things to be under taken in august. first, the automated capability to monitor workstations for security purposes. we've got about 60 percent of this done. mostly in state side and i've directed that we accelerate the completion of it. second, as i think you know, we've taken steps in september and now everywhere to direct that all - cd and dvd right capability off the network, be disabled. we have done some other things in terms of two-man policies, wherever you can move information from a classified system to unclassified system to have a two person policy there and then we have some longer term efforts under way in which

we can tail-end and identify anomalies from sort of credit card companies in the use of computer and finally efforts to actually taylor us access depending on roles. bullet t let me a dress t addre part of your question. unlike the pentagon papers in the release of all this information. afghanistan, iraq or the releases this week, is the lack of any significant difference between the u.s. government says publically and what these things show privately.. . looking at some of

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

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

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

to do this which is the legislative path. i do not know how fast the courts will move on this. but what we have seen seems to be more and more action in the courts in the last year or two. that is what gives me a sense of urgency. my greatest fear is what almost happened to us in october. that is being told to implement a change of policy overnight. >> senator mccain is arguing that this report is the wrong report and that it will not get to the bottom of how it will affect unit cohesion or morale. >> in this respect, and i obviously have a lot of admiration and respect for senator mccain, but in this respect, i think that he is mistaken. i think this report does provide

a sound basis for making decisions on this law. people can draw different conclusions out of this report. the commons, for example, in the evaluation of the report of the higher levels of concern among the combat arms units and the marine corps and so on, people can read these and come up with different conclusions. but in terms of the data and the views of the force, it is hard for me to imagine that you could come up with a more comprehensive approach. we had something on the order of 145,000 people in uniform answer the questionnaire, the survey. we had something on the order of 40,000 to 45,000 spouses respond to that survey. tens of thousands of people who

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

put openly gay service members deployed in afghanistan in 2011? would you integrate the non- combat arms unit's first? could you describe a little bit more of what your implementation plan would be? >> first of all, the repeal law would not, as i understand it -- i am not a lawyer and 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 queion. >> 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 afternn. 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. .

we believe it can be adequately addressq"@tv the oscars. in addition to commitment to leadership, professionalism and respect we are convinced that the u.s. military can adjust and accommodate this change just as a as others in history. secretary, the chairman mentioned to be sure the survey results reveal a significant minority. around 30% overall and 40% to six to present in the marine corps who predict in some form and to some degree negative views or concerns about the impact of repeal of dynasts, do not tell. clearly any personal policy change for which a group that size predicts negative consequences must !q approached with caution.

92 percent said their ability to work was very good. in response to the same question and army combat arms unit, the percentage was 89%. 84% for marine corps combat arms unit. still, all very high we heard much the same as we talk to the force. actual experience. our other lessons in history lead us to conclude that risks of repeal in war-fighting units will certainly higher thp' the force generally remain within acceptable levels, important

when coupled with our recommendations for implementation. recommendations. >> general explained the process we have taken to get to where we are today. there are a number of things that are explained in our report. here are a few. to begin with, there are the results of the service member survey. this was one of the largest ever conducted by the u.s. military. when asked about how having a service member in their immediate unit who said he or she is gay would affect their ability to work together, 70% of service members predicted it would have a positive, mixed, or

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

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

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

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

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

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

assignments or accommodate the concerns and on individualized case by case basis. service members who are pre be separated under don't ask don't tell and permitted to apply for reentry into the military and this is the same criteria as others who seek reentry. we do not underestimate the challenges in implementing a change in this law. neither should we underestimate the ability of our servicemen and women to adapt to such change and unite to defend the nation when called upon to do so. clucks direct your questions to either. >> having gone through this

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

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

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

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

>> this is more for the personal readiness community. >> what about the education? >> we have laid out what we feel is necessary in terms of education training, talking points, where the emphasis should be, how long that would take depends on emphasis and the public resources that are devoted to the task. depending upon the number of people and the level of resources you devote to this, this can happen at once war had a different level of resources. most of this will depend upon how we staff this. until such time as the

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

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

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

it could change in a couple of days depending on what is in the pipeline. >> what is the most surprising thing that you can across? >> i would say two things? , i was a little bit nervous about -- i was one of many members to discuss this topic. i was extremely gratified and pleased that the discussions that we had with service members were remarkably frank but civil and professional at all times.

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

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

>> you said that there was a lot of objections on religious grounds. was that the basis of the majority of the objections? >> the only way to address the reasons would 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 resig >> 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 cter'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 foundhe 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 instit [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> the pentagon has released its report on the the impact of ending don't ask, don't tell. look at the history online.

search and watch programs outlined in the debates and arguments against it. it is washington your way. >> a couple of live events to tell you about today. the national commission on fiscal responsibility meets to consider a revised recommendations on cutting the deficit. that is on c-span3 at 9:30 a.m. also on c-span3, a senate commerce subcommittee holds a hearing on insurance policies. in a few moments, today's headlines and your calls, live on "washington journal." the house is back in session at 10:00 eastern. in about 45 minutes, we will talk about economic decisions facing congress with marcy