a message with our current policy that we have in place, are we sending a message when we survey men and women in the military and so far as their personal opinions about removal of this policy which is evidenced in section 654? >> we intend to do a comprehensive, methodical study of the assessments of repeal which i suspect will include some form of service. >> what can be done after passage into legislation? >> that depends in large part on what type of legislation, if

any, congress chooses to adopt. as i said earlier, the secretary of defense believes that we should go about repeal in a careful and methodical way and first study the impact of all of the impact of the repeal of current policy. . .

>> they could choose to undertake legislative action in this era -- area and respect of of what we do. i think members of congress would like to go about this being informed of our work. >> i like to follow a track that we have been hearing a little bit here. you see the questions we have, we tend to break down by our party and our view of whether or not we should go forward with the repeal of don't ask, don't tell. given our fundamental belief, it guides us in our questions and views of how things should proceed. given your very important role of developing an approach should congress repeal this policy, i would like to ask each of you personally how you feel about it. as you have seen in all of us, our view is guided in the questions we ask, and i think the goal is to craft a process

that is fair and open to repeal or not. but it's somehow guided by the conflicting views in understanding that should we repeal it, we have to move forward. i would like to ease -- ask each of your personal views of repealing don't ask, don't tell. >> without a doubt, i am a member of the obama administration. the president has said that he would like the congress to repeal. i am part of his administration. having said that, my assignment in general is to do in objective comprehensive review of the implications of repeal of the policy. and what the general and i are trying to do here in recruiting people to our working group and soliciting views from the force is within our working group, not solicit personal opinions and not have people take sides on

what is a very and emotional issue so we can gather evidence and information in an objective throwaway and encourage people to tell us what they think about the impact of repeal. i am trying very hard to approach this in an objective, furrow, comprehensive fashion. and create an environment conducive to others in the fourth telling us what they think the impact of the appeal would be. i am a member of the obama administration, but i am approaching my assignment like a lawyer to gather information in an objective and for a way. >> as the undersecretary of defense and personnel, as soon as i assume the responsibility, knowing that i am part of the obama administration in knowing exactly what the intent was with

regard to repeal, my job immediately became, and not only to be open-minded and objective, but to be ready if congress actually repealed the law. literally, the whole issue of readiness is center. it is like my plum line. any working group that i am not an active part of but that -- but have been working with that is something that i am very focused on, because i have to make sure that we are ready in the department of defense if congress repeals the law. >> as stated, my personal view is that it is very important that we understand the impacts that appeal should occur. i want to have a better understanding of what the impacts maybe before the repeal occurs. i am honored to be part of this

effort because that is exactly the question we're going the answer. >> and putting together the working group, what is the mechanism the you can find a balance, because there is a variety of you here. what is the mechanism by which you make sure that you're bringing others and of a group that you find a balanced approach so that we can move forward? >> to be sure, in reaching out to bring people to the working group, we have not passed their person -- as to their personal views about the policy. we want objective, thoughtful people. we have endeavored to get working group members from all four services from a cross section. secretary gates believes that the enlisted for schering is very important, and the group consists of a civilian and military. when we sat around a conference table and are working with leaders, most of the people are

in uniform. >> it will go back to congressman murphy pose a question about how you are going to solicit the opinions of gays and lesbians currently serving without putting them at risk say you get the full and balanced view of those actively serving today. >> that is something that we want to do, and we are looking at mechanisms for doing that. >> thank you, madame chairwoman. i think it is a very important. i wish we could just get this done and move on as many of the military has, at least 20 other countries that already openly allow service by gay and lesbian service members. open service works, and implementation has been historically been uneventful in those countries.

are you going to be looking at the experiences of these other countries that have had a review of don't ask don't tell? and what would you expect to learn from those experiences? how would you lose that in your deliberation? >> i will start off. it is an important part of our study, into particular ways. we have been directed by secretary gates to update the 1993 study performed by rand. we look at analogous institutions which included millet -- a foreign militaries. an update is required by the steady and we shall do that. mr. johnson and i have already met with the senior leaders, both military and civilian to other nations. last week, i was in israel.

i have scheduled visits from other european nations in the near future. will have the opportunity to look at leadership both military and civilian to discuss the matter is that you address. what were the challenges if any that they encountered, and in some cases, after an initial time of the implementation, were there other manifestations that affected sometime after the law or policy changes? we have a way to look ahead at foreign militaries. having said that, we must understand that our military is our military. we have a uniquely american culture and approach to how we do things. but i believe that our efforts in this working group will be informed by the experience of others. >> i think it is relative and for -- relevant information, and we intend to recognize that the

united states military is unique in its size and its scope. there is no perfect comparator, but it is relevant -- and relevant information. >> i agree that it is relevant information. all the work that we do on the interchange ability of the military working with others, whether it is with respect to nato or when we work with latin american countries to teach their military about the way we work and get them to work more with military standpoint, for example. when you look at the nato alliance that only has to countries right now that do not have openly gay members serving, if you will. that will be the united states and turkey. my next question is, the military currently has strict regulations regarding sexual

assault. and other inappropriate conduct. nothing about open service seems to indicate that these worlds would not be able to be applied directly are an equal manner to gay and straight service members. why would the repeal of don't ask, don't tell require a change to the current code of conduct? shouldn't gay and straight members be held to the same strict standards that we have that already exist in our codes? >> i don't know that a repeal of the policy would require any changes in the rules on fraternization or otherwise. is one of the things we are going to look at. i don't assume that it would or it wouldn't. there are many that believe what you just said. >> thank you, gentlemen. in the interest of time, i will yield back. >> i think we're going to try to

do another round quickly. i will do one or two questions, and i think some members would certainly like to come back. mr. johnson, you are not able to. we have about, maybe as much as 40 minutes. is that going to be a problem for you? you can come back? >> i can come back. >> thank you very much. i wanted to get to the issue that has been imposed, and i think secretary gates said something should be done about third-party outings and suggested that perhaps in march, you have had a chance to see if the policy could be done in a fair manner. it is something that could be done. can you confirm that the working group will be prepared to look at those possible changes, and

the congress would had the -- have the opportunity to do that? >> i review the implementing regulations and look to see in the confines of the existing law, and that is key, within the compline -- con fines of the existing law, we make them fairer and more appropriate. he asked me to do that, and is separate and apart from the working groups assessment and. he has put me on a 45 day track that would mean that my recommendation to him is due on or about march 19. that is something that is under way and we are doing it right now. we're getting comprehensive input from the services on that topic. i expect that we will meet our 45 day time line.

>> i believe mr. murphy had asked earlier, how are you going to get the views of service members that are gay or lesbian serving without any sense of retribution? do you have any thing else that you want to add to that? >> we're looking at mechanisms for doing that within the confines of the law. >> women tend to be separated proportionally greater than men. avia had a chance to look at that issue? is that something that you think you will be taking a look at, and why that is the case? and how would it impact what you're doing? >> i think it is obvious to all of us that the statistics tell us that as part of our view, we

tried again and understanding as to why that is. there are underlying causes for the disparity to occur. and again, keeping military ready as and effectiveness as we look toward our policies might change should the law be revealed, it is an important consideration for gender differences. >> i believe mr. wilson is going to defer to dr. fleming. >> thank you, madame chairwoman. one quick question. this report that you're doing is due in december, is that correct? >> december 1. >> have you looked at or are considering what other laws, rules, and policies this may impact that are not directly related to this? >> and our mandate is to look at the impact of the repeal of the the mandate?

and did not construe it to make recommendations about repeal or amendment of any other law. you have to study the impact that might have on others. obviously, if this appeal were to occur, there would be unintended consequences that no one would be happy with. certainly, we should look into the horizon to see if there might be others. is that something the panel will be looking at? >> i would say that that is part of our mandate. >> i would ask that if it is not planned, you plan to do that. take a look at what the unintended consequences might be for repealing 654. with that, i yield back. >> we will come back in about 30-40 minutes. i really appreciate you hanging around with us this afternoon.

thank you very much. mr. johnson, good luck. we know this was a volunteer activity of sorts, we know what that is like -- >> you are assuming it is voluntary. >> i certainly encourage members to come back. hohost:[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> thank you for waiting during that voting period. we will begin. >> thank you for being here. i want to revisit this issue that we have touched on already today. on how you get input from lesbians and gays that are already serving. mr. murphy mentioned the problem of gays and lesbians being able to share with battle buddies,

some of the joys and sorrows and their life. she described a situation that she does as happened where somebody is serving in iraq on skype was able to watch the birth of his child. sitting next to him was a lesbian woman who had a partner back home that was pregnant, and she that she would not be able to do that same thing. she put herself at risk of losing her job in the ability to support her family, her growing family. that is one narrow example of the risk that they feel. i don't see how you gather the kind of information and have the kind of exchanges you want. describe that for me.

i suspect you have already had people come up to you and express views, some four and some against. my guess is that you haven't had general officers come to you and say that they want you to know that they are lesbian or gay and thinks that the policy should be revealed. they would be foolish to have that kind of exchange with you. we have the kind of -- the situation describes a readiness issue. that woman will not be able to view the birth of her child the way that her partner could. >> you ask a great question. we don't have a great answer for you. other than the fact that mr. johnson and i both agree that we must find a way for the views of homosexuals who are currently serving to the military to have their voice heard without

triggering separation actions which are currently required by law -- i am not sure how we're going to do that just yet. a way we know we can do it is if there is a third-party conducting a focus group or conducting interviews that would be outside of the federal government, outside of the department of defense and not oblige that information and provided that information to personalized information to myself or mr. johnson that would trigger something. we will look for it -- ways to do that. i mentioned at the outset, as we endeavor to explore opportunities to use social media as an opportunity to individuals to report anonymously their concerns. we share the concern and the

absolute necessity to reach out and hear from homosexuals that are today serving in the force that don't yet know how to do that. but my pledge to you is that we will find a way. we know that we have an opportunity to engage those that have been separated under the current law. that will be instructive to us, but those that are currently serving that require special attention as to how we gained their insights, again, without triggering separation action. >> i asked general casey a week or so ago, i think i kind of rudely phrased my question, why do i have more confidence in your leadership skills they need do? my point being that i have no doubt given the challenges of military -- the challenges the military has faced over the

years, being in our service member for more than 14 years, what if they decide you will be able to carry it out. my question for you is, should we follow the recommendation of mr. murphy added to the repeal recognizing that it will be several months that it will be implicated? you have any doubt to be able to carry out the policy and effective way? >> when i am listed as a private and served in the eighty second airborne division, i took an oath. as a general, i took an oath. i will support and defend the constitution of the united states. that means we obey the law and we follow a lot and all that we do. if the law changes, there is no doubt in my mind that the

leadership within the department of defense and the uniformed services will follow the law as required and with full energy. >> mr. murphy. >> think you for that open statement, i could not agree more. it was a great honor to also teach what the constitution stands for for the next generation of military leaders when i taught at west point for a few years, and i deployed with those young people in the deployment after 9/11. i know there are going to be a lot of facts and studies thrown your way as you go about your due diligence. i am praying for you as everyone else in the country is, because it is important work.

i'm sure ther n doubt -- the joint force quarterly, it talks about don't ask, don't tell. and for those that are not aware, the national defense university, the colonel spoke and gave a balanced view of the debate. i encourage everyone to read that article that i thought was very well done. i also want to point out some striking croak -- " that i thought were interesting. there were potential < -- lessons to learn from other countries. there was no mass exodus of heterosexuals. 62% refused to shower with the

king soldier. 2/3 said they would not willingly serve in the military if gays were allowed. in both cases, after lifting the ban, the result was no effect. in a survey of over 100 experts, they all agree that the decision to lift the ban had no impact on readiness, cohesion, ability to recruit or contain. nor did increase hiv among groups. it has been costly both in personnel and treasurer. an attempt to allow homosexual service members quietly, we have created the force of compromise and integrity. it places commanders and difficult moral dilemmas and is ultimately more damaging to unit cohesion whose stated purpose is to reserve. there is no scientific evidence to support, and if at --

homosexuals to serve openly. it will not combat effectiveness. it is time for the administration to repeal the ban. i understand we have kicked out 13,000 in the past 17 years. gay and lesbians currently serving are frankly willing to take a bullet for every single one of us in this room. i also think that when we look at not just those 66,000, it is also those 13,500 units out there at. -- out there.

when you initiate a chapter 15 hearing because there is a statement after marriage, you are having an administrative hearing to determine if someone is gay or straight. i have heard of soldiers that were actually straight and had to go proven get women to testify that they slept with them. when our country is at war right now, and i am not trying to lecture you, i am very passionate about it. understand that there were 3000 and as an america's murdered on 911 -- 9/11, we are fighting against people that are doing all they can to go into a pakistan to get nuclear weapons, we need to refocus our energy on capturing and killing the enemies of the united states of america. not having hearings to determine whether or not they are gay or

straight. and how it affects those 13,500 units no matter what the race is, their color, their creed, their sexual orientation. >> thank you. >> we have asked some many times how you're going to protect gay and lesbian services as you do the work going forward, and when you hear that a huge number, i would hate to see that in the course of you doing this work, any single member were separated because they were willing to come forward and talk to you. as you talk about the hoops that you're going to have the jump through to solicit that opinion, third-party people that don't

have the same responsibility just seems a more appropriate way. you can do the work, do the well, get a full range of opinions it is a moratorium of straightforward and simple -- it is going to become mired in the interest of getting opinions that you need. i am just also curious as to how you define family, if it is parents, spouse, siblings, and how you get the opinions from gay and lesbian family members. >> it is vitally important that we seek the opinions and views,

the effects on readiness that homosexuals there currently serving can express to us. i am not certain yet how to do that. i am confident that we will find a way to be able -- we will keep you informed as to how we might be able to do that. with respect to your question about families, i think mr. johnson and i have some degree of latitude in how we reach out to the families that are supporting our servicemen and women in the force today. we haven't crafted yet the precise mechanisms to do that.

i would assure you that we would find a way to seek a wide range of views and opinions on a very important matter. >> what would be the purpose of soliciting family input. >> congresswoman, we know that the families have a direct relationship on service members ' -- of civilians willingness to invest -- enlis ot or service members extending their service. we know that it is effective -- effected by the way their families are cared for. it is particularly notable in this time where we require some many of our service members to deploy to remote areas. the assurance that the families are well cared for is a direct -- has a direct contribution for

readiness. they agree with the direction that it must consider that -- it must be considered in our review. >> i don't have much to add to that. >> i wonder if you could try and map out for us a little bit -- i know that they're going to be several working groups. i don't know how many people are going to be in each of those groups. and kind of let us know, how do you see this? in the middle of this process, how do you see it working? do you expect to call on individual contractors that can be helpful in terms of whether it is surveys or face-to-face contact. you have any sense of that at this point point?

>> we have an organizational framework upon which we are building the team's -- the functional teams for this review of -- are 4. there is a team focused on answering the first questions of "what does the force feel about what they think will be the impact should that occur?" we reach out to family members of as world. that team is comprised mostly of civilian and military advocates to look at the aspects of the loss -- laws. 13 looks at the policy.

this is the core of the effort. what policies would be affected by a to repeal of the law, and determine what that body is, assess and make recommendations as to how policy might have to change or would appropriately change if the law were changed. that is essentially how you promulgate change should repeal occur. how do we, and a coherent and consistent manner, in short that those that joined the force in top to bottom are adequately trained and informed because of the changes so that all levels are applying the law

consistently. and we hope it is closely aligned. he has formed what we call an executive committee, comprised of secretary stanley, the service undersecretaries, the service vice chiefs, the chief of the national guard bureau to provide the linkage between the working group effort and the effort of the individual services who if the law is revealed -- repealed, policy changes would necessarily be those -- that is how we are organized. >> do you anticipate seeking the help or input from the recruiters out in the field? how would you view that? we would be seeking a broader range of inputs, recruiters

would be an interesting insight into this. as to what effect the impact might be if the law were repealed. they will reach out to the service exam and cabinets for examples. the program is to get their assessment of what the impact of repeal might be. again, a broader range of inputs. >> one issue that is difficult to get a handle on, there has been some effort to do this. think of what you are focusing on, and quite appropriately, the here and now we know that 20% note or so-- 20% or so are eligile and choose not to be part of the service.

many people are concerned -- one of the things that is very important right now is to say to young people, we want you to think about being in the army, the marines, what have you. we want you to think about some of the specialties within our services that take graduate and further education. how do we get at trying to ascertain the extent to which people happen to be gay or lesbian choose a very early on that this is not something that they care to do. because of the inability to serve openly. are you interested in any way trying to get at that issue? national security is primary here. that is what we are all about. the ability to have every person in this country that chooses to serve their country do that is

very important. i am wondering if there is some way that you can get a handle on that issue. i am certain that there are people that have suggested they don't want to be in the service anymore. we have a lot of people today, quite honestly -- and i have met a number of than that, etc., you know, i want to go on to further training in medicine. i have been asked to have a scholarship in the service, but i am not sure i want to do that. how are we going to get a handle on that issue? do you think it is important to your work? >> i will try first. we do have the task to seek the assessment of influence years. it gets to the group that you

are addressing. groups of individuals that do exert influence on young people that may be considering military service. i am not sure how we will do that. but we will find a way, and i think it is an important group for us to listen to. >> i was listening to your question, chairwoman davis. i actually thought you were going to go at it a different way, because i was thinking that some of what our assessment would be would be to able to really get to the root of some of that because there are people that would not join as well as people that would join. that becomes a readiness impact issue that i think it's something that the review would bring out. as i was looking at it, i am

thinking that 10 or 15 years down the line, it is a critical issue as a primary mission mentioned by the congressman. we know what that mission is, and it is very important that that mission not become -- compromise. it is vital that mission not be compromised. i am just joining, at a certain level, the working group. the bottom line is that readiness, and hopefully we will get what we need to get the question answered from a number of perspectives. >> if we recognize that there are certainly this school of people out there, we want to make sure that they consider the service. we really appreciate you being here. [inaudible] ok. are you ok?

can you take a few more questions? >> i had three questions. does the steady envision other parts of our government in situations where we -- i don't know, the metaphor of the shower. we have u.s. civilian employees and contractors. are you planning to learn from folks you already serve with and use the same facilities other than the military? >> is that -- it is. one that comes to mind is usaid . our effort would be well informed by reviewing how they are conducting business today. >> in the same environment and the same facility that the

soldiers are serving in. the point has been made more than once today, recruiting is good and all, but our memories are not so frail that we forget we went through some problems several years ago. the army was changing standards in terms of raising agents and stop-loss policy, the change educational status. they were having to work at it very hard. that is part of the history of this, too. not just what is it today, but what can it be and what has it been? how are you going to process the issue -- you are doing a good job of putting this together. there is something to be said,

maybe it is the congressional role to step back and say this is about america being america. there is such unfairness when we aggressively encourage -- i do it, too. a couple of weeks ago, i held an academy fair in my district and had representatives. we aggressively recruit 16 and 17 year-old sister thinking about the military. he aggressively recruit 17, 18, and 19-year-old. folks discovering what their sexual orientation is, there is a lot of confusion when your 16, 17, 18. it can be a volatile time. this on venice where we aggressively target people to sign up at a young age and then pretty aggressively tell them they can't serve, the comment

was made earlier that whether it had been 13,000 since 1993, most of them were in the earlier years of their service. are they throw ways? we went after them at that young age. how does that fit in to the whole idea of fairness that we aggressively recruit at a time when folks are trying to sort out the intimate aspects of their person? >> i am not trying to sound like a broken record, but i am hoping that the review, the assessment that is ongoing and just started will be addressing what you're talking about. when i joined the military over 40 years ago, those issues of fairness, equity, they were with me then and they are with me today.

i left for a few years, i am now back in a different capacity. the issues of fairness and equity, i would go without saying that they are absolutely important. the vital role of readiness, our nation -- there are hypothetical that we don't know right now. i hope it would be obvious that we are looking forward to working very closely with you. >> most of us are convinced that ultimately, this country will conclude that not only is our country better off, but the military is better off. the grunts on the ground are better off by having the kind of leadership and a dynamic within the military of those young people, the 18, 19, and 20-year-

old that are serving overseas recognize that america becomes a better america. this is not about doing favors to the gays and lesbians, this is a step for being a better america. >> mr. murphy. >> i would like to say that most importantly, the military would be better off. we don't want to throw out 13,000 troops that are willing to fight for us and keep us safe. and among them, some of the best party translators and some of the fighter pilots and infantry officers and mechanics -- the american taxpayer is going to be better off. it is costing the american taxpayer $1.30 billion.

it goes back to the earlier comments. we all took an oath. that special trust and confidence in our leadership ability -- we should have special trust in confidence of these young american heroes. we should have a special trust and confidence in the officer corps to do the right thing. when you're doing your study, make sure that we are cognizant of the fact that, to put it in historical context, and we were in the middle of the korean war where we lost tens of thousands of our americans over there, the fact is, when half of the country was still segregated, we said that we are going to desegregate the military because we all wore green. we all took that oath and picked

up the rifle and defended the country. that same challenges gone today in iraq and afghanistan. i think that when you make the decisions, at the end of the day, it goes back to our country. they're willing to take the same motion that we all took. i will have to give you another shout out with the eighty second airborne division. when i was there at 2003 in the middle of baghdad when it was 138 degree heat, the greatest thing i got to witness as a captain was the you get these paratroopers, and if you grab a paratrooper you could say, i am going to give you one week to

learn how to fly in space shuttle. that paratrooper will help make it happen somehow. if we have a nondiscrimination policy because we all have different colors and the military, we are all different races, religions, and some of us have different sexual orientations, we are focused on keeping america safe. we took the oath to defend the constitution. i appreciate it. and god bless you, and god bless the military. >> we really to appreciate you coming at this stage of your work. one of the things that i would ask because i would suspect that there may be some differences as he began to reach out that you find regionally, urban, suburban, rural, there are differences.

i don't think we ask our young men and women to do anything different depending on where they come from. the expectations should be the same. as we work to try to develop a very -- the very best processing can, -- you can, can you commit to us that perhaps as you get under way and whether it is halfway true or three-quarters of the way true, you might come back to the committee, let us know how things are going? if there is anything unique from last? -- you need from us? where the road blocks to have been surprised by. what is the difference that you got when you took this journey. we would be very pleased if you can do that. i am wondering if he might be

able to commit that that would be a possibility. >> secretary gates felt strongly enough that he included it in the terms of reference. it is a specific direction to mr. johnson and myself to engage with the congress and keep you advised. we look forward to doing just that. >> we know we will be working very closely with you. thank you very much.

>> in a few moments, the head of nato training for afghan forces talks with reporters about the need for more instructors there. in about 40 minutes, president obama comments to pass health care legislation. followed by reaction of senate minority leader mitch mcconnell. and after that, in new york representative charles rangel says he is stepping down as chairman of the house ways and means committee. on "washington journal" tomorrow morning, your questions about congressional efforts to oversee the financial services industry with gretchen morgan said of the "new york times." and wyoming republican senator john barrasso. and we will examine the president's budget with haskins of the brookings institution.

>> c-span. our public affairs content is available on television, radio, and on line. you can also connect with us on twitter, facebook, and youtube. you can also send this e-mail that c-span.org. >> the training commissioner for afghanistan talked with reporters about building afghan security forces and the need to provide more instructors. this is more than half an hour. >> he is the commander of the native training mission and of the u.s. training command in afghanistan. it is very important as the secretary general -- he has had the time to meet with you. you will see how young looking he is, even though in his

biography, he has five kids. that is pretty oppressive inside -- aside from his command duties. >> first of all, on behalf of the native training mission, i will give you a quick update on where we are. over 100 days ago, the native training mission in afghanistan activated and i was given the fortunate opportunity to serve as commander. it has been 102 days today. the decision made last june here in a note to form his command to represent all the different entities that have something to do with the training, education, and development of the security forces. it is part of our organization with afghanistan. we have another 26 nations that contribute in some way, shape or form.

monetary contributions ordinations of equipment and other types of activities. we are made up of both nato and non-new entities. we are police and civilians. we have different national police officers with countries such as italy, france, the united kingdom, canada, spain, and many others. they forced capacity building. we do mostly instructing in advising. we serve as instructors -- the afghan national security forces, we are talking about the army, the police, the air corps, the medical facilities associated with those entities, and those infrastructure development. and indirectly, an organization

called cstica which has been existence for years, but has ministerial development. we helped develop the systems inside the interior of defense. the budget we operate with is right about $1 billion u.s. per month. it is the funding we have available to us to accomplish the mission we have been given. the challenges that we face over the last hundred days, how do we take on and develop leaders inside of afghanistan? when i say we, more importantly, those within the army and police. leader development is the number-one priority we have taken on and have worked very diligently. we want to make them much more transparent.

assignments, promotions, and everything else associated with what they do. it reduces it for the greatest extent possible. when somebody tells them that today, the police are not well- trained, my answer is they have never been trained. the way it has been done for many years until the last few months, we literally took and recruited somebody, put them out on the streets. you are now the patrolmen in this area. there was no formal training process. there is this thing started a year ago where we trained and reformed police that had never been trained. in coordination with the afghans, we have a policy that if you're going to go into the police force, you're recruited, trained, and you were sent out to operate. 30% of the police in

afghanistan have been through formalized training. the other 70% have not. attrition within the police force has been slightly improving over the last three months since they have stood up. a multitude of factors, not the least of which was in the month of december, the pay of the police was brought up on parity with the army. the army pay have gone up from december, so when it was increased, today, where the surf -- whether you serve in the afghan national army, you have pay parity. the greatest challenge we have in the police force right now is an organization called the afghan national civil order of police. within ncop, it is probably the

best trained, most educated force that they have within the afghan national police. it is something that has been ongoing at with the afghan ministry of interior and us to work. we have a pretty good plan that will provide a cyclical program so that in the future, they not only will be trained, employed, but they will have a period of rest. they can take some vacation time, leave, and go back and do training again. that is an important step. the overall attrition of the police themselves as about 25%. the unique element of ancop, it is about 67%. working hard in quality and quantity, everybody is focused

on the quantity. how many are you producing? what are the numbers that we can talk about? within that, it is just as important to put an effort on the quality of that young patrol and the quality of that young soldier. we spent a lot of time there. we have seen steady improvement as to the number of instructors having gone up over the last few months. we worry about 33% of the authorized levels when we first stood up were about 50% now, and just in the 17% growth of instructor as we put into the force, we can already see a difference in the quality of the policemen and the soldiers we are producing. there are several very important things for soldiers like weapons qualification and a basic training program. they used to be about a 30% qualification rate for a soldier that went through the training

program. today, we are moving toward 60% qualified. still not where we wanted to be, but a step in the right direction. a difference that we are seeing. the structure and nature of the afghan national army, we had originally been looking at several more years to continue growing the army. . . been looking and several more years to continue growing the army. the international community made the decision we are going to grow security forces to 305,000, about 171,000 army about 134,000 police if in fact that's the case and with the international community committed to get this point we have restructured the growth of the army such that growth of the army such that when it reaches 171.6 to be exact cost it will be a balanced force, a force that has the ability to be self sustaining and regenerate itself and that

is a very important step we did. originally that wouldn't come unless there was more continual growth. we are now going to set the conditions such when it reaches 176,000 in the army it has its logistics and engineers and medical supply systems as a part of the army. the last thing i would say is on the banning. nato training mission afghanistan today makes up about less than 2% of all the military forces currently in afghanistan. a very small proportion of the forces deployed yet a tremendous return and its investment in terms of long-term development and growth of this army and police force. we see as our primary mission to develop and bring self sustaining systems will last a long time. it's not that initially producing an army or police force, it is developing and

producing army and police force that can be self sustaining cash that can regenerate itself in his leadership necessary to continue to guide and lead into the future so that there for the coalition forces there today can be reduced in numbers because the afghans will have the ability to be much more responsible for their own security stability in the future and less reliant on the coalition effort. those are the points i want to give an update on as the secretary-general said i have the opportunity today to talk both to the military committee and the give them this update and take any questions they have and let them know where the nato training mission of which they passed me to take the command of is today and what we're doing for the people of afghanistan. with that i will be glad to take questions. >> please identify yourself.

>> the german press agency. question on the numbers first for use of 50% of the manning levels required at the moment ball park figure. is that 50% of the figure you would require to get to the over all 305,000 or is that 50% of what you need to get to the 200 it was before and can you give a little bit more detail on the numbers where you are with numbers in relation to the overall requirement. >> when i stocking a commanding of internal organization of a nato training mission afghanistan and soft star. the man in is what we currently have in our organization. it's not in the afghan national security forces. right now for the growth of the not guilty to afghan security forces we are looking for still additional pledges by the

international community with additional treaters to assist in this effort to grow both of the army and police forces as we move forward. today we are able to continue the growth but to increase the quality of the recruit both in the army and police will require us to put additional traders into the program. and in terms of there is a slight -- our job is to do the trading of the forces and sent out into the operational force. the work in the operational force and so it's not an item we have daily oversight of. we are aware but it's not an item that we have responsibility for >> david from to follow-up on that. to bring the numbers up to 300,000 how many more trainers

do you need from the forces and also on the issue of patrician is there any evidence that people beginning police or military training are going over to the insurgencies? is there any danger to are helping to train the insurgents to shoot straight? >> all those questions first the numbers we are looking for there's about 1200 additional traders and instructors we are looking for today. there has been some commitment made by the international community perhaps up to as many as 700 very recently. those are not yet in country. we are encouraged by the fact there is still ongoing discussion and we are fortunate the secretary-general and to our both continuing to advocate and ask the community for additional assistance of the still does leave a delta of about 650

traders we are still looking for and in addition to those that have been committed and pledged to arrive in the theater to start being employed and used in the operations. >> one thing we have done is we bring the new recruits and we have started biometrics on every single new recruit. there's two things part of it. we do not leave e.r.a. rett maaskant and linker principal also you have to produce a letter from somebody in your village, in your district or province who can attest your ability to serve the country of afghanistan and the people of afghanistan and so the measure we put into place is to track that carefully so as a young man and a few select women come to the police and army we in fact now have a good database to start from to track them. there haven't been large numbers. there's been a handful since i've been there of those we have

not let into the army or police based on the bio metrics but in fact it has raised the red flag on a few cases again just a handful where we've gone back and done a little more look at a person's background based on something that was there in this by electrical database. that is the message we are working towards so that we preclude having somebody come and that should not be serving. the second part is this idea of leadership. when we said the number one focus is on leadership if the young men and women are led both in the police and army what we find in the in the military system or police system you build the allegiance and trust and confidence so that they want to serve in the organization which they are a part of the leadership is very important. we don't have a lot of the mid grade levels today. they are not resident. it takes years to build the

leaders. in the army or police force. a short 16 week course sets the conditions but it takes years of experience and mentoring to produce a mad grade level leader so we put a lot of focus in that area too because we understand not only will it drive down attrition it will increase retention and instill a greater desire to serve the people of afghanistan. >> follow-up, go ahead pish to the co. >> the question was not so much of a screening was to come in if people leave what then happens to evidence people of your training then go to the insurgency better trained than they were before. >> obviously we don't track what each person does after they leave the service in the military but what i can tell you is based on the fact we have biographical data if in fact somebody were picked up and

identified as a taliban member of insurgent and were given biomedical data we would be able to determine if the previously served in the army and police. the databases are fairly new. only been doing a short period of time but in fact had a long bertram there with the indication that other wise we don't track people after they leave the military and there's nothing like seeing yet that would indicate what you're asking about. >> from the kuwait news agency. you said there are 20 missions in the training missions in afghanistan. from these countries are there any shot arab and muslim and falls or will you call on arab and muslim world to obtaining the vision? >> that's a good question. we in fact have a couple ongoing initiatives right now that we are looking at.

there's a dialogue between the ministry of interior and country of jordan, united arab immigrants and turkey where they have had discussions about training. i do know that today the country of afghanistan on bilateral arrangements has people trading on their own that they worked with other nations in that part of the world about 12 different nations. again not something done for the navy training mission but on a bilateral basis they have both officers and in ceos from the police and army and other nations bought several hundred altogether probably but that our training in that part of the world be willing to assist and

we so we would be willing to move the soldiers to turkey if once they arrive there you take care and provide for everything from that point. you do the training, the transportation, the facilities, the inanition, instructors, you do everything once they are in turkey. we will move them them to turkey and to take control of the training and support requirements associated and then after 30 days we will pick them up and bring them back and the same time dropoff another group of soldiers so we are in our first month of doing that with a country of turkey so yes we are looking at and exploring different options and of course we very much want to have that part of the world engaged in and be associated with the training and the education of both the army and police forces.

>> to make it very simple to follow up my colleague use it is like understood that about 1,200 additional traders and instructors where requested but already 700 have been provided or am i wrong? >> in the last generation conference that took place last week there are pledges and commitments of this somebody have the exact number? fifer 41 total pledges out of the 1200 or so we are looking for in the last generation conference there were commitments and pledges of 541. >> the totals that you would like to have under your would be

held today because 1,200 plus how many today? >> the leaves the total number of traders altogether that argument for personal both police and army fee is 5,200. >> the total amount we would want in the very end would be 5,200. today we of a nato training afghanistan approximately you have the data? we went in the conference last week we have pledges and

commitments last week of 541. that is going to be aided in their of about 660. we are still looking for it. this pledges and commitments, we are going to look to arrive in at some the weekend inflatiod. >> the army has already gone through an exercise. what is your assessment about how they have been doing? >> that is a great question. the reason why it bought it when people want to talk to statistics -- lasted less than

monday and tuesday down in the home province. their action talking with him being around the national police forces. i could see the end product and how it is operating down there in that area. most of lesus sought better than the expectations were. of us solve this performing better than the expectations were. then you say what are those expectations but i would say the expectations we had were perhaps not as promising as we saw them. if i took the commando unit lysol down there, exceptional, the commandos we have seven battalions and we are building two more for a total of mine. they performed superbly. well lighted and well organized,

superb organization. the a.n.c.o.p., afghan national civil order police were brought in and are being a part of the hold fee is i would say are performing very well but they went through a retraining program by the coalition forces just before being employed behind the combat forces who had done the cui rig operation so they are a part of this phase in certain areas and they are doing very well. there's no question there is room for growth. it's like any army. you never quite a speech to your entire career in and that's something we are trying to still in the afghan army and police forces so they understand even the yukon through the basic trading at collective trading when you get to the field you have to continue training and growing into a developing and go back to leadership courses for

the mid grade level leaders. it's a lifelong process of growing and developing and educating the back to the basic question over all the forces performed i would say better than most had expected them to do which is promising for the possibility of what can be as we continue to move forward from here. >> from financial times germany. three questions about the training itself. first is there a huge interest among afghans to let's say become policemen or what ever, the people who really want to become that is there a lot of interest in the second, could you tell a little bit what the typical trading day looks like, is it eight hours, ten hours? what do you focus on and what is the main challenge? what is the main difficulty?

when you educate the people. >> first if you ask me that in november i would have said we are very challenged in by not sure we will make the growth numbers we are asked to do. last september about 880 afghans rickards kimmage there are me about 880. in december it was 7,800 that's about it. almost 800% plus increase in the amount of recruits and in the months of december, january and february we have recruited and i say we, we haven't done anything, the afghan leadership has come the of recruited well over 7,000 young men, some women into the army and to the point they have recruited so many in the last three months we have not been able to put everyone right away into training because we didn't have the capacity

built to handle that large number of recruits. if the afghan leadership can sustain that kind of recruiting members, the amount of growth we do in the army can be of limited. they can keep producing those kind of numbers. it's phenomenal what they are doing. they didn't do it earlier last year but starting in december january and february of three months based in degette i would say the trend beebee starting they are approaching these are traditionally the highest recruiting months any way so i don't want to give the false perception they are not. traditionally december kimmage and larry combatant ury are the highest months however we have not seen these numbers recruits during this time of the year ever before. so that's the difference so in fact we are getting more than enough recruits to come to the army into the police forces that we need right now. as far as the trading day goes

the trading day by their standards is a plentiful day. they are up about 5:30 in the morning and go pretty much about three or 4 o'clock in the afternoon. about five and a half days a week, so it's a fairly full day for them especially for these young men that have never done something like this before. our biggest challenge in the training base is the literacy. most of the records that come and we have about a 40% literary rate which means of the young soldiers coming in not the officers of the in co but the soldiers about 14% which means they are 86% can't read or write so that means everything we do is done in a show and tell basis. we show and tell them how to do it and they hands-on repeat and in that process continues.

it's not likely to hand them a manual and say read this or go read these instructions because they don't have the capability to do that. 86% of them do not so what we are doing is a show and tell way there for you need a higher percentage of instructors because you need to be able to then repeat multiple times of good instruction was a skit with it when you're dealing with is that kind of the literacy challenge. what we are going to do toward the end of this month we are going to bring literacy very basic literacy into the training programs. >> [inaudible] >> no, we are going to bring and what we are going to do is teach them the letters, alphabet, numbers and how to write their

name. that's our goal is everybody will come out of basic trading able to understand all the letters and the alphabet, how to write their name and understand the numbers which is a major step forward and in the intent is longer-term here to put their literacy programs to into the army itself so we continue increasing their levels of literacy. we are not expecting to make them high school graduates we are just expecting them to get to the basic literacy standards of about father agreed over of the time period because then they will take tremendous pride and who they are as a person and they will remember that it came from their government that gave them this uplift and who they are as a person and they will feel a much greater sense of ownership in the process and a commitment to the country. the thing the surprise is the i

walked in been told there's two different languages, there's the challenge of literacy. you're going to find out when you get their people don't understand the fever of being part of the country. they are tribal in their nature yet in fact push iger weld and talk to these new recruits coming in and i wander through the crowds with my translator talking to them and they all want to serve the country. i saw the most i would hear is ironclad you brought the new pay now that it gives me a basic standard of living by what to serve the country because i can have a nice basic standard of living. there's $165 a month we pay with a first come in but that's not the case at all. most of them say i want to serve my country. i want to be part of the afghan army. for any of you that haven't been out there i would say please come and we will take you out and put you into the trading centers and what you talk with these young and women that we

have and experience and let you wander around. i think most of the people i've been able to get out there spend some time in the training base walkaway surprised how enthusiastic these men are about serving their country and they really want to so the key is how do we keep that energy and excitement that brought them instilled through the process to the army and again that goes back to the leadership and having the right leaders with those soldiers. >> we have a question of the front. >> following on from what you just said are you aware or concerned about the fact that although you seem to have 40% of the army now pashtu argue

representatives as well as the country goes these pashtuns would be recruited from the northern and eastern areas and very few of them if any come from the south which coincidentally is where you are having your biggest problem keeping the country together. is this something that you actively address in your policies? thank you. >> that's a great question. it's an ongoing dialogue. the question asked is do you track ethnicity inside of the army ranks and the answer is yes we do. do you track by officers and enlisted and the answer is yes we do it and do you track by provinces and the answer is yes we do so what are the results you see a are you satisfied with that and the answer is we are not satisfied with the number of pashtuns we see coming to the army from the south although we have a good pashtu

representation if you were to look of the ethnicity of the army and say now many do you have it is representative what most people think of in the country but the chargers' two or 3% come from the south and event in fact if what we are trying to changes the dynamics of the country to make the sabrue pashtu this field more part of the nation and take greater ownership we are going to have to do a better job of recruiting so we had long talks about how has the marjah subornation moves forward the people see it taking place because it's not about a military operation is about a government bringing basic service back to their people and taking ownership of the area and called responsible to the people's basic needs which the

military helps set those conditions but it's the government's peace that is going to be critical so as the watch and see this the effort we want to make is to go behind that and try to get the young pashtuns from the south to be willing to join the the army and police forces but we have to do better. we have a small media advertisement campaign we are going to launch another 30 days in this house encouraging pashtuns from the south to join the police and army so we are hopeful that will change the dynamics it take us to a higher percentage because it needs to be representative of the whole nation. >> a question in the front. >> lester in afghanistan there were talks but taliban paid --

[inaudible] i believe but this has improved? >> bouck the system put in place in december pays the basic record in the army of the police on hundred $65 a month. then if you're in a hazardous area like in the south they get an additional $45 or so extra above that. then if they have been in the army a certain amount of years they get >> they have the ability to live a decent standard of life, a bare minimum. they do it by all the economic equation of factors that were utilized to come to that amount will we wanted to do was to have a soldier and policeman be able

to serve their country and not do anything else to provide for their family but serve their country. that is reasonable. that would help reduce corruption, because there would be less inclination to look for ways to make additional income to support their family just so they can beat it. this money is enough that a young shoulder -- soldier can feed their family now, especially when they have served over a longer time. we are aware of what a taliban foot soldier makes. it varies from around the country. if you were to try to make some comparable amounts, where comparable to hear and understand most of its soldiers will make doing something for the taliban. what we had hoped his been created is the ability for a

young man or woman to join in serve their country and be able to provide basic assistance for their family read it and had to turn to some other way of life. >> house and more questions? >> thank you on behalf of all of us for taking a timeout. i know some data has been passe. l thank you for taking the time now. hewey and your staff. i know of some data has been passed around. we've also put together some stock footage of the trading which i offered to anybody here for the websites and broadcast but once again thank you for taking the time and it was good to see you. islamic there is a website we started it in a disinterested and it's open to the public. there's no passwords or anything protected were corralled or did a thing. just go to ntma-a.com and read

anything we are doing over there to be we don't classify any to an organization and 102 days this on the big eight paper classified because was directed by the higher authorities so it is open and transparent you can see anything we are doing and this website you should be able to come and will get and ascertain any data you want about who we are and what [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010]

on the do not ask, do not tell policy. >> a couple of live events to tell you about tomorrow on their companion network, c-span3 bedewed the congressional oversight panel looks at the 80 citigroup. witnesses include the chief executive officer. that is a 10:00 a.m. eastern. at 2:00 p.m., the budget request for the security it ministration. >> which for president live past 90 years old? they were john adams, herbert hoover, ronald reagan, and gerald ford. find these and other presidential backs in c-span's newly updated book. >> it is a guide book. it is a travel log.

it is kind of a mini history work of for biography of each of these presidents. you can tell a lot of the people at the end of their lives. but a resource guide for every presidential gravesite, the story of their final moments, and insights about their lives. >> who is buried in grant's tomb?" it did 25% discount at the publisher's web site. >> president obama is calling for a final vote on health care legislation, saying that starting over would not work because of policy differences between republicans and democrats. democratic leaders are considering using a senate procedure that would allow passage of a health-care bill with a simple majority. the president spoke about the issue for 20 minutes.

ladies and gentlemen, the president of the united states. [applause] >> thank you. thank you very much. >> thank you very much. please, everybody, have a seat. you, for joining us today. and i want to thank julie, barbara, roland, stephen, renee, and christopher, standing behind me -- physicians, physicians assistants, and nurses who understand how important it isi want to thank all of you who are here today.

[applause] we began our push to reform health insurance last march, in this room, with doctors and nurses who know the system best. and so it's fitting to be joined by all of you as we bring this journey to a close. last thursday, i spent seven hours at a summit where democrats and republicans engaged in a public and very substantive discussion about health care. this meeting capped off a debate that began with a similar summit nearly one year ago.

and since then, every idea has been put on the table. every argument has been made. everything there is to say about health care has been said -- [laughter] -- and just about everybody has said it. [laughter] so now is the time to make a decision about how to finally reform health care so that it works, not just for the insurance companies, but for america's families and america's businesses. now, where both sides say they agree is that the status quo is not working for the american people. health insurance is becoming more expensive by the day. families can't afford it. businesses can't afford it. the federal government can't afford it. smaller businesses and individuals who don't get coverage at work are squeezed especially hard.

and insurance companies freely ration health care based on who's sick and who's healthy; who can pay and who can't. that's the status quo. that's the system we have right now. democrats and republicans agree that this is a serious problem for america. and we agree that if we do nothing -- if we throw up our hands and walk away -- it's a problem that will only grow worse. nobody disputes that. more americans will lose their family's health insurance if they switch jobs or lose their job. more small businesses will be forced to choose between health care and hiring. more insurance companies will deny people coverage who have preexisting conditions, or they'll drop people's coverage when they get sick and need it most. and the rising cost of medicare

and medicaid will sink our government deeper and deeper and deeper into debt. on all of this we agree. so the question is, what do we do about it? on one end of the spectrum, there are some who've suggested scrapping our system of private insurance and replacing it with a government-run health care system. and though many other countries have such a system, in america it would be neither practical nor realistic. on the other end of the spectrum, there are those, and this includes most republicans in congress, who believe the answer is to loosen regulations on the insurance industry -- whether it's state consumer protections or minimum standards for the kind of insurance they can sell. the argument is, is that that will somehow lower costs. i disagree with that approach. i'm concerned that this would only give the insurance industry even freer rein to raise premiums and deny care. so i don't believe we should

give government bureaucrats or insurance company bureaucrats more control over health care in america. i believe it's time to give the american people more control over their health care and their health insurance. i don't believe we can afford to leave life-and-death decisions about health care to the discretion of insurance company executives alone. i believe that doctors and nurses and physician assistants like the ones in this room should be free to decide what's best for their patients. (applause. )now, the proposal i put forward gives americans more control over their health insurance and their health care

by holding insurance companies more accountable. it builds on the current system where most americans get their health insurance from their employer. if you like your plan, you can keep your plan. if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. i can tell you as the father of two young girls, i would not want any plan that interferes with the relationship between a family and their doctor. essentially, my proposal would change three things about the current health care system. first, it would end the worst practices of insurance companies. no longer would they be able to deny your coverage because of a preexisting condition. no longer would they be able to drop your coverage because you got sick. no longer would they be able to force you to pay unlimited amounts of money out of your own pocket. no longer would they be able to arbitrarily and massively raise premiums like anthem blue cross recently tried to do in

california -- up to 39 percent increases in one year in the individual market. those practices would end. second, my proposal would give uninsured individuals and small business owners the same kind of choice of private health insurance that members of congress get for themselves -- because if it's good enough for members of congress, it's good enough for the people who pay their salaries. [applause] the reason federal employees get a good deal on health insurance is that we all participate in an insurance market where insurance companies give better coverage and better rates, because they get more customers. it's an idea that many republicans have embraced in the

past, before politics intruded. and my proposal says that if you still can't afford the insurance in this new marketplace, even though it's going to provide better deals for people than they can get right now in the individual marketplace, then we'll offer you tax credits to do so -- tax credits that add up to the largest middle-class tax cut for health care in history. after all, the wealthiest among us can already buy the best insurance there is, and the least well off are able to get coverage through medicaid. so it's the middle class that gets squeezed, and that's who we have to help. now, it is absolutely true that all of this will cost some money -- about $100 billion per year. but most of this comes from the nearly $2 trillion a year that america already spends on health care -- but a lot of it is not spent wisely. a lot of that money is being wasted or spent badly. so within this plan, we're going

to make sure the dollars we spend go towards making insurance more affordable and more secure. we're going to eliminate wasteful taxpayer subsidies that currently go to insurance and pharmaceutical companies; set a new fee on insurance companies that stand to gain a lot of money and a lot of profits as millions of americans are able to buy insurance; and we're going to make sure that the wealthiest americans pay their fair share on medicare. the bottom line is our proposal is paid for. and all the new money generated in this plan goes back to small businesses and middle-class families who can't afford health insurance. it would also lower prescription drug prices for seniors. and it would help train new doctors and nurses and physician assistants to provide care for american families. finally, my proposal would bring down the cost of health

care for millions -- families, businesses, and the federal government. we have now incorporated most of the serious ideas from across the political spectrum about how to contain the rising cost of health care --- ideas that go after the waste and abuse in our system, especially in programs like medicare. but we do this while protecting medicare benefits, and extending the financial stability of the program by nearly a decade. our cost-cutting measures mirror most of the proposals in the current senate bill, which reduces most people's premiums and brings down our deficit by up to a trillion dollars over the next two decades -- brings down our deficit. those aren't my numbers; those are the savings determined by the congressional budget office, which is the washington acronym for the nonpartisan, independent referee of congress

in terms of how much stuff costs. [laughter] so that's our proposal. this is where we've ended up. it's an approach that has been debated and changed and i believe improved over the last year. it incorporates the best ideas from democrats and republicans --- including some of the ideas that republicans offered during the health care summit, like funding state grants on medical malpractice reform, and curbing waste and fraud and abuse in the health care system. my proposal also gets rid of many of the provisions that had no place in health care reform -- provisions that were more about winning individual votes in congress than improving health care for all americans. now, despite all that we agree on and all the republican ideas we've incorporated, many -- probably most -- republicans in congress just have a fundamental disagreement over whether we should have more or less oversight of insurance

companies. and if they truly believe that less regulation would lead to higher quality, more affordable health insurance, then they should vote against the proposal i've put forward. now, some also believe that we should, instead of doing what i'm proposing, pursue a piecemeal approach to health insurance reform, where we tinker around the edges of this challenge for the next few years. even those who acknowledge the problem of the uninsured say we just can't afford to help them right now --- which is why the republican proposal only covers 3 million uninsured americans while we cover over 31 million. the problem with that approach is that unless everyone has access to affordable coverage, you can't prevent insurance companies from denying coverage based on preexisting conditions; you can't limit the amount families are forced to pay out of their own pockets. the insurance reforms rest on

everybody having access to coverage. and you also don't do anything about the fact that taxpayers currently end up subsidizing the uninsured when they're forced to go to the emergency room for care, to the tune of about a thousand bucks per family. you can't get those savings if those people are still going to the emergency room. so the fact is, health reform only works if you take care of all of these problems at once. now, both during and after last week's summit, republicans in congress insisted that the only acceptable course on health care reform is to start over. but given these honest and substantial differences between the parties about the need to regulate the insurance industry and the need to help millions of middle-class families get insurance, i don't see how another year of negotiations

would help. moreover, the insurance companies aren't starting over. they're continuing to raise premiums and deny coverage as we speak. for us to start over now could simply lead to delay that could last for another decade, or even more. the american people, and the u.s. economy, just can't wait that long. so, no matter which approach you favor, i believe the united states congress owes the american people a final vote on health care reform. [applause] we have debated this issue thoroughly, not just for the past year but for decades. reform has already passed the house with a majority. it has already passed the senate with a supermajority of 60 votes.

and now it deserves the same kind of up or down vote that was cast on welfare reform, that was cast on the children's health insurance program, that was used for cobra health coverage for the unemployed, and, by the way, for both bush tax cuts --- all of which had to pass congress with nothing more than a simple majority. i, therefore, ask leaders in both houses of congress to finish their work and schedule a vote in the next few weeks. from now until then, i will do everything in my power to make the case for reform. [applause] and i urge every american who

wants this reform to make their voice heard as well --- every family, every business, every patient, every doctor, every nurse, every physician's assistant. make your voice heard. this has been a long and wrenching debate. it has stoked great passions among the american people and their representatives. and that's because health care is a difficult issue. it is a complicated issue. if it was easy, it would have been solved long ago. as all of you know from experience, health care can literally be an issue of life or death. and as a result, it easily lends itself to demagoguery and political gamesmanship, and misrepresentation and misunderstanding. but that's not an excuse for those of us who were sent here to lead.

that's not an excuse for us to walk away. we can't just give up because the politics are hard. i know there's been a fascination, bordering on obsession, in this media town about what passing health insurance reform would mean for the next election and the one after that. how will this play? what will happen with the polls? i will leave it to others to sift through the politics, because that's not what this is about. that's not why we're here. this is about what reform would mean for the mother with breast cancer whose insurance company will finally have to pay for her chemotherapy. this is about what reform would mean for the small business owner who will no longer have to choose between hiring more workers or offering coverage to the employees she has. this is about what reform would mean for middle-class families who will be able to afford

health insurance for the very first time in their lives and get a regular checkup once in a while, and have some security about their children if they get sick. this is about what reform would mean for all those men and women i've met over the last few years who've been brave enough to share their stories. when we started our push for reform last year, i talked to a young mother in wisconsin named laura klitzka. she has two young children. she thought she had beaten her breast cancer but then later discovered it had spread to her bones. she and her husband were working and had insurance, but their medical bills still landed them in debt. and now she spends time worrying about that debt when

all she wants to do is spend time with her children and focus on getting well. this should not happen in the united states of america. and it doesn't have to. in the end, that's what this debate is about. it's about what kind of country we want to be. it's about the millions of lives that would be touched and, in some cases, saved by making private health insurance more secure and more affordable. so at stake right now is not just our ability to solve this problem, but our ability to solve any problem. the american people want to know if it's still possible for washington to look out for their interests and their future. they are waiting for us to act. they are waiting for us to lead. and as long as i hold this office, i intend to provide that leadership.

i do not know how this plays politically, but i know it's right. [applause] and so i ask congress to finish its work, and i look forward to signing this reform into law. thank you very much, everybody. let's get it done. [applause]

>> and mitch mcconnell responded to the president. this is 20 minutes. >> where all the lab coat? we do not have anyone in black coats. every press conference on the subject is surrounded with lab coats. no one supplied you with a lab coat? i thought it would be appropriate to make some observations about the president's comment today. then i will be happy to talk

about whatever you live by to talk about. in assessing where he is, he left out a few things. i notice he did not mention the medicare cuts. he did not mention the pipe under a trillion dollars -- $500 billion in new taxes. he did not mention that the size of this measure when fully implemented over a 10-year period is $2.50 trillion in new spending. i appreciate, we all do, the president's call for a bipartisan approach. but where we are headed through the use of reconciliation means that the only thing that will be bipartisan about this bipartisan is the opposition to it.

it is abundantly clear that the president and democratic leadership are calling upon the members to ignore the wishes of the american people. we know with the people are. it is not even close. never in my time here have i dealt with an issue that people paid more attention to than this one. if you think about it, we are all interested in health care no matter what age you are. everybody is focused on this issue like a blazer. we know where they are. our democratic friends know where they are. this is really not an argument between democrats and republicans. it is an argument between democrats and the american people. the scott brown election, there were a lot of reviews about what happened in massachusetts and why.

one thing that is clear, if you look at the surveys that were taken, there were polls taken of voters asking them why they did what they did. the most liberal state in america, 48% mentioned health care. no other subject had more than five serve. -- 5%. looking at the political situation, i do not think there is a democrat in the house or senate who fails to understand that the american people are not for this. they are not for it in massachusetts. they are not for it anywhere. what are the leaders left to argue their members? one argument that has been used is to make history. looking at this poll data, one could conclude that you would beat history if you voted for this bill.

another argument being made is we know everybody dislikes this. we are no we are asking you to do something courageous. if this bill somehow passed, it will not be behind our democratic friends. it will be ahead of them. every election in america this fall will be a referendum. there is an overwhelming likelihood that every republican candidates will be campaigning to repeal it. the issue will not behind them. it will be ahead of them. we are likely to have a national referendum on an issue. we do not usually have national referendums. this could well be a national referendum. . .

i will not announce what efforts will be a made. >> democrats held up center

bombing as an example of why reconciliation is needed, because of republican obstructionism. >> i think they're comparing apples and oranges. what we know about the health care bill is that people wanted to -- do not want to pass. it is overwhelmingly under -- unpopular. they are very arrogant about this, they think they are smarter the american people, and they are going to give this to you whether you want it or not. and with regard to the argument that reconciliation is routinely used around here, make it -- let me make a point about that. virtually every time reconciliation has been used the results were bipartisan support.

virtually every time reconciliation has been used, the people were in favor of what was being done. two examples to the contrary -- the democrats in 1993 with what we described at the time as the largest tax increase in history, and the republicans in 2005 with a deficit reduction act that made what seemed at that time modest reductions in their rate of pay off of medicare. what happened at the 1993 vote in 1994? congress switched hands. what happened in 2006 after the 2005 vote? the congress switched hands. we have some examples here of when this advise -- this device

was used on a narrowly partisan basis by each side, and we know what happened. so i would say to my democratic friends, you owe -- you ignore the overwhelming desires of the american people at your own peril. and we have recent events to demonstrate that. >> i know you will not discuss specifically what you would do to block the bill, but how vigorous and effort can the democrats expect from youu to block into rail the bill? >> they have made vigorous efforts to jam this down the throats of the american people to do not want it. we think that is a policy mistake and resorting to these types of tactics is something that ought to be resisted. there are certain things that you ought to say no to, there

are differences of opinion about a way to go. i would "one other -- i would quote, "if we go the reconciliation route, we will be testing reconciliation rules and revisions that have never been tested before." this is the no. 2 democrat saying that this is not an ordinary thing even though they are arguing that it is ordinary. this is an extraordinary use of this device in order to get this passet a public that is overwhelmingly against it. >> what issues would your caucus

have? >> you're down in the weeds of what the amendments and the strategy would be. i am not going to assume that this thing will pass the house. no money -- no matter how many times they dress set up, the house democrats will be called upon to vote upon of bill that has the louisiana purchase, the gatorade, and all of the rest. and it reports the fix the problem, but the reaction of the public to go to such links, such extraordinary lengths to ignore public opinion, it is not going to put the issue behind us. it is going to put the issue ahead of us. >> senator bunning said that

this could be paid for by cutting spending elsewhere. >> we have moved onto a new deal. we had that budget yester day, on the amendment offered and the final passage. >> if republicans are voting overwhelmingly against this bill, why do you think they are pushing this? >> it is a stunning thing. i am hard pressed to answer that question. i remember how hard it was -- part of the unpopularity of this bill come up the medicare cuts alone. i remember how challenging it was for us to explain in 2006, it was a $15 billion -- i don't know the exact number, a $20

billion cut in the rate of increase in medicare over five years, to explain that. we are talking about $500 billion over 10 years over the objections of hospitals, hospices, of medicare advantage customers. this is politically toxic in the extreme. and it is not being used to make medicare solvent, which is going under in seven years anyway, but it is a piggyback for something else. look, maybe courage would be appropriate if we were doing the right thing. and i am not suggesting to all of you that i think everything we do around here should be determined by public opinion polls. i do not think that. but this is no small issue. 1/6 of the economy, analysts

debates and discussions, the american people completely engaged in this and thinking about it. in the time i have been here, we've never had an issue like this where people have come up, in the gross restored home, they want to talk about it. -- in the grocery store at home, they want to talk about it. i am reasonably well known and a lot of people come up to me on a lot of things. i have never seen anything like this and i am sure that is going on all across the country. there is a time for country -- a time for courage and a time for caution. courage is demonstrated on things like passing the civil- rights act. the social security act passed overwhelmingly. welfare reform passed overwhelmingly, bipartisan. this is a narrow partisan,

bipartisan opposition, moved to override the wishes of the american people. it is not the same thing. >> some of your republican colleagues said that they will make repeal of the health care reform and issue should it pass. >> i think virtually all republican candidates will say cutting medicare, raising taxes, starting a new spending program that cost $2.5 trillion, that is something that they do not support. i think it will be an issue in the fall campaign. and at the risk of being redundant, the democratic leaders are misleading their members by suggesting that by somehow approving this gets them behind them. approving this assures that this will be ahead of them. >> [inaudible]

>> i am not going to predict the outcome of the fall election. we hope to be in a better position next year than we are now. i think all of our candidates will take their campaign commitments seriously and try to enact them. one more. >> have you had a chance to reach out to those in the texas governor's race, [inaudible] >> i have not spoken with her. you should ask her about her plans. i am told she will be back soon and we are proud to have her as a member of our caucus. thanks.

>> as debate continues on the health care bill, if you can go online to see spans health care hub to read what members of congress are saying. you can also find other resources, including hundreds of hours of video from house and senate for debate and many committee hearings and markups. c-span.org/healthcare. in a few moments, new york representative charles rangel says that he is stepping down as the chairman of the house ways and means committee. in about 10 minutes, a hearing on the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy regarding gays and lesbians. after that, a briefing on the situation in afghanistan. one from the secretary general of nato, and others on the general training security forces.

on "washington journal" tomorrow morning, we will hear questions about ethics with a reporter from the new york times. more about health care legislation from wyoming republican john grosso -- bar rasso and peter welch. we will also talk to someone from the brookings institute. "washington journal" is live every morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern. a couple of live events to tell you about tomorrow on our companion network, c-span3. the congressional oversight panel looks at tarp assistance to citigroup. that is at 10:00 a.m. eastern. at 2:00 p.m., a hearing on budget request for the

transportation security administration with the acting administrator testifying. as washington post correspondent, t.r. reid has traveled the world. therjoin our three-hour conversn with t.r. reid and your phone calls live sunday at noon eastern on c-span2. democratic representative charles rangel has stepped down as chairman of the house ways and means committee. the house ethics committee issued a report saying that he issued -- he broke house rules by taking trips. he spoke with reporters at capitol hill and later after meeting with the democratic caucus.

>> in view of the fact that my chairmanship is bringing so much attention, and in order to avoid my colleagues having to defend me during their election , i have this morning sent a letter to speaker pelosi, asking her to grant me a leave of absence until such time as the ethics committee completes its work. now i know that all of you have

professional obligations to ask questions, but i am afraid if i went down the road that it would distract me from what i have to do in terms of the completion of the president's health bill as well as making certain in our committee that we get our work done, so if you insist on asking questions when i said that i will not answer, so thank you this morning and i have to get back to work. [inaudible] i don't recall saying that. [inaudible] >> no questions, please. [inaudible] >> i hope you mind if i do not

take questions. i want you to have a great day. i would also like to say that from the very beginning, i offered this to speaker pelosi. >> no questions, please. thank you. thank you. >> i don't think i have much to say that i did not say at the press conference this morning, and that is that i told the speaker that if my issues would impede the elections of the

democratic party, then i would be glad to take a leave of absence. so i love my country, i love that congress, and i love the democrats, so within the member thought that my chairmanship would impede their election, then i think that if the speaker accepts my requests to take a leave of absence, politically i think i should take that. >> here is my technical question. they interpret your letter has final, and the chair use the term resignation, and they interpret all of this is final, and for you to be reinstalled, the full house would have to do that. is there any question in your mind that this is temporary?

>> i wrote what i meant. and i said what i meant. if there is anything that needs clarify occasion, it is not made. thank you very much. the press has been very understanding of me not answering questions because the whole situation, there are even more questions. but this country and this congress has been very good to me, and it seems to and may that i should not do anything that would impede the success of other democrats. they should be so lucky as i am. i have not had a bad day at but it has been closed. have a great afternoon.

>> i am trying to be courteous. >> after the caucus meeting, the democratic leader spoke with reporters. >> just very quickly -- i am right behind you. everybody ready? we just had a great caucus, interrupted by a vote which is currently going on, but we heard presentations today on the financial-services, and we heard from chairman frank who went over the bills that we have

enacted already and the house of representatives -- in the house of representatives, making sure that we are getting that out to the public. we had a very poignant statement from mr. rangel that he wanted to speak to the caucus directly and said that he would be stepping aside, taking leave all this matter is currently pending before us and is resolved. he thanked the caucus for their forbearance and what was a heart rendering way. we will be meeting tomorrow morning at 1:45 p.m. tomorrow

at when the president will be talking about his way forward. we think it is a great opportunity here and we hope the republicans join us. we think the president has reached out yet again to republicans and we feel that it is important, as he does, to address some of their concerns and address the fact that there can be bipartisan solutions to this problem. it is a problem we have been trying to face for 60 years but we recognize that there are strong differences. and democrats remain firm in making sure that we rein in the cost of insurance and escalating health-care costs. to do so means that we need to make sure that we're able to do with preexisting conditions and cap the cost happening all across this nation. make sure that we can close the

doughnut hole and make sure that you have greater assess ability and affordability and health care. that is why we believe that we will be successful with health care. >> i would add that each and every member made it very clear from charlie rangel on down, we are ready to work to pass a jobs bill and complete this health care reform effort that will be historic, but ready to work. from everyone, from charlie rangel down, we are ready to work. [inaudible] >> interim chairman? >> the house rules indicate that, barring exceptional or extraordinary circumstances, these things will be discussed.

we have an order that we follow and we will follow it. that means that there is normal secession. currently the handoff will take place when the ways and means committee formally meets. there is great sensitivity here about a man who is given a lot of service to the nation into the country and in the committee. please allow him and us the opportunity to go through this in a very thoughtful manner that takes into consideration the strong feelings -- i know that does not happen often -- the bonds that take place among people. no police that there is a process and there are rules -- no fully -- know fully that

there is a process and that there are rules being followed. >> mr. riegle was extraordinary before our caucus. -- mr. rangel was extraordinary before our caucus. he said that there are things which are bigger than yourself. his love of this institution, the love of his city and state came up for most to him, and as he said, "anything that got in the way of that currently, given the magnitude of what is on the table in front of us, required however he might feel, to do what he has done." i think that he stands taller in the minds of many people in our caucus for doing that. how are -- javier?

>> every member expressed his fervent desire for completing the president's agenda. charlie rangel said it best. he wants us to finish our work and he believes he is doing the best thing so that america can get its work done in washington, d.c. this is a man that respects the institution a great deal and he is ready to work. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> in a few moments, the hearing on the military "don't ask, don't tell" policy regarding gays and lesbians. anil < two hours, nato briefings on the situation in afghanistan.

and after that, a hearing on next year's budget request on u.s. aid budget. -- the usaid budget. on "washington journal" tomorrow morning, your effort -- your questions about congressional efforts to oversee the financial industry's. more about health care legislation from wyoming republican senator john barrasso and peter welch of vermont. and we will examine the president's budget with someone from the brookings institution. "washington journal" is live it every morning at 7:00 a.m. as the -- at 7:00 a.m. eastern here on c-span. >> of a couple of live events to tell you about tomorrow on our companion network,3,. the congressional oversight panel on the troubled asset

relief program looks sad assistance to citigroup. that is at 10:00 a.m. eastern. and at 2:00 p.m., it is a hearing on next year's budget request for the transportation security administration, with the acting administrator testifying. >> the next journalism must be open to blogs and e-mails that are hammering like this on the door to be let into the conversation, to add new information, to raise new questions, to suggest new context. >> winners of this year's national press foundation awards talk about the role of journalism in a changing society. the dollar is now a hearing on the military's planned to end the "don't ask, don't tell" policy on gays and lesbians in the military. we will hear from defense department officials reviewing the policy. this is a lot less than two

hours. -- this is a little less than two hours. >> the president has made clear >> today the subcommittee will hear motion a study group to determine what needs to be done to implement repeal of this law. and they have called for a comprehensive examination and to this issue deserves no less. when it comes to repeal, the question is not whether but how and when. the president and our civilian and military leadership and the pentagon has stated the need for repeal. the majority of americans, see the appeal as not only as a national security interest but in standing with the principles of america.

i understand and support the position of the civilian and military leadership that comprehensive analysis should accompany any decision of this importance. it should include outreach to service members and their families to ensure that we understand all perspectives on the issue. the purpose of this hearing as for the witnesses to help the subcommittee understand what you want to learn and how you plan to become better informed about any possible challenges surrounding the field of do not region of don't ask, don't tell. since the department does not pull service members before making personnel decisions, making personnel decisions, which need to know what type of

so to do the financial and readiness policies that reduce members of the volunteer force had a time when other service members are seeing repeated deployments to iraq and afghanistan. our nato allies serving beside us in afghanistan and other nations have moved to except the service of openly serving men and women and have experienced no loss in unit cohesion and combat readiness. the 1993 study of the strategy needed to successfully implement the repeal provides it can be quickly updated to today's environment. in my view, this blueprint should include a moratorium on discharges while the department decides how to implement repeal. i was disappointed that the

secretary saw a moratorium as destructive and i feel there is a way to stem the tide of these painful and unnecessary discharges, especially those instigated by third parties and avoid subjecting the confusion about the direction of this policy. sound positive leadership camp and will be the key -- can and will be the key to ensure readiness and unit cohesion cannot suffer as a result. to assist us in understanding the repeal process, we are fortunate to have the top personnel official at the department of defense to fill secretary's dietz -- secretary gatess'.

and the hon. j. johnson, a general counsel of the department of defense. welcome to each of you and i want to thank you for being here. we recognize the difficulty of your presence here today and that you really have not had a chance to embark on this study but it is important and i think it will be helpful for us to hear from you but also for you to hear the views of the members of the subcommittee. >> i jr. and welcoming witnesses, all three of whom are appearing before us for the first time. unlike most hearings, when we receive testimony from tax -- task forces at the completion, we will have the opportunity to examine and assess the scope of the work of a study group just beginning. this also gives us the opportunity to shape the group's

work ethic. we have heard clearly from the senior leadership at the department of defense in each of the services of the importance of the study and the necessity of doing nothing to repeal change or suspend current law until the study completes its work. i fully support this approach. for the poor, i believe until this committee in congress have had the opportunity to review and assess recommendation of the study group and those of the department of defense which we expect at some point after december, to us and then, we should not rush suddenly into action. a series of issues are to be examined as well as requirements for evidence to be presented to congress before congress could make an informed judgment about the repeal of section 654.

i ask unanimous consent of the letter and attachment be entered into the record. thank you. by further ask the staff to distribute the letter to members of the subcommittee, some of whom may not be familiar with it and to the witnesses. the central focus of the letter is the fourth paragraph, reflecting the fact that the responsibility for deciding this issue rests with congress, not the president, the secretary of defense or the chairman of the joint chiefs. the fourth paragraph reads ultimately won responsibility of this committee is to ensure that it improves the readiness of the armed forces. no action to change the law should be taken by the administration or by this congress until we have full and

complete understanding of the reasons why the current law threatens or undermines the readiness and any significant way. whether a change in law will approve -- will improve this and measurable ways and what affects and military readiness, cohesion, morale, good order, and discipline are entailed with the change in the law. given the mandate from the secretary of defense, i am concerned the citigroup will focus itself solely on the third requirement, the implications of change and not present congress with evidence to decide of the first two fundamental issues, white current law threatens or undermines readiness in any significant way and whether repeal of the current law would improve readiness and measurable ways. if the study does not address these issues, its overall credibility and usefulness for the congressional decision making process will be significantly undermined. i would ask during the course of

the hearing for you to commit to us that they're fully and objectively exploring the first fundamental issues raised by mr. mckeon and present that in their final report. this is a difficult issue but want your predecessors have had to deal with. a central argument of the proponents for the repeal of section 654 is that repeal is a military necessity because in time for, the military services need every willing and able person to serve. the discharge of more than 13,000 people because of section 654 since 1993 has hurt military readiness. your predecessor addressed this issue in july of 2005. and the fourth year of the global war on terrorism. when he testified before this

committee, "this is not a significant factor in our attrition experience and the lost generally occurs early in somebody's service." i would like to hear from you whether you agree or disagree with that assessment and whether you agree with the advocates for repeal of section 654 that feel it is a military necessity. i would further like to hear with the discharge of personnel under section 654, especially during the time of war, has negatively impacted the readiness of our military services in any measurable or significant way. based on the data recently provided to this committee by the department of defense and the military services, i would guess that your objective assessment would be that you agree with the previous statement.

during the fiscal year 1995 through 2008, eight of those years of being wartime years, the military service separated more than 1.9 million people, 8300 of those, less than one- half of 1% was the result of section 654. that is about a hundred people being discharged per year. unless you contradict me, that is not a significant loss from an overall the 0 d manpower perspective. moreover, your data shows that this charge of personnel under six -- under section 64 has not affected the ability of military service is to recruit or retain high-quality people in numbers that meet or exceed requirements. according to department data, fiscal year 2009 was the best year for recruiting in the active duty, national guard, and reserve forces in the history of the all volunteer force.

nor has section 654 inhabited the ability of the army, marine corps, or army national guard to increase manpower significantly while fighting two wars. furthermore, the department data undercuts the assertions that section 64 must be repealed because in times of war, this nation needs to attract and retain all the qualified people it can who want to serve. for example, both the navy and air force had made significant manpower reductions during the last 10 years totaling some 77,000 personnel. to achieve such reductions, they used measures not only to reduce the numbers of new recruits but also to entice and force people to leave this service. in short, both services in times of war for the good of service reasons, have denied service to tens of thousands of persons who otherwise qualified to serve and

wanted to serve. such actions only reinforce the congressional funding in 1993 that there is no constitutional right to serve in the military. the department data for the last 10 years reduce the argument that the repeal of section 64 is a military necessity and supports the statement that current law appears to be working well. if you disagree with regard to the conclusion, we would like to hear from you today on this point. before closing, i would like to come back to some critical questions raised from the letter and ask for assurances from mr. johnson to that the committee adjust them in detail. a critical area that needs to be examined is the impact of the repeal of section 654 on military family readiness. as the chairman, it was pointed

out that if mama is not happy, nobody is happy. family readiness today equis to military readiness put a whole families feel about military service has a direct impact on the retention and repeal of section 654 that will not -- that will have a direct impact on military culture tied closely to military family readiness is the issue of eligibility benefits. specifically, the bill to repeal section 64 would not require depended benefits to be provided. such provisions would be in violation of the marriage act but if such a prohibition would seem to extend to any federal benefit such as veterans' benefits for which married military spouses and survivors of military personnel are eligible. knowing that family readiness is a major factor in maintaining the all-volunteer force, mr.

mckeon asked for an evaluation of the limitation of benefits created by the marriage act. in terms of its effects on cohesion, morrell, could order and discipline. enactment of this limitation creates a wide diversity of situations. how would this affect family readiness, morrell, and cohesion. to successfully repeal section 654 in a matter -- in a matter project in a manner -- in a manner that does not affect cohesion, the marriage act would have to be repealed or amended. information from the department of defense, i am concerned that the department of defense may be creating obstacles in achieving that objective.

specifically, we understand the citigroup -- the study group carried out on an attempt to repeal the 654. if accurate, i believe the study group will prejudice from the outset the perceived credibility in other activity of the result recommendations. i say this because the 1993 effort raised significant concerns about the comprehensiveness and objectivity. more recently, the prejudgment as well as lack of original work was evident in a november to cousin not report that used data collected by the palm center to suppor we understand rand is a well co -- a well recognized and competent research entity in many areas. however, given ran's history on this issue, i believe that even if iran were able to produce a

product that was comprehensive and objective in the study group's view, it will never be seen as such by others and will ultimately poison the overall perception of the group studies efforts. to help minimize potential criticism that the group studies, survey methods, and instruments were designed to cook the books to support the president's desires, i would strongly recommend the department rely primarily, if not exclusively, on its own significant in-house survey and study capabilities. and in the external survey not done by the met -- by the department be carried by reputable organizations, and that you engage both proponents and opponents of section 654 to help shape survey and study questions. i appreciate the patience of the witnesses and my colleagues for this long service, but i thought was necessary to get some of the more critical issues out on the public table in order to ensure

that you can address them in this hearing. i look forward to your testimony. secretary stanley, do you want to begin? once again, thank you for being here. >> good afternoon. i am honored to be here to represent men and women in uniform. i have been on the job for just about two weeks. i had to assure you that i hit the ground running. this being the first hearing, and i am looking forward to your questions. we prepared a joint statement that i believe you have. myself, mr. johnson and general ham, i will turn it over to them for opening comments. >> thank you.

in ms. j johnson, general counsel for the department of defense. as the secretary pointed out, we have our prepared written statement. i would just like to say in summary that secretary gates has appointed general hamm and me to cochair this working group. the goal of our working group is to assess the impacts of the repeal of 654 should the congress decide that that is the course of action it should take and to develop an implementation plan should there be repeal and to understand all of the issues associated with a repeal. we are at the outset of that process. we are just beginning at this stage we are committed to conducting an objective, thorough, and comprehensive assessment of the repeal of 654.

some of the guiding principles we have said are as follows: we should enlist the views and opinions of a broad array of people within the service as well as congressman has pointed out, military families. we believe that is important. i know secretary gates believes that is important. we have asked working group members to set aside their personal opinions regarding repeal or not repeal and to go about their work in a objective and comprehensive fashion. frankly, in my experience, that is the best way in which members of the u.s. but terry go about their work. if we are all asked to set aside our personal opinions and do the best we can in a objective way. we intend to solicit the views

of organizations and groups that are familiar with the issue. not just within the active-duty force but organizations that have spent a considerable amount of time studying the policy, studying the potential for repeal, and that includes groups that have a diverse range of opinions on the issue. we are determined to do that. we are also determined to conduct our review in any way that minimizes disruption to our activities on the front lines. we are engaged in two wars at the time. that is one of the guiding principles that secretary gates has given to us. we all look forward to your questions. new >> members of the committee, thank you for allowing us to come here today.

when i was informed that secretary gates account had selected me to coakley this group, i will admit to feeling humble, honored, and a little bit nervous at the same time. i can also tell you i feel a strong obligation, consistent with our terms of reference to ensure that we have broadened our presentation in the engagement of the force and their families. to that end, which built a team that includes a wide variety of rank, age, a military specialties. the coast guard is included. we have members from the national guard and the service reserves. key in our effort is to ensure the enlisted force has a prominent role. seated behind me is the fleet master of the united states navy who is the senior enlisted leader for the department of defense working group. he reports to nobody but mr. johnson and myself and has full access to all that we do. all of us in uniform who are privileged to participate in

this effort understand the special trust and confidence placed in us by you, our department's senior leaders, and most importantly, our fellow service members and their families. we shall do our very best everyday to merit that trust. thank you. >> thank you. i appreciate your opening comments. i know we have a number of members here so we will stick with the five minute rule. we will likely be interrupted by foot along the way but we will do the best we can. mr. johnson, you have a 4:00 engagement. >> i have say invitation to come see them at 4:30. >> i want to clarify the objectives of the working group.

the objective of the working group is the not facilitate repeal when it states the assessment of the implications of such a repeal should it occur. what does that say to you? you did try to clarify that but i am wondering, is there anything you want to add in terms of clarifying what you believe the objective of the city is? >> secretary gates said one month ago that the question in terms of the guidance we have the president is the issue of not whether but how best. secretary gates believes that if the congress and the president's determined that repeal of the law is appropriate, we should go about that and a careful and deliberate fashion and thing to the issues associated with repeal. that is what he has appointed us

to do. should repeal occur. i hope to have answered your question. what aspects of the military environment that secretary keeps considered critical to the successful implementation of repeal that require research, a study kemar can you clarify what aspects require that? that is my basic question. what do you want to know and how are you going to find out? >> the aspects that come to mind immediately are some of the things he said in terms of reference that were made public yesterday. first of all, readiness. impact on readiness. we are engaged and to conflicts right now -- in two conflicts right now. i assume everyone would want to

know what the impact either way would be on recruiting and retention. as i mentioned earlier, we are interested in assessing the impact on what we call family readiness. the way i would sum it up is to say the impact on readiness and family readiness and recruitment and intention -- and retention. >> have you had a chance to think through, and i know this may be premature, how you intend to get that information? we anticipate there might be some surveys but i would also wonder about face-to-face interviews that might be helpful, as well. we have all had discussions here and the questions that are asked of returning troops, which may or may not be valid down the line, and i am wondering if

there is an anticipation of a lot of face-to-face discussion or if it would be done more under service and how we would reach out to families. what do you think is likely to be the vehicle for this? >> the issues that you have addressed are exactly but we're thinking about. in principle, what we are envisioning at the direction of the secretary of defense is a wide average to get a wide variety of views put it in that effort, which envisioned a survey instrument of the force and of their families to get their sense on the issues. we absolutely agree with you that that survey must be enriched by personal contact. focus groups, if you will. some of them targeted to specialized groups and families within the department of defense, active reserve and guard. that personal interaction is

very important. turkey, we envision the average for social needs. -- thirdly, we envision the out reached for social needs. >> to you anticipate that focusing on whether or how? or a combination of both? >> it really is on how. as you indicated, we do not poll the force on should we do this or should we not do that. in this regard, it is more important for us as we survey the force and conduct these focus groups and reach out to groups is to understand the implications of repeal should it occur so that necessary policy adjustments, if required, can be foreseen and envisioned. it is how. >> thank you. mr. wilson. >> thank you, madame chair.

>thank you. i am concerned the direction given to you by the secretary of defense will not result in your study group examining to fundamental questions, whether current law threatens or undermines readiness in any significant way and whether the repeal of current law would improve readiness in measurable ways. with the to review commit to us today that you will examine these two questions as part of your study and provide the secretary of defense with your data, findings, and recommendations regarding them? in your personal view, to you think this question should be examined? would you object to them being added either by the secretary of defense or by congress?

>> let me start, if we to a comprehensive and thorough job, a necessary component of that would be to look at the two questions you raised. >> thank you. >> i would agree. it is clear to me in the terms of reference and with the discussion of the secretary of defense the military readiness and effectiveness must retain primacy. that is what you expect of us and what the nation expects of us. we will clearly examine that. >> looking at your backgrounds, and very impressed. i am not surprised, the high integrity both indicated. thank you very much. dr. stanley, taken as a whole, the department data over the past 10 years with regard to recruiting and retention and practices of the navy and air

force to reduce manpower the levels in wartime refutes the argument that the repeal is in deficit -- is a military necessity. the statement that current law appears to be working. the you agree with this assessment, why or why not? >> >> i am not new to this discussion. as i join the secretariat, my marching orders were clear. i am open-minded, the secretary of defense has given me some orders here that basically lay out exactly what we are expected to do, which is to discuss, make an assessment, and to a rebuke to look into the questions that you are raising. agreeing or disagreeing with general conway would be