of service. your men are accomplishing their missions with professionalism and high morale, confident in their families, a fellow citizens and elected leaders. finally, on behalf of all marines, their families and civilian marines i want to thank you for your continued and faithful support. i know the real issue has been difficult for all concerned. i am grateful for the opportunity to represent the marine corps on this important matter and i look forward to your questions. >> thank you, general amos. general schwartz. >> senator mccain, members of the committee, if you for allowing the chiefs to offer testimony and best military advice from the proposed repeal of ten united states code 654. the dot study confirms that air force attitudes run roughly 70- 30 to those who see positive, next or no effect with respect to allowing open service by gay

and lesbian eminem air force. the fever ability distribution runs slightly higher for the spouse survey at about 75, 25 and lower for close combat air force skill sets about 60-40. the study recognizes there are a number of complicated factors, cohabitation, privacy and universal benefits among others. each of these complicating factors will require focused attention, and in time will be accommodated satisfactorily. thus, it is my assessment of the united states air force can accommodate to repeal "dont' ask, don't tell" with modest risk to military readiness and effectiveness in cohesion retention and recruiting of your air men. the air force will pursue

implementation of repeal if the law changes thoroughly, professionally, and with conviction. nonetheless, i do not agree with the study that the short-term risk to military effectiveness is low. it is inescapable that our officer in the in co leaders in afghanistan particular are carrying a heavy load. while the demand of close combat affect fewer air men and contrast personnel of the other services that were remained concerned with the study assessment that the risk of repeal of military effectiveness in afghanistan is low. that assessment and my view is too optimistic. i acknowledge the findings of the study that under the pressures of combat and attitudes of close combat skilled personnel regarding "dont' ask, don't tell" seems to

moderate. after all, survival is a powerful instinct. still, it is difficult for me as a member of the joint chiefs to recommend placing any additional discretionary demand on our leadership cadres in afghanistan at this particularly demanding time. i therefore recommend deferring full implementation and certification until 2012. while initiating training and education efforts soon after you take a decision to repeal. finally, i would like to emphasize and at my strong endorsement to secretary gates advice that legislative action on this issue is far preferable to the decision by the courts from which we would enjoy much less latitude to properly calibrate implementation.

precipitous repeal is not. it is not a place where your armed forces wants to be. mr. schramm, along with my colleagues, i look forward to your question. >> thank you very much, admiral schwartz. of papp to the islamic khator in german, senator mccain and distinguished members of the committee. thank you for inviting me and the coast guard to participate in today's hearing. i am grateful for the opportunity to provide you with my view regarding the report's findings and the potential impact of repealing "dont' ask, don't tell" and the recommendations for implementation. let me start by saying i'm very proud of our coastguard men and women. they are individuals of external character and ability to engage in the communities in which they live and served. i'm particularly proud of the strong response by the coast guard's and family members reply to this service put out by the report to read our active duty response rate was 54%.

our preservers funds rate was 39% and our spells response rate was 39% which demonstrates their understanding of the importance of this issue. i concur with the report's recommendations on how to implement the repeal of the law allowing gay and lesbian americans to serve on the coast guard openly will remove a significant barrier to those coastguardsman who are already serving capably and have been forced to hike or even fly about their sexual orientation. forcing these coastguardsman to compromise our values of honor, respect and devotion to duty and continue to serve as a choice they should not have to make. i'm very respectful of the unique challenges facing each service and i do not for the second suggest my circumstances and judgment would inform our very different responsibilities. my professional opinion is my own and comes from the two worlds in which i sit. the coast guard is tall times a

military service covered by the law of this committee had chances to ensure the effectiveness of our armed forces. though small in numbers, we are integrated with our sister services and around the world. but we are also tightly woven into the law enforcement and first responder communities and our nation. we work with federal, state and local forces where gay and lesbian americans serve with distinction and terrorism. while i concur with the report's recommendations, prudence dictates that implementation must be with caution. i infer from the data relating to the coast guard that many coastguardsman and their family members find gay and lesbian citizens and our service acceptable, however, minority views cannot be ignored. moreover, there is no total force view. use within our service communities vary to some degree. we must therefore fashion and implementation strategy that takes into account the attitude

that vary among our command based on where our people live and where they served together. thus i ask the committee to avoid injuring from the report the implementation of this rather significant decision will be easy. i describe myself as a pragmatist, which i define as an optimist with experience. my experience leads me to conclude we must inform you, our civilian leaders, that implementation will not be achieved without encountering challenges along the course ahead, some of which, despite our best efforts we can offer see and which will likely take considerable time and resources to overcome. with that, i am absolutely confident that the coast guard leadership is prepared to implement any change that you direct. moreover, i do not harbor this latest of coast guard men and women will be of to the task and will sustain their high levels of professionalism and effectiveness should the law change. they prove every day they are among america's best and i have

unshakeable confidence in their ability to weather changes this magnitude. again, think you for the upper to indy 500 to testify today and i look forward to your questions. >> five minutes is fine with me. whenever you want. [inaudible conversations] i.t. -- we are going to start on around one with a seven minute round. and if we need a second round, we will have a second round. let me start with you, general cartwright. yesterday as secretary gates and admiral mullen clearly and forcefully articulated that with proper leadership, education and training, the repeal of "dont' ask, don't tell" can be done

without an acceptable risk to standards of military readiness and effectiveness. and your testimony indicates your agreement with that. my first question to you is this, you are a marine. general amos is a marine, sitting right next to you, and i know you admire and respect each other briefly, not just because you're marines, but as human beings for all the great professionalism and experience that you've had. but your view is very different. apparently, general cartwright from that of general amos, his testimony is that the, particularly the negative perceptions that are held by marines create -- could create a problem for the day-to-day operations in afghanistan. can you comment on general amos's testimony? >> well, first out, we sat next

to each other as second lieutenants overseas in our first overseas deployment and we served together ever since, and we do, at least from my perspective, share a great deal of respect for each other. mauney view on this issue was shaped by the contrast and the questions and the way they were asked in the study, and then by my own opportunities to go to the field and talk not only to the marines but other services, and i tend to reflect probably because of my time joined a broader perspective than just one service but i certainly still wear this uniform and do so proudly and will always consider myself a marine. as i said in my statement, senator, i think the difference here is the look at what the perception of the future might be, the ambiguities that introduced when someone tries to guess what the future might be. as the study indicated, the

likelihood that stereotypes' and mr. shipp since hall actions might occur in the future have some influence on how someone might mark in the perspective. on tended to favor strongly the views of those, the question that was put to them in the study was a few suspected or knew that someone in your unit was gay or a lesbian, did it affect their combat effectiveness, the unit's combat effectiveness, and the study numbers swing drastically when you ask them for their actual reflections, and they generally came in and around the 92% level of it had no effect on the unit. it had no effect on their ability to conduct combat and in fact there were anecdotal comments in the study that were called out. one of them that is very memorable to me is from a navy seal, who reflected that a member in his unit he suspected

to be gay was the biggest and the meanest and killed the most people and he wanted him in the unit and that -- the individual carried a large portion of the unit's effectiveness. i weighed heavily, senator. i weighed the opportunity to understand the difference between the actual and the perspective, looking forward into the future. my conversations, when i went out to visit marines over the past year, most recently over the thanksgiving period and helmand province, talking to the marines. and i found that the studies insights were held up, those that had not have any experience or didn't believe the had any experience tended to believe that the future was more ambiguous. the rand study also pointed in the same direction that if you don't know, you tend to be more conservative in your opinion. if you have an opportunity to

understand and served with someone who is gay and lesbian, then the facts tend to weigh heavy on your mind and the study the showed again, 92% of the respondents believe that it would not have an affect. that is what we've my opinion, senator. >> i would like to ask each of you a question about the other military use transitions to policies equal treatment without regard to sexual orientation had been successful in the military of our allies, even though the opposition to change in their military was higher at the time that the change was made in those military than it is now for our military. that i think shows to an significant extent the change in attitude is over the last ten years or so.

but putting that aside for a moment, these military's report that when it came after implementation that the attitudes were not only different, but most importantly that the change in those militaries' had no negative impact on morale, recruitment, retention, readiness or overall combat effectiveness. so i'm wondering whether or not -- let me start may be at the other end of the line here, general casey, let me start with you. have you discussed the impact of repealing "don't ask, don't tell" with your counterparts in these other militaries? >> i have, senator. in fact, i think it was a few months ago at a hearing center wicker asked me to do that, so in october i sat down with my counterparts from the united kingdom, germany, france, netherlands, canada and denmark and purposely to talk about this

particular issue. they told me that the execution was with minimal disruption, pretty much as you had discussed. they suggested to me that when we do execute we keep things as simple last possible and keep the fraternization policy absolutely consistent. the date, however, point out to me the two key differences. and they said, you know, in our cases, in almost every case, there was broad national consensus before the law was repealed. and in some cases, the country's actually had laws that supported civil unions comes of the was a giffords i took back and we should take a different consideration. >> at mulken have you talked to your counsel? >> i have and i have long maintained that our military is different than the other militaries of the world, but the way that i would characterize the response from those chiefs of needy that have a policy that

allows gays and lesbians to serve, the term that i would bring to mind is mauney -- non-event. i think it's also interesting to note that most of those changes have occurred well over ten years ago and in that time with most of these navys we have exchange programs where our officers serve on their ships and vice versa, and so we are exposed in a routine way if you will to the navy's that have a different policy. >> general, i'm not sure who your counterpart is, but -- >> i do have counterparts in each of the country's, and i have talked to a good number of them. i tend to find the same

consensus that that model roughead just reflected. i will also highlight that particularly with several of our nato allies the issue of serving side by side integrated with their forces on the battlefield has not been a problem for our forces or for their forces. >> general amos? >> mr. chairman, we have so few marine corps and around the globe i did not ask their opinion. i have no reason to doubt the efficacy of the report as it talks to the ease of transmission from the other services around the world. so i find no fault in that and i suspect it's factually correct. but we are the united states marine corps and we are heavily involved in combat right now. it would be difficult for me to reach back and look at the periods of time when these other services, these other nations made their transitions. i can only speak for where we are today with over 50% of my

combat forces heavily engaged. >> thank you. >> mr. chairman i have chatted with my counterparts and they have indicated relative ease into the transition, but i must state for you that i am not sure that that evidence is necessarily compelling. i find actually the fact that police departments and fire departments, municipal public servants, that that case with in the united states is a more compelling and a lot to the transition. >> thank you. adderall papp? >> search, it might not be expected, we actually exchange quite a bit with foreign countries, primarily with canada but we also put law attachment on the british ships, dutch ships. we work with the australians and others in the arabian gulf and counter piracy and other operations, as we have pretty good exposure to other navies and coast guards around the world, and in my discussions

with some of their leaders it would reflect the same as admiral roughead, pretty much a non-event. i would also have i come from a department where we have other operating agencies as well, all of which employ gay and lesbian members the secret service, customs and border protection, etc., and i work on a daily basis with services that have openly gay or lesbian members, and we actually see no effect. >> one of the conclusions of the working group report is that leadership is key to successful implementation, the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell." a couple of you have commented on that issue, but i want to ask all of you about that. so let me ask you again, starting with you, general casey. would you agree if "don't ask, don't tell" is repealed, that successful implementation

depends upon leadership? >> i would, senator. leadership is the key to everything. the leaders have to embrace of the law or the policy that comes out and move forward to effectively implement it. i will tell you so that as i mentioned in my opening statements, one of the concerns i have is that our captains or company commanders and first surgeons and mid level leaders and officers and noncommissioned officers have a lot on their plate right now and this will be another element that will be put on their plate. operations in iraq and afghanistan are hugely complex already. if we do this, it will get done and it will get done well, but other things are not going to be done, and i worry about the implications of that in iraq and afghanistan. >> what will not get done? >> i am talking about the broad numbers of tasks a company commander has to do in general

and in combat in particular. and when he is focusing his efforts on implementing the new policy he won't be able to deflect the intellectual effort to some others things and i can't tell you specifically what it will be. i'm talking about the fatality of the tasks. >> at morrill roughead? >> leadership, absolutely critical, senator, but it's critical to everything that we do. it's about setting the standards, and during to the standards and training your people to accomplish the mission and i have faith in officers and enlisted throughout the navy. >> does anyone else want to add a comment on this, because i want to go on to just one other question. let me ask about the need for congress to act. a number of you have commented upon the importance of the congress taking this action the alternative and in some cases and in the even if the alternative is going to be the possibility of a court decision.

for those of you that have not commented on that, because i fink two of you have, could you come if you not commented on that, ase statement about the relative importance of doing this legislatively with an implementation certification requirement that there will be no negative impact on recruitment retention more now that the certification will to time and there's a 60 day delay after that is of great value in this process and that that is not assured at all if there is a plan to be a court opinion. for those of you who haven't commented, and i forgot frankly who has and hasn't, please, give us the importance of that. you will remember -- >> senator, i believe that in the course of action that gives us appropriate time to prepare

is the right course of action and its the preparation time and with it comes from congress or the courts, i think it is immaterial but no matter what happens, we have to have the time to appropriately prepared. >> is that time which is part of a certification process that the chairman of the joint chiefs -- excuse me -- and the secretary defense must go through plus the deily after that. is that certification process with the time required before certification and the fact that the chairman must certify no impact, does that give you some reinsurance as well? >> it does. it gives us the time we need. >> and i.t. to colin general amos or general schwartz in terms of the certification process, the implementation process, the time that's involved in that as well as the fact that there must be a certification by the chairman of the tried chiefs of no impact or

minimal impact moral or recruitment, is that important to you in your judgment, general amos, let me start with you. >> i think it absolutely goes a long way towards me be easing some of the pressure. i felt a lot about the question if not now, then, which is the second part of what i think you're asking, german, and from my perspective and look at it is my concern is singularly those combat units that are in combat preparing to go or just coming back resetting their clocks getting ready to go then if that is the case, and it is for me, as i represent, and that is what the service came back and told me, then it would stand that what i would want to have with regard to implementation would be a period of time where our marines are no longer focused primarily on combat. i think the iraq drawdown model for the marine corps would be

instructive. the last year and a half, the year fall of the marines and iraqi things have settled down for us. there were fewer and fewer operations and we began to dramatically drawdown the size of the force. so my recommendation would be not necessarily -- i can't tie a timeline to the certification process, but my recommendation, chairman, would be that it begins when our singular focus is no longer on combat operations or preparing units for combat. at that point then i would be comfortable with implementing the retial. >> thank you. that's very helpful and i apologize to my colleagues. i didn't know these slips had been placed in front of me and i obviously went over my time and apologize for that. senator mccain. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and i thank the witnesses for their testimony and their courage. i think it's pretty obvious from the comments made by certainly

the chiefs of staff, the service chiefs of the army navy, air force and marine corps today that there is significantly divided opinion on this issue and there is a lot more scrutiny and work to be involved before passing this legislation. it's why we see such a diversity of views here among the service chiefs. and i also think it would be helpful, and i would imagine that our witnesses, or at least most of them would disagree we hear from the senior enlisted people, the sergeant major of the army and marine corps, senior enlisted personnel who will bear the brunt of their

responsibilities for the training and implementation of any change in the law. i think we need to hear from the theater commanders, the various commands throughout the world who also play a major role in ensuring the the security of our nation. i noted that on the "don't ask, don't tell" law originally passed in 1993 there was some 14 hearings held on this issue and much more extensive examination. so why don't have a lot of questions. general cartwright, i guess when you look at in the report, it's a little bit like studying the bible. you can to almost any conclusion from what part of it that you examine, but i don't understand your allegation on question number 66 treatises those who

serve in combat with the service member believed to be homosexual affect on units combat performance, mostly negative, army combat arms 58.8%, the marine, 57%. that's it seems to me a pretty straightforward indication of with those in combat arms fell about those who served with a service member to be believed homosexual. significant in both army and marine corps was negatived. general casey, this is a very tough issue for you. i know it is tough for all of our witnesses. and i especially appreciated if no way that you presented your testimony. you said i believe that implementation of the repeal and the near-term will, quote, add

enough of their level of stress to an already stressed force and that is one thing we can all agree on that the force is very badly stretched and be more difficult for the army and then to report suggest to the general case, what is your personal opinion about repeal at this time? >> senator, i believe that the law we should be repealed even chollet and as i read through the report, it seemed to me that the report called into question the basic presumption that underpins the law, and that is that the presence of a gay or lesbian service members creates a unacceptable risk for good order discipline. i don't believe that is true, and from the survey appears to be a large number of our service members don't believe that is true either. steven chu we believe it should be repealed. the question for me as i say is

one of timing. about whether we can do this in the near term. >> and at this time your opinion of whether it should be repealed at this time? >> i would not recommend going forward at this time given everything that the army has on its plate. >> thank you. general schwartz, and i don't usually like to do this but could i have your personal opinion about repealing at this time? >> as i indicated, i agree with general casey that we should repeal plan will at some point, and i suggested perhaps full implementation could occur in 2012, but i do not think it's prudent to seek full implementation in the near term. i think it is too risky. >> repeal at this time? >> no. senator, if you calibrate this, if you would allow us to begin a

process of training and education but do not mandate that it happened in the very near term, i believe not in 2011 but 2012 at the earliest, that would be an acceptable approach to me. >> thank you. i must say that volume largely in agreement with those opinions to rush this through in a lame-duck session would be of course - an action that would not have taken into full consideration, again, particularly the views of our senior enlisted personnel and ensure at least some of the witnesses at the table would agree that everything we learned about leadership, the young officers is from our senior enlisted personnel, and i think that they could contribute enormously to this discussion as

well as our senior officer corps. so i want to thank the witnesses and those of you that have given us a very frank and forthright opinion, and we appreciate your service to the country. >> thank you, senator mccain. senator lieberman. >> thank you to all of you for your testimony. you are obviously the leaders of the uniform of the three of the united states of america. i think this morning you've represented the best values of the u.s. military and have shown a slight the armed forces of the united states remain in my opinion the one central institution of our country that continues to burn the respect and trust of the american people, and i see that specifically here you'll know my position. i am for the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell." but you have come before us and

stated your opinions, some have a support of repeal, some of kirsanow, leader. in the end of each of you, regardless of your position have said you will not only follow the judgment of the congress, you will begin work -- make it work and that is a powerful statement. general amos, you have spoken with the most concern about repeal, but i found your words very moving and to set could we implement repeal at this time and the answer is yes despite the challenges of briefly outlined above the end of the day we are marines. should congress change the law in the nation's marine corps will faithfully supported the law? the first thing i wanted to do is think you come all of you, for the honesty of your testimony, and your ultimate respect for the law for civilian

leadership, for congress, and for the larger mission to which you are committed. i am repeating and that is why a tough time in our nation's history the u.s. armed forces remain the one institution that brings us to gather for common cause, which is of the security of our country and the freedom that is our blessing as americans, so i first wanted to thank you for that. i thought the question senator mccain asked was quite interesting about the positions you all have, and because as i heard the testimony, with apologies if i am misleading ad model roughead and admiral papp has said, three of the six of you, favored repeal at this time. general pc and general schwartz expressed concerns but in response to senator mccain's

questions said they would favor repeal of don't ask don't tell but not now. for the reasons that you stated and even general amos but i want to let you respond to this. you sit at the end of your testimony which is the second question you answered could we at this time of repeal, you said we should not implement repeal at this time. do you want to state an opinion as to whether you think at some time -- and i believe in saying this time you are talking about the combat the marines are involved in now whether he would favor repeal at a future time off "don't ask, don't tell." >> senator, you have captured it my concern right now as we talked before we walked in here on the forces that are tightly focused right now, and i spent yesterday, a portion of yesterday morning talking to a commander on the ground who many of you know, major general

richard mills, and then i talked to the battalion commander who is absolutely in our zone in the most dangerous fight and tightly focused. interesting i asked both of them i sit knowing i was going to appear before the committee today if they had any opinions on the task don't tell both of them said we are so busy right now with doing the business in afghanistan that i promise you there has not even been 1 ounce of discussion in afghanistan. you can interpret that a couple of ways, you can interpret it as they don't care. i chose to compare it to the survey results which said they are concerned but back to the issue at hand this is from my personal perspective, senator, this is a social issue across our country, it is transcended into becoming a political issue. and my suspicions are that bill law will be repealed, and all i

am asking is the opportunity to do that at a time of choosing when my marines are not singularly tightly focused on what they are doing in a very deadly environment. that battalion i was talking to you about has been on the ground three months of the seven month deployment. they lost 18 marines and had over 100 seriously wounded. so this is serious business for them. so - it will be repealed eventually. i just ask for the opportunity to be able to do it with my forces when they are not seen clearly focused on combat. >> i appreciate that answer, senator mccain and senator gramm and senator gereed and i visited that unit. they are doing a remarkable work initial in progress on the ground in afghanistan. so, my conclusion is that really in the and all six of you favor the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell." i don't mean to put words in your mouth with the questions that of the three of you have to

do with timing. yesterday secretary gates -- let me step back and sure you know what i want to state for the record that the provision in come national defense authorization act before us that repeals "don't ask, don't tell" does not implement repeal and so the president of the united states considered a defense and chairman of joint chiefs of staff certified through a series of affects or non-affects on military effectiveness, unit cohesion morrell, etc.. i was part of drafting that and we intentionally did not get a time limit in that. we didn't say they had to do it by 90 days after the law secretary gates said that he would not certify until he had engaged in full conversation with the chiefs of the services

and i just wanted to give you a quick chance going down the road indicating where you are reassured by that and whether that gives you some greater confidence we do repeal that we can review it in a way that does not interfere more than your worry of operation. general casey? >> i am very comfortable with my ability to provide military advice to secretary gates and have it heard. >> at morrill roughead? >> the same for mechem center. this is been an ongoing discussion at the department, access and freedom to talk about the issue in a way that we believe has been on a question, so i have no concerns about that at all. spec general kortright? >> i have no concerns and i look at this as an opportunity to tailor the mitigation and to

tailor the timing so that we can in fact accommodate the fact that our forces rotate, so to me that is where the opportunity for timing comes to we estimate that is an important point because secretary gates was asked yesterday tv crew yesterday whether he thought it was in the purview of the path to fees and the repeal in different ways for different services or different units, and i wonder whether you would respond to that. for instance, it is possible that psychiatry gates and the chairman might decide not to immediately implement this for the marines or army and combat, but to do it over a period of time. how would you respond to that, general amos? >> i think that would -- it sounds very selfish. that would probably be acceptable for us. back to your first question

we've agreed opportunity to the secretary and the opinion to be a disconnect general schwartz? >> i would repeat that, but i would suggest that having some differences between implementation time lines with in different communities of the armed forces is not a way to proceed. >> a year you're point. admiral papp? >> i know the committee knows full well domingo of the coast guard is now a member of the joint chiefs of staff, however, i am given the great courtesy of sitting with great joint chiefs of staff with regularity and secretary gates has given me the privilege to speak to him personally and with service chiefs on these matters and the coast guard has been a full participant and i would add i do have my own secretary napolitano who is very receptive and listens wisely and supported the effort as well. >> thank you. senator, if i may on the phased implementation i had 15,000 sailors on the ground in iraq and afghanistan. they are mixed in i think to

parse it out by surface would cause confusion and inconsistencies that would not be helpful to the budget force. so if the repeal is adopted, you would say it may be the sector chairmen may want to implement, but when it is implemented >> yes, sir. >> thank you senator. senator inhofe? >> let me ask the first question to the ground guys, general casey and general amos. both of you in your opening statement talked about your great percentages and recruitment and retention and that goes all the way across the services and the report states that there are 23.7% with lead or think about leaving sooner than planned. the question i would ask the two of you is how would you face a

23% drop in retention? would that do to you, general casey? >> senator, projections on the retention or historical overstated. in other words, just in our normal retention -- >> let's assume it is overstated by 50%. how would you handle the 12%? >> it could have an impact on a senator and that is why i see in my statement i thought there was an increased level of risk over low for our ability to recruit and retain the force, so i think it would be an increased level of risk, but because they wouldn't all walked out the door at the same time, i think it would be in acceptable -- >> that's on retention now. also to add some figures that would cause the drop in recruiting, too, so i would assume you feel the same way about that. do you agree, general amos?

>> on the agree with my colleague, general pc and that i think it is overstated. my instinct is i read those figures and knowing marines for 40 years, i don't sense the same level of impact on retention or recruitment. if you want to join the marine corps you're going to wait eight months from the time you sign up today in the recruiting office of the eight months before you can ship. i don't see that would have an impact. >> that's fair. >> general roughead, or in sorry, admiral roughead, you see to 60% of the sailors believe the impact on effectiveness and readiness coercion would be positive. now on the chart, 71 it shows positive would be 13.8%, - 35.3%. now, i can see you also said natural commesso if they did that, it still is more positive

than negative. how can you go up 6%? >> when we have looked at in all areas where i have to detention to our series of questions in the survey that captured the general attitudes were what i would consider the negativity -- >> it appears, admiral, that you put in the category equally as positive and negative we all in the other category the debts of 60%. i thought there might be something -- >> no, sir. as you look at the positives and the neutral, we see within the navy a positive to neutral effect on this. there are certain areas as i mentioned, specific areas we looked at more deeply. >> i appreciate that and i don't want the answer now, admiral papp that before the record and noticed the same chart and i

didn't notice until we sat down to do that for some reason the coast guard, the positives are 10% to 44% comes over the record i would like to know why so many of the coast guard people are opposed to the repeal as compared to the other services to read just for the record if you could give that to me. >> we talked yesterday about the fact that only one-third of the people responded to this survey, and i had felt the reason for that was the asked the right questions. i mean, they didn't -- the never asked a question to you think we should repeal don't ask don't tell. the question they asked was, and this is in the instructions come in next our mandate was to assess the impact of the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell" and how best to implement and work

the repeal should it occur. we were not asked to determine whether the "don't ask, don't tell" wall and policy should be repealed. can anyone tell me why that question shouldn't have been asked? were let me ask you, general casey, should that have been asked? >> i don't think so. i don't think the survey should have been a referendum of the poll of our soldiers. a democracy in the military, and i believe the way that the survey was executed gave sufficient information to make a were judgments. some of anybody else think the question of should it be repealed should have been asked? how about you, general amos? >> during my confirmation i was asked a similar question and i made the statement at that time i was pretty confident after having gone through the questions myself that i would come away as the service chief with a real sense whether they should or not so line with the secretary defense and my colleagues. i don't think we needed a

referendum type of question on that. i got the information on needed. with regard to the low turnout, i would suggest perhaps there was a sense of inevitability. when the survey went out. >> i think that's right. >> and that was sent by certainly then, not conaway and he went to his marine corps and said okay, this is -- you know, set that aside. we need your honest opinions on this and then our inputs jumped up almost two or threefold. so i think we have about what we need it, senator. >> going from the time back when i was in the united states army if they wanted to get some results the would give a survey and say fill it out. we could have had 100% response. i think that is probably what should have taken place to live on the information exchange for an a lot of work was done. the comprehensive review working group conducted 95 information exchange for mom's, the contact

over 24,000 service members, 140 smaller focus groups. this was quite an extensive thing and they came up with a lot of information but not the information i thought we could have come up with. in chapter 6 of the report at page 49 states if the working group were to attempt to numerically defined the sentiments we heard expressed and information exchange for rim's online entries, focus groups, confidential online communication between those who are for or against "don't ask, don't tell" our sense is that the majority of views expressed were against the repeal. >> against the repeal would any of you like to have the information as to what is to quantify that in some way? is it going through all of these working groups? i would ask the question

shouldn't that have been quantified in some way or if not, why go to all this expensive time in having this if we are not getting any results from it? anyone want to respond to that? general amos? >> i read some of the anecdotal comments that came back that were recorded. i think there is value to get a sense for what the services fell, with the servicemen and women felt really think they got that. i don't think there is any question the sense that i got that was probably predominantly negative costs related to the marines. i think there is also a group of dynamics that in any group when you bring in much of marines together you bring three of them together there will be a sense of a little bit of the stampede you become and so i don't know how they could have done that. i thought about that. i wonder because it would have been my sense is probably a long your lines. wouldn't it be nice to quantify that?

i just of know how they could have because it was all verbal and it was done in a group sitting with a group dynamic. >> i would only say it's an awful lot of extensive work for not getting out specifically getting results in my opinion. >> thank you, senator inhofe. senator reid. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. general casey, i think in response to a previous question you made a comment i want to be clear about what the last several months if not several years has been indicated as the presence of gay and lesbian service members does not undermine readiness or combat effectiveness. is that, again, is that your conclusion? i don't want to read -- >> what i said, senator, is i believe what the survey indicates, what the report indicates is the presumption that underpins law that the presence of a gay or lesbian service member may unite the

because the six and a unit causes unexpected risk to discipline and after reading the report, i don't believe that is true anymore and i don't believe a substantial majority of our soldiers believe that. >> i think it is a significant point because i think it's -- again, i want you to respond, but all i think what it shows is that obviously there are individuals in units that are perceived even though they do not proclaim it as either be gay or lesbian, and that perception is relatively common in every force in various numbers in the military. and yet, with the survey seems to suggest to you coming in by the last your colleagues, too, is that that has not caused significant problems through the readiness of good order and discipline. what it has, and would go back to the basic leadership issue is

and it's not for us or even to you gentlemen is going to be for the company commanders and platoon leaders and how you deal with an issue where at this moment there is the perception that there are gays in the unit and it doesn't seem to affect a good order of discipline and we are giving about whether that individual, you know, we can be sort of truthful about the situation or assume are bound it or in fact, in some respects it might cause more leadership and more convolutions and trying to keep this policy going forward than simply admitting what seems to be the conclusion that you have reached that we are at a plant now we can accept the service openly. can you comment on the general casey? and i ask this as a question, not a conclusion or rhetorical -- >> the only thing i would say,

senator, what you just talked about was that i do think we need to be careful with say and do you feel this way if you believe someone is a gay or lesbian soldier versus do you know someone is a gay or lesbian soldier, and i think there's a difference, and i saw it with the survey said about that but i put a little times by that because there's a difference between thinking someone is gay or lesbian and knowing it, and i think the soldiers might react differently to that. >> your comments? this is a rather open-ended question, i admit. >> i think fundamentally the military that we serve today does not prohibit gay and lesbian from serving in the military. it is whether that orientation is disclosed or not, and what we are fundamentally talking about the standards of conduct and

behavior that will be acceptable in the force should the law be repealed and that gets to leadership. we have taken our services through significant change before, and i have confidence and the ability of leaders in the navy to be able to do this to the estimate. >> i like at merkel roughead and others believe it is going to be the determinant factor. i have, however, when i look at this and i had this exchange and senator mccain commented on it , liked your saying if you believe there is someone in your unit did that affect the behavior or the efficiency and effectiveness of the unit and by large everything i salles said no. >> is the difference between the meeting and knowing? how do you believe?

do you believe in constant with the rule? if you do and it didn't affect readiness, then i believe that leadership is going to take care of this and that is the ne attribute. >> on trying to recollect back 30 years but my sense of small units and platoons the difference of believing and knowing is quite small. some people because the mannerisms and implications made these are tight knit units that know what you're doing, so this distinction at a high level -- i think if we are talking of people who is believed have some basis in kind of behavioral or supporting this evidence and yet

there still seem to be tolerated or the response seem to be saying when it comes down to the unit effectiveness that isn't what i'm worried about. >> again, this is a rather open-ended question on your advice the smallest force as you know, we've recruit a little bit differently. we regret principally on the retail so we take less than one-tenth% of the american population so that automatically begins to wane large portions of the american society. the survey said that across all mos, military occupational specialty some 75% of the marines coming and i am going to quote in this, have not served with a gay or lesbian. 80% of the combat forces said they had not served with a gay or lesbian, so we have less experience at this and i think

that's intuitive. my focus again in combat effectiveness of the units, and i would like it if you would bear with me one of the comments that came in on the online survey, not the town halls, this came from a marine lieutenant whose platoon commander, my team's effectiveness is directly tied to its cohesiveness, despite differences we are so close that we anticipate each other's next move and garrison and combat, our ability to do our job is predicated on this kind of relationship. if you were to add any element of sexual competition, in tribunate sexual woody or hesitance and trust, it would unquestionably prevent those bonds destroyed and then it introduced. my concern or those units that are involved in combat right now. that is the cohesion that concerns me most.

..questions. : just said is that it has to be done in a way that does not provide such an immediate disruptive. i think frankly, that's the way

we would hope every policy that affects marine, soldiers, airmen, sailors in combat. >> thank you, senator. senator chambliss. >> thank you, mr. chairman. gentleman, as always we appreciate your service. particularly on an issue like this, it's very sensitive, very emotional. you've always played an awful lot of attention to it. whether we agree or disagree at the end of the day with the result, your service is what's important, your commitment to your soldiers, your sailors, your airman, and marines is unquestioned. mr. chairman, i want to correct something that you i inferred in your state. it said a majority support. as senator inhofe reported from page 39 of the report, not the case. after talking to all of the

individuals through the ief, online box, focus groups, confidential online communications between those more and against the repeal, it's the consensus of the authorities of the report that a majority of the views nor opposition to repeal of the current policy. it's pretty obviously that general casey and the general amos, that comeback troops, the guys in the foxhole are the ones that have the largest percentage, at least in the sir ray, of objection to this. as i've been in theater and had soldiers come up and talk to me, it's been primarily in theater where i've had this issue brought up. so i wanted to direct this yes, general casey to you, and general amos, would the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell" at this time have a positive or negative impact upon the readiness of your troops? >> senator, i think you could

take from my testimony that i believe that it would increase the risk on our soldiers, particularly on our soldiers that are deployed in combat. and as i said, we could execute it now at a lier level -- higher level of risk than in the survey. >> would that higher level of risk, general casey, put soldiers in loss of injury or life? >> it could. but i couldn't want to make that as a projection that it would. >> general amos, would it impact readiness of marines? >> sir, i don't -- i don't -- would repeal impact the readiness of marines? is that the question? >> yes, sir.

>> i think it would absolute have an impact on the combat farces, senator. forces, senator. i'm not convinced on the remainder of the corps. but the combat, it would. it goes back to the issue of cohesion, bonding, element of trust for those units that are heavily involved in the come -- combat. that's where the impact would be the greatest. >> let me ask the same question, would the troops in theater have the potential of increasing the risk of injury or perhaps loss of life to those marines? >> senator, as i read that quote that unique fabric, the tightly woven fabric, i think the potential for damage is there. >> thank you very much. i think that's the heart and soul of this issue at point in

time. i appreciate the frankness of each and every one of you. thank you, senator. >> thank you, mr. chambliss. mr. webb. >> thank you. let me begin by saying that i think we have an enormous amount of valuable material in this report. we can talk about what the response rate was, what it could have been, whether you could have set people down and made every person in the military fill out of form. we have 160,000 responses here in -- and it's given us the capability of really examining this issue and discussing it, a lot of it is in the manner that we've discussed it already this morning. i hope that on any side of this issue and i think they are really valid concerns, people will take a look at the in depth and read some of the numbers. question have a tendency to cherry pick one item or another

out of the survey. i said again yesterday i want to repeat today that this is a valuable piece of work. so that we can evaluate this issue in a proper way. and i have tremendous regard, particularly for general ham. when you think about the jigty that he brought to this process, as he said yesterday, he didn't exactly seek this task. he was the best employee to ask. he's a former infantry. i listen to him very carefully in his remarks yesterday. i would like to actually focus on two different questions. and one is this notion of the ability to tailer this process as it's been said today or to structure it if it were to

occur. and from what i'm hearing, my initial impression on this, there might be the ability to do this service by service or looking at the difficulties of implementing it into combat arms as general amos has pointed out, where the need for cohesion is paramount and the amount of command attention that would be put into this and this environment. from what i'm hearing, general cartwright, that's not on the table. >> i want to make sure i'm answering the right question. >> let me restate it after all of that rambling in one quick sentence. what i'm hearing here is that this talk of being able to structure any implementation of this process does not mean that it would be structured even in a time sequence for different

services or for operational units. am i correct in that understanding? >> as i read the plan as it was recommended by the study, the opportunity is there to structure the implementation phase. >> service by service or combat arm by combat arm. >> we would look at it. and i think we would look at it from the perspective of the chiefs but also the combatant commander, centcom, and the isaf commander to ensure that whatever implementation plan made sense on the battle field. >> it's not off of the table. there's mixed opinion on it. >> i think where our opinion probably varies is in the how. whether it's time, whether it's by service, whether it's by unit, whether it's by deployment cycle, where you have elements of the force. because most of our service elements are mixed. they have liaisons, multiple

types of particularly airmen for the air services, et cetera. so what we are trying to understand here is what would, in fact, be a logical implementation structure that by which we could work for. >> right, if the certification went forward, we're talking about the certification process. the deliberations had been made. the certification went forward. does that go to all units in the military the next day? that policies. >> that's what we'd have to work our way through. the question here is we're trying to understand in the rotation cycles since they don't all line up and we do it by different elements. >> right. so basically it's not. it's not being. >> but it's not being restricted either. in other words, we are not being -- that opportunity is not being taken away from us. the chiefs when we sit down together are both service chiefs and joint chiefs. and we look at the problem that way.

>> so the correct interpretation of the way the process is being considered as of today is -- could be considered service by service or combat arm by combat arm or unit by unit. that's on the table? >> yes, sir. >> the second question. >> may i make a comment? >> i know you don't like that general. i heard you say that earlier. i'm short on time here. i want to put this other issue out on the table. yesterday, i asked general ham what percentage of the military he believed or that the statistics showed were gay or lesbian. and his comment basically was just about the same as in society. a little lower on the male side, higher on the female side. that was his comment. well, i don't think anybody at the table is advocating that those people who are now in the military under "don't ask, don't

tell" should leave other than on -- for the reasons of conduct. is there anybody that would disagree with me on that? so here's the ultimate question on this policy as it evolved. and that is when someone is serving well, and if they are gay or lesbian, and they get through the wickets that general amos so clearly points out in the small unit deployments, what is it that we should be doing? when they are 15 years into their service and they want to be able to live an open and honest lifestyle? what should we be doing? what do we -- what should we do with them? general casey. >> senator, you are talking about the period between now and the time the law might be

repealed. >> if we keep the policy as it is now, "don't ask, don't tell." you have someone who has given 10 to 15 years service, their are valuable to the military, they want to be able to live an honest and open life, their conduct inside the military is above reproach. how do we do that? >> senator, we'll follow the law. we'll do what the law says. if the law changes, we'll follow that. >> i'm not talking about changing the law. we'll keep the law. under the present law, do you see the dilemma? >> i understand the dilemma. >> that's basically the challenge, i think, that we all have. >> right now we are in a position that we need to follow the law. >> i understand that. i'm talking about the human dimension of having -- someone having to live under the law. >> i understand that, senator. i'm saying as chief of staff of the army, i'm bound to execute the laws of the land. >> right, do you understand the human dimension of the point?

>> i do. >> does anybody have a comment? >> yes, i come at this with a slightly different perspective. i agree with all of the aspects. where i come from on this, all of our leaders, whether it's senior leaders or senior enlisted leaders that senator mccain spoke about, they need clear and unambiguous direction in terms of what they are supposed to enforce. i would suggest that right now we find ourselves in a very ambiguous position in terms of those people who are gay and lesbian in the service and those people who are supposed to enforce the law. what i think we're doing is putting people who are gay and lesbian, they are forced to compromise our core values. we have leaders who are getting ambiguous signals in the leadership in terms of the law they are supposed to support which puts them in a position of being obedient. i think for those of you who have served in leadership position, you understand when you allow selective obedience,

that's insidious thing that hurts our overall military effect iiveness. i would say we need to give them clear and unambiguous guidance in terms of what they are supposed to enforce. >> thank you, mr. webb. >> thank you. i've made reference to the opening statement that the report confirms that large majority of troops believes appeal is consistent with effectiveness. i'm going to put the entire report in the record at this point, as well as the plan for implementation. but the specific reference and statement in the report that i was referring to said quotes the results of the service member survey reveal a widespread attitude among a solid majority of service members that repeal of "don't ask, don't tell" will not have a negative impact on

their ability to conduct their military mission. but the entire report, again, and the plan for implementation will be put in the record. not at this point obviously, but at an appropriate place in the record. senator thune. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, gentleman, for your great service to our country and for appears here today to answer question on a very difficult issue. secretary gates told us yesterday that the service chiefs are less than the working group about the level of risk of repeal. with regard to combat readiness. we've heard that in testimony today as well as in previous testimony. many of you have offered in front of the committee, you told the committee a few months ago in your view, and i quote, the policy and unique requirements of the marine corps, thus, i do not recommend it's repeal. end quote. and your prepared system for today's hearing repeats that view.

i guess i would just pose the question of you that i did of the panel yesterday. secretary gates and admiral mullen, how should we as members of congress weigh the fact that there isn't consensus among the service chiefs and secretary on this important issue? general casey? >> senator. i think you should be grateful for that. i think we are trying to provide our military advise, our informed military advise so that you can understand all of the aspects of the problem. i think you will get a better decision out of it. >> do you believe the implementing legislation, if, in fact, this moves forward should allow for the chiefs, the service chiefs, any of you to certify. i asked the secretary yesterday about whether that ought to be a requirement. he said it should not. i think senator lieberman asked the question earlier about

consulting with the chiefs. there's a big difference between consulting and having the chief certify this can be done without impacting military readiness. >> yes. as i said to senator lieberman, i am very comfortable with my ability to provide input to secretary gates and to the chairman that will be listened to and considered. so you could put it in there. but i don't think it's necessary. >> would you agree that's a very different standard though? if you had to certify as the secretary and the president and the chairman have to that this would not impact military readiness? >> for me to certify rather than just provide advise -- >> right. >> >> -- it might take it up a notch. believe me, i will make sure my views are heard. the other thing, if you put that in the law, i think it under cuts the goldwater-nichols, we've been trying to put the chairman as the principal for

advise. >> anybody else care to comment? >> i'm comfortable with the access and input. in fact, as the report came along, i could see the changes that we are recommending. i have no concerned, whatsoever, about my advise not being heard. >> the survey is -- been talked about a lot. yesterday there was some question about there's a statement that i think that senator chambliss mentioned earlier today that there, other comments that were provided, e-mails, et cetera, through the process, that suggested that the majority view was against repeal of the current policy. and it was mentioned yesterday that wasn't scientific because it wasn't part of the quote survey. and the statistical, you know, the integrity of the survey was the important part of this process. do you all believe that there ought to be some consideration given to -- we all here, you

heard many people traveling abroad and talking with troops individually and the information and feedback get. i'm sure many of you get as well. that type of input also is important in formulating an opinion of this nature? >> senator, i'd say that that type of input is infortive -- informative, as is hands call, where we talk to our sailors. that all comes together to inform the opinion and the recommendation that i make up the chain of command. but it's all inclusive. >> the survey itself and 28% response arguably that means there's 72% of the people that didn't answer. there are a lot of people that didn't register the opinion. the point was made yesterday, that's not how we do business. i understand that, it's the mill. -- military.

you don't ask for opinions. there were a lot of conclusions drawn from what the contents and the ultimate outcome of that survey was. and the number that's been thrown out is the 70% approve of the change in the policy. very different numbers when you talk about marine corps, army, people engaged in combat, 57% was the number for army and 66.5% for marines and people who thought this change would impact negatively or very negatively. even if you take the broader number, question 68a which discusses the effect of repeal on the ability to get the job done. you add up mixed, negative, or very negative responses, you get 61%. that means that 61% said would have a mixed or negative, and yet the working group focused on the positive and mixed number at 70%. it seems that as is the case

with a lot of the surveys, draw very different conclusions. i'm curious about the chiefs perspective on that issue and how you reconcile the different and almost in some ways opposite conclusions that were from what the -- from the working group survey. anybody want to? >> senator, my take is that the categorizing the mix group on the positive side is -- does not undermine the basic credibility of what -- of the conclusions of the report. and i might also add that it's important to read all of page 49 in context. >> right. and i understand that. i've read the context of page 49. but it's very clear that a lot of the information that was received through these other sources, that quote nonscientific part of this. >> yes, sir. >> anecdotally.

>> yes. i addressed my comments in the inbox. we looked at those, digested those as well, the statistical data in coming to the conclusions. i also gathered information from the leadership team just as each of the others have. this was a fairly comprehensive effort on everyone's part. >> i would just add, senator, just real quickly that we had innumerable meetings to highlight what we were trying to bring out. what we interpreted numbers. we compared back and forth. that's not all goodness. it's not always bad. we all got a chance to come pair with each other when we saw numbers. what does it mean? what does it mean to the service? that helped us also. >> good. well, and i appreciate the fact that not all of this entirely can be -- i should say i don't think this is entirely scientific exercise. i think there's a lot of input

that comes. and the people who express their views which was discounted yesterday because they are motivated to express their views. i think they are people that have to be listened to. i appreciate your testimony. i think i know where all of this is headed. but i would simply say that the bottom line, in my view, is combat effectiveness. the military is a unique and distinction group of people whom we tasked. i know you all take that responsibility seriously. as you consider final conclusions, i hope that will be -- that the bottom line consideration is to make sure the men and women in uniform in this country can serve and defend this country as effectively as possible. thank you. >> thank you, senator. senator udall. >> thank you, mr. chairman. good morning for all of you. thank you for the way in which you've brought this difficult but important discussion forward. i have admiration for every

single one of you and your service. mr. chairman, i'd like to enter into the record a statement which was released by faculty members that serve academies in response to some of the conditions expressed yesterday at the hearing about the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell." if i might, let me summarize briefly some of their points. they pointed out that concerns that their repeal would undermine combat effectiveness inconsistent with available evidence, it would be hard to understand why gay discharges always decline during war time. secondly, they point out that concerns that we do not know what the troops would say whether they support repeal based on evidence. they point out that three different polls found the same result that the working group did. these surveys included combat groups. the faculty members went to

point out about the response rate and they were not reflective of the views. in fact, 28% response rate is above average for surveys. response rates have nothing to do with validity, as far as the sample size is large enough and sampling is done properly. in this case, the survey has a margin of error that's better than most, and gallop's editor and chief said the survey represented a huge sample compared to most surveys. the director of maris polls wondered why the survey included as large of a sample as it did. finally, mr. chairman, the faculty members pointed out that the claim that "don't ask, don't tell" is effective is inconsistent with the evidence. the u.s. district court found that according to all of the research, it has armed -- it has harmed in wasting talent and

undermining cohesion and morale. it has led to dismission of critical specialist. no evidence has been provided to show that "don't ask, don't tell" promotes or is working in any way. i wanted that to be in the record, mr. chairman. if i'd like, i'd like to move to a follow up on what senator lieberman discussed and that was the timing of certification. it seems to me that for implementation to work, the military needs a lot of planning and training and changing of regulation time to make sure it's done right. and none of that will begin to occur until there's a certainty that the law will change. and since most of you if not all share the view that the law should be repealed, but some of you believe it just shouldn't be implemented right now, does it make sense for the congress to pass the pending legislation right now? that way you could lay down some

of the groundwork necessary for change which might be good to do anyway given the concerns of court action. but you wouldn't have the flexibility not to implement right away. and i -- in that context, i move to what secretary gates said yesterday. he said that the certification process is a critical piece of the legislation and that he would not sign any certification until he was satisfied with the advise of the service chiefs that was sitting here today that we had, in fact, mitigated if not eliminated to the extent possible risk to unit cohesion and effectiveness. i'd like in that spirit to ask each of you if secretary gates comments alleviate some, if not all of your concerns. general casey, perhaps i can start with you. >> secretary gates comments that he's not going to certify until implementation is -- we've told him we're okay with it. >> so i'm fair to secretary

gates, the quote that i have in front of me, general, he would not sign any certification until he was quote satisfied with the advise of the service chiefs that we had in fact mitigated if not eliminated to the extent possible risk and unit cohesion effectiveness. >> i would agree with that statement, senator. i would also agree what i've said several times here already. i'm very comfortable with my ability to get my opinions and advise to secretary gates and have them listened to. >> i agree with that statement, sir. >> i agree with that statement. >> senator, i absolutely agree. >> likewise. >> i agree too, senator. >> i would add, and i'm going to editorialize and then i have one final question that there's concern here expressed in the committee that i've been honors to serve on the committee. we are moving too hastily in the

congress to repeal "don't ask, don't tell." my worry is the for congress to act now and put in place directions to how we proceed with the repeal, we could do it in a way with keeps faith what you have outlined today. with a particular focus on combat effectiveness. and that's my appeal to my colleagues in the senate that we've actually act before this session of congress adjourns. so let me end on this note with a final question, i just like to go down the line and ask each and every one of you. if we change the policy can your branch until the u.s. military make it work? this end of the line, admiral pat. >> yes, i have complete confidence that we could make it work. >> as i indicated earlier, we

would execute thoroughly, professionally, and with conviction. >> senators, indicated in my written and verbal statement we will follow the law and execute it fatefully. >> -- faithfully. >> i concur. >> we can make it work and my most senior commanders believe that as well. >> i believe we can and will implement the policy with moderate risk to short term effectiveness and long term health of the force. thank you, gentleman. >> thank you very much, senator udall. senator wicker is next. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. i have the greatest respect for my chairman. he's aware of that. i do have to wonder if the american people watching are thinking where why are we here? our best military minds should

be concentrated on winning in afghanistan, winning the global war on terror, making sure our success in iraq stays and is guaranteeed. are we taking the time and energy of this committee and these talented military people away from that central mission? and we are doing it in my judgment because a political decision has been made in the white house that now is the time when we have the votes to do this to push this through. and if i might say so, all difference to my colleagues, it reminds me of the time spent on the health care debate last christmas and during the early months of this year at a time when the unemployment rate of this country was hovering near

10%. and we were in one of the most serious recessions in any lifetime. we talked about that -- we talked about an issue that had issue with unemployment and creating further recession in the country. to paraphrase the members of the joint chiefs of staff, really the question before us, and i suppose the question during the lame-duck session is should we with all that's going on and all of the demands made on the military, should we accept the strong risk of disruption? should we divert leadership away from the combat effort? those were the words of the commandant in the marine corps.

to paraphrase general casey, is that the time to add another level of stress? it's time to be making things more difficult in combat units or to paraphrase the words of general schwartz, place additional, discretionary demands on our personnel we ought to be asking them to focus all of the effort on winning the war. i wonder this, general amos, you read a very compelling statement of a marine. and i might ask you to read those words again. concerning a unit that is as in combat now, can you give us the most compelling sentences of

that quote, sir? >> senator, the lieutenant said that his teams, his team, his platoon, his squad, his fire teams effect i haveness is directly tied to it's cohesiveness. i think that's for me to work through the issues today. that became center part of my concerns. despite the differences, we are close that we anticipate the moves. that's the intricate woven where everybody thinks as one instead of as ridge -- individuals. our ability is predicated on the kind of relationship. we would all agree on that. any element of sexual to add any

element of sexual competition for sexuality or hesitance and trust, it would prevent the bonds. and the bonds in the unit, from forming, it may destroy them. >> thank you for reading them again. i have to ask myself, there seems to be a resignation around this table and the panel that this is going to happen eventually. it's just a matter of time and just a matter of timing. let me be somewhat of a contrarian here, i can't imagine that situation is going to be that different in 2012 for that marine lieutenant or in 2013. we're always going to be asking that type of fighting man to operate under those types of conditions.

and i wonder if 2012 or 2013 is going to make that lieutenant is going to make it better. would you care to comment on that general amos. >> sorry, it goes back to the if not now, then when? having worked my way through that, my recommendation would be not to do it as long as we have forces that are involved, similarly focused to where they are right now on combat. i'm assuming it's sometime in our future that we will come out of afghanistan. i think we all know that and believe that. i'm looking down the road at is there a more favorable time when our combat units have more time at home and we have more elasticity and flexibility in the training schedule. this particular unit, not the

unit that i quoted early, had been deployed 21 of 23 months, three deployments, two of which involved in combat. so in that very short period of time, their kick bag is pretty full. highly focused on reconstituting the force, training the force, language, culture, ied training, all that goes on to bring the uniting to and make it cohesive. as long as that's the case that we are in today, then my recommendation would be this is a bad time, senator. if we get to a point down the road where that is not the case, then i think probably we could do this. >> okay. i appreciate your answer. one final line of questioning. it's been suggested that "don't ask, don't tell" has hurt military readiness by the

separation of many individuals who are mission critical. the facts are that 13,000 service members has been separated on the basis of homosexuality? 17 years, that's certainly far less than 1,000 per year. i was a judge advocate in the united states air force involved in separation of homosexualities back during an earlier law. i didn't serve on active duty during "don't ask, don't tell." it was frankly my experience that many military members who were separated because of homosexuality, actually came forward of their own volition and asked voluntarily to be separated and cited the

requirement in the military at that time as the reason for their requested separation. would any of you care to comment on that? or would any of you take a stab at the circumstances under which these 13,000 or the majority of these 13,000 have been separated over time. certainly, i think we would agree they were not rounded up in witch hunts. we didn't didn't -- under "don', don't tell" if they are not willing to admit it, there's no separation. how many? let my ask you, general schwartz, since we are both air force, i would -- am i incorrect in assuming that a significant portion of the air force members who were separated during the last 17 years actually voluntarily came forward and

asked for separation on those grounds? >> separations in support of 654 where less than 1% of the entire flow of individuals who separated and yes they were predominantly voluntary. >> anyone else care to comment on that? general admiral roughead? >> our were statement, as opposed for acts were marriage which is the actions. >> desiring to be separated, they came forward. >> people came forward claiming to be homosexual or admitted to be homosexual and asked to be removed. >> that's correct. yes, sir. >> anyone else? >> senator, the marine corps has since 1993 discharged a little over 625,000 marines, not for this, but just normal discharges. honorable discharges, retirements, so -- and of that 625,000 plus marines that have

returned back to the united states of america, we have discharged 1304 marines were homosexuality. of note, in that 1304, 400 of them happened at boot camp. the first 12 weeks of a marines career. i was at paris island about three or four weeks ago. i was there talking to the senior drill instructor. it just happened. he talked to me about a young marine that came forward. the rest of them i can't comment. the remainder i would suspect as some were outed. i suspect a majority of them >> coming up, a hearing looking at the effect of the gulf coast oil spill. following that, a look at the houseboat -- house vote

against representative charles rangel for at it violations. democrat dan malloy won the conn nomination. the republican governor chose not to seek reelection. the florida chief financial officer, alix sink was defeated. >> if i had to put my money on a likely outcome, it would be that peace in iraq is likely ultimately to be imposed once again by an autocracy.

we hope that if that does happen, the new ruler, the new dictator will be a lot more benign than saddam hussein. john burns was a long time correspondent to "the new york times para o -- "the new york times." remarks from the oil commission chairs. both chairmen called for a change in safety culture in the oil and gas industry. there were a series of meetings on the april 20 oil spill. this is about 15 minutes. >> thank you and your

colleagues for the excellent support you have given us. we are appreciative. the oil and gas off of our shores are an american assets. the american government is not just a regulator of offshore oil. it is the stuart of these assets. -- steward of these assets. president john adams said facts are a hard thing. there are some facts that we have on cover. our investigation has determined that there are fundamental weaknesses in the u.s. government's regulatory approach. many will be disappointed to learn that america lags behind other countries in how we regulate and oversee oil and gas

production. there is a need for alternative strategies, such as a commitment to safety procedures at a commission -- as a condition to drilling on seabeds. the oil and gas industry writ large has an obligation to respond. it is not enough to lay the blame on a few rogue companies. contractors are used throughout the world. i was impressed by the ceo's of exxon mobile and shell in their commitment to safety. they must continue to advocate for new industry-wide regi mes in the execution of these

conditions. non-can's current energy policy is unsustainable. with no considerable debate, we have positioned ourselves as the user of 22% of the world's petroleum while we control only 3% of known reserves under america's land and water. this gives us an opportunity to speak to this radical imbalance that threatens our national security. last month, the head of our team put it well when he said 100 years from now, we want the world to say they changed the safety regime in offshore drilling. this is a were the aspiration with one significant exception. the world should say this in

2011, not in 2110. we have a chance to learn the lesson of this disaster in a way that our oil and gas industry is stronger, our environment healthier, and our national security more secure. i would like to note that i am is impressed with what we have been able to accomplish without subpoena power. i remain mystified as to why a few senators decided to deny this commission this power with subpoena power has been granted as almost an absolute for congressional commissions which and not its responsibility to hours. the lack of subpoena power -- analagous responsibilities to

ours. over the next two years, we will discuss our findings and how we will translate them into reforms that are worthy of our great nation. >> good morning. today marks the conclusion of the last time this commission will deliberate in public together on our responsibilities. we will consider during the course of the day the recommendations that these that's work has presented to us and will add bouquet to us. the-and will advocate to us -- and will advocate to us. this extraordinary team has displayed the energy,

creativity, resourcefulness, and the investigative congeniality that marks their best work. the fact that we are as prepared as we are after four months of work by the commission is a great tribute to the staff itself. today we will have staff presentations and deliberate on a safety culture, on regulatory oversight, on environmental review, on drilling in the arctic, and on oil spill response. i am struck by the evolution in my own thinking in the course i have spent --the time i have spent serving on this commission. i am persuaded that this was a

case of a company with a five- year history of severe safety challenges and his behavior. we were dealing with a rogue company. it has been conclusively established that we have a bigger problem than that. three major companies, as senator gramm proposed, were involved in the decisions that were most hostile -- that were most questionable that were made on the macondo rig. there is speculation that the macondo was the actor in one bad decision. that does not stand. other companies were clearly implicated in the catastrophe. other companies had no effective containment preparations and

laughable response plans that promised to look out for any polar bears and walruses that happened on the scene. there is indisputable evidence of a widespread lack of serious preparation, of planning, of management. that culture must change. it must change for so many reasons for the good of all of us. it must change for the good of the oil and gas industry. reflect for a moment on this. a recent commission paper noted that there was a point in the management of this crisis when industry experts feared the entire 120 million barrels reservoir might seep through the ocean floor and recall -- and

havoc. i ask you to reflect on this. what would we be talking about if the well had not been capped? is the shores had been smothered with a whale and if the videos were still being shown on every cable network and news website around the world? i can assure you we would not be here debating how long it would take to jump-start drilling in the arctic. we would be having an accidental -- and an existing to compensation as to whether offshore oil drilling -0- existential conversation about whether offshore oil drilling would be permitted ever again.

we have studied and come to admire the systems. these companies that were not implicated in the macondo explosion found themselves shut down in the gulf because of mismanagementes' and decisions over which they had no control. the failure of three countries -- three companies on what ricg shutdown 33. let me say as and that we as i can. the oil and gas industry needs to embrace a new safety culture. the series of decisions that doomed macondo evidenced the failure of management, and good management that could have avoided a catastrophe. a new safety culture is important.

it is not enough. dili for oil in deep water is risky. -- drilling for oil in deep water is risky. so is flying. the systems represented in an industry safety institute, particularly the sort that the nuclear industry has developed, offered useful lessons on how to ensure management that is judged and incentivize to use best practices and is called out when it does not. commission staff have identified a range of issues to which we must respond.

the self interest of the oil and gas industry back considers it does have superior safety and management lies in the reassurance that they could contain a reassurance that the accident-prone companies can be brought up to a higher standard by their peers. that is the history of other industry -- other industries that have confronted catastrophes. the essential foundation of good risk management is high quality, no nonsense regulation. staff presentations and regulations have made clear that federal regulators have failed to keep abreast of the profoundly sophisticated technology is involved in

deepwater exploration and development. -- technologies in bout in deepwater exploration and development. technologies involved in deepwater exploration and development. money from oil and gas should be more than the efficient to finance the exploration that is needed. secretary salazar has recognized the need to separate revenue generation from environmental safety regulation. we will consider today whether to recommend that he go further and construct an impenetrable wall between those who option and lease and manage the money

those activities generate. that is what other countries have done. the united kingdom and norway most recently after their own disasters. a word about three proposals we are considering. -- the proposals we are considering. we are sensitive to the realities of the country's fiscal precariousness. neither a state the case or a safety institute need to intel federal appropriation or congressional action. federalntail appropriation or congressional action. as both the ceo's of exxon mobile and shell have observed,

industry requires a competent regulator. i call on the industry to support in congress the increase in resources the industry so badly needs to become competent. oil is a strategic resource and is important to the security and economy of the united states. my own experience with the industry leaves no doubt about the industry also technological savvy and its ability to manage risk and fuel the time. we are not dealing with a sick or failing or unsuccessful industry. we are dealing with a complacent one. the industry operated marine

well containment corp. greeted is an important commitment that addresses shortfall -- corporation that is an important commitment. it addresses shortfalls. we will now hear about the recommendations the commission will consider. >> we will hear from experts on the safety culture of the industry as well as regulatory oversight. this portion is about one hour. >> the final component of today's hearing prior to public comment is that we have six

citizens who have indicated a desire to speak with us. they will speak on oil spill response. what was stunning about the event we are focused on is it scale. it is beyond what most people had calculated to be the worst possible incident. the range of stakeholders and bald -- stakeholders involved. what happened before and after the explosion in terms of response -- things that happened before the explosion at the highest level would get a grade of a d-in terms of the pre explosion planning. i would give a higher grade, a

fairly commendable great to what happened thereafter given the point that the response started. i also would like to commend the president for his interest in finding out what happened and soliciting recommendations for actions in the future. with those comments, i would like to turn it over to pria and her crew to discuss a response . >> thank you. the deepwater horizon spill was the largest in history. it involved over 45,000 responders at its peak, over

6000 vessels, the application of over 1 million gallons of chemical dispersant and over 10 million feet of boom. the magnitude of this bill and the fact that it involved many state and local jurisdictions to challenge their response capabilities of the government as well as bp. we looked at two major categories of issues in examining the response. the first was industry and government prepared as, including the adequacy of in this response plans, and the government's response plan, which is known as the national contingency plan. the nationally -- national contingency plan is a set of regulations establishing how the government will respond to spills of oil and other hazardous materials. as the commissioner mentioned it during the previous presentation on oversight, the coast guard has its own investigative team called the incident specific

prepared this review that is looking at the adequacy and implementation of the national contingency plan, and we have been working closely with them to route our investigation. -- throughout our respons investigation. bp said in its response plan that it could recover up to 500,000 carol's per day period as it was too optimistic. -- barrels per day. that was too optimistic. there were only able to remove a fraction of the oil. the intensity of public interest

also tested the government's ability to convey information clearly and effectively. for example, a federal responders did their best to scale response operations to a worst-case scenario, but they did not clearly communicate to the public the nature and basis of that scenario. they also gave official estimates of the flow rate that were initially too low and kept increasing overtime. this undermined public confidence in the government's handling of the response. at the outset of the spill, the government lacked in expertise to oversee certain aspects of the response, such as the effort to controlled the well. we will discuss this and much more detail tomorrow morning during a presentation on containment, but the agencies in charge of the spill response had to scramble to find expertise. for example, by bringing in the secretary of energy, his

outside science advisers, and the national labs. while the coast guard viewed it as a partnership between the government and the party responsible for this bill, the public demanded more government control over bp. thad allen has referred to this as the social and political nullification of the national contingency plan. the deepwater horizon spill was the first spill of national significance. currently, the only special provision triggered by designating us bill as one of national significance lets the government named a national incident commander to coordinate the response. here the national incident commander was addlepatemiral

thad allen. we think more is required during a major spill. there need to be new procedures this ranking government oversight of the responsible party and that make clear to the public that the government is in charge of the response. the new procedure should build on existing structures to establish additional sources of scientific and policy making expertise during a spill. they should create a communications center with an initial incident command as well as a communications protocol that accounts for participation by high level officials. bp's response plans were not up to the challenge of this spill. the plans they submitted to the minerals management service was almost identical to a plan submitted by four other major oil companies. it listed seals and walruses as species of concern and the gulf,

said that bp would rely on a wildlife expert that had died several years before the plan was submitted, and it contained other inaccuracies, for the most important, bp did not have the response capacity it said it had in the plan. there needs to be interagency review of the spill response plan as has been discussed in previous presentations to make sure that they are realistic and that they are supported by adequate expertise and equipment. so this slide contains the first four sets of recommendations that we will be discussing today, and i would like to turn it over to the commissioner to discuss these recommendations further. >> thank you. i think that these are pretty straightforward. we should come back to the industry plan recommendation it, because that was an issue we were discussing earlier this morning. and is it -- does it require

interagency review? also, there has been a recommendation from outside the commission that oil spill response capacity be a precondition to access to leases. not only filing the plan, but demonstrating have the ability to respond. that was based on our most recent conversation. that would be relevant in the arctic, but was relevant in the gulf of mexico, too. so these follow the discussions we've been having over the last several months, and i certainly endorse them. although, i would like to require that the interagency review require approval of them. perhaps also requiring a pre certification on

having a capacity. >> i would note that these plans are not currently required to be reviewed in the public, and the important role that the public review -- and that there be a public review and that once the plans are approved that they be publicly available so that local and state officials and others can have access to them. and i agree that the coast guard approval should be required not only because of the coast guard's expertise but because of what we were discussing earlier about how the national contingency plan area regional plans and these specific spill response plans should be somehow linked up, integrated, speaking to each other in a meaningful way. i think requiring coast guard approval is one mechanism of getting that kind of linkage. >> let's add those two. coast guard approval and public review and access. >> let me ask just a question on

the overall anxiety that a lot of people feel about the ambiguity between the responsible party and the united states government overseeintg a spill. the reality is that the responsible party has most of the action, understands the technology, can repair it, will probably be experimenting with the containment, and the coast guard, in this case, to church, oversaw activities -- took charge. they contravene to the responsible party, but there is along the route -- and we see it every time there is a major spill. we saw in prince william sound for the government to somehow embrace more of the action, of

being more completely involved and also knowledgeable and authoritative with respect to the spill. is there a way to square that circle? without designing a new full- time government apparatus with a lot of skimmers and booms. is there a way to get them more involved and more responsible in a more reassuring way for the public going forward? >> we think there is. i think that is an excellent way of putting the question. i think we have to accept that the responsible party is going to need to carry out a lot of the response operations. as you point out, it has access to the technology, it has the contracts with the oil spill removal organizations that have the skimmers. i think what we need to have to make sure that the public has confidence in the level of government oversight is the expertise and knowledge you

mentioned. for example, we will talk about this more in the well control effort, but there, even though the government was siding off on everything bp was doing, the public felt the government did not have the expertise to release substantively oversee, the push back, suggest other options. i think that was the case. i think that is why the public felt bp was in charge. as the spill progress, the government was more in charge per the government was saying, -- the government was saying, no. you need to provide more information. they need to have the knowledge and the authoritative expertise in government. i think it is our best suggestion for how to square that circle. >> would be helpful to have as the czar somebody who actually has overseen the kind of

equipment, that kind of technology, has been involved in oil and gas developments officially to be able to be more authoritative right from the beginning? >> i actually think it would be hard to expect one person to have the expertise to oversee all of the aspects of the response, but i think if that one person has access to sufficiently high level expertise, then as long as they have a sort of a good leadership abilities, they would be able to effectively run the response. we example, thad allen, think oversaw the response very well. and he was not an expert in containing technology, but he was advised by the secretary of energy. we think that worked well. >> there is one other piece. noaa's office of oil spill response and restoration. we have not mentioned them per se but need to, speaking of

expertise and capacity. there respond to over 200 oil spills a year. they have a cadre of capacity experience, years and years of dealing with much smaller scale spills. we are talking about a different scale here, but that expertise was put in place within hours of this spill. and we do not talk a lot about that here, but it is important to acknowledge and acknowledge that they were on the ground, on the water, in the air, doing everything from coordinating projections of the weather, currents in water, specialized areas that needed special protection. there is a lot of expertise in government. we took a lot about the coast guard, but noaa's office of oil spill response is the front lines. they may not have the responsible party capacity in

that way but they have the knowledge. part of their problem is, like every other agency we talked about, their budget has been flat lined. again, if he did not have any skills, that is great. back to your complacency point. we did not have a spill of the size to generate the need for an office like that to be up and running. i think that is part of the long-term strategy of how we would be better prepared if that office and those people have the capacity to respond and away wa that would be more robust. >> another possibility is augmenting what capability that we do have from the national hundreds, who do have of people that were brought into this ad hoc, because they did have some capabilities.

but some doubt in the contingency plan, i think what you are pointing out, prya, is that we need some way of very quickly accessing the government and university and industry technical expertise for the government. that's not in the current national contingency plan. >> i think that is right. for example, as you said, the national labs and the department of energy played an important role in the response but they are not mentioned in the national contingency plan. a time to figure out how to bring a man and make that work. >> picking up on this thread, i think continues it plans are important, but what we have learned is that it is important to exercise the capability. and we had spill response capability that was unprepared

for the scale of challenge, and not wast no ever -- was evergreen to deal with the challenge before us. fran mentioned noaa. that is so important to directing where the oil might go, where the sensitive environments are and how to strategize and be prepared for reducing risk. we discovered in our research, the staff research, that they had actually planned a model that looks dead subsurface the discharges almost -- that looked at subsurface discharges and never funded. so contingency planning must also include continued evolution of the capability and capacity and exercise that makes our

capability responsive to incident like this. >> it seems to me that there were sort of at either end of this areas of weakness. one, the first ten days where we stumbled around, got presented information which appear to the public to be inaccurate or subsequently proved to be inaccurate, set the public attitude towards this whole operation. we ought to talk about what we can do at the front end of this thing to avoid a repetition of that experience. more or less towards the back end of the process is the local government role. i think all of us spent time

with parish mayors and county commissioners that talked about their problems and some of the lack of responsiveness. i know that we are not dealing with the stafford act here, which is a bottoms up type approach, but i think we need to try to inject some of that in here, because there are functions that came with this act which were beyond the ability of the central leader, whether it was bp or admiral allen adnd required people that knew the certificaterritory andd respond in a way that was effective and publicly acceptable. so maybe we could talk about what we could do to make the front end of this less confusing

and disorderly than we experienced between april 20 and early may. >> that would be great. perhaps i could use that as a segue into the next major issue we looked at, which was as centigram mentioned, state and local involvement. another theme that emerged was that state and local officials were not sufficiently involved in advance oil spill contingency planning. as senator graham said many morele were further -- familiar with hurricane plans. many state and local leaders had incorrect expectations about how the response would be structured. that led to a competing state structures and to struggles over control, which undercut the

efficiency of the response at the outset. but the relationship between federal responders and local communities to improve as the response progress. this is one of the many ways in which i think the response got better as it won a long, but we think it could have been more productive in the early stages. as you discussed, the early stages is set the tone for public perception of the response. based on what we found, we have a number of recommendations that are aimed at better integrating state and local officials and resources into spill response planning to make sure that at the beginning the response works better. the first recommendation is to include local officials in training exercises. we heard a lot of local officials say that they did not necessarily know about or know that there were invited to these exercises a. . second, we think the unified

command should establish liaisons with local communities early in response. that is something that we do later on, but it should of been done at the beginning. we suggest adding a local unseen coordinator. right now there is a state coordinator but no local equivalent. fourth, we think there needs to be additional guidance to federal, state, and local officials on the differences between the murders a response under the national continues to plan and response under the -- between the response under the national contingency plan and the response under the stafford act. i would like to turn it over to the commissioners to talk about this set of recommendations. >> i would like to bring up an issue that fran brought up

which is a regional advisory council. we talked about that several times in the context of these recommendations and also, the arctic recommendations, but that is not specifically called out. there is a lot of conversation about how he would set that up and the gulf of mexico. you may need more than one. if you want to integrate local government into what the expectations are, both in the leasing phase and in the response phase, having some regional advisory councils would be a good way. i am interested in others' opinions. these look like good recommendations to me. comments? >> i completely agree. as i mentioned, it engages people in a way, on a continuing basis, not just when it happens. you have people that are in case all along and it allows you to improve communications and also get a local, all local sense of empowerment that comes with the rcac's.

we were in the gulf of mexico and talking to people. there were frustrated. they wanted to do something, but they did not know except in what to do. in some cases, what the return was not a proper it, but it was as the sense of lack of engagement -- they want to do something p. what it has provided is the notion of ongoing training and setting up systems whereby people can be monitoring -- are the response plans adequate? the review the response plan, so you get a whole other way of thinking about these plans as opposed to just a local, elected officials to get citizens looking over their shoulder of others. for many reasons, i think it would be an additional value added. i agree. it will look different there than it did in alaska. he would have to figure that out, but i think we ought to

recommend it. >> let's add that recommendation in this section. not only focused on what pilspil response would be, but planning activities all the way through. >> just a clarification. my understanding is that there were state employees that had been very involved in spill planning. so there was a disconnect between those individuals and the political leaders in these states and counties. was not that the states had not been involved in the process -- it wasn't that the states had not been involved in the process it was not that the states were absent from the process. is that correct? >> that is correct. their workers were oil spilt responders of mistakes that participated. we are for much -- they were

familiar with the national contingency plan. because of the magnitude of this bill, the state, a higher level, political and for the elected officials became involved in some instances and displaced those career spill responders. they were not as familiar with the daschle contingency plan. we should be more specific -- they were not as familiar with the national contingency plan. staffordasont h the act and the national continues to plan are so different is -- the nationa,l contigency plan are so different is how they

were created. on the other hand, the energy and natural resources committee deals primarily with federal agencies, particularly the department of the interior. so it is more focused on a central entity. we have the opportunity with this case study in mind to askt the question -- is this the way it should be rather than tinkgerinering around the edges? is there a reason why dealing with a flood or hurricane should be different than how we deal with an oil spill? >> i think there is. i think the decdistinction is important. i think the way things were organized or pri. take the area of the gulf coast where hurricanes are common. it is often the case where you have to involve evacuation.

so you use -- what happens is the only sensible thing to do, since those are the resources available, the local government mobilizes of their law enforcement authorities. everyone else, other responders -- and involves everyone in the community having to act in some way. evacuate, knowing when to return home, know what the safety precautions are after a disaster as opposed to an oil spill which does not oil everyone in the community. does not fit the bill for a police force to determine how to respond to that. it requires special skills. it requires focus on the areas that are affected. i think there are good reasons why they are structured differently. i think what happened was that, especially in the area where people are used to those bottom up responses to hurricanes and so on, it -- a local officials

felt motivated, because of their experience in getting involved but they did not have the knowledge and skills to respond in the most appropriate ways. that cause a lot of friction between the official response capability and local officials who wanted to impose their own judgments about how this should be done. >> i think that is exactly right. that is an apt description of what happened. in some places, when you look at, for example, the katrina response, remember governor barbour saying the federal government has no first responders. and his response to that was to ask for gasoline, which she was happy to get and thought that was the most he was going to get. but viewed it as a local response obligation. i gather that that was not so quickly discover it -- decided

in louisiana where there was an expectation of more significant federal government help, that even if it was only going to come several days later, i think you've characterized it exactly right. >> and so let's move on to the next one. >> the next issue we looked at was the use of dispersants, which was the subject of much controversy. deciding whether to use as persons involves trade-offs. if they are effective, less oil would reach shorelines, but more dispersed or would be spread for all the water. the federal government had not plan adequately for the use of dispersants to address such a large oil spill and did not have sufficient research on the long- term effects of dispersants. officials had to make decisions

about thisdispersants without important information. we think these officials make reasonable decisions about the use of dispersants at the surface and subsea. we proposed a number of recommendations to ensure a more informed decision making in future. epa should update their testing protocols and require more comprehensive testing. epa and the coast guard should modify pre approvals for dispersing use and establish procedures for further consultation based on the duration, reach, and volume of the spill. and epa and noaa should conduct further research on dispersant, including subsea, and long-

term use, and less toxic dispersants. >> to echo what she said, there are few things about this that inspired more emotional response from many people then their concerns about the use of dispersants. to many people is seen to be counterintuitive to put a chemical on and other chemical prodblem. it would be a surprise to most people to understand that the contingency plan to deal with this bill and the gulf of mexico and most parts of this country involve a considered and preapproved use of dispersants. they are seen by the people who defended, that deal with oil spills to minimize their impact as an important tools. if you talk to the responders, the people in the coast guard, they will tell you that it was

probably one of the most effective tools they have of keeping oil from beaches and away from birds and sea turtles. theing saiad that, decision to use that dispersants is a choice between bad alternatives. on the one hand, you can use a dispersant and inject it below the surface into the ocean. and we know that the effects of the dispersants are primarily because they inject the oil into the sea rather than the toxicity of the dispersants. the decision is whether or not you want to inject the oil into the sea or leave it at the surface where it poses other

risks. the choice that we made were to apply to both of the service to keep oil from coming ashore, but because we never had this challenge, to inject at the wellhead to disperse the oil so much of it never came to the surface. as emblamatic of our lack of understanding of the effects of dispersant applications is the fact that when the most recent update of the oil spill budget that came out last week, the one thing that changed from their estimates in august was the increased the estimate of how much oil was chemically disbursed, but if you probe more deeply, you would see it is based on a lot of untested

assumptions about the effectiveness of the dispersants. the recommendations are proper it because they basically require more-- recommendations are appropriate because it is it the require more. each company puts its own toxicity information out. they are not comparable. they are not reliable in terms of comparing one against the other because they have been done by different testing labs. also, there needs to be something in here related to this issue of elevation, when we go from an incident that is modest and can be handled by more traditional protocol as opposed to something like this, where the scale of dispersant use just brings it into another range of decision making. the recommendations to deal with that but also the need to invest

understanding their toxicity and their effects in terms of how they disperse oil into the ocean and what the consequences of that are. so that's i think the recommendations. i think everyone on this panel knows it, but maybe not the other members of the public, is that when we were down in new orleans a month ago, we heard continued concerns about the health effects of dispersants. people complaining four months after the well was stopped. at this point in time, with the best expertise we have, there is no basis of believing that lingering dispersants are in any way a threat to human health or to the resources of the

environment. the impacts of dispersants were that there when we applied them, we made the decision to inject it into the water column. >> my reaction to this is to think that the need to update the to present -- the dispersant testing protocol was obvious. why that one was not done ahead of time is inexcusable. that is part of financial contingency plan. we know -- that is part of the national contingency plan. those preapproval areas are studies. i would have thought that they would have been fully vetted and tested. it is more understandable that the impact of the dispersants in deep sea would not be understood ahead of time.

i looked at a list of the one that was used in the last couple months and noticed that it was indeed 55% effective and no more or less toxic than 6 other alternatives, and wondered why that would then the dispersant of choice. had it been more effective come out we would see more effective use of the dispersant. we have a sense of that, and was a strictly that it was available in sufficient quantity? >> epa asked bp to look at that. i think they came back and explained that based on -- they can supply more details, based on tests, it was the most effective and least toxic. >> most affected? >> it was the only one available and the quantities they needed, which is that determining factor

probably. >> i think the supply issue is key. >> ok. >> i would add and this gets back to the earlier conversation about local involvement. there was tremendous anxiety about dispersant's use, not much information, and if there had been a regional advisory committee in place and people knew what the response was and that data was available earlier -- i do not know if there would have been a greater comfort level, but i think the unknown was the huge driver in the public response. for the -- the federal government was trying to play catch-up to get people to understand the trade-offs which she described of protecting the coast and the coastal resources that are known to be so valuable. and therefore, using it at the wellhead. the lack of information was a

huge driver to public reaction. i think still is, based on what you just said. >> are we reasonably sure that, even at the short-term impact on marine life from the very large deployment of dispersants, has not been harmful? >> no, not at all. we are in the throes of investigating the effects of the subsurface oil. what we do know, though, is the plume of the droplets of oil that came up and extended over many miles, would have been there even without dispersants. just the physical mixing of high pressure oi anl and gas expanding and volume, cause turbulence which creates the droplets. the dispersants increased that.

a plume was a plume of a greater concentration because of the dispersants applied. there are studies under way. >> there are studies under way? >> if you listen to npr this week, you heard about a dive, looking at the area near the well and what the effects might a ban on the seabed and corals. it is not the case that one can say that there was no evidence of any effects. their evidence of effects. it is a question of what the scale of those effects work, how long lived they would be and how consequential they are. you could, for example, kill off plankton in the seawater moving past the well. but it is a big ocean out there.

mixed. is if you kill of cold water corals that are hundreds of years old, that is a long-term effect. those need to be sorted out. >> i would also argue that dispersants may help in another way, and that is as you decrease the concentration in the water of oil, you do minimize toxicity. so that if it remains disbursed in very small droplets and just goes out, you have considerably less damage even for the corals. but we do not know that. this is why it is important to be taking data now, because we did the experience -- the experiment. now we should get the results. >> well, if we can move on to

the last issue we looked at, which is the state of response technologies. a comment of verset -- observation during the response was that cleanup technology has changed very little since the exxon valdez spill. major oil companies have committed minimal resources to research and development of the spill response technology. the companies. to their financial contributions -- point to financial contributions. but those organizations are underfunded in general and dedicate few if any resources to research and development. federal programs for research and development related to oil spill response are underfunded as well. congress has never appropriated even half of the full amount authorized by the oil solution act of 1990 for oil spill research.

some industry representatives have suggested to us that more research and development would not have made a difference to the spill response, because response technologies will never collect more than a fraction of the spilled oil. but we think that argument is a speculative. neither industry nor government has made significant investment. we do not know what could happen with adequate incentive and funding. during the deepwater horizon itself, with government and industry focus on a response technology for the first time in 20 years, some promising new technologies were developed, such as subsea dispersant delivery systems, and in situ burinning techniques. as laid out in our working paper, we believe that the response technology gap needs to be addressed by industry and

government. the most powerful incentive for research and development by industry may be the stricter requirements for response plans that we discussed earlier in this presentation and in previous presentations. if operators have to truly demonstrate their ability to respond to a worst-case spill before they can drill or get a lease, they will have an incentive to develop better response technology. but we have also identified a number of federal regulations that may have the effect of discouraging research and development, and what we think agencies stood change. for example, a coast guardsman requirements for oil recovery listed in response plans, which are called a fact of daily capacity recover regulations, don't incentivize companies to invest in more efficient equipment that does a better job of recovering oil from water. as the commissioner mentioned previously, epa has the very big

permit process the companies must go through to test response equipment, which requires them to intentionally spilled oil, and that has resulted in a ban on open watgeer testing,. united states companies have to go to norway to do the testing. bp has a regulation that prevents companies -- epa has a regulation that prevents companies from discharging oil, which they may need to do interesting spill response equipment. we think agencies should consider changing as sets of regulations, and we also think that congress and the administration should consider ways to encourage private investment in response technology, such as 3 public- private partnerships and through a tax credit. and finally, even though we understand the difficulty with

calling for more funding in this environment, we do think congress should consider increasing federal funding for oil spill response research, potentially by revising the oil pollution act to make the oil spill research funding already authorized in the act of mandatory appropriation. again, i would turn it over to the commissioner. >> i would underscore a few of the points. the first is that this is not simply a government responsibility. the research that are staffed it shows some surprising, meager investments that the industry itself has made in this area. there are things that can be done. if we are going to require that they develop an oil spill response plan, a real oil spill response plan rather than a boiler plate, they will have to be able to demonstrate and improve their capability.

so i think there is some opportunity here. the other is, with respect to government funding, there was a substantial increase after the exxon valdez spill, and as time went on, that waned as we lost the attention and focus on the problem. the recommendation that there be some sort of a revenue stream tied to expanded resources would be a way that we would not lose attention to the problem. finally, given the other point she made about the criticism that there are limits that one -- of what we can expect from oil spill responders. it's a big ocean out there. winds and waves conspire -- reduce our capacity to recover oil or burn it.

in the budget, it is a small amount of oil that was collected by skimmers. a larger amount of oil was burned. on the other hand, if we think of it and the fact that if we have a spill like this, only a small percentage of the oil anyway is going to get in harm's way close to the shoreline. so if you can improve the capacity of defending sensitive habitats, with better collection devices and so on, that are designed and developed to work and those kinds of conditions as opposed to a quiet bay, i think it could reduce the risk to sensitive resources. >> any further questions or comments? incentives youo have listed, one that seems an addition from our discussion this morning would be changing the limitation of liability.

i think the liability cap is another thing that has made it less attractive to invest in oil spill response technology. so it's another piece, when we discussed the carrots and sticks, it is another reason for people to take the investment more seriously. >> you have correctly identified the hurry up and put money in and then "i don't know." people become complacent and there is no big spill for 20 years, and then of a sudden there is. and then you get out the equipment and it turns out it is no more effective than it was then. that certainly was my very vivid impression, that i saw nothing new at all in the gulf that i

have not seen in prince william sound. and it was equally ineffective, 3%. skimmers. which is really shocking. i continue to wonder and will ask you whether, among the improved technology that is on the horizon or that you saw or we have discovered down in the gulf and response to this, are there any skimmers that do any better than the ones that die in open ocean. >> i think there are some. i will let david talk about that. i think there are some shallow draft skimmers, greater capacity skimmers, oil-water separators, technology used by kevin costner. i think it were affected. obviously, they were not that effective, because it's giving only captured 3% -- skimming only captured 3%. that is due to a lot of factors.

only 3% of 4 corn 1 million gallons is a significant amount -- of 4.1 million gallons of oil is a significant amount. >> the word i would use it would be modest. i would emphasize that it was a four month in a debate period in which these were tested. if we had a 20-year period, the improvements would have been a lot more significant. >> is the big obstacle the way of action in the open ocean? i was always told that they worked reasonably well in a placid harbor. >> i think that is right. also, you cannot use them in certain weather conditions. as the commission alleged, burning also depends on favorable weather conditions. >> burning did better. >> it never been done on this scale before, so i think burning was a success. i do not know of the way ford would be skimmers, but there are

response technologies that improve in the course of this bill and there is no reason to think they could not prove a lot more. >> one of the reasons that burning improved is that because there were modest improvements in the boom used. it is interconnected. it is fair to say that there were modest improvements. >> the boom was better. >> one common-sense solution that would help, that was mentioned, is that when you use a skimmer, if you collect the oil off the surface, and what you have to do is separate the two and get rid of the water. but epa regulates that is if you were discharging some other oily waste. you have the same standards than if you were discharging other things that could contain oil. in reality what you are doing is removing oil from the ocean and

putting a small percentage of a bat and in the process. is not the same is interjecting a material that was not there to begin with kurt >> my understanding is that crews ships have -- cruise ships have oily water provisions. >> to get that on a skimming vesslel is different. >> are any peer countries investing in r&d, or is this a global problem? no one is making the proper investment? >> norway does a better job. skimmers -- i don't know skimmers, about a lot of technology from nora was used -- from norwary was used. >> we heard anecdotes about

that, that the technology from norway did a fantastic job. of us.wary was ahead >> these are the people the dump oil in the water intentionally and clean it up? >> we have six members of the public who are-- >> great job. >> one last comment. we talked about the inadequacy of the technology in the gulf and a previous conversation about the arctic. if we cannot do it in the gulf and a fairly tremendous infrastructure, everybody is there and everything is available, the plans are in place, let's just reflect on being prepared in the arctic -- much more difficult. >> you think so? >> [laughter] >> i was reflecting on your comments about the nothing that happened in 20 years.

>> thank you very much. thank you for the great work you have done. >> now look at some of the newly elected governors occurred rick snyder won the michigan's election with 50% of the vote, winning the seat of jennifer granholm. in oregon, he defeated chris dudly. ey. he takes the seat of a term- limited governor. >> on "newsmakers", james bullard. that is at 6:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national

cable satellite corp. 2010] \ >> find great holiday gifts are our cspan store. to umbrellasvd's, and more. it is online at c-span.org/shop. >> next, the national commission on fiscal responsibility announced a final vote on a report to reduce the deficit. the plan is titled the moment of truth. it calls for cutting $4 trillion from the national debt before 2020 by placing a cap on discretionary spending. this is about 45 minutes. the fiscal course of this country simply cannot be sustained. you >> the fiscal course of this country cannot be sustained. to make inaction an option. the plan proposed calls for many things. in that sense, is no different

om the other agreements we have work done years ago. we succeeded once by balancing the budget for the first time in 30 year and i believe we can do that again today. the plan before us does call for some hard choices, choices made harder by tilting too much towards saving cuts and not revenue increases. i have my doubts about the achieve ability of some parts. substantial cuts in medicare on the heels of cuts made through healthare reform are

disconcerting. one cannot help but notice the irony of extending taxuts one day and the next day proposing a 65 page report to emina $3 trillion-$4 trillion of deficit and debt. this shows that this is just an exercise in complex choices. there is no easier way out. it does not undertake to deal with this because it is budget process. if this is somehow adopted, how

is it implemented? the budget process remains intact. we can oy make recommendations here. the commission's recommendations illustrate the spending policies that congress could pass to reach the deficit reduction. the commission's purpose is to show proposing these recommendations, the feasibility of its overall proposal. many of the recommendations are not endorsed by many -- many of the members of this commission. many are, but some are not spread -- they are not. all of these are necessary components, believe me. it does not change the basic budget process.

necessary changes in policy will begin with the budget committee. it will include reconciliation. going back to caveat, barely time to clean them up and time to clean them out. -- there will be time to clean them up in time to clean them out. we begin a national debate to show that we are in earnest. i have been on to serve on it, our coaches deserve credit for giving an energy and focus and for bringing it to a conclusion on the designated date. the staff deserves credit for a prodigious amount of work. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

he has been my lifelong friend for 28 years. >> [inaudible] [laughter] >> he has served this nation well. thank you. senator conrad? >> i would like to say that the senator is not here because of a longstanding family obligations there is no place that he would rather be than with us here today. i want to thank him for partnering with a. we started this three years ago. because we recognize that it would take some sort of special process to bring to the attention of the nation the seriousness of the death threats looming over the country. -- debt threat looming over the

country. both of us are so proud of the two of you. neither of you had to enter this call. -- answer this call greg allen, you are out there in wyoming with your fantastic wife. ny of us have long thought that a and it is the really special one in that relationship. allen not so bad either. you have just done a superb and courageous job. erskine, you did not have to take on this obligatn. you have heavy responsibilities back at home. you recognized that this is one of the key challenges facing the country. other than a terrorist threat to america, i belie this debt rights constitutes the greatest challenge to our country.

the senator is a very good man. somebody that fully understands that the challenges we confront. he has been willing to put aside partisanship to try to get a result for the country. the chairman, that you could not have a better chairman of the budget committee. he is simply the best. we all want to thank you for your service to the country. i would ask others to join in recognizing his service. [applause] over and over, and john has demonstrated courage. i have seen it many many times.

senator dorgan, you showed courage big time. i will never forgets your stepping up. to senator coburn, i watched h press conference yesterday. it gave me chills. you two had the courage to sp forward and say, look, this is not exactly what we do, but we are prepared to sign up to make a beginning. thank you for that. a 14-18. going to get when we put together this plan and finally agreed on the tested 14-18, i never thought there was much probability. what chance do put on it? i said, 5-10%.

we're going to get 11. 11 of 18 is 60%. that is a little over 60%. in the united states senate, when you are facing a filibuster, 60% prevails. i believe we have crossed at important hurdle here. we have laid out a plan that will be resurrected because its must be. put me in the camp, there are things here that i do not like at all. i do not like the federal employee health benefit plan, a defid contribution approach, i do not like it. there are other things that i do not like. but that is not the point. the point is what we have agreed to hear is far more important than what we have not agreed to create we have agreed to $4 trillion of debt reduction over the next decade. $4 trillion that does stabilize

the debt and it does bring the debt down to levels that every economist said is absolutely essential to achieve. a debts of less than 40% of gdp. on social security, i think we have got it about right. it does secure the solvency of social security for the next 75 years and does not use any of e proceeds to reduce the deficit. this is purely to strengthen it and to make secure social security for long term. we have done it in a balanced and fair way. help those who get to age 82 by giving them a bump and their benefits. secure because of the excellent work of senator durbin great hardship waivers for those, and because of hard physical labor,

simply must retire early. thankou for that progress of an important contribution to spread i watched the news mia report saying that we have done away with the mortgage deduction. we have not. we have reformed it. those reports were inaccurate bread i also saw reports that we were increasing the taxes by $1,700 on every american. nope. that is absolutely inaccurate. what we have done is fundamentally reform the t system and taken some of the deductions and exclusions and credits and tax expenditures so at we could lower rates. 90% of the additional revenue is used to lower rates to make america more competitive. including gloria the corporate rate, the sickest -- the second highest in the world.

we are doing something here to make america more competitive so that we can create more jobs. hallelujah for that. that is a leadership position that will be recognized in any plan that comes forward in the future. i could go on, but i want to end there. i want to say how proud i am of the work of this group. we have changed the conversation in the country. it will never be the same. thank you for your plan. i liked it better in many ways than some of the other plants. i think you have made a real contribution. you have the courage to come forward with a plan that also gives us back -- gets us back on track. it does it in a different way and i admire that you have the courage to come forward. i admire people to come forward with a plan.

this is not the end of the story. this is not the end of the story. this book is going to be read again. these chapters are going to be real. we have provided, i believe, a strong message to our colleagues and to the country of what has to be done. thank you. >> we would not be here without you. that is a fact. >> i want to begin by saying to to a remarkable individuals, thank you for giving us the chance to have this conversation. to alan simpson, who was the

perfect choice to be a cochair because he would say all the wrong with saying said before he would sell the right things. -- say all the right things. [laughter] to erskine bwoles, -- bowles, the president chose to individuals who had the courage of their conviction to try to move forwa. enormous applause for what you have done in helping us stay together. i stated my office till the wee hours this morning. unfortunately, i kept my staff with me as well. i always try to figure out of there was a way i could get to yes. for all the reasons that i think my friend and colleague dick durbin said he is a yes, i think is appropriate for all of us to want to be a yes. i am going to be a no, but i want to make it clear that

everything that he said earlier, it is important to have the courage to say we have to do something, to say that he won a seat at the table. those are the reasons i will say no. the seat at the table is important. it will not just be this table. it will be the table and the senate and the house and the white house and every kitchen table in this country where we will have to discuss this. beckham we will -- we were given the privilege to be at this ble. i do not give up the seat easily. i cherish the seat. i intend to continue to find a seat. they have given us an opportunity to move forward. what this boils down to for me the following -- we have got some hard choices. you are showing us that it can be done. you gave us many alternative

ways to do it. you put together an outline of the many options that were out there. what you have done is you have stimulated the conversation occurred. you open the door for us to not act. do something, not just talk. it is not the end of the stor i do not think the last chapter has been written. this certainly maybe one of the influential chapters, but this book has not been written. i hope that one of the chapters in this book, the fiscal soundness for this country, did retargets that which got us into this mess? did we look at what was letting us develop the record surpluses and did we examine what took us from these record surpluses to these record

deficits? if we examine that chapter well, the following chapter will probably say, we know how to take care of part of the problem because we know some of the causes. when you go to war, and to borrow money from china, your econy is going to hurt. when you pass a prescription drug plan for our seniors and america -- i am n casting judgment one way or the other. we did not pay for it. when you pass it, that they don't find it. we are looking at another $300 billion in unpaid costs that we probably had to borrow from china. we can talk about the size of the tax cuts. they probably add up to close to

a third of the deficit that we face long-term as a result of the different decisions that have been made. as one popular politician back, is to say, then was then and now is now. what do we do now? one of the chapters that will be itten will say that we recognize that we cannot undo the policies of the past, but we can pay for them. therefore, there is about $1.30 trillion on the table that is on page 4. i do not think it pays for by those who did the party and during that decade. -- partying during the decade trade that is the biggest objection have. somehow, a senior receiving benefits may be to attend a local senior center in my district, is going to see cuts

to programs because we have to make those tough choices. because we spend $1.30 trillion in wars in iraq and probably a prescription drug benefit, i hope that we recoize that we have to pay for those transgressions, this fiscal transgressions to move forward. second thing i think we have to do and i hope i see a chapter in the book that says we are going to do that in a way that recognizes that we need to invest in america. no longer can we spend in america. we have to invest it. to me, that means that if we're gointo make e cuts that we have to make to similar programs, and we will target them well, i appreciate that the fire wall has been put in place. i less appreciate that the bulk of the cuts will come disproportionately on the backs

of those who require education, environmental cleanup, housing, senior citizens services, health care. you have done something important. you put the discussion on the table. you did something else was very important. you've raised the other important chapter in this book that has to be written. while we talk about spending being a problem, the reality is, it is not the spending on the direct side. it is the spending on the tax side that is the problem. i know there are some that wil argue. if you let them keep it, then we need it. it cost us we do not have it.

the second most difficult issue that i confronted is that so much of the reform andhe savings comes from programs that are essential in places like my working-class district, but not from those who got the benefits of these massive tax earmarks. i wish that we would do much more to take into account these huge tax giveaways. if reapportion it properly, we could make the types of decisions that will allow us to move forward. this is a plan that is worthy of consideration. this is a plan that makes the tough choices. this is a plan that provides input. this is ao a plan that gave different options spread i think there are many different options that can be chosen. i think the director put together a plan that has a

number of options and i think are very worthy of consideration. when it came to your actions of this discretionary spending, more so than this plan before us. if nothing else, i think there are some great chapters to be written. we have some good doctors here at this table. we must prevail if we want to keep america strong. i look forward to working with everyone. i very much sand beach chairs and every member of this commission for making this a memorable journey that i got to go through as we get ready to tell the american people that we are up to it.

>> you have been a big help all of us. i understand the struggle. you are a leader of tomorrow. >> thank you. i cannot support the and i agree with them that the work was constructed despite our inability to get 14 votes. i offered my own plan to reach budgetary goals by 2015 with one very different assumptions.

i bieve that we can do it without further eroding the middle class in america. it pays to remember that just 10 years ago, we had a budget surplus and the debt was rapidly decreasing. during the bush years, those surpluses disappeared. a blind eye to the recklessness of wall street, which caused 8 million americans to lose their jobs and milons more to lose their savings, the value of their homes and the homes themselves. we are often an unsustainable fiscal path, to " the report, that threatens the future of economic viability of our country. i agree. but there was another crave threat to both our economy and our democracy. that was the alarming redistribution of wealth that is shrinking the middle class. the top 1% of americans now own 34% of our nation's wealth.

more than the entire 90% of the rest of americans combined. evenuring this discussion, at the top 5% of households have seen their incomes rise. if we feel right now to extend unemployment insurance benefits to 2 million americans, not only will that be another slap to the middle class, that it will hurt our economy by depriving our businesses of what these struggling americans will go out and spend. now we have a commission report that talks about shared sacrifice and making painful decisions. painful for whom? these recommendations and asked those tools already been sacrificing, who are sacrificing now, to further sacrifice. those of not enjoying prosperity party over the last many years

are being passed to pick up too much of the tab. you do not need to do that. there is another way. my plan recognizes the need to create jobs. a deficit reducing strategy that some in correctly viewed as just more spending. their plan does not include up first -- upfront investments. the bowles-simpson plan asks them to pay more out of their own pockets. they already pay 30% of their mostly meager encourage the median income for seniors is $18,000 a year. their planned cuts medicare by $110 billion by imposing higher cost sharing requirements. my requires medicare to

negotiate with pharmaceutical companies, like the veterans ministration does. the cbo estimates at a savings of about $10 billion per year. the plant -- the planned cuts the bloated military budget, which is a good thing. mine does as well. by cutting military health care benefits. these military families are not getting rich serving our country and should not be the targets of deficit reduction. responding to republican calls for slashing spending, their plan calls for deep cuts in domestic discretionary spending. using the plant -- using the formula, there is a 22% cut in

current funding levels in 2020. jeopardize in everything from nutrition and education to medical research and job training. their plan opens a new shoe is loophole to incentivize companies to outsource jobs by adopting a territorial tax system, a u.s.-based multinational corporations will never have to pay taxes on profits earned from subsidiaries in foreign countries. finally, their plan would require cuts in social security benefits. the good news is that it is acknowledges the social security does have nothing to do th t deficit. their plan to make social security solvent for the next 75 years is not a plan for debt reduction. the bad news is that the average benefits for middle income workers could be caught up to

35% depending on when they retire. there is no need to cut socialist -- cut benefits for social security. we do not need to cut social security in order to save it. i have highlighted just a few of the ways that their plan further erodes the middle class. there are ma things in their plans that are -- i appreciate that there has been a consensus that the defense budget must be subjected to scrutiny and trimming in ways never seriously considered before. it is very significant to tax expenditures -- all those deductions are largely given to the wealthy and they're finally being recognized for what they are.

some will criticize my approach as politically impossible. but i gladly submit my ideas to the public. protecting social security and medicare benefits, investing in jobs, and asking the richest americans to contribute more represent the majority view despite the inside the beltway conventional wisdom of what is possible. bottom line, the commission on fiscal responsibility and reform has proven that to fixing our nation's fiscal challenges is not mission impossible. i look forward to a constructive debate -- a constructive debate that has been started. i will continue to stand up for low-income and middle-class americans. thank you. >> thank you. thank you for playing a constructive part of this debate.

>> i have to think jan for being the canary in the co wind -- coal mine, too. when i began to grant, we had a talk. she said that she would clear her throat when i began to grant, which was not perptible to others. it was to me. [laughter] it was one of those silent dog whistles. dogs can hear something that no one else can hear. i heard her do that. [laughter] >> i give up. >> i was listening to senator conrad speak. it was only 10 months ago that the president created this commission. the country was suffering from the aftershock of a rather devastating financial collapse that rocked the nation.

only a handful of people were dealing with this ver high priority issue. the people on this commission should understand that we have changed the forever. we have changed of -- the issue from whether there should be even a fiscal plan for this country to what is the best fiscal plan for this country? that is an enormous paradigm shift that is important and that you have led to make happen. my plan does call for the same $4 trillion of debt -- deficit reduction. i have may have done it in a different way, but i agree that before we continue and before it becomes a chronic disease,

before it has -- threatens our national security, before it is the most unique and wonderful and special american dream, we have to do something. the fact that we now have five plants demonstrates that this is no longer a matter of policy. it is really about leadership. just to be fair, their plan got 60% of the votes to whoever made the role of 14, we made it out. it deserves a house -- a vote in the house and senate trade if it fails, we should just keep on voting until we get the job done. it is a question of when we will get this done. this president needs to make sure that by the state of the union, he also has his own plan. this is the issue of part-time.

-- the issue of our time. i voted notes despite my admiration for the effort to spread i feel strongly that we have to deficits in this country. if fiscal deficits and an investment deficit. the investment deficit, we also need to create a competitive dynamic and growing economy. no family would willingly balance a budget by not sending their children to college. no business can successfully compete without equipment. no nation can simply cut its way into the future. it has to invest as well. i also thought the plan should better balance revenue and spending cuts. i thought we could do more to provide solvency to social security will still preserving benefits. i thought there were too many short-term cuts in health care.

i did not think we have in a shared responsibility on the part of our larger corporations to make their fair share contribution to all of this. but i tnk something needs to be done. to senator durbin, i respect what you have done. i admire your courage. if those fall calls keep coming, since some of them to me. our future, our country's future, our cldren's future is not a matter of change. it is a matter of choice. it is a moment of truth. thank you. >> thank you. i have enjoyed every minute i have spent with you. it has been a great learning experience for me. thank you for your participation. >> let me at my thanks for the

work that you have done as chairman. i've made a lot of friends going to this process. the process, though, is agonizing. making friends down here -- you did not ke it easy. nonetheless, it did happen. probably the most surprising one for me it is a candy and i coming -- andy and i becoming friends. i remember seeing the list and i thought, who dreamt up this one? acc -- ceo, we are not going to get a low. this will not work. i fully expected -- [laughter] that never happens.

if he had the guts to reach out, i should have the guts to engage in conversation imparted we got a long. we did not necessarily agree, but we got along. my hope is that in this process, democrats and republicans learn to get a log and come to a conclusion of all this. it has not been an easy vote for anyone. i have the advantage in that i do get to go home. the sec voted yes, i recognize the difficulty in doing it. i really admire you doing that. for those devoted no, i recognize that at any that you went through to arrive at that cision. i cannot help, though, in noticing a pattern of the votes.

i am reminded of james madison. the hot tea of thhouse schools in the saucer of the senate. i am hopeful -- my hope is that coolest prevails. as all of you work through this process, coolness prevails. the problem is not going away and this is just the beginning. while this is the end of the commission, and i am thankful for that, it really is just the beginning of the resolution and the moment of truth. it needs to be addressed. for the 12 politicians on the team, your efforts has really just begun. we all recognize that. if i can be of any help in that process, i am more than willing to do that. the process is agonizing.

i ha never seen such hyperbole associated with such small items. slashed, destroyed, cut, a dronian is applied to something like a 5% increase over 10 years becoming a 4% increase over 10 years. i cannot understand the trauma of all the words associated with something like that i have difficulty seeing how you get your job's done at all when there is that kind of hyperbole. i waited -- my final comments would be, the essence of compromise is nobody is happy. there is something for each of us to point to and say, we are not happy. that is true and that includes me. i would ask you to not let it b

the enemy of the good. i understand the argument. do not let the perfect the enemy of the good. i would go back to a phrase that a number of us have used, this is a time to not to pull apart, but pulled together. >> before i go to senator simpson, is there anything else -- anyone else that would like to say something? >> i will be very brief. i am honored to serve on this commission. i give my reasons. some of the things that i disagree with. the congressman referred to the plan that we put together. frankly, i do think it is a

better plan. but even that was a compromise. he is republican. i am a democrat. we had 17 other people to deal with. because of cochairing this other group and because of my service on this commission, i've spent a lot of time in the last few weeks being interviewed by the press. there's been some excellent articles about this process, the general tone is, this can not work, can it? in the many hours i spent with a microphone on my lapel, about 20 peent was spent on the content of either plan and the 80% was explain why this is not going to

happen. i would just plead with the press -- to give democracy a chance. it is possible that this process might work. you might -- it might actually work here on capitol hill. lay off and give it a chance. [laughter] [applause] >> that is better. >> thank you very much. i had not intended to make any remarks. i made my speech yesterday. i wanted to comment on one thing that was said by senator conrad. the fact that we did not hit 14. it should not be an indication

that there is not powerful support behind this plant -- support behind this plan. the need for congress to engage brigid we did get over 60 -- the need for congress to engage. we did get over 60. had we had 14, we would have been required to get 77% consensus. that is a broader level of consensus that is then it needed in this congress by far. my point is that although -- by failing to get to 14, we will not have the ability to force a vote on this specific plan on the floor of the sate and house. but it does not mean that we will not have the ability to move ahead aggressively inhe consideration of thislant great many of those who voted against the plan have commended it. as you indicated, some of those

two the ability to put together next year's budget are going to use major pieces of this plan as we move forward. i would simply say, to the president, t the senate, to the house and to the people of our nation, we should not let's this proposal fall idly by the wayside. as a matter of fact, i have seen too many proposals, the proposals, simply be shelved. we have shown that we can get the majority necessary, the super majority necessary, to pass this kind of legislation. we evaluate our options and moving forward, the option of inaction is at acceptable.

-- is on acceptable. we cannot allow gridlock. the effort to find a perfect get in the way of getting this audit the track. several of the witnesses who talked to this commission earlier pointed o to that one of the most significant things that we could do for our economy would be to get on a plan. they did not say, what plan? to this plan? they said, get on a plan. our nation must recognize that it is imperative that we do that to immediately. if any message can come out of these deliberations, and i think it must be that we can get onto a plan. we have a cheap to -- we have achieved the kind of super

majority support for one plan in this commissioner. when to expect the congress to gets to ting. this plan deserves a vote. other plans deserved boats. the issue deserves consideration. i would hope that as we move forward, all members of this commission could unanimously agree on that. an advocate as we move forward for immediate and aggressive consideration of this plan and of this issue. >> thank you, sir. >> i will do the two-minute drill. that is a wonderful tribute to because he will get hammered.

we will all get hammered. let me tell you, if democracy is in deep trouble. when the two most disgusting bodies in america are politicians and journalists, democracy cannot work. to win the two lowest forms of society are journalist, the media, and politicians. we both have to do a better job. imc in those interviews. the interviewers are always aeolic, vigorous guys. -- the interviewers are always ayala, compared -- young, vigorous guys appear it -- guys. you are the ones that will get clobbered, not me. i want to list all the things that i do not like.

i will be reminded of every single one of them when i get home. it will be something unbelievable. as these groups and zealots to gather their minions to begin their slash and burn of efforts, they cnked up their blatant distortions. be ready. they will pull all the stops. remember this, many of them were the same-sex to chuckled -- many of them were the same applies 6 that chuckled. they are not laughing now. as for me, because of youll, i will walk: probably with my hat -- with my head held high

>> the report cannot officially be taken up by congress without 14 votes from the 18 members. today, james from the federal reserve of said lewis talks about what to expect from the economy. also, we will look at the role of the federal reserve and the economy. that is today at 6:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> ahead to put my money on the outcome, it would be that peace in iraq, and it might be a very harsh peace, is likely ultimately to be imposed once

again by autocracy. we just have to hope that, if that does happen, the new ruler, the new dictator, will be a lot more benign than saddam hussein. >> john burns talks about the future of iraq tonight on c-span is q&a. >> find great holiday gifts for the c-span fan in your life and are c-span store, from books and cds to mugs, umbrellas, and more. they're all available online at c-span.org/shop. >> last week, the house voted to censure congressman charles rangel for ethics violations. two republicans, peter king and don young, joined 77 democrats in voting against the measure. the house has not centered

anyone since 1983. this is a little over one hour. he dominican republic and provide proof of payment to the committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from california is recognized for one hour. ms. lofgren: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to yield 30 minutes of my time to the the gentleman from new york for purposes of debate only and for his control of those 30 minutes. of my remaining 30 minutes, i ask unanimous consent to yield 15 minutes of my time to the the gentleman from alabama, the ranking member on the committee of standards of official conduct, mr. bonner, for purposes of debate only and for his control of those 15 minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. ms. lofgren: mr. speaker, i yield such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman may proceed. ms. lofgren: as chair of the standards of official conduct and the subcommittee in the matter of mr. rangel, i rise in

support which calls for censure, article 1, section 5 of the constitution provides each house may punish its members for disorderly behavior and with the concurrence of the members. the committee on standards is realming ethical standards that ensure that members and staff act in a matter befitting the public trust. this role of the committee to review allegations that a member has violated those standards, in this case after a lengthy and thorough investigation that spanned more than two years and 5,000-page report, the committee concluded that this member violated those standards. we were charged with recommending an appropriate sanction to the house. the entire report has been available to members of the house and the public on the committee's web site and many portions have been publicly released since july. here is a brief summary of the findings of that report. in this matter, we found that

representative rangel engaged in misconduct in four areas. mr. rangel improperly sole is ted individuals with business and interests before the house to fund the charles b rangel center at city college of new york. he misused official resources to make those solicitations for millions of dollars and improperly sole is ted funds from lobbyists and failed to file disclosure statements for 10 years and accepted the benefits related to his use of a rent stabilized apartment as a campaign office under circumstances that created an appearance of impropriety. and failed to report and pay taxes on income he received on property he owned indom republic. his conduct in each of those four areas violated laws and regulations and rules of the house namely that he violated the gift and solicitation ban, a statute enacted by congress in

1989, violated clauses 2 and 5 of the code of ethics for government service, violated postal service laws and regulations issued by the franking commission, violated the rules of this house, violated the purpose law arbitration statute derives directly from the constitution, violated the ethics in government act and violated the internal revenue code. a bipartisan majority of your colleagues concluded that 11 of the 13 counts in the statement of alleged violation regarding these areas of misconduct were proved by clear and convincing evidence. we found his actions and aaccumulation of actions reflected poorly on the institution of the house and brought discredit to the house. nothing we say or do here today will in any way diminish his service to our country or our gratitude for his service both in this house and as a hero of the korean war. but that service does not excuse the fact that representative rangel violated laws. he violated regulations, he

violated the rules of this house and he violated the standards of conduct. because of that misconduct a nonpartisan committee staff recommended he be censured and the majority of the committee recommended censure and the committee voted that he be pay restitution to the taxing authorities. censure is a serious sanction and one rarely imposed by the house the decision to recommend that was not reached lightly. the committee considered the aggregation of representative rangel's misconduct. the committee concluded that his violations occurred on a continuous and prolonged basis and were more serious in character meriting a strong congressional response rebuking his behavior. for the violation, the committee considered not only the amount of taxes he failed to pay over many years but the fact that he served at various times in influential position as chairman and ranking member of the ways and means committee.

it brought discredit of the house with this member with great responsibility for tax policy did not pay his taxes for many years. some have questioned whether a recommendation of censure is consistent. it is true that the committee's roughly 40 years of experience, the house has censured four members. it is true that for precedent to be followed, a precedent must be set. we follow precedent, but we also set it. for example, nearly 30 years ago, the committee recommended that two members be reprimanded for engaging in sexual relations with pages. the house rejected the recommendation and instead censured those two members. it is possible that if that situation were to occur again today, this house might not feel censure a severe enough action. many of this body pledged four years ago to create the most honest, most open and most ethical congress in history. censure for this misbehavior is consistent with that pledge. at the hearing, the nonpartisan

committee counsel said clearly that representative rangel's pattern of misconduct was sloppiness and said that did not excuse miss misconduct. in light of those considerations, a bipartisan majority of the committee concluded that it was appropriate to recommend to the house that representative rangel be censured. key decisions were made with bipartisan votes, not all votes were unanimous but each on the basis of a bipartisan majority vote. the purpose is not punishment but accountability and credibility. accountability for the respond ent and credibility for the house itself. where a member has been found by his colleagues to have violated, that member must be held accountable for his conduct. representative rangel has violated the public trust. while it is difficult, actually painful to sit in judgment of our colleagues, it is our duty under the constitution to do so and accordingly i bring this

resolution to the floor today. mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: mr. bonner is recognized for 15 minutes. mr. bonner: i yield such time as i may consume. this is a solemn moment for this house at a time in little under an hour all of our members will have an opportunity to make a statement with their vote. as such and because the rules allow the rules mr. rangel to defend himself against the recommendation of the committee and the committee's time is being evenly divided between the chair and the ranking member, i want to inform the body that there will only be three members on this side of the aisle who will speak. i say this because there have been a number of members who have approached me even on this committee asking for time. but out of respect for all and especially in light of the rare

nature of this debate, i intend to recognize our time only to myself, mr. hastings, the former chair of the ethics committee and our colleague who served almost two years on the investigative subcommittee as well as our colleague, mr. mccaul, who serves as the ranking member of the ajude ca tower subcommittee during that phase of that matter. if other matters care to have their views inserted into the record, we would have no objection. with that, i yield three minutes to the the gentleman from texas, mr. mccaul. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. mccaul: first, let me thank the gentleman from alabama for his leadership on this solemn occasion. this is this is an important day for mr. rangel, the congress and the american people. as ranking member in the rangel

adjudicatory proceedings and as a former worker in the department of justice, i take this seriously. no member asked for this assignment. but we accept our responsibility here today for no other reason than to protect the honor, integrity, and credibility of this great institution. the american people's confidence in us is at historic lows. they want their elected representatives accountable for their actions, just as they are held accountable as private citizens. today, we have an opportunity to begin a new era restoring the trust of the american people. the committee agreed on 12 of the 13 counts, finding he violated multiple rules of the house and federal statutes. including the most fundamental code of conduct, which states a member of the house shall conduct himself at all times in

a manner that shall reflect credibility on the house. credibility is exactly what is at stake here. the very credibility of the house of representatives itself before the american people. most egregiously, the committee found that mr. rangel failed to pay his income taxes for 17 years. and this, while serving as chairman of the committee that writes the tax laws of the nation. what kind of message does this send to the average working man or woman who plays by the rules and struggles every day to pay their own taxes? mr. rangel also solicited contributions from corporations, foundations, and lobbyists who had business before his committee to build a school bearing his name. i've consistently opposed members of congress naming

monuments after themselves. the committee recommends the most severe punishment available both on the facts and the precedent this sanction is both rare and historic. founding father john adams said that moral authority and character increases as the importance of the position increases. in his letter to the speaker, mr. rangel stated that as chairman of ways and means, he is to be held to a higher standard of propriety. i agree. mr. rangel failed to hold himself to this higher standard. the american people deserve better. while i sincerely feel for mr. rangel as a human being, i feel more strongly that a public office -- may i have 15 more seconds? >> i yield the gentleman another 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized.

>> i feel strongly that a public office is a public trust and mr. rangel violated that trust. the speaker challenged us to enter into a new era of transparency and accountability. mr. mccaul: let us begin today, let justice be served, let us begin to enter into a new era of ethics to restore the credibility and integrity of this house, the people's house, and with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from alabama. mr. bonner: i yield 3 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from washington state, mr. hastings. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is are recognized for 3 1/2 minutes. mr. hastings: thank you, mr. speaker. i want to thank my friend from alabama for yielding time. for over two years, i served on the investigative committee that reviewed allegations and evidence involving mr. rangel and we found a substantial reason to believe, which is what our threshold was, that

violations occurred. because the facts of this matter are not disputed, i will not comment on the evidence. i will, however, comment on the length of the investigation and particularly a statement made by mr. rangel regarding the confidential work on the investigative committee. first on the length of the investigation, chairman green and i, when i was ranking member of the subcommittee, had every intention of completing the investigation before the conclusion of the 110th congress. but events intervened. in september of 2008, mr. rangel publicly pledged he would release in a timely manner a forensic analysis of 20 years of his tax returns and financial disclosures. however, we did not receive the report until may of 2009, eight months later. then in december of 2008, serious new allegations involving neighbors industries resulted in the committee's unanimous decision to expand its jurisdiction. in august of 2009, amendments

filed by mr. rangel to his financial disclosures raised serious new questions, resulting in the committee unanimously expanding the investigation once again. finally, after receiving the information long requested from him, the subcommittee completed its work and sent the statement of alleged violations to him on may 27, 2010. remember that date. now, on mr. rangel's statement, and here i'm going to be very crittle, mr. speaker. let me read a statement he made in an article dated june 6, 2010 in "politico." i'm quoting mr. rangel now. i would normally believe being a former federal prosecutor that if the allegations involve my conduct as a member of the house and there's a committee with republicans and democrats there that you refer to the committee. and if they are so confused after 18 months they can't find

anything, then that is a story. end quote. mr. rangel, in my view, had misrepresented the work of the subcommittee. why do i say that? because the comments he made were comments over a week after -- after -- the subcommittee had transmitted a detailed, confidential statement of allegations, acompanied with thousands of pages of documents to him. he knew the contents of the report. confused? there is no confusion. everything was in his possession he knew what the subcommittee produced and he deliberately misrepresented its contents. in fact, he was aware of the subcommittee's work as early as december 15, 2009, when he testified before the committee. in addition, after he received this s.a.v., he subsequently met in executive session at his request two more times with his council. mr. speaker, i mention this because there was discussion of

process in this matter. it is completely disingenuous to suggest that the subcommittee had treated him unfairly. mr. speaker, the investigating subcommittee completed its are responsibilities to the house and the american people in a timely, professional, and responsible manner. the facts supporting the 11 violations are not disputed. i will vote for the resolution. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from alabama. mr. bonner: i reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california. >> i reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized for 30 minutes. mr. rangel: first, let me apologize to this august body for putting you in this very awkward position today.

and to the ethics committee, i do recognize that it is not a job that many of us would want to have. last week, as we were reading about the north koreans attacking the south koreans, i was haunted by the fact that on november 30, 60 years ago, i was in korea as a young 20-year-old volunteer in the second infantry division. and on that occasion in subzero weather, 20 degrees below zero, the chinese surrounded us and

attacked and there were hundreds of casualties, wounded and killed and captured. screams were heard, i was wounded, and had no thoughts that i would be able to survive. but god gave me the strength not only to survive though wounded, but to find my way out of the entrapment and for three days i had the strength to lead 40 of my comrades out of that situation and we all were haunted by the fact that so many of my comrades did not survive it. i tell you that story, not for sympathy, but to let you know that at that time in every sense, i made up my mind that i could never complain to god for

any events that occurred in my life. and that i would dedicate my life in trying in some meaningful way to improve the quality of life for all americans as well as as much as i could do for humankind. it is for that reason that i stand to say that i have made serious mistakes, i do believe rules are made to be enforced, i do believe we in the congress have a higher responsibility than most people, i do believe that senior members should act in a way as a model for new and ress experienced members. i do believe that there should be enforcement of these laws, there should be sanctions. but if you're breaking new ground, i ask for fairness.

none of the presidents of the history of this great country has -- never in the history of this great country has anyone suffered a censor when the record is abundantly clear that in those investigations which i called for, the committee found no evidence at all of corruption. found no evidence of self-enrichment, found no evidence that there was intention on my part to evade my responsibility, whether in taxes or whether in financial disclosures. and there's absolutely no excuse for my responsibility to obey those rules, i take full

credit for the responsibility of that. i brought it on myself. but i still believe that this body has to be guided by fairness. and so that's all i'm saying. i'm not here to complain. i have too much to be thankful for. being from where i am and being where i am today and once again it's been awkward, especially for my friends and supporters, but i want to respect the dignity of the community that elected me to serve them, i want to continue to serve this congress and this country and do what i can to make life better for other people and i think we all agree that in 40 years, i tried my darnedest to do that.

so at this point, by unanimous, i would like to turn the remainder of the time that the chair has given to me to my fellow colleague, bobobby scott. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from virginia may control the time. mr. scott: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. scott: mr. speaker, i served on the special subcommittee appointed to investigate this matter and descended from the subcommittee report and i rise to oppose the pending motion to adopt the resolution. i believe that under precedence of the house, imposingsen sure on one of our members for violating procedural rules of the house would be singularly harsh and unfair and without

precedence. mr. rangel acknowledged his mistakes and he's asked to be punished fairly, punished just like everybody else similarly situated. accordingly, i believe punishment is appropriate but i believe censure is in appropriate. congressman charles b. rangel is a dedicated public servant and dedicated soldier who made outstanding contributions to the people of the united states and to this institution. yet he has has made mistakes which resulted in violations of the rule of official conduct for members of the house and he will be punished for those violations. the question is, what is the appropriate punishment? we need not answer this question in a vacuum. congressman rangel is not the first member to violate rule ares of official conduct. we have ample precedence from which to glean the appropriate punishment. it's clear from the precedence of the house thatsen sure is not a fair and just -- that

censure is not a fair and just punishment. the committee counsel during the hearing acknowledged those elements are not found in this case. furthermore, the committee report in this matter acknowledges that the recommendations for censure in this case is a violation of prior precedence. the point is made in the report on page 7, and i quote, although prior committee precedence for recommendation ofsen sure -- censure involves direct financial gain this committee's recommendation for censure is based on the cumulative nature of the violation not direct personal gain. cumulative nature violations to support the committee's recommendation censure is without precedent. in the case of congressman george hansen, the committee stated that and i quote, it has been the character of the offenses which establish the level of punishment imposed new

york city -- not the nature. neither the character nor the cumulative nature of the violations warrant a censure. now eight of the 11 counts that the committee found that congressman rangel has violated are for raising money for the center at the public university in his congressional district. the program is to train young people to go into public service using his life experience as an inspiration. assisting a constituent institution with such a project is not a violation in and of itself, but there are proper procedures to be followed if you are going to raise money for a local college. he openly assisted the institution clearly with nothing to do anything improper but he did violate the rules by not following proper procedures. once a determination was made that he used official resources to help the local college, that

one mistake has been converted into almost eight different counts. one, he used the letterhead, two, he used the staff, three, used office equipment, frank mail, all from the fact that he cannot use official resources. that was a violation and what should the punishment be for raising money improperly? we have the case of former speaker newt gingrich and funded a college course aimed at recruiting new members to the republican party after he had been warned not to and found to have filed false reports in 13 instances causing substantial delays and expense to the committee and did not lose his job as speaker. congressman rangel did not lie about his activities and he believed he was doing right, although he made mistakes and he

received no prior warning as did speaker gingrich. yet congressman rangel lost his chair man shp on ways and means and faces the possibility of a censure, not a reprimand. another example of raising money involved former house majority leader tom delay. he was admonished for participating in energy company fundraiser which the committee found created the appearance of special treatment or access. mr. delay was cited for his partisan conflict in the textous house of representatives using resources of a federal agency, the f.a.a. and in an ethics investigation that involved accusations of solicitation and receipt of campaign contributions in return for legislative assistance, used corporate contributions in violation of state law and improper use of official resources for political purposes as i think everybody is aware, recent news reports that mr.

delay has been convicted of charges of money laundering in connection with circumventing a state law against corporate contributions and political campaigns and been found guilty, the media reports that he faces possible prison sentences between five and 99 years in prison and yet the house did not censure mr. delay, nor did they impose a reprimand but issued a committee letter. mr. rangel has made mistakes and should be punished like everyone else in the past consistent with precedent. now on the issue of mr. rangel's rent stabilized apartment as a campaign office, mr. rangel's landlord knew of his use of the apartment for a campaign office and did not see it as illegal. the committee records reflect, an attorney for the new york housing authority has testified that the use decision was up to the landlord. if somebody rented the apartment that was not technically

protected by the rent stabilization law, the tenant is not protected, however the lease is permed. that's what the attorney said for the housing authority said. i don't know if that's right or wrong, but that's what he pleeved and landlord pleeved and the housing authority lawyer believed. let's talk about this apartment. it had been vacant for months. charlie paid sticker price for the rent, he passed nobody on the waiting list. this is not a corrupt scheme. to the extent there is a violation, let's punish him consistent with others who have had problems. earlier, it was found by the committee to have been paying more than market rent for his campaign headquarters. the rent paid to family members who owned the building. he wasn't censured or reprimanded but received a committee letter. other cases of campaign violations have not resulted in censure. one example is the case of bud shuster for violation of house

rules relating to campaign and other violations. he was found to have allowed a former employee turned lobbyist to communicate with him to influence his schedule and give him advice pertaining to his office and found to have violated the house rules and congressional staff for campaign purposes, to have made certain expenditures for campaign accounts for expenses that were not campaign or political purposes and yet he received a letter nofment a censure, not even a reprimand. both of those cases involved personal financial gain and intentional violation of the rules. the sanction for both was a letter of reprimand. there's the issue now of his failure to pay -- report income on rental property on property he owned in the come dominican

republic and report those on his disclosure statement. some rental payments were reported on his disclosure so nothing to cover up. while he did not file all his reports properly, these do not warrant censure. mistakes are usually corrected with nothing more said. the only cases where there is a violation, sanction, for failure to disclose are cases where there is some corrupt coverup. for example, failing to file campaign contributions during contrarygate or filing to have loans or assets with those who would reveal a conflict of interest. the committee found no evidence that failure to report was for financial gain or coverup. the tax issue, comment was made that he hadn't paid taxes for 17 years. if they are worried about those taxes, tax matters involved a

deal where he and many others had pooled their rent and paid expenses and anything left over was profit. it wasn't as profitable. he got a couple small checks and that was it. however, one of the bills paid was the mortgage and principal is income on which you have to pay taxes. whatever sanction there should be for that transgression should be consistent with precedent. the only example of anybody sanctioned for tax matters in this house in the history of the united states have been those who did not pay taxes on bribes they received. that's it. all we ask is he be sanctioned like everyone else. since there is no indication that representative rangel tried to conceal, censure is not the just punishment. he hired an accountant to ensure

that all of the matters have been cleared up. he knows he messed up and knows he will be punished and ask he be punished like everybody else. charlie rangel will be punished for his transgression, but neither the nature or cumulative impact has been the sufficient basis for censure nor has the level of one's position been the basis for sanction as we said in the case of newt gingrich or tom delay. both had multiple serious violations which were intentional with aggravation such as concealment, lying and failure to heed warnings, nonch of which are in this case. all the instances of censure, reprimand or other sanctions make it clear that censure is not an appropriate sanction. charlie is not asking to be excused for his conduct. he accepts responsibility. all we ask that we cite what has

been done in the past and apply sanctions similar to those sanctions and based on the precedents, there is no precedents for censure in this case. i reserve the balance of my time. >> i yield five minutes to the the gentleman from new york, mr. king. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. king: i thank the gentleman for yielding. at the outset, let me express my respect for chairman lofgren, ranking member bonner, mr. hastings, mr. mccaul and all the members of the ethics committee and their dedicated effort in this painful matter. i will vote against the censure resolution because i do not believe the findings warrant the severe penalty of censure. i studied hundreds of pages of committee documents, concluding the subcommittee findings,

minority view, representative scott, report of the full committee and exhibits and correspopondence. mr. speaker, censure is an extremely severe penalty. in the more than 200-year history of this body, only 22 members have been subjected to censure, none in more than a quarter century. if expulsion is equivalent of the death penalty then censure is life i am prisonment. i have no cases where charges similar to those against congressman rangel resulted in censure. thus far, the penalty has been reserved for such violations on sexual abuse of minors. in congressman rangel's case, the committee's chief counsel said he found no evidence of corruption and the committee report itself said, there was no

direct personal gain to congressman rangel. mr. speaker, my religious faith is based on scripture and tradition. my training as a lawyer has taught me to respect precedent. why today are we being asked to revert more than 200 years of tradition and precedent? there is no doubt that congressman rangel has violated rules of this house, but these violations -- there is no evidence of finding of criminal intent. as congressman scott pointed out, it was public record that charlie rangel was living in the rent stabilized apartment. that was hidden from nobody. that was public record at his campaign headquarters. it was hidden from nobody. it was also public record that charlie rangel had the home in the dominican republic. it was public record that charlie rangel was trying to obtain funding for a public university in his district. nothing was hidden.

so where is the criminal intent? that is why i strongly believe the appropriate penalty is a reprimand. why are we departing from tradition and precedent in the case of charlie rangel? certainly it can't be because of who he is or what he has achieved in his life. a kid from the inner city who emerged from very troubled surroundings to be a combat soldier and authentic war warrior who left his blood in korea, who worked his way through law school, who became a distinguished prosecutor in the united states attorney's office and elected to the new york legislature and united states congress, where he has served with distinction for 40 queers. unless my republican friends get nervous, charlie rangel is a friend and colleague, we disagree on virtually every issue. i can't begin to tell you how many times charlie have gone at it and debated on local news

shows back in new york. but they are very significant debates. but during that entire time, i never heard anyone question his integrity or ever seen charlie rangel treat anyone with disrespect, which is very unusual for somebody in his high position as many of us know, whether it be flight attendants, cab drivers, staff members or the guy on the street corner on 125th street. my colleagues, i know we can get caught up in media attacks and political storms. but i am imploring you today to pause for a moment and step back, to reflect upon not just the lifetime of charlie rangel, but more importantly, the 220-year history of tradition and precedent of this body.

let us apply the same standard of justice to charlie rangel that's been applied to everybody else and which all of us would want to apply to ourselves. i respectfully urge a vote against censure and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: who yields time? mr. scott: i yield to the gentlelady from california, ms. woolsey, 1 1/2 minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. ms. woolsey: i rise today in defense of the gentleman from new york, mr. rangel. i appeal to my colleagues and your sense of fairness as you deliberate on this matter. censure is a very serious sanction. one step short of expulsion. only 22 times in the history of this body has the house censured a colleague and not once in the last 27 years. in the past this punishment has

been reserved for serious acts of corruption, taking bribes, lying under oath, gross sexual misconduct, profiting from one's office. carelessness and minor rules violations have never been grounds for censure. far more serious ethical lapses than mr. rangel's have not met with seen sewer. for example, newt gingrich and tom delay. but they were not censured and in fact newt gingrich continued to serve as speaker of the house. mr. rangel has cooperated fully with the ethics investigation acting with transparency and expressing regret and apologies for his actions. quite simply, mr. rangel's trance gregses and lapses in -- transgressions and lapses in judgment do not rise to the level of censure. fairness, my colleagues, demands that we vote no.

the speaker pro tempore: who yields time? >> i yield one minute to the gentleman from tennessee, mr. tanner. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. tanner: thank you, mr. scott. i, too, have, as mr. king said, enormous respect for the ethics committee. it's a job none of us asked for and none of us want. it has to be done to protect the house of representatives. as a lawyer, i also believe in precedent and i have searched this record and find no activity involving moral turpitude or any activity that could be classified as one with criminal intent. therefore, i think a -- an appropriate action that would protect the house as well as punish congressman rangel, would be a reprimand. i think that is the appropriate

punishment commensurate with what has occurred here unfortunately. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. mr. scott: i yield to the gentleman from ohio, mr. boss well, one minute. mr. boswell: thank you, mr. speaker. i concur with what was last said, i have great respect for the committee. nobody wants your job. i came here 14 years ago and looking back on years that have gone by, i met charlie rangel as a colleague here and then i learned sometime after that we were fellow veterans and fellow soldiers. i realize that he had served with honor and distinction and a year ago last december, i

lead a co-dell, we flew to korea and reflecting back on my time as a student, teacher, commander of staff college and read a lot of that history, the conflict i served in, as many of you, and i thought of charlie. and he was valorous and did his job. charlie's erred. we know that. i'm not going to repeat those things. he's erred. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. scott: i yield the gentleman 10 more seconds. mr. boswell: he has erred and i think censure is too much, a reprimand is appropriate and he would accept that and i ask this house to recognize that in its history and do the right

thing. i would support the reprimand. mr. scott: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from texas, mr. gonzalez. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. gonzalez: thank you very much, mr. speaker. i, too, rise along with my colleague from texas to protect the integrity of this house. i simply want to do it in a different manner than the wording reflected in this resolution, which is not fair and is not just and i think we have an opportunity to still protect the integrity and reputation of this house but to do it in a fair and reasonable manner you heard about all of the allegations but i want to quote from what transpired during that committee hearing, mr. butterfield states in all of the investigation of this matter, did you see any evidence of personal financial benefit or corruption?

and the prosecuting attorney, the one that may have recommended the censure, replied, i see no evidence of corruption. do i believe based on this record that congressman rangel took steps to enrich himself based on his position in congress? i do not. this is a chance for this house to rise to the occasion and to do the right thing. that's what furthers the reputation and the good name of this house by doing the fair and just thing. we are held to a higher standard. that's why mr. rangel has admitted to his misdeeds. but since when, since when, do we forfeit the right to fair and just treatment? since when, when we take the oath as members of congress? i think not. we are a jury today and if you

are a jury, you'd be admonished, do not let prejudice, bias, or sympathy play any part in your deliberations. but the truth is, we're a very different kind of jury. we worry that we are going to be scrutinized and whatever decision we reach today in our vote, may result in political criticism. that's the greatest fear. but we will overcome that and do the very best thing. thank you and i yield back. mr. scott: could the speaker advise me how much time is remaining? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia has 2 1/4 minutes left. the gentleman from alabama has 6 1/2 minute the gentlelady from california has nine minutes. mr. scott: i yield the balance of the time to the gentleman from new york, mr. nadler. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 2 1/4 minutes.

mr. nadler: thank you, mr. speaker. like many members of the house, i have long considered charlie rangel a friend and great public servant. but that is not before us now. we must now consider a report from the ethics committee finding that mr. rangel violated the rules of the house and recommending he be censured for that. i do not disagree he violated the rules of the house in serious way bus under our standards and precedence, his error demands a reprimand, not a censure. some sanction is necessary and appropriate but we should demand a reprimand not a censure. censure has been reserved for corruption, personal corruption, an attempt to gain money, or sexual misconduct. none of that is present here. you heard the discussion of people who were censured for personal financial gain, for

bribery, for lying to the committee, and people like mr. gingrich and mr. hanson who committeed -- committed severe infractions but were reprimanded. in this case, the chief counsel for the ethics committee said he saw no evidence of corruption and he did not believe mr. rangel was trying to enrich himself. what happened, according to the chief council was that he was overst louse in his dealings with city college and sloppy with his financial dealings. censure is a serious sanction. the decision by the ethics committee to recommend censure was based on the cumulative nature of the violations and because the 11 violations committed by representative rangel on a continuous and prolonged basis merited a

strong congressional response. what this ignores, however is that eight of the 11 separate counts all stem from one factor, mr. rangel's belief that certain advocacy for city college, an institution in his district, amounted to constituent service and constituted official action. second, he does not, as mr. bonner said, fail to pay taxes for 17 years. of course he paid taxes and filed every one of those years he did fail to report some income from a villa he owned because he -- can i have an additional 30 seconds? the speaker pro tempore: there is no further time. ms. woolsey: i yield 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california yields 30 seconds. mr. nadler: he believed that money he never saw a check for was not reportable, he was wrong but it was one error, i ask my colleagues to reconsider this.

a censure a punishment never previously imposed for this level of violation of house rules with no adequate explanation for the change in standards offends once sense of fair play and does not reflect credibility on the house. thank you. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: who seeks recognition. the gentleman from alabama. mr. bonner: may i inquire of the chair how many speakers she has remaining? mr. lofgren -- ms. lofgren: just mr. butterfield and my closing. mr. bonner: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. bonner: this is a sad day but a necessary day to complete a matter that should have been concluded with a public trial but mr. rangel walked out of that hearing. instead, we're left with a vote, an important vote not only for mr. rangel but equally a significant vote for this house as an institution. and for how we are seen by our

employers, the american people. watching at home, some are probably looking on with curiosity of sorts as we dispense with this unpleasant yet constitutionally mandated responsibility to punish our own when necessary. in fairness, today eas actions may also confirm what many of us already know. that washington, d.c., truly is disconnected from the real challenges and worried that much of the -- and worries that much of the rest of america are facing every day. the angst of a father whose son is standing guard in some dangerous remote location in afghanistan, or the uncertainty of that single mom who was just told this week that she had been fired. not only does she have to worry about whether she can afford christmas for her children but whether she can pay the car note or the rent without a job. all across america, these are the real life crises that our constituents are facing. yet here on the house floor, one of our colleagues is

dealing with something that to him and i believe to all of us should be considered a serious matter and one that deserves our utmost attention. as i noted back on july 29, when the investigative subcommittee reported this case there is no debate but that congressman charles rangel has led a compelling life story, one that all of us can, including myself, can respect. he was a private as his autobiography says, left to die on the battlefield in north korea. he earned the purple heart and bronze star for bravery and he was a fatherless high school dropout who went from pushing that hand cart in the streets of new york city to becoming one of the most powerful figures on capitol hill. we all know the story. but my friends, mr. rangel's life story is not why we are here. after all, every american has their own unique story to tell. regretfully, this is a day that

does not have to be. if only mr. rangel had settled for the lesser sanctions that today he hopes this body will somehow consider during the course of the investigation, he was given multiple opportunities to settle. instead, he chose to fight on. declaring his innocence and saying the committee did not have a case. if only mr. rangel had paid his taxes as we are all required to do. as chairman of the ways and means committee, he certainly knew something about requiring americans to pay their taxes. but -- the ethics committee found by clear and convincing evidence that mr. rangel failed to pay his taxes for 17 years, violating u.s. and state and local tax laws on income derived from his beach villa in the dominican republic. mymy friends, when you go back home this weekend, try explaining to your constituents that it's ok for a powerful member of congress, the chairman of the tax writing committee, to not pay his

taxes, just don't ask your constituents to do the same. if mr. rangel had used the ethics committee as it is intended to be use, give advice and counsel on how we can use our names to benefit worthy causes such as creating a school for underprivileged minority students to encourage them to consider public service, there's nothing wrong with that idea. actually, it is rooted in the most noble of american missions, education. rather than finding out he can do it the right way and legally, mr. rangel instead chose to use both his personal and committee staff as well as other official resources of his office to help solicit donations of up to $30 million each for a school and library to ensure his legacy. donations from some of the 100 biggest and wealthiest corporations in america, many of whom had direct interest before this very committee that

he chaired. the ethics committee found by clear and convincing evidence that mr. rangel solicited those donations from the very lobbyists of those companies who were coming before his committee. as members of congress, we are all required to file financial disclosure statements. it's not easy to do and sometimes it's easy to make a mistake. but, again, this committee found on clear and convincing evidence that mr. rangel for 10 years failed to file his report promptly and they had numerous omissions, including the failure to disclose over half a million dollars. ladies and gentlemen, my colleagues, there's a lot to be said today and a lot has been said. keep this in mind as you consider the report of the only truly bipartisan committee that stands in this congress, the only one that's evenly divided and sent this recommendation of

censure for you for your consideration. mr. rangel spent more man on the hill than all but five of our colleagues, and he's served his district for longer than 26 of our members have been alive. even so, this recommendation of censure was not made lightly and it was not made without respect for the totality of his life or the seriousness and number of charges for which he has been found guilty. it is a sad day, for sure, mr. speaker, but now the entire house has a responsibility to join the ethics committee in rendering your judgment. i have no doubt that the people we work for will be watching with interest. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlelady from california. ms. lofgren: mr. speaker, i yield to mr. butterfield, a member of the committee, four minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for four minutes. mr. butterfield: let me thank

the gentlelady for the time. as a member of the committee, i rise today to oppose the pending motion. there's no question that mr. rangel violated house rules. for more than a year he's apologized for his misconduct. there is no evidence to say that he engaged in criminal or misconduct or violating his oath. the record shows that mr. rangel was approached by a citizen in new york to seek funds to establish an inner city school for disadvantaged youth and he did so. my colleagues, you must know that it is not unethical or improper for members to raise funds for a charitable purpose. many of you do this every year, and it's a good thing. our rules simply require any member desiring to raise funds for 501-c-3 charitable purpose to refrain from using official resources.

in this case congressman rangel improperly used official resources to make the solicitation. yes, that was a mistake. but it was not corruption. had he written a solicitation on anything other than official letterhead it would have been a different thing. the punishment in this case, in my humble opinion, should be reprimand or less. censure has always been reserved for extreme and outrageous conduct touching upon corruption and intent to gain a financial benefit. as many of you perhaps know, i spent much of my life, my former life as a superior court judge. for nearly 15 years i made difficult decisions every day. in making difficult decisions the judge must first decide a baseline punishment and then

adjust that punishment by weighinged a revating circumstances -- weighing aggravating circumstances in this case. the counsel in this case said he should be reprimanded. there are mitigating circumstances, my colleagues, that you should consider that substantially outweigh any aggravating factors that you may find. in deciding whether to round up the censure or round down to reprimand, i ask that you consider his age, the bronze star, left on battlefield for dead, 40 years of service. he requested our committee to investigate these matters. he acknowledged mistakes at an early stage and he was willing to settle this matter without a

trifmente he did not participate in the evidentiary hearing. some of you may see that as a negative, but failing to participate in the hearing essentially admitted the essential facts of this case, precluding a long trial. he could not afford counsel after spending $2 million. and we refuse to waive the rule to allow for pro bono counsel. over the years he's mentored democratic and republican members on this floor. and he's been a person of good moral character. these, my colleagues, are mitigating factors that support reprimand. i urge my colleagues to vote to reprimand our dear colleague. let him know he must be sanctioned for his carelessness, but let him know that this house understands fairness and justice and legal precedence. a censure is not justified in this case. i thank you, madam chair, for the time. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california. ms. lofgren: mr. speaker, i

want to just make a couple of brief comments before turning back to mr. butterfield. first, although the issue of two members in 1983 being censured for sexual misconduct, as has been mentioned, historically, censured has been used a variety of times including the very first time for insulting the speaker of the house, insulting the house, mr. john chandler, by introduction of a resolution by containing unparliamentary language. mr. hunter, mr. holbrooke using unparliamentary language. so i think it is important to at least have that history. i just want to say one other thing. we do not discuss the executive sessions, liberations of the committee, but i feel obliged to note since i think a

misimpression could be had that in fact mr. rangel did sign a settlement effort, and the committee was unable to reach a settlement agreement with mr. rangel earlier this year. now, it may be that the committee and the house could do a different sanction. mr. scott identified several members and former members and staffers who are either still serving sentences in prison or still in court, being tried or an ongoing proceeding for misconduct. i think it is precisely because of that failure to put members of this body and the american public first demand a higher standard that the committee on a 9-1 vote recommended this sanction. we need a higher standard. mr. rangel himselfs a acknowledged that we need a higher standard. process is about protecting the integrity of the house as much

as it is about sanctioning an individual who has violated the rules. the nonpartisan committee counsel recommended this on a 9-1 vote. the bipartisan committee recommended this. this is a wrenching decision for us all. it is not with any pleasure at all that i stand here today presenting the committee's report. and finally, it is for each and every one of us to sort through our own conchuss, mindful of the obligation we have first and foremost to the american people to protect the integrity of the house as we decide what to do. each of us must cast a vote that we think is right, and i will respect each member who does that. and with that i would turn now to and recognize mr. butterfield for the purpose of offering an amendment. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will yield back time for debate. mr. butterfield: mr. speaker, may i be heard for purpose of

offering an amendment? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. butterfield: mr. speaker, i have a motion to amend at the desks. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. butterfield of north carolina. strike be censured and insert be reprimanded. strikes paragraph 2 and 3 and redesignate 4 as paragraph 2. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from north carolina is recognized. mr. butterfield: mr. speaker, i move the previous question on the amendment and on the resolution. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the previous question is ordered on the amendment and the resolution. the question is on adoption of the amendment. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is adopted. ms. lofgren: mr. speaker. mr. bonner: mr. speaker, i move for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote has been requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes this is a 15-minute vote.

[captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. >> following the censure vote, representative rangel answered questions from reporters. this is about 10 minutes. >> two weeks ago, you said to me that you did not regret that you yourself referred yourself to the ethics committee in july 2008. based on the outcome tonight, a very sound censure vote here, do you regret that now, two weeks later? >> you will be surprised at my answer to a very, very good question. the answer is no, and the reason is, i could not think of any way to put to rest the new statements and television accounts that i was a crook, that i stole money, that i took bribes, that i was breaking the

law, that i was living unlawfully in an apartment, that i was taking apartment away from poor people, and then i did not pay my taxes, that disclosure meant i had property that i did not want people to know. and so i knew that rules were violated, but i also know that even though someone had more confidence in that i should have violated them, i knew i was ultimately held responsible for it, and i really felt then, as i did up until the day that censure was voted, that rangel had made mistakes in good conscience, and without intent. there is -- i could have talked and said this until i was blue in the face, but what prove what i have had, when the chief

prosecutor looked over all of the evidence, listened to 40 witnesses, 30,000 pages of testimony, and in answer to question, he said no evidence of corruption, self and richmond -- self enrichment, that he was guilty of overzealousness and sloppiness. i wish the question was not raised, but no, i leave here knowing that everyone knows i am an honest guy. >> congressman, will you serve out the rest of your term, and if so, will you run for reelection? >> cord pepper was an 80-year-

old member of congress. young reporter like to ask him whether or not he was interested in a lucrative investment opportunity. claude looked at the reporter in the eye and said young lady, at my age, i don't buy green bananas. >> there has been criticism from the floor tonight comparing you to the average american citizen who if they went through similar circumstances such as yourself, that they may be punished in a worse way. what is your response to that? >> what group are you from? could you make your question a

little more exact? this criticism came from the floor? who said what? >> i am just asking what your response is to this criticism that if the average american citizen -- >> i am not a psychiatrist. i did not deal in average american citizens. , don't know what is average and so i don't think you really -- i will come back to you when you can think of a good question. >> after fighting this for two years, after spending almost $2 million, the now wish you had taken the deal earlier? >> don't you understand that is the same question? i was not offered a deal earlier. did you hear me say that the deal was worked out with on partial council? did you hear that part? did you hear that i signed a deal? did you hear that someone else other than me rejected it?

as a matter of fact, i was asking for a conclusion of the investigation four weeks and months and years. had they done that, we never would have run out of money. >> did you feel that if anyone else that had these transactions and had gone to jail -- >> i am not going to comment on an old friend. he has attended receptions. he said at times that i was the best congressman not here, but in the entire world. donald trump has been known for some remarkable things, so i would just accept the nice things he has said about me. >> do you think that the members of congress that voted tonight were voting what they thought their constituents want them to

do, rather than on the facts? >> i thought i made that abundantly clear. >> you just kind of talk around it a little bit. >> i tried to give an analogy. people know it was unconstitutional for them to kick him out before he was allowed to set, but they said that was too complicated to explain to their constituents back home. and i really think that most of you know that if it is too complicated to explain, don't do it. but if you look and see the districts they came from, honestly a lot of cases and vote on the four prevailed because they thought the constituents wanted honesty and not something that would make someone look like they were better than thou, when in fact related to someone else and not them. that is why i am so pleased that

the facts came out for the whole country to judge, and perhaps then at the newspapers might have a headline tomorrow morning, rangel found not guilty of corruption and self dealing. you interrupted a point of was trying to make. it is none the evidence, it is not my admission, is the sanctions. come on, you understand that. it is all over. >> when you go back to congress next week, when you come back next week, the believe because of your center you will be anyway diminished as a lawmaker? >> charlie rangel is charlie rangel. rangel.