengthened. some offer an amendment to strengthen it. but the timing when we are asked why it now? but one of my colleagues, believe me, we have been trying for six months to get this bill to the floor and this is part of the bill by majority vote of the committee. because it was this committee that put a "don't ask don't tell" into the law in the beginning and it's appropriate for this committee to address it. should the majority see fit. my time is up. senator mccain. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and i am sure that our witnesses were intrigued by the lecture on the legislative process here in the united states senate

authenticating mr. bismarck's comment about the two things you never want to see made our laws and sausages. i just finished a reelection campaign. every place i went all over my state for nearly two years and one came up to me with significant military retiree and military bases and presence. no one came up to me and said she, please, senator mccain, get to work on "don't ask, don't tell." in fact, every place i went, the members of military came up to me and said things were fine. it's working. but most importantly, they said they want to get their job. they want to stay in their homes. i know one this morning went up to 938%. and we are about to raise taxes the first of the year. and an overwhelming majority of

americans. middle-income, high income, whichever it is, because my friends on the other side of the ogle, an incredible act of courage, went out of session without addressing the issue of tax extensions so that the small and large business people and my state, what's left of them, have no predictability has to what their investments could be. whether they could haulier or not. so, the fact is, and this morning we find out an increase in the unemployment rate up to 9.8%. i appreciate the candid assessment made by every member of this panel whether i agree with him or not. and as i said before, in my opening statement, we should not be questioning in the one's integrity of motives in addressing this issue. admiral roughead, obviously i

disagree with your assessment, but i respect your assessment. general cartwright, the same. and i know it's tough, sometimes to speak truth to power. and i know that in the military culture, because it is ingrained in every military person to respect and always look up to the civilian authorities that clearly are superior in our system of government. and so it's tough sometimes to disagree with the commander in chief. it's tough to disagree with powerful members of congress that literally have the influence and power over whether your service receives necessary training equipment and everything else to me to function effectively. so i would like to thank every member of this body -- of this panel this morning for their candor, for their honest opinions. it restored my faith and

confidence in the loyalty and professionalism of the leadership of our military. i will not agree to have this bill go forward and neither will i believe that 41 of my colleagues will either because our economy is in the tank. our economies in the tank, and the american people want that issue addressed. and the military is functioning in the most efficient and most professional, most courageous fashion that in any time of our history. so to somehow believe that this is some kind of compelling issue come at a time we are in two wars, as general rios's support of so eloquently pointed out, is obviously not something that we shouldn't be exercising a rush to judgment. thank you, mr. chairman. i said earlier i don't want to hear from our senior enlisted

personnel, but command master chief scum command master sergeant, i want to hear from them, i want to hear from our component commands. i want to hear, again, from the men and women who are serving who will be directly affected by this and those who have the ultimate responsibility for carrying out whatever change into law takes place and i think that would be more than eager in the coming year to have additional hearings as they have some 13 hearings when "don't ask don't tell" was enacted and look forward to joining with you and senator lieberman and other members of this committee next year in taking up this issue again and examining all of the ramifications by the way including costs which was referred to a little bit here this morning and i would pledge to work with you on that effort. but certainly not in a lame-duck session when parts of my state

are suffering in ways they never have in the history of my state. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator mccain. senator lieberman thank you, mr. chairman. i say to senator mccain, i agree our priority is restoring economic growth and jobs in our country. but we can do both. we've got the time if we have the will to work across party lines to both do the things best for our economy coming and in my opinion that means of raising anybody's taxes for the economy is as weak as the numbers came out today said. but we've also got the underlining national defense authorization act, which as the witness is no, contains within it a series of a large number of authorizations. they are really important to the troops come to the military, and particularly to the troops in combat. and if we don't pass that, they are not going to be supported in the way that deserved to be

supportive. so i really hope that we can come together and use our time wisely to get to meet all of our priorities. senator wicker asked earlier why are we here doing this in combat? and i think senator levin gave one answer. we have been at this for quite a while freely, but we are also, we are here in part because some of us think the current -- and admiral mullen particularly spoke to this yesterday the current policy of daudistel "don't ask don't tell" isn't good for the national city and we put 14 doesn't people out, not because they were in any war in an adequate members of the military or violated the code of conduct, but just because they were gay, so we lost a lot of money and one estimate we spent $500 million training vose -- i don't know whether that is right or not -- but trading was 40,000

people who were then kicked out for no good reason in my opinion and we lost the benefit of that money. we are also losing as you all know probably several hundred of those were at mission critical skills like translators and health personnel and intelligence analysts. we knew those people and in the combat to support our combat troops. so, -- and this policy i think does discourage a certain number of people who are gay and lesbian have specialized skills or just the will and courage to be prepared to put their lives on the line for the country for enlisting them in the first place because they don't want to go through a system where they are living for fear that they will be held at -- outed. there was a part of the survey quoted yesterday at want to quote again. it struck me that the survey did

interview a certain number of gay and lesbian military personnel, members of the armed forces. what surprised me was that only 15%, 15% of the gay and lesbian service members that responded to the survey said they would want their sexual orientation known throughout the unit. this sort of gets in a way beyond the believe or no discussion, general casey, you had to senator reid, and one member said, and i quote, i think a lot of people think that there is going to be this big outing and people flaunting their gayness but the frigate rear in the military. that stuff isn't supposed to be done during the duty hours regardless whether you are gay or straight, and of quote. so i think that -- and then this other testimony that i have heard personally talking to people which is that what they fear is that somebody will

accuse them of being gay because they don't like them for another reason and will be a basis for them being tossed out of the military or they will be seen as -- at a bar on the hours when they are not at duty and somebody will report that and for that reason as a part of their private life they will be tossed out of the military regardless of how effective they are as soldiers and this gets to be the so-called integrity question that admiral mullen spoke of yesterday which is a core military value, again, i repeat military is one institution that still lives by phil use -- del use pilat institutions say we do including this one but we don't do it as well as we should. and so i think all of this so quickly is to answer the relevant question that senator wicker ask which is why are we here and i think we are here because this is the current policy those of us that the

change. we are here because we think the current policy is not good for the military in terms of its core values but also more relevant to the combat situation because it deprives us of a number of members of the military who can contribute to the success in combat. i think your testimony, we will take and i suppose what we will and what we want to take from it, but i think your testimony, i'd object to what i said, this has really been the best, this has been a free exchange of ideas and if there was changed and will make it work. i am encouraged, general casey and others said that in the wording of the amendment we have come getting the secretary unlimited time to certify, i heard the secretary incidentally said yesterday he's not going to certify to this theoretically through the repeal and in other words he's not going to certify to this because he believes it can be done without effect on

the military moral effectiveness >> he's going to need to be convinced that there are plans in place that as he said mitigate or eliminate concerns he has, so i just hope, one, we can find a way to agree this underlie in defense authorization bill is so important to our military and combat that we have got to find a way to get it done before we leave here this session. this will be the first time i believe in 43 years that congress, a congress will not pass a defense authorization bill and secondly, that we let there be a free debate on the "don't ask don't tell" and with the confidence to repealed passes, there is a process in place implement as best we can do by law is implemented so as to use stick to the gates words mitigate or eliminate any of the

risks that few of you sincerely expressed your concerns about here this morning so thank you very much for your testimony. and for your service to our country and many ways including the integrity of your testimony before us today. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator. >> i would say mr. chairman i want to thank the witnesses and thanks for listening. i think it's very clear that given the testimony of the service chiefs which i have said all along our military leaders and we need to have testimony of our enlisted leadership we rely on so much of our senior enlisted personnel as well, but the fact is testimony today clearly indicates that we don't -- we shouldn't rush forward to judgment on this issue or pass

legislation. also point out that the legislation that was referred to also has controversy all issues including abortions and military hospitals and including the billion dollars worth of unmitigated outrageous pork that was added in the authorization bill which the american people just spoke so decisively against some of this year marking and pork barrelling that has been going on which they had rejected soundly and other controversies positions. there is a problem with the defense authorization bill isn't confined to the "don't ask don't tell" issue, and again, i am proud that we have the finest and best military ever seen which contradicts my plan from connecticut's statements that there are so many problems in the military associated with this policy. not when you've got the highest retention, the best recruitment and the most professional military in our history. we just have a difference of opinion.

i thank the chairman. >> thank you very much, senator mccain. let me say first of all, the place to address the kind of issues which senator mccain raises is on the floor of the senate. there are issues of course in any defense authorization bill that come out of kennedy and the only way those issues can be addressed this to the date and resolve them in the senate. i'm hopeful that we can get to that point yet this year as that's the only way we can get this bill passed is to debate issues where there are differences and to resolve those differences. that is what has been thwarted and i hope that we can somehow or other to carry out a half -- figure out a path to get to the issues which are legitimate at the base including the ones senator mccain made reference to. secondly i think all of us will hopefully read this report,

including the statement of the people who wrote this report, our study group here that the u.s. military's spry your experiences with racial and gender integration are relevant and they pointed out on pages seven and eight that their assessment in their words the resistance to change the time, this is the time after world war ii and during the cold war, was far more intense. surveys of military review opposition to racial integration of the services as at levels as high as 80-might be present amos of our best known and reviewed military leaders from world war ii era voiced opposition to integration of blacks in the military making strikingly similar predictions of the negative impact on unit cohesion

that is quoting from this study about how the military's amazing ability to reflect people has been proven time and time again. it will be proven in this case hopefully sooner rather than later. you gentlemen have a unique position to make it happen and you testified you can should that be the decision of the congress. i want to join my colleagues in expressing my admiration to each and every one of you. our gratitude to you for your testimony to the men and women that you command. their service and your service is extraordinary, and we will now stand adjourned.

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] hour.

>> mr. president, the provision of economics is about scarcity. for example, these principles of economics, president bush's chief economic adviser, gregoryc wrote this, quote, economics did the study of how society manages its scarce resources, in the ofe quote.about fis about fiscal polfiicy.sc how fiscal policy is about howment, society, acting through its government, chooses to allocate scarce resources. there is not an endless supply e of money. we have to make choices. every time that we put together a budget, we have to make choices. every time that we formulate thv nation's tax policye, we have to so wn make choices. so when it comes to whether to e extend the 2001 tax cut, once again, we have to make choices.

it's a question of priorities.ut the debate over what to do aboue the 2001, 2003 tax cuts for a those with the highest incomes is a debate about priorities. be are we better off devoting resoc scarce resources to a larger tax cut than those of the very top? taat or are we better off devoting those scarce resources to the to new tax extensions to the investment and create new r job? or are we better off devoting those scarce resources to reduc reducing the federal budget and deficit? those are the choices that we tt need to make.onsidering today the senate is consideringe how we should meet the stressese the amendment that we have offered says, and we are about to offer, -- fd, >> mr. president, what my friend, the distinguished me chairman of the committee, might i interruptma -- ask t

>> majority leader -- t >> and i would ask the record to show that there is nor: withoobe interruption.ctresident i thi mr. president -- >> without objection. >> with everyone being notified therel will be no local votes today. we are still votes working on wn time we leave tomorrow, but asay everyone knows, and i have sat e here as the third time, we are within inches of having worke something workout on having votes today, but for reasons that -- for the reasons i don't fully understand and republicans didn't agree to that at the last minute and now we have to figure out what time we are going to it vote tomorrow. if we can't work it out by consent, and of course we willn, do it one hour after we come int which is the rule, and we havetr people lead to moral and people early tomorrow, so we need to furloughing me to interrupt. furloughing me to interrupt. >> thank you for your hard work on the spirit of these working harder than you do to work out t the schedule to invest in theseu

issues and we thank you. basall, >> someone else is basically the what's make the tax cutanent. permanent.one in t that is something ability in this chamber should agree. and after we have cut taxes for middle class americans, thenest. let's have an honest debate thee party. in anycl case, the middle class tax cut permanent is the right thing to do. let's not allow tax cuts fore middle class americans to be held hostage to partisan about tax cuts for those who make the very most. so how did we come to this choice? let me take a few moments to review how we got here. in 2001 congress enacted to let american families keep more of their t money. incenti many of the tax incentivesn phased in over several recent

years. cess in 2003, congress enacted new legislation to add new tax incentives and speeding up implementation of the 2001 law week. the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts lower the tax rates for all taxpayers. and those laws provided much tax relief for families, education and small business. p many ofro these tax provisionss have broad support across the political spectrum. but these tax benefits are not permanent. beginning on january 1st, all o3 these 2001 and 2003 tax cuts ned expire. them the even those four americans who need them the most. at at the same time, the federalhoy debt is at its highest level since shortly after world war ii. and the fiscal challenges are growing at the retirement of the baby boom generation.nds to bh the amendment that we considerae today is sponsored both of thes?

challenges. so, what what our amendment to? first, our amendment would metend tax cuts for middle clasd american families.nd the our amendment would permanently extend the lower tax rates for the income up to $250,000 for married couples and $200,000 for individuals. all standing these lower tax ratesas would benefit all taxpayers, al. taxpayers including part income tax payers. in fact, higher income tax payers would receive the largest av per taxpayer, eand that is, of l course, because we have our marginal rate system in americat so tax cut, make it permanent,am all taxes for those americans below $200,000 will w benefit al americans, those below 250 those above 250 will from this amendment given if it.e the higher-income taxpayers receive the largest tax benefits in terms of dollars per taxpayes

even under the to and 50,000 ofr our amendment.ment our amendment would make child permanent helping working families with children.g a number of people living int poverty is a 15 year high.meri one outca of every five american chilfdren and lives in poverty.r many of these provisions in ourr amendment would help keep. children and their families out of poverty. the amendment would make earned permanent the expanded earned income tax credit for families increased tax credites provides more help to families with children. p the portion of the credit on crt families to receive a benefitcea even when their tax liability il low as long as the family's famy earned income of more than $300,000. this credit helps supportamilie 15 million children and low-income working familie every year. these families are likely tot spend every dollar they receive

right away, and that means thatm this provision would also help the economy. the increased child care credits recognizes the increased cost of child care for working families. people should be able to go to work and have quality care the need for their children. in 2008, the credit helped mores than 6.5 billion working families to make ends meet.t a our amendment would make permanent a tax benefit for employers construct, build or ud expand a property used as a child care facility to read this and if it recognizes thes the contribution that some employero make to help their employees balance child raising and a pro career.permanenrriage it provides marriage penaltyay relief, that we married couples would not get higher taxes as aa added wedding present.ldect the amendment would direct certainer government programs ts regard refundable tax creditsmig

the programs. aricans this would insure americans mose in need would not be worse off because of tax i incentives. we don't want to give a fun hanr and take away with the other. our amendment also addresses tha importance of getting a quality education and the cost of getting that education. our amendment would make it easier to adopt student loann oe interest rate to delineate themt restriction on a number of months eligible for the deduction and extend theore eligibility to the post t a graduates. elbra amendment would make permanent the american opportunity tax credit. affo this would help students to proa afford a higher education. this provision is a partially cp $2,500$2,500 of the college tuin fees and including books. an the amendment includes income ln exclusion for the loan repayment programs postgraduate become mealth professional in thehe a

underserved areas. and the amendment wouldfor worke encourage the continued ioucation for workers byexclus allowing an exclusion from income for employer providedempy gucational assistance programst what will we do about the d capitol gains and dividends? right now capital gains are of currently taxed on a maximum trd rate 15%. and dividends are treated as capital gains. o this treatment expires at the end of this year. act, capital gains will be taxed at 20% and dividends will be treated as ordinary income.rmane our amendment would make permanent the current capital wh gains rate for the taxpayers with incomes up to $250,000 per married couple, and up tols. $200,000 for individuals. gai the amendment continues to treat dividends as capital gains for v all taxpayers.eated as so dividends would not be treated as ordinary income forel any taxpayer.tpaoefpltdhis this would level the playing e-

this would ensure thatayin tax e wouldn't put one over the othere what do we do about theour ame alternative minimum tax? or amendment would apply to years of relief from the amt. tb every year we talk about the amt and how the standard of hard-working americans. cre the amt is to stop it at just fm 155 million from completely avoiding income tax. taxes the was the point of the emt. *l it was an attempt to ensure all taxpayers pay their fair share. what about today? illions of hard-working families are subject to this dreadfulno tax, not 155 millionaires, but hundreds of mi people.ll millions of raising children find themselved hit with hidden fees and taxes.m we are not talking about increig millionaires, we're talking of because it wasn't indexed.yers to keep the number of taxpayers subject to this tax from an

growing, congress has to passwih and a emt tax every year.ct to without an amt tax, the payers subject which explode.lode. in montana, conagra's's failure with more than six times as many fuld have.. our tv could take care of the amendment for 2010 and 2011 andn during the time congress canax view the self tax once and for all as part of the tax reform.or what about small business? a recommend that would benefit small business owners by making the section 179 expansion. what about the state tax? tax our amendment would provide a permanent relief of family-owned businesses. t 2001 congress voted toprovids perfidy state tax relief to american families, we decrease d the rate and increased exemption over time until we had a complete repealed for 2010 only thus we have today, 2010. year

next year if we don't act theill law will snap back up to the. ate. resulted this has resulted in uncertainty and the planning for families.at our amendment would eliminatethe that uncertainty and would makee permanent the 2009 state tax law we going forward.ld we set the rate at 45% and the extension 3.5 per person which4, amounts obviously to $7 million per couple. the amendment includes elections for states that a rose between january 1st and enacted. to be will choose either current law or permanent tax rate andn exemption. it would provide an exceptiony for the family and farms. this provision would ensure thao no family farmer branch ever hah to be sold to pay taxes. would f our amendment would simplifymose planning for spouses. most people believe that a autom couple automatically receives double the exemption amount. so it is an extension 3.5 million most folks assume ae

couple gets 7 million.any peopl but what maney people don't know n, exemption, couples have c to pl. our amendment would simplify of planning for spouses by allowing the transfer of any unused the exemption between houses. that p this would need the law work the way the most people think it works already. wou the very largest estates. it would ensure a small number of people who inherit so much money they never have to work during their life would contribute their fair share. what about the provision that folks call tax extenders? our amendment would extend a number of other tax provisions important to individuals, businesses and state and local governments. these provisions will continue to help create jobs and cut taxes. our amendment would create jobs by improving our nation's infrastructure, reduce the cost to local governments to build

roads, bridges, and water treatment facilities. treatment facilities. >> it would promote energy sustain the and efficiency. it would extend the dollar per gallon credit for biodiesel and extend the manufactures credit for the construction of new energy efficient homes. the amendment includes that credit for energy efficient appliances and credit for fuel vehicles and the amendment includes the extension of the credit of the manufacturing technologies for the production of renewable energy in energy storage. it would provide party for benefits and employees get benefits for transit and parking. it extends a number of tax cuts for individuals including making it work pay credit. very stimlative that provision, helps the economy dramatically,

and if we're not, it hurts the economy. it helps teacher by extending the tax reduction for bying supplies for their class momes. -- classrooms. it has the ability of itemizers to deduct sale taxes in lieu of local income taxes. it extends the qualified income tuition to help with college costs. the amendment stands for relief in communities that suffered from natural disasters. it would extend tax provisions to help create jobs and make our communities competitive in the local economy. it extends the credit to help american businesses keep on the cutting edge and includes a provision to help small businesses across the country to

appeal reporting rules active this past year known as 1099. those rules extended current information to include payments, business, major corporations, and payments for goods and property, not just services. this provision known as the 1099 provision imposes the recordkeeping burden on small businesses taking away from time that business owners need to expand their businesses and create jobs. this information reporting went too far especially in this difficult economy. it's important to repeal this expansion of information reporting. now, some say we should extend tax cuts for everyone, even the very rich. america's working through tough economic times. at the same time, our country has record deaf deficits. our amendment balances these two concerns. our amendment extends all the tax cuts effective middle and

lower income americans that congress enacted in 2001 and 2003 that expires this year. there's several expiring tax cuts benefits lower and middle class americans that congress enacted in 2009. our amendment protects americans who have been struggling to get by. the amendment also benefits taxpayers with higher incomes. the cuts in our amendment apply to all of the income up to $200,000 for individuals and up to $250,000 for couples. at the same time, the amendment with recognition of the mounting deficit that our country faces. the amendment would not rely on the gimmick of extending tax cuts knowing that future congresses will be able to resist the temptation to keep extending these cuts.

it's about priorities. our amendment makes choices. our amendment would not make permanent all the expiring tax cuts that congress enacted in 2009. it yowled not make -- it would not make permanent tax cuts to only the americans who need it. only 3% of americans have incomes greater than $250,000 for couples or $200,000 for individuals. 3%. the tax income of the wealthiest 5% has grown 150%. at the same time, the average after tax income of middle class americans has grown but only 28%. 150% for the top 5% wealthiest? only 28% for middle income americans. 150%, the other 28%.

the bottom 80% of households receive less than half of all after tax income. the benefits of recent economic growth have not been widely shared, so the middle class should not be asked to tighten their belts as much as the high income folks who have benefited the most, and as we come out of the great recession, we need to recognize the growing federal budget deficit. in 2010, the deficit was $1.3 trillion. that's the second highest level relative to the size of the economy since 1945. this has exceeded only by 2009's $1.4 trillion, 100 billion more, and the budget office projects deficits will remain high for the rest of the decade. that means the federal debt will keep growing. when we passed the 2001 tax

cuts, the federal government was running a surplus. when we passed the 2009 tax cuts, economists projected big surpluses as far as the eye could see. times have changed. we need to consider our current fiscal condition. with 15 million americans still out of work, it's important to keep the economy on the path to recovery by extending tax cuts for families who need them the most, and who will spend it. our amendment strikes the right balance. it's a question of priorities. our amendment said that we should not devote scarce resources to a larger tax cuts for those at the very top. our amendment says we would be better off devoting those scarce resources to new tax incentives over investment and to create new jobs, or we would be better off to use those resources to

reduce debt and deficit. those are the choices we have to make. our amendment says let's make the middle class tax cuts permanent, not allow middle class americans be held hostage to tax cult cuts by those who make the very most. there is not an endless amount of money, and we need to make choices. i encourage my colleagues to support my amendment. >> mr. president, the other side wants you to believe that the americans support tax breaks for americans. i heard it. they said the election, can't you democrats hear about the election? well, i was running this year. i happened to get 65% of the vote. i got a lot of votes from republicans and independents, and i talked to a lot of angry people. i saw a lot of tea party people, none of them said to me, keep

tax breaks on the millionaires. they may have said shrink the government or repeal health care. that's true. none, none, none, none, none said keep the tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires, and here's a poll that shows it not by some democratic party organization or some republican party organization, but by cbs, it's a nonpartisan poll. the poll yesterday says only 26% of americans support millionaire tax breaks. 26% say, well, that's just the democrats. oh, no. only 25% of independents say keep the tax breaks for millionaires. those swing voters were the ones who created a lot of new republicans seats and caused us

to lose a lot of democratic seats, and even on the republican side, 46, only 46% supported millionaire tax breaks, so this idea that the election was a mandate to cut taxes on millionaires and billionaires, you know, i department only run in new york, but i work with my colleagues in every part of the country, none of them reported any one wanting to keep tax breaks for millionaires. none. that's not what the election said. now, maybe the money of some of those millionaires helped create ads on other issues that helped win the election for these folks, but not the issue itself. so, we need to get our economy humming on all cylinders again, and it is true, we need to stimulate demand.

mark zandi, an economist republicked on the left and right, senator mccain's chief economic adviser when he ran his campaign said that every dollar spent on tax breaks for the millionaires generates .32 cents of economic activity. those of us who believe on economic efficiency, which i do, that doesn't work. let me give you a contrast. every dollar spent on unemployment benefits -- excuse me -- generates $1.61 in economic activity, so if you care about getting the economy going, you'll be for increasing unemployment benefits rather than tax breaks for millionaires. even economists on the right don't believe that's false. they are 46% more stimlative --

excuse me. on wednesday, when my esteemed colleague from ohio, senator brown came to the floor and asked for concept of a one year authorization of the unemployment benefits, the other side objected, and as you said, mr. president, when you were speaking as senator from minnesota on the floor a few minutes ago, the anomaly, the republican party is saying we don't have to pay for tax breaks for the millionaires, but we have to pay for an increase in unemployment benefits. what kind of logic is that? the middle class, mr. president, is worried. they are worried about how they will stretch that paycheck. they are worried how they will make that mortgage payment. they are worried about how they will keep that job, and this, this recession middle class people are more unemployed than ever before.

most recessions in the past had two differences. one, they mainly affected the poorest people in the working class people who made the lowest salary. this has gone up into the middle class and upper middle class. i've met hundreds of people as i have traveled my state. second, they are out of work for a lot longer. it's not just three weeks, three months, but nine months or a year, and we just heard the unemployment rate went up under these bush tax cuts to 9.8%. we're trying to offer solutions that bring the unemployment rate down. we're trying to offer solutions that focus on the middle class, and they are busy defending the wonderful people who make a lot of money, but don't need the help. after senator brown offered his bill to reauthorize unemployment insurance, they asked consent to pass a bill for the highly successful building star program

giving tax incentives so construction workers could build buildings that were energy efficient. 150,000 good paying jobs. they objected. next came senator from michigan, a real leader in the fight for job creation. she came to the floor to give tax breaks to manufactures. we need manufacturing, not only in her state of mental anguish, but in my state in new york particularly upstate. conservative estimates said the bill creates 45,000 private sector jobs. again, republicans objectedded. then i offered a bill myself. i'm glad my colleague from utah is here. this was a bipartisan bill, a tax cut for business called the hire act. it says if you hire somebody who is unemployed 60 days, you don't have to pay the payroll tax for this year. it'sics pyring -- it's expiring.

i wanted to extend it. objection. the bill had passed with bipartisan support, but the point is to get tax breaks for the millionaires, they would even object to a bipartisan bill that gave a tax break to businesses that would employee people. what kind of logic is that? one final point now as i conclude and that is the deficit. the deficit as i mentioned is huge. let me just say that the bush tax cuts and particularly those for the millionaires and billionaires huge amounts of the deficits, and we don't hear a peep about it from the other side. they say they care about the deficit, but $300 billion that

it would cost to give these tax breaks to millionaires and billionaires, that's okay. please. over the next year, i'm going to be up here reminding my colleagues when they say we can't pay for help to our schools so that they can hire a science teacher who might create the genius that creates a new industry that creates new jobs or when they say we can't have money to fix a road or a suer project to create good-paying jobs because it would increase the deficit, i'll remind all of you that when you gave tax breaks to millionaires, the deficit didn't count. just remember that. >> mr. president. >> would my colleague from new york allow for an interruption? >> without objection. >> i ask that his statement not appear interrupted in the record. >> without objection.

>> i've been in touch with senator mcconnell, and he knows i'm asking this agreement. i ask you to consent 10:30 tomorrow morning to vote on the reed motion to concur on hr4853 number 4727 to the time of 8:30 to 10:30 a.m.. >> is there objection? without objection, so ordered. >> mr. president, this is a time that virtually no one is happy with. someone wanted it late, some wanted it early. as i indicated to davis, we split the baby in half. it's the best we can do. we're making as many people happy as we can, so come in at 8:30 which is unusual on a saturday, but people who live certainly east of the mississippi, they can go

somewhere that's difficult, but at least some people have an afternoon at home or in their states. that's an agreement that has been approved. >> mr. president? >> senator from new york. >> and of course, they say that these tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires are tax breaks for small business. well, my good colleague, mr. president, someone who looks very much like you, the senator from minnesota who is seated over there a few minutes ago, talked about that. my dad was a small businessman. he had a little exterminating business. it was not successful. i know how he suffered through it. he knows that these tax breaks are not for a business like his or the dry cleaner or the restaurant or any of these other

businesses. they are not for any businesses at all because we are not talk about corporate tax cuts. they are for very wealth people, some of whom you've mentioned, so i know my colleague from utah has been patiently waiting, and so i'm not going to talk about all the small business stuff, but i just want to remind people about this plan. under the president's tax breaks for millionaires, here's what would happen. under the plan that my colleagues across the aisle are supporting, people who make $1 million get a $43,000 break a year. people who make $10 million get a $400,000 break per year. people who make $100 million a year get 3.8 million break per

year. the average middle class family making 60,000 gets 2500. we want to get that middle class family its break. we'll give the same amount to these folks. they will get a break, no more no less than the middle class family, but we don't believe these breaks when we have so many other needs and a huge deficit to boot are called for, and we'll be debating that all day today, all day tomorrow, tomorrow morning until 10:30, but also for the rest of the next two years. , and again, i want to repeat, don't talk to us about deficit reduction, folks. if you're willing to put this whopping hole in the deficit for tax breaks for the millionaires and billionaires, don't come to us and say this program for this school or this road or this small business incentive has to

be, well shouldn't be passed bought of the deaf silt, but -- deficit, but it's okay to give the break to these folks. more people last night tuned in to watch the reruns of "matlock" that would benefit from the republican's proposal. i have not seen "matlock" in a long time, and i'm sure the people who watched it had a good time, but it wasn't many of them, but it's more than the millionaires and billionaires who get this break. they are a powerful group. god bless them, but they shouldn't have the power they have for the people on the other side of the aisle to tie themselves in a knot to prevent all important things from

happening until they get their break. mr. president, i yield the floor. >> senator from utah. >> mr. president, i always enjoy listening to my colleague from new york. he's one the brightest and toughest colleagues here. he's been a good friend over the years. the schumer-hatch bill is now law. it was a good step in the right direction as far as gaining jobs, but also i want to point out that 56% of all capital gains that create jobs are paid for by people who earn over $500,000 a year, and i also would care to point out that i will absolutely guarantee to everybody watching us here today that if there were these tax increases, and i think the thing senator knows is that suggestion polls very well is that the

reason why we should do it? no, but i guarantee you, and i don't think anybody can doubt this guarantee, that if his approach wins, the democrats will take every dime of that and spend it. in fact, the president's budget spends more towards the end than it does now, i mean, a lot more, and that's one of the problems here. we know that a good 50% of small business would be affected, the ones who really create jobs. there's 25% employees and 50% of small businesses would be affected if we do what the democrats would like to do. be that as it may, those are # the differences, but i'm going to explain why at the last minute of this congress after they -- a people that happened during the election that we can't seem

to get together during a time of economic disstress and come up with these tax reliefs that were started in 2001 and 2003 that we can't do that at the last minute to come in and want to change the game again, and do that at a time when we have the economic difficulty and problems that we have, it's more of the same, mr. president. mr. president, over the last few days, americans watching c-span would have seen talks about widespread tax hikes that arrive in the new year. now, many of my friend on the other side pledged several attacks. c-span viewers were probably not surprised that the attacks were aimed at those on this side. i will not get into correcting the record anymore than i have with all that misinformation right now, i'd like to focus on

two things we heard. we heard them over and over again. the first thing was repeated many times. it was this. republicans are accused of holding hostage tax relief for middle income taxpayers. the second thing took creativity. if you listen to our friends on the other side, you would think they had a psychic mind reader that the mind reader successfully read the minds of 42 republican senators. they have determined the merits of 42 republican senators, perhaps not surprisingly the motive described was not very favorable. republicans alleged hostage taken were described as solely motivated by a desire to cut taxes for high income people. mr. president, if our friend on the democratic leadership hired a mind leader, i advise them to seek a refund because it didn't work. you've been had, my friends.

you didn't need a mind reader. you need not come to the floor to talk to your colleagues on the other side of the floorment on this side, the record is clear today, it has been clear for a decade, that the tax relief program has been in effect. actions speak louder than words. votes speak louder than talking points or press releases. when first passed, over -- excuse me over 9.5 years ago, nearly all the republican conference supported the bipartisan tax relief plan. roughly one-fourth of the democratic caucus supported the plan. because of the opposition of the democratic leadership, efforts were made to make these policies permanent law were rebucked. check the record. during the years of the republican ma majority, the

democrats made the measures permanent. those efforts were also opposed by this other side. mr. president, the record since the democratic leadership assumed control of the congress, almost four years ago, a few moments ago i said actions speak louder than words. votes speak louder than speeches. after a second permanent tax relief in the minority, what did our friends in the democratic leadership do when they gained power? well, let's take a look. i have a series of charts here. the democrats have taken power. these charts chronical the record of the democratic leadership on this time sensitive matter. the first chart here chronicals the first year of the new democratic party majority. the year is 2007.

the democrats took power on january 4th, 2007. you see it circled on the chart right here. that's january 4th. look at the rest of the year in 2007. i mean, think about it. no action was taken on the tax hikes that come down in less than one month. no action, mr. president, no action, none, nothing, zilch. let's look at 2008. now, this chart is pretty simple. take a look. it's completely blank other than the calendars on there. no action, mr. president, no action, nothing, none, zilch. here's the chart for 2009.

it's an important chart as well. there was big changes in washington. democrats gained a large majority. 60 votes in the senate. it was basically a filibuster proof body. that's circled here on january 6th. when president obama takes office on january 20th right here. it's circled right there. you can see it. a little over three months later, an event occurred that many on our side of the aisle will not forget. the senior center from pennsylvania crossed the aisle to give democrats a filibuster proof majority. let me just talk to that third circle right here. now, nothing happens for the rest of the year. nothing happens for the rest of

the year. the larger democratic majority is sworn in, president was spurne -- sworn in, and then senator arlen switched party, and that got 60 votes in the united states senate, and nothing else happens the rest of the year. nothing happens. on december 3, 2009, one here ago on december 3rd, the house democratic leadership, now that's way down here by the way, passes a long-term debt tax reform. now, that's right here on december the 3rd. that's after -- this represents a milestone by the way, mr. president. almost three years into the majority and into their majority, one person of the congressional democratic leadership took comprehensive

action on one piece of the 2001 tax relief expiring provisions. now, let's take a look at 2010. it's the fourth year of the congressional democrats controlled both bodies in this decade. the house passed debt tax reform, was placed on the senate calendar on january 20th, 2010. when senator scott brown was sworn in on february 4, the democratic majority fell, if that were, if appropriate to 59 majority votes. what's happened to the balance of this year? what actions have the democratic leadership taken as the big tax hikes approached? with the economy slumbering and

big hike tax coming, what actions has the democrats in both houses taken? with america's small businesses expressing pessimism about the business environment and looming tax hike on the horizon, what actions have the democratic pearpt leadership take -- party leadership taken? with the 9.8% unemployment rate and big tax coming, what actions have the democratic party leadership taken over the last few years? the unemployment rate is going the wrong way. that's upward by the way. it's going up again. more americans are out of work. now, i'd remind my friend in the democratic leadership to pay close attention to this data. it should concentrate the mind on policies to counter the problems at hand rather than politics. with the big tax hike less than

a month away and the horrible economic data arriving this morning, what actions have the democratic party leadership taken? the democratic leadership in the senate? well, let's take a look. of the past several months, republicans senators have come to the floor to urge our friends in the democratic leadership to advance a very time-sensitive topic. i'm referring to the package of unfinished tax legislative business. i'm on the finance committee sitting next to ranking member senator grassley. i expect to take over as ranking member in january. ranking member grassley and i use this chart a couple weeks ago. the only piece of legislation the senate considered is one small, but important piece of unfinished tax legislative business. it's what we call tax extenders.

something that we almost automatically have passed in the past. unfortunately, the democratic party leadership in the senate and house scuttled on a bipartisan agreement about 10 months ago after we put it right out of the democratic finance committee, they basically canceled. that is the tax credit that helps our high-tech world to remain competitive just to mention one. the reason i mention it is because it's something everybody wants, so it's one of the goals that binds everything together. this whole year after we put the tax incentive bill back, look where we are. like i say, unfortunately, the democratic leadership scuttled

between ranking member grassley about 10 months ago. after that a partisan strategy was presented by friend on the other side and it failed several times. mr. president, i give them a check mark on the chart for doing the minimum. my friend in the democratic leadership did at least bring up a bill. they did in fact bring up a bill. as the chart shows, the tax extenders right here due by one year are not alone. there's three other areas of unfinished business and others as well, but i just decided to talk about these. one area we discussed at length a couple weeks ago applies to millions of middle income families this year. it's the 2010 alternative minimum tax. another area is the death tax.

in less than one month the number of states to be hit by the death tax will shoot dramatically upward. as small businesses, family farms are going to be lost unless we do something about it, but here we are in the last few weeks of this session. they have not done a dog gone thing on the amt patch, and really the house did something on death tax reform, but we've done nothing and they have done absolutely flog on the tax -- nothing on the tax hikes. when compared with the compromise on the death tax reform, the number of taxable estates will be ten times higher. in the case of family farms, it will be 13 times as high. now, the 2001 and 2003 tax rate cuts right here.

as important as extenders, the amt patch, and the death tax are, the package down here is mon lific in comparison. i'm talking about the current law until the end of this month. i'm also referring to family tax relief. both pieces were the core of the bipartisan tax relief enacted in 2001 and free. for example, of the importance of this package, we need to look no further than a typical family of four. for a family of four earning $50,000 of income, the tax hike they face will be $2136. in in environment, who thinks it makes sense to hike the taxes to

$200 a month? that's where we are, mr. president, unless we can get this all done. you know, the other side cooperating, somes to me a family of four earning $50,000 will get socked another 2136 dollars. that's where we are. how could we possibly know -- just tell me, how could we possibly held hostage any bill with the votes the democrats have had over the last four years that means as much as these mean? the folks taking these partisan shots had almost four years with an overwhelming majority in the house and senate to deal with the massive tax hike set to kick in less than a month now. republicans -- we have not controlled the house for four solid years. for almost two years, the other

side ruled with the most rebust society in modern times. the house never solely determined the fate of any bill there. it's like wise in the senate. a filibuster proof majority has a lot of power, a majority lost needs to work with the other side, and that's the way the senate has always worked. even if we go to the side to filibuster, how could we have filibustered something that doesn't exist? look at the prior charts, not one dog gone thing done. it's something that hasn't existed for almost four years of democratic party control of both houses of congress. go back through the record. in the four years of majority, show me the senate democratic leadership bill that republicans could obstruct. there hasn't been any.

yesterday, finally, the up action broke on the house side. house democratic leadership sent a bill late in the second week of this lame duck session. the bill does not prevent a tax hike on virtually every american taxpayer, but what kind of action is the house bill? it's political action, pure and simple. it's political. in the statements of the bill's authors, the house kick leadership, we can view that as a partisan sentiments in the democratic caucus. it will not become law, and we all know it. it's up to the obama administration and the senate democratic leadership to work with republicans. the aim should be a by partisan transaction or deal if you want to call it. relegislating on these tax hike prevention issues is long past due. you can say it. long past due. what kind of action are the american people receiving from

the senate democratic leadership? the majority leader has used his procedural power to jam republicans. he has the right to do that, but it has been consistent. call a bill up, fill up the tree, prevent any amendments, and then try to ram it through. i have to say, these tactics jam any democrats who might differ with the kick leadership scheme -- democratic leadership scheme. there's some who do. the procedural jam is to guarantee that we will waste yet more proceed chiewl and more -- procedural and precious time. if you don't believe me, ask the national press corp. outside the senate chamber. taking a bet on a successful legislative outcome of the two jammed votes would not be a good wager. it would be akin to sign an

offer to give the brooklyn bridge to the best talking new yorker. anybody is fooled by this move by the senate democratic leadership, and i challenge any friends on the other side to show me the votes. how many actions have the democratic leadership passed that are designed to fail? maybe there's cheap political benefit to the democratic leadership and party from staging these jam votes. one democratic leader implied yesterday, maybe there will be some campaign material produced. is that what this is all about? is that what the greatest deliberative body is all about in the last few weeks of the session when this country is in the fiscal problems that it's in? i ask my friends to step back and look at the political calculation they may be making. the american people are angry. i know it. i held seven town hall meetings

in the last few months, and people are very, very angry. the american people know it's taken almost four years for our friend in the democratic leadership in both the house and senate to address this looming tax hike. they've had monumental majorities that would have enabled them to put anything through they wanted to. amendment tax hikes they all knew about when they took power long ago. is it really worth running through this political charade with jam votes and campaign commercials to use two years from now? is it? is it really that important? i'd ask my friends on the democratic leadership and the democratic side to consider the political calculations further. especially consider it when these two partisan jams, jam votes, fail. if you want to keep playing

politics with the big tax hike on virtually every american, what will you say when we hit the last day of this calendar right here? do you say too bad, american families? do you say too bad, small business folks? do you say jamming votes was the goal? what do you say after wasting the hard working taxpayer's money on these jammed votes? let's go to the allegation not helpful to the bipartisan deal. it's the second theme i refer. many on the other side describe republicans taking whatever action necessary solely to provide income tax relief for high income taxpayersment senate republicans and democrats want to prevent tax hikes on middle income families. the only difference is senate republicans want to do more. on this side, in this slow

growth environment, we don't want to raise taxes on anyone right now. yesterday, i discussed some of the reasons for preventing any tax hikes, even preventing the so-called millionaire tax hike. it's a hit of small businesses, and we all know it. it's a hit on the after tax rate of return on investment. this so-called quote millionaires unquote tax hike slows the life blood of business and business capital. let's be clear. on our side we do -- we do just as much as the democrats want to protect middle income payer from the tax hike. nearly every republican in 2001 supported it then, tried to make it permanent, and we support it now. you need to look further than the leaders bill that is right there in the bill. on our side, we want more of these middle income taxpayers to

keep their jobs. we want a business and investment environment that reduces the punishingly high unemployment rate of close to 10% now, and that doesn't talk about the underemployment rate more than 18% when you include people who don't want to look for a job anymore. those who have given up. almost four years ago in the 2006 election, the american people provided the democratic party leadership with control of the congress. in the 2008 election, almost two years ago, the american people provided the democratic leadership with the largest majorities in more than a generation. they also provided the democratic leadership with a president of their party. the democratic leadership spent the period of 2001 to 2006 thwarting efforts of the 2001 tax relief permanent. a final assuming control, they spent four years with no

legislation, as you can see on this chart to make permanent or even extend the marginal rate cuts and family tax relief packages. no senate legislative action. no senate committee and floor action. no senate action until this late lame duck session partisan jam votes. the senate democratic leadership needs to engage. engagement is defined as a constructive activity with the goal of changing the law. engagement is not defined as repeating a dead end partisan process like we've seen with the extenders bill, something we should have passed long ago and were willing to. time sensitive tax legislative business should go through the regular order of process.

it's too late for that now as you all know, as we all know. it's too late for partisan stuntings. the -- stunts. the american people need action. actions speak louder than words. it's too risky to aim for partisan stunts. the clock is ticking, and soon, this calendar in this year, right here, this whole calendar will be history. americans deserve real legislative action, and as i've said, it's one thing to man the floor and try to raise the thresholds and so forth on this late date, but small businesses are mainly partnerships, corporations, individual entities where the income comes to the small business person who in most cases if they want a

business, put that back into opportunities to create jobs. i heard the funny argument over the years, well, it's only 3% of small business. well that's $750,000 -- 750,000 businesses that create jobs in this society. i'd like to see jobs recreated. i'd like to see us do the things that we're here to do. i look at the white house, they have brilliant people in the white house. brilliant people, not one of whom to my knowledge has been really constructive in his or her lifetime in creating private sector jobs. they are great at creating public sector jobs as we have seen over the last couple years as jobs have jumped

dramatically, but hardly anybody down there know how to create a private sector job. i don't want to be mean to the president or anybody else. they are brilliant people. maybe there's something they can come up with, but they sure as heck aren't getting that through this session in a way that will create jobs. i hope that our negotiators on both sides will wake up and realize that we have to do what's right for this country, and we have to do some things that will help small businesses in this country help create jobs. in a time when unemployment jumped another to 9.8% and the unemployment rate was 18% last i checked, it seemed to me the worst thing we could do is mess it up with tax increases against everybody. now, i personally suggested thatceps republicansment --

that sense republicans want all of this tax relief in 2001 and 2003 bills to be permanent so we have wanted that and the democrats have wanted only those 200,000 -- 250,000 and below those figures to have the tax relief, and they want their so-called middle class tax rates to be permanent which we will keep going because we care as much on middle class tax relief as they do. in fact, i think actually more. it seems to me, we ought to get together, and we ought to at least give this economy a chance over the next two or three years. as much as i want to make the tax relief permanent, give us a