extending all the current breaks. i think the republicans make the point that stopping all of the half looming tax breaks and cutting spending would create jobs. we're looking forward to the conversation with the white house over extending all of the court rates and i remain optimistic. >> of what only add, it was useful and a frank discussion. we had an opportunity to reiterate the views that 100% of senate republicans and a number of senate democrats as well indicated, that we ought to treat all the taxpayers the same.

in the senate, we were wrestling with other matters that may be of some level of importance, but not in the same category as what the best actress will be. i think we can short of -- we can to reshuffle our priorities and hopefully wrapup the 111th congress. >> the president recognizes that the election and that people really want to see results. i was encouraged by the president's remarks regarding his perhaps not having reached that enough in the last session

and that this meeting was the beginning of a series in which he hopes that we can work together in a different fashion for the benefit of the american people. >> you sound optimistic. would your side dial down the rhetoric iabout the president now? >> the americans have criticized government more often than not. it is important to remember that some of these times when you have divided government have been quite productive. i think of the seven clinton administration with welfare reform and more. i do not think there's any particular reason why we -- why there is not agreement and we cannot do important things for the american people over the next two years. >> the president did make an

important point. he had not spent enough time with us, reaching out and talking to us. and he has committed to do so. i told the president that this will help us find some common ground. there is a difference why we -- there's a reason why we have democrats and republicans. we have different ideas about the proper it roll up the double government. having said that, the more time we spend together, the more we can find common ground. >> qc it different now than working with -- do you see it different now than working with this policy? -- than with this policms. pelo? >> it was revealing that the

leadership and the democratic house right now is ready to go and get the job done. somehow, it is a difficulty in trying to help priority is coming to being on the other side of the capital. i think all of us were here. the president put his foot forward and said that we have to produce results. i am hopeful that we can work together. >> the start treaty or the dream act or whatever? >> the start treaty is a separate issue. there was a discussion on it. i know the president would like to go forward as soon as possible. i think the unanimous view of senate republicans is to take care how we will fund the government for the next 10 months. and then there will be time left for the other matters.

>> will you be able to reach agreement on the tax cuts? >> we believe that mr. kantor will represent house republicans. -- mr. cantor will represent house republicans. >> thank you. ..

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> the one thing that we clearly agreed on today is that, first, we ought to resolve with the tax rate will be for the american people beginning next year. second, how we will fund the government for the next 10 months. the president had a useful suggestion, which is that each of us designate one member to meet with the vice-president and jack lew, the director of omb, and move toward to resolve the tax issue. my designee will be senator kyl,

who has been our leader on the estate tax issue, which also has to be addressed in the context of the siding with the tax return next year. obviously, there will also be a senior member of the finance committee. if there was a newspaper from the meeting with the president this morning, that was it. senator kyl. >> according to the gallup poll last week, it% of the american people do not want to see taxes raised -- 80% of the american people do not want to see taxes raised. it will be to ensure that nobody's taxes go up in these economic times. in the spirit of bipartisanship, it is my hope that we can at least agree on that. other things you can deal with fared the estate tax and other tax extenders. but i think we can agree on the first proposition. it might be possible for us to have a bipartisan agreement which is not -- well, it is

rather rare around here, but it may be possible to achieve this time. >> in bringing up so many different issues in this lame duck session, the democrat leadership in the senate is insisting on an encore for a concert that drew a lot of boos. we believe that, instead, what we should be doing in this session, and the message was clear from the american people, is to keep tax rates where they are, freeze spending, fund the government, and go home. >> [inaudible] >> i think most americans are wondering what will happen with

their income taxes. that is the first item. whatever the president and his folks want to talk about and what the members of congress want to talk about, we can discuss. i think first things first though, and that is the income tax rates. >> can you give us a sense of how the discussion went to? >> the president indicated that he would like to have the treaty considered during a lame- duck session. we pointed out that leader reid has the ability to bring up the treaty at any time. there was a general agreement, i believe, that we should posfirst focus on how we will fund the government over the next 10 months. after that, depending on how much time remains, leader reid can make a decision on what he wanted to bring up next. >> [inaudible]

>> we will discuss everything and see where we can come out. >> thank you, everybody. >> as i told the caucus today, i have had the good fortune over the years to serve with a lot of really good people in government.

but i have rarely, in my experience, come across anyone like senator murray. she is such a tremendous help to me personally and to the caucus. she is efficient. she is someone, when she speaks, people listen to her. she's experienced. and it is understandable to me why the people of this in washington keep returning her to the senate of the united states. it is with this background that i introduced patti today to the caucus as the new chairman for the fall campaign committee. patty? >> i am very humbled to have the support of my leader, the leadership, and my entire caucus on taking on this very important task for democrats across the country.

i know that this is not an easy task, but i am not doing it because it is easy. i am doing it because it is a very tough time for many families and businesses and communities across this country. and they're looking to us here to fight hard for them, to help them get back on their feet. and i know that, with a strong democratic caucus here, that is the agenda we will put forward. and that is why i am doing this. i am doing this because i believe that we need to fight for middle-class americans, to help them be strong again, so their kids can have an education, so they can get the tax cuts that they need and get people back to work again. i know that my caucus stands with me to make that happen. i think that is in sharp contrast from the words of the republicans shortly after the election, that their goal for the next two years was to defeat this president. i know what our goals are and

that is to get our country moving again. as chair of the de assisi, will be working with their candidates across this country -- of the dsec, i will be working with our candidates across this country. >> any questions? >> [inaudible] >> the report is common sense. is no surprise to me and it is no surprise to the american people. it has been shown time and time again that having keys in military does not hurt the military -- having gays in the military does not hurt the military. it helps military. i look for to the hearing that senator levin will hold on thursday and friday of this week. >> when will you bring the dream back to the floor?

>> i will have to set a date. >> [inaudible] >> we have had a lot of discussions with the president in the last couple of weeks, including during the thanksgiving recess. the president made a decision. we had a really good meeting. i do not know what my republican colleagues said publicly, but i am sure that they said publicly what they said privately, which is that it was a very efficient meeting today. the president suggested that i, senator mcconnell, the speaker, and leader boehner should start meeting with timothy geithner and larry summers. i think the meeting will start at 4:00 p.m. or 5:00 p.m. today. i will ask senator baucus to

represent the democratic caucus. the caucus knows that. and i would hope that this will allow the american people to see that we are trying to work in good faith to come up with a bipartisan proposal. if we can do that, we will come up with what is the best thing for the american people. the number one goal that i have and that i think everyone in our caucus has and i know the president has is to protect the middle class. >> [inaudible] >> this is one of those times that i wish i were a king. this is something that i believe in it so very strongly. i am not taking. i can do it -- i am not a king.

i cannot write a letter or sign an edict. but i will see if there is a way that we can get this done in the lame-duck for job creation. >> regardless of what happens with the panel, will you still -- >> i will not talk about what we will do procedurally now. i know that senator baucus knows this because he heard it from the caucus. i know that he believes in it himself. the $250,000 middle-class vote is extremely important. thank you, everybody. >> in a few moments, a pentagon news conference released its report on the don't ask/don't tell policy concerning gays in the military. in about an hour and half, an

update from the readers of the national commission on fiscal responsibility. and after that, a form of school superintendents around the country and what they have done -- a forum of school superintendents around the country and what they have done to improve education. >> the national commission on fiscal responsibility to meets to consider revised recommendations on cutting the deficit. that is on c-span 3 at 9:30 a.m. eastern. also, on c-span 3, at 2:30 p.m. eastern, a senate commerce subcommittee holds a hearing on limited benefit insurance policies, the so-called mini- health care plans. >> salman rushdie is on book tv this sunday. best known for his novel "the satanic verses," he will talk about his lesser-known books.

join us on sunday at noon eastern on c-span 2. >> defense secretary robert gates is recommending that congress repeal the don't ask/don't tell policy regarding the gays in the military. up next, he and the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, admiral mike mullen, report on the survey and the policy that banned gays and lesbians who serve openly in the military.

>> admiral mullen and i will briefly comment on the review's findings and recommendations for the way ahead. we will take some questions. the working groups cochairs, general counsel j. johnson and army general carter ham, will provide more detail on the report and answer any questions you may have a methodology, data, and recommendations. when i first appointed mr. johnson and general ham to assume this duty, i did so with the confidence that they would undertake this task with the thoroughness, sears's, professionalism, and object city befitting a -- cereuses, professionalism, and objectivity the fitting -- seriousness, professionals and,

and objectivity befitting this subject. the report reflects 10 months of research under several lines a steady. -- lines of study. as was made clear at the time and is worth repeating today, this average was not a matter of taking a poll of the military to determine whether the law should be changed. the very idea of asking the forced to, in effect, vote on such a matter is antithetical to our system of government and would have been without precedent in the long history of our civilian-led military. the president of the united states, the commander in chief of the armed forces, made his position on this matter clear, a

position i support. our job as the civilian and military leadership is to prepare should the congress changed the law. all family, it will be they who will determine whether such a transition is successful. i believe we have to learn the attitudes, the obstacles, and concerns that will lead to be addressed should the law be changed. we can do this only by reaching out and listening to our men and women in uniform and their families. the working group undertook this through a variety of means, from a mass survey answered by tens of thousands of troops and their spouses, to meetings with small groups and individuals, including hearing from those discharged under the current law. mr. johnson and general him will provide more detail on the results of the survey of troops and their families. in summary, a strong majority of

those who answered the survey, more than two-thirds do not object to gays and lesbians serving openly in the arm off -- in uniform. the findings suggest that, for large segments of the military, repeal of don't ask/don't tell will potentially disrupt them in the shorterm and would not be the wrenching dramatic change that many have feared and predicted. the data also shows that, within the combat arms specialties and units, there is a higher level of discontent, of discomfort and resistance to changing the current policy. those findings and the potential implications for america's fighting forces remain a source of concern to the service chiefs and to me. i will discuss this later. second, the working group also examine thoroughly all the potential changes to the department's regulations and policy dealing with matters such as benefits, housing,

relationships within the ranks, separations, and discharges. the cutters will explain in a few minutes that the majority of concerns associated with the repeal dealing with sexual conduct for, fraternization, living arrangements, marital or survival benefits could be governed by existing laws and regulations. existing policy can and should be applied equally to homosexuals as well as heterosexual. while a repeal would require some changes to regulations, the key to success, as with most things military, it is training, education, and, above all, strong and principled leadership up and down the chain of command. third, the working group examined the potential impact of a change in the law on military readiness, unit cohesion, and other issues critical to the performance of the force. in my view, getting this

category right is the most important thing we must do. the u.s. armed forces are in the middle of two major military overseas campaigns. the complex and difficult drawdown in iraq, a war in afghanistan. both are putting a extraordinary stress on those serving on the ground and their families. it is the well-being of these brave young americans, those dointhe fighting and the dying since 9/11, that has guided me. it will be no different in this issue. i am determined to see that, if the law is repealed, the changes are implemented in such a way as to minimize any negative impact, from morrell, a collision, and effectiveness of the combat units that are deployed, about to be deployed to the front lines. with regards to readiness, the working group's report concluded that, overall and with thorough

preparation, there is a low risk for repealing don't ask/don't tell. however, as i mentioned earlier, the survey data shows that a higher proportion between 40% and 60% of those serving in predominately all-male, specialties, mostly army and marine predicted a negative effect on unit cohesion from repealing the current law. for this reason, the uniformed service chiefs are less sanguine about the level of risk of repeal with regard to combat readiness. the views of the chiefs were sought out and taken seriously by me and by the authors of this report. the chiefs will also have the opportunity to explain -- to provide their expert military it buys to the congress as they have to me and to the president.

their perspective deserves serious attention and consideration as it reflects the decades of experience and sentiment of many senior officers. in my view, the concerns of combat troops as expressed in the survey do not present an insurmountable barrier to success will repeal of don't ask/don't tell. this can be done and should be done without posing a serious risk to military readiness. however, these findings do believe me to conclude that an abundance of care and preparation is required if we are to avoid a destructive and potentially dangerous impact on the performance of those serving at the tip of the spirit in america's wars. this brings me to my recommendations on the way ahead. earlier this year, the house representatives passed legislation that would repeal don't ask/don't tell after a number of steps take place.

the last is certification by the president, the secretary of defense, and the chairman that the new policies and regulations were consistent with the u.s. military standards of readiness, effectiveness, unit cohesion, and recruiting and retention. now that we have completed this review, i strongly urge the senate to pass this legislation and send it to the president for signature before the end of this year. i believe that it is a matter of some urgency because, as we have seen in the past year, the federal courts are increasingly becoming involved in this issue. just a few weeks ago, one lower court ruling forced the department into an abrupt series of changes that were no doubt confusing and distracting to men and women in iraq. it is only a matter of time before the federal courts are drawn once more into the fray with the very real possibility that this change would be imposed immediately by judicial fiat.

by far, the most damaging and disruptive scenario that i can imagine and one of the most hazardous to military morrell, readiness, andattlefield performance. therefore, it is important that this change come by through legislative means. that is led a station informed by the review when it is completed. -- that is legislation that is informed by the review when it is completed. above all, a process that -- given the present circumstances, those that choose not to act legislatively are rolling the dice that this policy will not be abruptly overturned by the courts. the legislation presently before the congress would authorize the repeal of the don't ask/don't tell pending certification of the present, the secretary of the defense, and would harm military readiness. it would be unwise to push ahead

with full implementation of repeal before more can be done to prepare the force. in particular, those ground eunice specialties and eunic could have a disrupting -- and units could have a disrupting change. assuming that the military has been given sufficient time and preparation to get the job done right. the department has already made a number of changes to regulations that, within existing law, applied more exacting measures, the changes that have added a measure of common sense and decency to a legally and morally fraught process. i close on a personal note and a personal appeal. this is the second time that i have dealt with this issue as a leader in public life.

the prior case was in the cia in 1992 when i proposed that openly gay applicants should be treated likewise. views toward gays and lesbians have changed dramatically since that time. the feelings on this matter can still run deep and divide, often start with a long demographic, cultural, and generational lines. not only in society as a whole, but in the uniform ranks as well. for this reason, i would ask that congress take on this debate, for all involved, to resist the urge to lure our troops and families into the politics of this issue. what it calls for is a careful

and considered approach, an approach that, to the extent possible, welcomes all that are qualified and capable of serving their country in uniform and one that does not undermine under hayes and dogmatism -- under haste and dogmatism. admiral. >> thank you, secretary. i would also like to thank j. johnson and carter ham, as well as everyone involved in the working group for their extraordinary efforts over much of the past year. i fully endorse the report. the working group was given a tall order. indeed, nothing less than producing the first truly comprehensive assessment of not only the impact of repeal of the law governing the don't ask/don't tell, but also about how best to implement the new

policy across the joint force. as the secretary indicated, the working group surveyed our troops and their spouses, opponents and proponents of repeal, and military spirits around the world. the also spoke with certain gays and lesbians and other members of the military who are gay and lesbian. it is one of the most exhaustive studies ever done on military personnel issues. i applaud the time that it was taken to arrive to a defensible conclusion. i was glad to see that they focused their findings and recommendations rightly on those who would be most affected in a change in the law, our people, all of our people. for the first time, the chief and i have just more than anecdotal evidence and here's a to inform the advice to give to our civilian leaders.

the chiefs and i met with the president as recently as yesterday. i only want to add three points to what the secretary has already laid out. first, i think it is noteworthy that the working group found will strong leadership to be the single most important factor in implementing any repeal. that may sound fairly obvious, but it is a key critical point. we'll have our opinions and those opinions matter. this is without question a complex social and cultural issue. at the end of the day, whatever the decision of our elected leaders may be, we in uniform have an obligation to follow orders. when those orders involve significant change, such as this would, we need to find ways to lead the way forward. our troops and their families expect that from us and i think the american people do as well. second, we have heard loud and clear that our troops also

expected to maintain high standards of conduct and professionalism, both as we move toward in this debate and should repeal occur. we treat people with dignity and respect in the armed forces or we do not last long. no special cases, no special treatment. we will continue to comport ourselves with honor and holder sells accountable across the board to impeccably high standards. repeal or no repeal. finally, the report shows that however low the overall risk the repeal may be with respect to readiness, cohesion, and retention, it is not without its challenges. we can best address the challenges by having it within our power and prerogatives to manage the implementation process ourselves. should repeal occur, i share the secretaries desire that it come about through legislation, through the same process with which the law was enacted rather

than precipitously through the courts. i further hope that such debate in the congress will be as fully informed by the good work done in this report as my vice to the secretary and to the esident is. thank you. >> mr. gates, you said it would be unwise to proceed with the repeal until there is more grounds in the report. this is a recommendation shared by the white house as far as, once congress acts, there should be a time in which the policy is put in place. do you also sure that recommendation? should the congress vote to repeal the law, what we are asking for is the time subsequent to that to prepare adequately before the changes

are implemented in the force. how long that would take, frankly, i do not know. there is the report, as you will see, in the implementation plan. it lays out in the -- it lays out an ambitious agenda of albany's to be done, not only leadership training, but -- of not only -- it lays out an ambitious agenda of all that needs to be done, not only leadership training, but training across the board. the president would be watching very closely to make sure that we do not dawdle or try to slow- roll this. i think his expectation would be that we would prepare as quickly as we properly and comprehensively could. and then we would be in a position to move toward certification. but how long it would take, i do not know. >> there is a level of risk as

laid out in the report. i would hope that you spend as much time on the implementation plan of the report. the implementation plan is strongly endorsed should this law change. it is in the implementation plan that the risk levels are mitigated and principally mitigated through leadership, certainly this training and guidance, but having enough time to do that is critically important as we would look at implementation. that is what really mitigates any risk that is out there. >> you said the chiefs are less sanguine. what specifically have they told you about their concerns? why, in time of war, should there be any increase in the level of risk?

>> the chiefs will speak for themselves on friday. the chairman has spent much more time with him that i have. i think it is fair to say that their concerns revolve around stress on a force after nearly 10 years of war. and i think they are concerned about the higher levels of negative response from the ground combat units and the special operations units that i have talked about in my remarks. i would just like to go back and _ the chairman's point could -- and underscore the chairman's point. the level of risk is tied to the preparation. i would put it this way.

if the court ordered us to do this tomorrow, i believe that the risk to the force would be high. if we have plenty of time to prepare the force, to prepare the leadership, i think the more effectively we do their preparation, the lower the risk. >> i have engaged with the chiefs many times are the last several months. we have had extensive discussions about this. from the standpoint of change in law, my perspective is what i would call my personal opinion and is now my professional view that this is the best policy change we can make and we can do it in a relatively low-risk fashion given the time and given the ability to make it would never risk is out there through strong leadership.

in fact, part of this is the fact that we have been at war for so long. we have -- one of the discussions is combat readiness. i have never been associated with a better military then we have right now and military leaders. should this change, they will be able to implement it very specifically. again, the chiefs will speak for themselves on friday. >> secretary, you raised combat arms. reports show that those polls, 50% of marine combat arms, there is very strong opposition from the chaplains as well. how would you do with both groups? >> one of the other considerations that the report

revealed is that, even in combat arms, -- even in combat arms units, among those who believe they had served with a gay person before, the level of comfort going forward was something like 90%. so part of thiss a question of unfamiliarity. part of it is stereotypes. and part of it is just sort of inherent resistance to change when you do not know what is on the other side. i think that the contrast between the significant levels of concern for those who said they had never served with someone who is gay, as opposed

to those who had come is unimportant -- as opposed to those who had, is an important consideration. if the congress of the united states repealed this law, this is the will of the american people and you are the american military and we will do this and we will do it right. we will do everything in our power to mitigate the concerns that you have. >> a very large number of you the homosexuality as a sin and an abomination. >> chaplains already served in a force where many of the members do not share their values or their beliefs. there is an obligation to care for all. but it is also clear that the chaplains will not be asked to teach something they do not believe in.

i think the report is pretty clear on that. >> what is your sense in whether the information sharing climate environment treated after 9/11 to encourage greater cooperation and transportation in communication with the military led to an overreaction? >> one of the common themes i heard from the time i was a senior agency official in the early 1980's and every military engagement we were in was the complaint of the lack of adequate intelligence support. that began to change with the gulf war in 1991. but it really has changed

dramatically after 9/11. clearly, the finding that the lack of sharing of information has prevented people from "connecting the dots," led to much wider sharing of information, and i would especially say a wider sharing of information at the front. so no one at the front was denied any information that might possibly be helpful. obviously, that aperture went to wide. there is no reason for a young officer at a ford operating post in afghanistan to get tables having to do with the start negotiations. we have taken a number of mitigating steps in the department. i have directed a number of these things to be undertaken. first, an automated capability

to monitor workstations for security purposes. we have about 60% of this done. it is mostly stateside. i have directed that we accelerate the completion of it. second, as i think you know, we have taken steps in said, in september and now everywhere to direct -- in centcom in september and now everywhere to direct dvd and the network to be disabled. we have done some other things in terms of two-man policies wherever you can move policie information. and then we have some longer- term efforts underway in which we can identify anomalies, sort of like credit cards do.

and finally, efforts to tailor access depending on rules. let me address the latter part of your question. this is obviously a massive dump of information. first of all, unlike the pentagon papers, onef the things that is important in all of these releases, whether it is afghanistan or iraq or the releases this week, is a lack of any significant difference between what the united states government says publicly and what these documents show. the pentagon papers show that many in the government were lying to the american people and to themselves. let me offer some perspective of somebody who has been at this a long time. every other government in the world knows that the united states government leaks like a sieve. it has for a long time. i'd drag this up the other day

when i was looking at some of these perspectives. from john aqu quote adams. "to me, it appears a dangerous and pernicious as it is novel. when we went to real congressional oversight in the mid-70 -- mid-1970's, there was a broad view that no group would share information with us again. now i have heard the impact of these releases on our foreign policy described as a meltdown, as a game changer, and so on. i think those descriptions are fairly significantly over roraught.

the fact is that governments deal with the united states because it is in their best interest, not because they believe is, because they trust us, or because they respect us. it is because they need us. we are still essentially the indispensable nation. other nations will continue to deal with us. they will continue to work with us. we will continue to share sensitive information with one another. is this embarrassing? yes. is it offered? yes. consequences for u.s. farm policy, i think, they are fairly modest. >> did you reach out in advance of the leak? >> i did. >> on don't ask/don't tell, you

said now is the time to do this largely because of the threat of legal action. if that legal action was not looming, how much do you think that this is the right thing to do now? how hard do you intend to lobby those on the hill? >> i do not spend much time thinking about the world as i wish it were. the reality is the court issue is out there. in my view, it does lend urgency to this. the question has been raised that maybe the courts would give us time, to which my answer is maybe or maybe not. we just do not know. but the one path we know gives us the time and the flexibility to do this which is the legislative path. i do not know how fast the courts will move on this. but what we have seen seems to

be more and more action in the courts in the last year or two. that is what gives me a sense of urgency. my greatest fear is what almost happened to us in october. that is being told to implement a change of policy overnight. >> senator mccain is arguing that this report is the wrong report and that it will not get to the bottom of how it will affect unit cohesion or morale. >> in this respect, and i obviously have a lot of admiration and respect for senator mccain, but in this respect, i think that he is mistaken. i think this report does provide a sound basis for making decisions on this law. people can draw different conclusions out of this report.

the commons, for example, in the evaluation of the report of the higher levels of concern among the combat arms units and the marine corps and so on, people can read these and come up with different conclusions. but in terms of the data and the views of the force, it is hard for me to imagine that you could come up with a more comprehensive approach. we had something on the order of 145,000 people in uniform answer the questionnaire, the survey. we had something on the order of 40,000 to 45,000 spouses respond to that survey. tens of thousands of people who reached in other ways. i do not think there is any other comparable source of

information or data on attitudes in the force then this report. and it is hard for me to a imagine another effort taking a much different approach than this report did. >> and its main trust was on combat effectiveness, mission effectiveness, readiness, unit cohesion, etc. and that data, i agree with the secretary, you can pick parts of it that you may want to read differently, but the date is very compelling, in particular with respect to those issues. that was the main reason for the report. >> i wonder if he could talk a little bit more about how you would see this implemented and what you mean by giving time. for example, would you say not put openly gay service members

deployed in afghanistan in 2011? would you integrate the non- combat arms unit's first? could you describe a little bit more of what your implementation plan would be? >> first of all, the repeal law would not, as i understand it -- i am not a lawyer and mbe jay johnson can address this for you more authoritatively when he comes up here -- as i am understand it, until we certify -- until the president, the secretary of defense, and the joint chiefs certify that the military is ready to implement the law, the repeal, the currently existing rules would continue to apply. so you would have a period of preparation, if you will, as i indicated earlier, which i do

not know exactly how long it would take. >> from my perspective, we are one military. we are one military. >> two more questions. >> you have spoken quite clearly on how you supported the president's position on this and how this these to be done in in a courtly and measured way. -- in an orderly and measured way. do you think that it has been wrong for gays and lesbians not to be able to serve their country over the years? >> one of the things that is most important to me is a personal integrity. and a policy or a law that, in

effect, requires people to lie gives me a problem. so i think it is -- we spend a lot of time in the military talking about integrity and honor and values, telling the truth is a pretty important value in that scale. it is a very important value. for me, i thought the admiral was eloquent on this last february. a policy that requires people to lie about themselves somehow seems to be fundamentally flawed. last question. >> earlier in the process, general conway raise concerns about this, proposing separate barracks because men may not be comfortable sharing bearish with openly gay troops.

would that be on the table, separate housing, separate showers? >> the bottom line of the report is there would be no separate facilities. thank you, all. >> thank you. >> good afternoon. i believe general ham will begin with his remarks and then i will follow-up. >> good afternoon. it has been a long time since i

have been at this podium and i do not miss it at all. [laughter] as secretary gates indicated, on march 2 of this year, he give mr. johnson and i a pass to review the issues related to repeal of section 654, the law commonly referred to as don't ask/don't tell. today being the 30th of november is in fact 17 years to the day for when president clinton signed into law in 1994 the national defense authorization act which included don't ask/don't tell, the matter we are talking about today. secretary gates gave us two primary task, first to assess readiness.oon suddenly, they told us to recommend appropriate changes to regulations, policies, and

guidance in the event of repeal. additionally, we were to -- as we began our work, secretary gates directed that with early, objectively, and methodically examine all aspects of this question. he told us in written guidance and verbally to systematically engaged the force. with that guidance over the last nine months, we solicited the views of 400,000 service members, active national guard and reserve, which solicited several responses. we solicited the reviews of 150,000 spouses of service members, receiving over 40,000 replies. we received over 72,000 comments from service members and their families on a specifically designated all mine in box. we convicted -- we conducted 95

face-to-face meetings around the world. mr. johnson and i participated in many of those. we held 140 demographically selective focus groups. nine-12 jr. and listed male combat arms, nine to 12 mid- grade non-commissioned females. we engaged service academies, pmen.s, and shift m we met with the number of veterans groups, service organizations, and groups both for and against the repeal of don't ask/don't tell. one of the more difficult tasks through a non-dod-managed confidential mechanism and through rams were, we engaged

currently servicing gay and lesbian service members. it is the largest and most comprehensive review this department of defense has ever undertaken. based on all that we saw and heard, our assessment is that, when coupled with prompt implementation of recommendations we offer, the risk of repeal of don't ask/don't tell to overall military effectiveness is low. as the secretary mentioned, it is important to note that assessment is based upon the prompt implementation of the recommendations. .

>> 92% say that their ability was ablgood, very good, or not affected at all. the percentage was 3% or 4% for the marine corps combat arms units. these are all very high percentages. our survey results reflect actual experience. these are the other engagements and the lessons of history lead us to conclude that the risks are higher than the force generally remaining within acceptable levels. when coupled for our

recommendations. >> general explained the process we have taken to get to where we are today. there are a number of things that are explained in our report. here are a few. to begin with, there are the results of the service member survey. this was one of the largest ever conducted by the u.s. military. when asked about how having a service member in their immediate unit who said he or she is gay would affect their ability to work together, 70% of service members predicted it would have a positive, mixed, or no affect. when asked if they had ever

worked in a co-worker that they believed to be homosexual, 69% of service members reported that they already had. as was mentioned, when asked about the actual experience of serving in a unit with a co- worker with a believed was gay or lesbian, 92% said that the ability to work together was good, very good, neither good no poor. when asked whether repeal would affect their husband or wife featured plans to stay in the military, 74% said that repeal would have no affect. there are gay men and lesbians already serving in the military and many surface members recognize this. in the course of our assessment, it became apparent to us that

much of the concern about "openly," service members is driven by misperception and stereotypes about what that would be. today in civilian society, where there is no longer that requires gay men and lesbians to reveal their lives, people tend to be discreet. we believe that in the military environment, this would be true. this discretion would occur for reasons having nothing to do with the state of the loan. they desire to fit in, coexist, or succeed in the military environment. in communications with gay and lesbian current and former service members, we heard repeatedly a patriotic desire to

serve and defend the nation subject to the same rules as everyone else. most said they did not care about advancing a social agenda. some of those would welcome their opportunity to rejoin the military if permitted to do so. from them, we heard many of the same values expressed that we heard over and over again from service members at large -- love, respect, integrity, respect. we cannot square the reality of these people with the perception about "open," service. based on our work, we are convinced that the u.s. military can make a change even during this time of war. this depends upon the prompts -- of the limitations that we offer in the report.

successful limitations of -- successful implementations of the repeal of don't ask don't tell will require education and training tools. we must acquit the leaders in the field with training tools of what is expected of them in a post repeal environment. an underlying theme should be fair and equal treatment of all service members regardless of sexual orientation. if repeal comes, a gay and lesbian service members must be treated the same as everyone else. in the course of our review, we heard a large number of service members raised religious and moral objections to, sexuality or to serving alongside someone who is gay. in the event of repeal, it should be clear that service members are not expected to change their personal religious views or moral beliefs about

homosexuality. service members are expected to treat all others with dignity and respect. these concepts are not new for the military community as people with sharply different moral views already live together and work together on a daily basis. the route our engagement with the force, we heard many concerns expressed about possible inappropriate conduct that might takemy place in the event of repeal. many of these were about conduct that is already regulated in the military regardless of the people involved. we believe that it is not necessary to establish an extensive set of new or revise the standards of conduct. we recommend that the department of defense issues guidance that

all standards of conduct apply uniformly without regard to sexual orientation. we addressed those in relationships. all service members not in a federally recognized marriage should be treated as simple for purposes of eligibility. we recommend that the department of defense study ways to reshape the additional benefits. in the event of repeal, any assignments and designations of separate facilities based on sexual orientation should be prohibited. however, commanders should retain the ability to alter assignments or accommodate the concerns and on individualized

case by case basis. service members who are pre be separated under don't ask don't tell and permitted to apply for reentry into the military and this is the same criteria as others who seek reentry. we do not underestimate the challenges in implementing a change in this law. neither should we underestimate the ability of our servicemen and women to adapt to such change and unite to defend the nation when called upon to do so. clucks direct your questions to either. >> having gone through this process, do you have any recommendation about how long this interim time should last

if congress were to act pretty quickly to lift the ban. how long it it is reasonable to expect for this to go the distance? >> this support plan for implementation envisions a three-phased approach. b. pre be repealed face -- the phase before the repeal. an implementation phase which would began as a current legislative contract with passes of legislation which would lead to repeal. we did not have a specific time frame because the future is somewhat uncertain. we did not know, will this be

the legislation that is passed or will there be some other means that repeal comes about or perhaps repealed that is not come about. an uncertain time frame but i think that the faces are important. >> to answer your question, this is more for the personal readiness committee. if we are talking about the current legislation is pending before congress right now, i think the answer would be not fast but not moronic out or protracted either. this would be counterproductive for unit cohesion. the current legislation contemplates that before the chairman and the secretary deliver that to the congress, the department of defense will

have written new policies and recommendations to put in place in a post repealed environment. the secretary has made clear that before he and the chairman and the president signed the suffocation, he would like to know that we have that architecture in place and that we have accomplished as much as possible some of the education and training that we are recommending. >> are we talking about months or years? one of the congressman said that you are personally opposed to homosexuality, is that true? if so, why? >> one of our guiding principles for our group is that you check your personal opinions at the

door. it is not helpful for members of the working group to have personal views in the conversation. we did not discuss personal opinions. ibm, as all senior military officials are, oblige when asked by members of congress or those in an appointed office, to answer my personal -- it to -- to reveal my personal opinion. >> that directive is absolutely true. such that today was the first time i heard him give a personal opinion on this issue. >> [inaudible]

>> this is more for the personal readiness community. >> what about the education? >> we have laid out what we feel is necessary in terms of education training, talking points, where the emphasis should be, how long that would take depends on emphasis and the public resources that are devoted to the task. depending upon the number of people and the level of resources you devote to this, this can happen at once war had a different level of resources. most of this will depend upon how we staff this. until such time as the regulations, policies, and guidance are developed, you cannot determine how long it

will take to train and educate the force and we don't know what they are just yet. this must proceed any determination or the length of training. course with the current policy of separating those who are found to be homosexual continue to apply even if congress passed a law repealing this? second, you are an experienced combat leader, how he did do you think the resistance would be among combat units to implementation? >> under the current version of the legislation pending, this will remain in effect unless and until certification is delivered to the congress and

then 60 days after that, repeal would become effective. this would remain in effect until that happens. >> he would separate people who could get into the military within a year. this does not make sense. there's been no separation says the change in the policy brought this to a higher level. that is not exactly working the way it used to work. >> the form of legislation pending is what it is and this is not part of our mandate to assess that or offer an opinion. >> there are uncertainties in my life and of one thing i am certain, that is the armed forces of the u.s. follows the law and this is what it is. if the law is going to change,

when that law changes, the on forces with full energy and commitment will follow the law. >> there has not been a discharge under don't ask don't tell for of least 40 years. can you tell us why there has been no discharge and under what conditions these will resume. we did this in consultation with dr. stanley and myself. it could change in a couple of days depending on what is in the pipeline. >> what is the most surprising

thing that you can across? >> i would say two things? , i was a little bit nervous about -- i was one of many members to discuss this topic. i was extremely gratified and pleased that the discussions that we had with service members were remarkably frank but civil and professional at all times. up people were not shy about raising their hands.

the discussion was brief and frank across the spectrum but at all times it was very simple and very professional. -- very simplcivil and very professional. there was a distinction in age groups. younger officers were less negative about the effects. and he did not see the huge generational gap that both of us going into this thought we would see. in a large group session, a young service members stood up and i could not predict what the service member's view of this issue was going to be. the exception to that was that the cadets and midshipmen were

all of the opinion -- i do not want to generalize too much, but they were by and large of the opinion, what is the big deal? >> he understates these large group sessions but we heard very impassioned discussion points across the spectrum on this particular issue. i've been a soldier for a long time and i was struck by the civility that service members even with a widely differing opinions, the way they treated one another. that was very reassuring. >> you said that there was a lot of objections on religious

grounds. was that the basis of the majority of the objections? >> the only way to address the reasons would banecdotally what we heard to the large group sessions, not through the survey. through what i saw and heard and between the two of us we came in contact with over 10,000 service members. as people put it to us, most of the concern was about gays and lesbians serving openly. there was definitely concerns expressed on moral and religious grounds. most of the concerns expressed four concerns about serve alongside someone who was

openly gay or lesbian. >> so there was no religious basis? >> no, it was based upon what life would be like serving with someone who was openly gay. >> the religious and moral aspect of this is very important and it became very clear that this was a significant issue. we have chaplains on our working group to help advise us. we met with the armed forces chaplain's board which is comprised of the service members. those who sponsor and endorse

them in women and they will serve as chaplains. there are 202 of them, i believe. we reached out and asked what would be the impact. would you withdraw your endorsement? those that responded, and none indicated that they would. there is very clearly a concern by the interesting agents and service members that some would be treated at a firstling if they held religious views. on the have to make sure that the people understand. i would like people to be

protected. we know how to do this and our chaplains are well practiced. the same goes for service members. our recommendations focus on changing behavior is. >> based on what you have heard, there will be people who feel strongly on moral and religious grounds that the ban should not be lifted. there are those who feel that they must resign or that they can have a large principle of this. would you actually advise someone in that position to resign? >> if the law is repealed, it is

likely that some service members will come to the position that says that i cannot abide by this. there are likely to be some chaplains to say that they cannot reconcile their religious beliefs with this position and their enforcement agent might leave. a service member by simply stating that homosexuality is contrary to my beliefs or my religious views or opinions, should that person be eligible for separation? having said that, if this service member is unable to reconcile his or herself and their contact and to become destructive in the forest, they have a full range of

authorities that could ultimately lead to them being separated. we do not believe that that should be the first course of action. >> of the points that we have made in the report is that surveys that ask for predictions of future behavior most often are based on attitudes and predictions and attitudes, there is data out there that tells us that they are poor predictors of actual behavior. that is crowded by the experience and the report of our foreign allies when they dealt with this issue, changes in policies, there were surveys done of foreign military is

where the predictions were dire. there were surveys that were conducted on the issue of racial integration which shows a very high level of opposition. the point is that predictions of what you will do when something happens are very often poor indicators of what the actual behavior will be. that is why this survey spends a fair amount of time of asking members about their actual experience with members said they believe to be gay or lesbian. >> assuming that the repeal goes through and your hand -- your plan goes in place, if a gay

service member is hurt or killed, will they have the same visitation rights as a heterosexual member? what would be the circumstances under which a commander could mandate or put in place separate bathrooms? >> as a report makes clear, but we are recommending that the unit level or the base level, or what have you, this is a policy setting up separate bathrooms or buildings or barracks arrangements for gays and lesbians should be prohibited. this is also impossible to administer because people not self identified for these purposes.

commanders should address concerns about privacy. this is the discretion that they have right now. if a service member has a concern about privacy or cannot get along with someone with who it has been assigned a room, a commander has discretion to deal with that. he does not have to forced two people to live together. it should be dealt with on a case by case basis as is now. we are recommending a policy of separate facilities. with regard to hospital visits, if the law is repealed, we believe that there are a number of benefits to service members are entitled.

there is some next of kin notification. you can intensify this as a beneficiary for your service members, those kinds of categories would lead to the types of benefits which would lead into the service member- designated category. >> you mentioned at the discretion to the commander. if you have an openly gay service members whose safety is at risk, is in any situation where they could say for my own protection our safety, i need to live my myself. >> i would hesitate to answer hypothetical. it depends upon the circumstances. i would not prohibit a commander from addressing the situation like that. if any service member had a well-founded fear for his own safety, for some reason, but it

depends on the circumstances. >> you said there would be a lower risk if there is a proper implementation plan. what are the risks of this not happening? many predictor's turned out to not be true. >> this would appear infrequently in our conversations that with the force. the united states arm forces are a disciplined force, that does

not mean that there are not some bad actors occasionally who engage in misconduct. we do have assaults and what have you. however, we know how to deal with this. the focus is on respect for our fellow service member. if that service members beliefs are different from your own. we have mechanisms in place to deter and certainly to respond to any violence that might occur. clearly, the message from leadership would be that this is unacceptable and criminal behavior and we have the means of dealing with that. >> are you concerned about disruptions? it is that what you mean, violent hate crimes? it is that what you mean? >> an example of disruption,

we're not concerned about rampant violence and that is not what we mean by disruption. what we mean is what we saw in october. on monday, there was a long, don't ask don't tell, on tuesday, we were in forcing this. under administrative state was in place where the law was back in place. you have to keep sending communications out to the u.s. military. this is distracting, confusing. if repeal is to occur, it should

occur in an orderly way with the forces that are educated such that we can create an environment in which gays and lesbians -- repeal can be readily except it. >> you said that the disruption that might occur, you are not just talking about disruption back-and-forth in the courts, you said that there might be some short-term and disruption. what do you mean by disruption? >> if we have a policy that has a far-reaching impact, the type of disruption that in my mind would follow an appeal, which i believe can be mitigated through leadership and education training, this will still occur.

when the service members in a unit who chooses to disclose his or her sexual orientation, some of their fellow service members in that unit will react differently to that disclosure in sexual orientation. there will be a disruption that occurs like we just talked about. i don't want to share a room with a gate or a lesbian service member. that is that type of destruction that will occur in the immediate aftermath of an appeal, should this occur. i am a commander so if this law is repealed, i will have to do what is in that report. that was on my mind as we went

through this. >> can you tell me why the marine corps is so resistant to the repeal? they were the largest percentage in terms of having a negative opinion? do you have any conclusions that jump out at you? >> generally, with the marine corps respondents indicated it a lower percentage who have actual experience of serving in a unit alongside someone who was gay or lesbian parent of the point that mr. johnson made about the perceived effect of open service for lack of a better term, was somewhat problematic. we did find, for example in the combat arms units, and in a

combat environment when they were asked about their experience with gay service members in their unit, they reported actually quite favorably on the unit's performance. i think that this is say actual experience >> a general was here a few months ago and he was asked a question, his response was would we recruit a very macho guy, did you come across that? >> i have worked with general conway for quite some time.

that question did not reveal itself. >> given the fact that this survey has a different level of support and different services, d.c. any place where the department of defense can leave some flexibility for the services to develop certain policies on their own and have some variance in the way that individual services handle some of these policy matters? >> there are a number of recommendations where we leave it to the services to devise their own policies with some overarching themes and suggestions about how to bring that about. we're not recommending that there be any kind of approach

where in certain service does it at a certain pace and a certain service does this add another pace. we're not making a recommendation one way or another on that. >> is there where the air force might do it one way or the army might to do this another way? >> the services should look at whether certain types of benefits that could be extended to same-sex partners can be read designated as a member- designated benefits. the service member can designate whoever they want, whether this is a same sex partner or my long lost brother or my first grade teacher. if it makes sense from a fiscal policy and feasibility point of view to designate it that way with this issue in mind, then we would encourage the services to do that.

it is possible that the army could do it one way, the air force could do this another. we tried to craft this in a manner that was respectful of service cultures and recognizing that each service trains and educates a little bit differently in so we tried to provide an architecture for the training and education to occur that then allows the services to flesh out the details of how they would do this consistent with their methodology and service colter's. >> -- service cultures. >> in terms of a follow up on the marine corps, one of the comments by abnormal and today was that the working group finding was that one of the most important parts of the implementation of a repeal would be leadership. is there any message that

they're working group found or that either of you individually take from the fact that some of the strongest comments against repeal have come from the leaders of the marine corps and where the survey has found the least reflective response to the open military. >> i drew a lot of significance from the new statement that if repeal occurs, we will step up and do this smartly. i believe that. >> last question. >> will there be any changes? >> yes, there are several recommendations for changes. one is to remove the prosecution's for consensual sodomy. that is something that we should look at your respective of what the congress does with don't ask

don't tell and might of the decision in florence vs. texas. there is also recommendation for changing the definition of adultery in the manual for court-martials. this is in the report. thank you. >> thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> the pentagon has released their report on the impact of ending don't ask, don't tell, the policy that prevents gays from openly serve in the military. lo>> in a few moments, and of

state from the leaders onthe commission of fiscal responsibility. a panel of school representatives on what they have done to improve education. after that, president obama and congressional leaders on their meeting today and the green to work together on tax policy. tomorrow morning, we will talk about economic decisions facing congress with democratic rep marcy kaptur. we will look at to the aids pandemic with the executive director of the whitman walker clinic. "washington journal," is live every day at 7:00 a.m. eastern. >> this weekend, on american

history tv, an oral history interview with the assistant special prosecutor during the watergate case. special assistant to president ford discusses why mr. ford decided to run. then, a discussion on the confederacy, their early victories. american history television, telling the american story, every weekend. >> the national commission on fiscal responsibility and reform means turmoil morning to hear a revised plan to cut the nation's deficit. earlier today, the commission cochairs spoke with reporters

about their recommendations. the panel needs the support of 14 of the 18 members to make a formal recommendation to congress and the white house. >> we are here to answer your questions. we have wonderful people. we have put out our chairman's remarks some weeks ago and some days ago and now the final product will be presented

tomorrow with a vote ony.& fridy so that they have proper time to observe changes that we have made after visiting with various members of the commission these last several days. we will meet the deadline of december 1st which is tomorrow. this has been an educational process. this has been gathering facts, using reliable resources, getting true figures, these are the things we have done with the staff. it took us a few weeks to establish trust. this is a rather tarnished thing. we have that among ourselves. we might not agree that we understand each other and where we're coming from and the pain involved in this exercise. i think that there is one clear thread in this complex tapestry

of debt, deficit, and interest and that is that america, you have a serious problem and time is short and to address this. we have done our best in this effort and meeting the terms of the executive order of the president who created us, i will now turn it over to a wonderful colleague who has been a tremendous asset to the country. he is known simply as the numbers man. >> we put out our chairman's mark a week or 10 days ago and we got some news and rightly so. it had 3.8 trillion dollars

worth of deficit reduction in the next nine years. this cut the deficit in half. by three quarters by 2020. it took the deficit to gdp ratio to 2.2% in 2015 and exceeding the goal of 3%. our goal in this process has been simple. senator simpson has kept us focused on that goal. this has basically been to start and then told conversation here in washington about the dangers as is -- of this debt and the deficits we are running. this is the exact same conversation that every single family, every single business, every state, and every municipality has been having. this is all about making tough

and difficult choices. any time you have limited resources, you have to make tough and difficult choices. we cannot be happier with where we are in the process, regardless of how the vote turns out. i think that we have one and we have one big. the time of deficit denial in washington is over. i don' think that there is a soul left in america who does not understand that this deficit and this debt is like a cancer and it will destroy our country from within if we did not face up to it and do this quickly. washington is learning that and they are learning it fast. the plan we submit tomorrow, you asked about the differences, this will not be some watered down version of the chairman's mark, that i can guarantee you. we have met with and listen to

to every single member of this commission and we think that they have made this plan stronger. i don't know if we will get two votes or five votes or 10 votes or 14 votes. there are enough reasons to vote no for anyone to vote no. there are things that i don't like, there are things that al doesn't like. there are plenty of reasons not to to vote for this plan. one thing is certain, the problem is real, the solutions are painful, and there are no easy choices, there are no easy ways out of this deal. the members will not be asked to vote tomorrow and the reason for that is pretty simple, we just

finished the plant and we are putting the final touches on it now. we will get it out later today or early tonight. we just got our scores from the various agencies and i don't think it is fair nor does al, to not give people a chance to review this before they are asked to vote. we will meet tomorrow and we will discuss the plan and we will ask for their decisions by friday. some will indicate tomorrow where they stand. there's one thing i am absolutely sure of, if nothing else is true, deep down, the american people get it and the american people know this is the moment of truth. we will be glad to take your questions. >> have you received this

position from the president? >> of all things i am worried about, i am not worried about that. >> -- by friday? >> we will be finished by friday. >> they will know who voted against it, whether we have a proxy or two. friday is a tough day depending on the senate schedule. >> have different is this from the chairman's mark? >> i think this is better. i think you will see some differences to mark. >> d recommend eliminating the tax exemption? >> as you know, we recommended

it in the chairman's mark to eliminate all tax earmarks. there is such a talk in washington about the earmarks which amount to $16 billion which are in the appropriations process. there is 1.1 trillion dollars worth of annual earmarks in the tax budget every year. what we have recommended is eliminating those in the commission will discuss whether or not we would like to add back some of them. >> what about the social security formula so that some of the wealthier americans get less a social security? >> yes. >> what about wage for social security? >> some say it was eliminated entirely. >> i think that you saw in our

initial recommendation, we were going to 90% of wages. by 200020, it goes to $160,000. >> what about the people that are eliminated entirely? >> that is something that some people might be forced -- >> is this the official scoring? does this add some prospects? will this actually be voted on? >> that is up to the congress. >> we thought that we might able to get to the legislative language that because of the time and working with the commissioners, that was impossible. if that goes through, we will work on this language. the majority leader has agreed to take this up the next session.

>> there's three different options. we were talking about the past earmarks and you were talking about eliminating all tax expenditures. >> this is one way to interpret it. >> can you talk about why you did not improve the single payer health care plan? >> i think you were jumping to an assumption that is not clear at this point and time. >> we don't want to describe the changes to the plans. >> we have a distribution on that. >> what was the most difficult thing for either of you to say yes to? >> for me to take a look at the tax earmarks, we don't use the word tax expenditures anymore,

that is a fake. the tax earmarks are spending by another name and they just drain america. there is no oversight, they are just automatic. no one ever looks at them but at the group's look at them, they look at them carefully every year to make sure that they are preserved because they chip away revenue from the national system. we stick with this and in there are things that are very dear to my state, will and gas, coal, energy, wyoming is the largest coal-producing state in the nation. we are number 6 in natural gas in there has been many things placed in those tax expenditures and those tax earmarks that have benefited companies that can began to run

their own shop. there are often people the complained bitterly about the federal government. if so, it is time to sober up. >> i would say just to answer the question, this wage freeze that the president partially indoors, we recommended a three- year freeze and we included non- combat deployments. the president went with two years yesterday. that was not as hard for me because as a state employee, we have not had a wage increase in three years nor have many state or municipal employees, nor have many people who work in private business. what is hard for me is that i have had to fire a lot of people over the past several years in order to balance the

budget and to help the state balance its budget. that is tough because this is not just numbers you are talking about, these are real people and real families and in the chairman's mark, we recommend reducing the work force by 200,000 people. there are real people behind those numbers. >> what is your statement about of the fact that the deficit the nile is in order. you're trying to reach an agreement of this size as the same time that the congress is considering extending all of the bush tax cuts permanently. >> we are well aware of that and we have worked this into our efforts. i don't know where we are going with it but we are prepared to handle that in our work.

we all know the figures if they extend this to the top, the middle class. there will be numbers that will change that will be done by the legislators. we have no idea where this is going but we know that we have considered this. >> we have been pretty clear on that. i don't think that people like me need a tax cut. i am clear on that. secondly, what we have proposed is a smarter way for the country to go. we have proposed eliminating the tax earmarks. . .

>> that will be up to the congress. as i said the other day, i had a lovely visit with him, and when the budget comes up, when the debt limit comes up, there is going to mow -- the most extraordinary struggle that this country has ever witnessed.

many of the new people will say i am not going to vote to extend the debt limit unless you cut spending. fine, i came here for that. but if you do not raise the debt limit, then this country may lose its position in giving full ith and credit to its bonds and its treasury bills and we may have to close the government. some of those people are going to say, that is what i came here for. at that point, there is going to be the most dramatic reductions in spending but it will be random at best and it will not be as orderly as we think this plan is. so hang on tight. no one will wait six years here. this will put the horse on the track with this. people in america seem to be ready to put the silk on and put the saddle on and put the jockey on and move this baby. >> i would like to think we have six years. i would not make a bet on it.

i can tell you one thing -- when the markets lose confidence in a country, they act swiftly and decisively. lookit greece, look at portugal, look at ireland, look at spain -- when the markets lose confidence in the country, and we continue to build up these enormous deficits and debts, that will act quickly and they will act decisively. >> and the trajectory of ours is the same as these other countries, it is just bigger. and there is. when it happens, it will not be some slippery slope. it will not be six months. it will be like that. >> i believe in the power of prayer. but i tell you what, we're not pleased -- we're not watering down this exercise. it is not what the american people want. it was something real to happen.

we would get somewhere between two and 14 the. >> we've not been on our knees. if that does not happen, it does not happen. if we get two votes, it would be progress. >> one provision or one major change that you think would do the most if you cannot get anything else. what is the most important to make real? >> the earmarks. >> i do not think that -- what american needs is a plan. they do not need partial solutions. we need a real plan on how to get this deficit and debt down. they broke bring down a lot of money. a partial solution will not help us. we have to make these tough

choices. none of them are easy. >> it's important to know -- let me tell you, the group's, tomorrow when we get an hour gathering, the far left and the far right have hired auditoriums to terrorize their minions. they're going to rip this thing to shreds. they will do it with a zeal -- to define the zealot, someone who has forgotten his purpose redoubles his efforts. one thing you need to know that we're not balancing the books of america on the backs of poor social security recipients. we have put together something that attacks the lower in come, 125% of poverty, changes to acp i critics -- changing to a cpi,

a substitution process. if you cannot raise the retirement age to 68 in 2050, but they know in 2037 if you do nothing you're going to waddle up to the window and find out your check is 22% less, how smart is that? we will listen to the same old crap that i have been dealing with all my public life. emotional, guilt, and racism on you, you use tax on them which really irritates them. -- you use facts on them which really irritates them. >> [unintelligible] >> it will not be less.

it will not be less. didn't the bureau of economic analysis in 2009 says the worker compensation including benefits average $100.23429, -- given that pay cut -- [inaudible] the think that federal employees should get a pay cut? >> you will see what our recommendation is tomorrow. >> including my pension and other pensions, all of them. [inaudible] >> i do not know the answer to that. we have not requested it. we think we had a fair hearing today and a great discussion. they have been supporting. the president's order this commission.

he knew he was in -- he put us in charge of this commission. when we came out with the chairman's mark, some people began to issue debt. he said, do not shoot at these recommendations. discuss them. these are serious proposals so we felt good about that. >> thank you, everyone. [inaudible] >> we will give it to you as soon as we finish it, ok? i have not read the final copy at. -- yet. yesterday i got a draft at 2:58 a.m. i hope to get it earlier than that. [inaudible] if we were to get some completely bipartisan recommendations, we would be crazy not to.

we do not anticipate any significant change tomorrow. thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> the national commission on fiscal responsibility meets tomorrow on capitol hill. our live coverage is on c-span3. in a few moments, a panel of school superintendents from around the country on what they're doing to improve education. in all little less than an hour, president obama and congressional leaders on their meeting today, agreeing to work

together on tax policy. later, the pentagon releases its report on the don't ask don't tell policy regarding gays in the military. on a "washington journal" tomorrow morning, we will talk about economic decisions with democratic representative marcy kaptur, a member of the appropriations and budget committee. joe wilson, a member of the armed services committee, joins us to discuss the don't ask don't tell policy regarding gays in the military. we will look it the aids lanchon. with donald b "washington journal" is live every morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern. >> these are radical -- racial statutes to perpetuate the bonds of slavery. this is not permissible state

action. >> loving v. virginia. this decision ended all race- based restrictions on marriage in the united states. you can watch this online at c- span radio. >> nalco panel of education superintendents in five states on what they have done to improve the schools. this 50-minute discussion was part of the form from the foundation for excellence in public education. to end the morning. we're so delighted to be here today. i wanted to start this discussion with a short story. it is important for anyone who cares about education and believes that education is the great equalizer, as i do. years ago, doug wilder was just elected governor of the state of

virginia, the first african- american elected to the governor's position in the state of virginia. there was a lot of celebration throughout the nation among everybody. shortly after he was elected, i ran into governor wilder and he told me he was speakingo little girl in elementary school. she did not understand all the hoopla behind his election. he could not understand why he did not -- why she did not understand. she told him that she did not understand how he could be the governor of the state of virginia because all of our heroes were dead. that was really disturbing for a lot reasons, but most importantly, it was telling because what it told us was that this little girl in her school system where she lived in the state of virginia did not have any role models to look up to she really had no hope for understanding of what her future could look like.

when you hear stories like that, one of the questions that myself and other people ask -- whose fault is that? many years ago i was at an event being hosted by one of the nation's leading teachers' union here in washington, d.c., and one of the leaders of the teachers' union said, there is no such thing as a failing school. and i thought to myself, if the schools are not failing, who is failing? if the children are failing and it is not because they cannot learn, not because of the zip code that they leave it then, not because of their race or where their parents come from -- so what the kids are failing, why is that? it was when she made the statement, it was nothing to be proud of that. the question has plagued us a few years ago when we were celebrating brown v. borders is education, we thought it was

wonderful to celebrate, but what what thurgood marshall say if he could look at our public education system today, and if he were alive, what could he say about the lack of school choice, that our public school education system has been set up to work for adults and not children? for what he say to the children whose parents cannot take their dollars and put their children into schools that work? what would he say about a permanent underclass of poor children, of latino, poor whites, and poor black children that cannot get access to the best education possible that our nation has to offer? what what thurgood marshall say? i think in that context is a great way to us -- to start a discussion today. how do we as the greatest nation on earth, i think, change our public education system that we serve all of the nation's children, no matter what their

race, sex, gender, zip code -- every child deserves a fundamentally excellent education and that is why we are here today. we thank you and we will get started. we will start with tony bennett. we talk about this process and how it can help school accountability. >> i think we have to in knowledge the fact that eight-f is the first that. a-f for us, and in all states, is only the first that. it is not the end all for accountability. in the indiana today, we have three quarters of our high school that are in the lowest two wrongs of our state accountability model. they are what we will soon be referred to as probation and

academic watch. does that compel anyone to action? if we said that 75% of those high schools word d and f schools, would that compel communities and school boards and superintendents to act? for us, the idea was, let's be very clear, let's be very honest, but be very transparent about how our schools perform. that is the first that. the second step isoing something about it. you can call people failures all you want, but until states have the courage to step in, and it is the state's responsibility to set standards, get out of the way of the locals as the jump over those standards, and if they do not, hold them accountable quickly for the children. we see this as a two-step

process. first, making sure these grades are clear, fair, and transparent, that they differentiate, and that we will have the courage to intervene and do what is best for the children of those d and f communities so that they go to schools that prepare them for futures. didn't what has been the response of the teachers' unions in indiana? run to thethink i'll mailbox for christmas cards. [laughter] i think we have to first understand that is not just the teachers' union. we actually had superintendents have been that come to our state board hearings, and we did this in rulemaking, because that was the best process -- we actually had superintendents who intended and said this -- if we do not want to move to an eight-

f grade, because our system is confusing and we like that. [laughter] another says that we have never had to explain our schools' performance and now we will have to. it was not just teachers' unions. but the teachers' unions have been very galvanized against all the reforms we are after, as have many of the other. the tackle wait for us has been, and paul and i were talking about this earlier, as i talk to legislatures, my strong suggestion is go right to the belly of the beast. you have to have the courage -- what you'd say, you're talking points, you have to walk out to your communities, look people in the eye and say this is what we are for, this is what we're about, because it is best for job and print you cannot say one thing behind closed door and

another behind communities. we've gone to the teachers' unions and school boards and superintendents and said this is what we are for. do you have a better idea? >> and the answer? >> they are still working on their answers. >> all of us believe that teaching is such an honorable profession. when we talk about comprehensive education, we're not saying that all teachers are horrible. but some teachers, we should not kid ourselves, should not be in classrooms. when we talk about a teachers union appearing to be set up to help teachers rather than students, heidi's separate that out into the public discourse in indiana said that people understand this is not an attack on teachers? the teachers' union is something completely different. >> we go clearly and say we're not vilifying teachers.

as a matter of fact, i would ask everyone in this audience today -- what to all bad teachers have in common? what characteristic? you said it. the one characteristic of all bad teachers is a poor administrator who has done nothing about them. we can villified teachers all the we won. we have to in dallas the fact that schools should be in the business of running -- we have to wait knowledge the fact that schools should be in the business of running rivers personnel departments to make sure that we recognize and reward the best and that we read mediate and we removed those who have no business in front of our children. we have to make those courageous to havens and we have ta that. [applause] >> i am totally on board with everything you said. how'd you like the opposition to that?

in many school districts, it seems that being a teacher is the only job in the country where you never have to worry about losing your job. at you get over the opposition -- how do you get over the opposition that poor performing teachers should not be in the classroom? >> in by the debate. -- in light of the debate. we go into the communities and look at the teachers and set this is what we are about. we are about professionalizing the most noble vacation in the united states. we or about that. we are all about making sure that our best teachers are recognized and rewarded. and we always say, this is a debate. this is not a discussion. we will not solve this by sitting around the campfire. let's hear your ideas. let's hear what you are for, and

the debate does not mean you -- me fighting for a form a new fighting for the status quo. when we go to that level, is amazing that the teachers themselves engage. i am getting e-mails from teachers to say, you know what? i thought you were the bogyman. and now this is starting to make sense because we rolled out and growth model that will be very transparent for parents, and we're say to teachers, you are no longer responsible for the achievement of a child from last year to the year before, you should be about you waited, like gov. bush said, one a year of academic growth in a year of construction. when we start saying those things, that makes sense. you have to have the courage to go right to the professionals, and these are intelligent, caring people, all getting into

the business because they love children, so let's take that off the table. he should have the debate with them, on front of them, on their turf, and tell us what you are for. >> i like you saying that we should go to the belly of the beast. i want to talk about the belly of the bees as you described it and you have gone so far as to chart it out. i wonder if you could talk to us about the method to the madness. >> i can take any credit for this. the slide is going to be put up, i am not sure. but this was a diagram that i actually stole. >> and we apologize if you need of valium to figure out what that says. >> this was at a principled leadership forum.

he did this for the bp oil spill. if you look at all these things, if you will see things that are very characteristic of your individual states. 23,000 castes -- 23,003rd grade students who cannot read. we cannot do one thing and fix this mess. we can sit here all day and say more charter schools. we can say improving teacher quality all by itself. that is not going to fix that. we can say, a growth model. it is not going to fix that. we are of the mind that a six indianas mess, you have to have a comprehensive education reform package. it is now one thing. if you are not going to go after three or four pillars, which we are in our state, you

are not going to go after three or four that there really address the cornerstones of that mess, you will not clean up that mess in your state. what has happened in education is that we have chased that one thing, unmeasured small or no result, which allows the status quo, and that is not work. go after structural reform, to go after read in a comprehensive manner so that you can really attack the mess. >> talking about attacking the mess, rhode island -- how do we? deborah, you announce staffing decisions based on teacher qualifications rather than seniority. >> can you imagine? >> only in america. they receive annual reviews. tell us about these decisions

and why you decided status quo was not working. >> there are a lot things we wish we had more information about in education, better research, lots a question about what works and education, but there are a few things that we know beyond a shadow of a doubt. one of them is that our education system, it will be no better than the quality of the teachers that we have. those examples are reflective of our theory of action. when we have an excellent teacher in every classrooms and grade school leaders, our students will achieve at higher levels. at every step along the way, we have to make sure that the system we has -- we have in place as those great educators, that we develop and support them and make sure that we're moving folks out if they are not able to improve and serve our

students well. seniority is a great example. more important than the decision that we make, that principals and superintendents make about who is going to be in a classroom to serve the students of that class. when those decisions are taken out of the hands of those school and district leaders and becomes a matter of a calculation, then it is the opposite of what we need to do, which is to make sure that we're making those decisions based on what children need. tony and i were talking yesterday that it is ludicrous it gets to the point we're in a contract and our state, if all things are equal, and in your state, there is rolling the dice. to take all of the human elements out of this.

at the same time, you have to think about why those structures were put into place in the first place. i am sure it varies from place to place, but what i understand from the educators in our state is that previously decisions were made for who would go into a classroom or get a certain job based on things like nepotism and corruption and cronyism. there were not good tools to help us distinguish between quality educators and less quality -- less qualified folks. we did not have strong evaluation systems. if you look at the about ways in system for the most part, everyone was great. on top of that, seniority can about to be an objective way to have fairness in the system. you have to wait knowledge that that was the case.

-- you have to acknowledge that that was the case. people see those decisions and not made by seniority, you have to acknowledge that and make sure that what you're putting in place is a system that is accurate, that is fair, that give you high-quality information about quality, and didn't you experience certain grades are subject areas of the things that should be considered. for the most part in our state, across the state community members, parents in particular and even students, they are celebrating this decision. any of us, when we have experience in talking with students, that is when all these crazy things become just so real, and when they look into it like, what you talking about? why would you do that? for example, i was meeting with

a group of students the week ago and they do not have the right words because they do not know things like seniority or the terms that we use. but they can explain to you very clearly and say, we had a bad teacher, he was great. he took us all over the country on a ban trips and we would practice all the time and he loved the ban in he was such a great teacher and he was so inspiring, and then he was just not there anymore. somebody came to the band teacher who did not even like ben, did not know anything about men, did not want to take the trips. that is now our band teacher. it did not sm fair. i heard it was because that teacher had been there for longer. that is not fair. we have to take it down to that level, just basic decisions that we're making them -- and why we are making them. >> i'm certain i am not alone in

the room. i was laughing wildly when i was watching the evening news in rhode island. not because teachers lost their jobs, but excited that someone was taking a stand and beginning to look to the education system and do something in terms of challenging the status quo. could you tell us about it and what was the outcome? i know that secretary arne duncan weighed in on behalf of the state of rhode island in favor of what you did. it was interesting to watch the evening news coverage. there were children of said about it and were weeping and parents were very upset about the decision. could tell us about the outcome? >> i will be honest with you. the intention has been very -- the attention has been very difficult to have that spotlight shine on a tiny community of one square mile in our state, the

smallest and the one with the highest poverty. it has a high school that has persistently not performed. the statistic that most people know that only 7% of the student are proficient in mathematics, fewer than half are graduating from high school, and it is just unacceptable. this a question was not that. many people perceive that what we were doing or what happened was result of the belief that the teachers in that school were to blame for the performance and therefore they all had to go. most people know the subtleties of that. that was not the decision. and therintendent' community group got together and decided on a model called transformation. the teachers could stay at the school. but they knew that things were going to have to be different.

what they wanted was to keep their team intact, but to make some significant changes. for example, if changes in the length of the school day. there was previously up 4.5 our instructional day. a 4.5 not going how -- hour instructional day. that is not enough. they wanted to provide before an after-school tutoring, the teachers would be paid, and the community group decided that they wanted to have teachers having lunch with the students once a week, the bild report and so forth. these are things that came out of a group. there were six things. there were not able to reach agreement. the leader of the teachers' union said -- the

superintendents of letter and said, can you agree to these six things so that we can move forward, knowing full well what the next that would be. they said no. we do not agree. and because of state law, they were moving to turn around where she could keep up to 50% of the teachers, but according to state law they had to notify everyone, and the attention and so forth. so what happened after that, the teachers' union decided that they wanted to agree to these six things. [laughter] and actually agreed to those six things and several other things were really significant to the reform effort, and the superintendent to her credit brought them back to the table and said let's talk through this. we provided a mediator and they

worked it out. they went back to the transportation model. -- the transformation model. i will tell you, this school is struggling and it cannot just be fixed by choosing a model or doing things like lengthening the school day or providing additional professional development. obviously there will be no circumstance in which the high school are not transformed or not turned around. that is unacceptable. but we remain hopeful they -- and we're watching it very closely. >> speaking of transformation, paul, hurricane katrina devastated new orleans. it louisiana has transformed its education system in new orleans for a charter schools and more options for parents. i was wondering if you could share some of the store is a

transformation in new orleans. >> new orleans is a wonderful example of breaking up the monopoly. public education is arranged in a series of regional monopolies. every local school district has control over the provision of education for the public at large. those monopolies are not responsive, generally speaking, because monopolies by definition -- i think i learned that in economics 1 01 -- they are not efficient and they are not responsible. " we talked about in the new orleans situation, for 25 years of totally failed academic schools, failed financially, and facility -- totally bankrupt for 25 years. kids being produced in shameful waste. the democratic governor after

the storm had the courage to take over the schools and put them under state control and say that is enough. and said, collective bargaining agreements will not attach to the transfer of the schools. in an instant, collective bargaining, which has hamstrung the city for many years, was over. what we did was say that we have a clean slate. will we do? let's not do the monopoly thing again. let's not put a superintendent in charge and run the 87 schools that we're going to take over from local school system. this decentralized the system and let's create an opportunity for innovation and creativity to rise up from the ground level, from the teacher level, from the principal level. let's have those people figure out to solve the problem, call

paul pastorek in bat rouge is not going to figure out how to solve the problem. it is the people in the classroom who are going to figure out how to solve the problem. when we empower them and give them room to maneuver, and so when the warrants, " he said is structurally we will change the whole monopoly system, no more monopoly. we will create clusters of schools we will take a cluster of schools and take the best and brightest leaders to show promise and we will give them another school. and another school. so we do not have a principal of schools. we have principal leaders who takeover clusters of schools because they have shown they have what it takes to drive creativity and innovation from their people. we also pumped up the pipeline and quality of teachers and leaders coming to new orleans.

in partnership with new leaders for new schools, the new teacher project, and teacher america, if we of one of the most robust human capital pipelines feeding into new orleans. it's remarkable because new orleans after the storm had very little housing, it was a violent city, and it was hard to attract people. but for the foundational support, they gave this real money to be able to generate a lot of human capital movement into new orleans. the accommodation of a pipeline of high-quality people coming into the city to teach and lead , coupled with that the centralized system where the best and brightest league schools and generate creativity and initiative, has given us a lot of movement. we have seen growth that has been passed anything we have

seen happening in any other similar type of situation. we have a long way to go. it took 25 years to get into this mess. katrina was five years, and the system did not operate for a year-and-a-half. we have a long way to go, but it shows a lot of promise. we have 65% of kids going to charter schools in new orleans. it is the charter schools structure that allowed us to decentralize. charter schools are not the answer, and there's not one solution. but when you combine the strategy of human capital, the centralized schools, charter schools, you can really get -- generate a lot of leverage and excitement going about it. we're now working on translating that very same type of activity throughout the rest of the state. >> on a scale of one to 10, 10

being the most important critical element what number would to a sign to the importance of the introduction of competition into the public education system? we see how important it is in the private sector. >> cannot attend. one of these days we will figure out -- 10 out of 10. let me tell you now importances. people think we have to worry about the kids and the kids cannot be competitive. kids are going to be living in a competitive world. not a community, but a world. we have to prepare them and show them how competition can be done properly not dog eat dog, but properly. the best way to do that is to have our schools being competitive. when you get people choice -- choice -- you give them an

option and a march with their feet. not only do we have a charter schools, we have kids who are held up in chronically low achieving schools, and some are still chronically low achieving they get past where they can lead. and they do. and the parents, you do not see many parents in new orleans crying because they did not win the lottery. there are many options for these kids. when we get this competitive environment going, you do not have to drive the answers from the top. you do not have to mandate all kinds of laws. i met with the foundation yesterday and said, i know you want us to change the curriculum and teaching teachers how to teach the curriculum, but we're going to work real hard on teaching them how to teach the curriculum -- but it is like pushing of rope up hill. if you're trying to teach in an

environment where there is no competition -- competition at the end of the day is going to be what sets public schools free. one final example. in new orleans, the best high school is ben franklin high school, of magnet. everyone is clamoring to get in. but there is only one ben franklin high school before the storm. a waiting list a mile long. why don't we have 10? in to the waiting list. after the storm, we created two new high schools that are now competing with ben franklin. i went to meet the principle of ben franklin and he said, i told my teachers that they have to get out and recruit students to come to this school. no, we are ben franklin. he said, look at our waiting list. it is only about 10.

but that the school over there, all waiting list of 1000. we're going to go out of business if we do not teach. >> i am going to cut you off quickly. on the note of competition, gerard, va., what is it going to do to competition? >> bob macdonald was inaugurated the seven deferred -- the 71st governor of the commonwealth. he talked about the social well- being of virginia. we heading into that speech where arne duncan was working at speaker. we wanted to highlight some applause and some of the new on- line learning. the higher education level in virginia is very strong with

original content and we also had virtual virginia by the department of education. we have a virtual virginia academy partnership. we had to push further and farther and faster as the commonwealth because the children and our institutions of higher learning -- we wanted to make sure that it happened. the major new law was in place supported art teachers association, buyer school board association, and others, because we believe that education is not a partisan issue. we want to make sure our wellbeing is in place. teacher --more children taking the advantage of online learning. there postulate 10 months ago, there were 48. the number of people still waiting to get in school.

it is a nice mix of students, those from public schools, some from charter schools, some from home schools. it's a great way of bringing the community into the public's fear. digital learning is important because it is the wave of the future and it is cost-effective in ways which do not understand. in the state, there are some educators who haven't expert in some area that we can use digital learning to move forward. >> isn't there growth in the digital learning sector affected have positive impacts on loewen minority students? >> absolutely. there were four school district that received a grant for one of the governor's initiatives to allow 300 students to use digital criteria to suppt

their learning of history. it is going to help low-income kids because many of our schools do not have access to some of the best resources. we have known that for over 50 years. here's a way of helping close that achievement gap. well -- it will support teachers and professional development and in curriculum development. the law student -- superintendents to a track students to that area and will give us an opportunity to attract businesses to the commonwealth because we are a digital infrastructure state. this is important. but for some reason, they have not always been the fitted and we will make sure that we close that gap. >> thank you very much. eric, one of my favorite former governors named jeb bush like to say that success is never final

and reform is never finished. that is very important in the context of what we're discussing today. florida has been absolutely amazing in the last two years in ensuring that students and achievement continues to rise and disclosing the achievement ga, particularly in the hispanic communities. i am wondering, what is the florida formula for success? >> first of all, great state leadership such as we found in governor bush. you spoke in your opening remarks about public education being the great equalizer. and it is. if we're not, we are perpetuating this in society as well as students. we cannot tolerate that as a state or nation. if you go back to the late 1990's and see where it was, it

would have been an incredible mess chart. it would rival the indiana and s chart. their approach to reform needs to be detailed and specific, but it needs to be comprehensive. it needs to go after the whole issue of public education. i would click off a couple of them major elements of what helped florida transform and change it for young people. one is the accountability. that gives you a lot of conversations about accountability. what do you mean by that? the find it. accountability in florida, i put it this way -- our accountability program is built to run the interest of parents and children. if you want and have an accountability broken comet you can have some obscure definition of success and failure in wins than losses that no one can

understand, even educators, or you can design and accountability program that is easily and tested by the most highly educated, most academically aggressive parents in your state as well as those who might be less informed in less involved in the public education and less educated themselves. we a move to letter grades easily understood by mom and dad, an incredible leverage for change. the details of that, how you build that structure about what things do you want to see happening in your state, and under us, you'll find the absolute performance of its students, but you see good rewards given to schools that do gains with children, that move kids forward, and a premium placed on those schools better able to deal with the bottom quartile the traditionally

underserved children in the state. when you talk about the gains in latino and african-american populations, the absolute gains and the reduction of the gap, those are some of the major drivers. holding that accountability against tough standards that make many educators questioned whether they can achieve at that level or not, that is critical. when you let mom and dad know, and they do not like what they know, what will they do about it? as paul mentioned, they have to take action on that. an aggressive effort to provide choice in florida, a charter schools, but above and beyond that, you can have a child that a charter school or home schooled, you can have a child in a traditional school still participating in their own choice with debt and electronic

-- with an electronic method of delivery. the third element is redefining the role of the state and school districts. we want to be as much hands off of schools that doing well and showing signs of improvement. we think the state has a state interest to be critically involved in decisions about the operations around schools in failed communities, failed parents, filled children for decades. at the end of the day, it is the superintendent and the board the will have to make tough decisions about the future, but we will be partners in that decision making process and working hand-in-hand with that effort is a critical piece. these are some of the elements that have helped drive this.

i habeen a commissioner now for three years, and there is a consistency of thought about how school form should operate in florida. i go across the street and try to explain to the legislature about what is going on here and there, and get into lively debates about this. but there is an understanding and commitment out of the legislature about the accountability. i do not have to debate that in the decision making roles. that has allowed us to move from from the early part of this decade to greater refinement around high school graduation requirements, what is expected of kids, what that diploma means to a child, aggressively going after the boundaries between post-secondary and secondary, helping kids accelerate, and

when they are not ready to accelerate, mediate. to go after things about a graduate -- and what we find in our efforts, and this is the historical the last 10 years, when the adults come together and agree on what appears to be a lofty goals and expectations for our children, our children in florida ery time will rise to the expectation. it of those -- it is the low expectation that will be the death sentence. when we raise graduation requirements, our kids achieve. lycee a ged does not count, we see children graduate jump.

i'm very confident what our state board of education, the consistency of all with the legislative support, and the support of superintendents and teachers across the state and we see our kids progress. >> awful we cut to question unanswered, and i wanted to ask paul about change. >> we are banding to gather, the five of these folks here, under title called chiefs for change. it was an effort to figure out how we could collectively move more aggressively, more quickly to address the real hard-core challenges that we face as a nation and also in an hour states. we had some conversations -- and all five of us belong to an

organization called the chief state school officers association. that is all 50 of folks like us to get together and manage issues for our different states and manage particular important matters we felt like that in addition to our power dissipation -- in addition to our participation, we need to set ourselves apart and pursue a much more aggressive path toward success. in louisiana, we have 650,000 kids -- 230,000 of them below grade level. it is absolutely imperative that we move more quickly to address those issues. there are other different challenges that my colleagues have. we work together of the last six months and talked about how could we collectively push the

envelope on these important changes that needed to be made. to talk to eric,. talk to governor bush, gov. bush agreed to provide us with resources and some staff so that we could organize ourselves. we do not really look at ourselves as a partisan effort. we look at ourselves as adults who believe fundamentally that children need to be placed in the forefront of every decision that we make. [laughter] [applause] if that is the lenses through which we make every decision and that becomes the highest priority and if we can collectively push that idea to the nth degree around this country, that will help. there are other good state

cheeps in our country and we work with them on a regular basis. tomlin of -- tom luna who just got reelected will head the association. there are a number in the audience today and we're talking with other chiefs about being involved in this cutting edge, pushing the on the late, aggressive way of putting the top -- the children on top of all of our decision. >> ladies and gentlemen, all little girl that was speaking wanted to know about heroes, we have five living, breathing hero's with us today. can we have around of applause for them? [applause] >> in a few moments, president

obama and congressional leaders talk about their meeting tuesday and plans to work together on tax policy. in about half an hour, the pentagon releases its report on the don't ask don't tell policy regarding gays in the military. defense secretary gates is urging congress to repeal the policy. later, an update from the leaders of the national commission on fiscal responsibility. after that, a panel of school superintendents from around the country on what they have done to improve education. on the "washington journal calls for tomorrow morning, we will talk about economic decisions facing congress with marcy kaptur, a member of the appropriations and budget committee. republican representative joe wilson, a member of the armed services committee, joins us to discuss don't ask don't tell regarding gays in the military. and we will