pandemic with the executive director of the whitman walker clinic. although washington journal" is live on c-span every day at 7:00 a.m. eastern. >> i am in education program specialist. c-span classroom. we conduct a documentary competition called the studentcam. we ask them to think critically about issues facing our nation. .

. reporters. >> hello, >> hello, everybody. we have 100 volunteers decorating the white house and spending a little more time in the e.o.b. i just wrapped up a meeting with leaders from both parties.

of it our first chance to get together face-to-face since the election. face to face since the election to talk about how we can best work together to move the country forward. it's no secret that we have had differences, that have led us to part ways on many issues in the past, but we are americans first, and we share a responsibility for the stewardship of our nation. the american people did not vote for gridlock. they didn't vote for unyielding partisanship. they are demanding cooperation and progress. they will ld all of us, and i mean all of us accountable for it. i was honored by the fact there was broad recognition. i want to say it was a productive meeting. i thought that people came to it with a spirit of trying to work

together, and i think it's a good start as we move forwardment i think everybody -- forward. i think everybody u understands we have to focus on their jobs, not ours. we have to accelerate the recovery and get americans back to work. they want us to confront the long term deficits that cloud our future. they want us to focus on their safety and security and not allow maers of urgent importance to get locked up in the politics of washington, so today we had the beginning of a new dialogue that i hope as well as most americans hope will breakthrough the noise and produce real gains. as we all agreed, that should begin today because there's things we need to get done in the weeks before congress leaves town for the holidays. first, we should work to make sure the taxes will not go up by thousands of dollars on hard working middle class americans come january 1st, which would be

disastrous for those familie but also could be crippling for the economy. there was broad agreement that we need to work to get that resolved before the end of the year. now, there's still differences about how to get there. republican leaders want to perm inaptly extend tax cuts not only to middle class families, but also to some of the wealthiest americans at the same time, and here we disagree. i believe, and the other democrats in the room believe that this would add an additional $700 billion to our debt in the next ten years, and i continue to believe that it would be unwise and unfair particularly at a time when we are contemplating deep budget cuts that require broad sacrifice. having said that, we agreed that there must be some sensible commonground, so i appointed my treasury secretary, tim

geithner, and my budget director, jack lou, to work with representatives of beth parties to breakthrough this log jam. i asked leaders to appoint members to help in this negotiation process. they agreed to do that. that process is beginning right away, and we expect to get some answers back over the next couple of days about how we can accomplish our key goal which is to make sure the economy continues to grow, and we are putting people back to work, and we also want to give the middle class the peace of mind of knowing their taxes will not be raised come january 1st. i also urged both parties to move quickly to preserve a number of other tax breaks for individuals and businesses that are helping our recovery right now and that are set to expire at the end of the year. this includes a tax credit for college tuition, a tax credit for 95% --

a tax break for 95% of working families that i initiated at the beginning of my presidency and a tax cut for businesses that hire unemployed workers. we discussed a number of other issues as well including the importance of ratifying the new s.t.a.r.t. treaty to monitor rush sh's nuclear arsenal and strengthen our relationship with russia. i remind the room that this treaty is bedded for seven months now. it's gone through 18 hearings. it has support from senators of both parties. it has broad bipartisan support from national security advisors and secretaries of defense and state from previous administration both democrat and republican, and it's absolutely essential to our national security. we need to get it done. we also talked about the work of the by partisan deficit

reduction and the sacrifices required to get our house in order. we discussed working together to keep the government running in this year a fiscally responsible way, and we discussed unemployment insurance which expires today. i asked the congress act to extend this emergency relief without delay to folks who are facing tough times by no fault of their own. now, none of this is going to be easy, so we have two parties for a reason. there are real philosophical differences, deeply held principles to which each party holds, and although the atmosphere in today's meeting was civil, there's no doubt that those differences are going to remain no matter how many meetings we have, and the truth is there's always going to be a political incentive against working together particularly in the current hyperpartisan

climate. there are always those who argue the best strategy is to defeat your opposition than working with them, and frankly the notion of bipartisanship itself is caught up in this mentality. a lot of times coming out of the meetings both sides claim they want to work together, but paint the o poppet as unyielding and unwilling cooperate. both sides come to the table, read their talking points, go to the microphones to win the new cycle instead of solving problems, and it's another move in an old washington game, but i think there was recognition today that that's a game that we can't afford, not in these times, and in a private meeting i had without staff, you know, without betraying any confidences, i was pleased to see several of my friends in the room say, let's try not to duplicate that. let's try not to work the

washington spin cycle to suggest that somehow the other side is not being cooperative. i think there was a sincere effort on the part of everybody involved to actually commit to work together to try to deal with these problems, and they understand that these aren't times for us to be playing games. as i told the leaders at the beginning of the meeting, the next election is two years away, and there will be plenty of time for campaigning, but right now, we're facing some very serious challenges. we share an obligation to meet them, and that will require choosing the best of our ideas over the worst of our politics, so that's the spirit in which i invited both parties here today. i'm happy with how the meeting went, and i told all the leadership that i look forward to holding additional meetings including at camp david. harry reed mentioned he's been in congress for 20 years and had never been to camp david, so i

said we need to get them all up there sometime soon. i appreciate the presence today and conversation today. i think it will actually yield results before the end of the year, and i >> the >> we had a very frank conversation. and it was interesting that both democrats and republicans and the president understood what the american people had to say on election day. i think pretty clearly. because the president and democrat leaders acknowledge that the american people want us to create jobs and cut spending.

the president did suggest that to unlock the tax disagreement that we have, that secretary of the treasury and the director of o.m.b. would sit down with more of our members, one from each caucus, on the hill, to begin a discussion to try to unlock this disagreement we have over extending all of the current rates. republicans made the point in a stopping all the looming tax -- made the point that stopping all the looming tax hikes and cut spending would create jobs and get the economy moving again. so looking forward to a conversation with the white house over extending all of the current rates, and i remain optimistic. i would only add i thought it was a useful and frank discussion. we did have an opportunity to reiterate that it was the view of 100% of senate republicans

and a number of senate democrats as well that the tax rates could not be bifurcated. and we have to treat all taxpayers the same as john indicated. we will each designate someone to actually try to complete the agreement. i think there was also widespread agreement that the two most important things to do obviously, to decide how we were going to fund the government for the next 10 months, and decide the tax issue. in the senate, we're wrestling with a lot of other matters that may have some level of importance. but aren't in the same category as deciding what everybody's tax rates are going to be and deciding how we're going to fund the government. so to reshuffle our priorities on the senate side and get them in line with these two big issues, and hopefully wrap up the 111th congress. >> obviously a number -- the presiden did recognize that the election meant that the people wanted to see results out of washington.

and i think you heard now a process being put into place that hopefully we can begin to produce those results first and foremost and take away the uncertainty around the tax hikes. the rates that exist right now. secondly, i was encouraged by the president's remarks regarding his perhaps not having reached out enough to us in the last session. and that this meeting was the beginning of a series in which he hoped that we could work together in a different fashion for the benefit of the american people given the problems that we face. >> the meeting, conciliatory, optimistic, would your side dial down its rhetoric a little bit on the president and meet on these issues, are we going to hear a softer tone from republicans? >> i'll make the point that the americans have preferred divided government more often than not since world war ii. it's not unusual to find

ourselves in a position we'll be in the 112th congress. and some of these periods when you have divided government have been quite productive. i think of the second clinton administration with welfare reform, balanced budget, trade agreements. we agree teles no particular reason why we can't -- there's no particular reason why we can't find areas of agreement and do important things for the american people over the next two years. >> i agree that the president did make an important point that eric mentioned that they haven't spent as much time reaching out and talking and committed to do so. and as i told the president, i think the -- spending more time will help us find some common ground. and there's a difference. there's a reason why we have democrats and republicans. we believe in different things about the appropriate role of the federal government. and having said that, the more time that we do spend together we can find common ground

because the american people expect this, to come and work here on their behalf. >> the president being definite now than working with ms. pelosi, you do see more positive in the future? >> we have very nice meeting today. and we've had a lot of very nice meetings. the question is can we find the common ground the american people expect us to find? >> i would say this, too. it was pretty revealing that the leadership in the democratic side of the house right now is ready to get the job done. i think how it's a difficulty in trying to help priorities come in to being on the other side of the capitol. and all of us were here, and the president i think put his best foot forward and said we realize we've got to produce results. i do think and hopeful that we can work together. >> the start treaty or --

anything else -- >> well, the start treaty is a senate issue and there was some discussion of it. and i know the president would like to go forward as soon as possible. i think the view of senate republicans is let's take care of the tax issue. let's take care of how we're going to fund government for the next 10 months and if there's time left for other matters, it will be up to the majority leader, senator reed -- reid, to turn to other things before we adjourn for the end of the year. [question inaudible] >> i think we're hopeful that they will begin meeting today. [question inaudible] >> we believe mr. kemp will represent house republicans. >> i haven't announced but will in the next hour or two. >> thank you. >> thanks, guys. >> that's it.

[indistinct conversation] >> good afternoon, everyone. senator kyl and i had an opportunity to meet with the president and other democratic leaders in the house and senate. the one thing we agreed on is

resolve what the tax rates are going to be for the american people beginning next year and second, how we're going to fund the government for the next 10 months. the president had i thought a useful suggestion which was that each of us designate one member to meet with the vice president and jack lew, the director of o.m.b. and move forward to resolve the tax issue. and my designee will be senator kyl who has been our leader on the estate tax issue, which also has to be zretched in the context of deciding -- addressed in the context of the tax rates next year and a senior member of the finance committee. so if there was a news peg from this morning's meeting with the president, i would say that's it. senator kyl? >> thank you. the only other thing i would add is according to a gallup poll last week, about 80% of the american people do not want to see taxes raised. and part of our approach to

this, it will be to ensure that nobody's taxes go up in these difficult economic times. and i'm hoping that in the spirit of bipartisanship we can at least agree on that proposition. and there will be a lot of other details that will have to be dealt with. the estate tax and other so-called tax extenders. the a.m.t. will have to be dealt with. as well as other issues. but i think we can agree on that first proposition that it might be possible to have a bipartisan agreement which isn't very -- well, rather rare around here but it just might be possible to achieve this time. >> in bringing up so many different issues in this lame duck session, the democrat leadership of the senate is insisting on an encore for a concert that drew a lot of boos. and we believe that instead, what we should be doing in this session, and the message was clear from the american people, is keep tax rates where they

are, freeze spending, fund the government, go home. >> questions. >> for senator kyl, the president talked about the tax provisions [question inaudible] >> well, the first -- most americans are wondering first of all what's going to happen with their income taxes. and that's the first item. but whatever the president and his folks want to talk about and our members of congress want to talk about, obviously we can discuss. but i think first things first, though, and that is the income tax rates. >> senator kyl, the start treaty, in this meeting with the president, a sense of how that discussion went. >> just to say this, president indicated that he would like to have the treaty considered during the 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 first focus on how we're going to fund the government for the remaining 10 months and how we're going to deal with the various tax issues. and that after that, depending on how much time remained, leader reid could make whatever he -- decision he wanted to about what to bring up next. [question inaudible] >> we're going to discuss everything and see where we can come oument. >> thanks -- where we can come out. >> thanks, everybody. conversati]

>> as i told the caucus today, i've had the good fortune over the years to serve with a lot of really good as i told the caucus today, i've had the occasion to work with good people at local, state, and now federal government and rarely have i 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's really understandable to me why the people of the

state of washington keep returning her to the senate of the united states. it was with this background that i introduced patty today to the caucus as the new chair of the democratic senatorial campaign committee. patty? >> well, i am very humbled to have the support of my leader, the leadership, and my entire caucus on taking o this very important task for democrats across the country. i know that this is not an easy task. but i'm not doing it because it's easy. i'm doing it because it is a very tough time for many families and businesses and communities across this country. and they are 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 that is the agenda that we'll put forward. and that's why i'm doing this. i'm doing this because i

believe that we need to fight for our middle class americans, to help them be strong again so their kids can have an education. they get the tax cuts that they need. that we get people back to work again and i know that my caucus stands with me in working hard to make that happen. i think that stands in sharp contrast to 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's to get our country moving again. and as chair of the dfcc i will be working with our candidates across this country to help fight to put america back on its feet. >> any questions? >> don't ask, don't tell, when are you planning on bringing [question inaudible] >> the report is common sense and no surprise to me or the

american people. it's been shown time and time again that having gays in the military does not hurt the military. it improves the military. it adds to recruitment possibilities. so the report that came out was not a surprise to me. i do, however, look forward to the hearings that senator levin is going to hold on thursday and friday this week in th armed services committee. >> when will you bring the dream act to the floor? >> i'll file cloter on it today. -- cloture on it today. >> the tax cuts, who is going to sit on the panel that the president outlined and how will you move forward to get a bill to the floor? >> we've had a lot of discussions with the president the last couple of weeks. including during the thanksgiving recess. and the president's made a decision. we had a really -- it was a very good meeting. i don't know what my republican colleagues said publicly but i'm sure they said publicly

what they said privately. a very efficient, very, very pitcher meeting that we had in the white house today. the president suggested that i, senator mcconnell, the speaker, and leader boehner each appoint someone to meet with tim geithner and larry summers. the meeting will start at 4:00 or 5:00 today. i haven't had the chance to firm up that time. i'm going to ask senator baucus to represent the democratic caucus. the caucus knows that. and i would hope that this will allow the american people to say that we're trying to work in good faith, to come up with a bipartisan proposal. if we can't do that, then we will come forward with what we believe is the best thing for the american people. and number one goal that i have, i think, everyone in our caucus has, and i know the president has, is to protect the middle class.

[question inaudible] >> this is one of the times that i wish i were a king. because this is something i believe in so very, very strongly. i'm not king. i can't do it with signing a letter or any -- some edict. but i'm going to continue to work with my republican colleagues to see if there's a way we can get this done in the lame duck. it's extremely important for job creation. >> middle class tax cuts -- >> pardon me? >> for those who are participating on the panel, will you have a middle class tax cut only bill? >> i'm not going to talk about procedurally what we're going to do now. i do know this. that senator balk us knows this

because he's heard -- baucus knows this because he's heard it from the caucus and believes in this himself. the $250,000 middle class vote is extremely important. thanks, everybody. >> in a few moments 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. in about half an hour, an update from the leaders of the national commission on fiscal responsibility. and after that, a panel of school superintendents from

around the country on what they've done to improve education. on "washington journal" tomorrow morning we'll talk about economic decisions facing congress with democratic representative marcy kaptur. republican representative joe wilson, and a member of the armed services committee joins us to discuss the don't ask, don't tell policy regarding gays in the military. and we'll look at the adds pandemic with donald blanchon with the whitman-walker clinic. "washington journal" is live on c-span every day at 7:o'clock a.m. eastern. experience american history tv on c-span3. 48 hours of people and events telling the american story. hear historic speechers by national leaders and eyewitness accounts of events that shaped our nation. visit museums, historical

sites, and college campuses. as top history professors and leading historians delve into america's past. american history tv. every weekend on c-span3. defense secretary robert gates is recommending that congress repeal the don't ask, don't tell policy regarding gays in the military. up next, he and the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff admiral mike mullen announce the results of a pentagon survey on the policy. which bans gays and lesbians from serving openly in the military. this is an hour and a half. >> and based on the findings,

the -- to develop recommendations for implementation should the law change. the working group is completed their work. and today, the department is releasing their report to the congress and to the american public. admiral mullen and i will briefly comment on the review's findings and our recommendations for the way ahead. we will take some questions. and then the working group's co-chairs, general counsel jay johnson, and army general carter hamm will provide more detail on the report and answer any questions you might have on methodology, data, and recommendations. when i first appointed mr. johnson and general hamm to assume this duty, i did so with the confidence that they would undertake this task with the thoroughness, seriousness, professionalism, and objectivity befitting a task of this magnitude and consequence i believe that a close and serious reading of this report will demonstrate they've done just that.

we are grateful for the service they have rendered in taking on such a complex and controversial subject. the findings of their report reflect nearly 10 months of research and analysis along several lines of study and represent the most thorough and objective review ever. of this difficult policy issue and its impact on the american military. first, the group reached out to the force to better understand their views and attitudes about a potential repeal of the don't ask, don't tell law. as was made clear at the time, and as worth repeating today, this outreach 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 force 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. 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 sismian and military leadership of the department of defense was to determine how best to prepare for such a change should the congress change the law. nonetheless, i thought it critically important to engage our troops and their families on this issue. as ultimately it will be they who will determine whether or not such a transition is successful. i believe that we had to learn the attitudes, obstacles, and concerns that would need to be addressed should the law be changed. we could 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 hamm 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 uniform. for large segments of repeal of "don't ask, don't tell," disruptive in the short term, would not be the wrenching, traumatic change that many have feared and predicted. the data also shows that within the combat arms special its 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'll discuss this later. second, working group also examines thoroughly all the potential changes to the department's regulations and

policies dealing with matters such as benefits, housing, relationships within the ranks, separations, and discharge lings. as the co-chairs will explain in a few minutes the majority of concerns often raised in association with the repeal dealing with sexual conduct, fratterization, marital or survivor benefits, could be governed by existing laws a regulations. existing policies can and should be applied equally to homosexuals as well as heterosexuals. while a repeal would require some changes to regulations, the key to success as with most things military is training, education, and above all strong and principled leadership up and down the chain of command. third, the working group has examined the potential impact of the change in the law on military readiness, including the impact on unit cohesion, recruiting and retention, and other issues critical to the

performance of the force. in my view, getting in 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. a complex and difficult drawdown in iraq, a war in afghanistan. both of which are putting extraordinary stress on those serving on the ground and their families. it is the well-being of these brave young americans, those doing the fighting and the dying since 9-11, that has guided every decision i have made in the pentagon since taking this post nearly four years ago. it will be no different on 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 netching impact on the morale, cohesion, and effectiveness of combat units that are deployed, about to deploy, to the front lines. with regard to readiness, the

working group report concluded that overall, and with thorough preparation, and i emphasize thorough preparation, there is a low risk from repealing "don't ask, don't tell." however, as i mentioned earlier, the survey data showed that a higher proportion between 40% and 60% of those troops serving in predominantly all-male combat specialties, mostly army and marines, but including the special operations formations of the navy, and the air force, predicted a negative effect on unit cohesion from repealing the current law. for this reason, the uniform service chiefs are less sanguine about the working -- than the working group 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 their -- to provide their expert military advice to the congress

as they have to me and to the president. their perspective deserves serious attention and consideration. as it reflects the judgment of decades of experience and the 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 successful 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 lead me to conclude that an abundance of care and preparation is required if we are to avoid a disruptive and potentially dangerous impact on the performance of those serving at the tip of the spear 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 being certification by the president, 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 in legislation and send it to the president for signature before the end of this year. i believe this is a matter of some urgency because as we have seen in the past year, the federal costs 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 the ranks. 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 disruptive and damaging scenario i can imagine. and one of the most hazardous to military morale, readiness, and battlefield performance. therefore, it is important that this change come via legislative means. that is, legislation informed by the review just completed. what's needed is a process that allows for a well prepared and well considered implementation. above all, a process that carries the imprimatur of the elected representatives of the people of the united states. 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 a repeal of the "don't ask, don't tell" pending a certification by the president, secretary of defense and the chairmen and would not harm military readiness.

nonetheless bailiff it would be unwise to push a-- i believe it would be unwise to push ahead with full repeal before more can be done to prepare the force. in particular, those ground combat specialties and units for what could be a disruptive and disorientating change. the working group's plan, with the strong emphasis on education, training, and leader development, provides a solid road map for a successful and full implementation of repeal. assuming that the military is 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 standards to procedures and investigating -- or separating troops for suspected homosexual conduct. changes that have added a measure of common sense and decent to a legally and morally fraught process. i would 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 being in c.i.a. in 1992 when i directed that openly gay applicants be treated like all other applicants. that is, whether as individuals they met our competitive standards. that was and is a situation significantly different in circumstance and consequence than confronting the united states armed forces today. views toward gay and lesbian americans have changed considerably during this period. and have grown more accepting since "don't ask, don't tell" was first enacted. but feelings on this matter can still run deep. and divide. often starkly along demographic, cultural, and generational lines. not only in society as a whole, but in the uniformed ranks as well. for this reason, i would ask as congress takes on this debate for all involved to resist the urge to lure our troops and their families into the

politics of this issue. what is called for is a cache and considered approach -- a careful and considered approach, an approach to the extent possible welcomes all who are qualified and capable of serving their country in uniform but one that does not undermine how to of haste or dag ma tism -- dogma tism that makes the u.s. the best military force in the world. the stakes are too high for a nation under threat, for a military at war, to do any less. admiral? >> thank you, secretary. i too wish to thank jay johnson and carter hamm as well as everyone involved in the working group for their extraordinary efforts over much of the past year. i fully endorse their report. its findings, and the implementation plan recommended by the working group. 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 "don't ask,

don't tell" but also about how best to implement a new policy across the joint force. as the secretary indicated the working group surveyed our troops and their spouses, consulted proponents and opponents of repeal and examined military experience around the world. they also spoke with serving gays and lesbians as well as former members of the military who are gay and lesbian. the result is one of the most expansive studies ever done on military personnel issues. and i applaud the time that was taken to arrive at solid defensible conclusions. more critically, i was gratified to see that the working group focused their findings and recommendations rightly on those who would be most affected by a change in the law. our people, all of our people. and so for the first time, the chiefs and i have more than just anecdotal evidence and hearsay to inform the advice we give our civilian leaders.

we've discussed this issue extensively among ourselves. and with the secretary. and the chiefs and i met with the president as recently as yesterday. i only want to add three points to what the secretary's already laid out. first, i think it's noteworthy that the working group found 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 all have our opinions. and those opinions matter. this is without question a complex social and cultural issue. but 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 america people do as well.

second, we've heard loud and clear that our troops also expect us to maintain high standards of conduct and professionalism. both as we move forward in this debate and should repeal occur. treat people with dignity and respect in the armed forces. or we don't last long. no special cases, no special treatment. we're going to continue to come port ourselves with honor and hold ourselves accountable across the board to impeccably high standards. repeal or no repeal. finally, the report shows that however low the overall risk of repeal may be, with respect to readiness, cohesion, and retention, it is not without its challenges. we can best address those challenges by having it within our power and our prerogative to manage the implementation process ourselves. should repeal occur i share the secretary's 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 b the good work done in this report as my advice to the secretary and to the president is. thank you. >> you said it would be unwise to proceed with repeal until there's more ground for -- how long do you envision that process lasting, and is this a concern and a recommendation that is shared by the white house in -- as far as once congress acts, there still being a period in which the policy is in place? and admiral mullen, do you share th recommendation? >> first of all just to be clear what we were talking about is that should the congress vote to repeal the law, what we are asking for is the time subsequent to that to prepare adequately before the

change is implemented in the force. how long that would take frankly i don't know. the report as you will see and the implementation plan lays out an ambitious agenda of things that need to be done including not only leadership training but training of a military force of over two million people. i would say this, i think we all would expect that if this law is implemented, the president would be -- is -- if repeal is passed, the president would be watching very closely to ensure that we don't dawdle or try to slow roll this. so 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 the certification. but how long that would take, i

think i don't know. >> there will be -- there is a level of risk here as is laid out in the report. and i would hope you spend as much time on the implementation plan as the report. because the implementation plan certainly from all the military leadership is strongly endorsed should this law change. and it is in that implementation plan that the risk levels are mitigated and principally mitigated through leadership. certainly the training, the guidance, but the engagement of the leadership and having enough time to do that is critically important as we would look at implementation. that's what really mitigates any risk that's out there. >> you said that the chiefs are less sanguine than the working group. what specifically have they told you about their concerns? and why in time of war accept

any increase in the level of risk? >> well, the chiefs will speak for themselves on friday. and the chairmen have spent much more time with them than i have on this. i think it's fair to say that their concerns reinvolve -- revolve around stress on a force after nearly 10 years of war. and i think they are considered about the higher levels of negative response from the ground combat units and the special operations units that i talked about in my -- in my remarks. i think that -- i would just like to go back and underscore the chairman's point. and the level of risk is tied intimately to the quality of preparation.

and to do this, so i guess i would put it this way. if a court ordered us to do this tomorrow, i believe the force -- the risk to the force would be high. if we had no time to prepare. if we have plenty of time to prepare the force, to prepare the leadership, i think the more effectively we do that preparation, the lower the risk. >> i've engaged actually many, many times with the chiefs over the last many months. and so we've had very, very extensive discussions about this. and from the standpoint of a change in the law, my perspective is -- as what i would call my -- certainly was my personal opinion is now my professional view that this is a policy change. that we can make. and we can do it in a relatively low risk fashion. given the time and given the ability to mitigate whatever

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 about this is affecting combat effectiveness or combat readiness. i've never been associated with a better military than we are right now. and better military leaders. and i have tremendous confidence that should -- should this change, that this -- that they will be able to implement it very specifically. >> and -- >> the chiefs will speak for themselves on friday. >> secretary, you raised combat arms and the report shows that of those polled, 50% -- 60% in marine combat arms. and it's also the issue of chaplains. the report says very strong opposition among the chaplains as well. what would you say to both groups? how would you deal with this with both groups?

>> well, the interesting -- one of the other considerations in this that the report revealed is even in combat arms, units, those who -- mopping those who -- among those who believe they had served with a gay person before, the level of comfort with going forward was something like 90%. so part of this is a question of unfamiliarity, part of it is stereotypes. and part of it is just sort of inherent resistance to change when you don't know what's on the other side. and i think that the contrast between the significant levels of concern for those who had --

who said they had never served with someone who was gay as opposed to those who had is an important consideration. but what i would say to them is frankly, if the congress of the united states repeals 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. and we will do everything in our power to mitigate the concerns that you have. >> the chaplains? >> same thing. >> a very large number view homosexuality as a sin or abominatn. >> and a report identifies that the chaplains already serve in a force, many of whose members do not share their values. who do not share their beliefs. and there is an obligation to care for all. but it also is clear that the chaplains are not going to be

asked to teach something they don't believe in. and so i think that -- i think the report is pretty clear on that. >> a question. the reaction, what's your sense on whether the information sharing climate and environment created after 9-11 to encourage greater cooperation and transparency among the intelligence communities, and the military, led to these data dumps and how concerned are you there may be an overreaction to clamp down on information disbursal because of the disclosures? >> 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

gusm war in 1991. -- with the gulf war in 1991. but it changed dramatically after 9-11. and clearly, the finding that the lack of sharing of information had prevented people from "connecting the dots" led to much wider sharing of information. and i would say especially wider sharing of information at the front. so that no one at the front was denied in one. theaters, afghanistan or iraq, was denied any information that might possibly be helpful to them. now, obviously, that apperture went too wide. there's no reason for a young officer at a forward operating post in afghanistan to get cables having to do with the start negotiations. and so we've taken a number of mitigating steps in the department. i directed a number of these things to be undertaken in

august. first, the automated capability to monitor work stations for security purposes. we've got about 60% of this done. most in -- most state side. and i've directed that we accelerate the completion of it. second, as i think you know, we have taken steps and -- in centcom in september and now everywhere to direct that all c.d. and d.v.d. write capability off the network be disabled. we have -- we have done some other things in terms of two-man policies wherever you can move information from a classified system to an unclassified system. to have a two-person policy there. and then we have some longer-term efforts under way in which we can -- first of all, in which we can identify anomalies from sort of like

credit card companies do. in the use of computer and then finally, efforts to actually tailor access depending on roles. but let me address the latter part of your question. this is obviously a massive dump of information. first of all, i would say unlike the pentagon papers, one of the things that is important, i think, in all of these releases, whether it's afghanistan, iraq, or the releases this week, is the lack of any significant difference between what the u.s. government says publicly and what these things show priflet. whereas in the pentagon papers, shows that many in the government were not only lying to the american people, they were lying themselves. and the perspective from someone who's been at this a long time, every other government in the world knows the united states government leaks like a sieve.

and it has for a long time. i dragged this up the other day when i was looking at some of these prospective releases. and this is a quote from john adams. how can a government go on, public lerk all their negotiations, with foreign nations, i know not. to me, it appears as dangerous and pernicious as it is novel. when we went to real congressional oversight of intelligence in the mid 1970's, there was a braut view that no other foreign intelligence as much as would ever share information with us again. if we were going to share it all with the congress. those fears all proved unfounded. now, i've heard the impact of these releases on our foreign policy described as a meltdown, as a game changerand so on. i think those descriptions are fairly significantly overwrought.

the fact is governments deal with the united states because it's in their interest. not because they like us. not because they trust us. and not because they believe we can keep secrets. many government -- some governments deal with us because they fear us. some because they respect us. most because they need us. we are still essentially as has been said before, the indispensable nation. will conte 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 maybe 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 fect 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 couerproductive 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 be anecdotally 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 whom 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] cable satellite corp. 2010] 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 speaking to 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 ought to myself, if the schools are not failing, who is failing? if the children are failingnd 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 wt 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 educatn 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 is doing 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 haseen, 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 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 seem 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 baton 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 support 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 gap, 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 had been a commissioner now for three years, and there is a consistency of thought about how hool 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 lily 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 every 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 achie. 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 rlly ok at ourselves as a partisan effort. we look aturselves 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]

coming. thank you for that kind welcome. it's a joy for me to be here and we welcome you to our third reform conference. we have 134 lawmakers

intermingling amonge themselves learning about really cool information to take back to their legislatures. i want to thank the sponsors for making it possible for us to gather together. when i thought about what i would talk about today, last night i realize this is an incredibly diverse group of people with a shared purpose. and in a world that seems to be so divided about so many things we almost feel compelled to divide even when we agree on things be it having at least

enough commonality. here's another groups of people that have a shared common purpose. diverse group and i think it's important to say, that's a good thing in a country that desperately needs ways to find common ground, for you all to coming to with a shared purpose that's based on two beliefs is something that warms my heart. first, i think the two beliefs that under guards this purpose is education should be a national priority. doesn't mean a federal program but means it should be embeded every policy conversation we have across the country. there's no way for our country to be competitive in a world that's increasingly so unless more and more of our young people gain the power of knowledge. it's aoral imperative it be a

national priority, as young people begin to dream about what they want to do, if they don't have tools toness achieve those dreams the societal strains will be so huge, it'll force us to turn back rather than moving forward and secondly, we all agree in this diverse group of people that we need systemic change that focuses that moves our education system to a student centered system, and away from the adults. political leaders. state schools. team. er principals and anybody interested as an adult is secondary to this objective that children gain a years worth of knowledge in the years time. that sounds so simple and so common but if you talk to the people in the trenches, that's really hard to do to change the system to make it truly student centered. so, how we going to do this. i'm incredibly optimist im.

there is a place here that i believe we're at a tipping point and the people in this room, spread out across the land can make a huge difference going forward. as a national priority if we have this, then we should make sure that children gain a year's worth of know ledge from pre-k to the end of thek-12 experience. that should be a national aspiration. we can sent someone to the moon to respond to the soviet challenge, it seems we could have a national priority that more and more of our children gain the power of knowledge. it means that we eliminate a tremendous amount of remedial cost that we ignore of the reality we have to do. billions of dollars spent in community colleges and now in four year universities for kids

to take courses they didn't get right in high school if we can get this right billions of dollars of loss of productivity will be invested in if the future and income gaps based on the leaing the driver for the next great challenge. the achievement gap reseeds to create all sorts of opportunities for people. i believe that we can do this if we move away from the old way. so think about it this way. we have 50 states. since this is a thing of national purpose and not a federal purpose if you take - i don't want to be - well if you take the blob on this side and the perfect idea of education on this. each state is on a different part of a point on that line. most of them now is moving toward as child centered system with no tolerance for

mediocrity. some states are leading inspiring others to catapult over them. for the first time in adult lifetime we're close to a tipping point to season tin wall progress to stay focused on making sure our system is child centered an we focus on making education a national priority. we need to continue to embrace more school choice in hybrid forms and all sorts of form that exist today. those should be accelerated across the land. lasor like focus on student achievement. each child learns different ways and at different paces. we need to assure we move to this customized environment and eliminate social promotion as a policy. the thing about waiting for superman clip that just blows me

away is how children feel good about themselves and how their self-esteem is at an all-time high but when you measure how question compare in output we don't do so well and social promotion is a policy that's just insidious. if you start socially promoting children at third grade and don't hold them back and reinvent how you educate them, you have these tragedies unfold and long, long after it's too late, people begin to realize this is tragedy. so seems to me part of our strategy ought to be in a customized environment where the idea of socialization should be blown up. children and insurance once they achieve the desired objectives and benchmarks but they don't get passed a long pore ever and

fovr making them feel that's good policy and finally to reward great teachers. they create an environment where students learn and yet in america we do not pay them what they deserve. they get the same pay paced on longevity as mediocre teachers and tragically horrible teachers continue to teach and we need to change that before it as to late. much is accomplished 2010. in one area i'm so excited about question of higher standards. the honest answer is how many children or college career ready when they finish when they should be finishing 12th grade in america. the honest answer is one third but because of the low standards, we don't have honest result based on data. one third of the children graduate college orca rear ready. one third graduate high school

more or less but with the necessity of taking remedial courses and one third don't graduate at all. if education is a national priority those numbers are shameful. the fact they're common but for almost all states they're significantly higher so in lieu is anna or florida, when you get to the reality one third of the children are college ready it allow reformers to take the lead in proposing solutions to the great challenge nu in our count so kudos to those here that are committed bringing higher standards and the second thing,

is this notion which is part of our history that states are laboratories for innovation and reform in the last year there's been tremendous reforms across the united states and with 80 percent of the populus having a new governor and many of them having new state school leaders in the state there will be a burst of energy as it relates to reform for this years well. spurred on by race to the top more states focus on reform than ever before and equally and perhaps more important dozens of states aren't waiting for bringing about even more reform. last year we challenged all the lawmakers to take one good idea from the conference and to steel it, and to implement it in their home states and an appears a whole lot of people took that to heart. oklahoma and louisiana allows

students with disabilities choose the school that best meets the needs of their childs. florida created this program in 1999 and several states have adopted similar since. what are the rest of you waiting for? florida expanded tax credit scholarship program. the law raised the amount that could be claimed tax credits. more importantly the budget index grows to meet the demand. i know john kertly is in the room somewhere. in five to seven year period it's likely 100,000 students in florida will be able to move to a private school of their parents choice based on this program. there's a few setbacks too. bipartisan majority passed an incredibly bold legislation to provide vouchers in failing schools but the measure barely failed the state house.

georgia expands choices in foster and military families as well as to expand own tax credit law. several states adopted a accountability measures that i believe will help them have a perpetual cycle of improvement. arizona, indiana and louisiana have the laid through letter f to put in schools. the a through letter f scale is a big part of any success because it's so clear and transparent. you can hide-a-way when you get an incomplete or unsatisfactory, but an f is an f and an an is an a. people stride for accountability of having a clear grading system. that's the way to go and states have begun to embrace the idea. each state is implementing the policies to adopt to the

uniqueness of the state. indiana did it by rule which is what forceful leader does when they're impatient with their legislators. and arizona and louisiana got consensus with their legislature. the fact is they're aggressively pursuing it. literally got a big boost. the names are beginning to sound familiar. some adopted to end social promotion for students that can't read by the end offed third grade which is when students transition from learning to read to read together learn. i wish every state, as i mention adopted a harder edge policy of no tolerance for functional literally literacy at any grade. third grade is a great place to start. i hope we rai standards across the board. many states are pe pairing and requiring higher course work.

florida last yearsed a law that requires the state students to graduate to pass alright algebra one or two or physics. that should not be a provacative radical idea but many states have not got to that point if we have zero tolerance for mediocrity raising the standards and bar in course work is another part of this renaissance of change. the other issue if you look back to 2010 that defines the movement this last year was characterizeed by e issue. modernizeing the way teachers are evaluated compensated and contained. great teachers make great students. you can have all the data with great professors and

universities that can valida that, but sit so intuitive and obvious, that great teachers will create great students. we need to tear away the ves stijs of the pass and a ward teacher on student performance and a warding them when they do a job well done. again, states across the country are leading way in reform. 12 states. arizona. delaware. illinois. louise si in the. maryland. new york. tennessee, rhode island and the district of colombia advanced meaningful reforms to transform the teaching profession. louisiana and colorado stand out in my mind in the most comprehensive in place and truly deserve credit to begin that process that brings me to one of the lessons of reforms that states can learn from each other. they can learn what works and what doesn't.

we can avoid the mistake t of te past. there's no accurate implementation and i hope from this conference you have the con phase on of reform and you can share your ideas and learn from other as long the way. where to from here in seems to me my hope is that we make it common place to advance the cause of customization through technology. we hope states can apply to implement policies and tear down the barriers of entry for great barriers through technology and advance the cause of accelerated learning. second accelerate new assessment tools to protect accountability. that's tough it's like my dad ld he had to eat broccoli as a kid. after a while it wears you out when your focused on the harder

edge nature of accountability. one of the vulnerability of accountability. the older or current technologies make it harder to defend it. february or march it's hard to say your measureing a years worth of knowledge when three more months of learning is taking place. using an assessments that are more flexible and easier to apply will protect accountability that's huge element in assuring every child matters in the state. the third thing i think ought to be a goal of this group is to create policies that move away from funding,c time to performance based funding and that can apply across the board. florida is a great exam - pat one school when they pass they get compensated if they don't, they don't get paid. believe me across the spectrum

of light it happens all the time and could happen more often i think in education. why should title one money be sent to the states without any element of reform. seems to me working with the states title one money could be a cat little for continuing reform. think about the ways to move your funding towards the expectations you want and results you want and there's myriad of ways to begin that process of moving towards performance pay. one final point back to the begin of my speech. when there's common ground we should pause and celebrate it and find creative ways to build on it. i'm excited secretary arnie duncan is closing out the conference tomorrow. seems to me, we have huge issues in our country with the debt and deficit. we have ways to solve it. liberals have a different with a view on that and there will be a big food fight and for those

that love politics it'll be fun to watch from the sidelines. stay away from the spew zone to not get dirty but i hope this one place, education is a place where we can get a side the partisan divide and focus on the important things. i'm excited that i believe that can happen. we have exciting great state school officers that will share with you their views of the reforms they want to implement. i hope secretary duncan creates a dialogue with them. to create a dialogue that's meaningful to advance the cause of reform. i hope republicans in congress work with an obama administration to prove that democrats and republican cans put aside partisanship and be true to convictions and principals and find common ground for a long term strategy to assure more children learn.

if our reform - [applause] if this conference is a cat little for that, that makes me incredibly happy. thanks for coming and enjoy the next few days. god w bless. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> in a few moments the pen the gone news conference on the, don't ask, don't tell policy regarding gays in the military. "washington journal" is live at 7 eastern on segments on don't, ask, don't tell and economics facing congress and the aids epidemic. house is back in session at 10:00 eastern. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010]

a couple of live events to tell you about today. the national commission on fiscal responsibility meets to consider revised recommendations on cutting deficit. that's on c-span 3 at 9:30 am eastern. at c-span 3 at 2:30. senate commerce subcommittee open as meeting on insurance committee so-called many health care plans. >> this weekend on c-span's weekend three. tell viced for the first time oral history interview with assistant special prosecutor during the watergate and the pardon of president nixon. former special assistant talked about the 1976 presidential election and the effect of the nixon pardon on the outcome.

and the speaker on the confederacy and many feel the south peaks militarily. american history t.v. telling the american story every weekend, only on c-span 3. >> defense secretary robert gates is recommending that congress we peel the don't ask, don't tell policy regarding grey's in the mgr gays in the military. he and another announced the survey on the policy that bans gays and lesbians for serving openly in the military. this is an hour and a half. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010]

>> should the law change. working group has completed the work and the department is releasing their report to the congress and american public. admiral mu len and i will comment briefly for the way ahead and take some questions. and then the working groups co-chairs, general counsel,j johnson and army general carter ham m will provide more detail on the report and answer any questions you might have on methodology, data and recommendations. when i first appointed mr. johnson and general hand to assume this duty i did so with confidence they would under take this with all the professional and objectivity be fiting a task of this magnitude and consequence. i please a closed and serious

reading will demonstrate they've done just that. we're grateful for the service they've remember rendered. this reflects nearly ten months of several lines of study and represents this impact on the american military. first, the group reached out to the force to better understand the views an attitudes ability a potential repeal of the don't ask, don't tell law. as what was made clear at the time and worth repeating this outreach was not a matter of taking a pole of the military to determine whether or not the law should be changed. the very idea of asking the force to in effect vote on such a matter is not equal to our sis tome of government and would be without precedent in the long history of civilian led military. the president of the united

states. commander and chief of the armed fors made his position clear on this matter. position i support. our job, as the civilian and military leadership of the department of defense is to determine how best to prepare for a change should congress change the law. nonetheless i thought it critically important to energy gaining troops and families on this issue as ultimately it'll be they that determine whether or not such a transition is successful. i believe we had to learn the attitudes, obstacles and concerns that need to be addressed, a should be the law changed. we can do that only by reaching out and listening to men and women in uniform and changes. the work undertook this from masseur va answers by tens of thousands of troops and their spouses to meetings with small groups and individuals including hearing from those discharged under current law. mr. johnson and general ham will

provide more detail on the surveys of troops and their families in summary a strong majority of those that answered the survey more than 2/3 do not object to gays and lesbians serving openly in uniform. the finding su ges for large segments repeal of don't ask, don't tell, disruptive in the short-term would not be the dramatic change many have feared and predicted. the data also shows, that within the combat arms specialties and units there's a higher level of discomfort in resistance to changing the current policy. those find lgs and the potential implications remain a source of concern to service chief's and me. i'll discuss this later. second, the working group also examined all the potential

changes to the departments regulations and policies dealing with matters such as benefits housing, relationships and separations and discharge as co-chairs explain in the few minutes the majority of concerns often raised in association with the repeal dealing with actual sexual contact and marital or survival benefits could be governed by existing policies that can and should be applied equally to homosexuals as well as heat ra sexuals, while a repeal requires some changes to regulations the key to success, as with most things military, is training, education and above all, strong and principled leadership up and down the chain of command. third, the working group that exampled the potential impact of military readiness including 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 forced are in the middle of two major military campaigns. complex and difficult draw down in iraq. war in afghanistan. both of which are putting extheired their stretch of those serving on the ground and their families. well-being of these brave young americans those doing the fighting and dying since 9/11 that's guided every decision i've made in the pentagon since taking this post four years ago. it'll be no different today. i'm determined to see if the law is repealed the changes are implemented in such a way to minimize the impact on the moral, cohesion and effectiveness of combat unites deployed and about to deploy.

with regards to readiness, the working group report conclude overall and with thorough preparation and i emphasize thorough preparation there's a low risk from repealing don't ask, don't tell. how ever as i mentioned earlier the survey data showed a higher proportion between 40 and 60 percent of those groups serving in all male combat specialist army and marines but including special operations of the navy and air force, predicted a negative effect on cohesion from repealing the current law. uniform chief's are less san gin about the level of risk with combat readiness. views of the chief's were sought out and taken seriously by me and the authors of this report. chiefs will also have the opportunity to provide they're

expert military advice to the congress as they have to me and to the president. they're perspective deserves serious consideration as it reflects dozens of decades of sentiment of many senior officers. in my view the concerns of combat troops as expressed in the survey do not have an unsurmountable barrier of don't ask, don't tell. this can be done and should be done without posting a serious risk to military readiness. however, these findings do lead me to conclude an an abundance of care is required to avoid a disruptive and dangerous impact on the performance of those serving at the tiptop spear 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. last being the secretary of defense and the chairman that the new policies and regulations were consistent with the standards of readiness, effectiveness, unit cohesion and unit retention. now that we've completed the review i strongly urge the senate to pass this and send it to the senate for signature before the end of this year. i believe it's a matter of urgency because as we've seen in the last year, the federal courts are increasingly becoming involved in this issue. just a few weeks ago. one lower court forced the department into an abrupt series of changes confusing and distracting to men and woman in the ranks. it's only a matter of time before federal courts are drawn once more in the fray with the very real possibility this

change would be imposed immediately. by far, the most disruptive and damaging scenario i can imagine and one of the most hazard to military moral, and battlefield performance. therefore it's important this change come via legislative means. legislation iminformed by the review completed. what's need sad process that allows for a well prepared implementation. above all the process that carries the elected representatives of the people of the united states. given the present circumstances, those that choose not to act legislatively are rolling the dice that this policy will not be abruptedly overturn i'd the court. the legislation would authorize a repeal of the don't ask don't tell pending certification by

the president and the secretary and chairman. it would be i believe unwise to push ahead with appeal before more can be done to prepare the force in particular ground combat and speciality units that for what could be disorienting change. the working plan with education x trainer provide as solid road map for appeal. assuming the military is given sufficient time and preparation to get the job done right. the department is already made a number of changes to regulations that within existing law apply more exacting standards investigating or separating troops for suspected homosexual conduct. changes that have measure of common sense and decency to alley galley and morally fraught process. i close on personal note and a

peel. this is the second time i've dealt with this issue as a leader in public life. the prior case in cia when i directed openly gay applicants be treated like all other applicants. whether as individual this met our competitive stan cards. that was and is a situation significantly different in circumstance and consequence than confronting the united states armed forces today. our le by an and gay citizens have grown more accepting since don't ask, don't tell was first enacted but feelings still run deep and a long diviechltd along demographic, cultural and generational lines. not only in society as a whole but in uniformed ranks, as well. for this reason i ask as congress takes on the debate to resisthe urge to lure our

troops and families into the politics of think issue. what is called is a careful and considered approach. and approach to the extent possible welcomes all qualified and capable of serving their country in uniform but bun that does not under mine out of haste or dog materialism. that makes america the final th fighting military in the world. >> i too, wish to thank mr. johnson and carter and as well as everybody for the extraordinary efforts over the past year. i fully endorse the report. findings and implementation plan recommended by the working group. it was given a tall order. indeed nothing less than producing the first truly comprehensive assessment of not

only the impact of the law governing but also about how best to implement a new policy across the joint force. the secretary indicated surveyed our troops and spouses. consulted proponents of repeal and examined military experience around the world. they also spoke with serving gays and lesbians as well as former members of the military that are gay and lez i an. the result is one of the most expansive study done on military personnel issued and i applaud the time committed. the working group focus and findings and recommendations, rightly on those that would be most effected by a change in the law. our people all of our people. so for the first time the chief's and i have more than just anecdotal everything to

inform the advice we give civilian leaders. we discussed this yourselves and secretary and the chief's and i met with the president as recently as yesterday. i want to only add three points to what the secretary laid out. i think it's not worthy the working group found strong leadership the single most important factor to implement any repeal. that may sound fairly obvious but it's a key, critical point. we all have our opinions, and those opinions matter. this is without question, a complex social and cultural issue, but at the end of the day whatever decision our elected leaders make we in uniform have to follow orders. when those orders involve significant change as this would, we need to find ways to lead the way forward. our troops and our families expect that from us and i think the american people do as well.

second, we've heard loud and clear our troops expect a maintaining of high standard of high conduct and professionism as we move forward and should appeal occur. we treat people with dignity and respect in the armed forces or we don't last long. no special cases or treatment. we're going to continue to conduct ourselves with honor and hold ourselves accountable across the board to impeccably high standards. repeal or no appeal. the report shows however low the overall risk may be with respect to readiness, cohesion and retention it's not without challenges. we can best address those by having it in our power and prerogative to manage the implementation process ourselves should appeal occur i share the

secretary's desire it come about through legislation. through the same process for which the law was enacted rather than through the courts. i further hope, such debate on the congress will be as fully informed as the good work this this reform as my advice to the secretary and president is. thank you. >> you said it would be unwise to proceed with repeal until there's more ground work. how long would you envision that process lasting? and is this a concern and recommendation shared by the white house in as far as, once congress acts, there still being a period in which the policy is in place, admiral do you share that recommendation? >> first of all, just to be clear what we're talking about is, should the congress vote to repeal the law. what we're asking for is the time, subsequent to that.

to prepared a quitely before the change is implemented in the force. how long that would take, frankly, i don't know. there is - the report, as you will see in the implementation plan lays out an ambitious agenda of things that need to be done, including not only leadership training but training of a military force of over 2,000,000 people. i would say this. i think we all would expect that if this law is implemented, the president would be - if repeal is passed, the president would be watching very closely to ensure that we don't doddle or try to slow role this. i think this 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 the certification. but how long that would take, i

think i don't know. >> there will be - there is a level of risk here is a is laid out in the report, and i would hope you spend as must have time on the implementation plan as ae effort because the implementation plan from all the military leadership is strongly endorsed should this law change and it is in that implementation plan that the risk levels are mitigated. and principally, through leadership. training and guidance but the engagement of the leadership and having enough time to do that is critically important as we would look at implementation. that's what really mitigates any risk out there. >> um... you said that chief's are less sanguine. what have they told you about concerns? and high in time of war, accept

any increase in the level of concern? >> well, the chief's will speak for themselves on friday and the chairman has spent much more time with them than i have on this. i think it's 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 special operations units that i talked about in my remarks. i think that, i would like to go back and under score the chairmans point and that is, the level of risk is tied intimately to the quality of preparation.

to do this - so i guess i would put it this way. if a court orders us to do this tomorrow. i believe the force, the risk to the force would be high. if we had no time to prepare. if we have plenty of time to prepare, to prepare the force, leadership, i think the more effectively we do that preparation the lower the risk. >> i've engaged actually, many, many times with the chief's over the last many months and so we've had very, very extensive discussions about this. from the stan stand po standpoie in the law my perspective that was my personal opinion is now nn my professional view. we can do think in a relatively low risk fashion given the time

and ability to mitigate whatever 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 about this is effectiving combat effectiveness or readiness. i've never been associated with a better military than we are right now and better military liters and i have tremendous confidence should this change, they'll be able to implement it specifically. >> what about this? >> again, the chiefs will speak for themselves on friday. >> secretary, you raised combat arms and the report shows, of those poles. 50% were opposed. 60 percent in marine combat arms and there's the issue of chaplains. there's very strong opposition here as well. what would you say to both groups? how would you deal with

both groups? >> well, one tough there considerations in this - that the report revealed is even in combat arms, unit s. among those that believe they had served with a gay person before, the level of comfort with going forward was something like 90%. so part of this is - is a question of unfamiliarity. part of it is stereotypes. and part of it is just sort of inherent resistance to change, when you don't know what's on the other side. and so i think, i think that the contrast between the significant levels of concern for those who

had - said they had never served with someone gay as opposed to those who had, is an important consideration. but, what i would say to them is, frankly, if the congress of the united states repeals this law. this is the will of the american people. and you are the american military. and we will do this. and we'll do it right. and we will do everything in our power to mitigate the concerns that you have. >> very large number view homosexuality or an or as a sin and a bomb nation. >> chaplains already serve in a force. many of who members do not share they're values or beliefs. and there is an obligation to care for all. but it also is clear that the

chaplains will not be asked to teach something they don't believe in. so i think that the report is pretty clear on that. >> thank you. on don't ask, don't tell, what's the reaction. what's your sense in whether or not the climate and environment after 9/11 encouraged changing cooperation in the military led to the three [inaudible] and how concerned are you to clamp down on information dispersal because of the disclosures? >> one of the common themes that i heard from the time i was a senior agency official in the early 1980's in every military energy engagement we were in was the complaint of the lack of intelligent support.

that began to change with the gulf war in 1991, but really has dramatically changed after 9/11. clearly, the finding that the lack of sharing of information, had prevented people from quote, unquote connected the dots, led to wider sharing of information. and i would say, especially wider sharing of information at the front. so that no one at the front was deny and one of the theaters. afghanistan or iraq was denied any information that might possibly be helpful too. obviously that went too wide. there's no reason for a young officer at a forward operating post in afghanistan to get cables having to do with a start negotiation. so we've taken a number of mitigating steps in the department. i dire a