if we are going to do that, we should also >> let's test both theories. let's see what a voucher does, and that's also create a non- profit public auction for the federal employees as well. that would be a noble experiment. this is 21-sided. which should also give medicare beneficiaries the adoption of a prescription drug program run by the medicare program on taxes, i think we should use far more tax revenue for debt reduction than this proposal calls for. if we are losing $1.10 trillion in the year marks each year, we could put more toward the debt. while we are dealing with the reality of the deficit and

revenues, if there is and your rational conversation going on that suggests we could give tax cuts to the wealthiest people in this country, and it does not count. of course it counts. if we are serious about the budget deficit on both sides, we should acknowledge that reality a word on medical malpractice. i wish this would have been left out. many suggestions have not been measured or tested. the one that has been tested suggests that we are going to raise the cost of medical treatment by including this in our plan. why would we want to do that? i wish we would have not included that. that is why i am going to continue to work forward to use this as the starting point, the template for what i hope will be a valuable, bipartisan conversation. let me be clear.

it is just a step forward in the debate. both chairs what it knowledge is not the last word. erskine bowles and alan simpson have given this country a valuable gift by raising the challenges we face as a nation. i believe the commission has done good work with limited resources and staff. i think it will end up being an historic document. 14 is just a number. i think you have done more than reach a number. you have inspired us to do what we need to do for future generations. i got an e-mail from my son this morning. for a father in this business, there is nothing better. he said thank you. he said thank you for your grandchildren, and your family. thank you very much.

>> we are back live, in afghanistan, always be the arrival of president obama. he is at the air force base. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] ♪ [applause] ♪ >> good evening to you off. -- to you all. how about an air assault? we need to try that again. how about an air assault?

does anyone how here wants to say air power? is everybody ready for the main event? are you sure about that? ok. here is the deal. a couple of years ago, my aerosol body at the time, the command nature of the 101st air force -- airborne division, martin hill, told me what he looks for in a commander. he listed all the usual qualities that you would expect -- if you know all of the ones, then he added he also wants a commander who is available to our troopers, accessible to our troopers, into is approachable. as i thought about it, i realize that in addition to all of the qualities we expect in leaders,

i also look for those specific attributes. this evening, it is my honor to introduce to you a leader who has demonstrated his concern for each of you, who has already been to the hospital to pin purple hearts on some of our wounded warriors, to beat with a platoon that suffered a -- meets with a platoon that suffered a tragic loss, and has proved that he is accessible and approachable by flying halfway around the world to be with us. please join me in welcoming a leader who made the tough decision to provide us with resources that have enabled progress here, in afghanistan, the president of the united states of america, our commander in chief, president barack obama. [applause]

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] ♪ [applause] ♪ >> ok. before the president starts, i think you although the president was out on the basketball court a few days ago. he had been in that scene four times already. he just scored on the guy, and elbows started flying around. the only explanation we can come up with his they forgot who they were played with, so sergeant major hill, decided we give him

a teacher -- t-shirt. it is not the biggest, baddest, it is an isap t-shirt. but then, the 43rd commander of the hundred first airborne division came up with a manly man t-shirt, and no one will mess with you if you wear this, mr. president. [applause] >> hello, everybody. [applause] >> i am sorry. i cannot hear you. air assault? [applause] >> it is great to be back. let me thank the hundred first airborne division band. where is the band? give them a big round of applause. thank you to chief thomas

hager, and the commander and conductor. we had some other bands played manifest destiny. i do not know how they sounded? what did you think? was it pretty good. [applause] >> it is great to be back. i apologize for keeping you up late, coming on such short notice, but i want to make sure i hit spend a little time this holiday with the men and women of the finest fighting force that the world has ever known, and that is all of you. [applause] >> i want to say thank you to general petraeus, not only for the introduction and a t-shirt, but for general petraeus' lifetime of service. if this is somebody who has helped change the way we fight

wars and win wars in the 21st century. i am very grateful that he agreed to take command here, in afghanistan. he has been an extraordinary warriors on behalf of the american people. if thank you, david petraeus. -- thank you, david petraeus. [applause] >> i want to thank all of your outstanding leaders who welcomed me here, including general john campbell, admiral bill mccravin. i want to salute your senior enlisted leader. come and sgt leaders -- come and sgt leaders and command chief crag adams. i also want to acknowledge the

outstanding work that our civilians are doing each and every day, starting with carl, all the way through your senior representative thomas gibbons, and all of the civilians that are here. if they are fighting alongside you, putting themselves at risk, always from their families, and we are very, very grateful to them as well. so, give them a big round of all pause. -- of applause. [applause] >> i think we have every service here tonight. we have army. [applause] >> we have navy. [applause] >> we have air force. [applause] >> i think we may have a few marines are around, too.

[applause] >> and a whole lot of folks from the hundred first airborne division, the screaming eagles. [applause] >> here, in afghanistan, -- coastguard? is that what i heard? [laughter] >> here, in afghanistan, all of you are part of one team, serving together, proceeding together, except maybe in next week's army-navy game. as your commander and chief, i need to stay neutral on that. we also have some isap partners here as well. [laughter] >> when i was here in the

spring, we had a coalition of 43 nations, and now we have a coalition of 49 nations, and this sends a powerful message -- a coalition of the nations that supports afghanistan is strong and it is growing. i am not here to give a long speech. i want to shake as many hands as i can, but let me say that at this time of year, americans are giving thanks for all of the blessings that we have, and as we begin this holiday season, there is no place that i would rather be off, then be here with you. i know -- rather be, than be here with you. i know it is not easy to be away from home, especially during the holidays. i know it is hard on your families. if they have and the seat at the dinner table. sometimes, during the holiday season, that is when you feel

the absence of someone you love most acutely. here is what i want you to know -- the president of the united states -- as president of the united states, i have no greater responsibility than keeping the american people secure. i could not meet that responsibility, we could not protect the american people, we could not enjoy the blessings of our liberty, without the extraordinary service that each and every one of you performs, each and every day. so, on behalf of need, michele, my daughters, on behalf of more than 300 million americans, we are here to say thank you. we are here to say thank you for do, and ig that you'd d also want to say thank you to your families back home, so when

you talk to them, you know that they know. [applause] >> they are serving here with you. in mind, and in spirit, if not in body. millions of americans give thanks this holiday season, just as generations have before when they think about our armed services. if you are part of an unbroken line of americans who of given up your comfort, ease, convenience, for america's security. it was on another cold december more than two hundred years ago that a band of patriots helped to found our nation, defeat an empire. from that icy river, to the fields of europe and the islands of pacific, to the hills of korea, the jungles of vietnam,

the deserts' of iraq -- those who went before you, they also found themselves in this season of peace serving in the war. they did it for the same reasons that all of you do, because of freedom and liberty that we treasure is not simply a birthright. it has to be turned by the sacrifices of generations reject generations of patriots -- med at -- generations, generations of men and women who have said somebody has to do it, and i am willing to serve. men and women who are willing to risk all, some who gave all, to keep us safe, to keep us free. our time, in this 21st century, when so many other institutions seem to be shirking their responsibilities, you have embraced your responsibility, of

showing why the united states military remains the most trusted institution in america. that is the legacy that your generation has forged during this decade of trial in iraq, and here, in afghanistan. that is the legacy they you are carrying forward. as general petraeus mentioned, one year ago, i ordered additional troops to serve in this country, which was the state -- staging ground for the 911 attacks. all of those troops are now in place, and paste to your service, we are making progress. we are protecting our country. you are achieving your objectives. you will succeed in your mission. we said we would bring the taliban's momentum, and that is what you are doing. you are going on the offense,

tired of playing defense, targeting their leaders, pushing them out of their strongholds. if today, we can be proud that there are fewer areas under a taliban control, and more afghans have a chance to build a more hopeful future. we said when year ago that we are going to build the capacity of the afghan people, and that is what you are doing, meeting our recruitment targets, train afghan forces, a partner in with the afghans who want to build a stronger, more stable, and more prosperous afghanistan. i do not need to tell you this is a tough fight. i just came from a medical unit, and saw wounded warriors, pinned some purple hearts. i just talked to the platoons that lost six of their bodies in a senseless act of violence.

it is a tough business. progress comes slowly. there are going to be difficult days ahead. progress comes at a high price. so many of you have stood before battles with a display of boots, a helmet, and said goodbye to a fallen comrade. this year alone, more than 100 members have given their last full measure of devotion. there are few days where i do not signed a letter to a military family expressing our nation's gratitude and grief for their profound sacrifice. our thoughts and prayers are for those who have lost the person who was not coming home. we know their memories will

never be forgotten, and that their life has added to the life of our nation. because of the service of the men and women of the united states military, because of the progress you are making, we look forward to a new phase next year, the beginning of a transition to afghan responsibility. as we do, we continue to forge a partnership with the afghan people for the long-term, and we will never let this country serve as a safe haven for terrorists who will attack the united states of america again. if that will never happen. this part of the world is a center of a global effort we will disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al qaeda and its extremist allies. that is why you are here. that is why your mission matters so much, and why you must succeed. this effort is about the safety

of our communities back home, and the dignity of the afghan people who do not want to live in tyranny. even though it is a hallmark of american democracy that we have our arguments back home, our debates, our elections, i can say, without hesitation, that there is no debate on one thing -- no hesitation on one thing, and that is the uniform support of our men and women who are serving in the armed service. [applause] >> everybody, everybody back home is behind you. everybody from north, to south, from east, to west, from sea, to shining sea, the people are united in supporting you and your families. as commander in chief, we will do everything, i can assure, that you have the strategies,

and the leadership, and the equipment, to get this done. you may have noticed that we have been freezing pay for our federal workforce, but because of the service that you rendered, all who wear the uniform of the united states of america are exempt from that action. [applause] >> we will spare no effort to make sure that your families have the support that they deserve as well. if that does not just a matter to me, it is also a top priority to michele, to make sure that americans understand the sacrifices that your families are making. as she likes to say, "100% need to beat right -- need to be behind you and your families." your generation, the generation of afghanistan and iraq has met

every mission that you have been given, serving to 4 after two or, earning not just our admiration, but also your place in american history alongside those greatest generations. the stories of those who served in these wars are too numerous to tell. when of my greatest privileges as president is to get to know the stories of those who earn the medal of honor. two months ago i presented the medal to the parents of staff sergeant robert miller who gave his life in afghanistan as a member of the green berets. he charged toward 150 insurgents, saving the lives of nearly 200 americans and afghan comrades. last month, we held another ceremony. for the first time in nearly 40 years, the recipient of the medal of honor in an ongoing conflict was actually able to

accept it in purpose -- in person. some of you may have seen his story. i wanted to tell it again of whatbecause not just it says for the armed forces, but also the country that we love. three years ago, sal and his platoon was ambushed. two americans laid wounded. that is when sal and his men counter-attacked. they were being rained down with fire, but they just kept counter-attacking, because they wanted to get their two bodies. when he saw one of his teammates wounded, he rushed in to help his friends, despite the bullets, despite the danger. he kept pressing forward. this was an incredibly intense

firefight, and by the time it was finished, every single member of the platoon had a bullet hole in their platoon. five were wounded, and two gave their lives. sal is a pretty humble guy, so when he came to the white house he said he did not do anything special. he said he was just doing his job, that he did not do anything that his brothers would not have done for him. if i am a hero, he said, then every man that stands around me , every woman in the military, every person who defends this country, is also a hero." he is right. each of you has your own story. each of you is writing your own chapter in the story of america

and the story of american armed forces. each of you have losses. each of you have made sacrifices. you come from every conceivable background, from big cities, small tubs, every race -- small towns, every race. you have come to serve a greater cause of that matters to the citizens of your country at home and to strangers that live a world away. make no mistake, through your service, you demonstrate the content of the american character. sal is right, every single one of you is a hero. some people ask whether america's best days lie ahead, or if our greatness lies behind us in the stories of those that are gone before. i know the answer of that. if you give me hope. if you give me inspiration.

your resolve shows that americans will never succumb to fear. your selfless service shows who we are, who we always will be, united as one people, and united as one nation, for you embody and stand up for the values that make us what we are as a people. america is not defined by our borders. we are defined by a common creed. this holiday season it is worth remembering that we hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that we are endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights, and along -- among these, the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. that is what you are fighting for here, in afghanistan, that is what you are protected at home, and that belief is more powerful than any adversary. we might face a tough and the in

afghanistan, and we are in tough challenges at home, but we did not become the nation that we are because we do what is easy. as americans, we haven't award, grown stronger, and remain -- we have in sort, grows stronger, and remained free because of . because of you, i know we will prevail. so, thank you, god bless you, and god bless the united states of america. [applause] ♪ >> thank you, everybody, and happy new year. thank you, everybody, and god bless you. ♪

sun coming up over new york city school bus driver in a traffic jam staring at the bank in the rearview mirror looking at the promise of a promised land one kid dreams of fame and fortune what it pays the rent -- one kid pays the rent one could end up going to prison one just like the president ♪ keep going, america

everybody gets the dance all only in america the sun going down on a freeway ♪ a welders son at banker's daughter she came out here to be an actress she was a singer in a band

♪ drove back to oklahoma talk about the stars they could have been only in america dreaming in red white -- red, white, and blue only in america we all get a chance. everybody gets to dance only in america ♪ only in america where we trained in red, white,

and blue only in america where dreams come true we all get a chance everybody gets to dance only in america only in america only in america where we dream in red, white, and blue only in america ♪ america ♪

find out as you go then much more of t than i do now in the sky for people like us ♪ ♪ ♪ oh, you looked so beautiful

tonight in the city of blinding lights look ugly in a photographed flashbulbs i saw you walk i see the clothes you make ♪ the beauty i have the inside of me -- had inside of me

i'm getting ready to leave the ground ♪ oh, you look so beautiful tonight in the city of a blinding light ♪ ♪

oh, you look so beautiful tonight oh, you look so beautiful tonight beautiful looked so tonight yeah, the city of blinding lights the more you know the less you feel not just for the ones who kneel ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ hus, now a child don't you cry just move on up

toward your destination you may find from time to time complication bite your lip and take a trip there might be just move on up ♪ there is only one kind hush, now child and don't you cry

your folks might understand you by and by move on up and keep on wishing remember your dream is your only scheme so, keep on pushing ♪ take nothing less than the best you can pass the test just move on up daya greater to it your mind to

you can surely do it just move on up move on up move on up oh, child just move on up move on up move on up ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ it's a beautiful day sayeautiful s do not let it get away on the road here have no destination her imagination ♪ you have been all over and it has been all over you it is a beautiful day do not let it get away it is a beautiful day

touch me take me to that other place i know i am not a hopeless case ♪ there are right in front of you -- they are right in front of you ♪ ♪ it's beautiful day

don't let it get away beautiful day touch me take me to the other place please me i know i am not a hopeless case what you don't have don't need it nowded n day a beautiful ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ go ahead waste your days with thinking he'll have had your share of sinking with allies pedal in your hand -- with your life paddle in your hand all you gotta keep his keep strong

alongof lo move along move along so, by day when you have lost yourself completely could be a night when your life ends ♪ hands are shaking cold your hands are mine to hold speak to me move along like i know you do

even when your hope is gone move along move along when everything is wrong we move along everything is wrong we move along along along along ♪ when all you gotta keep his strong move along move along like i hope you do it and when you're all that is gone -- even when your hope is

gone along move along move along like i know you do even when your hope is gone move along move along just to make it through fight back what is wrong we move along we move along c'mon we move along ♪

♪ ♪ come on up for the ride la la la la la la la la

♪ ♪ la la la la la la la la la la la la ♪

holding pictures of her children dancing in the sky put your arms around made me feel your blood mixed with my -- mine the end of my line ♪ ♪

come on up with your hand in mine , on of for the ride la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la ♪ ♪

♪ sun coming up over new york city school bus driver in a traffic jam staring at the banks in the rearview mirror looking at the promise of the promised land one kid in dreams of fame and fortune one kid helps pay the rent

one could end up going to prison one just might be president dream only in america dreaming in red, white and blue we all get a chance everybody gets to dance only in america the sun going down on an l.a. freeway. newlyweds in the back of a

limousine a welder's son a banker's daughter of they want is everything -- all they want is everything she came out here to be an actress he was a singer in a band they drove back to oklahoma and talked about the stars they could have been only in america dreaming in red, white and blue only in america where we dream as big as we want to we all get a chance

everybody gets to dance only in america ♪ only in america where we dream in red, white and blue only in america where we dream as big as we wants to we all get a chance everybody gets to dance only in america yeah, only in america only in america

where we dream in red, white and blue yeah, we dream as big as we wants to only in america ♪ america ♪ lets you find out as you go i knew much more than than i do now ♪ ♪

i am getting ready to leave the ground ♪ oh, you look so beautiful tonight in the city of blinding lights did not look before you left look ugly in a photograph flashbulbs the camera can't see

i have seen you in the clothes you make uc the beauty inside of me what happened to the duty i had inside of me and i miss you when you're not around i am getting ready to leave the ground ♪ oh, you look so beautiful tonight

in the city of blinding lights ♪ >> president obama of wrapping up an unexpected visit with troops in afghanistan, grading service members, thinking them for their service during the holidays. the president made at least three trips around the tanker, shaking hands. there were plans for the president to meet with afghan president hamid karzai, which was called off apparently because of bad weather. he also met with general david petraeus, the u.s. ambassador, and wounded soldiers, presenting 5 purpleheart military awards. senate hearings continue today on the administration's proposal to lift the don't ask, don't tell policy on gays in the

military. marine generals told letting gays serve openly would be divisive and difficult. you can see those hearings in about an hour and half, right here, on c-span. the pentagon has released its report on the impact of ending don't ask, don't tell. look at the history of don't ask, don't tell, online, on the c-span video library. it is washington, your way. this weekend on "american history tv," an interview with the assistant special prosecutor during the watergate case, recalling strategy, the saturday night massacre, and the resignation and pardon of former president nixon. then, the 1976 presidential

election, while mr. ford selected to run. and, a professor of the confederacy, their early victories, and the year that many feel the south take militarily, 1863. american >> listened to landmark supreme court cases saturdays on c-span radio. this week, loving versus the commonwealth of virginia. the case and it all race-based restricted marriage in the commonwealth -- ended all race- based restricted marriage in the commonwealth.

>> president obama's budget commission failed to get enough support to pass all of their recommendations. >> come to order. i want to thank everyone who fully participated. that was something to watch for some time. i want to thank my co-share. he is a warrior and a wizard all at the senate -- co-chair.

he is a warrior and a wizard all at the same time. i thought i knew things, but my skills in politics are in their infancy compared to this man right here. >> i lost my two campaigns. >> well, i flump remedial english, so do not worrying -- remedial english, do not worry about that. all of us have cast tough votes, but i need to single out one person. i served in the senate for 10 years, two of which were under the majority leader bob dole. i always enjoyed the majority role much more than the other, but the role of a leader is to lead, and you did, dick durbin.

you and i have worked on many causes before. how about americans for campaign reform? that was a dazzler. you can see how well we have done there. but again, a leader. to have five of the six senators appointed to this plan is very special. i will leave you with one thought, dick. the tallest tree catches the most wind. at the breezes are going to flow around your head. they are already around mine, that is why i have no hair left. to you, john, you are a gentle giant of a man. that is how i see you. you have more time to serve this nation in ways that await you. it to bruce -- to bruce reed and

his band of wunderkind, you are a remarkable talent. someone asked me if i could do and alliteration of what occurred. i said, well, here it is. we took a big banana and through it into the gorilla cage, and the guerrilla has depicted upper -- picked it up. they will appeal it, matchett, play with that, but they will eat -- they will peel it, mash it, play with it, but they will eat some. that is where we are now. some of this will be digested by this country.

it has been a pleasure and an honor. now i am going to get the hell out of town. i am going to live it up and sleep in the street. it has been an honor to be part of this with all of you and a privilege to have a new friendship with each and every one of you. thank you. >> how do you compete with that. you do not. the great thing is, i have had a chance to have dinner with 30, 40 nights, andy is the best. -- and he is the best. he is like this all the time. i have a new wrinkle in my face from being with my pal. i also have a news smile on my face because i am really,

really pleased with the outcome of this commission. it has been a long, hard slog for all of us. i have never been involved in any political discussions myself that were less partisan. if there is such a thing as nonpartisan, and i think there is, this has been it. i hope the american people have had a chance to see you all, members of congress, work together, because it has been a beautiful thing to see. you have cooperated in every way possible, and i think the country is better off for it. i also think that no one on this commission, and very few left in america, are in denial that this threat pressed upon us by these ever-increasing deficits are something we have to deal with. i think people really believe that this is the moment of

truth, that the threat of these datasets are real, the solutions are absolutely -- of these deficits are real, but the solutions are going to be difficult, and there is no easy way out. but at the end of this journey, america will be a better place. a strong, bipartisan coalition has already voted for this plan. while each has reservations, lord knows i do and allen does, about the plan, all believe, i think, that by voting yes, this plan will make an important first step forward in approving -- proving something, in proving that our nation understands the peril of our ever-increasing

deficits and that our leaders, you will, are prepared to do something real, something important, to address them. i want to thank alan simpson, my co-chairman. i would not be here today without him. i want to thank the brain. if any of you have ever had you have never been as high as this guy is every day. on my most optimistic day, i am not as high as he is. we walked out of our first meeting and i said, those guys we just met with think we are crazy. are we crazy? he said, no, we are going to get this done. that is the kind of partner he has ben.

thank you to the wonder twins, ygo, all of you have been great. if you had not helped us push this forward, america would not have had a chance to focus on the perils of this deficit. i also want to thank my two new friends. senators, i could not respect you more. my old friend, dick durbin, thank you, sir. i have been honored to serve with you. the godmother of fiscal irresponsibility taught me my first thing about the -- fiscal responsibility thought meet the first thing about the budget. i really, really appreciate it.

i think you have done a great service for your country. today, several members have said they would vote no, and these members of a great patriot and great people. they have been constructive participants in this effort. people like congressman kemp and congressman ryan have said why they are voting no. but 85% of what we are recommending will end up being in their budgets. i think that is a good thing. two congress people have come out with a very forward-looking plants that recognize that this deficit -- a very forward- looking plans that recognize that this deficit has to be dealt with. today, we are going to hear from people who have not expressed their opinions yet and some of

you the would like to make statements. i will recognize you now. we will start with senator dorgan, and then we will go to congressman spratt -- senator durbin, and then we will go to congressman spratt. >> thank you. we would not be here without the two senators who had this notion on a plane trip. the idea of a bipartisan deficit commission. even a good idea could not have been launched without define leadership of you to do. thank you for knowing best institution from the inside -- and this institution from the inside and for your amazing energy to reach this point. i have received a few phone calls in the last 24 hours.

[laughter] some of my closest friends and allies in politics cannot understand this. they have said, why is a progressive like dick durbin of voting for the best deficit commission report. here is why. i believe that politicians on the left and right, democrats and republicans, have to face the deficit crisis we have. when we barrault $0.40 of every dollar we spend, whether -- when we borrow $0.40 of every dollar we spent, whether it is on the pentagon or food stamps, that is not sustainable. when we are taking so much money from china, that does not allow us to sustain america. i want progressive voices at the table to argue that we must protect the most of all trouble in the society and demand

fairness -- most of all realm -- most vulnerable in society and demand fairness in budget cuts. i believe we should begin the debate. this is a report that is meant to kick start an adult debate on an issue that congress absolutely must face. that is why i am a voting yes. we face hard choices. american families face hard choices. but you do not start making hard choices in your family by denying insulin it to your grandmother or chemotherapy to your daughter. starting now, i will begin working with my colleagues in the senate to address the debate

in a balanced, a progressive way. a number of our colleagues, as many as 12 democratic senators have expressed their support for our effort. they may disagree with particular, but at least a dozen have stepped up, and more will follow, i believe. there are areas where i have strong disagreement, and i want to make it a matter of record. i think the cuts in this proposal are too deep and too fast. we should balance spending cuts and revenue increases evenly. we must look for savings everywhere we can, but that is not the same thing as balancing the books, and it may affect those that need government assistance the most. i fear this proposal takes too

much away from those who are the neediest. i will not repeat the argument i made the other day. no one has come out to review it. this plan does not save $60 billion by eliminating earmarked. capping spending is what balances the budget, not eliminating earmarked. i think we can save the most important social program in america in a balanced way by speeding up the date on which we collect payroll taxes on 90% of wages, a goal alan greenspan set in 1983. i would use that additional revenue to alleviate benefit cuts that the proposed changes would create. on health care, there are many ideas here, and i think the fact that we still basically

stand by the affordable health care act, the health care reform act, is fundamental to my support of this commission report. but there is one proposal in here that troubles me greatly. i think it is just unfair to treat federal employees as guinea pigs in a voucher scheme for health insurance. if we are going to do that, in all fairness, we should also have a not-for-profit public option available to these same employees. let's see what a voucher does, but let's also create a not-for- profit public option for the federal employees as well. that would have been a noble experiment. this experiment the we endorse and this commission is too one- sided. i also think we should give medicare beneficiaries an option of a part of the drug program run by medicare.

i think we should use far more tax revenue for debt reduction than this proposal calls boris -- calls for. surely, we can put more than $80 billion of earmarked spending toward the debt. while we are dealing with the reality of the deficit, there is an and rational, not real conversation going on and not far from here that suggests we can give tax cuts to the wealthiest people in this country and it does not count. of course it counts. it is $700 billion added to the deficit that gives tax cuts to the wealthiest people. if we are serious, we should acknowledge that reality. a word on malpractice, i wish we would have left that out. many things in here have not been tested. the one that has been tested suggests that we are going to

raise the cost of medical treatment by including this in our plan. what would we want to do that? i wish we had not included that. that is why i will continue forward from this day to use this as the starting point and click -- starting point template for what i hope it will be of valuable bipartisan conversation. this is not the last word. erskine bowles and alan simpson have given this country a valuable gift by raising the profile of this very real debt challenge that we face as a nation. i believe this commission has done great work with limited research and limited staff. i believe it will end up in a historic document because we will have three democrats and three republicans endorsing going forward with this report. 14 is just a number, but i think you have done more than reach a

number. you have inspired us to do what we need to do for future generations. i got an e-mail from my son this morning. for a father in this business, and there is nothing better. he said thank you for the grandchildren and for your family. >> well. that makes you feel good. chairman spratt. >> first of all, i associate myself with the comments made by my colleague, with him i began my congressional career 28 years ago dealing with this same problem. i support the bulls-simpson plan, subject to a number -- bowles-simpson plan, subject to

a number of caveat. as i read through it, i thought frequently, thank god i am not running again. [laughter] the fiscal course of this country simply cannot be sustained. you know it. i know it. the american people know it. there is too much at stake to make inaction an option. the plan proposed calls for many things. in that sense, is no different from the other agreements we have work done years ago. we succeeded once by balancing the budget for the first time in 30 years, and i believe we can do that again today.

the plan before us does call for some hard choices, choices made harder by tilting too much towards saving cuts and not revenue increases. i have my doubts about the achieve ability of some parts. substantial cuts in medicare on the heels of cuts made through health care reform are disconcerting. one cannot help but notice the irony of extending tax cuts one day and the next day proposing a 65 page report to eliminate $3 trillion-$4 trillion of deficit and debt. this is an exercise in complex

joyces. there is no easy or painless way out -- complex choices. there is no easy or painless way out. i can support the plan despite my caveat and concerns because one mission of this agreement is budget process. if this is somehow adopted, how will it be implemented? i would like to observe that the budget process remains intact. we can only make recommendations here. the commission's recommendations, to my way of thinking, illustrate the kind of policy congress could pass. the purpose is to show by proposing these recommendations the feasibility of the overall

proposal. many recommendations are not endorsed by many of the members of this commission. many are, but some are not. in any event, they're not intended to override the role of the house or senate, or the budget committee. the report, therefore, does not change the basic budget process. changes in budget policy will begin with the budget committee and will include reconciliation. there are spending ceilings and revenue floors. going back to caveat, there will be time to clean them up. in the meantime, with this report we begin a national

debate on fiscal responsibility. i have been honored to serve on the commission. our cochairs deserve credit for bringing energy and focus, and the stuff deserve credit for a prodigious amount of -- staff deserve credit for a prodigious amount of work. >> i cannot help but say, john spratt has been my lifelong friend for 25 years. he has served this nation well, and i look forward to the two of us going back to our county and seeing a lot of each other. mr. conrad. >> i would first of all like to say that senator gregg is not

here because of a long standing and family obligations. i can tell you that there is no place he would rather be them with us here today. i want to thank him, first of all, for partnering with me. we started this three years ago because we recognized that it was going to take some special process to bring to the attention of the nation the seriousness of the debt threat looming over the country. both of us are so proud of the two of you, because you took up this responsibility. neither of you had to answer this call. there in're out wyoming with your fantastic wife. many of us have long thought that she is a really special one in that relationship, but you are not so bead.

you have just done a superb and courageous job. erskine, you did not have to take on this obligation. you had heavy responsibilities already, but you recognized that this is one of the key challenges facing the country. i truly believe that other than the terrorist threat to america, i believe this debt threat constitute the greatest challenge to our country going forward of any. i just want to say about senator gregg, he is a very good man. he is somebody that fully understands the challenges we confront, and he has been willing to put aside partisanship, to put aside any other consideration, to try to get a result for the country. chairman spratt, we could not have a better chairman of the

budget committee. he is simply the best. we all went to thank you for your service to the country. i would ask others to join in recognizing his service. [applause] over and over, john has demonstrated courage. i have seen it many, many times. dick durbin, boy, you showed courage big time. i will never forget your stepping uppe. senator colbern, i watched your press conference yesterday, and it gave me chills. you have the courage to step forward and say, look, this is not exactly what we would do,

but we are prepared to sign up to make a beginning, an important beginning. thank you for that. to get 14 not going of 18. i must say that when we put together this plan and finally agreed on the test of 14 out of 18, i really never thought there was much probability. my staff asked me what chance i put on it, and i said 5%-10%. i never thought there was much prospect of getting 14 votes, but we are going to get 11. 11 out of 18, by my math, is a little over 60%. in the united states senate, 60% prevails. so, i believe we have crossed an important hurdle here, and laid out a plan that we all resurrected because it must be.

put me in the camp. there are things i do not like here at all. i do not like the federal employee health benefit plan, the contribution approach. i do not like it. there are other things i do not like, but that is not the point. the point is, what we have agreed to hear is far more important than what we have not agreed to. we have agreed to $four trillion of debt reduction over the next decade. $4 trillion. that the stabilize the debt, and overtime, it brings the debt down to a level set every economist who came before us that it is absolutely essential to achieve, a debt that is less than 40% of gdp. on social security, i believe we have a right. it does is ensure the solvency of social security for the next

75 years and does not use any of the proceeds to reduce the deficit. this is purely to strengthen and make secured social security for the long term. we have done it in a balanced and fair way, help those who are below 125% of policy, secure because of the excellent work of senator dick durbin, hardship where -- margin of waivers for those who must retire earlier. -- hardship waivers for those who must retire earlier. thank you, senator, for that important contribution. for mortgages and deductions, i saw reports that we were

increasing taxes by $1,700 on every american. that is absolutely inaccurate. what we have done is fundamentally reform the tax system to take out some of the deductions, exclusions, credits and tax expenditures and so that we could lower rates to make america more competitive, including growing the corporate rate, which is the second- highest now in the world. we are doing something here to make america more competitive so we can create more jobs. hallelujah for that. that is a leadership position that i think will be recognized in any plan that comes forward in the future. i could go on, but i want to end their and just say how proud i am of the work of this group. we have changed the conversation in this country. it is never going to be the

same. thank you, sandy stern, for your plan. in many ways, i liked it better than some of the other plan that have been put out. i think you have made a real contribution. congressman, you had the courage to come forward with a plan that also gets us back on track, though in a different way. i admire that you having -- i admire the people that have the courage to come forward with a plan. let me conclude by saying that this is not the end of the story. this is not the end of the story. this book is going to be read again. these chapters are going to be reopened. we have provided, i believe, a strong message to our colleagues and to the country of what has to be done. thank you, alan simpson.

thank you, erskine bowles. >> thank you. we would not be here without you. that is a fact. >> i want to begin by saying to two remarkable individuals, thank you for giving us a chance to have this conversation. to alan simpson, who i think in perfectspects was the purpo choice to be a co-chair, because he would say all of the wrong things before he would say all of the right things. [laughter] and to erskine bowles, who i suspect if you were doing the running of the bulls, the bulls would move out of your way before you moved and ran from them. i think in many respects, the president chose two individuals

who have the courage of their convictions to come forward. i stayed in my office until the wee hours this morning. unfortunately, i kept my staff with me as well. i was trying to figure out if there was a way that i could get to i guess, because for all of the reasons that i think my friend and colleague dick durbin said that he is a yes, i think it is appropriate for all of us to want to be a yes. i am going to be and no, but i want to make it clear that everything dicks said earlier, the reason there is a yes, because it is important to start the debate and to have a seat at the table, is the reason i am going to say no. this will have to be discussed at every kitchen table in the country. we were given the privilege to

be at this table. i do not give up this seat easily. i cherished this seat and i continue to try to find the seat so that we can get there. you have given us an opportunity to move forward. what this boils down to for me is the following. we have some hard choices. you are showing us that it can be done. in fact, you give us many alternative ways to do it. you put together an outline of the many options that were out there as one way to do it. but what you have done is, you have stimulated the conversation. you opened the door for us now back to do something, not just talk. as senator conrad said, it is not the end of the story. in fact, i do not think the last

chapter has been written. this may be one of the influential chapters, but certainly, the book has not been written. i would like one chapter to say, did we target that which got us into this mess? did we look at what was letting us develop these record surpluses, and then did we examine what took us from these record surpluses to these record deficits? if we examine that chapter well, the following chapter will probably say, well then, we know how to take care of part of the problem, because we know what some of the causes were. when you go to war and you borrow money from china to put us in iraq and afghanistan for 10 years, your economy is going to hurt. when you pass a prescription

drug plan for our seniors in america -- and by the way, i am not casting judgment one way on the appellate -- one way or the other on whether this policy was good or bad, when you pass it but do not fund it, we're looking at another $300 billion in unpaid for costs that we probably had to borrow from china to pay for. we can talk about the size of the tax cuts, the bush tax cuts. they probably added to about one-third of the deficit we face long-term as a result of the different decisions that have been made. but as one popular politician back, -- back home used to say, then was then and now is now. we cannot undo the policies of

the past, but we can debate them. there are about $1.3 trillion on the table that this plan pays for, but i do not think it pays for it by those two did the party in during the decade where we spent all that money. that is the biggest objection i have. somehow, a senior receiving social security benefits who may be attends a senior center in my district is going to have programs cut, but because we spend a hundred billion dollars in wars in iraq and on a prescription drug benefit, and hope we recognize that we have to pay for those fiscal transactions -- transgressions, to move forward. i hope there is a chapter in the

book that says we're going to do this in a way that recognizes the we are going to invest in america. no longer can we just spend in america. we need to take the american taxpayer dollar and invest it. to me, that means we need to make targeted cuts to some of our programs. i appreciate the fire wall on domestic discretionary cuts. i do not appreciate that they will come mostly on the back of those who require education, environmental protection, and housing. you said there are fire walls to keep us from poaching from one to the other. that was important. you did something else that was very important. erased what i think is the very

other import -- you raised what i think is the other very important chapter in this book. while spending is a problem, it is not spending on the appropriations side is the problem. it is spending on the tax side. money, andaxpayers' we are letting them keep it is the argument. but if we want to pay for things we want to do like go to iraq and pay for prescription drug benefits, then we need to pay for it. and we do not have the. the second most difficult issue that keeps me from voting for this plan is that so much of the reform is savings coming from programs that are essential in places like my working-class district, but not from those who for the last 10 years got the benefits from the massive tax earmarked the chairman identified. i wished, and i mentioned it to

the chairman, that we would do much more to take into account these huge tax giveaways, and then, if reapportioned it properly, we could make the types of decisions and hard choices that would allow us to move forward. this isn't -- this is the type of plan that allows us to move forward. this is also a plan to give different options. i think there are many different options that could have been chosen. i think the director put together a plan that has a number of options that i think are very worthy of consideration. in fact, as i was trying to put together a plan the day before yesterday, i found myself leaning a great deal toward your plan. when it came to your actions on discretionary spending, more so than this plan that we have before us. if nothing else i think there are some great chapters to be

written, and we have some good authors here this table. i believe all of us believe we're going to keep the seat that the stable and continue forward. this is just one -- keeping the seats at this table. thank you to everyone for making this a memorable journey. once again, we will show the rest of the world the we are ready to lead. thank you very much. >> i almost wish i was coming back to work with you like we did before. you are a special guy. i agree that you could not have had a more positive approach this whole way through. you have been a big help to all of us. i understand the struggle. you are a leader of tomorrow. congresswoman. >> >> while i cannot support

this plan, i want to thank the co-chairmen for their dedication to this difficult task over the last eight months. i agree that the work was constructive, despite their inability to get 14 votes. i offered my own plan to achieve the goals outlined by the president, to achieve primary budget balance by 2015, with one very different assumption. i believe we can do it without further eroding the middle class in america. it pays to remember that just 10 years ago we had a budget surplus that rapidly decreased during the bush years. they disappeared and huge debt was accumulated do to two wars and tax cuts that mainly enrich to the already wealthy and a blind eye to the recklessness of wall street that caused 8 million americans to lose their

jobs and millions more to lose their savings, the value of their houses, and the houses themselves. now we are on a quota unsustainable fiscal path" that threatened -- on a " unsustainable fiscal path" that threatens the future of our economy. there is another threat that i think is more alarming. that is the redistribution of wealth and the shrinking of the middle class. the top 1% now, more of the welfare than 90% of americans combined. top households have seen their incomes rise, even during the recession. if we fail right now to extend unemployment insurance benefits to two million americans, not only will that be another slap to the middle class, but it will

hurt our economy by depriving our businesses large and small of what these struggling americans will go out and spend. now we have a commission report that glibly talked about shared sacrifice and making painful decisions, and i asked, painful for him? these recommendations asks those who have already been sacrificing, who are sacrificing now, to further sacrifice. those who have not enjoyed the prosperity party over the last many years are being asked to pick up too much of the tab. we do not need to do this. there is another way. my plan recognizes the need to create jobs, a deficit reducing strategy that some incorrectly view as just more spending. their plan does not include investments to lower the unemployment rate. the plan addresses rising health

care costs by asking the elderly and disabled medicare beneficiaries to pay more out of their own pockets, even though they already pay about 30% of their mostly meager incomes -- the median income for seniors is $18,000 per year, to pay that on their own. the plan will be paid for by imposing higher cost sharing requirements on seniors and people with disabilities. my requires medicare to negotiate for lower prices, bringing down the cost to seniors by billions of dollars. mine has a public auction and choices for consumers in 2014. the cbo estimate the savings of about $10 billion board -- $10 billion per year for that. this plan cuts the bloated

military budget, which mine does as well, but not by freezing non-combat pay or a cutting military benefits. these people are not getting rich by serving our country and should not be the target of deficit-reduction. this plan calls for deep cuts domestic discretionary spending. a 22% cut in current funding levels that jeopardize as everything from nutrition, to education, to medical research, to job training. their plan opens a new, huge loophole to incentivize companies to outsourced jobs by adopting a territorial tax system. multinational corporations will never have to pay taxes on profits earned from subsidiaries

in foreign countries. finally, this plan would require cuts in social security benefits. the good news is that it enologist the social security has nothing to do with the deficit and debt their plan would make social security solvent for the next 75 years. that has nothing to do with deficit-reduction. it has to do with solvency. however, benefits for middle income americans could be cut by 70% by the time they retire given all the changes they suggest. there is no need to cut benefits and social security. we do not need to cut social security in order to save it, as my plan proves. i have highlighted just a few of the ways that this plan further erodes the middle class. there are many things in their

plan that are also in line -- in mind, however. i appreciate that there has been a consensus that the defense budget must be subjected to scrutiny and trimming in ways never considered before. it is very significant that tax expenditures or earmarks, things largely skewed to the wealthy, are finally being viewed as what they are, spending. some will criticize my approach as politically impossible, but i gladly subject my ideas to the public, knowing that protecting social security and medicare benefits, investing in jobs, and yes, asking the richest americans to contribute more, represents a majority view despite the inside the beltway conventional wisdom of what is possible. bottom-line, the commission on

fiscal responsibility and reform has proven that this thing our -- that fixing our nation's fiscal challenges is not impossible. i look forward to the constructive debate that has been started and i will continue to stand up for low-income and millet income americans so that "-- and middle-class americans so that we can truly live up to the notion of leaving each generation of americans better off than the one before. >> thank you for being a constructive part of this debate. >> i have to thank you for being the canary in the coal mine. when i would begin to grant -- to rant, she would clear her throat in a way that was not perceptible to others. it was like a silent dog whistle. i heard her do this.

>> i was only partially successful. [laughter] >> mr. stern, you asked to be recognized. >> listening to senator conrad's be, it was hard to believe it was of only six months ago that the president created this commission. the country was suffering from the aftershock of a rather devastating financial collapse that had walked -- have rocked the nation, but only a handful of people were dealing with this very unsexy and not front-page issue. we have changed up forever. we have changed the issue from whether there should even be a fiscal plan for this country to what is the best fiscal plan for

this country, and that is an enormous tectonics' paradigm shift that i think is enormously important that you have led. my plan does call for the same $4 trillion in deficit- reduction. i may have done it in a different way, but i think that before we continue in directionless financial wandering in a way that sapped the strength of the greatest economy on earth, threatens our national security, and could end the most unique and special and wonderful american dream, we have to do something. we should not be confused. the fact that we now have five plans demonstrates that this is no longer a matter of policy. it is really about leadership. just to be fair, this plan did get 60% of the vote.

who ever made the role of 14, it deserves a vote. it deserves to go to the house and the senate. just keep a voting until we get this job done. the question is not if, but when we are going to get this done, and this plan deserves a vote, and this president needs to make sure that by the state of the union he also has his own plan and its own leadership, because this is the issue of our time that must be solved. i voted no, despite my admiration for the effort. i feel strongly that we have two deficits in this country, a fiscal deficit and an investment deficit. the investment avocet -- deficit, we also need to create a competitive, dynamic and growing economy. no family would balance the

budget without sending their kids to college. no business can successfully compete without the latest equipment. and no nation can simply cut its way into the future. it has to invest as well. i'll set up a plan should better balance revenue and spending cuts -- i also thought the plan should better balance revenue and spending cuts. i thought we could do more to provide solvency to social security while still preserving benefits. i thought there are too many short-term cuts in health care at a fragile moment while we are trying to institute a new system of reform, and i did not think we had enough shared responsibility on the part of our larger corporations. i think something needs to be done. before i and i want to say that to senator dick durbin, eyeini respect what you have done. i admire your courage.

if those telephone calls keep coming, send them to me, because everyone in america is going to have to make hard choices. our country's future, our children's future, is no longer a matter of chance. it is a matter of choice. and as has been said, this is the moment of truth. >> thank you. i have enjoyed every moment i spend with you. it has been a great learning experience for me. thank you for your participation. >> first, let me echo my thanks for the work you have done as ce, to yournd bruise entire team. i have made a lot of friends going through this process, but the process is agonizing. you do not make it easy, nonetheless it did happen. the most surprising one was andy

and i becoming friends in this process. i remember seeing the list and hearing who was going to be on net and i thought, who dreamt up this one? a ceo and a turbulent labor leader, we are not going to get along. this is not going to work. i expected to be airing protests outside my office two months in. [laughter] that never happened, and i have to say, i give andy credit for reaching output -- reaching out first. if he had the guts to reach out, i should have the guts to engage. we got along. we did not necessarily always agree, but we got along. my hope is that during this process, democrats and republicans will learn to get along similarly and come to a

conclusion on this process. i do have it vantage that i get and like erskine, i am looking forward to that a lot. for those voting yes, i admire you for doing that. for those voting no, i understand the agony you went through to arrive at that decision but the same time supporting the overall process. i cannot help though, in noticing the pattern of the vote, i am reminded of james madison who said, "the hot seat of the house schools in at the the e's -- cools in senate's." i hope the coolness prevails, because the process and problem

is not going away, and this is just the beginning. it really is just the beginning of the resolution and the moment of truth. it needs to be addressed myriapodd. pour the politicians on the team, -- for the politicians on the team, your effort has just begun. if i can be any help in the process come up in more than willing to do that. -- help in the process, i am more than willing to do that. the process is agonizing. when words like/, destroy, cut, draconian are applied to things, i cannot understand the trauma.

i really happened difficulty -- i really have difficulty sometimes understanding how you get your job done at all underneath all of that hyperbole. the essence a compromise, of course, is that no one is happy. there is something for each of us to point to in the end and say we are not happy with. that includes me. i would just ask you to not let the perfect the enemy of the good. i understand the argument that everybody has to go through, but please do not let the perfect the enemy of the good. this is a time to not allow part, but to pull together. thank you. >> thank you. before i go to senator simpson, is there anything else anyone would like to say?

>> i will be very brief. as i said at our last meeting, i was honored to serve on this commission. i support the plan, and i gave my reasons and some of the things i disagree with. . . i spent a lot of time in the

last few weeks, as all of you have, being interviewed by the priest. and while there have been some excellent articles about this process, the general tone, especially of the interviews that i've been subjected to, is this can't work, can it? and i would estimate that of the many hours i've spent with a microphone on mila pell, about 20% was -- my lapel about, 20% was spent with the content of either plan, and 80% was explain why this isn't going to happen. >> i would plead with the press, give democracy a chance. it's just possible that this process where we are sending our bravest boys and girls around the world to defend might work, and it might actually work here on capitol hill. so lay off and give it a chance. [laughter] [applause]

>> thank you very much, mr. chairman. i hadn't intended to make any remarks. i made my speech yesterday and have given about 20 since that time. but i wanted to comment on one thing that was said by senator conrad, and that is the fact that we did not hit 14 should not be -- and many others have rye lake-effected this sentiment -- should -- others have reflected this isn'tment, that there is not the need for congress to engage. kent pointed out that we did get over 60, which is enough to pass any legislation in this congress. i would point out that had we hit 14 we would have been required to get about 77% consensus, which is a broader level of consensus than is needed in this congress by far.

my point is that although by failing to get to 14, we will not have the ability to force a vote on this specific plan on the floor of the senate and the house. but it does not mean that we will not have the ability to move ahead aggressively in the consideration of this plan. in fact, many of those who have voted against the plan have commended it. and, as you indicated, i think, erskine, earlier, some of those who have the ability to put together next year's budget are going to use major pieces of this plan as we move forward. and so i would simply say to the president, to the senate, to the house and to the people of our nation that we should not let this proposal fall idly

by the wayside. we have seen too many good proposals simply be shelved. and we've shown that we can get the super majority necessary to pass this kind of legislation. and the last comment i would make is one that i made yesterday, and that is as we evaluate our options in moving forward, the option of inaction is unacceptable. the time -- we cannot allow gridlock or the effort to find the perfect get in the way of getting us on a track. several of the witnesses, economists, who talked to this commission earlier in our deliberations pointed out that one of the most significant things that we could do for our economy would be to get on a

plan. they didn't say what plan, they didn't say whose plan, they said get on a plan. and our nation must recognize that it is imperative that we do that immediately. and if any message can come out of these deliberations, i think it must be that we can get on to a plan. we have achieved the kind of super majority support for one plan in this commission, and we need to expect congress to get to voting. this plan deserves a vote and other plans deserves votes. the issue deserves consideration. and i would hope that as we move forward, that all members of this commission could unanimously agree on that and advocate, as we move forward, for immediate and aggressive consideration of this plan and

of this issue. >> thank you, sir. senator simpson. >> well, i'll do the two-minute drill. first, two things. dick, you want to remember what andy said. you're going to need him. especially down there this carbondale, where my old coach was from, southern illinois, salukis. that's a wonderful tribute, because you're going to get hammered, we'll all get hammered. and alice, what you would say about the media, they would know that i'd say something like that. but let me tell you, democracy is in deep trouble, when the two most disgusting bodies in america are politics and journalists. democracy can't work when the two lowest forms of society are journalists, the media and politicians, and we both have to do a better job, that's for damn shumplete but i've seen

those interviews. the interviewers are all young, vigorous guys. finally i say, hey, pal, tap on my box. you'll be eating in -- well, i don't want to get -- anyway, they don't know what you mean when you say tap on my box. but anyway, i say it's your baby, pal. you're the one that's going to get clobbered, not me. so i thought i'd list my entire caveats of the things i don't like deep in my gut. i needn't name them because i'll be remooneded of every single one of them when i get home. it will be something unbelievable. and finally, as the groups and the del oths gather their minions and devotees to begin their slash and burn efforts -- oh, and they're out there -- and crank up their blatant and often untruthful distortions, be ready. they're going to pull all the stops. but then remember this -- many

of them were the same cynics who chuckled and broke out the champagne when we began our work. and they ain't laughing now. [laughter] which is a joy to watch. and as for me, because of you all, i will walk home proudly with my head held high, all 6'7" of me. god bless you. thank you. >> let me conclude by thanking each of you for all that you have done, for your courage, for your commitment and for your candor. you've been tritching through this whole nine-month process -- terrific through this whole nine-month process and i respect every single one of you. there's no question you can see in this little mouth of mine how truly thrilled i am that a strong bipartisan majority of

you have voted yes for this report. but you're right. this report is merely the first step. it's not the end, it's not the beginning of the end, as churchill said, it's now up to the members of congress and the members of the administration, just like andy said, to work together to pull together, not pull apart, and to work in a nonpartisan manner like you all have done here. it's been amazing to watch the two sides come together. no yelling, no screaming, but really an adult conversation about a very serious subject. please, i really am pleading with you, please make the tough choices. reduce spending.

reduce it in the defense budget, reduce it in the non-defense budget, in the entitlements, in the tax code. reform the tax code. broaden the base. simplify the code. bring down rates. and please, in doing it, eliminate these dreadful deficits. i think the american people are really counting on you. i thank you for all you've done. i've been honored to serve with you. this commission stands adjourned. [applause]

>> i have argued all along it's got to be a tactic. and one of the things i very much appreciate from the co-chairs is they don't vote for the complete package. i think that's a huge mistake. i don't think you can task something of this magnitude [inaudible] >> [inaudible] >> senator, how is the vote on the tax cut going to schaap -- shape up this weekend? >> i don't know.

>> inaudible on the table? >> i plan to work on a plan. i think there are many elements here that form the basis of the plan going forward. as i've expressed repeatedly here, this has the elements of what's required and it has the sufficient size to stabilize the debt and then bring it down over time to a level that all economists who came before us say is necessary. let's get the debt down to 40% of g.d.p. and every economists who came before us said that's essential to do over time. >> so even if the specific elements of the plan change and the overall figures that are being put forward of sort of being the framework -- >> i would do even more. i would have had a bigger deficit reduction. but this is what is required to

stabilize the debt and get it down to a level that economists have said is sustainable. >> are you going to seek to meet with congressman ryan? >> honestly, i think what's required is a summit involving the president and the leadership of congress. and that is what senator gregg and i attempted to do here. if you go back and look at the conrad-gregg proposal, we had the secretary of the treasury and the head of o.m.b. as part of the 18. but we got 53 votes for our plan. we needed 60. we had seven of our original co-sponsors vote no and the vote was called, unfortunately. so the administration then came forward with this plan, which was an executive order commission, which i urged them

to do. but they're not at the table. we need the administration at the table ultimately to reach a conclusion. >> how important was it to have senator durbin? >> it was very important to have senator durbin, senator crapo, i really applaud their statements from yesterday. it took courage to do it, and i really respect them for doing it. >> senator, there seems to be a lot of bipartisan feeling here. do you think it will spread over to the floor of the senate as well? >> well, i hope so. i think if you kind of back up, we got 60% of the commissioners to vote for something extremely controversial. 60% in the senate would prevail. so this is -- that's a good sign.

[inaudible] >> can i say you got 17% of the house vote here and that 17% is retiring. you have none of the house republicans who are taking over. what kind of a problem is that going to be? >> it's a big problem. obviously i don't agree with that. in fact, rural parts of the country have as great an interest as any other part in us getting on to the more stable long-term course. i just don't agree with that. i think we've done a very good job of protecting the most vulnerable in society. if you look at the farm bill, the cuts are about 7%.

other domestic discretionary cuts are 20%. so i think the rural areas actually came out quite well. i think one of the things he was talking about was a gas tax. but here's the reality -- my state is in the top five on return of our gas tax dollars. we get much more back than we send in, because we have the highest mileage of roads per capita of any state in the nation. the trust fund funds roads and is far short of what's required. so, you know, you're going to have to pay for things, you're going to have to pay for things. i would have chosen another method. i don't think gas tax, frankly, is the funding mechanism going forward, because electric cars, because of higher mileage. so gas tax, i don't believe, is

the proper foundation going forward. but the biggest beneficiaries in the country of federal highway legislation are rural states. we get far more back than we send in, and so if you balance the equities here, i think the rural parts of the country did reasonably well. everybody is going to have to contribute to get this debt under control. no part of the country can be exempt. >> seems like there's more bishopship on the [inaudible] -- >> i don't want to go there. i don't want to be critical of anybody who serves on this commission. >> i'm not talking about the commission. >> i answered here earlier.

>> that's a big problem. how do you surmount that? >> i don't know. that's the point. you have to get everybody at the table. that includes the administration, the leadership in the house and the senate. that's what senator gregg and i proposed. that was not the makeup of this commission. i think that is the next logical step. you need to have a summit, you need to bring together house leadership, senate leadership, republican and democrat, and the administration. there needs to be a negotiation. it's critically important to the country to do so. and i would add that one of the proposals in this commission [inaudible] something like that is very important. >> we met with a group of

deficit reduction caucus yesterday, with senator durbin, so that he would have a chance to hear from a significant group in our caucus and they were overwhelmingly supportive of this effort. they've issued a letter. 146 the people who were there yesterday issued a letter either last night or this morning, saying that we need to go forward with an ambitious program for debt reduction. >> the health care bill that just passed, they think that problem is health care, and their solution is to repeal the bill. of course, i, as a no-vote, completely disagree with that and don't want to see further burdens put on medicare beneficiaries or health care consumers in our country.

and i support the bill. so i think we're going to have the battles and the specifics of the segments of this proposal. maybe there can be some agreement on some. here's what i like, the fact that defense budget actually was put on the table in a very serious way and even secretary gates has said it ought to be cut. i think that's a fruitful area of agreement. i think the tax expenditures for the very first time, the deductions and credits, are going to be scrutinized and recognized as spending, though it's through the tax code. very positive. and so i think that it has been constructive, and i think we will see in some legislative measures a reflection of what we've done here. >> given the unified front from

the house republicans -- i mean, it's not just about the house. >> i think it will be very difficult. again, we're likely to see that now. we didn't get republican votes, except for a handful to extend middle class tax cuts. but now the upper, i think we got four republicans in support of that. so we're still seeing a pretty stark divide there. >> because the bush tax cuts -- if you use the tax reform, this plan, because the bush cuts would then be made a moot point. do you see the sort of redistribution that goes on within the tax reform plan in bowles-simpson that they could be made progressive? >> i think that the way the tax

proposals here or the tax policies really don't help to diminish this divide between the wealthy and the middle class in our country. i think this is, in and of itself, something we absolutely have to address not only in the tax code, but when we look at the way we're spending discretionary money, etc., and who gets -- the question of who pays i think is the most important. but the notion of putting the whole tax code on the table is an important one. but do re realistically think that we're going to be able to eliminate almost all of the tax expenditures? and my fear is that what we do

is we lower the rates and then we still have these tax expenditures that are left there that are very popular that have a at this time yentcy behind them and that we -- constituency behind them and that we don't have the kind of reform that we need. >> you mention add lot about income and equality and i wondered how effective do you think an argument on income and equality can be in sort of shaping the deficit reduction toward the middle class. >> i think the american people el not only that they're struggling with their mortgages, keeping their homes with unemployment and the fear of unemployment, but i think they feel that the rich have gonte off with something, that the wall street tycoons have been benefited, that they're the ones who are really the losers in all of this. there's an anger, i think, of not only about their condition

right now, but that it's unfair. so i think that it is a much more powerful driver than people think. not if you talk about it just in terms of income in equality. but if you say do you think it's fair that the wealthiest are continuing to spend at tiffany's, to buy yachts, to see their income rise, even as you are facing these challenges in your life, is that really fair? i think that that will help to drive the debate for closing the gap. >> you got 100% opposition from the house republicans. >> actually, you know -- >> but, you know, the good thing is when you talk to, some they will tell you individually that 85% of what we proposed is

going to be in his budget. out doesn't get any better than that. couldn't be more positive. he looked at the -- it's really a great idea. >> so a partisan approach to this can work. it can start with republicans saying this is going to work. >> think your questions are all wrong, i really do. it's nonpartisan. that's my whole point. you know, there was no partisan activity in this work at all. this was a nonpartisan activity. i spent as much time with tom coburn as i did dick durbin, and they worked together. kent conrad and senator gregg worked together. that's what made this, unfortunately, unique, but i think going forward these relationships and this trust has been established. this is exactly what we did in 1997. we built up trust, we found a common ground and working with

senator lotte and speaker gingrich and the president, you know, we got to a bipartisan conclusion that did balance the federal budget. i think this is the first step. >> the white house indicated that they will use anything from this plan? >> all i can tell you is this morning when i was driving here, the new budget director called me and said that he and secretary geithner would like to meet with this commission and discuss how we can go forward. so you'll have to ask them. >> any idea when that meeting will be? >> i don't, but you'll have to ask them. >> what's going to be your role? >> i'm going home. i'm going home. i'm a tar heel and i am going right back to that university. >> what should be the next move with the administration? would you recommend that as well? >> well, you know, what the next step is is up to the people up here. all i can tell you is that call i had with jack lou this morning, which he called and asked if he and secretary

geithner could meet with the commission as a whole. but the one thing i have stressed is this is just the beginning. the congress and the president have to take those necessary steps to take this forward. we've got to bring down spending. we've got to reform the tax code and eliminate these deficits. thank you very much. >> while the commission did not hold an official vote, 11 members were leaning in support of the proposal, senators coburn, conrad, durbin, crapo, gregg, and david cote and ann fudge. also, spratt, simpson and erskine bowles, the co-shares, and fudge and alice rivlin. members opposed included senator max baucus, paul ryan, hence serling, january schakowsky of illinois and

javier becerra, along with andy stern, who is a commission member. the pentagon has released its report and the impact of ending don't ask, don't tell, the policy that bans gays from openly serving in the military. go to the c-span video library and search and watch programs outlining the debate and the arguments for and against. it's washington your way. this weekend on c-span3's american history tv, televised for the first time, an oral history interview with the assistant special prosecutor during the watergate case, recalling their strategy, the saturday night massacre and the resignation and pardon of president richard nixon. former special assistants to president ford talks about the 1976 presidential election, why mr. ford decided to run and the effect of the nixon pardon on its outcome and from the naval academy in maryland, a professor on the confederacy,

and the year many feel the south peaked militarily, 1863. american history tv, telling the american story every weekend only on c-span3. listen to landmark supreme court cases saturdays on c-span radio. >> these are racial statutes to perpetuate the badges and bonds of slavery. that is not a permissible state action. >> this week, loving the commonwealth of virginia. by unanimous vote the court ended all race-based restrictions on marriage in the u.s. listen to the argument saturday at 6:00 p.m. eastern. in washington, d.c. at 09.1 f.m., nationwide on xm channel 132 and c-span radio.org online. vice president joe biden met today at the white house with treasury secretary tim geithner and jack lou on the status of negotiations with congressional leaders on extending the bush era tax cuts. before the meeting he commented on today's jobs report that

says unemployment increased in november from 9.6% to 9.8%. he speaks for about five minutes. >> all right. good morning, everyone. i'm here with jack lou about our efforts to ensure that taxes don't go up for middle class americans. but before we get on with that discussion, though, i want to comment on today's job report. today's report means that we have now seen private-sector growth for 11 months in a row, and that means since last december we've added 1.2 million private-sector jobs to the economy. in november alone, the private sector added 50,000 jobs. there still is no denying that the report is disappointing, because we were, quite frankly, hoping for even stronger job growth.

the bottom line is, and what this tells us and makes absolutely clear is that while we made progress creating jobs, it's clearly not enough. there is too much pain out there. there's still millions of people out of work and trying to make do without a paycheck and without the dignity or respect that goes with the job. and that leads to, i think, absolute and undeniable conclusions. the first is that we need to extend -- we need to extend unemployment insurance benefits. earlier this week those benefits expired, leaving millions of americans without a lifeline that they need to make ends meet at a particularly difficult time as they move into the christmas season. in extending that support to those hardest hit by this crisis is not only the right thing to do -- not only the right thing to do, which we always have done in similar circumstances, it is

economically necessary for us to do it. those unemployment checks get spent, especially in the holiday season, and when they get spent, that spurs economic growth. that helps create jobs. in fact, according to a report released yesterday by the council of economic advisors, that report said that extending -- not extending these benefits -- if we in fact do not extends them -- and they've expired. if we don't extend them, we will lose an additional 600,000 jobs. we'll lose 600,000 jobs by not extending unemployment benefits. unemployment insurance is a powerful driver of economic growth. it's as simple and plain as that. and you can't let it be cut off to these families. again, not only at a time when they need it, but when the nation needs this money being spent in the economy generating new jobs. that's why the president and the congress enacted the

extension of the unemployment benefits and to do so as soon as possible. it must be done before they leave town. we must have unemployment insurance extended. the second thing the report makes crystal clear to me and to all of us is that it reminds us that we have to make these middle class tax cuts permanent. to me it's unthinkable that we would continue the uncertainty in the job market, that we would risk -- we'd risk letting these middle class tax credits falter. it would have a significant economic impact. our recovery is underway, but it's fragile, it's too slow. especially for the american middle class. and congress needs to act now, again, before they leave town, to make sure taxes do not go up for middle class americans. they can't afford it. but the economy cannot afford it either. so i urge the senate to join

the house. the senate will meet tomorrow voting to permanently extends tax cuts for the middle class, and i urge them to do that. there's nothing we can do for our economy that's more immediate and more important than insuring that these tax cuts remain in place. and as the bipartisan talks are going on, these two gentlemen are conducting these talks, as those talks are going on, we want to make sure that all tax relief helps middle class families and working-class families and has the significant added benefits of helping the economy continue to grow. that all of them -- all the ones we passed last year, including the boehm initiative to make work -- the bomb -- that all of the tax cuts are extended in these difficult times. the consequences of letting

these lapse are, quite frankly, dire. in the month of december alone, during the holiday season, 2 million workers as of yesterday, or two days ago, i guess it was, are going to lose their unemployment insurance. and if we don't ask, almost 700 million additional workers will lose coverage. never before when we've had unemployment at this rate have we not extended unemployment. and the tax relief for middle class that i've mentioned twice now are also critically important to the economy and it's the right thing to do for strapped families that find themselves working harder than ever just to make their paychecks cover their bills. that's why we're gathered here today. we're going to discuss how we move from here. we're waiting for the senate vote. we hope that we succeed in extending the permanent middle class tax cut. but we're discussing how we, as an administration, can ensure that middle class tax cuts are

maintained and unemployment benefits are continued. so thank you all very, very much. i can tell you only one thing. i am not at bagram air force base. that's important. >> once again, the labor department reporting today unemployment increasing in november from 9.6% to 9.8%. we get more on that now from a business reporter, who was on this morning's "washington journal." we will show you as much of this as we can before the house gavels in for a brief pro forma session at 4:00 p.m. eastern. >> our final guest this morning is here in our studio. our guese studio, marilyn geewax, the senior business editor for national public radio. we ask her to tie a ribbon around our discussion on the debt and deficit commission and

talk to us about unemployment numbers the deficit commission. it is looking like they will not get the ves they need, the super majority of 14. the members all believe there was some value of this, the idea that get reaction -- debt reduction will take root in washington but what kind of reaction you get from people you talk to? guest: when you hear economists talk and people who think about the budget deficit, i think there is a consensus out there that this has been a useful process that has put a lot of things on the table, has focused attention, and even if it does not get to 14, it has created a sense of momentum, at least a baseline, something to work from. most people that i talked to, economists and political folks, everybody seems to think there was value and what this exercise has been, eveif you don't get to that 14. host: one of the interesting dynamics, and some of our guests this morning have talked about it, is a split between house

republicans, including paul ryan, and senate republicans who are voting in favor of it. what does it mean about working relationships and plans for the deficit and taxes and the budget between the incoming house majority? guest: right now i think we are in it such a fluid time politically th it is hard to say how any of this is going to play out because you have the lame-duck session, new leadership coming in, people looking into their new offices trying to move in, but you still have people in place who have power right now. that means they are in an awkward situation. we have to economic news that could also shake up things politically -- we have a new economic news that could make people -- but also shake up things politically. there are all these ripple effects. you start to think about extending unemployment benefits, if they start thinking differently about extending t

cuts, maybe all new deals will be cut in the next couple of hours because we have new facts on the ground about th economy. host: the nation's unemployment rate has climbed to the 9.8% in november, employers added only 3900 jobs last month, a sharp decline from the 72,000 created in october. guest: this report today feels so bad that it has political ramifications, fincial ramifications. there is a lot of bad news in this report today. it could hurt the white house and the sense that it makes -- they have been in charge of -- obama has been in charge of the white house for nearly two years now, so the economy is becoming the obama economy and this report is very negative. on the other hand, the democratic position that you should extend unemployment

benefits, or the republican position that you should not raise taxes when the economy is so weak. host: employers added only 39,000 jobs last month, a sharp decline from the 107 -- a sharp decle from the 172,000 credit inctober. the weakness was widespread. private companies, the backbone of the economy, created 50,000 jobs, down significantly from the 160,000 private sector jobs created in october, the smalles gain since january." guest: let me put this in a little bit of context. in recent weeks, there has been this rising optimism. people and feeling like maybe the worst is over, maybe we are really starting to add jobs.

there are indications that consumer spending is out that people are doing a little bit more shopping at the stores, on- line. there is an almost maybe a little irrational optimism breaking out. the october numbers were not great, but not so bad. it looks le there was momentum towards hiring. now this report comes out and it is so bad that you almost question if there is a misreading here. maybe there is more hiring going on among small businesses that is not being captured here? but if the numbers are what they are, and usually the labor department as a etty good job of capturing what is happening out there in general -- most economists, the consensus numbers people were looking for work 150,000 jobs created in november. it was 39,000. yes, we have job growth, there are people getting jobs, but 39,000, when you have 15 million

people unemployed? it really puts it in some perspective that we are nowhere near being out of this downturn. another thing was that here was the wage -- another thing that was that here was the wage data. people are still fighting a lot of debt and trying to save, and when wage increases are up one penny and the hours worked were no longer, it shows us greased average americans are when it comes >> to the paycheck -- how squeezed average americans are when it comes to the paycheck. host: for our audience, the cameras are in the deficit commission room, and we are expected to get like pictures in just a short while but they're waiting in the senate conference building, at the dirksen building. we will pick it up at 9:30 eastern time.

texas, republican. caller: good morning. i have two quick questions. the first is, why does it seem when republicans are in office, they come after us? i am on social security. i worked for 34 years putting money into social security, which is supposed to be available for me when i got to the age that i am now. but the government raisesocial security and took money out the was supposed to be for may and spent on other programs -- for me and spent it on other programs. now repubcans are talking about making it from 65o 69, cutting medicaid. why do they always want to cut what is helping people out here? second question is, like son has is on business, he is self- employed for 14 years now, and he has paid taxes every year, and he only makes $20,000- something the year.

but exxon can move to another country and pay the lesser tax than they would pay here, but they get a deduction on the tax that they paid. why is it that the republicans seem to be more interested in helping the business and the rich instead of people that make up this country? guest: you know, i think today's jobs report really underscores how much harder all these debates will become. hear this person is saying they've paid into social saberi, they want to get the money -- paying into social security, they want to get the money back, but when you have bad economic news like this, it just means that there are going to be more people who really cannot find jobs and who will declare themselves retired at 62, start drawingn social security even earlier than expected. there are people who would like to work until they are 70, but they cannot find a job, so they

retire at 62 and a draw on what is owed to them, and it weakens social security. you have a problem with -- you have more pressure than ever to something to make social security solvent. at the same time, more people will be drawing on it. host: with regards to social security, here is with a deficit commission is recommending. that came out of the deficit commission that the president has put together and will b voted on in about 15 minutes. back to telephone calls.

is it delphi, louiana? caller: yes. i wanted to ask a question to the effect of the veterans. i'm a disabled veteran, and all i ever hear is "the military, they deserve the best, the best for our troops, which always protect them." but now they are talking about cutting the benefits that we get. for me being disabled, i don't have any options to get a j, to look anywhere. they might as well put a bullet in my head, because i don't have the options, at a lot of people in the same position i and that just came out of the war. somebody talk about teachers a while ago. who was right to teach our young people to grow up and be good, respect -- who is going to ach

our young people to grow and be good, respectable taxpayers and have a generous jobs in our economy? guest: thank you for your service to the cntry. i appreciate it, we all do, and i'm sorry about your injuries. on the issue of veterans benefits, this is another situation where you have a rising level of unemployment and more people -- rising level of employment and more people paying taxes into the system, the need to cut is reduced. but when you have more people without work, it is really tough on veterans. government is definitely looking for places to cut spending, and at the same time, employers are looking for -- they just don't have jobs for even healthy, fit people, let alone going out of

the way to help disabled people get jobs. it is just off all the way round, and i'm sorry about that. -- tough all the way around, and i'm sorry about that. host: senator dick durbin, in his op-ed in "the chicago tribune" supporting the commission, talked about a payroll tax holiday. can you talk about how that would spur job growth? guest: the idea that anything you do to put money into people's paychecks, so that there is money immediately, is seen as a stimulus instead of something where you have a tax cut -- and state tax cut, let's say, were you have to die before it has any impact. but if you have payroll tax cut, it could mean that you have more money in your paycheck right now. now is when we needed the stimulus. when we see these latest numbers on retail hiring, apparently,

even though there was hope that consumers were going to purchase some more, the reality, as far as hiring goes, is that retailers apparently are not seeing enough of an increase in customers to want to hire more. it probably strengthens the argument to "let's do something to put money into people's paychecks by a white." -- right away." host: pam, democrat. caller: can somebody please tell me what the cost of living has not won to -- has not went up? i am here to tell you, the cost of living has gone up. everything, our electric bills, gas bills. if there is a place where the cost of living has not gone up, i would like to know.

guest: the statistics on inflation are quite low, especially for groceries. so far we have had the lowest level of increases in grocery prices in about 20 years. government is just not finding it in the market when they go shopping. but there are other things that are more expensive, so people feel that. medical care, the cost constantly seem to rise, college tuition always seems to go up. energy prices are certainly rising. a lot of things that people buy on a daily basis -- filling up your tank gas is pretty painful compared with a couple of years ago during the worst of the recession. yes, i think that a lot of people do feel inflation but when you look at the statistics, there is really not much -- if you go over the cost of groceries, most of them across the board have not gone up.

now, we have seen a lot of rise in crop prices. corn is up dramatically this year, wheat . probably we will be seeing higher gross represses coming. grocery prices coming. host: "the new york times" -- a chart they did -- we had this comment on at twitter. clearly there are negotiations going on between the white house and gop. guest: this is really kind of a

motivator for people who wanted to compromise on things. elisse sings like it would be awfully tough now politically -- it really seems like it would be awfully tough now politically for republicans to continue to say that they will provide long- term unemployment benefits, because these numbers show that people are really having a very tough time finding work, and that the economy is weak enough that it could use more stimulus. it could really strengthen the republicans' argument that raising taxes on anyone right now would be bad, because the economy is so weak. host: lead story in "at thnew york times."

"senate democratic leaders schedule their own symbolic vote on saturday designed to end tax cuts for the rich." one would extend for under tutored 50,000, and another -- under to $50,000, and another that is a compromise, under $1 million. next is a richmond, republican. caller: good morning. good morning, ms. geewax. it is pitiful that they want to penalize people who want to pay -- who actually pay the taxes, the citizenry of the united states ofmerica. we are the ones to pay the taxes, along with the corporations or whatever. joblessness and taxes, all that, go hand in hand.

we have it in the united states right now where people don't pay taxes. at one of the allies and a group of people -- i don't want to fill in is any group of people -- to villainize any group of people, but people who are your illegal -- here illegally, if they could pasomeorm of taxes, some form or way to help out society out, because they use our society. the city of washington, d.c. -- l's talk about people that people don't talk about. churches d't pay taxes. religious organizations don't payaxes but people who work

fothem pickaxes -- -- who work for them pay taxes -- host: let me jump in, because there is an article about nonprofits being worried -- guest: one tng they want congress to do is to eliminate tax deductions like -- things like mortgage interest deductions, which would cause a lot of people to be unhappy, but you could go through a system where you more broadly tax -- get rid of deductions and loopholes, lower the tax rate, but have more people paying taxes. that is one of the important ideas and some of this tax reform. host: m geewax, who has quite a twitter committee responding to your groceriesomments. a lot of people think they paid re for groceries. guest: i know, i know. i go to the grocery store, too,

and especially dairy products seem like they are way up. but the numbers don't show that from the consumer price index. they just believe not gone up. i talked to -- they just really have not gone up. i talked to the general mills cereal company a few weeks ago, and they instuted the first price hike and a longtime -- in a long time in november. it is because of the crop prices are was referring to. if you arenhappy now, there will probably be more to come. but the statistics, at least those clected by the government, do not show sharp rises in food prices. all i can tell you is what the statistics show, and they show gross represses have been at the west levelf increase since 19 -- grocery prices have been at the lowest level of increase

since 1991. host: michael, independent bid . caller: good morng, susan, good morning, ms. geewax. first of all, i love npr. but do you believe it is beneficial are detrimental to our society or any society 12% of the population -- when 2% of the population owns 7% of the wealth? you listen tod npr. i cannot tell you any and all but all i can tell you is the statistics. opinions on policy is not the end your way -- not the npr way. host: texas, you are on. caller: got a question for ms. geewax did what you think of means testing for social

security? also, i watch a lot of c-span, i watch a lot of congress and the senate, and the guys are up there, they are making their speeches, and they make a speech to an empty house. then everybodyomes in and make the vote and they are in there for 15 minutes, they make the vote, and they have not even listened to the other side. as much as i hate to agree with the catholic crch . . they are voting in a the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the chair lays before the house a communication from the speaker. the clerk will read.

the clerk: the speaker's rooms, washington, d.c., december 3, 2010. i hereby appoint the honorable eliott l. engel to act as speaker pro temporerary on this day. signed nancy pelosi, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: the prayer will be offered by our chaplain, father coughlin. chaplin coughlin: good, bough down to the people and are attentive to their needs, today, listen to our humble prayer. open our minds to receive your word and dispose our hearts to be moved by your spirit. make this congress strong because it is unafraid to admit to your people that our real difficulties are in not nearly

economic, our true battles are spiritual and they can no longer be solved simply with money or by manipulation. as we move toward a globalized world, shaped by technology and information, empower this nation with energetic leadership, attentive to people and attentive to science, but well aware scientific methods only investigate the surface of your architectural design of creation and holistic purpose to awaken human responsibility and to lead us to seek you with wonder and gratitude now and forever, amen. the speaker pro tempore: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his

approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1, the journal stands approved. the chair will lead the house in the pledge of allegiance. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the chair lays before the house a communication. the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, madam, pursuant to the permission granted in clause 2-h of rule 2 of the rules of the u.s. house of representatives, the clerk received the following message from the secretary of the senate on december 3, 2010, at 9:48 a.m..

that the senate passed without amendment h.r. 5758, that the senate passed without amendment h.r. 6118, that the senate passed without amendment h.r. 6387, that the senate passed without amendment h.r. 6237, that the senate agreed to without amendment house joint resolution 101, that the senate passed with amendments h.r. 1107, that the senate passed senate 3784. with best wishes i am signed sincerely, lorraine c. miller, clerk of the house. the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house the following enrolled bill. the clerk: senate 3307, an act to re-authorize child nutrition programs and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to section 1 of the

library of congress trust fund board act 2 u.s.a. 154 note and the order of the house of january 6, 2009, the chair announces the speaker's appointment of the following members on the part of the house to the library of congress trust fund board for a five-year term. the clerk: mr. jay richard fred risk of san francisco, california. mrs. barbara guggenheim of los angeles, california, mr. james kimsy of mcclain, virginia. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to section 1002 of the intelligence authorization act for fiscal year 2003, p.l.-106- 36 as amended by section 701 a-h 3 of the intelligence authorization act for fiscal year 2010, pl-111-259, and the order of the house of january 6, 2009, the chair announces

the speak r's -- the speaker's appointment of the following member on the part of the house to the national commission for the review of the research and development programs of the united states intelligence community. the clerk: dr. shirley jackson of bridgewater, new jersey. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the house stands adjourned until 12:30 p.m. on tuesday next for morning hour deba

>> cadiz of racial statues set perpetuate the brunt of slavery and talent that is not a possible action.

>> in the argument, the court struck down all race-based on argumentby defense against marr. >> the joint chiefs, vice chairman, and the chiefs of the military branch gave the senate armed services committee a deadpan on whether a don't ask, don't tell should be repealed. the to the policy would have little long-term impact according to a report released this week.

the >> yesterday, we heard from secretary state, at the moment, and the coach is on the working group. today, we hear from the vice chairman and from the senior military officers from all of these citizens. the army chief of staff george casey, the chief of naval operations, the commandant of the marine corps, the chief of staff of the air force, and it commandant of the coast guard.

bonthe legislation stipulates tt repeal will not take effect unless and until there is a certification by the president, the secretary of defense, and the chairman of the joint chiefs that they have adopted the necessary steps to ensure that we maintain our standards of military readiness and effectiveness, unit cohesion, and recruiting and retention.

but secretary gates testified following. "i would not sign any certification until i was satisfied with the advice of the service chiefs. we want to hear whether you are satisfied by the insurance of the secretary of defense and whether you were adequately consulted by the working group. the report before us confirms

that a large majority of troops believed that the appeal is consistent with maintaining unit effectiveness and is due to the secretary of defense and the joint chiefs. training, education, and leadership will be vital to mitigating those concerns. of great importance, the report demonstrates that actual experience serving alongside gay and lesbian colleagues has a powerful and positive affect on

service members' attitudes. the coaches of the working groups wrote in a report "but while a higher percentage of service members in war fighting units predict the negative effect of appeal, the distinctions between war fighting units and the entire military are almost nonexistent. when asked about the actual experience of working with some that are gay. >> predictionpredictions of negs are higher among those in war fighting units but the actual experience of troops in combat units will have fought alongside

gays and is that near units are largely affected because of the working group before it. this evidence is concerned by the experience of some of our closest allies who have made this change. in the militaries of great britain and canada, there was even greater concern about this before it was made than exists today in our military. the working group reports that the transition was easier than expected and there is no evidence that a change in policy has diminished combat effectiveness for these allies who have fought side by side with us over the last decade. the working group has laid out a careful plan to implement a

repeal while mitigating risks. that plan focuses on the importance of leadership, education, and training, i agree with admiral mollen who told us yesterday that it is leadership that matters that must. >> let me think of our distinguished witnesses for the serveservice to the nation. as i said yesterday, we considering a complex and often emotional subject. the proposed appeal of the

current moscow which the folks strongly held and legitimate differences of opinion among many americans. this is no different among u.s. military. i think we can agree that our military is the most professional and effective and arguably the most experience forced our nation has ever had. we can all agree that we appreciate and honor the service of every american who fights for their country, regardless of whether they are straight are not straight or gay. this capable and professional force of violence could implement a repeal of don't ask, don't tell if they are awarded to do just as they do everything else that we ask of them. what i want to know and what it is the congress's duty to

determine is not can our own forces implement in repeal but whether it should be repealed. unfortunately, that was not the focus of the study. let me say that i am not saying that we should hold a referendum among our military on this issue and leave the decision in their hands. that is not how our system works can tel. there is the gravity of

potential consequences for our military and the words in which we are engaged. i appreciated hearing from everyone yesterday. all of them occupying leadership positions within the military. the same is true of our witnesses today. the service chiefs are responsible for the training, organization, and the administration of the men and women of their respective services. it is their responsibility to recruit and retain minute women of the best quality. -- retain men and women of the best quality.

at present, it means a sustained combat. it is the job of our service chiefs to make sure that our military is ready and able to win the military's wars. they are especially relevant to the current debate. i have always said that i would listen to and fully consider the advice of our military regarding the potential military of don't ask, don't tell. i did that yesterday, i will do that today. i will continue to do that. as we move forward with our discussion, i think that everyone will put aside political motives and agenda. this debate is focused on broader social issues being debated.

i look forward to the debate about witnesses. >> we will start with the vice chairman of the joint chiefs. >> i believe we have a corn that is present -- a columquorum thas present. and his nomination has been before that committee for a required amount of time. >> some of. >> second.

>> thank you and good morning. i appreciate your paternity testify on repealing the policy commonly known as don't ask, don't tell. the critical question is not the issue of acceptance that how is might affect or impact military effectiveness. the secretary and the chairman emphasized that the men and women in uniform and the families' is said to have their voices heard on issues like this. i would like to commend the working group on this effort by reaching out across the forces. there is a wide range of

opinions on this. if the law is repealed, implementation will require the discipline attention of leaders at all levels. it is my view that implementation of of manageable risk with regard to military effectiveness. even during the high tempo or operations. some ask, why not wait for a more timely opportunity there is never a more perfect time. contrary to expectations, this might be a better time than we would expect. in times of conflict, the focus is on the war effort. so this members are devoted to defending the nation and their comrades. when they are engaged, held

on the east coast of their fellow servicemen and women. i believe the men and women of the u.s. armed forces form the best trained and most professional military organization in history. they look beyond issues of race, religion, gender, and sexual orientation. in my opinion, the findings of this report confirmed the view. the service of our war fighters is important. it is acted that predictions of disruption or higher than the predictions of men and women in supporting organizations. any good survey asks key questions in multiple ways.

said his members to of actually said -- service members have experienced little or no disruption. we have a taste the real potential that a lot will be repealed in the courts. my greatest concern is that the department might lose its ability to transition in a way that is a managed implementation. repeal in the law by an act of

congress offers a greater likelihood that the department would be will to manage implementation. legislation can provide the structure and predictability that the military leaders and required to effectively and efficiently implement a change in policy. we pride ourselves on a nation that is not merely tolerate diversity, week in place and are strengthened by the many differences among us. the character in the appeal of the u.s. armed forces lies in its quality, opportunity, and he clues to character of our organizational the fuss.

the change brings challenges and challenge demands leadership. the challenge of leadership which is a hallmark of our institution will be the question today. and are a force to assigned- defined by the openness. -- we are a force defined by openness. i am in favor of repeal of don't ask, don't tell. think you. >> thank you, general part right. general casey. >> thank you.

i love again how i see the risks from a military perspective and then i will give you my opinion on the impact of the force. i think it is important that we are clear about the military risks. implementation of the appeal of don't ask don't tell would be in danger of cultural and policy change in the middle of an war. it would be implemented by a force and this that are already stressed by the cumulative effects of almost a decade of war. this would be implemented by a force in which a substantial numbers of the number of soldiers perceive that it will have an impact on condition, morale, and that implementation will be difficult. the report states that over 40%

of our armed forces believe that the presence of a case in december in a unit would have a negative impact on the unit's effectiveness, the trust that the soldiers feel for each other, and on their morale. as such, i believe that the implementation of the appeal of the appeal of don't ask don't tell, will -- repeal of don't ask don't tell, will be difficult on our combat units, be a difficult for the army and the report suggests. if repeal is directed, the implementation constitutes a solid basis upon which the developed plans which would mitigate the risks that i just described. i did not envision that the repeal would keep us from

accomplishing our worldwide emissions including combat rations. we have a disciplined force and season. there is moderate risk to whom retain this course of a long haul. i believe that we will have to closely monitor the impact on our mid-level officers as they wrestle with implementing the appeal some of tennessee with the other challenges they're facing after nine years at war. we could moderate the repeal. the army will mark with the department and other services to finalize the implementation plan if this is repealed.

>> date you for the opportunity to appear before you today to address the report of the comprehensive will conclude in my perspective of the issues of a potential appeal. -- repeal. i applaud the seriousness of the men and women of the navy as a the anticipated in this survey. i believe the issues had and research, examined. the response has helped me to assess the potential impact to

readiness, unit cohesion, morale in the navy. 76% believe that the impact on these force characteristics be neutral or positive. there will be issues to be addressed, especially immediately following appeal. there is a sizable minority of the navy, approximately 24%, the police that the impact will be negative. as of consent include cohesion, privacy in sleeping and showering facilities aboard ships, and increased stress on the force. i believe that these can and mitigated through training, education, effective leadership, clear and concise status of conduct. we will engage all sailors regardless of the point of view, it is this minority upon which leaders must focus. we understand and appreciate the critical role of families in

support of our sailors. the assessment of the spouses is important because of their support to the sailors and the decisions that need the families make. 7500 spouses responded to the survey and 81% said adam expect family readiness to be negatively impacted as a result of repeal. this is currently the subject of ongoing litigation and i cannot predict the outcome. i believe that any change in the law is best accomplished through the legislative process and not judicial. and we would like to have the time to effectively implement this change within our armed forces. should the law be repealed, the navy will continue to be a professional, global, effective, relevant force for the nation. repeal of alone will not fundamentally change who we are and what we do. the u.s. navy can implement the

necessary changes to policies and procedures even in a time of war. i support the repeal of this code. i have confidence of the men and women of the u.s. navy and their character and discipline and decency. navy leaders will continue to set a positive tone and create a an inclusive and respectful working marmot. -- an inclusive and respectful working environment. >> thank you them much.

>> thank you for the opportunity to address the report. the study conducted by the departments comprehensive working group will give you a valuable examination of the issue is on the policy and some sexuality in the armed forces. i am grateful for the efforts of j johnson, general carter. the seven provides useful

information about service member attitudes and issues regarding potential implementation across the marine corps. i would like to share with you what it says about our marines opinions. look at all specialties, approximately 45% of marines so they'd viewed it negatively in terms of effectiveness, readiness, and condition. of 13% but at it positively in the same categories. of particular concern to me is 56% of combat arms marine's voice - concerns. - benchmarks for combat arms marines raise between 66% for unit effectiveness and -- tahitian. these are held almost equally by all ranks within the combat arms

communities. what the survey did not identify is the risk to the force who. with half of the forces the the fighting in afghanistan, preparing to go to combat again, the readiness is foremost in shaping my implementation assessment. my experiences tell me that young men and women who volunteered to be marines do so would hon. and patriotic contentions and even fast differences and backgrounds, believes, or personalities can be bridged. assimilating openly homosexual, marines has a strong potential for disruption at the small unit level as it will no doubt

divert leadership and an almost single focus on preparing units for combat. and i don't know how much risk this portends. i cannot reconcile or turn my back on the negative perceptions and the marines who are most engage. we asked for their opinions and they gave it to us. the message is that the potential exists for disruptions and a successful execution of our current combat mission and this should be implemented at this time. i am faced with two questions. the first, could we implement our appeal at this time? the answer is yes. despite the challenges i have briefly outlined, we are marines. should congress change the law, we will faithfully follow the

law. we will follow along. this list must of the elements of the strategy. this requires leadership at every level beginning with me and the sergeant major of the marine corps. the second question is should we at this time. based of what i know about the very tough fight in afghanistan, the most singular focus of our combat forces, the necessary tightly woven culture of those forces that we are asking so much of at this time. finally, the direct feedback and the recommendation is that we should not implement repeal at this time. marines faithfully served around the globe.

with the sister services and allies. the focus my complete energies to insurer that our marines and a proper lead, train, and equipped and that our families are cared for so that they can focus on the task they are assigned. the combat effectiveness, readiness, and the health and welfare are as high as they have been in nearly four years of service. they are accomplishing many missions with professionalism and morale. on behalf of all marines, the families, i want to thank you for your support. this issue has been difficult for all concerned. i and a full for the opportunity to represent do not for your questions.

>> thank you for allowing that she's to offer testimony and the best advice on the proposed a. . attitudes and the air force run roughly 70-30 to those who see no change and allowing lesbian and gay and man in the air force. the distribution run slightly higher for the spouse survey. the study recognizes that there are a number of complicating factors, cohabitation, privacy, universal benefits among others. each of these complicated factors will require focused attention and in time will be

accommodated satisfactorily. the u.s. air force can accommodate the repeal of don't ask don't tell with modest risk to military readiness, a unit cohesion, recruiting. the air force will pursue implementation of repeal if the law changes so early, professionally, and with conviction. i cannot agree with the study assessment that the short-term risks is low. it is inescapable that our officer and leaders in afghanistan are carrying a heavy load. the demands of close combat of fact -- the combat effects the

personnel of the infamous < other armed services, the assessment is too optimistic. i acknowledge the findings of the study but under the pressures of combat, attitudes of our close combat personnel regarding don't ask, don't tell, seem to moderate. after all, survival is a powerful instinct. still, it is difficult for me as a member of the joint chiefs to recognize placing any additional discretionary demand on our leadership cadres in afghanistan that his particular time. i recommend deferring full implementation and certification until 2012. initiative training and education soon after, you take a decision to repeal.

finally, i would like to emphasize and add my strong endorsement, secretary gates and flies that legislative action on this issue is far from the front of that decision to close from which we will enjoy a much less latitude to properly calibrate implementation. pisistratus repeal is not -- precipitous or appeal is not a place where your arm forces one to be. >> than cuba much. >> good morning, mr. chairman. thank you for inviting me and the customer to participate in the hearing. i am grateful for their attention to provide you with my opinion on the court's findings and potential impacts of repealing don't ask, don't

tell, and that recommendations for implementation. i am very proud of our coast guard men and women. they are of extraordinary character and they readily into a ditch in the communities in which they live and search. the active duty response rate was 54%. the result of response to a 39%. i concur with the recommendations on how to implement the repeal of the panel law. alan k. and lesbian americans to set up and they would remove a significant barrier to those people who are already sending capably and have been forced to hide or even lie about their sexual orientation forcing them to compromise our values of honor, respect, and devotion and

to continue to sieves is h. wilson should not have to make. i have done respectful of the unique challenges facing each service and i don't suggest that my circumstances and judgment would inform allen a different responsibilities. my professional responsibility is my own and comes from the controls and which i sent. this is a military silva's governed by the laws to ensure the effectiveness of the armed forces. why are into a with our sister services are around the world. we are also woven into the law enforcement and fresh responded communities in the nation. what a federal, state, and local forces wednesday and lesbian forces to live with and listen and distinction. >> prudence dictates that implementation must proceed with caution.

and for a from the data that many coastguardsman and the family members find gay and lesbian service members except britain. minority opinions cannot the ignored. the hands with thinness of this community is very some degree. -- views within the soul of this community valley in some degree. implementation of this rather significant decision will be easy, i avoid this inference. my experience leads me to conclude that in must inform you, are civilian leaders that implementation will not be achieved without encountering challenges along the course ahead. some of which we cannot foresee, despite our best efforts and it will take time and resources to

overcome. with that, i am confident that the coast of leadership is prepared to implement any change that you direct. the customer and women are up to the task and will sustain their high levels of professionalism and effectiveness should the law change. they prove that they are among the best in america. i have confidence in their ability to weather change. thank you for the opportunity to testify at a look forward to questions. >> will start on around one with seven minutes and if we need a second round, we will have a second round.

>> let me start with you. yesterday, secretary gates, at mall mullins clearly and forcefully articulated that with proper leadership, education, training, the repeal of don't ask, don't tell, can be done without acceptable risks to the standards of military readiness and effectiveness. your testimony indicates your agreement with that. my first question is that you are a marine, the general is a marine, standing right next to you and i know that you respect each of the greatly, not because you are marines but because you are human beings and the great professionalism and experience you have had. your opinion is very different from general car right.

-- "righthe negative perceptiono create a problem for the day-to- day operations in afghanistan. can you comment on this testimony? >> well, first up, we sat next to each other as second lieutenants overseas and our first overseas deployment and we have served together ever since and we have a great deal of respect for each other. my opinion on this issue was shaped by the contrast in the questions and the way they asked in a steady and then by my own opportunities to go to the field and talked not only to marines but other services. i tend to reflect because of my time and a broader perspective

than just one service but i still wear this uniform and i do so proudly and i will always consider myself a marine. as i said, i think the difference here is to look at what the perception of the future might be some of the ambiguities that i introduced when someone tries to guess what the future might be. the likelihood that stereotypes and misperceptions of how actions might occur in the future have some influence on how someone might mark in the perspective. i tend to favor the opinions of those -- two suspected or knew that someone in your unit was gay or lesbian, did this affect their combat effectiveness? the number string drastically when you ask them for their actual reflections and they

generally came in and around 92% level that it had no effect on the unit or their ability to conduct combat. there was some anecdotal comments in the study that recalled out. one of them that is very memorable to me was from a seal and reflected that and member in his unit that he is suspected of being gay was the biggest and the meanest and the killed the must people and he wanted him in that unit and that individual carried a large portion of the unit's effectiveness. i am willing to bet heavily. i lived up the ante to understand the difference between the actual and the perspective. my conversations when i went out to visit marines over the past year, as recently of the thanksgiving in the helmand province talking to marines, i

found that the studies in sites where in fact held up. those that did not have any experience to believe that the future was more ambiguous. if you don't know, you tend to be more conservative in your opinion. if you have and i opportunity to understand and sieves with someone who's gay and lesbian, the facts tend to win one heavy on your mind. 92% of the respondents believed that it would not have an effect. >> i would like to ask a question about the other military is. transitions to policies of equal treatment with that regard to sexual orientation have been successful in the military is of our allies even though the position to change in the

military's was higher at the time that the change was made in the us military's than it is now for our military. i think that shows the change in attitude which has accrued over the past 10 years or so. putting that aside, the report that when it came after implementation, that the attitudes would not only be different but most important, that the change in those militaries have no negative impact on morale, recruitment and retention, readiness, or overall combat effectiveness.

have you discussed the impact with your counterparts in these other militaries? >> i have, senator. i think it was a few months ago that senator wicker asked me to do that. in october, i sat down with my counterparts from the united kingdom, germany, france, the netherlands, and denmark, to talk about this issue. they told me that the execution was with minimal disruption, pretty much as you had discussed. they suggested that when we to execute, we keep things as simple as possible and we keep the policy absolutely consistent. they did however point out to me, two important differences. they said in our cases, and almost every case, there was broad national consensus before the law was repealed. in some cases, the countries

actually have lost the support civil unions. that was a difference that i took back. >> have you talked to your counterparts? >> yes, i have. i have long maintained that our military is different from others in the world but that the way i characterize the response from those the chiefs of the navy's that had a policy that allows gays and lesbians to serve, the charm that would bring to mind as "non of that -- "non-event." most of the changes it could well over 10 years ago. then the time, we continue to have exchange programs where our sailors and officers served on their ships and vice versa.

so, we are exposed in a routine way, if you will, too navies and have a different policy. >> i am not sure who your counterpart is >> general -- >> i have counterparts in each of the country's and i've talked to a good number of them. i come to the san consensus that was just discussed. i will highlight that in particular several of our allies that the issue of seven side-by- side with their forces on the battlefield has not been a problem for our forces or their forces. >> we have so few and the marine corps is around the world, i did not ask their opinion. i have no reason to doubt the report as the talks to the ease

of transmission from the other services around the world. we are the u.s. marine corps. >> heavily involved in combat. it would be difficult for me to reach back and look at when these other nations made their transitions. i can only speak with over 50% of the combat forces heavily engaged. >> mr. chairman, i chatted with my counterparts and they have indicated with a vote to ease in terms of the transition but i must state that that evidence is compelling. i find it a fact that police departments and fire departments coming the municipal public service, that case is in walking paling analog to transition. >> thank you. >> thank you.

the exchange led pitt with foreign countries, primarily with canada. we have put forces of british ships, french ships. we have. exposure to other navies and coast guards around the world. with my discussions with their leaders, i would say this is a non event. all of the department simply gay and lesbian members. the secret service, force protection, but it said rep. i woke every day with those that have a lesbian members. >> one of the conclusions of the

working group's report is that leadership is key to successful implementation, the repeal of don't ask, don't tell. a couple of you have commented on this issue but i want to ask all of you. let me ask you again, would you agree that if this is repealed and successful implementation depends upon leadership? >> i live. leadership is the key to everything. we embrace the law or the policy that comes out and move forward to effectively implement it. one of the concerns that i have is that our captains or company commanders and midlevel leaders have a lot on their plate right now and this will be another element that will be put on their plate. operations in iraq and

afghanistan are hugely complex already. if we do this, it will get done and it will get done well. i the things will not get done and i worry about the implications of that. . . .

>> could you make a statement about the relative importance of doing this legislatively, and the certification that is required, that there will be no negative impact on recruitment morale. that certification will take time and there is a 60 delay after that. there is great value in this

process. it is not assured at all that there is going to be a court opinion. for those of you who have not commented, please give us the importance of that. >> senator, i believe that any legislation -- any course of action that gives us the right amount of time to prepare is the appropriate course of action. no matter what happens, we have to have the time to prepare. >> here is that time which is part of the certification process that the chairman of the joint chiefs and the secretary of defense must go through, plus capital-letter -- plus the delay does that, is backin

give you some reassurance as well? >> it does. >> general a mess, general shorts, in terms of the search of the cape -- general amos, general schwartz, in terms of the certification process, is that important to you? >> i think it absolutely goes a long way towards maybe easing some of the pressure. i have bought a lot about the question if not now, when, which i think is the second part of what you're asking. if my concern is singularly those combat units that are in combat, preparing to go, or just

coming back, if that is the case, and it is for me, and that is what the survey came back and told me, then it would stand them what i would want to have with regard to implementation would be a period of time where marines are no longer focused primarily on combat. i think the iraq drawdown model for the marine corps would be instructive. the last year-and-a-half in iraq, things have settled down for us. we began to dramatically drawdown the size of the force. my recommendation would be not necessarily -- i mean, i cannot find a time line for in the certification process, but my recommendation would be that it begins when our singular focus is no longer on combat operations or preparing units for combat. at that point, i would be comfortable implementing it

repealed. >> thank you. that is very helpful. i apologize to my colleagues. i did not know these slips had been placed in front of me. >> i think it is obvious to the army, navy, air force and marine corps today that there is severely divided opinion on this issue. it is obvious to me that there is a lot more scrutiny and work to be involved before passing this legislation. that is why you see such a diversity of views here amongst the surface sheets -- the service chiefs.

i also think it would be helpful, and i imagine that most of our witnesses would agree, that we hear from the senior enlisted people, sergeant majors of the army, marine corps, senior enlisted personnel who will bear the brunt of the responsibilities for the training and implementation of any change in the law. i think we need to hear from the field commanders, the various commands throughout the world who also play a major role in ensuring the security of our nation. i know that the don't ask don't tell block originally passed in 1993 -- law originally passed in 1993 after some 13 hearings on this issue and much examination. i do not have a lot of

questions. i guess when you looked at any report, it is a little bit like studying the bible. you can draw almost any conclusion from what part of the you examine -- of it you examined, but i do not understand your allegation when on question #66 it says, "those who served in combat with a service member believed to be a homosexual affected service in a negative" thatn seems to me at pretty straightforward indication of what those in carmel -- in combat arms believed and felt about those believed to be

homosexual. it was negative. this is a tough issue for you, i know. it is a tough issue for all of our witnesses. i especially appreciated the way that you presented your testimony. you believed that the repeal of don't ask don't tell would add another level of stress to an already stressed force. it would be more difficult than a, the report suggests -- more the reporthen, suggests, for the army. what is your opinion at this time? >> i believe that the law should be repealed eventually. when i read through the report,

it called into question the basic presumption of everything in the law, that the presence of a homosexual service members creates an unacceptable risk to good order or discipline. i do not believe that is true and from the survey it appears to be that a large number of our service members do not believe that is true either, so eventually i believe it should be repealed. the question for me, as i have said, is one of timing. >> what is your opinion about whether it should be repealed at this time? >> i would not recommend going forward at this time given everything that the army has on its plate. >> thank you. i do not generally like to do this, but could i have your personal opinion about repealing at this time? >> i agree that we should repeal the law at some point, and i

suggested that perhaps full implementation could occur in 2012, but i do not think it prudent to state full implementation in the near term. i think that is too risky. >> if you calibrate this, if you allow us to begin a process of training and education, but do not mandate that it had been -- it happened in the very near term, i believe that not in 2011, but in 2012 at the earliest, that would be an acceptable approach to me. >> thank you. i must say that i am largely in agreement with those opinions. to rush this thing through in a lame duck session and would be an action that would not have

taken into consideration, again, particularly our senior enlisted personnel. i am sure at least some of the witnesses at the table would agree i think senior enlisted personnel could contribute enormously to this discussion, as well as our senior officer corps. i want to thank the witnesses. thank you for giving as a frank and forthright opinion. we appreciate your service to the country. >> thank you. >> thank you to all of you for your testimony today. you are the leaders of the uniformed military of the united states of america. i think this morning you represented the best values of the u.s. military and have shown

us why the armed forces of the united states remain, in my opinion, the one institution of our country that continues to earn the respect and trust of the american people. i say that specifically here -- you all know my position. i am for the repeal of don't ask don't tell. but you have come before as an stated your opinions. repealed,rted some did not, but in the end, regardless of position, you have each set you not only follow the judgment of congress, you will make it work. that is a very powerful statement. i mean, general odierno has spoken with the most concern about repealed but i found your words very moving. you said, "could we implement repeal at this time? the answer is yes, despite the

challenges, at the end of the day, we are marines. should congress changes the law then our nation's marine corps will faithfully support the law ." so, the first thing i wanted to do was to thank you for the honesty of your testimony and your also met respect for the law, for civilian leadership, for congress, and for the larger mission to which you are committed. i repeat again, i think that is why, at a tough time in our nation's history, the u.s. armed forces remain the one institution that brings us together for common cause. that is the security of our country and the freedom that is our blessing as americans. so i first wanted to thank you for that. i think the question senator mccain asked was really quite interesting about the positions

you all have. it sounds that three of the six of you have said that you favor repeal at this time. general casey and general shwatrz expressed concern about repealed, but then said they would favor repeal, just not now, for the reasons that you stated. even general anderson -- but i want to let you respond to this. you said in your testimony, the second question you answered, should we at this time repeal, you said we should not implement repeal at this time. do you want to state an opinion as to whether you think at some time -- and i believe by saying at this time, you're talking about the combat that marines

are involved in rent now -- whether you would favor a repeal at some future time? >> senator, you have captured it. we have forces better tightly focus right now. -- that are tightly focused right now. i talk to a battalion commander who is absolutely in the most dangerous fight. i asked, knowing that i would appear before the committee today, if there were any opinions on don't ask, don't tell, and the repeal. he said they are so busy right now doing the business in afghanistan that there has not even been 1 ounce of discussion about it in afghanistan. you could interpret that a couple of ways.

you could interpret that that they do not care. i chose to compare it to the survey result which says they are concerned. from my personal perspective, senator, this is a social issue across our country. it has transcended into becoming a political issue. my suspicions are that the law will be repealed. all i am asking is the opportunity to do that at a time and choosing when my moraines are not singly, tightly focused on what they are doing in a very deadly environment. in three months of a seven month deployment they have lost 18 marines and had over 100 seriously wounded. this is serious business for them. i think it will be repealed eventually, i just ask for the opportunity to be able to do it with my forces when they are not

singularly focused on combat. >> i appreciate the answer. i have visited the marines over there and they are doing remarkable work and showing extraordinary progress on the ground in afghanistan. my conclusion is that, in the end, all six of you favor the repeal of don't ask don't tell. i do not need to put words in your mouth, but for three of you, it is a matter of timing. yesterday, secretary gates -- well, let me step back. i just want to state for the record that the provision in the national defense authorization act that repeals don't ask don't tell does not implement repeal until the president of the united states, secretary of defense, and chairman of the joint chiefs of staff third by -- certifying the non- effects on military unit cohesion and morale.

we intentionally did not put a time limit in that. we said -- we did not say it had to be done by 90 days after the law went into effect. yesterday, secretary gates said he would not certify until he had had a full conversation with the cheapest in of the service. -- chiefs in the service. i just want to give you a quick chance, going down the row, to say whether you are reassured by that, or if we can repealed as in a way that does not interfere more then you worry it will in the ongoing operations of our military. >> i feel very comfortable with my ability to provide military advice to secretary gates. >> same for me, senator.

this has been an ongoing discussion within the department, access and freedom to talk about the issue in the way we believe has been unquestioned. i have no concerns about that at all. >> i have no concerns, and i look at this as an opportunity to tailor the mitigation and to tailor the time so that we can in fact accommodate the fact that our forces to rotate in and out of the country. to me, that is where the opportunity for timing comes in. >> that is an important point, because secretary gates was asked that yesterday, whether he thought it was within his purview to phased in the repeal in different ways, for different services or different units. i wonder whether you would respond to that possibility. for instance, it is possible

that secretary gates and the chairman might decide espy -- might decide not to immediately implement this, but to do it over a period of time. how would you react to that? >> i think that would -- it sounds very selfish, but that would probably be acceptable for us. but back to your first question. we have had great opportunity to provide our input to the secretary. >> senator, i would suggest that having some differences between implementation timeline within different communities of the armed forces is not a way to proceed. >> by year your point. -- i hear your point. >> i of been given the great privilege of sitting with the joint chiefs of staff with regularity.

secretary gates has spoken to me personally on all of these matters. we have, at the coast guard, been full participant. secretary napolitano was also very receptive, listened unwisely, and responded well. >> thank you very much. >> just on the phased implementation, i have 15,000 soldiers on the ground in afghanistan. to parse it out by service would cause confusion and inconsistencies that would not be helpful to the joint force. >> if repeal is adopted, you would say that maybe you want to wait to implement it, but when it is implemented, it should be implemented across the armed forces. >> yes. >> thank you. >> let me ask the first question to the ground guys, general casey and general amos.

both of your opening statements talk about your great personages in recruitment and retention -- percentages on recruitment and retention. the report states that 23.7% would leave or think about leaving sooner than planned. the question i would ask the two of you is how would you face a 23% drop in retention? general casey, let's start with you. >> projections on retention are historical 8 overstated -- is directly -- historically overstated. >> let's assume there was a 12% drop. how would you handle that?

>> i think it would be an increased level of risk, but because it would not all walks out the door at the same time, i think it would be exceptional. >> i assume that would cause a drop in recruiting too. do you feel the same way about that? >> i agree with my colleague general casey in that i think it is overstated. knowing marines for 40 years, i do not sense that level of impact on retention or recruitment. if you're going to sign up today, you have to wait eight months. i do not see that would have an impact. >> thank you very much. admiral, in your prepared statement you said that 50% said

there would be an impact on unit cohesion. it shows thata positive it would be 38%, -33%. it is more positive than negative. how did you come up with 60%? >> we look that all areas. what i paid attention to were a series of questions in the survey that capture the general attitudes or what i would consider negativity. >> in the category of equally positively as negatively, it adds up to 60%. i thought there might be

something other than this. >> we should look a positive and the neutrals. we see within the navy a positive-neutral affect on this. there are certain areas, as i mentioned, that we looked at more deeply. >> i appreciate that. for the record, i noticed on the chart when we sat down today that in the coast guard, the positives are 10%-44%. i would like to know why so many of the coast guard people are opposed to the repeal as opposed to other servicemen. just for the record. we talked yesterday about the fact that only a third of the people responded to this survey. i have doubts, and the reason

for that is that they did not really ask the right questions. they never asked the question, do you think we should repeal do not ask do not tell? the mandate was to assess the impact of repeal and how best to implement the repeal. they were not asked to determine whether the don't ask don't tell law should be repealed. can anyone tell me why the question should not have been asked? let me ask you, general casey, should that have been asked? >> i do not think so. i do not think the survey should have been a referendum of a poll of our soldiers. there is not democracy in the military. i believe the way the survey was executed give us a vision and defamation to make our judgments.

>> anyone else believe the question should have been asked? >> during my confirmation hearing i was asked a similar question. at the time, i stated that i could ask the questions that were presented and come away with the real sense of whether they supported it. i got the information i needed. with regards to low turnout, i would suggest that perhaps there is a sense of inevitability when the survey went out. >> i think that is right. >> that was sensed certainly by, don conway -- commandant conway. he went out to his men and ask for their opinions. i think we got what we needed,

senator. >> when i was in the united states army, if they wanted to get results, they would give us a survey and we would fill it out. they could have gone 100% response. that is what should have taken place. there were 95 information exchange forums. there is contact of over 24,000 service members and 140 smaller focus groups. this is quite an extensive thinking. they came up with a lot of information, but really, not the kind of information i think we could have come up with. on chapter six of the report, if we were to numerically divide the sentiments uighur expressed an informational exchange forums, online entries, focus groups -- divided the sentiments

expressed in informational exchange forums, online entries, focus groups, a majority was against the repeal. would any of you like to have the information to quantify that in some way? i mean, all these working groups, should the question not have been asked in some way, and if not, while the time and expense if you are eight determined the results? -- if you had already determined a result stets? >> i think there is a value to get a sense of what the servicemen and women felt. i think we got that. i think there is also a sense

of group dynamics. in any group, when you bring the 300 marines together, there will be a sense of a little bit of a stampede theory. i do not know how they could have done that. becauset about backithat, my sense is a little along your lines. it would have been nice to quantify that. but the results were verbal and done in a group setting with group dynamics. >> it is an awful lot of work for not getting specific results, in my opinion. >> general casey, in response to a previous question you made a comment that i want to be clear about. what have the last several months or several years indicated -- what the last

several months or several years have indicated is that the presence of gay troops has not undermined the effectiveness. is that correct? >> what i said is that the survey indicates, what the report indicates is that the presumption under the law is that the presence of a gay or lesbian service member in the unit causes unacceptable risk. after reading the report, i do not believe that anymore, and i do not believe a majority of our soldiers believe that. >> i think that is a significant point. again, i want you to respond, but i think what it shows is that obviously there are individuals in units that are perceived, even though they do not proclaim it, as being gay or lesbian, and that perception is

relatively common in every force in various numbers in the military. and yet, what the survey suggests to you, and i will ask your colleagues too, is that that is not cause for significant problems with readiness or good order and discipline. getting back to the basic leadership issue, and it is not for us or for you, it is going to be for platoon sergeants, how do you deal with an issue where at this moment there is a perception that there are gays in the unit and it does not seem to affect good order of discipline and we are arguing about whether that individual can be truthful about the situation or assume around, and

in some respects, it might cause more convolutions in trying to keep it secret than simply admitting what seems to be the conclusion that you have reached that we are at a point now where we can accept this openly. can you comment, general casey? i ask this question about conclusion or rhetorical. >> i do think we need to be careful with saying, do you feel this way if you believe someone is gay or lesbian obverses do you feel this way if you know vs. do youcapes -- reverse feel this way if you know someone is. i think there is a difference between thinking or knowing. i put an asterisk next to it

because of that. >> fundamentally, the military that we serve in today does not prohibit gays and lesbians from serving in the military, it is whether that orientation is disclosed or not. what we are fundamentally talking about are the standards of conduct and behavior that will be acceptable in the force should the law be repealed. that gets to leadership. we have taken our services through significant change before. i have confidence in the ability of the leaders of the navy to be able to do this. >> i, like the other members here, believe that the leadership is going to be the determinative factor. when i look at this, and i had

this exchange, and senator mccain commented on it, when you look at the data i saw that if you believe there is someone in your unit, did that affect morale, did it affect behavior, did it affect efficiency? by and large, everything i said in their said no. is there a difference between believing and knowing? this is a behavior activity. did you behavior in line with the royals? -- did you behave in line with the rules? >> my sense a small units, companies and platoons is that the difference between believing and knowing is quite small. some people, because of their mannerisms, implications are

made, but these are pretty tightly knit social units. this distinction between believing and knowing at a high level might be -- i think, you know, it is really something about people whose beliefs have some basis in behavioral or some other -- and yet they still seem to be tolerating or saying when it comes to unit effectiveness, that is not what i am worried about. again, this is a rather open- ended question. >> senator, the marine corps is the smallest force, as you know. e recruit a little deptbit differently. we take less than one-tenth of 1% of the american population. that immediately begins to which

allowed the large portion of american society. the service survey said across all military cooperations services, 80% of our combat forces said they had not served with a gay or lesbian. we have less experience with this, and i think that is intuitive. my sole focus, again, is the combat effectiveness of the unit. if you will bear with me, one of the comments that came in on the on-line survey, not the town halls, this came from a marine lieutenant that is a platoon commander, my unit effectiveness is tightly affected by our cohesion. our ability to do our job is predicated on this kind of relationship. if you were to add any element

of sexual competition, in your unit bisexuality, or hesitation in trust, it would immediately prevent those bonds from forming or destroy them if introduced. my concern is those units that are involved in combat right now. it is cohesion that concerns me most. >> well sir, you have to be concerned, because those are the marines, the soldiers, the sailors, and the guardsmen. that is your job. one of the aspects of this volunteer force this [unintelligible]

but i think it comes down to also, what has been repeated time and time again by all of you is, in terms of policy, change is coming. i think you all recognize that. you just want to enact it in a way that it does not provide such immediate destructive effect. i think frankly, that is the way we would expect every policy of this significance to be implemented that affects marine soldiers and airmen in combat. >> gentlemen, it goes without saying that we appreciate your service.

this is a particularly sensitive issue. mr. chairman, i just want to correct something that you said in your opening statement, and that is that this survey indicates that a majority of our armed forces and support repeal. this is not the case. after talking to all of the individuals, online entries, focus groups, confidential communications, is the consensus of the authors of the report that a majority are in opposition to repeal. it is pretty obvious that combat troops, the guys in the foxhole, are the ones that have the largest percentage of objection to invest. as i have been in theater and

have soldiers, and talk to come -- have had soldiers up and talk to me, i went to ask you, with the repeal of don't ask don't tell at this time have an impact on the combat readiness of your troops? >> i think you can take from my testimony that i believe it would increase the risk on our soldiers, particularly on our soldiers that are deployed in combat. as i said, we could executed now at a higher level of risk than is suggested in the survey. >> with that a higher level of risk have the potential to put soldiers at greater risk for injury or loss of life? >> it could, but i would not

want to make a projection that it would. >> sir, i do not -- would repeal impact the readiness of marines, is that the question? >> yes. >> i think it would absolutely have an impact on the combat forces. i am not concerned bentsen -- i am not convinced it would have nearly as much of an influence on the non-, of course. -- noon-combat forces. -- non-combat forces. >> would it have the potential of increasing the risk of injury

or perhaps loss of life to those marines? >> senator, as i read that quote about the heavily engaged, tightly focused bonded unit, i think the potential for damage is there. >> thank you very much. i think that is the heart and soul of this issue and i appreciate your frankness. >> senator web. >> thank you, mr. chairman. let me begin by saying that i think we have an enormous amount of valuable material in this report. we can talk about what the response rate was, what it could of been, how we could have made every person in the military filiform, but we have 160,000 responses -- fill out a form,

but we have 160,000 responses here. i hope that on any side of this issue, and i think there are really valid concerns here, the people will really take a look at this in depth and take a look of some of these numbers in depth. we have a tendency to cherry pick items. this is a valuable piece of work so that we can evaluate this issue in a proper way. when you think about the integrity that the general brought to this process, he did not exactly seek this task. i think he was probably the best person in the uniformed military to be asked to do ed. he is former enlisted.

use an infantry officer. i, for what -- to do it. he is former enlisted. he is an infantry officer. i, for one, listened to him very carefully. i would like to focus on two questions. one is the notion of this ability to tailor this process or structure it if it were to occur. it from what i am hearing, my initial impression on this was the there might be the ability to do this service by a service or looking at the difficulties of implementing it in combat arms, as general amos has pointed out, where the need for cohesion is paramount. but from what i am hearing, that

is not on the table. >> i want to make sure i am answering the right question. >> let me restate it. what i am hearing is that this talk of being able to structure the implementation of this process does not mean that it would be structured in that time sequence for different services or operational units. am i correct in that understanding? >> as i read the plan as it was recommended by the steady -- the study, the opportunity is there to structure the implementation. we would look at it, and i think we would look at it from the perspective of the chiefs as well as the combatant commanders, in this case, centcom, to ensure that whatever we came up with made sense on

the battlefield. >> it is not off the table. it is something that there is mixed opinion on. >> where our opinion probably varies is in the house, whether it is by time, by service, -- is whether it is by time, but service. most of our elements are a mixed, particularly airmen. what we're trying to understand here is what would in fact be allowed to call -- be elijah call -- be a logical implementation going forward. >> this certification went forward, does that go to all units been -- if certification

went for word, does that go to all units in the military the next day? >> it is not being restricted. that opportunity is not big take away from us -- being taken away from us. the chiefs, when we sit down together, are both the joint chiefs and service chiefs. >> also the process as it is being considered today, could be serviced by service or unit by unit? is that on the table? yes? >> yes. >> could i make a comment? >> i know you do not like that, general. i heard you say that earlier. i am very short on time here. yesterday, i asked what percentage of the military

statistics showed were gay or lesbian, and the general said that it was just about the same as in society, a little lower on the male side, a little higher on the female side. that was his comment. i do not think anyone at the table is advocating that anyone currently in the military should be dismissed for reasons other than conduct. is that correct? here is the ultimate question on this policy as it evolves. that is, when some of the serving well, if they're gay or lesbian and they get through the that general amos points out are so important in

the small unit deployments, what is it we should be doing? 15 years in the service and they want to be able to live in open and honest life style. what should we be doing? what should we do with them? general casey? >> senator, are you talking about the time between now and when the law might be repealed? >> if we keep the policy as it is now, you have someone who has given 10-15 years of service to their country. they are valuable to the military. they want to be able to live an honest and open life. their conduct inside the military is above reproach. how do we do that? >> senator, we follow the law. we will do what the law says. if the law changes, we will -- >> i am talking about the present law.

that is the challenge that we all have. >> right now, we're in a position where we need to follow the law. >> i understand that. i am talking about the human dimension of someone having to live under the law. >> the army is bound to keep the laws of the land. >> but you understand the human dimension. >> senator, i, as from a slightly different perspective. where i -- i come at this from a slightly different perspective. where i come from is that leaders made clear, unambiguous direction as to what law they are supposed to enforce. right now, we have gays or

lesbians in service and people who are supposed to enforce the law. we have leaders who are getting ambiguous signals from a leadership in terms of the law that they are supposed to support, which puts them in a position of perhaps being selectively obedient. i am sure that you understand that when you allow it selective obedience, that is an insidious thing that hurts our overall military effectiveness. i would say that we need to give our leaders clear and unambiguous guidance in terms of what they are supposed to enforce. >> thank you. in reference to my opening statement, the report before us believe that a large majority of troops believed a repeal issin

consistent with maintaining unit effectiveness. your specific reference to a statement in the report that i was referring to says "the results of the service members surveyed reveal a widespread attitude among a solid majority of service members that repeal of don't ask don't tell will not have a negative impact on their ability to conduct their military mission." the entire report and the plan for implementation will be put into the record, and appropriately is in the record. thune.r denn >> thank you. secretary gates told us yesterday that the service chiefs or less sanguine than the working group about the effects

of a repeal on combat readiness. uighur that today and yesterday. we have heard -- we heard that today and yesterday. we have heard that from some of you on previous occasions. i guess i would pose the question to you that i posed to the panel yesterday. how should we as members of congress way the fact that there is not consensus among the service chiefs and the chairman on this important issue? >> i think you should be grateful for that. what we're trying to do is provide our military advice and so that you can understand all aspects of the problem.

i think you'll get a better decision not a bit. >> do you believe that implementing the legislation, if this moves forward, should allow for the service chiefs to certify, i ask the secretary yesterday about whether that should be a requirement and he did not. there is a big difference between consulting and having the tapes certify that this could be done without an impact certifyng the cheaiefs that this could be done without an impact to military readiness. >> i am very comfortable with feeling that my opinion can be given to secretary gates and it will be listened to. >> would you agree that there is a difference between giving your

opinion and certifying that this would not impact military readiness? >> it might kick up a notch, but believe me, i will make sure that my views are heard. if you put that in the law, i think it undercuts what we have been trying to do as far as putting the chairman as principal provider of military advice. with thery comfortable access and the input that we have had. as the report came along, we could see the changes we were recommending. i am no concern whatsoever about my it was not being heard. >> this survey has been talked about a lot. yesterday's bear was the statement that was also mentioned earlier -- yesterday' there was a statement that was also mentioned earlier

today that the majority view being against repeal was not scientific because it was not part of the survey. the integrity of the survey was an important part of this progress. you have heard many people reference today, traveling abroad, talking to troops and individually, the information and feedback that many of us up here get, i am sure many of you get as well. do you agree that information is also important in forming a decision of this nature? >> that type of input is informative, as is the survey comes at as is calling the sailors. -- as is the survey, as is

calling the sailors. >> the survey itself -- and 28% response means that there are a lot of people who have not registered their opinion on this, and the point was made yesterday that that is not how we do business in the military. we do not ask people to voice their opinion on everything. but there were a lot of conclusions drawn from the contents and altman outcome of that survey. the number thrown out -- contents and the outcome of that survey. the number thrown out is that 70% approve. the numbers are very different between army, marines, coast guard. but even if you take a broader number, the question that

discusses repeal on members' ability to get the job done, if you have mixed responses, you get 61%. 61% of respondents would have a mixed or negative response to getting the job done, yet it was reported that the positive number was 70%. it seems that depending on which numbers you pick, you can draw very different conclusions. i am curious about your perspective on that issue and how you reconcile the different and almost opposite conclusions that were drawn from the working group's survey. >> senator, up might -- senator,

my take is that it does not undermine the credibility of the report. it is important to read all of page 49 in context. >> i understand that. i have read the context >> i adjusted my comments that came into the inbox. we look at those and we digested those. this is a statistical data. we used it to come to our conclusions. i gathered conclusions from my team just as the others have. this was a fairly comprehensive effort on everyone's parts. >> we had innumerable meetings amongst us to understand and to highlight to each other what we were trying to bring out and what we interpreted numbers as

eccentric that is not always good. but it is not always bad. we got a chance to compare with each other, what does this mean to you? what did you find out? that helped us also. >> i appreciate the fact that not all of this can entirely be -- i do not think this is an entirely scientific exercise. the people who expressed their views -- because they are motivated to express their views -- they are people who should be listened to. i thank you for your testimony. i know where this is headed. the bottom mock -- the bottom line is combat effectiveness. there are people we task with an enormous responsibility. i know you take that responsibility seriously. as you consider the final conclusions about that, i hope

that will be the bottom-line consideration -- to make sure the men and women in this country can serve and defend this country has honorably as possible. >> thank you for the way you brought this difficult and important discussions fourth. i have admiration for each and everyone of you for your service. i would like to enter into the record a statement from the service academies and military universities in response to the concerns expressed yesterday about the repeal of don't ask, don't tell. let me summarize briefly some of their points. they pointed out concerns that repeal would undermine combat effectiveness with the available evidence. it would be hard to understand why gay discharges decline

during wartime. it pointed out that the troops that would serve after the repeal was not based on evidence. these surveys include combat troops. the faculty members went on to point out concerns about the survey's response rate or that the results were not reflective of the reviews of the overall force. a 28% response rate is above average or surveys. the response rate has nothing to do with the validity of the survey's result as long as the sample size is large enough and sampling is done properly. the survey has a margin of error that to than most surveys. the gallup editor and chief said this survey represented a huge sample. he wondered why the survey

included as large a sample as it did. finally, mr. chairman, the claim that don't ask, don't tell is an effective is inconsistent with the evidence. don't ask, don't tell has harmed the military including wasting the legal talent and undemanding -- and undermining cohesion and morale. " no evidence has been provided that don't ask, don't tell promotes cohesion or is working in anyway." i wanted that to be in the record. i would like to move to a follow-up on what senator lieberman discussed, that is the timing of certification. it seems to me that for implementation to work, the military needs a lot of planning and training and changing of regulation time to make sure it

is done right. none of that would begin to occur until there is a certainty that the law will change. since most of you, if not all, shared the view that the law should be repealed, some of you believe it should not be repealed right now. doesn't it make sense for the congress to pass the pending legislation right now? you can lay down some of the groundwork necessary for change, which might be good to do given the concerns of court action. he would not have the flexibility not to implement -- you would have the flexibility not to implement right away. there was something that secretary gates said yesterday. he said that the certification process is a critical piece of the legislation. he would not sign any certification until he was satisfied with the advice of the service chiefs that we have mitigated and eliminate it risks to combat readiness, unit

cohesion and effectiveness. i would like, in that spirit, to ask each of you and secretary alleviates any of your concerns. commentsary gates' that he will not certify until implementation is -- >> he would not sign anything until we had mitigated the risks to combat cohesion and effectiveness. >> i would agree with that statement. i would also agree with what i have said several times already. i am comfortable with my ability to get my opinion and advice to secretary gates and have it listened to. >> i agree with that statement.

>> i agree with that statement. >> i absolutely do agree. >> i agree, too, senator. >> i am going to editorialize and then i have one final question. there is concern here that has been expressed in the committee. i would add that i have been honored to serve on this committee. are moving too hastily in the congress. my view is that the courts are moving much more hastily in the chaotic fashion. for congress to act now and put in place direction as to how we proceed with a repeal, we can do it with what you outlined here today with a focus on combat effectiveness. that is my appeal to my colleagues in the senate, that we act before this session of congress adjourns.

let me end on this note, with a final question. i would like to go down the line and ask each and everyone of you. if we change this policy, can your branch of the military make it work? >> yes, senator. i have complete confidence we can make it work. >> we would execute the early, professionally, and with conviction. >> senator, as i indicated in my verbal statement, we will follow the law and execute it faithfully. >> i concur. >> we can make it work. by most senior commanders believe that as well. >> i believe we can implement the policy with moderate risk to our effectiveness and the long- term health of the force. >> thank you, gentlemen. >> thank you senator. i believe senator wicker is

next. >> thank you. i have the greatest respect for my chairman. he is aware of that. i do have to wonder if the american people watching this today are thinking why are we here. why, during a time when our best military minds should be concentrated on winning in afghanistan, winning the global war on terror, making sure our success in iraq stays and is guaranteed, are we taking th e time and energy of these military people away from that central mission? we are doing it, in my judgment, because a political decision has been made in the white house

that now is the time when we have the votes to push this through. if i might say so with all deference to my colleagues, it reminds me of the time spent on the health care debate last christmas and during the early months of this year, a time when the unemployment rate in this country was hovering near 10%. we had one of the most serious recessions in our lifetime. we talked about an issue that had little to do with creating jobs and preventing unemployment and for the recession in this country. to paraphrase the members of the joint chiefs of staff who have spoken today, the question before us, and i suppose the question during this lame duck session is, should we, with all

that is going on and all the demands made on our military -- to paraphrase the words of general amos, should we divert leadership from the comeback effort? those were the words of the commander of the marine corps. to paraphrase general casey's words, is this the time to be adding another level of stress? those were his words. the time to make things more difficult for combat units. to paraphrase other words, to place additional discretionary demands on personnel when we ought to be asking them to use all of their talents and efforts and energies for winning the war? i wonder this.

general, you read a compelling statement of a marine. i might ask you to read those words again. concerning a unit that is in combat now, can you give us the most compelling sentences of that quote? >> senator, the lieutenant said that his team, his platoon, his squad, as far as effective this, is directly tied to cohesiveness. for me, as i work my way through this issue to come to my recommendations today, that became the center part of my concerns. despite differences, we are so close that we anticipate each

other's moves. it is the intricate, woven -- it is almost a love where everyone thinks as one. i think we would all agree with that. he says that any element of sexual competition into the unit to be added would prevent the los -- prevent those bonds. that is the essence of what he said. >> thank you for reading it again. i have to ask myself. there seems to be a resignation around this table and the panel that this is going to happen eventually. it is just a matter of timing.

let me be somewhat of a contrarian. i cannot imagine that that situation is going to be that different in 2012 or in 2013. we are always going to be asking that type of fighting man to operate under those types of conditions. i have wondered if 2012 or 2013 is going to make that the lt. or that type of lieutenant bill better about it. can you comment on that? >> having worked my way through that, my recommendation would be not to do it as long as we have forces singularly focused the

way they are now on combat. sometime in our future, we will come out of afghanistan. i think we all know that and believe that. looking down the road, is there a more favorable time when our combat units have more time at home and we have more flexibility in the training schedule -- this particular units had been deployed 24 of 34 months. in that short period of time, their bag is full, land which, culture, -- language, culture, all of the things that goes into making a unit cohesiveness. my recommendation would mean

that this is a bad time. if we get to a point with that is not the case, i think we can do this. >> i appreciate your answer. one final line of questioning. it has been suggested that don't hurt don't tell has hea military readiness by separating individuals who are mission critical. 13,000 servicemen have been separated on the basis of homosexuality in 17 years. that is far less than 1000 per year. i was a judge advocate in the united states air force involved in separation of homosexuality during an earlier law. i did not serve on active duty during don't ask, don't tell.

it was my experience that many military members who were separated because of homosexuality actually came forward of their own volition and ask voluntarily to be separated and cited the requirement in the military at that time as a reason for their requested separation. would any of you care to comment on that? or with any of you to take a stab at the circumstances under which these 13,000 or the majority of these 13,000 have been separated overtime? we would agree that they were witch hunts.p anin

ifer don't ask, don't tell, they are not admitting it, there is no separation. sch to be asking generalsc wartz. am i correct in assuming that a significant number of air force members voluntarily came forward and ask for separation on those grounds? >> separation in support of 654 were less than 1% of individuals who were separated. they were predominantly voluntary. >> admiral? >> hours work predominantly statement -- ours were predominantly statement. people admitted to being homosexual.

>> anyone else? >> since 1993, the marine corps is charged over 6000 marines. honorable discharges, retirements. of that number who have returned to the united states of america, we have this charge 1300 marines for homosexuality. in that 1300, 400 of them happened in boot camp. , the first 12 weeks of a marine's career. i was talking to a senior drill instructor or weeks ago. he talked to me about a more rain that had come forward. on the rest, i cannot comment. i would suspect that as the term

goes, they were outed and the rest were volunteers. other than that, i do not know. >> thank you. >> senator manchin. >> first of all, thank you all of you who are here and the bridges you represent. we are proud to be americans because of you. i want to thank you for your service. yesterday, i asked secretary gates that this is based around kos in times of dire financial challenges-- costs in times of dire financial challenges. is this going to be a cost effective measure? anyone who wants to comment, i

would appreciate it. >> senator, if i may, one of the things we have to understand before we get into cost is the issue of benefits. what are the costs associated with putting in place the entity that provides additional medical costs. there are some on knowns. that would be part, at least from my perspective, of what would be involved in the certification process. if the law is repealed and we are going to go forward, one of the things that is important is that combat effectiveness and collegian is not affected. we need to provide our people

across the board the type of services that would be -- >> it would be safe to say nothing has been budgeted in each branch for this. >> that is correct. we have yet to take ourselves to that process. >> is it fair to assume that everyone believes there will be additional costs? >> there will be costs in the neighborhood of four t million -- $40 million to $50 million. >> the other thing we talked about is the affect it has on our clergy. have you all spoken to your clergy and how it might cause some attrition their more rapidly than intended? general casey, if you want to start. >> senator, welcome to the committee. >> thank you. >> my chaplains were involved

with the survey group. he assures me that if the law is repealed, our chaplains would be able to serve and conduct religious services according to their faith. they will perform in accordance with the law and army regulations. >> i asked this question because it came to me afterwards --after a few phone calls. they are concerned that you would have more of the chaplains leave quicker and at a higher percentage. >> we have 20 different state groups in be chaplains. he bought the group would be small. >> we are seeing the same thing in the navy, senator. some of the chaplains, because of moral grounds, they have some

issues. the data that shows how many would leave is relatively small. >> i had the opportunity to talk to many of the sponsors. their input was that they believe they would be able to continue to sponsor if don't ask, don't tell would be repealed. >> senator, for us, similar to the others, the impact would be modest based on feedback we have received. the understanding is that the chaplains practice in protocols and the discipline of their faith. but they also have a mandate to minister to the entire flock. that is an ethic all of the chaplains share. >> senator, our chaplains in the coast guard are details from the united states navy chaplain

corps. we have 42 chaplains. i have spoken to senior leadership. just at generalschwartz -- general schwartz indicated, they will minister according to their fate and i do not think anything will change. >> this looks like a policy that, sooner or later, is going to take effect. you all would see fit to do it yourself. if we took no action whatsoever as a body in congress and the president has expressed the authority to suspend certain laws to separate from the united , if we doed forces

not repeal this, would it still be in the perfume of the president to repeal the is it-- purview of the president according to national security, would you still do this? >> i cannot give you an answer. >> does the commander in chief have the statutory authority to suspend separation? anyone can comment on that. >> i would like to take that question for the record to give you an accurate answer. >> you may have come up with a question that is above our pay grade. [laughter] >> i was not sure that was

possible. >> with all we have in front of us, i was just wondering. i have heard that you would like to have the time by line in your purview. i think that is a worthy consideration we should have for you. i appreciate your appearance and the job that you do and the service you perform for our country. >> thank you senator manchin. senator sessions? >> i would just observe that i believe senator chambliss is correct. the report says total evaluation of the military says the majority opposes the

change. we do not need to be under the misimpression that there is a groundswell of support for this. i want to talk a little bit about how hard our military men and women work to prepare for combat, how many hours they work, how many hours they work during the combat time. any day that adds to that can be a difficult thing. i would observe that the army, marines, and air force chiefs of staff have all question of this change. that represents 75% of the men and women serving our country today. on the question about our cost, that is something we should look at a little more along with other factors that go into that.

gerald schwartz -- generals schwartz, there was an explosion of competitive data in the air force tanker competition. i accept that you have taken immediate action. you have a plan for that. someone has complained about this. i want to give you an opportunity to say whether congress can have integrity in this procurement process as it goes forward. >> a couple of weeks ago, we had an inadvertent disclosure had an inadvertent disclosure that