-- these have been a spur to action for me. this is one of the tools that i have in trying to lead this department and correct problems. if you are not -- and we understand that, as the chairman suggested, speed in responding to you will often be of the essence. this burden will fall on the public affairs office. i fully expect that, if they are not being prompt enough, we will hear about that from you all. we will take corrective action. the purpose here is to be as responsive to you as we have always been, but for us to do a better job of preparing people before they have the interviews. we will make adjustments as we go along. i would just say, if you are a captain in the unit that has an embedded reporter, as long as

you're within the guidelines and the rules, we expect you to be open with that embedded reporter. on the other hand, if you are a captain in this building, working on budget options, i expect you to keep your mouth shut. [laughter] >> to pursue another aspect of the memo -- the unauthorized release of sensitive information. charges were filed against a private. how significant a breach of national security was that? he is a young soldier who was allegedly given relatively free access to information -- able to download it and take it out of the headquarters. are you ordering any kind of review of security clearance processes, computer security, or any other steps? >> first of all, i do not know the seriousness of the breach. i am not familiar with the

investigation that took place. and so, i would basically have to say that i'd defer to the army in terms of the specific case. in some respect, what this illustrates is the incredible amount of trust we place in even our most junior men and women in uniform. i would be loath to change that because of a few examples -- because there are a few bad apples. we have over 2 million women and men in uniform. i believe we should always err on the side of trusting them. virtually all of them -- not 100% -- but nearly one and a% -- give us -- nearly 100% -- give

us reasons everyday to trust them. if the results of the investigation suggest a review is necessary, we will look at that. my instinct is to take these on a case-by-case basis. >> the only thing i would add to that is that i think it is being appropriately handled in the chain of command. any commander, when they look at the case, they look at the facts as he or she understands them. the mitigating factors are also looked at. the specifics -- i am not familiar with them here. if it looks like it is going to be something bigger than local, it will come up and we will look at making adjustments. there is no indication of that right now that i have seen. >> on the memo -- if everybody

is following the spirit and letter of the memo, are you confident that stories like the m-wrap and walter reed problems would emerge? there'll always be leaks. are you confident those things would still happen? >> i am. it is largely because my confidence in the persistence and the skills of the people sitting in front of me. >> can i add to that? those 4000 service would not -- 400,000 surveys when not electronically yesterday. -- went out electronically yesterday. how will those influence the review? >> we see this, as i have said all along, beginning with the testimony that the chairman and i gave several months ago -- it is very important for us to

understand, from our men and women in uniform, the challenges that they would see -- first of all, we want to get their views on this issue, and the challenges that they see in implementing a change in the law. that will help us prepare better to implement those changes when and if a lot is changed -- the law is changed. i would say that this survey is a very important element of this effort, in part because, while the general and his counsel have talked to thousands of troops in dozens of military facilities and we have gotten several tens andhousands of comments views by email in response to the requests for people's

thoughts on this, this size sampling is obviously the most significant element of getting the views of the troops. we have designed it -- it has been designed in partnership with a professional survey company and according to the best practices that they have for their industry. i would tell you that i put my oar in in only one respect. the original proposal was to sample 100,000 active serving -- active duty and 100,000 reserved. i suggested -- i strongly suggested that they double the sample size. i wanted a significant percentage of the force to have an opportunity to offer their views on this.

i am aware that there is at least one group that has suggested gays and lesbians in the service not fill in the report. a good news is -- the good news is that a number advocacy groups have encouraged them to fill it in. i strongly encourage gays and lesbians who are in the military to fill out these forms. we have organized this in a way to protect their privacy. we want to protect the come potentiality of their responses. we will do that through a third- party. it is important that we hear from them as well as everybody else. we're satisfied that this is an important element of this effort being done in a very professional way. >> can i ask you about the tanker program? for the third time in nine years, they will begin an effort to replace these. what steps have you taken,

broadly, to minimize the chances that the process will be sustained by the general accounting office? also, what steps have you taken to ensure that we will get the best dollar for the taxpayers? >> you are asking, really, about the whole process with the air force and atnl. my view is that the way it has been designed is as true spirit -- transparent as possible. i think that i have assured the congress that this will be a fair and transparent process. i think that the various criteria that the air force and atnl have come up with make it as objective process as possible. i think that -- i am very

optimistic that this time we will be able to get on with the. >> of the litany of things you've laid out about frustrations, calling back an officer who misspoke overseas, all of the media and military foibles -- you did not mention the mcchrystal report. there is no leak investigation being convened. there was a deafening silence. why did you not go after that at that time? that was classified. it was typical of what you want to avoid. the silence is deafening. we want to know why not? >> i was never convinced that it leaked out of this building. >> what steps did you take to track that down? >> i have a lot of experience with the investigation over a lot of years. [laughter] i am very cautious in calling for leak investigations,

especially when lots of people have access to documents. >> mr. secretary, on the "rolling stone" interviews specifically, what kind of -- to what extent did you know the controversial nature of that document before hand -- beforehand? would you have tried to shut off that interview? >> there is a question -- i think you do have to address questions of appropriateness. those are areas where i certainly depend on the advice of people who have been in the public affairs business and to know these different public functions. the -- these different public agencies. there are a lot more public -- freelance journalist.

there are a lot of blogs. people who have full-time, day jobs doing other things will not be familiar with a lot of these entities. one of the issues that would be reviewed by public affairs -- is this an appropriate publication or television opportunity for this particular officer? like i said, these are judgment calls. we make them everyday. we already make them. so, i do not see much change in that respect? -- in that respect. >> would you have tried to shut that down? >> that is easy in hindsight. there was no advance knowledge of that interview at all. >> general mcchrystal was

disrespecting his civilian leadership -- should not the civilian leadership have known about that? >> i do not know the exact circumstances. i do not know what was going on in his headquarters. i do not know what is going on in paris. as far as i am concerned, at this point, let me be very clear, general mcchrystal never, ever said one thing, or in any way, shape, or form, conveyed to me any disrespect for civilian authority over the military. never. i have never had an officer do that since i have been in this building in three and a half years. so, i think that this business of questioning of civilian authority, as far as i am concerned, it has been taken out

of context, by virtue of the "rolling stone" article. in my interaction with military -- irom e-1's to 4-stars have never encountered, at any level of the military, in this respect for civilian authority. i think this was a rare circumstance. it was an unfortunate one. >> another question about that memo. is there any information that you could glean from the survey that would make either of you think twice about supporting the repeal of don't ask, don't tell? >> if i were to add up about --

add to what the secretary said about the survey is, i think it will give us some objective information with respect to the responses from the people that we care about the most. these people are the ones who would be affected the most. we will reach out and try to predict -- to try to reach out and try to predict the results -- i just think it is too early with respect to that. i would not do that at this time. >> so it is contingent on the results of the survey? >> i am clear about where i have been. it is not my decision. it is the law. it needs to be changed from that perspective. >> shortly after meeting with prime minister netanyahu, there was a release a satellite ps