institutions. we should think about what we can do to mitigate that going forward. the taxpayers are on the hook if these big firms, which are hard to manage, get into trouble again. we do not want that situation. i do not think anybody in either party in congress was that situation. we have to think up a better way to mitigate that going forward. . . bobobobobobobobobobobobobobobobo

and each meetingbobo wboas abou whether we were going to nudge interest rates up or down a little bit, then i think our communication strategy would probably be fine for that. but since we're in such an unusual situation, it looks like we're going to be here for a while, we probably need to think about ways to more effectively way to communicate all these, we're at the zero

bound, we've got special programs that we're still operating, and we have to somehow get these ideas and get the understanding of these ideas out to the general public and let the debate flow. i'm happy to let everyone tell us what they think. and they do. but i think that's a health st. louis for make nake today. thank you very much. we're going to carry on for a couple minutes here. they are kneel irwin of the "washington post" and scott of bloomberg. first for you. what did you hear from mr. bullrd and what does it all mean? >> well, he's clearly feeling pretty confident even as controversial as it was this

last several weeks. there's been a lot of criticisms from republicans in congress, from sara palin, from international bankers. they've been assailed from all comers. he clsfidnt that this is the right policy and they're going to move forward. also, there's a clear sense that this economy is still not out of the woods and that this jobs report friday was one sign of weakness even as things are picking up but not enough to have a robust jobs recovery like everybody would like. >> he's clearly not happy with how the jobs report went. much worse than expected. he called it disappointing. the fed often emphasizing that it doesn't base policy decisions on one meeting, and clearly with their decision, they want to protect against the downside risks in the economy, and to deflation. so if we see more numbers like

we saw in this particular report, you could start seeing people talk about whether the fed will have to buy even more treasuries. >> talk more about the economy broadly then because our guest talked about a better, longer term view from washington. from the white house, from congress, together. so plug in what he said to the coming months, couple of years with the new congress in place. we know the deficit commission has been struggling to achieve its 14 votes. give us your take. >> i think fed officials try not to dabble too much in fiscal policy. they don't want to tell congress what to do and they don't want congress to tell them what to do. that said, there's very much a sense that finding a long term path to a fiscal situation is very important and would help confidence, would help keep interest rates from rising. that's very much on their agenda. i expect that chairman bernanke and his appearance sunday night

will voice similar themes he has already. so that's scleerl a sense of the fed wants to use whatever pressure and moral authority they have to suggest that congress it's time to get serious about finding a path towards a lower deficit. >> one major theme of the whole conference that we were at this summer was whether the fed and other central banks should be more aggressive in pushing for fiscal policy measures since the central banks tend to be respected authorities in general on the economy some people may differ with that of course so the question is how aggressive does chairman bernanke and other fed officials, how aggressive do they want to get in pushing for anything more specific than what they've been talking about in terms of just reducing long-term deficits and maybe having some stimulus in the short run? >> you spoke at the end of the interview about the perception of the fed. you mentioned ben bernanke going on 60 minutes this weekend. speak to us from the congressional angle. what is congress' perspective

about the work of the fed what it should and should not be responsible for? and legislatively, where are we? are there actions in congress toward the fed that we should know about? >> it's all over the map. and the picture is still settling down. you have people on one end like ron paul who wants to push aggressively for dauts of the fed's monetary policy. they say the transparency in the dodd-frank bill didn't go as far as some people wanted. on the other hand, there are people who say it's still going to be very difficult to pass any changes to the dual mandate for the fed. to change us to fed audits or transparency. at the same time, there's going to be a lot of talk on those kinds of issues. >> this is a very populous moment. there's great dissatisfaction in the country with the state of the economy and inevitably the agency in charge of managing the economy is going to take some heat for that. and you see that in the form of

scott, mentioned, the criticism of maybe the mandate should be changed. whether anything happens is an open question but it creates an uncomfortable situation for ben bernanke and james bullrd and officials of the federal reserve. central banks pride their independence, they want to make action force the long term state of the economy and not respond to political pressures. but when you have people talking about changing mandate, taking away bank regulation responsibility from them last year, it definitely is a charged moment. >> we appreciate you coming in and helping us understand the fed a little more. our guest has been neil irwin and scott lanman. thank you both of you. >> both of you. >> thank you. >> coming up, portions of this week's hearings on capitol hill dealing with repeal of don't ask, don't tell in the military. first, defense secretary gates. and later, heads of the military branches testify to

the senate armed services committee. after that, a look at the final meetings of the president's commission on the bp deepwater horizon oil spill in the gulf of mexico. today on c-span 2's indepth, join our live creation with the say tanic verse us author salman rush di. weigh in on george bush's author. followed at 4:00 by a live roundtable discussion. and later on afterwards former president jimmy carter looks back at his presidency. find information on line at booktv.org. >> this week on prime minister's questions, prime minister david cameron talks about the state of the british economy, the economic forecast and unemployment figures recently outlined in the office of budget responsibilities report. prime minister's questions tonight at 9:00 eastern on c-span.

>> senator john mccain said on thursday that a new pentagon study on gays serving openly in the military should not be used in reversing the don't ask, don't tell policy. these comments came during a senate armed services committee . it concluded that allowing openly gay men and women to soy in the military would not harm operations. defense secretary robert gates has asked congress to repeal the 1993 law. secretary gates is at this hearing along with joint chiefs chairman admiral mike mullen and the task force cochairs who are all in favor of repealing the policy. this portion includes members' opening statements and is an hour and 50 minutes.

>> good morning everybody. of the c morning to receive testimony on the department comprehensive review of the repeal of don't ask, don't tell. we will hear from secretary gates and chairman of the joint chiefs, admiral mullen, as well as the cochairs of the department working group on this issue, defense department general counsel, jay johnson, and general carter hamm. tomorrow, we will hear from the vice chairman of the joint chiefs and the service chiefs on this report. to examine this issue, the department launched an unprecedented effort to seek the views of our troops and their families. mr. johnson, general hamm, your approach in the report that you have delivered is evenhanded and respectful. you were given a very tough job.

your performance is of great value to our country. it yesterday's hearing -- excuse me, today's hearing is part of the committee's own review of this issue. which has been before us for nearly a year. secretary gates and admiral mullen testified at a friday hearing on this policy on february 2. each of the service chiefs were asked for their views on an annual hearing in the defense budget in march. and on march 18, the committee heard testimony from outside experts and testimony in support of as well as opposition. both the house of representatives and his committee have approved legislation that would repeal the statute underlying don't ask don't tell if the president, secretary of defense, and the chairman of the joint chiefs

certify to congress that all of the following conditions have been met. a, they have considered the recommendations contained in the working group report and the report proposed plan of action. b, the department of defense has prepared the necessary policies and regulations to implement a repeal of don't ask, don't tell. and third, the implementation of these policies is consistent with the standard of military readiness, military effectiveness, unit cohesion and recruiting and retention. upon such certification, repeal would take effect after 60 days. a time during which congress could review the department's action. this provision is included in the national defense authorization bill for fiscal

year 2011, approved by this committee, and it is my hope that the senate will shortly take up this legislation. the requirement for the certification by the president, secretary of defense, and chairman of the joint chiefs is a key element of this legislation, as it ensures that a repeal of this policy would be conducted in an orderly manner with adequate opportunity to prepare for a change. this 60-day requirement were included in an attempt by this alberta. the report before us provides

important new evidence that the time for a change has come. it demonstrates that for the vast majority of our troops, this change would be no big deal. they believe that we can open our military to service by gay and lesbian service members who would no longer have to conceal their sexual orientation, and that we can do so without reducing our military effectiveness. a large percentage of troops say they have already served with gay and lesbian co-workers who were affected coal workers of their units. -- affective co-workers of their units. i would add that if referendum were the basis for those who

could serve, president truman would not have integrated the armed forces in 1948. and when as the working group points out, 8% or more of service members opposed racial integration. and in this case, while there has been a referendum, in working groups review gives us persuasive evidence that repeal is not a problem for most troops. as the cochairs rogan this report, "if the impact of repeal is predominantly negative, that would have revealed itself in the course of our review." a change in policy, while needed, will not be without challenges. it the report provides important and useful recommendations to address those challenges. these recommendations focus on the importance of leadership, training, and education, and i

support that focus. but in my view, one of the most striking findings of this report relates to the experiences of service members themselves. an overwhelming 92% of troops who have worked with a gay or lesbian co-worker say there was no negative effect on their units. the message here is that when troops have actually worked with someone that they believe is gay or lesbian, they learn that those troops can get the job done. as the report states, "both the survey results and our own engagement of the force convinced us that when service members have the actual experience of serving with someone they believe to be gay, in general, unit performance was not affected negatively by this added dimension." the report also states that,

"much of the concern driven by misperceptions and stereotypes about what it would mean if gay service members were to be allowed to be open about their sexual orientation and we conclude that these gay and lesbian service members and are permitted to be open about their sexual orientation are exaggerated and not consistent with the reports of many service members." , in other words, real-world experience is a powerful antidote to the stereotypes that are in major source of discomfort that some feel about ending the don't ask, don't tell. repeal of this policy would bring our military in line with some of our closest allies, including great britain and canada. the department's review found that resistance to openly gay and lesbian service members among troops in those countries

was much higher at the time they changed their policies then it is in our military today, but they change their policies. and as the working group found, "the actual implementation of change in those countries went much more smoothly than expected, with little or no disruption." most importantly, ending this discriminatory policy is the right thing to do. don't ask, don't tell is an injustice to thousands of patriotic americans who seek only the chance to serve the country they love without having to conceal their sexual orientation. anyone who believes that maintaining this policy is necessary to preserve our military's fighting effectiveness should read this report. time and time again and

throughout our history, our military has overcome obstacles to reflect the diversity of american society. and in doing so, our military has helped strengthen the fabric of our society while keeping us safe. we can and don't ask, don't tell, and maintain our military strength, respect our troops and their families, allow patriotic americans to serve their country without regard to sexual orientation, and uphold the principle that service and advancement in our military are based on merit alone. again, i thank the witnesses for their impressive work and i call upon senator mccain. >> thank you, mr. chairman. let me also thank our distinguished witnesses for their service to our nation. i know that many people in our

defense department and our armed services devoted countless hours in the preparation of this report. especially general hannahan mr. johnson. i would like to thank them -- general hammaren and mr. johnson. i would like to thank them for their work. the proposed repeal of the common law -- of the law, and read -- commonly referred to as don't ask, don't tell is no different among the u.s. military, as the pentagon's report demonstrates. however, i think we can agree on a few facts as we begin this important hearing. we can all agree that our military today is the most effective, most professional, and arguably the most experienced force that our nation has ever had. we can all agree that we appreciate an honor the service of every american who wears the

uniform of our country, as well as their families, especially during this time of war, regardless of whether they are straight or gay. and finally, i think we can all agree, and i certainly would, that is capable professional force of ours could -- and i emphasize could -- implement a repeal of don't ask, don't tell if ordered to, just as they so ably and honorably do everything else that is a cast of them. what i want to know and what is the congress's duty to determine is whether or not we can -- is not whether or not we can repeat this law, but whether or not we should. is the fundamental issue that has to be determined by congress. it has to be answered carefully, deliberately, and with proper consideration for the complexity of the issue and the gravity of

the potential consequences for our military and the wars in which we are engaged. the defense department has had 10 months to complete this report and the rand study that accompanies it. together, these reports and documentation contain over 1000 pages of data and material and analysis. the analysis committee received it 36 hours ago and my staff and i are still going through it and analyzing it carefully, including the more than 72,000 comments that our service members provided to the working group. what i can say now, however, is that in addition to my concerns about what questions were not asked by this survey and considered in this report, troubled by the fact that this report only represent the input a a a 28% of the force who received a questionnaire, including completing out numerous members of the military

in combat areas. that is only 6% of the force at large. i find it hard to view that as a fully representative sample set. but i am nonetheless waved the contents of this report on their merits. what appears clear up this time is that the survey and anecdotal data underlined this report did not lead to one unequivocal conclusion, which is no surprise considering the complex and difficult nature of this issue. for example, i recognize that of those surveyed who report having worked with a gay or lesbian service members, 92% said their units' ability to work together was not negatively affected. among those in army combat units, 89% of respondents felt that way. 84% of respondents in marine combat units. however, we also learned that of those surveyed, 30% of the

total, 43% of the marines, 40% of army combat units, and 50% of marine combat units believe that a repeal of the law would have a negative impact on their units' ability to "work together to get the job done." furthermore, 67% of marine and nearly 58% of army combat units believe the repeal of the law would have negative consequences on unit cohesion and a field environment out at sea. this is supplemented by comments like these, "i believe this is not the time for us to make huge changes in the military. we are at war and our men and women overseas do not need any more destruction -- distraction. this issue should be addressed at the appropriate time and that

is not now." i believe that it is demonstrated in the study that the closer we get to service members in combat, the more questions there are about what impact the repeal of don't ask, don't tell would have on the ability of these units to perform their missions. these issues trip not be considered lightly, especially considering how much, that our forces are facing. additionally, i am concerned about the impact of a rush to repeal one even this survey has found such a significant number of our service members feel it would impact the military effectiveness. as we move forward with our discussion on this matter, i hope that everyone will put aside political motives and agendas. i also hope that everyone on both sides will refrain from integrity. hipeople's finally, i hope there will

recognize this is focus -- focus on our military and its effectiveness, not on broader social/issues at large. this is a complex issue that could have repercussions on our force as it is in gage in its 10th straight year of sustained combat, but a force that is performing exceptionally well. at this time we should be inherently cautious about making any changes that would affect our military, and what changes we do make should be the product of careful and deliberate consideration. i'm not saying this law should never change. i'm simply saying that it may be premature to make such a change at this time and in this manner without further consideration of this report and further study of the issue by congress. it for of all the people we serve -- for of all the people we serve, one of our highest responsibility is to the men and women in our armed services cannot -- armed services,

especially those risking their lives in combat. thank you, mr. chairman. >> senator mccain, members of the committee, this past tuesday, the department released the high level working group report dealing with the issues of the repeal of the don't ask, don't tell law, and based on those findings to develop implementations for recommendation. the report's findings reflect nearly 10 months of research and analysis, along several lines of study, and represents the most thorough and objective review ever of this issue and its impact on the american military. first, the group reach out to be forced to better understand their views and attitudes about the potential repeal of the don't ask, don't tell law. this out reach was not a matter of taking a poll of the military to determine whether the law should be changed.

the president of the united states made his position on this matter clear, a position i support. our job at the department of defense has been to determine how to best prepare for this change should the congress change the law. nonetheless, i thought it critically important to engage military members and their families on this issue. ultimately, it will be they who will determine whether or not such a transition will be successful. this out rich included a survey of questionnaires answered by tens of thousands of troops and their families, which mr. canson and general hammare address in more detail. as a result of a survey, more than two-thirds do not object to gays and lesbians serving openly in uniform.

with the exception of some combat specialties, the repeal of don't ask, don't tell, though disruptive in the short term, would not be the wrenching, traumatic change that may have feared and predicted. second, the working group also examined the early all of the potential changes to the department's regulations and policies. as the cochairs will explain, the majority of concerns often raised in association with the repeal of dealing with sexual conduct, fraternization, marital or survival benefits could be governed by existing laws and regulations. existing policies can and should be applied equally to homosexuals as well as heterosexuals. the key to success, as with most things milli terry -- military is training, and above all leadership up and down the chain of command. third, the working group looked at the impact on the change of

the law on military readiness, unit cohesion and other issues critical to the force. in my view, getting this category ready is the most important thing we must do. the united states armed forces are in the middle of two overseas campaigns, a complex and critical drawdown in iraq, and a war in afghanistan. the working group concluded that overall, and with thorough preparation, there is little risk from repealing don't ask, don't tell. however, as i mentioned earlier, the survey data shows a higher proportion of between 40% and 60% of those troops serving in predominantly all male combat specialties, mostly army and marines, but including special operations and formations of the navy and the air force, predicted a negative impact on repealing the current law.

the chiefs will have the opportunity to provide their expert military advice to the congress tomorrow, as they have to me and to the president. their perspective deserve serious concernattention and consideration as it reflects decades of sentiment of many senior officers. in my view, the concerns of combat troops as expressed in the survey do not present any insurmountable barrier to a successful repeal of don't ask, don't tell, which can be done and to be done without imposing a serious risk to military readiness. however, these findings to lead me to conclude -- i do leave me to conclude that an abundance of care and preparation is required to avoid disruptive and potentially dangerous impact on those who are serving at the tip of the spirit in america's wars.

-- the tip of the spear in americans wars. a series of steps must take place. the last step by the secretary of defense and chairman of jemaah -- joint chiefs. the new laws and regulations must be consistent with standards of readiness, unit cohesion and recruiting and retention. now that we have completed this review, i strongly urge the senate to pass this legislation and send it to the president for signature before the end of the year. i believe this has become a matter of some urgency because as we have seen in the past few months, the judicial branch is becoming involved in this issue, and is only a matter of time before the federal courts are drawn once more into the fray. should this happen, there is the real possibility that this change would be imposed immediately by judicial fiat, by

far the most disruptive and in imaging scenario i can imagine, and the one most hazardous to military morale, readiness, and battlefield performance. therefore, i believe it is important, as senator mccain put it in his opening remarks that the question of whether the law should be repealed is a matter for the congress to decide. i believe the change should come through legislative means, that is, legislative reform from the review does completed. by means of a process that is well prepared and well considered intimidation. above all, a process that is representative toof the people of the united states. given the circumstances, those who choose not to act legislatively are rolling the

dice in the courts. i believe we should push ahead for repeal before the force can -- before the force can be prepared for change. we can work on training and leader development and that provides a solid road map for a successful implementation for repeal. the department has already made a number of changes to regulations that when existing in law, provide more exacting procedures for separating troops for suspected homosexual conduct, changes that added more common sense to a dangerously legal -- dangerous and legally fraud process. this is the second time i have dealt with this issue as a leader in public life. a prior case being at cia in 1992 when as director, i ordered that openly gay applicants be treated as all other applicants. that is, whether as individuals they met our competitive

standards. that was and is a significantly different situation in circumstance and consequence than that confronting the armed forces today. the use of gays and lesbians has changed considerably during this time and has grown more accepting since the don't ask, don't tell was first enacted. feelings on this matter can still run deep and divide starkly not only in society as a whole, but among uniformed ranks as well. for this reason, i would ask that as congress takes on this debate, for all involved to resist the urge to lower our military and their families into the politics of the issue. what is called for is a careful and considered approach, an approach that to the extent possible welcomes all for qualified and capable to serve their country in uniform, but one that does not undermine at a pace or dogmatism those

attributes that make the u.s. -- out of haste or dogmatism those attributes that make the u.s. military the strongest in the world. thank you. >> thank you. admiral allen. >> my personal views on this issue remain unchanged. i'm convinced that repeal of the law governing don't ask, don't tell is the right thing to do. back in february when i testified to the sentiment my also said that the men and women of the unit -- of the armed forces could accommodate such a change, but i did not know it for a fact. now i do. what was my personal opinion is now my professional opinion. repeal of the law will not an unacceptable risk to our military units. families will not encourage our

loved ones to leave this service in droves. i do not discount for a moment the findings of the johnson/hamm .urvey i do not find the concern's trivial or inconsequential. nor do i believe we can afford to ignore them. we would do well to pay heed and move forward in a deliberate and measured manner. whatever risks there may be in the repeal of this law, is greatly mitigated by the fear of implementation plan included in this study. the time to carry antonette effective, plan and insp

>> america's military is ready to move on as well. some soldiers and marines may want separate shower facilities. some may ask for different birthing. some may quit the service. we will deal with that. i believe and history tells us that most of them will put aside personal proclivities for something larger than themselves and for each other. there is a special warrior bond in combat, a bond not performed by common values but rather by

the common thread of the enemy, hard to, and peril. numerous soldiers have died more or less willingly, right one author. not for country or honor or religious faith or for any other abstracted good but because they realize that by leaving their posts and rescuing them cells, they would expose their companions to greater danger. it is those greater danger is that still motivate the heroism and comradeship our troops exemplified today. that is why i believe the end of "don't ask, don't tell" pass with less turbulence than some predict. in fact, it may be the combat arms community that may prove most effective at managing this change disciplined as they are. it is not only because our

young ones are more tolerant, it is because they have far more important things to worry about. the experiences of other militaries bear that out. our study looked at 35 other military is that chose to permit open service including those of our staunchest allies. in no instance was the widespread panic or mass resignations or wholesale disregard for discipline and restraint. some will argue that we are different, of course. none of these foreign r v -- armies face the in the global demands we do and none are charged with leadership roles we bear. true enough but many of them fight alongside us in afghanistan today and they fought with us in iraq. gay or straight, their troops patrolled with hours and lead with ours. they certainly shared with our is the fear and loneliness and the horror of combat.

our troops expect that whatever change we make to the current policy will be accompanied by rigorous training and high standards of conduct. in fact, the report indicates that one of the fact is distressing to those who oppose repeal are fears that new policies will not be implemented fairly, evenly, and dispassionately. let me be clear -- nothing will change about our standards of conduct. nothing will change about the dignity and fairness and the quality with which we treat our people. nothing will change about the manner in which we deal with those who cannot abide by these standards. the military is a meritocracy. where success is based on what

you do, not who you are. there are no special class is, no favored groups. we may wear different uniforms but we are one. there are some fordham this debate is about gray areas. there is no gray area here. we treat each other with respect or we find another place to work. that is why i believe leadership will prove vital. in fact, leadership matters most. the large majority of troops to believe they have served in the unit with gays and lesbians are rate that unit's performance high across virtually all dimensions biased in those units that are well-led. indeed, the practical differences between units in which there were troops believed to be gay or lesbian and those in which no one was believed to be so completely disappeared and effectively -- in in effectively lead command. when bill law changes, our

people will lead that change in the manner consistent with the oath they took. as one marine officer put it, "if that's what the president orders, i can tell you by god that we are going to xl above and beyond the other services to make it happen." frankly, that is why i believe that in the long run repeal of this lot makes this a stronger military and improves our readiness. it will make us more representative of the country we serve. it will restore to the institution the energy it must now spend in pursuing those who violate the policy. it will better live those organizational values we claim with those we practice. as i said back in february, this is about integrity. our people sacrificed a lot for their country including their lives. none of them should have to sacrifice their integrity as well. it is true there is no constitutional right to serve in the armed forces.

the military serves all the people of this country no matter who they are or what they believe. everyone of those people, should they be fit and able, ought to be given the opportunity to defend it. finally, mr. chairman, i believe now is the time to act. i worry that unpredictable actions in the court could strike down a lot at any time precluding the orderly and commission plan will leave is necessary to mitigate risk. i also have no expectations the challenges to our national security are going to diminish in the near future or that a more convenient time will appear. i find the argument that war is not the time the change to be antithetical with our own experience since 2001. or does not stifled change, it demands it. it does not make change carter, it facilitates it. there is to be sure greater uncertainty today in our forces and they are under stress the

chiefs are concerned about this and so am i.. i do not believe that stress is manifesting itself in the lives of our troops and their families, like the deployments, suicides, and health care are rendered insurmountable or any greater by this single policy change. nor do i believe that simply acknowledging what most of our troops already know to be true about some of their colleagues friends are ability to fight and win this nation's wars. quite the contrary. today's young leaders are more attuned to combat effectiveness that any of the last three decades they are tempered by war, bond through hardship, the men and women of the united states armed forces are the finest and most capable they have ever been. if there is a better opportunity or better generation to effect this change, i don't know of it. one final word -- with all due respect, mr. chairman and senator mccain, it is true that as chairman, i am not in charge

of troops. i have commanded three shipfts. i was most recently a service chief myself. for more than 40 years, i have made decisions that affected and risk the lives of young men and women. you do not have to agree with me on this issue. don't think for one moment that i had not carefully consider the impact of the advice i give on those who will have to live with the decisions that that advice and forms. i would not recommend repeal of this law unless i did not believe in my soul that it was the right thing to do for our military, our nation, and for our collective honor. thank you.

>> i anticipated the task would be complex, tough, sometimes unpleasant them uncomfortable. now i acknowledge that i underestimated those factors. after nine months of study, i am convinced that if the law changes, the united states military can do this even in a time of war. i do not underestimate the challenges in implementing a change in the law but neither do i underestimate the ability of our extraordinarily dedicated service men and women to adapt to such changes and continue to provide our nation with the military capability to accomplish any mission. i came to this conclusion not only as a co-share of the defense review but perhaps more importantly as the commander of u.s. army forces in europe.

i was cognizant every day of this review that i might have to actually lead the changes included in our report. as a serving commander, i am confident that if this law changes, i and the leaders with whom i served can do just that. thank you. >> thank you very much. mr. johnson. >> thank you very much for the opportunity to testify here today. by now, you've had the opportunity to read the report that general ham and i have co author. we hope the report speaks for itself. our basic assessment is that our military can make this change provided we do so in an orderly and reasonable manner in accord with the recommendations for implementation we offer in our report. this morning on like to take a moment to talk to you not in my capacity as co author of this report but as the lawyer for

the defense department. i want to repeat an elaborate upon was secretary dates and admiral mullen have said and asked that the congress not leave our military fate on this issue in the hands of the courts. i offered no view about the constitutionality of "don't ask, don't tell." regardless of how you feel about the law, or gays serving openly in the military, the fact that there is increase litigation in the courts on matters of gay rights is undeniable. since 2003, when the supreme court decided lawrence the verses of texas, the courts have become increasingly receptive to gay-rights claims. within the last year alone, federal district courts have for the first time declared california's gay marriage ban the federal defense of marriage

act and "don't ask, don't tell" unconstitutional. after years in which this law was upheld in the courts, the constitutionality of this law is now in litigation once again. we and the department of defense face the possibility that we must repeal this law not on the terms and timetable of the president, the congress, and the department of defense but on the terms and timetable of a court and a plaintiff. we got a taste of that possible future in october and november in a log cabin republicans case. on monday, october 11, we had a lot and a policy in place that requires separation of members of the military found to have engaged in homosexual conduct. on tuesday, october 12, a federal district judge in california issued an order to the secretary of defense to

suspend enforcement of that law on a worldwide basis. eight days later, on october 20, the appellate court issued a temporary stay of the injunction while it considered whether to grant a more permanent state. on monday, november 1, the ninth circuit agreed to keep that stay in place during the appeal of that court. on friday, november 5, the log cabin republicans asked the supreme court to reverse the steady rate on friday, november 12, the supreme court denied that request. in the space of eight days, we had to shift course on the world wide enforcement of the law twice. in the space of one month, face the possibility of shifting course four different times. this legal uncertainty is not going away anytime soon. the log cabin republicans case is on an expedited appeal schedule. more lawsuits are being filed.

our plea to the congress is to not leave the fate of this blood to the courts. as secretary gates has stated, if repeal of this loss occurs, it should be done by the elected representatives in the political branches of government, not by the courts. indeed, in the course of our review, we learned of other nations that acted to change their policies on gays in the military to head off adverse outcomes in court. from where i sit as the lawyer for the department of defense, the virtue of state legislation pending before the senate is that if passed, repeal of "don't ask, don't tell" will be done on our terms of our time table upon the advice of our military leadership. as the working group report makes clear, there are many issues that must be addressed in connection with any repeal of this law. education and training, the

court messages to be delivered as part of this, same-sex partner benefits, birthing and billeting, related changes to the ucmj and others. the secretary and chairman had made it clear they will not find the cert contemplated by the current legislation on till we have written new post-repel policies and regulations and have at least begun our education and training of the force. in other words, that repeal is brought about in a responsible and orderly manner burial in all likelihood, this will not be possible if repeal is imposed upon us by judicial fiat. for these reasons, we urge that the senate react now on the pending legislation.

>> our first round will be limited to five that than i object to that. >> it is a very small time. >> i suggest we have another hearing or reconvene in the afternoon. five balance is not sufficient time for and a thing frankly but statements by the members. >> we have had rounds of five and six and seven minutes for many areas. that is our tradition. in any event, i am trying to give every member opportunity while secretary gates is here. there will pay a second round and a third round and a fourth round. if we need secretary gates back for an additional hearing, we will ask for him back. i have to accommodate his schedule and give time for every

member of this panel to ask him questions. >> my only response, mr. chairman, is this is a transcendently important issue. to allow our members with the secretary of defense is not adequate to have a much needed information that the secretary of defense can provide. all i can do is say that you're not giving the members sufficient time to ask questions which is maybe not the intent but certainly the effect. maybe in the lame-duck session that we are in could have another hearing as soon as possible so that all members can have ample opportunity to get the information they need to make a very important decision. >> if it would help, i can do some rearranging and stay until

noon. >> thank you, we hope that helps. we hope another hearing which he will not be necessary. we have other witnesses here as long as we need them. if we need a second hearing with secretary gates, we will consider that at that time. we will have a five minute round for the first round while key is here. it is important here for all our members to have that opportunity. let me proceed. i think we want to get going. >> you could change that to 6 minute rounds since you change that. >> will accept that modification. we will now have a six minute round. [laughter] thank you very much for that recommendation. let me start with admiral mullen.

you have told us that the nation should now change our policy and that we should allow gays and lesbians serve as members to serve in the military without having to conceal their sexual orientation. you have stated your position both personally and professionally now, very eloquently. you have also urged us, as have the others, to carefully consider the views of the service chiefs. , even where they might differ. have you carefully and seriously considered the views of all the service chiefs even where they might differ in reaching your own professional conclusion? >> i have spent a great deal of time with the service chiefs on this issue since the beginning

of that year. i could not tell you the number of sessions but one of my goals certainly was throughout this process was not one of influence but it was one of debate and discussion and making sure that everybody understood where everybody else was on this and that we could take in particular when we got the report, take the report, look at it, assess more than anything else the rest associated with it and understand what is in the report and assess the rest. each of us arrived at our own conclusions about that. it was not just from a service perspective. certainly, the service chiefs have that obligation that this is the joint chiefs also and i ask them for their views from the joint perspective as well. we received that and all of that is taken into consideration

in arriving where i am with respect to the risk level tied to potential of implementation of this. >> i understand from your answer that you have carefully considered the views of the service chiefs before you reached your own professional opinion? >> very carefully, yes sir. >> secretary gates, you have also asked us to consider the service chiefs and have you done that in reaching your own conclusion? >> yes, sir i have. >> and general hyam, have you care such -- have been carefully considered the service chiefs? >> i have but it is important to note that the report from mr. johnson and myself to the secretary is not reflective of the chiefs' views. >> i understand that. we understand there will be differences that they have and

we will hear from them tomorrow. in considering your views, you touched base with various stakeholders and people who have their own points of view inside the military? have you touch base with the service chiefs and consider their views? sq>> yes, mr. chairman. >> during the comment period leading up to the publication of the report, general ham and i took account of what we heard and of all -- revised are on assessment in response to abuse that were expressed by the chiefs. >> so there has been in a number of places revision of this assessment based on the views of those cheese? >> yes, sir. can you,l ham, assuming we change the policy, repeal the policy of "don't ask, don't tell," as a commander of u.s. army europe effectively

implement a new policy allowing gay and lesbian service members to serve in the military without concealing their sexual orientation consistent with standards of military readiness and effectiveness, unit cohesion, and recruiting and retention and in the armed forces? >> i am confident that i can them. . >> in terms of passing legislation now, the matter has been before this committee almost one full year. , started in february we have had hearings on this matter. we have raised a question with a service chiefs and i have testified before and will again tomorrow. you have indicated, secretary gates, that it is important that we act now. , this month. i believe you gave us the reasons because, primarily

because the courts are involved now in this matter. you also said that we should not act in haste. would you consider our acting this month given the amount of time we have already put into this but given the fact that we have had this report for only a couple of days, would you consider our acting this month to be hasty? >> it certainly would be expeditious. as senator mccain has said, this is a very important matter. frankly, my sense of urgency would not be as great or is it not for what we went through in october and november that mr. johnson described in his opening statement.

frankly, that was a very difficult period for us when virtually overnight we were told that the law had changed and we could not enforce it. we had done no training or preparation, nothing whatsoever. it is my worry about the unpredictability of the situation with the court's, particularly this coming spring, that gives me a sense of urgency about this. the timetable obviously have to be based on the will of the senate. >> would you consider that we have deliberated on this issue this year? >> i would like to see -- i'm sorry >> you have urged us to be delivered to the and i agree. we are a deliberative body. we have had this matter in front of us for one year including testimony during that year

included a separate hearing on "don't ask, don't tell" and money issues where we have passed the service chiefs. on the other hand, you have urged us to be delivered it and asked -- and urged us to act this month. are the two urgings consistent? >> as i say, i am very worried about the courts. frankly, i think it needs to be deliberate. the reality is, i had expressed the hope in february that there would be no legislation until after the review was done. this was so the review and what we learned could inform the legislative process. now, i think the report is pretty stark and clear in its

conclusions, agree or not with them. i think it is pretty straightforward. therefore, i think that absorbing lessons learned and the recommendations and the analysis of the report is doable within the timeframe that you have before the congress adjourns. i believe that at least based on the information in the report that the congress is in a position to act because it now has this information in hand and frankly, i don't think it is all that complicated to absorb. the key issues have been described quite clearly in your opening statement and senator mccain is opening statement and in the opening statements that

the four of us have made. those of the critical issues. >> thank you. >> general ham, thank you for your hard work on the issue. is it your personal opinion that this law should be repealed? >> senator mccain, i have given this a lot of thought. we certainly can. it is my personal view that i am very concerned about the timing of the courts. it is personally time to move from debated discussion to decision and implementation. yes, sir, i think it is time to change. >> secretary gates, the survey says nearly 60% of respondents in the marine corps and army combat arms believe there would be a negative impact on their units. among marine combat arms, the

number was 67%. nearly 60% of the army combat armed soldiers and 66.5%, 2/3 of the marine corps of voice to these concerns about repeal. you have said that you conclude those concerns, the number of service members are exaggerated. how are they exaggerated? >> i don't remember using the words 's exaggerated.' i take this seriously. i share the view of the chiefs with the reports evaluation of risk and particularly in the combat arms is perhaps too sanguine v. with proper time for

preparation, for training, whether it is before deployments are after deployments however it works out, if we are allowed to do this on our terms, i believe that those concerns can be mitigated and i think, to repay one of the things abnormal mollen said in his opening statement, the experience of those who have served with someone they believe to be gay or lesbian was very different even in combat arms than those who had never done so. i would point out that for -- and the example of the marine corps, you also have, and most of the marines are in combat are 18-24 years old, most of them have never served with women he there. they have had a very limited experience in the military. it has been a tough one. with time and an adequate preparation, we can mitigate their concerns.

>> i could not disagree more. we think these young people are mature enough to fight and die so i think they are mature enough to decide on who they want to serve with. and the impact on battle effectiveness. i speak from personal experience. within the combat units of the marine corps in the army, the numbers are alarming. 12.6% of the military force responded by saying they would leave the military sooner than planned. 21.4% of army combat troops indicate they would leave the force earlier. in the marine corps that number jumped to 32%. that is probably why the service chiefs, particularly the commandant of the marine corps, is less sanguine than you are about this issue.

if they left the 12.6% of the military, if the left earlier, that translates into over 200,000 men who would leave the military earlier than they had planned. do you think that is a good idea to replace 265,000 troops in time of war in? should we be undertaking that challenge at this time? >> first of all, the experience of the british, the canadiens, and some of the others has been that in their surveys prior to enacting a change in their laws and rules, there were substantial numbers who said that they would leave. in the event, those numbers were far smaller than the surveys have indicated. i go back to the point that

people who have had experience who have serve with gays and lesbians have a different view of these things and i think that will be true of many of our force. i think the training and so on will help me get these consequences. frankly, while there are concerns that you will probably hear tomorrow about some of our special operations forces where there are limited numbers of people and where any loss is potentially of concern for the force as a whole, i don't think any of us expect that the numbers would be anything like what the survey suggests based on experience. you also have the reality that they can't just up and leave. they have enlistment contract. the officers of contracts in

terms of the amount of time they have to serve. it is not like they can say they can get out of there. they will have to complete their obligation. i believe that during that period, their concerns can be mitigated. one of the encouraging aspects of this has been the fairly positive response of the spouse's. s. you can list the soldier and you realize the families of the positive response of the spouses has been important. >> finally, we are deeply concerned about wikileaks, the impact that it had on identifying people who were cooperating with us and afghanistan and iraq and some leaders have said they have blood on their hands. so far, all we know is that one private first class was responsible for this.

have you held any individual responsible for the wikileaks? have you punished anyone or put anyone on leave or take any disciplinary action whatsoever with this incredible breach of national security? >> to a certain extent, our ability to go down that path is limited by the fact that we have criminal proceedings under way. that limits our ability to conduct an independent investigation while the criminal investigation is going on. by the same token beginning in august, we directed a number of steps to take every possible -- >> time has expired. i ask of you have held anyone responsible. >> not yet. >> thank you. >> senator lieberman. >> thanks to all of you.

in his opening statement, senator mccain said that this survey that was put out yesterday did not answer the question of whether the law should be repealed. answer the question, in my opinion, that if all law is repealed that it will not compromise military effectiveness and unit cohesion and morale. the question of whether the law should be rebuilt is for congress. -- repeal this for congress. to me in reaching a judgment on that question, we are on the front lines of a turning point in american history. we have these in every generation. from the beginning, this country was defined not by its borders but by our values. the declaration of independence says we are all endowed by god with those equal rights, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

every generation has realized those rights because they were not realized at the beginning in 1776 for women and men of -- people of color. one of the great transitions in our lifetime was the growing readiness and understanding among the american people that it is just wrong and on american to discriminate against people based on their sexual orientation. one of the great examples and i think a heroic example of this change in public opinion is the great man whose chair i am occupying today who served on this committee until his death, robert c. byrd, who strongly supported "don't ask, don't tell" in 1993 and then in our deliberations this year, played a critical role, offered legislation to guarantee real

due process in removing this law and basically said in voting for the change that it was wrong. it was not consistent with our values and it was not good for the military. the u.s. military has a proud tradition of leading and reflecting the best values of america. in this case, i think the u.s. military is behind the american people they are behind the private sector. it is because block constrains you from -- the law constraints you from reflecting our best values.

there is no time limit on the certification required from the president, secretary of of defense, or joint chiefs of staff. that is up to those three honored individuals. admiral mullen said it well -- success and the military is based not on who you are but what you do. that is true of american life generally and this is our opportunity to change that. i want to ask a couple of questions. why do i say this policy has been bad for the military? almost 14,000 service members have been tossed out of the military over the last 17 years not because they were dead soldiers, not because they violated the code of conduct, but because they were dead. gay, who they were.

do you think some gay and lesbians did not unless the military because of what it would mean to them personally? >> there is no question of that. to the question of retention, the report looks of the risk level with respect to that. it also flags areas that the change we need to focus on as leaders. one thing i struggle with is that we have lost 14,000 individuals clearly by implication alone. there would be those who would choose not to come in and not to go through that. in addition to that and this is fundamental to made has been the whole issue of integrity. we are an institution that i as integrity and asks other people to join us, work with us, fight with us, die with us, and lie about who they are the whole time they are in the military. that just does not make sense to

me. even in the policy we have, they are actually individuals to go through extraordinary pain to sustain that life. e. >> let me read you an important statistic in the survey. only 15% of gay and lesbian service members currently the responded to the survey said they would what their sexual orientation to be known in their unit. here is a quote from one of those," i think a lot of people think there will be this big outing and people flaunting their gayness but they forget we are in the military. that stuff is not supposed to be done during to the hours regardless of whether you are gay or straight." to be clear, admiral, if "don't

ask, don't tell" is repealed, the military code of conduct will apply to gay and straight members of the military. just as a straight member who may sexually harassed a woman is subject to discipline, so, too, with a gay member of the military who subjects another person of the same gender to harassment would do the same. >> leadership requirements to enforce those will not change at all. i fully agree with you. >> in your comment about the integrity, we are going through tough time an american library now. it is a time in which the american people have lost confidence in some of the great institutions of our society, the government that we are part of, the business community, probably the one institution, the central institution that the american people still have trust in is the american military.

it is committed to a cause larger than individuals and because they are committed to one another and their mission focus, not who you are but what you do. tell" is a, don't stain on the u.s. military that we have a capacity to remove in this session in congress and i hope we will. >> let me state this -- back in 1993-1994, under the clinton administration when this lot was installed, i was critical and i did not think it works. now that time has gone by and we have gone 17 years, it has -- there is an old saying that if it ain't broke don't fix it. it has worked for it i believe it has worked. let me ask the same question that senator mccain asked in a different way.

right now, we have probably the best retention and recruitment percentages, over 100% except in the army guard. there are other reasons for that. this concerns me. when you look at the report under question 71b and you take a positive, a very positive, and a-and would affect your immediate unit effectiveness completing its mission, it is 2.5-01 that they are stating that this would have a negative effect. when you look at the other figures, you have to ask the question, how will this negatively impact the recruitment or retention? there's another figure that can be used. 21% would think about leaving.

the service. also, 27% of the military members survey did said repeal would not be able to recommend others for military service. many people go into the service are from a recommendation that people who are already in. are you concerned about retention and recruitment? >> the report probably flags these issues and that is important grade it is certainly something if implemented that we have to focus on. i have not met a military service person my whole life, man or woman, who did not think at one point or another about whether they would stay or go. from my point of view, that focuses on exposure and understanding and the report which indicates how many, once

exposed, it did not a fax to have been 90% level including the combat arms as well. it did not affect unit readiness. that is the reality of exposure. there are clearly those who have not been exposed. >> let me ask one further question. why do you think only 2/3 of the people responding to this survey? >> you would have to get somebody to do this for a living. it was an extraordinarily positive response. it was more than statistical represented in all the key categories. >> i more than does agree with that.

the decision since it was already made. centre mccann already covered that. tomorrow is the hearing for the service chiefs but it is important to get this in the record. the general shorts of the air force, i believe it is important to keep faith with those in the armed forces that the commission review the completed before there is any legislation to repeal. that did not happen because the legislation came through in the form of amendment back on march 27. an admiral said that his concern was legislative changes would leave sailors to question whether their input matters. general kasich remains convinced that it is critically important to get a better understanding of where our families are on the issue and he believes that repealing bell lobby for the completion of the review will be seen by men and women of the army as a reversal of our

commitment to hear their views. clearly, they believe that before any decision was made we would hear their views. halfway through this, the amendments came. general amos of the marine corps said this is the wrong time to overturn "don't ask, don't tell." there is risk involved. this is not a social thing. this is a combat effectiveness, it is what the country pays americans to do betteo. do you think they are right or wrong? >> i think there is opportunity to hear them before legislation passes as they have vast in the past. >> i would say there is another person who said something along

those lines and that was made before this committee in february when i urge there be no legislation on until the review had been completed. >> all right, lastly, i have heard several times that whatever happens here is not all that significant because there is a final step. the final step is that the repeal provision contained in the house and the senate armed services committee versions would at -- would work as block being repealed and the president and chairman of the joint chiefs and the secretary would deliver to congress their recommendation based on these assumptions that come out of this report. they said that would not happen until that takes place and yet, halfway through this process, secretary gates and chairman

mall and the present have made it clear that you have already made up your mind? will this step be necessary? >> absolutely not. the certification process i think is a critical piece of legislation. speaking for myself, i would not sign any certification until i was satisfied with the advice of the service chiefs that we had in fact mitigated if not eliminated to the extent possible risks to combat readiness, unit cohesion and effectiveness. >> even though you stated that to fully support the president's decision? >> that is exactly right. >> thank-you. >> thank you very much. senator inhoof and now senator reid. >> there are questions and comments going back and forth. let me put it in a question this

way -- you seem to be saying that there is a high correlation between those who have served with gay individuals and to believe that unit cohesion will not be affected this leads to the conclusion that the results are that if you have the opportunity to serve with individuals that you know or suspect to be gay that you do not have significant concerns of the overall cohesion. is that your conclusion? >> yes, sir. >> that is the conclusion of the study, too, as you look at the correlation numbers? >> yes, sir. additionally, the study found

that should the law changed that the difference between those who are actually deployed and in combat, of their concerns were lower than those who were in combat arms but not deployed. they're specifically focused on the mission in combat of the time. >> i think that is important to emphasize again. let me understand this fully. the units that were deployed in combat, their responses were less concerned about unit cohesion with the introduction of the gay members? >> what the report showed specifically of was those who work in combat situations for her had been found themselves much more focused on combat and expressed less concern with the the policy of than those who

were not deployed at the time. it is very clear they were focused on succeeding in combat and succeeding in their mission. >> this survey data complement's the best proxy we have for this question which is the experience of our closest allies. i didn't know if you want to comment on what you have heard from the british chiefs of service in terms of their combat arms, there royal marines, those special forces operating side by side with our forces. >> into not approach this from the perspective of a one-to-one comparison because i am understand we are different countries. when i talk to my counterparts in the u.k. and australia specifically, the theme from both chiefs was an awful lot of resistance of front, an awful lot of tobol before the change,

than in virtually was implemented without issue once the law changed in their own country. >> and you have no comments from the field questioning their combat efficiency? my impression is that when i go into afghanistan is that they are eager for the health -- the help, support, and are quite impressed. >> their priorities are not just focused on that issue specifically. >> in general, you have conducted the 95 forms of 51 basis. you have conducted 140 smaller group sessions. you have handed out 40,000 questionnaires, receive a significant number of them back, but ultimately there is a judgment about whether you feel

that the voice of the troops have been heard. i think you are ideally suited to make that judgment. is that your judgment? >> senator, it is. through the administration of the survey, that has provided us statistically sound and rigorous information across it widespread structure of the categories. it was the personal engagement face-to-face that mr. johnson and die conducted beyond my in box and other mechanisms to allow service members and their families to voice their views. that gave us a great context and to some of the things we addressed in the survey. >> thank you. mr. johnson, again you stress the impact, the pending impact, of court cases which are unpredictable. it seems there's a growing

wilderness that supports making a decision on the constitutional theories about the inadequacies .f don't ask, don't tell this did not exist last february when we decided to start talking about how did they do this, legislatively, a survey, etc. is that another factor -- consider? >> absolutely. all three branches are actively involved in this issue right now. >> you mentioned in your opening remarks, that you had this experience in 1992. my perception is you faced some of the same issues which were initially opposition within the ranks, but you ensure the policy was carrying out within the

agency, there are analysts who are removed from small unit activities in the field. did you notice as of have this policy in place now for over one decade and a significant difficulties in getting field operators to except the counterpart, if you will, to the combat forces of our military? >> know. in fact, the policy has a direction that i made in 1992. in talking to my successors, it has not presented a problem. just to be clear, as i said in my opening statement, the circumstances and the particular intimacy of those in combat compared to those working for the cia is very different.

>> thank you. >> thank you, senator reid. senator brown? >> thank you, mr. chairman. i know we spoke privately and i appreciate that. i have a couple of follow-ups to you and potentially the other members of the panel. mirroring what senator m. hoff said about the participation, i can tell you from firsthand conversations when i visited afghanistan that halfway through the process when the committee to actions, they felt it was a done deal and as a result they did nonparticipation in the survey. 20% does not seem like a high number participation regardless of the total number as it reflects the nature and total amount of servers that have gone forward. is the raging additionally you

can share in terms of your understanding whether it is anyone, and general ham or admiral mollen, as to why the average dissipation was only -- or admiral mullen why the hostages a patient was only 20%? >> i will let mr. johnson talk about the statistical significance of the numbers. >> 20% overall response rate is well within the normal range, the historical range of the department of defense surveys of military personnel. when we worked with the company that administered the survey, we wanted to make sure that the proportional number of surveys were distributed based on historical response rates. each community within the services have historical response rates and we try to account for that in the distribution of the surveys.

having said that, there were some concerns about the slowness, if you will, of the response rates from the senior listed leaders, the secretary of defense, and others. we sent our reminders encouraging service members and families to respond. i'm comfortable that the response rate overall was within the norms and, more importantly, that each category of their we analyzed had a statistically significant number of responses. >> mr. secretary, just for the benefit of the people listening and for the committee, let's assume for argument's sake that we move forward and we say that we will accept the report and we are ready to move on and take the next step and repealed don't ask, don't tell, can you explain the process could be in your mind?

a lot of the concerns i personally have are for those still serving in the military and others have confided in me privately and they want to make sure the battle readiness and military effectiveness of those serving are not affected. the envisioned starting with non-combat units and moving up to implement this down the road? how're the certification process works? what is your thought process in the actually moving forward with that while not jeopardize in retention, battle readiness, and effectiveness? >> first of all, i think the key, as the report makes clear, is training. leadership training and training of the entire force. that is better than 2 million people. whether we would begin with one segment or not, i think we have not addressed that issue yet.

i would tell you that my personal approach to this would be that until of the training has been completed, until the service chiefs are comfortable with the risks to unit cohesion and combat effectiveness and it had been addressed to their satisfaction and to my satisfaction, i would not sign the certification. my view is that before the certification is signed that everything has to be done to get ready. it is not something that i would start and certify while it was still in the process, as it were. >> aloi could be four months for four years? you want to make sure they are the point where you feel comfortable the issues will be addressed? >> that is why i have been very careful not to talk about how long i think this will take to implement. i think people will be watching to make sure we are are slow-

growing the process, but by the same token i have said since february that the process needs to be thorough and very careful. it needs to be completed before the certification is signed, in my view. >> is it your testimony that you will not certify until you feel the process can move forward without any damage to the safety and security of our men and women that are serving? and that are badly affected this will not be jeopardized? >> absentee the. >> thank you. no further questions. -- >> absolutely. but >> said richard nelson. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and thank you, gentleman, for being here. to me, the issue is not whether now or not to allow gays in the military but whether or not to allow them to serve openly.

permitting them to serve, but not openly, undermines the basic values of the military -- honesty, integrity, and trust. when that is undermining anywhere, is undermined everywhere. it also seems like our military is expected to say, "i do not want to lie, but even not let me tell the truth." how do we square of this circle if there are those who legitimately are concerned that this will adversely affect readiness and national security? yet, we have a report that seems to be somewhat overwhelming in certain areas saying that it is time to change the law. can you help me to understand how we move to something work is

now possible to tell the truth? i say that because i hear everyone sang to one degree or another that you have served with people who are gay, but if he knew that they were gay and he did not turn them in, were you lying or was honesty and global commodity? admiral? >> banister nelson, from my perspective, you have hit the core issue. certainly, historically, we have not been able to. your comments about if it exists anywhere that it exists everywhere and that has been the case with respect to gain lesbian service for my whole career including under this law. i think fundamentally undermined here we are because we are in

institution that is set a significantly founded and based on integrity. i cannot squared away. >> secretary gates, i think you have already said, and i have seen your public comments, about the core values of the military where honesty, integrity, and honor need to prevail. does the current system not undermine those values? >> yes, sir, it does. >> those are the only questions i have. i yield back my time. >> thank you, senator nelson. who is next? then senator collins. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i apologize for my brief absence. i'm trying to do a homeland security meeting at the same

time. this is such a critical issue. i want to begin my remarks by thanking general ham and mr. johnson for doing an excellent job on this report. i want to thank you, secretary gates, for a thoughtful statement and you, admiral, for your very heartfelt and strong statement this morning. i want to go through some of the objections that we have been hearing from those who argue that we should leave the current law and the place. critics of this report states that our troops were not asked whether they believe that don't ask, don't tell should be repealed. i would point out that our troops are not asked whether they should be deployed to

afghanistan and they are not asked whether we should have a war in iraq. there are generally not asked about policy decisions. however, the fact is that given the extensive feedback that the authors of the report and the task force did and that they received it from tens of thousands of service members in the forms of the survey responses come emails, a town hall meetings, therefore does, in fact, convey a sense of what service members think about repealing the law even if the direct question was not included in the survey. i was struck by one observation by a special ops operator here said at a town hall meeting, "we have a gay guy in the unit.

he is big, he is mean, and he tells -- he kills lots of bad guys and no one cared that he was gay." mr. johnson, general, is it fair to conclude that your report does incorporate and fairly represent the views of our forces? >> senator collins, i believe it does. we were not supposed to ask the referendum question. however, we did put out a 103 question survey to 400,000 service members. we got back 115,000. it was quite comprehensive in asking a number of different places for service members to predict the consequences of appeal in a variety of contexts. i would add to that that in the

72,000 emails and in the 24,000 face-to-face interaction is that we had that invariably in the discussion and the impact that we got was whether to repeal the current law or not. that was always the topic of discussion. a lot of that is reflected in the report in the "what we heard" section. we believe that through this comprehensive exercise that we did hear the force on the question of whether we can do this. our conclusion is how you see it. >> presumably, if there had been widespread and large percentages of service members expressing negative views, you would have reported that in the report. correct? >> as we stated in the report, if the answer we got back from

the exercise was, "no, we cannot do that," i would have a fiduciary responsibility to report that. i know general and feels also the same way. >> the second objection we hear over and over is that we cannot implement this kind of change in the midst of a war. i thought you made an excellent point that the opposite may be true. wartime does facilitate change in some ways. in fact, was president truman's 1948 order to integrate our forces actually fully implemented during the korean war? >> it was. it was implemented throughout it, but not fully until 1953.

>> on page 83 of the report, it says that when the personnel shortages of the korean war necessitated integrated units, army of the officers placed white and black soldiers side- by-side. >> right. senator collins, if i could, i find in my study of this somewhat ironic that in the year that this was passed, and if you read the law in detail, there is a great deal of discussion about combat, combat effectiveness, at a time when we were not at war. we'll understand what it takes in combat and what combat effectiveness is better than we did back then just by virtue of that experience. we have changed dramatically as the military since 2001 which, i would argue, but this in a good

position to facilitate additional change. there could not be a better time to do this. we're better lead, in my experience, at every level then we have ever have been. leaders can do this. we are able to take advantage of our ability to change and sustain the combat readiness. i believe making a change like this makes us better. it does not make us worse. >> thank you. >> thank you, senator collins. senator web. >> secretary gates, i would like to begin by clarifying and exchange you had about the importance of this study in terms of moving forward into law. i recall in exchange uni had a february 2nd this year when u.s. and the admiral came in to testify. i made it very clear at that

time that this survey was going to be vital in terms of evaluating whether we should move forward on this fall. i have held firm on that position. this was not a full committee vote that was strictly along party lines when we have the vote whether to move forward before the survey came in. i voted against moving forward on this legislation before regret the results because i believe very strongly that it is important to listen to the people who are serving, to consider their views, and, as i mentioned, when the general came forward in his confirmation hearing not long ago, this is really, in my view, an incredible piece of work. i was privileged to be able to sit down with general hannon and

mr. johnson to give my views about how important it is to listen to the rank structure, the occupational structure, and i believe you have really done that job a year. this is a 343-page report. 160,000 respondents and most importantly, this was done without criticizing the men and women in uniform. i would like to save that this report is probably the most crucial piece of information that we have in terms of really objectively moving forward to address the law. general, i'd like to ask a question. do we have any idea what percentage of the u.s. military

today is gay or lesbian? >> senator, we do. it is an precise because we cannot ask that question under the current law. in the rand that date of their 1993 study, they did work in this regard. they admitted investment, but the estimate is that the military population on the whole is about the same with the general population, somewhere in the 2%-3% range. it is rand's assessment that gay men are probably of a percentage in the military and lesbians are probably a higher percentage than in the higher population. >> thank you. secretary gates, i like to follow up on the question that was asked earlier about the decision you made in 1992 at the cia in order to eliminate this

issue with recurve and advancement in the cia. there are elements in the cia to perform functions who are pre similar to military functions. are there not? >> yes, sir. some. cracks have you heard of any unforeseen circumstances based on your decision in view -- in the units. >> not one. >> admiral, a question that occurs to me when we look at the disparity in the percentages with respect to ground combat units, army and marine corps, i take your point in the study about the percentage of people who have served alongside game members and having a higher percentage of a comfortable, but

do you have a different leadership for perch? what would be the approach you're contemplating in terms of those types of units? >> i think, again, the report itself did a terrific job in finding those areas we would need to focus on. it goes back to what the secretary of defense said and i agree completely. until we have mitigated that to an acceptable level and we have done the training and in my remarks that the marine who said that if the changes we will do better than anyone else, so this has to be well lead. we'll understand where the leadership needs to be applied. i would not certify until we have mitigated to the point where we were satisfied that we could move ahead. we would focus on those all male

combat units who did not have exposure and certainly do this from a trading standpoint that was intense enough to achieve the outcome that we wanted here. >> thank you. again, i would like to conclude by expressing my respect and appreciation for the work that general ham in mr. johnson have done on this survey. it is a landmark piece of work. >> we're going to take a five minute recess. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010]

klaxon and now, opening statements from the second day of hearings. you will hear from military leaders. this portion is about two hours, 10 minutes. >> good morning, everybody. the committee meets this morning to continue receiving testimony on the department of defense's report on the implementation of a repeal of don't ask, don't tell. but yesterday, we heard from secretary gates, chairman of the joint chiefs admiral mullen, and the co-chair of the working group on this issue. today, we will hear from the vice chairman of the joint chiefs, and general car right -- cartwright, and from senior

military officers. general george casey, chief of naval operations, commandant of the marine corps general james amos, the chief of staff for the airforce, and the commandant of the coast guard. robert papp. the chief's are tasked to organize, train, and equal our military forces. that's an important and challenging ask. and we are all grateful to the service of each of you to this nation. if we repeal "don't ask, don't tell" as i believe we should, the legislation stipulates that repeal will not take affect unless and until there's a certification by the president, secretary of defense, and the chairman of the joint chiefs that they have adopted the

necessary implementation steps to assure that we maintain our standards of military readiness and effectiveness, unit cohesion, and recruiting and retention. several of you have testified before this committee that you had concerns about repeal of "don't ask, don't tell." you also testified that you supported secretary gate's intention to conduct the working group review. and indicated that it's findings might influence your views. we heard yesterday that your views help shape the working groups report and recommendations. and we heard secretary gates testify yesterday to the following. quote, i would not sign any certification until i was satisfied with the advice of the

service chiefs that we had in fact mitigated, if not eliminated to the extent possible, risks to combat readiness, the unit cohesion and effectiveness. closed quote. committee wants to hear from each of you whether you are satisfied by this assurance from the secretary of defense, and we want to know whether you are adequately consulted by the working group. the report before us confirms that are large majority of troops believe that repeal is consistent with maintaining unit effectiveness as do the secretary of defense and the chairman of the joint chiefs. the working group found higher levels of concern about repeal in some segments of the military. such as the marine corps, combat arms branches of the army, and

special operations forces. the working group found that training, education, and leadership, will be vital in mitigating those concerns. and of grate importance, the report demonstrates that actual experience serving alongside gay and lesbian colleagues has a powerful and positive effect on service members attitudes. to the co-chairs of the working group, jay johnson, and general carter ham wrote in their report, quote, while a higher percentage of service remembers in war fighting units predict negative effects of repeal, the percentage distinctions between

war fighting units and the entire military is almost nonexistent. when asked about the actual experience of serving in a unit with someone believed to be gay. closed quote. that is to say that predictions of negative effects are higher among troops in war fighting units. but the actual experience of troops in combat units who have fight alongside gays is that their units were largely unaffected according to the working group report. this evidence is confirmed 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

shift before it was made than exists today in our military. but the working group reports that their transition was smoother than expected, and that 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, deliberative plan to implement repeal while mitigating risks. while that plan focuses on the importance of leadership, education, and training. i agree with admiral mullen who told us yesterday it is leadership that matters most. senator mccain?

>> thank you, mr. chairman. let me thank our distinguished witnesses for their service to our nation. as admiral mullen noted yesterday, we have a group of officers that represent more than 100 years of experience in our armed forces. i welcome them. and i'm pleased that admiral papp and general cartwright are joining us as well. as i said yesterday, we are considering in these hearings a complex and often emotional subject. the proposed repeal of the current law, current commonly referred to as "don't ask, don't tell." which have held differences of opinion among many americans. it's no different among the u.s. military as the pentagon's report demonstrates. however, i think we can all agree that our military today is the most effective, most professional, and arguably the most experienced force our nation has ever had. we can all agree that we

appreciate and honor the service of every american who wears the uniform of our country as well as their families, especially during the time of war, regardless of whether they are straight or bay. and finally, i think we can all agree, and i certainly would, capable force could implement "don't ask, don't tell" just like they do everything else that we ask of them. what it is the congress of duty to determine is not can our armed forces represent a repeal of this law but whether the law should be repealed. unfortunately, that key issue was not the focus of this study. and let me say again just to be clear, i'm not saying we should hold a referendum among our military on this issue and leave the decision in their hands. that's not how our system works,

nor should it. what i am saying, and i repeal, that leadership means knowing what your subordinates think, including on whether they think the current law in this case should be repealed or not. but that is the fundamental question that must be answered by congress, not by the president or the courts but by congress. it's a question that must be answered carefully, deliberately, and with proper consideration with the complexity and the gravity of the consequences for the military and the wars in which we are engaged. i appreciated hearing from secretary gates, admiral mullen, general johnson, and mr. ham yesterday. all of the public servants occupy leading positions within the establishment. their views all deserve careful consideration.

the service chiefs are responsible for the training, organization, and administration of the men and women of their servicive -- respective services. it's their responsibility to recruit, and retain men and women for the services. it's their responsibility to recruit and retain the best personnel possible and to implement policies consistent with the law that produce fully trained, motivated, and disciplined troops for employment in military operations. and at present, that means sustained high tempo combat. in short, it's the job of the service chief to ensure that our military is ready and able to win the nation's wars. as such, their views are especially relevant to the current debate. i have always said, always said, that i would listen to and fully consider the advise of our military regarding the potential repeal of "don't ask, don't

tell." i did that yesterday. i will do that today. i will continue to do that. anyone who alleges otherwise is disregarding the regard. as we move forward with our discussion on this matter, i hope that everyone will put aside political motives and agendas. i hope everyone on both sides will refrain from questioning people's integrity. i hope that everyone recognizes that debate is focused not more on broader social issues, at society at large, but in our military and it's effectiveness. on this matter, i look forward to hearing the view of our witnesses. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you very much. we are going to start with the vice chairman of our joint chiefs, general cartwright. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> general can i interrupt you for a moment. i believe we have a quorum that's present.

that means we can quote on the conformation. quorum now being present. i would ask the committee to consideration the nomination of general claude kaylor. it's been before the committee for a required length. is there a motion to move. >> so moved. >> i second. >> most carried. thank you. general. >> thank you, mr. chairman, senator mccain, and distinguished members of the committee, good morning. i appreciate the opportunity to comment on the final report of the comprehensive review working group regards the potential impact of repealing 10 usc 654 and associated department of defense policy commonly referred to as "don't ask, don't tell."

the secretary and chairman emphasized early in this process that our men and women in uniform deserve to have their voices heard. i want to begin by remarks by commending the working group to reach out and ensure the opportunity to participate was broad and far reaching. as expected, the they that gathered reflects a wide range of views on the servicemen and women in the u.s. military who are known to be gay or lesbian. if the law is repealed, implementation will require the deliberate and disciplined attention of leaders at all levels. it's my view, implementation of a new department policy would involve manageable risking with regard to military effectiveness. even during the high tempo of war time operations. some ask, why not wait for some

more timely opportunity. there's never a perfect time. change challenges organizations. however, contrary to expectations, this maybe a better time than one might expect. periods of reduced activity can create conditions wherein the challenges associated of making of change any kind seems enormous. but contrast, in times of conflict, the focus is on the war effort. u.s. service members are devoted to deserving our nation and their comrades. when they are engaged -- when they are engaged in combat operations, they rely on the warrior ethos of the men and women, not presumed or known at to do -- attitudes or lifestyles. from my experience and reinforced by the findings, i believe the men and women are

the most well trained in military history. they look at terms of accomplishment, and look beyond issues of race, religion, gender, and sexual orientation. in my opinion, the findings of the report confirm this view. the opinions are important. i respect their opinions. it's accurate that predictions by service members and combat arms unit were higher than the predictions of men and women in supporting organizations. any good survey though, asks key questions in multiple ways. what stands out to me when we viewing the report is where a sign to combat arms or units, service member who's have actually serve with people known or suspected of being homosexual are almost universally experienced -- they have experienced little or no disruption. it is right to be concerned about how the organization as a whole might be impacted by the repeal. but when based on actual

experience our service members seem confident in their ability to service professionally and effectively alongside gay and lesbian service members. i'm inclined to trust the real world experiences of our men and women on the battlefield. recently, we faced the very real potential. the law would be repealed in the courts. my greatest concern, should the law change through the judicial process, is the department may lose it's ability to transition in a way that permits the managed. repealing the law by the act of congress, on the other hand, offered the greater likelihood that the department will management legislation. they can provide the structure and predictability that the civilian and military leaders require to effectiveness and efficiently implement a change in policy. we pride ourselves as a nation that does not merely tolerate diversity, varying organization and attitudes, we embrace and

are strengthened by the many differences among us. the strength of our nation is the willingness to acknowledge the views, exchange in the debate and at the end of the dialogue, unite under the rule of law and pursue the interest. the character in appeal lies in it's equality, opportunity, and the inclusionive character of our organizational ethos. being more inclusive improves the institution as a whole. strong and committed leadership has plotted the course of the u.s. military throughout history. it is a certainty that change brings challenge, and challenge demands leadership. the quality of leadership that is a hallmark of our military institution will be the determining factor on the question at issue today. my faith in our leadership from top to bottom and the fair minded temperament of the american people, representational benefit derived from being a force defined by honesty and inclusiveness,

rather than by concealment causes me to favor repeal of title 10 u.s. code 654 and the associated policy known as "don't ask, don't tell." >> thank you, general cartwright. general casey. >> thank you, mr. chairman, senator mccain, members of the committee, good morning. >> good morning. >> i've reviewed the final version of the associated working group's report. i want to be able to provide my informed military advise to the committee. i'll begin by relating how i see the military risks -- the risk from a military perspective. then i'll give you my views on the impact on the force if "don't ask, don't tell" is repealed. first, i think it's important that we are clear about the military risk. implementation of the repeal of don't ask don't tell would be a major cultural and policy change

in the middle of a war. it would be yeted by a force and leaders that are already stretched by the accumulative effects of almost a decade at war. it would be implemented by a force in which a substantial number of soldiers perceive that repeal will have a negative effect on effectiveness and the morale and that implementation will be difficult. further, the report clearly states that over 40% of the combat arms soldiers believed that the presence of a gay service member in their unit have a negative impact on the unit effectiveness on the trust that the soldiers feel for each other, and on their morale. as such, i believe that the implementation of the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell" in the near term will one, add another

level of stress, two, be more difficult in our combat arms unit; three, be more difficult for the army than the report suggests. that said, if repeal is directed, the implementation principals in the report constitute a solid basis upon which to develop plans that will mitigate the risk that i just described. properly implemented, i do not envision that the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell" would keep us from accomplishing our worldwide missions, including combat operations. we have a disciplined force, and seasoned leaders who with appropriate guidance and direction can over see the implementation of repeal with moderate risk to the military effectiveness, and moderate risk to our ability to recruit and retain over the long haul. i do believe that we will have to closely monitor the impact on

our mid level officers and noncommission officers as they wrestle will implementing repeal simultaneously with the other challenges that they will facing after nine years at war. it's my judgment we could implement repeal with moderate risk to the military effectiveness and long term health to the force. tell me close by saying if "don't ask, don't tell" is repealed, the army will work to implement repeal in the same fashion that is characterized our service to this country for 235 years. thank you, mr. chairman. >> general, thank you. admiral. >> thank you, mr. chairman, chairman levin, senator mccain, and distinguished members of the committee. thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to address the report of the comprehensive review working group in my perspective of the issues associated with the potential repeal of 10 u.s. code

654. i applaud the professionalism and seriousness of the men and women of the united states navy as they participated in an unprecedented survey of our armed forces. i'm satisfied with the methodology and execution of the service member and spouse surveys and the extent to which they engaged sailors and their family. i believe the appropriate issues have been researched, examined, and necessary courses of action have been considered. the responses help me to assess the potential impacts to effectiveness, readiness, unit cohesion, and morale on our navy. 76% of sailors believe that the impact on these force characteristics to be neutral or positive. there will be issues to be addressed. especially in a period immediately following repeal. there's a sizable minority of the navy, 24%, who believe the impact of the repeal will be negative. areas of greatest concern expressed in the survey include

social cohesion, privacy in sleeping and showering facilities aboard ships and submarines, and increased stress on the force in periods of high tempo operations. i believe the concerns can be mitigated through engaged leadership, effective communications, training and education, and clear and con size standards of conduct. what we will engage all sailors regardless of their points of view, it's this minority upon which leaders must focus. we all understand and appreciate the critical roll of families in support of our sailors. the assessment of the spouses is important because of the support to sailors and role in the decision that navy families make. of more than 7500 navy spouses that responded to the survey, 81% told us they did not expect family readiness to be impacted as a result of the appeal. 10 u.s. code 654 is ongoing, and

i cannot predict the outcome. i do believe any change in the law is best in the legislative process and not judicially. legislative repeal affords the time to implement the significant change within our armed forces. should the law will repealed, the u.s. navy will continue to be the professional, global, and effective relevant force for the nation. repeal of the law 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 and increasing global commitments. with the exception of the moderate risk associated with projected retention, i assess the risk to readiness, effectiveness, and cohesion of the navy to be low. based on my professional judgment and informed by the inputs from our navy, i recommend repeal of ten u.s.

code 654. i have the ultimate confidence in the men and women of the united states navy and in their character, discipline, and in their decency. navy leaders will continue to set a positive tone, create a conducive work environment, and enforce our high standards of conduct throughout the navy as we serve the nation. our sailors will continue to live by the core values of honor, courage, and commitment which are fundamental to our character and conduct. >> thank you. general amos. >> thank you members of the committee thank you for the opportunity to appeal before you and discuss the working group's rereport of the issues associated with repeal of section 654 title 10 u.s. code, policy concerning homosexuality

in the armed forces. i would like to begin by stating for the record that the study conducted by the comprehensive working group is a valuable examination of the issues associated with appealing the policy and serves to usefully frame the perspectives of the service members and their families. i am grateful for the efforts of honor jeh johnson and carter ham. as team leaders, they let their groups effectively. they provide useful information about attitudes and the implementation of repeal across the marine corps. i would like to share what it says about our marine's opinions. viewed holistically across the corps, approximately 45% of marine surveyed viewed repeal

negatively regarding unit effectiveness, unit readiness, and cohesion. five to 13% viewed repeal positively in those same categories. a particular concern to me is that roughly 56% of combat arms marined voiced negative concerns. negative benchmarks for combat arms and marines range between 66% per unit effectiveness and 58% for cohesion. these negative perceptions are held almost equally by aural ranks within the combat arms communitied. what the survey did not identify is the risk to the force should repeal be under taken while the corps is engaged in it's 9th year of combat operations. with half of the marine corps operating forces either engaged in fighting in afghanistan, returning from theater, or preparing to deploy to combat again, the readiness and associated focus are foremost in

shaping my implementation assessment. my experiences throughout nearly 40 years in uniform tell me that young men and women who volunteer to be marines do so with patriotic differences. even the personalities can be bridged. that said, if the law is changed implementing repeal and assimilating openly homosexual marines into the tightly woven fabrics has strong potential for disruption at the unit level as it will no doubt divert leadership, attention away from, and almost singular focus of preparing units for combat. i do not know how distracting the effort will be, or risk it pretends, i cannot turn my back on the negative perceptions by the marines that are most engaged by the hard workday to

day in afghanistan. we asked them for their opinion. they gave them to us. the potential exists for the disruption to the combat mission should repeal be implemented at this time. and the final analysis, i'm faced with two questions. the first is could we? could we implement repeal at this time? the answer is yes. despite the challenges i have briefly outlined above at the end of the day, we are marines. should congress change the law, then our nation marine core will faithfully follow the law. marine corps authorities, even it's existence in law flow from congress. we will follow the law. :

today your marines continue to faithfully served around the globe partnered with our sister services and allies protecting our freedoms and way of life. the focus of my complete energy is to ensure our marines are properly led, trained and equipped and that their families are cared for so that our marines can focus their energy on the vital task they are assigned. i can report to you the combat effectiveness, readiness and health and welfare are as high as it has been