with lynn sweet and joe schatz. grover norquist who has been following this efforts from his perspective. also, john gage, from the union that represents federal employees who will be our guest from 9:20-10:00 we take a look at the papers and more on "washington journal." we will see you there. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> a couple of house arms services committee hearings, starting with a look at u.s.

military and logistic and africa operations. then a look at the don't ask, don't tell policy. sunday, on "newsmakers," reince priebus on possible 2012 gop candidates. that is at 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span. >> as a host and a traitor, you are not necessarily a republican or a democrat. you are looking at what the government is doing and the effects on the financial market, whether it is trading or wall street firms. >> sunday melissa lee on what she believes is her role in reporting business and financial news. sunday night at 8:00 p.m. night on "q & a."

>> duncan mcnabb testified on the president's 2012 budget request. they also testified on africa operations. this is one hour, 45 minutes.

>> this hearing could not be more relevant than it is today. u.s. forces have been conducting active military operations against forces loyal to libyan dictator walmart gaddafi in an effort to prevent a massacre -- libyan dictator muammar gaddafi in an effort to prevent a massacre of civilians. i fear we may find ourselves committed to an open-ended obligation to our participation

in military operations. there are more strategically important countries in the region. beyond libya, as many as 1000 civilians were massacred in the ivory coast as that nation's political standoff escalated violently. this could be a foreshadowing of future events in the sudan as that country becomes an independent nation in july. somalia continues to be a source of instability and has various pirate networks that have intensified attacks. just as it was virtually impossible to foresee the united states becoming militarily involved in libya, at last

year's hearings, this congress may be called upon to fund a number of possible contingency operations and humanitarian missions in africa. when we made a new year's resolutions, we did not foresee egypt, libya, and all of the other things that are happening. wherever u.s. forces are operating, transcom is responsible for getting them there. as a general said, amateur stock strategy and professionals talk -- amateurs talk strategy and professionals talk cladistics. not only did transcom have to respond to the surge in afghanistan, but they also had to respond to the devastating earthquake in haiti.

things have not gotten any easier for the men and women in transcom. they are also responding in libya and are working desperately to assist the people in japan following be horrific earthquake the past month. what they do is not easy and often goes unnoticed. the capabilities of transcom often go unnoticed. we are fortunate to have two people, general carter ham and duncan mccnabb. thank you for your lifetime of service to our nation. please convey our thanks to those who served with you in your combat areas. we look over to hearing your testimony today. ranking member?

>> welcome general. we appreciate you being here today. transportation command does an amazing job. you can imagine all of the capabilities we have and where we would like them. general mcnabb is the one who has to make them work. you do an outstanding job, as do the men and women who serve in transportation. we have the c-17 and we are proud of what they do. there are a number of issues we will be interested in, how to downsize in iraq? how is that process progressing? what contingencies do you have

in place? if for some reason it turns out we will be leaving our equipment arab and we expect. -- what contingencies do you have in place if, for some reason, it turns out we will be leaving more equipment there than we expect. afghanistan is not always a stable place. i would be interested in your feelings about how we are doing on that and what the major challenges are going forward and how we make sure we get the equipment to afghanistan that we need. in africom, you have a fair number of challenges in that region. there is a lot of political unrest in a number of nations across the top of africa to varying degrees.

in the ivory coast, there are major challenges. the condo has an ongoing challenge in maintaining stability. -- the kind all -=- the congo has an ongoing challenge in maintaining stability. there are vast, ungoverned spaces. we are trying to figure out how we come back political unrest and poverty -- combat political unrest and poverty. we want to make sure the continent is a more peaceful and prosperous place to those who

reside there. i appreciate the opportunity to have this hearing today. with that, i will yield back to the gentleman. >> thank you. tearful testimony will be inserted into the record. you can tell us whatever you feel is appropriate. gentleman? >> distinguished members of this committee, it is my distinct privilege to be here today with you representing more than 145,000 of the world's finest logistics professionals. the u.s. transportation command team, merchant mariners accomplish incredible feats in the face of historic challenges. we have a saying. we view our success in the eyes of the war by to. -- of the war fighter.

working with the joint staff, the services, and the command staff, our teams have provided unparalleled logistic superiority to the combatant communities. from the team delivering the force to the team receiving the force, this is the best overall performance i have seen in almost 37 years of service. sitting next to me is my good friend, gerald carter ham. i look forward to continuing to support him as he takes africom to new and higher levels. it is he and other generals that i am always supporting. i am blessed to be the custodian -- a custodian of our strategic

ability to move. taking command of u.s. transportation command in the fall of 2008, i have been amazed to see the ability of this command. nobody matches up our active duty force like the u.s. transportation command. when we are called -- when we were called to relieve some suffering in haiti, the men and women stepped up in huge fashion. the kentucky guard was just coming up to speed. during the search of forces in afghanistan, we relied -- during the surge of forces in afghanistan, we relied on them. most recently, we saw their patriotism in the action in responding rapidly in the libyan

operations. i am also in awe of the u.s. flag fleet in the air and overseas. they stepped up during our historic surge in afghanistan. they continue to be key to supply our forces in afghanistan coming up through pakistan over the northern distribution network. our partners continue to meet in demand of the ursurge afghanistan. they performed brilliantly in bringing americans home from japan after the tsunami and earthquake. we know that armed forces around the world depend on us to deliver their sustainment. we drop ammunition and water and

fuel to forces enforcing the no- fly zone. when we do this right, elijah is to not worry about the logistics lifeline. -- when we do this right, our fighters do not worry about the logistics lifeline. we constantly look for more effective solutions for the war fighter while being the stores with the taxpayer dollars. since its inception, we have realized $3.50 billion in savings, and we are still counting. a big part of the savings is taking advantage of lower cost surface transportation whenever possible. when we enact surface to air, we are leveraging to maximum

advantage for the war lighter -- fighter and the military. we use a combination of commercial service and military air. we use multi-modal operations to our enterprise. president obama said a tight timeline for our execution. we knew we would need some help on our existing supply lines and help establishing new supply route. s.e perm the state department, the office of the state -- office of the department of defense came together to make this sixth magic.

this was at a time when we were asked -- the office of the department of defense came together to make logistics magic. a coup in the country where we have our main passenger operation, the oil spill in the gulf and the worst floods in pakistan and we still closed everything by august 31, as the president asked us to do. we continue today at a record- breaking pace. we continue to support our military in afghanistan and iraq. we moved to help with disaster relief in japan. i could not be more proud of the men and women of the united states transportation command.

i have loaded and moved compared -- i have loaded and moved containers. daily, i am amazed and humbled by what our people accomplish. members of this committee, thank you for your continued superb support of u.s. transcom and our men and women in uniform. it is my privilege to appear before you today to represent the men and women who are the transportation command. and to tell you their story. thank you for taking my written statement for the record. >> thank you. general ham? >> thank you for the opportunity to discuss with you the accomplishments of the men and women of the u.s. africa command. i would like to introduce jack

johnson. he and i have only just begun our service to gather at africa command. i see that he is exactly the- hour service together at africa command. -- just begun our service to that at africa command. in a soy honor to appear beside general mccnabb. toakened -- i am unearnhonored nabb.r beside general mc this illustrates the dynamics of the african political environment. there are extremists in somalia. , the scourge of the lord's

resistance army. these are just a few. we need to contribute to operations, programs, and activities that help african states provide for their own security in a matter that is -- in a manner that is consistent with the rule of law. we need to enhance regional stability with partnerships and sustain reliable support to african regional organizations. africa command programs are designed to help prevent conflict while simultaneously making sure we are prepared to respond precisely when the president so directs. building the coalition to address the situation in libya

was facilitated through the benefits of longstanding relationships within nato. this is the kind of regional approach to security that u.s. africa command seeks to foster on the continent. u.s. africa command's priorities are to build the security capacity of our african partners and pursue interoperability so that our african partners are postured to form coalitions to address african security challenges as they arise. everything u.s. africa command has accomplished is the result of the professionalism and dedication of the uniformed and civilian men and women of the command. they're dedicated efforts are a testament to the american spirit -- their dedicated efforts are a

testament to the american spirit. our guiding principles are to establish a secure africa and to seek to help africans find solutions to african challenges. i am cognizant that the command is only able to accomplish its mission with the enduring support of this committee. i thank you for that. i invite you to come visit us at our headquarters or come to see us at work in africa. mr. chairman, i welcome your questions. >> thank you. the ongoing combat operations in afghanistan and iraq, in response to the earthquake in japan, and the president's decision to engage combat forces in libya are straining the force. have you reached or are you approaching any red light in mobility capabilities?

-- read lines in mobility capabilities? -- red lines in mobility capabilities? >> right now, one of the things that hits me is our ability to pick the transportation enterprise and to expand it and contracted using our u.s. flag carriers and our total force. we have gotten tremendous support from our guard and reserve. a lot of them are volunteers who have helped where they can. what i would do next is that i would have to mobilize some folks. at this time, we do not think we have to do that at the present level. what we have been able to do as we have look at the -- as we have looked at the urgent requirement, we stayed in close and lookith centcom

at things we could slow down. it was an agreement with general petraeus to increase stock in afghanistan. that gave us a chance to say, can we take care of these emergencies and get back to you? that is the same way we handled haiti. the mix is something we bring to the table. the civil reserve air fleet has stepped up to anything we have asked. these last couple of weeks, i did not quite understand how much spring break affects excess capacity. i will say that that hit us pretty hard. next to christmas and thanksgiving, spring break is the busiest time for our carriers.

getting the voluntary departures back to the states and getting seats back to their homes was something that was worked closely with transcom. as the libyan operation unfolds, we are watching that carefully. if that expands in any way, that would be one where we would be looking to set, do we have enough? right now, we do not see that. there are some other places where there is turmoil. i will bring in the ivory coast or yemen. with those operations, we work with half a command to set, how can we do this together? -- we work with africa command to say, how can we do this together? congrressmen smith asked me how do we do that? coming from 150,000 to 50,000 worked with general austin and

the people in iraq. that team has worked superbly bringing out the extra equipment through kuwait and to jordan and getting it washed up and putting it on commercial vessels. we did not have to activate any ships to do that. that is working well. making sure which stuff we will leave their and which stuff will be sent to afghanistan is what -- which stuff we will leave and would stuff will be sent to afghanistan is something we worked out last year. when i think about afghanistan, i would say that we have found the power of intermodal operations, being able to take it much closer to afghanistan and dumping the last part using an air left. we are looking for that same ability to bring stuff out of afghanistan, bring it out by air and by surface mode.

right now, we can only take stuff in. some countries have not given us permission to bring stuff out of afghanistan. the whole team is working that. i continue to look and say, i would like to make sure i have lots of options in the northern distribution efforts, working with the general and the military. we are making sure we do everything we can to make it as smooth as possible. our ultimate as in the hole is air -- our ultimate ace in the hole is air. that puts it in a nutshell, but we are getting there. >> thank you.

regarding our military operations in libya, many areas of uncertainty remains. one question i have is where africa command fits in in the enforcement of the no-fly zone and attacks on ground targets. does africa command have a clear role in the chain of command, or a are youliasing with -- or are you liaising with others? will this operation affect our partnership efforts in the region, in particular operation in during freedom -- operation enduring freedom. >> nato now has full operational

control of the forces conducting missions over libya. u.s. africa command is in a supporting role to the animals and the generals -- to the admirals and the generals. i do not have an operational responsibility. there is always the potential for unilateral military missions. if that were to occur, that would fall to u.s. africa command to execute those responsibilities. with regard to the regional reaction, it is mixed. we see that play out in the african union. many states in africa have

voiced their support for the united security council resolution 1973 and the execution of those responsibilities. there are other states who did not -- states that did not agree with that resolutions. i am going to have the responsibility, as i engage with our african partners, of having a frank discussion of what u.s. africa command's role was and why we did what we did and be as fruitful and forthright as i can and try to maintain the great relationships we have with most african states as we move forward. your point is ballot. there is an impact and there will be an impact in -- your point is valid. there is an impact and there will be an impact in the region. >> thank you.

>> can you play out the logistical challenges i asked about in afghanistan that i asked about earlier? there is movement of equipment for the afghan national security force. how is that working and what are the challenges going forward? >> we take in 35% of everything that is high-value by air. there is a port that is close. sometimes it is from the states, depending on what is going in. on the surface side, it ends up being about 45% coming from the pakistan block. 55% comes from the northern distribution network. we have adjusted more of the flow from the north. we are not able to bring

military equipment through india. that gets to your question about the ana. we have been working with the pakistani military. we have stressed how important it is to maintain the velocity going through the pakistan lock. we can identify if there is any pill for rich or attacks and show them where that is taking place -- pilfering or attacks and show them where that is taking place. we continue to work hard with the task force, which general petraeus put together. the army forces command made sure that the discipline of what goes on on the ground is maintained. from my standpoint, i say that

if it is important to you, put that in the air. >> had the pakistan route gotten better or worse? -- has been pakistan route gotten better or worse. ? what is the update on that? >> there are times when it goes a little higher. in december of 2008, we worry that we did not have a northern distribution network at that time. it was a 11% of pilfering an attack rates. now it has come down to 1%. in july of last year when the floods were happening, things started to get stacked up. that is when you slow down the velocity and you become more vulnerable. we went up to 2% during that month. overall, during the year it was less than 1%. we are making sure we are

looking for every possible way to insure that. a lot of it is making sure we maintain the velocity so it does not slow down and become vulnerable. >> in afghanistan, mobility is the main challenge there. we are doing what we can to make sure we create a stable atmosphere. i have done a trip across a variety of different countries a few years ago. i know that is critical to being successful, to leverage your assets in cooperation with the state department. can you talk about how the entered-agency operation works and how you see that -- inter agency operation works and how you see that? >> it is about instability. it requires a whole government

approach to events u.s. interests on the continent. with that in mind, the command headquarters was designed with a considerable amount of interagency support. we look at our headquarters in we look at our headquarters and will have 1200 agencies represented -- -- we look at our headquarters and we have 1200 agencies represented. we have senior representatives fromusaid, -- from usaid, commerce and many organizations to help us look at the security challenges in africa through more than just a military lands. that helps us better define the problem so that we can bring to bear the whole of government and

assets that different branches bring to help african states build the secure environment they need to build. weighted largely toward the military. we work closely with the chiefs. we make sure all of our efforts are nested with the ambassador and the country team, which are inherently interagency. we think that works to our best effect. >> thank you. i yield back. >> thank you for your long service and your stellar performance. i have a lot of questions about our libyan involvement.

i believe it is unconstitutional and illegal. these are policy questions. i know that yours is not to question why, yours is to do or die. i will yield my time to our mosnewest member, mr. west. >> thank you. general mcnabb, strategic mobility has always been the great thing about our forces and our country. i would like to look out about five years. when you look at us moving from a military force to a forcible entry type of force, what do you see the challenges of years and beyond for the transportation command? i am concerned about our c-17

fleet. >> thanks for that. i cannot agree more with these value of the strategic mobility capability. we are being pushed, especially as you think about global operations and how we head the department. the new tanker is my priority. it allows us to use global reach and power. it will allow us to make sure we can extend out and change the way we do our concept of operations and the much more efficient. that is huge. the faster we can get the tanker onboard, the much better for my standpoint. we do transgendered load, using usingdo transload

c-17. we have gone from 2 million pounds of air drop. we are headed towards 100 million pounds of air drop. that allows us to make sure they get what they need without putting convoys at risk. as i look to the pacific, the same thing, guam. if i have those places where i can get large things into and have theatre response, or

whether that is hybrid airships, if we can get these things to a major port, we will have gone a long way. that is the parched i am looking at. that is the-that is the parts -- that is the part i am looking at. i think that will be useful for them. those are the things i am looking at. where do you want me to look atin thosetermodal -- those locations.l they have already paid big dividends for us. in those small places, it is not the number of airplanes. it is what we can put into those

small basis. i get to fly the c-17. it is an awesome airplane. i have 5600 hours. they really have taken this to a whole different level. lots of great opportunities. the c-5-m is performing well. you have really set us up with modern airplanes that we can throw in there quickly and make a difference. >> thank you, sir. if i could ask one other question. general ham, we were talking about the political instability of africa, d.c. the approach of any al qaeda type of elements?

i would like to get your assessment of china's engine engine onto the african -- on the intervention african continent. >> the chinese are active on the african continent, primarily in an economic way. the chinese influence is in an economic drain with construction, with oil and the economic vein.- an al qaeda is the number one security challenge we face in africa. , most notably in east africa where we see the efforts of al

shabab in somalia attempting to extend their reach more regionally. there are potential links with al qaeda and the islamic magreb. all of those are of concern to the united states and our interests abroad and at home. that is our no power -- that is our north 1 mission. -- our number one mission. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> the military operations will always overshadow in many areas

in which we are engaged. are there some metrics? are there some areas you are looking at to see whether that has changed dramatically. what has contributed to that change? are we seeing that military operations or the activities are not getting in the way of some diplomatic efforts that we have had ongoing? >> or us in africa command, the operations in libya were up a different nature, a different type of operation. we are in an overwhelmingly military application of the u.s. the implication of power.

we support mission initiatives or state lead and is in dallas. it is principally through department of state authorities -- which support commission initiatives or state led initiatives. it is done through state-led authorities. we have a supporting role in that regard. a good example is the development of forces from the gondola, -- from you done the f- -- from uganda. i think we have the balance about right in terms of who is in charge. we bring a lot of capacity and a lot of ability to enable those programs. we are doing so in support of

others. that seems to be about right for most of the progress in africa. >> are you checking in frequently to make sure everybody agrees about the balance? there are areas that you pointed out where the balance is not appropriate. i think it was the trips that i took with our ranking chairman. we talked about how important it was. the people engaged in this effort did not feel that. they had the same seat at the table. >> that is something that i will take a look at as i get my feet under me in this new command. as i have told the assistant secretary of the applicable work -- and africa bureau at the state department, i will try to

see him. he has pledged to come see me on the continent or in germany. it is important that we have that strong linkage to make sure all aspects of the government gets a voice, an important voice as we move lower. >> you noted two areas where you are reaching out to military families, particularly in regard where they have had questions or problems. how else are you able to make sure our military families have the support they need in that commands? ?ome of tho some of those are accompanied. some are not accompanied. >> our service component

commands are largely based in europe, with one in the u.s. those families have excellent support. i worry more so about the small contingents that are in our embassies that are separated and that elite military programs have the programs they need. -- and that the military military hav-- families have the programs they need. >> thank you. mr. wilson? >> gentlemen, thank you for being here today. general ham, the source familiar that the southern command is located in the best -- i am

familiar with the that that the southern command is located in florida. if my colleagues were here, they would want to make a few points to you. charleston is the hub and the primary seaport for container transport. charleston is the leading provider for command control communication. the relationships for the charleston medical community, which would be so helpful in the event of an emergency in africa is located in charleston. it is a world-class facility.

most of the rapid deployment forces use include operations located in the southeastern part of the united states. charleston is the location of air left and see left positions to africa. -- airlift and sea positions to africa. i had the opportunity to visit by. . we had the sam we have the same accent. i felt right at home. the a.m.e. university is

sponsored in monrovia. when the decision is made, what are the considerations that will be made as to the quality of life or dependents access to school or medical care? what do you see? >> i have all the had the opportunity to visit charleston once. it was a few years ago. it was an enjoyable visit to a great city. the secretary of defense has asked me to take a look and provide a recommendation back to him about what should the stationing of the ascot command headquarters be. he asked me to start from -- stationing of the africa

command headquarters b? he asked me to start from a clean sheet of paper. there are a whole host of requirements about what we would like in our headquarters. we will look at a wide variety of locations to seek which we think will make the most suitable for the command to accomplish its mission. it will take time to do the study. >> you have indicated you visited charleston once. you are welcome back. you will see such a symbiotic relationship with west africa, to the low country of south carolina. the people are proud of the shared culture. all of the other features that i told you --

general mcnabb, what is the advantage of rethinking old -- refitting old rail cars as opposed to buying new? >> we have been asked to take a look and say, with everything going on, what should the number be? right now, they are doing the study with osd. >> where retrofitting occurs is the site of the first scheduled wrote in the world. thank you. >> thank you. mr. johnson. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

mr. wilson, i would comment that when i have been to south carolina, charleston, i have enjoyed myself in that area. i would also point everyone to the fact that i live in the atlanta, georgia area, which is the transportation hub of the southeast. we have the world's busiest airport, high capacity. we have quite a few military aviation facilities. we have got one of the country's di largea jst diaspora communities from africa, support to help the military's communication needs.

world-class educational institutions, a joint attack, emory, the atlanta university center -- world-class educational institutions, the atlanta university center. it would be a great thing. ambassador andrew young is interested in africa command choosing to locate its headquarters in atlanta. i certainly join in bad desire. -- i join in that design. someplace in georgia would be great. i want to congratulate you, general ham, for your new assignment. four weeks in, i know you are still trying to get adjusted.

it seems like you came in at a time of great action going on in africa. the libyan situation, we have got a situation in the ivory coast. i understand bad their president has resigned and is asking for you end -- as before united nations protection. it is good that he will be moving on. i would like to ask you, our u.s. personnel or equipment taking part-- are u.s. equipment or personnel taking part in the operations in the ivory coast? >> we are not. we are in close dialogue with

the u.s. embassy and also with the french who have a large presence there. as we typically do, we plan for possible contingencies. as the chairman mentioned, the security situation has been deteriorating for some. period of time. we look for a range of possible military actions that might be necessary. the people at the embassy are present. the ambassador has asked for a small coordinating team to maintain communications. we have that available to him as well. your information is probably a little more current than mine. as i was departing the pentagon to come here, the ivory coast's president had indicated his willingness to turn himself over.

that had not been accomplished by the time i left. hopefully, that will be accomplished and there will be a calm return to stability. >> thank you. can you update us on the progress in increasing professionalism and the accountability of forces in the republic of the congo? >> we have trained one italian. we think there is more that we can and should be doing to help congo become a more

professional military control. >> thank you. i had questions, but congressman wilson threw me off track. i will get back to you at some point in the future. thank you for your service to the nation. >> thank you. the chair recognizes congressman kline for five minutes. >> everybody knows that minneapolis-st. paul is the transportation center of the entire world. i have a copy of the letter you sent to the faa administrator where you were expressing concerns about a proposed rule that would affect crew rest for our commercial partners. can you discuss what impact this might have on our ability

to move troops and personnel? >> the administrator did come out and visit with transcom. we chatted about what its impact fleet.have on our el the carriers to be charterer us and others. safety is paramount. >> what would the impact the? what is your concern? -- what with the impact be? >> when you are doing long international legs, they have different levels of the cheek and they require different approaches. they are taking stock directly

from the united states with modern airplanes going all the way to afghanistan, not stopping on the way. i have pushing -- i have been pushing hard for the modern airplanes. it means we do not have to worry about stopping in some of those locations. i asked him to take a look at that and take a look at better facilities and better operational risk management type things and make sure we enhance it. >> the impact would be that we would move but fewer troops. we would take more time. we could move less equipment. what would the impact of this role be? >> certainly time and dollars. what i want to make sure is that the u.s. fleet stays competitive. if we did not take advantage of

modern airplanes, especially on the international market, we will not be in that market. i depend on that. >> general, thank you. if there is anything this committee can do, i trust you will communicate that to us. general hamm, on want to go back to the command structure for operation unified protector. i have a one thing from a nato admiral, a sort of command structure out line and it says that, apparently, lieutenant- general, vice admiral -- i should put my glasses on. i am sorry. we have an italian, a canadian lieutenant general, and they are all reporting to the supreme allied commander of europe. you should have lobbied for a title like that.

you see your relationship as the same as this general to general petraeus? we are trying to fit this in. the chairman asked about the relationship and you said that there may be a uniquely american operation where presumably you insert yourself into this chain of command and take u.s. forces and use them for coming in in your example, the pickup of a downed pilot. help me understand what your relationship is to this command structure that i have just described which is a nato command structure. >> it is quite analogous to what you described in afghanistan. the general in his nato role overseeing general petraeus, a

nato commander supported by general mattis, a deal combat and cmdr. that relationship -- a geo- combatant commander. i do not have a day-to-day role, but libya is in the area of responsibility for the u.s. africa command. we have an enduring interest. when operation unified protector is complete and they think their mission has been accomplished, then libya is still in the africa command area of responsibility. i remain very closely connected with admiral la clear and the canadian general bouchard. >> thank you very much. i yield back. >> the chair recognizes the gentle lady from florida for five minutes. >> thank you, chairman. welcome. many of the personnel in the

u.s. transportation command are something of the unsung heroes. they do at all from the intricate and complex delivery of supplies around the globe to air refueling to deployment, redeployment, then the disaster response and all of the euro- medical assignments. i do not think you get enough kudos so my hat's off to the personnel in the u.s. transportation command. i know that one of the primary issues for trans com has been the ongoing saga of the air refueling tanker. we finally reached the point where we can all move ahead and they can focus on actually engineering and building those aircraft. how do you keep the kcx on time

and on budget? >> first of all, the air force, we've depend on them to be able to oversee that and make sure that it remains on time. >> we can bring added attention to general shorts and the air force. -- general schwartz. >> that was their number one acquisition priority, just like it was mind. i appreciate the tremendous work on both sides of the hill on getting us that new tanker and i am absolutely excited about what it will bring. the fact that it is primarily off of the shelf in general taking advantage of what is already a commercial market in making sure that we were not asking for things that are beyond the reach of technology. lot of the things that would usually drives something to increase costs for a delay in

time, most of that has been worked out. i am pretty excited about that. it seems to me that as long as we keep a stable program that we will be able to deliver that on time and hopefully we will be cranking those out at 15 plus per year and begin begin to replace those 13542 that have done a good job. >> the mechanics that continue to work upon some of the eisenhower era tankers are additions, i thank -- magicians. what role has trans, played in the earthquake victims in japan and whether it has placed stress on our mobility systems? >> 512 and moved 306 packs to move in, basically the radiology teams. >> are these teams and assets in

the area? how far are you having to travel? >> adm. willard is using his own forces in theater. you have seen them. you have seen the marines coming in. you have seen the 7th fleet and naval assets coming in. we have airmen coming in. where he has asked us to help the stuff coming from the continental united states or an emergency movements in the theater that they cannot happen. we have moved to the fairfax rescue team from here. the l.a. crash rescue team, not only to go in but also dogged teams. we moved 65 emergency

generators that were taken out for the nuclear plant by the tsunami. we also moved a planeload of boron to neutralize the radioactive isotopes. we have been doing things like that, these emergencies. whether they are chemical, radiological teams, we run those in. what northern command did was say here are the teams that they might need and we leave that to admiral willard. i make sure that we have that planes on standby alert to move as soon as identified. then we pick them up and take them. we also aided in the voluntary departure of the u.s. people. and >> as the u.s. provided kinks in your ability to

provide help anywhere else? >> we decided we would do the voluntary departure of commercial. spring break did play in because there was not excess capacity. they responded very quickly. that allowed us to keep us supporting general ham and africom, centcomm, and having those details available to to help with nuclear response. our commercial partners really stepped up magnus in. and brought out about 5000 passengers -- stepped up magni ficently. they we -- then we had commercial plans. >> the gentleman from colorado is recognized for five minutes. >> first of all, general mcnabb,

thank you for the job your doing for transportation command. one question about afghanistan. you mentioned the c-17 to get into it's primary mission, logistical support. i understand there have been some problems with accuracy getting in the drop zone. could you respond to that? >> i think you are probably talking about the precision drops system where we dropped from 10,000-15,000 feet and it comes in. the biggest issue with that is to reign and -- terrain and wind. we work with the industry to make sure they get the accuracy they need on the ground. we can do low altitude, low cost using disposable chutes.

that's what we do primary and container drops. i got to fly and a 40-bundle air drop from a c-17 using night vision goggles. it works well. when you're coming in from 1,000-2,000 feet, the accuracyt y is within the standards that they need. we are looking at doing low altitude, high speed drops like the special ops. they are stressed to do it. you come in at 250 knots at 300 feet. we are really looking for an ability to size this and keep the cost down.

it has to do with the chute and drop. can we do this as cheap as possible all the way to a precision drop that we'd like to recover and reuse. >> congratulations on your recent command, general ham. first of all, can you share with forwith the rationale was putting in headquarters in a rush to to guard, germany -- stuttgart, germany, which is far from africa yet they're in florida? >> africa had been divided between european command, central command which had the heart of the jump in the horn of africa, and pacific command which had the island nations and madagascar.

there were three geographic combat commands previously that divided the continent. the majority was under european command. when the decision was made to stand back in command as a separate geographic command, the bulk of the resources were already in stuttgart. for the purposes of getting the command to an expeditious start coming in made the most sense. >> i understand. with the situation on the ivory coast, you have a constitutionally elected government that is not being permitted to assume the government. you have a president-elect that has not been allowed to assume his position. there has not been a peaceful transfer of power. but were there any communications between that

president-elect and you in reference to any assistance? >> the leader the u.s. embassy were dave physical it focused on u.s. missions, for example and non-combatant mission. >> are virtually no communication whatsoever from this constitutionally elected government that was not able to assume power to provide assistance whatsoever? >> not with african command. that is to the best of my knowledge. >> how would you define your position in africa? if you say there's no influence in this situation, how you define your mission? >> on the ivory coast, there was already a very large u.n. presence focusing on this.

clearly there were efforts underway for a variety of regional organizations to try and seek solutions other than through the application of military force. we saw the united nations take a more forceful role. i think that is what perhaps compelled the president that it was time to change. the best role that africa command plays in these situations is to try and prevent them, work with the military forces of the african states so that they are loyal to the duly elected and constituted government. this is not something we saw play out in this situation. forces loyal to the duly elected president and to the man who would not relinquish power. i think we can be more

preventive rather than the application of military power to displace the application of u.s. military power to this place someone in an african state. >> the gentle lady from hawaii is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you mr. sherer and thank you, generals. general mcnabb, i was wondering because of others who have testified that there were always seems to be an interesting relationship between the national guard and reserves in making a pure force. do you also have that combination? >> yes, ma'am. >> do you know what your numbers are in terms of how many are active and how many reserves our national guard? >> 60% are in the guard and reserve and 40% active would be a rough estimate depending on the system.

yeah of a great team in hawaii. they have been a superb in figuring out new ways that we can take full of vantage of sharing planes in figuring out the best way to use the guard and active-duty which has been very positive. >> thank you for saying that. i'm curious what you have had any problems title x and xxxii. the guard is a state function appointed by gov. and how do you work out the chain of command, i guess, for the lack of a term? >> when they are flying a federal mission, they get paid for that. they come on to our orders and use our normal channel -- chain of command. they do some guard missions under which they stay under the governor's command-and-control.

especially on the mobility side, i am very happy with how that works. it is fairly simple given the fact that we give them the mission, they fly and they get paid. it works out well overall and it is easier for us, especially on the air side. tankers are the same way. anytime we have had a national emergency, i have never had a governor say they are holding the tankers back, the 130's, or the c-17's. they know that this is part of this. where we really get into this is for the domestic disaster like to train have. at that point, how we make sure that we are using not only the guard bureau but our support to ignore, and making sure that all comes together. -- our support in norcomm. we saw this in haiti. the national guard bureau chief

and our department has worked through this. >> he testified about japan and the amount of support you have had to coordinate. is any of that going through the perspective guard and reserve units? >> we definitely had some of the people flying the missions, but they're flying there, flying back and it is a specific mission under which they're doing that. the rest of them, i am not sure how much of the guard would be on those chemical, biological, and radiology teams that norcomm uses. i would have to get that for the record for you. >> have you had had occasion to call into service commercial planes, ships, and what is the process you go through to do

that? >> we have a very robust process. if we could go first to commercial industry, that is what i will do. do they can do it cheaper than we could for the military side. i try to focus the military on places where there is a threat or the condition requires a military-type lift. if commercial can do it, i turned to them first. they have helped us tremendously on the surge in afghanistan, bringing equipment out of iraq, and all that has been done commercially. >> how're they cheaper? >> the look at the fully burdened cost and you say this is how much it costs for me to take a palette of stuff on a c- 17 vs. a 747 freighter. it ends of being a cheaper way to do it. it frees up a c-17 to do an air

drop. that is a one power i have seen, the use of air and maritime industry, wherever possible. it has allowed us to handle all the surges, the fact that we have brought the u.s. flag fleet to bear. >> and it is the u.s. flag? >> yes, ma'am. >> thank you very much. >> the gentleman from georgia recognized for five minutes. >> generals, i represent robins air force base and adjust to the south of me i have moody, ft. benning, stewart, and they are extremely important for us. as you look for more command, i think you will find open and welcome arms in georgia. i want to ask a question. the joint future theater lifter,

will that be a vertical lift? >> that is one part. another is fixed wing. they brough it in a much more modern c-17. we are looking at air ships. how does it fit into thte enterprise? we will look at what does it cost per pound and how does it fit in? surface, rail, trucks, air ships, and we will see how it fits in. vertical lift is one way. in the past it has been the most expensive. when we think of ways to help, so if i can free them up for operational missions whether it

is air drop or land, because historically it is more expensive. that may change as technology takes over and that is when we are looking for. >> just looking at the history of things, it never made sense f-22a that we cancelled the before the 35 was ready. it's taking a decade for the tanker. now we have the c-17 and stopping the purchasing. of all the decisions i have seen, adnd again i do not pretend to know as much as you, the one decision i question going forward is cancelling the c-17.

it is not manufactured in my district. this is my question. if we cancel the c-17 purchasing all together and knowign the -- knowing the history of procurement and that it could be a while, we have already padid for the technology. what future do you see for airlift production at our last wide-bodied airlift program shuts its doors and closes? how would we replace this aircraft if we end up in a situation where they do come under fire and we do actually start to lose some of them? >> the c-17 has performed a

magnificent late and it changes how we can do airlift's. as you mentioned, it has been tremendous. we are said to have 222 c-17's. when we did the mcrs, we figured about 300. it was 304 large strategic airlifter. that was made up of a c5m and c5a with the avionics modernization program on there. we need about 32.7 tonne miles. as the air force looks at the best mix of the airplane, that is where these came up. from my standpoint, one of the things that i am very excited about is that right now i use c- 17's in roles i would rathe use

the new multi-role tanker. that will be a positive change. they do now realize the impact of having to use these to trans- load of cargo and packs. when i think about the future, and you make a very good point, as we look at these new studies, what are the other things we need to do and how well that mix and match? when i was first working as a major on the c-17, at that point we were going to buy 210. we are at 222. i would say we have the numbers. most of the places we go now, i would just say that we are not impacted by the number of

airplanes but how many cannot get in there. that tends to be worth a look at the c-17 fleet. the other portion we're doing better than ever is to use our civil reserve air fleet to make sure that we're using those at the advantages we can free up the fleet to make sure they do that. i do understand your concern and i would say that i have the same concern to make sure that we have hedged his bets and of options to be able to bring them back if we need to. >> my concern is that we start finding stress factors and other things that takes us longer to repair them and at the same time we can bring in new equipment. thank you, sir. >> the gentle lady from gama's recognized for five minutes. -- from guam is recognized. >> thank you for your testimony. earlier, you heard my colleagues speak about the

great attributes of their states. i represent the beautiful island of guam. we will put that offer for another time, but we are the home of andersen air force base and the naval base. i have two questions for you, general mcnabb. the first is in reference to ship repair in the u.s. shipyards. in a may 2004 report,mcs assured congress they were committed to conducting the maximum amount of repair work possible in the domestic shipyards and insuring ships are repaired in foreign shipyards only -- only -- when directed by operational necessity and allowed by law. how does transcomm in sure this exists before authorizing repairs in foreign shipyards?

an annual report to congress shows there are still a tremendous amount of ships being repaired in hong kong or singapore. what more can be done to comply with congressional intent? could you answer that for me? >> one of the things they do is take care of the navy fleet. the ships that they have in the pacific are primarily under the chief of naval operation staff in support of the navy. the ships they take care of a for me are the medium speed road ships that we activate if we cannot get the commercial lift to be able to do that. right now, we have not had to be activating these large ships because the commercial capability has been there. i know that they're committed to using guam. the msc commander has gone

through this with you. it had to do with the dry dock in guam. right now, that is the constraint, as i understand it, and we do $40 million and guam does most of the work but not under my umbrella. >> i am very concerned because we have about 350 workers in that private shipyard. and was one of the things that i fought for a few years ago. buy america. i want to make sure that is being carried out. my final question is also for you, general mcnabb of. it is in regards to rotating aircraft support. a rotating aircraft, which in the past has been called the patriot express, helps to expand morale by offering them flights

to japan or hawaii. what steps is transcomm taking to bring back this capability? can you explain what is necessary to validate the requirements for this important capability? >> on the patriot express, what we have done with that, which is primarily to use the military members around -- move the members around, but it also has the added benefit that their space available opportunities for dependents and families, which is a real advantage to that. will actually increase the number patriot express adding back in more destinations. you have to make sure the fill the airplanes because we have to break even at the end of all of this.

i would have to get back to you whether it is the next year, 2011 or 2012, but as the marines would come down there and we would have an additional number of military people in the form that it would make sense to have the patriot express come in rather than a commercial traffic. i told them that is where we want to be as soon as we have enough military presence in form and we've of the patriot express. >> so by 2011 possibly or 2012 this capability will be there? >> yes, ma'am. i will give you the exact date because it has to do with the marines coming down. >> thank you very much. i yield back. >> the gentleman from texas, mr. conway, is recognized. >> i feel like i have the time of war back to when earmarks were ok with a bunch of earmarked requests for general

him to move command. i will refrain. the requirement under the q d.r. for some 330 + planes includes 111 c-5's. 36 c5a's, 52 b's and c's, and what are the other 23? >> right now we are asking 32.7 tonne miles which is about 301 total big airplanes. c5a's.7's, 27 >> you'd be supportive of the 23 missing off of that list. there are parked some place and may never get off the ground again. we are maintaining airplanes in

a commercial venue? >> what we were hoping for was the ability as a bring on additional c-17's that we could take the older and replcae them with the c5a's to get them new airplanes and extend the service life on the c-17. >> the operational tempo you are experiencing, none of us hope over the next five or six years, but each plant has a said useful life as a period of time. what is the current operational tempo having on -- but the fact is the current operational tempo having on this fleet? will this last until 2025 or 2030? >> we bought them for 30,000 hours and we do about 1000 per year. about 30 years is what we were trying to get out of the asset. we were over-flying that

especially early on in o.i.f. and o.e.f. we said we would need 7-10 airplanes to make up for that. >> so you can address the operational tempo with respect to that? >> we may have to address it again if we just stay at this time bove. as i mentioned before, we are using an lot of commercial. >> i understand that. at some point in time, it to come back and say we need more c-17 toxic and it will be a whole lot more expensive than. congratulations on the new command, general ham. when gates was here last week, he said one of the core missions of nato would be search and rescue. maybe i misunderstood you that you said it was an ad hoc thing that may occur. but that we were going to do search and rescue for the libyan

work? >> he understood. it those of the category of a "unique u.s. military capabilities." we are the best suited to do that. >> are those your assets? >> for the most part. that would be under special command operation africa. >> your budget is $289 million for 2012. how much will the libyan operation costa assuming it goes past september? -- cost you assuming it goes past september? >> it will not affect the headquarters very much. where the cost is borne is with the service components, and in this case the airforce and navy component commanders for africomm which is at a rate higher than they were anticipating. >> said they will have to figure out a way to pay for that and it is not your responsibility? >> that is correct.

through the service component command will fall back to the services. >> one of the advantages we were told about africomm would be that you would create relationships between these developing countries. given the relatively young command, are you experiencing the kind of opportunity available to approach back to these same countries so we are building relationships that can be used in a crisis if we need them? >> i am just learning about this, but in my first two trips to the continent, which were far too short, but to djibouti and kenya, i found exactly that circumstance. u.s. service personnel had been back for repetitive assignments and in those two cases, in djibouti and kenya, they were very welcome. there is probably more we can do

in the future and i will look to do just that. >> i yield back. >> we're down now. you have a much deeper bench than we do, so i will be very brief on if you follow up questions. general mcnabb, effective follow-up on the question that mr. kline asks, but if you go forward on the role for request requirements, will it affect your ability to execute a mission? >> he said that he would consider that one size does not fit all. our non-scheduled carriers are a bit unique and make sure that we have built in the proper safety programs for them. if they do the one-size-fits- all, it will impact us in how quickly we can do something in velocity and will drive up the cost for the u.s. carriers dramatically to the point where,

again, a worry about the competitiveness they will have to make sure they can take advantage of modern airplanes. that is my biggest concern and i do think between orm and rs facilities, it is different than the legacy carriers and i hope it will consider that there is a difference there. >> to drill down on that question a little bit more, i am aware the air force institute of technology study found that up to 70% of the missions flying by the civilian carriers may be impacted and on how the rule is implemented. that seems substantial to west. given how much to rely on them, keep that in context said the committee has a good feel of where that falls? >> when we set up our operations and how we will base their plans, especially when you talk about a far off place like afghanistan, and you have to drive in additional crews to come it drives in complexity to the system that becomes tougher to manage.

right now, we have been driving very hard to get the modern airplanes. if 70% are affected, they would have to have additional stops, bring in additional crews. the circadian rhythm, the issue with making sure that you are driving around the world, afghanistan is 12 hours out from here. many think about domestically here in the u.s., they do not have to deal with 12 hour changes. the circadian rhythm happens every day. we have to make sure we think for role of the parts to the puzzle and make sure that one size does not necessarily fill all. fatigue will affect everyone, but we need programs that will adjust to that reality. i have flown in lots of the missions and have 5600 hours. there is a big difference flying very quick stops in the u.s. and dealing with air

traffic verses' flying a one hop on the same crew do need -- duty day and stopping for the night. the fatigue level is different and it takes different approaches would be my recommendation. >> general ham, if you questions for you. a few weeks ago, i had the privilege of being over at your command. i had just gotten back from visiting several of the countries in africa. on every briefing you would find, there would be a host of errors being drawn by state department, d.o.d, and the question that puzzles me is who is managing the errors? who is the one authority that is making sure that we are not overlapping and that the missions are of coordinating in

the right fashion? can you shed a little bit of light on that for me as we see the overlap between state, department of defense, and all of the various operations we have going on in africa? who is managing that to make sure? >> there is no overarching command that is an affecting them. each of us to participate has a responsibility. this is the secretary carsten in this state, the office of the secretary of defense, usaid, and other agencies. we have to make sure that we have a forum to fruition the most senior people -- through which the most senior people can synchronize efforts to the highest possible.

it is probably the same as yours. my initial thought is that at least within the military, i am not sure quite as tightly wound as it perhaps ought to be, and it is something that i would like to take a look at as i begin my tenure. >> if you take a look at that, just to the core questions from one of the other concerns i had it was in talking with the various players over there, one of the things we consistently heard from the state department with that defense does not do anything unless they ok it. that gives some of us just a little bit of concern as to the role that the state department had and the role of the department of defense had can you tell us and explain a little bit about those two functions and how they are collaborating? >> yes, sir. we will all agreed that it is far better when estate and

defense agree on a way ahead in a particular matter. >> that is a given. >> we have a mechanism. through the interagency process, through the national security staff for the various departments to be able to bring forward matters where there is, perhaps, some disagreement on the way ahead. i am confident, again, as i am able to get started in this command and build relationships and secretary carsten, others in , that thosency i times will be few and far between where we have strong disagreements. where we do, i do not feel any reservation about st. "i am sorry, but i cannot get to an agreement to this. we need to take this through the interagency deliver process to have this adjudicated." we know how to do it. we do it all of the time.

i am comfortable inside that process. >> last questions. what the tories are granted to the u.s. chiefs of mission regarding combat command activity in the countries to which they are posted? -- what authorities are granted to the u.s. chiefs of mission? >> the chief of mission is the senior american representative, the representative of the president, in those countries. our efforts are listed with the chief of missions. there may be some very unique circumstances where there were a be a military effort that may require an authority other than the chief of missions. those are probably best addressed not in an open session. >> i think we have hit all of our questions. thank you so much for your service to our country and for your patience today in and sharing your experience and expertise with us. this hearing is adjourned. [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

>> sunday, republican national committee chairman reince pri

ebus and 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span. >> the c-span network to provide coverage of politics, public affairs, non-fiction books, and american history of available on television, radio, on line and on social media networking sites. by their contents any time through the c-span video library. we think he's been on the road with the digital bus and local content vehicle. bringing resources to your community. washington -- your way. now available in more than 100 million homes. created by cable and provided as a public service. policies and on twitter. it is the fastest way to get programming and scheduling updates as well as links to events we have covered. join in on the conversation and tweet questions directly to "washington journal." during the viewers who already follow was from a book tv to american history on c-span3 and

c-span radio. get started at twitter.com/cspan. >> now remarks from top officers of all four branches of the military on a house hearing on repealing don't ask, don't tell. an opening statement from the chairman of the armed services committee. this is one hour and 45 minutes. >> the committee will come to order. we are, i think, going to have voting in 20 minutes so we will try to get there as much as we can. and today will receive a status report on the changing policies

governing the service of openly gay and lesbian service members. this past fall, i was troubled by the process employed for the repeal of the law and announced -- known as don't ask, don't tell. following this report, there was none of the in depth analysis that is so essential to sound decision making here in the house of representatives. as a result of the rush to judgment to bypass this committee, congress was denied the opportunity to ask questions and identify weaknesses in the repeal implementation plan. now we are confronted by the implementation process that is moving quickly to completion of the implementation and training phase. our primary interest today is to ensure that the senior leaders of each service have the opportunity to communicate their current views about the implementation of repeal. several of the service chiefs have expressed reservations about the timing and potential

impact of the potential appeal during the hearing it for the senate armed services committee. if our military leaders remain concerns about the full repeal of the law, we want to know. the chief of staff for the army indicated that the repeal was a major cultural and policy change. in the middle of a war that would add stress and complications for combat units, he stated that he felt implementation would be more difficult than what the pentagon survey would suggest. general schwartz recommended not implementing until 2012. he stated, "i do not agree with the steady assessment that short-term risks to military effectiveness is low." the commandant of the marine corps stated the law is changed implementing repeal and assimilating openly homosexual marines into the tightly woven

fabric of our combat units as a strong potential for destruction of the smaller unit level. as it will no doubt divert leadership attention away from an almost singular focus on preparing units for command. these comments were made a couple of months ago at the senate hearing. the one outcome that must be avoided is in the course of action that would put the combat readiness of our military forces at risk. our witnesses today are the four leaders of our armed forces. general peter chiarelli, u.s. army. gary roughead, general amos, general schwartz, chief of staff airforce. general chiarelli, we thank you for standing in two general

casey and please extend our condolences from all the members of this committee and a staff of the armed services committee to general casey and his family on the passing of his grandson. admiral roughhead, your moving further toward not being able to testify in this committee again. i want to express a collective thanks for your 38 years of service and best wishes to your future. ranking member smith? d best wishes for the future. >> i welcome all of you. thank you for being here and thank you for your service to our country. don't ask, don't tell was put into place some must 18 years

ago. since that time, and even at the time, it was hotly debated, discussed, and argued about. in the 18 years sense, it has continued. we have had countless studies and opinions expressed and i will disagree a little bit with the chairman. this committee has had many hearings on precisely this subject, at the subcommittee level, and in the full committee. i do not think it is fair to say that we have not thought about this and that the military services have not thought about this. it has culminated in the very, very large study of service members to get their feedback and opinions. i believe we have analyzed this at enormous length over an enormous period of time. at some point, you have to make a decision about what the best way to go forward is. i am pleased in this congress and the president made that decision last year and made, but i think, was the only logical choice which was to allow gays and lesbians to serve openly in

the military. we all know that gays and lesbians have been serving in the military for quite some time and i have yet to meet a service member who was not abundantly aware of someone they were serving with the that was gay or lesbian. yet we have the finest military in the world. the unit has been able to function and function quite well under that circumstance. the only oddity we have was is the fact there were gays and lesbians happened to bubble up, the law required you to take that person out of the military. they had served, served well, served alongside other service members who had found an easy way to work with them and give us the finest military in the world. it is frequently asked by many people that whenever policy comes up the simple question. does this make us safer? does it strengthen national security? the answer to don't ask, don't tell is clearly no.

driving able-bodied people led the military who are serving us at a time when we are at war does not make us safer and it does not give us a better military. i will grant you that there will be some implementation issues here, but there are many policies that are problematic and difficult to route the military for the service people to work with. they find a way to work with them and move forward. i applaud you, gentlemen, for the way they are approaching this. they want to do it in the most user-friendly way possible to make sure it works and is effective. it is long past time to study this issue. it makes us weaker to drive people led the military who serve us well. i hope we go forward with the implementation and change in this policy as expeditiously as possible. i look forward to your testimony. >> as bipartisan as this committee is, we can disagree we can do it in a gentlemanly-like way. i think the ranking member for

his comments. >> i think the chairman is doing an outstanding job running the committee. i agree with him most of the time, we just have those moments like everybody. >> thank you. i do have a unanimous consent request knowing that general casey, chief of staff of the army coming would not be able to testify. i ask to be able to provide answers to questions that i will put to him in writing. we have his response and at this time i ask unanimous consent that my letter from april 4th, 2011, to general casey and the general response on april 6th, 2011, be entered into the record. the letters are now or have been distributed to the members. without objection, so ordered. general chiarelli? >> i thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the army's implementation plan for the repeal of the the legislation

commonly referred to as don't ask, don't tell. as you knowledge, general casey is unavailable to participate in today's hearing due to the recent loss of his grandson and the deeply appreciates everyone's thoughts and prayers during this very sad and difficult time. general casey testified before the armed services committee stating his belief that while the implementation of the repeal of do ask -- don't ask, don't tell would add more stress to a force more stressed by nearly one decade of war, it would be more difficult in the combat arms units and it would, in general, be more complicated and never been the comprehensive review suggested if properly implemented. it would not preclude forces from accomplishing the worldwide emissions to include combat operations.

general casey assured members of the committee that we have a disciplined force led by experienced, seasoned leaders who, with appropriate guidance, could be relied upon to effectively oversee the implementation of don't ask, don't tell repeal with moderate risk to our military effectiveness in the short term and to our ability to recruit and retain america's all- volunteer force over the long haul. finally, he assured the members that if directed to implemented the repeal, the army would work closely with the department of defense and other services to make sure the implementation is conducted successfully, in a timely fashion, and in the same disciplined manner that has characterized our service to the nation for over to murder 35 years. i stand by the chiefs -- over 235 years. since that hearing, consistent with congress's decision, the

president, and secretary of defense's guidance, the army has begun the deliberate process of training our forces on with the repeal means in terms of regulation and policy changes. as in everything we do, ultimately, the success of our implementation plan rests on the shoulders of our leaders. as such, our plan is based on the train-teach method of training. it places direct responsibility on commanders to ensure all leaders, officers, and nco's, pharma civilians, and interested family members are properly and sufficiently educated on this important policy change. on this important policy change. , its potential impact on them and our expectations of them. the guidance to commanders is clear. leadership matters most. this training is not disruptive.

in february, general casey personally led the first session with all four star generals. i'd participate in this session. i can attest that the process works. the chain teaching program facilitates constructive dialogue between leaders and supporters. this dialogue is hugely important, especially at the lower levels where consensus is most critical. response to the repeal has been generally positive. we cannot assume there will be no negative response in the days ahead. there are some who have expressed concern regarding the repeal.

our force is stressed and stretched by nearly one decade of war. the war is not over yet. we recognize if we are to risk to readiness, we must continue to do this deliberately. training is just the start. i am confident that of as to implement the repeal of don't ask, don't tell are on track. the entire process will take time. mr. chairman and members of the committee, on behalf of our secretary and our chief, i thank you for your patience, your continuous support and demonstrated commitment to the support of the men and women of the united states army and their families. i look over to your questions. >> distinguished members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the repeal.

i testified in december that i supported the repeal. the united states navy can successfully implement a repeal of the law. combat effectiveness is what we provide the nation. repeal will not change who we are or what we do. your baby will continue to beat the relevance -- your navy will continue to be the relevant force for the nation. we are preparing the necessary policies and regulations to implement this change in law. we are training our sailors and leaders at all levels. our training emphasizes the principles of leadership, discipline, and respect. we are not conducting the sensitivity training. we are focusing on ensuring that our sailors understand what repealed means to them, their families come and the navy.

expectations of conduct and behavior will not be compromised. we have 17 mastered mobile training teams providing training to command leaders and 17 geographic regions. once certified, command leaders well trained personnel within their respective commands. specialized training is also being provided to help persons who deal more frequently with repeal issues such as chaplins, judge advocate's, and recruiters. i have -- judge advocates, and recruiters. feedback from our sailors in the case the training they are receiving is comprehensive, well delivered, and effective. we have not observed in the impact of readiness, effectiveness, collegian, recruiting or retention during this trend. i continue to provide updates to

the secretary of defense and the joint chiefs of staff and repmain engaged with them. i do not believe it is necessary to provide additional or separate imprint out that this process. i have the ultimate confidence that the men and women of the united states navy, with their character, discipline, and decency, will successfully implement this change in law. navy leaders will continue to set a positive tone, greatly includes a and respectful work environments, and in force our high standard -- create an exclusive and respectful work environment and in force and our high standards. -- and enforce our high standards. thank you, and i look forward to

your questions. >> thank you. general amos. >> thank you for allowing me to appear here to discuss the implementation of repeal of don't ask, don't tell. i testified here in december and stated that if congress changes the law, the marine corps will end with the law. the law signed by the president establish the conditions for the data will repeal of don't ask, don't tell. the marine corps is working diligently to meet the corresponding requirement, as are all uniformed services. once met, the certification process may be provided by the joint chiefs of staff and the president. overall, i am company that marine leaders will insure compliance with the is -- with the spirit and intent of the law. the marine corps has taken the

following significant actions in line with the direction of our civilian leadership. after the house of representatives and the senate voted to repeal the law in december of 2010, i published the following guidance to the marine corps. "as marines, we abide by the laws of our nation. we will implement the new policy in accordance with specific directions and implementing guidance from our chain of command. fidelity is the essence of who we are. we will faithfully execute this new law and will continue to treat each other with dignity and respect." while in afghanistan over christmas, i spoke to more than 12,000 marines and sailors about the pending repeal and my expectations for successful implementation. short -- shortly after returning to afghanistan, we made a video for marines and their families to reinforce our message and to

reach out to locations we could not personally visit. the marine corps has personally called the recommendations of the working group in developing and executing the implementation training. some of the first marines to receive this training or my three-star and four start officers in late january. in february, the marine corps began training. the army corps has completed 100% of all tier one and tier two training. our tier two training is 40% complete. we will complete this training with the aid of the internet when absolutely necessary. the majority of our training is done face-to-face. successful implementation of this policy depends upon leadership, the rationalism,

discipline, and respect. -- leadership, professionalism, discipline, and respect. in our profession of arms, adherence to standards of conduct is essential. leadership is the key to creating and sustaining an environment where the opportunity to contribute an advance to all is available. in recommending a move to repeal, i will put forth measures to help implement our training. the marine corps will have completed 100% of its special staff and leadership training. useful objective measures alone are not sufficient for me to recommend certification. i will also use enlisted

retention surveys to measure turning success. additionally, i will rely heavily on feedback from my commanders throughout the marine corps. prior to recommending certification, i will ensure that all preconditions or certification have been met. i am, the marines will faithfully abide by the laws of this nation and will keconduct themselves accordingly. our core values of honor, courage, and commitment will guide us through our training and implementation. i appreciate the opportunity to provide these details. i stand ready to answer any questions the committee might have. >> thank you. general schwartz. >> thank you for the opportunity to report on implementation of the repeal of the don't ask, don't tell policy.

there are necessary revisions to policy and regulations and training of all chairman -- airmen. we will make these changes in a that is -- overarching policy changes, standards of conduct, and separation actions are the basis for our implementation training, which began on february 14, and will be completed on june 30 of this year. the air force is administering the office of secretary of defense's standardized training

program, which was developed in conjunction with the services, repealth osd's implementation program to ensure consistent training for the entire force. so far, we have trained 23%, 117,000, of our members. we are on track to train the remainder within the prescribed training window. we will insure that implementation is achieved irresponsibly, deliberately, and effectively. our preferred method of training is in person. when face to face training is not feasible, for example, during convalescent leave, or a climate where interrupting the mission to conduct training would have an adverse impact, commanders have discretion to use computer based training or

to schedule training upon return. as training progresses, we will continue to comport -- to report completion data twice a month. in the post-repeal environment, we will monitor the effectiveness of our training through existing processes. mr. chairman and members of the committee, we thank you again for your support of the armed forces. the standards of conduct that we expect in you expect of all airmen, entitling all to dignity, respect and opportunity and commitment to service above self will not change. guided by our core values of integrity, service, an excellent, we will implement this policy change with the same professionalism that we demonstrate in all our daily endeavors.

mr. chairman, i look forward to your questions. thank you. >> thank you and thanks to each of you. the law was passed. you understand the relationship between the military and civilian law. you are doing your best to see that the law is implemented and followed correctly. i would have expected nothing different. general chiarelli, general amos, general schwartz, as i indicated in my opening statement, each of you expressed reservations during your testimony with the senate about the central conclusion about the working group that the rest of repeal to overall military effectiveness was low. as you proceed with the training face an implementation plan, has your attitude changed?

what is your current professional military judgment about the risk to military effectiveness? >> mr. chairman, thank you for that question. as you indicated, general casey did indicate that he felt the risk was moderate. i believe he feels that it remains moderate today. have gottenr as we in our training. i had a session with commanders last friday. they indicated no issues so far in tier one and tier two training as they get ready to kick off tier three training. i think general casey would remain with moderate risk because we are not far enough in

our training to change that. >> thank you. general amos? >> you remember the results of that came back from the marine corps that had concerns about unit cohesion and combat the effectiveness. i reported that in my december testimony. i have had an opportunity to visit afghanistan and travel around the marine corps. this morning, i was with our commandment -- our commander on the ground. i was looking specifically for issues that might arise come out of the tier two and tier three training. we have not seen it. there are questions about building from remains -- from marines.

there has not been the anxiety over it from the forces from the field. i asked specifically this morning. i said, what are you seeing in the young marines out there? they said they are focused on the enemy. maybe they will have questions when they return to the united states of america. right now, there are focused. he does not think it is an issue. >> general schwartz? >> i am not prepared to fall off of my assessment of moderate risk. we have trained 100,000 airmen to date. the way we have approached this and the reaction we have experience thus far indicates to me that we are litigating the rest -- mitigating the risk in

the way we are approaching this. i am more comfortable than i was in december. we have a way to go and it requires the attention of all of us to bring this on. >> admiral roughead, what are your thoughts today? >> my view as the survey was concluded, and as i testified in december, was consistent with what i sensed in the course that i had -- the force that i had the opportunity to engage with. our training is going well. in those areas that we detected there may be some areas of moderate risk, particularly in the expeditionary forces were we had engagements similar to mineshipmates -- to my

shipmates indicated, is not at the level that we had forecast. as the training is conducted, the types of questions reflect the professionalism, the maturity, and the decency of our people. i am comfortable. i was comfortable in making the recommendation last december. it is consistent with what i continue to see in the navy today. >> i think one of the problems i had, as i expressed in my opening statement and a little up a difference that i had with the ranking member, is the way it was presented to us and given to us. we did not hold a hearing at the full committee level. we were given a briefing. the study was handed out to us as the briefing started.

we did not have adequate time to read its. i felt appropriate questions. my concern was more about the procedure of how it was laid out. that is passed. now we are moving forward. i want to make sure that we are really in tune with what is going on and everybody has an opportunity to be involved in the process. i will hold my other questions or later. ranking members met? -- ranking member smith? >> do we have a fair process in place? you seem to be working to it and it seems to be going better than expected. we will see what happened as we

go forward. we put it in place the way we did to give you gentleman the chance to proceed the way we are doing now. there is a question about the impact it will have on unit cohesion and the effectiveness. there are a fair number of things that challenge unit cohesion. you have to pull together and make it work. i asked in the survey, do people have concerns? they may express them. it happens on numerous occasions in the military. you have to do difficult things and things they would rather not do. but they come together and they do it. your comments about the initial stages of your training bear that out. yes, we have concerns, but they make it work. it will not undermine what the military is doing.

the gentlemen will acknowledge that it is not the first time that it has occurred in the military that they are serving with gays and lesbians. i appreciate your work and the training you are doing makes sure this will be a successful implementation. i am, an act that all the services will continue to to be fantastic jobs they are doing. people in the military will not be driven out because of their sexual orientation. i yield back. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i had a couple of questions going back to when we had the hearing. was not a hearing, i guess. the first thing is, there was a sense of resistance in the

combat arms. that does not surprise me particularly. it seems to make sense because if you are dealing with a regular office situation, that is a different environment than if you are in the field somewhere or you are under the stress of combat in tight quarters and under a lot of pressure. it does not surprise me. what were the numbers in the marine corps in the combat arms section? what were the numbers on that survey? >> congressman, they were in 60's. i do not have the precise number. it was 60 percent for the combat arms. > -- 60% for the combat arms. >> the conditions you are

living in are more complicated. do you think that is what drove the number? >> the units are principally combat units. they are all male. there are a few that have more be built in it. but they are predominantly all male. they are just worried about combat. they are not sure what to expect. it was expectations and anticipation. >> the way policy used to work in combat situations -- if it is a submarine or wherever there is a tremendous amount of pressure -- if someone's behavior became detrimental to the mission, they could be asked to leave the service. that kept a cap on behavior. with the new policy, you have to figure out new guidelines as to

how that will all work. we can say everything is going ok. you have had to do a lot of thinking. if this happens and if that happens, how do you handle these different situations? is there is somebody who is openly homosexual and their behavior stars to get in the way of the mission, what are your -- starts to get in the wake of the mission, what are your alternatives and how -- in the way of the mission, how you handle it? what are your alternatives? >> whether someone is gay or lesbian does not enter into a description of the mission. most of our communities are a diverse force. it is not necessarily someone's

sexual orientation or even someone's gender. if there is inappropriate behavior, it kind that is unacceptable or undermines good order and discipline, -- isavior ior conduct unacceptable or undermine good order and discipline, there is an administrative process. the same standards, the same regulations and standards of conduct will apply as to good order, discipline, sexual- harassment, sexual misconduct. it is not as if we are having to create new policies. we will be enforcing these as we have for many years. >> in the area that i am talking about, that would be handled the

same way as in a heterosexual contact. you will discipline them the same way as any other person? >> absolutely. >> thank you. >> thank you gentlemen for being before us today. when we were going through this whole process of don't ask, don't tell, i did not believe that our military units were so fragile. that having somebody next to you who was openly gay would be so disruptive to the mission of our unit. i am proud, so far, as you have discussed today, of all our men and women in uniform who have not only got out to fight for us every day, but who are also working through this new policy that you are trying to implement. i always thought they were

strong in a great military force. i think you have proven this right. my question today is about those gay and lesbian service members who were discharged because they were gay under the don't ask don't ask don't tell policy. -- under the don't ask, don't tell policy. if they did not have anything else on their record or there was no other problem, they would be discharged with an honorable discharge. is that correct? ok. now the policy will be that, in the normal pprocess, those who were discharged under don't ask, don't tell, can be asked to come back and put back into military service.

is that correct? >> former members can apply to reenlist and will be considered for reenlistment based on the needs of the services and our normal interest process. >> will they have to start all over or will they get to re- enter given credit for the service that they have held? the only reason they were put out is that it was known that they were gay. >> it is an individual case consideration. there is no guarantee for returning at the same grade. it depends on the needs of the service. >> if that position were open, is there a process in which a person says, i have been out for two years, i am still fits, i am stilgo back -- 0 ani

fit, i want to go back? >> if that scenario came up, it would be accommodated? . >> what are the policies to ensure they get a fair shake to get back their old career? >> there are opportunities for appeal, both to the inspector general of the recruiting service, as well as the air force board for corrections of military records. in those two mechanisms, former members can appeal the designation they have received. >> lastly, what are they reporting -- if you get harassed by some one of the same

who happens to be gay, is it the same process? i know i heard it from the other side. what happens if the perpetrator is in the chain of command, the supervisor? is it the same rule we see under sexual assault or sexual harassment in the normal context that we have been working with? >> zero tolerance. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. those are my comments. >> we have a series of votes that will take close to one hour. mr. simons has said he will make his office available. we are going to go see that your pay continues. we will be in the adjournment until the votes are concluded.

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

>> we will come to order. thank you for your patience. >> i want to pick up on the issue of readiness. as i have heard from folks in my district, those who have recently retired and those who are on active duty, one of the elements they bring up to me is an issue of readiness. looking at the past survey that was done, if you look at the survey results you get back from those men and women who serve in combat zones, you see the results are different from those serving in the other capacities. that begs the question that, as we are going forward and looking

at how this policy is put in place, are we going to expect from you all the proper due diligence to make sure that evaluations take place that are rigorous and that really look at our readiness capability and that make sure that we understand that if there are problems with implementation, what is going to happen? i have a couple of questions. one is from each of you. the record under which you will pursuit evaluating the -- the rigor under which you will pursue evaluating the readiness issues. how will you address them and how will that affect certification? general schwartz, i will start with you. >> the bottom line is that we will do this through the chain of command. we will monitor the typical metrics we look at, the

inspector general reports. whether it be said that -- whether it be sexual-harassment indexes or containment. -- problems about develop, we will attempt to mitigate those challenges. we understand what the law of the land is. that is the approach we will take. it is my conviction that we will probably have some occurrences, some mediation from our standards of conduct. we will deal with them as we do others. whether it is heterosexual, whether it is personal conduct of other matters not up a sexual nature. we are a force that is compliant

base. we will continue to be that way. >> general amos? >> congressman, this may sound trifling, but the backbone of all our services is leadership. we are not putting additional training, additional hours of training -- once we complete the tier three training. our leadership is going on 12 months a year with our young marines. they are face-to-face. how are we doing? that is when we will get a real sense, what are the real issues that will come out of this?

we expect that there will be some. i want to manage expectations and not deny he -- not be naive about it. i am confident that good order and discipline, and standards of conduct are the hallmark. that is the part that will make sense to our men and women. it is not, we will go another 30 hours of this kind of instruction. it will be that constant persistent leadership by our nco's and our officers. that will be our metric. we will get that feedback and we will work our way through it. >> thanks, congressman. we monitor readiness continuously. all the factors involved.

we look at how we are constantly making those improvements. the visibility we are quick to have on readiness will be good. it is also telling that in the survey itself, in those units where members served with gay and lesbian sailors, they raided the unit readiness -- rated the unit readiness either well or very well. the elements of tone of the force that we pay attention to will be clear indicators of where we are. >> my time is running out. i want to emphasize how important readiness is. our role in oversight is to make sure that in no shape or form is readiness to be sacrificed in the implementation of this law. thank you and i yield back.

>> i apologize for the time. i know you all are extremely busy. we expect -- we respect greatly what you do. i want to express my condolences to general casey and his family. i know he had been here just a little while ago and we acknowledge the fact that that might be his last hearing. thank you, general chiarelli, for being here. as we look at the time line that we are working with on dope ask don't tell -- on don't ask, don't tell after the implementation, i wonder if you can comment on general casey's comment to the chairman that the force would be 1/2 trained before the time they are certified. i wonder if the general has been

involved in this process and the current training agenda and if you think he is up to speed on the process and if he see any changes in the terms of trying to conclude the public-and if you see any changes in the terms of training -- and if you see any changes in the terms of the training? >> he said he would be able to certify on or around may 15. his reasoning is the fact that we have commanders doing it. we really feel that commanders, because they are doing the training, are going to pick up on any issues we might have. the session i had last friday was the first in trying to get any feedback. we will be going heavily into

the tier three training. i cannot tell you if general dempsey feels the same. he has been about in the training. i have no reason to believe that i haves adjusted -- no reason to believe it will be much longer than general casey felt. >> the directive and the law was to be certain that the president and the secretary of defense and the chairman of the joint chiefs would be able to make that certification. everything being equal, the process was moving forward and there was a belief that readiness and the other criteria were being managed well. at the same time, there was some reluctance to move all work on

the part of members unless you had an opportunity to be here. i wanted to be certain that there was no pressure, that there were -- you did not feel that your voices were not being heard as we move forward with this. when the actual certification was being made no matter what occurred. that you would have the kind of impact that would be required of anyone in your position. would there be any reasons why people would be concerned about that? >> no, ma'am. no pressure. our voices will be heard as we go through the training and engage routinely with the secretary of defense and the joint chairman. i have no doubt about that. >> thank you. >> i want to be clear. we have had complete open

communication opportunities which the chairman and the secretary of defense. they value our opinion and we talk about this pretty close to weekly or every other week. we sit down and talk about it. it is a frank and honest discussion. we will have plenty of opportunities between now and certification. >> i will make a written input to the chairman on my recommendations to him. i am it sure that my secretary will make a similar interaction with the secretary of defense. >> i know that general casey has mentioned to me several times about the direct input he has had with the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff and the secretary of defense of with this issue. they have met. >> i know you responded earlier to the question about implementation. in a letter from the chairman to general casey, he mentioned that

it had been stated that the general felt implementation would be more difficult than what the pentagon survey would suggest. is it going to be more difficult? is it going to be as expected, less difficult? how would you characterize that? >> it is always difficult when you are working with a force of 1.4 million. they only meet three days a week if not deploy. soldiers are moving in and out of the theater. that is the difficulty in working through this. add that to be that that there is some concern with combat arms officers and soldiers in the survey. they indicated that they had more concerned than others. what we feel good about is that

the training packages, the quality training packages seem to be mitigating some of that concern. >> thank you, general. congrressmen west of florida. -- congressman west of florida. >> i will be up-front and honest. this will be implemented. you are great leaders and you will take the guidance given to you and you will make it happen the way i did when i was in the military. when we get to the point where we are discussing how the military performs to accommodate certain behavior, that is where

i am concerned. i still think we have a high standard to be a member -- height standard. is that correct? >> absolutely. >> i could never get into that unit because i am a shorty. if there is a great marine that is serving well and if he cannot pass the pft, we still separate that marin, correct? >> absolutely. >> if an officer has a day that is going to put his career at risk, is that correct? >> yes.

>> as we go forward, i think the people on this side and the people in the administration need to understand that we are different. we have a clear-cut standards. i am sure a person with a point till would go out there and served just as well. -- a ponytail can go out there and serve just as well. but we have standards. we have supported leaders who are concerned about political correctness -- supported leaders who are concerned about political correctness. i want to make sure that if leaders see problems with this implementation are not afraid to speak fup. with that, i yield back.

>> thank you. >> thank you all for the service you give to this country. i appreciate that. i am a longtime supporter of the repeal of no -- the repeal of don't ask, don't tell. i knew that our military would be ready to do this and they would be completely prepared. i am glad to hear your positive remarks and that you are working hard to implement this. that we, we were able to hear from dr. stanley. he gave one full implementation -- one full testimony about the implementation. he talked about how this costs around $10,000. that is a contrast to what people estimate. people in the military are being discharged who are highly trained.

i have a slightly different question. i am pleased to hear so much positive coming out of this process we are going through. i had an early isolated reports with the education training up open service was mocked and disparaged by the trainer. i am is a stick to hear your comments on this. -- i am interested to hear your comments on this. do you have any concerns about the idea of a commander who may mock the training or shows something that might be slightly disparaging and if we may encounter problems if we are in the middle of the implementation? when we hear those things, isolated as they are, i am interested in your take on them. any of you.

>> i have had one instance reported to me of three senior officers engaging in such activity. it was immediately reported by their superior. proper action is being taken like it would be in any situation where something like that happens. >> thank you. >> in our case, as we do the training, there are opportunities for those who participate in training to comment on the effectiveness of that training. it also allows us to measure the retention of certain elements of the training that we provide. there is ample feedback on our website that deals with the topic. there are opportunities for individuals to post comments and questions. we have good visibility that is not in a filtered process, but one that is quite open and

allows us to get a sense of the tone and the training and the receptivity of the training. >> thank you. we are looking forward to launching another navy ship in june. we are excited about that. >> it is may. >> thank you. we are anxious to have that happen. >> congresswoman, we have not had any incidents brought up to me. it violates the premise of marines getting into step and falling orders. this is about obey our nation's laws. we would take that seriously. we work hard to make sure everybody understands that we follow the law in the marine corps. as admiral roughead describes, we have these open forums and

discussions. we will be consistent between now and the time i recommend that the marine corps is ready to go or not ready to go. i would say, the clear majority is positive. there are questions about policy changes and housing and gang showers. these come up in the discussions, but it is healthy. i have not heard from a command. we have 39,000 reserved marines. it would be unrealistic to think that there is not an individual or two out there who is going to turn askance at this. >> thank you. >> this is about the constitution and our oath

to it. if you have information about an airman who is not on board, i would like to know about it. >> thank you. i yield back. >> thank you. >> i am concerned with what i am hearing today that we are going to expose our troops to moderate risk. general casey said it is another level of stress and it is more complicated. i want to know from each of you, when have you suggested a change of policy before that would put our men and women at moderate risk? i will start with you. >> i believe general casey indicated that he felt that it report characterized it as less risk than he felt given the fact that we are an army that

has been fighting for 10 years in iraq and afghanistan. he rated it as moderate risk. we have not completed enough of our training for him at this time to say it is not still moderate risk. at the same time, we have put together a good training package that emphasizes our role as professional shoulders -- as professional soldiers that we believe is going to mitigate that risk and drive it down. >> have you been involved in recommending a policy where there has been moderate risk before? have you done that at other times in your career? >> i would say that going to war is at least moderate risk. >> when you put someone's live

at rich, it is heavy risk. -- life at risk, it is heavy risk. >> what we do is dangerous. we know how to manage the risk. that said, for the process we are going through, i am comfortable with where we are. >> there is a difference. war is rest. this is a change -- war is risk. this is a change in policy that is going to acdd risk. we are at war as a country. we are talking about making these monumental changes in policy at a time where this country has enormous stress on

its military forces. i have great respect for you and what you do to keep our country say. fe. i want to challenge you. you are the last force to be able to stop this onerous policy. i have to believe that you know this is not the right. i appreciate that you thought command. you thought of the constitution and you are fulfilling what you are charged to do. there is an opportunity to not certified this. it had fallen upon you at this time in history to be able to give the final say to the secretary of defense and 2 admiral mullen -- to admiral

mullen that you believe this is going to help improve our forces from this time out and help us win wars. i would ask you to consider this and to stand strong as you have stood strong against other forces that have come against our country and that you would not certify this. with that, i will get into some specific questions. that is an appeal i hope you will think about in the privacy of your own home in your own heart before you do this. you can stop it still and not do something just for political correctness. regarding chaplins, will chaplin's space career penalties if they -- chaplains base career penalties if they beat our 0- face careerchaplains

penalties if they defer same sex marriages to someone else? >> no. we have not experienced ecclesiastical agencies withdrawing their endorsements of the chaplains. that has not been an issue. >> our time is up. i appreciate your consideration. i respect with you are doing and we are counting on you. >> thank you. we now proceed to the congressman from new york. >> a former j.a.g. officer, i want to know if you are comfortable with the

regulations or hindering the implementation. as you expressed before, the ability of the chain of command to process and handle complaints and deviations from military standards. i ask that of each of you. >> i am comfortable with that. yes, sir. we deal with adherence to standards every day throughout our military. nothing will change in that regard. >> it is our belief that commanders have sufficient tools to address, the that violates good order and discipline. we support the recommendations concluded in the report to modify the c.m.j. we have what we need now to move toward implementation. >> i believe what we have in place currently is more than adequate.

in all the things we have thought through, the implementation process, the u cmj was the least of our concerns. >> there are 63 air force instructions that deal with this issue either tangentially out of that, there are 27 that require some changes, 16 of which are relatively minor and will be done and ready to promulgate shortly. there are 11 which required more work and that will take a couple more months to put together, but they will be ready to roll out at the time when and if the

secretary and president certify. >> are the services at a joint level doing an overall or combined plan for implementation or is this being done by individual service without any type of coordination? >> congressmen, we are responsible and accountable for training our own service. the nature of the training, the way it has been constructed an accord and it has been done among the services as we go forward together. accountability is through the services so we can account for the training so we can get the feedback that we need. >> all through the summer when the service were taking place last spring, summer, and fall, part of the effort of the comprehensive working group was the implementation portion of

this, looking at policies and training and everything else. we all had representatives on that effort with a very comprehensive training package addressing the 99th percentile of the issues. each service was told we will use that as the from work and the backbone, and that we will in part our own culture, our own service culture. by that, for the marines, we get down and dirty, look them in the eye and say pay close attention to me and we are going to have a discussion about this. >> thank you. >> sir, i think we are executing in our service elena kagan you could tell there is a high degree of coordination at -- sir, i think we are executing

in our service level very well but you can tell there is a high degree of coordination. individuals are getting their training from their senior service leadership in the command. >> thank you very much. i have great faith that he will implement this and make a decision or advise senior leadership of the decision you think is in the best interest of accomplishing the mission. thank you. >> good afternoon. i thank you, mr. chairman, and i appreciate your patience with us this afternoon. thank you all for being here and doing what you do for our country. i wanted to ask you very directly and simply how each of

you would feel that the implementation of this repeal -- how would it improve the standards of our military effectiveness, unit cohesion, recruiting, and retention for our military? >> man, i cannot say at this point that it will improve -- say at thisnot point that it will improve it. we are in the training and education portion of this so we cannot say one way or the other. that is something that will happen one way or another a year or two later. we will give a sense probably within six months to 12 months what the impact on the attentioretention will be.

will it improve recruiting and retention and combat effectiveness? i cannot address that because i do not know. >> general, one of our members referenced letter that was received from a marine specifically discussing resignation in light of this repeal. i guess i could further my question and say do you know specifically that there have been resignations threw out our military as it relates to this repeal? >> i would expect that there will be some marines who will step forward and talk to their congressman. but because n.j. say they want to resign, constitutionally, they stepped up and joined the

marine corps. the fact that they are uncomfortable at this point or the fact that they want to resign this not necessarily mean they are going to be allowed to resign. i do not know specifically but i would be the most surprised person if there were not at least a couple of people out there who will want to resign. ust say thatwould jsu we have not accumulated and of data points to make a judgment. i would say that conceptually you can argue that there might well be improvements at some point because it fewer people leave the service and so on. ideally, those are the right people who stay. at this point in time, it is premature to make a judgment.

>> one of the biggest challenges we face today is too many people want to stay in the navy. that has not changed as a result of the process that we are going through. it is becoming more pressurized for people who want to stay or want to come in. you can debate the reasons as to why, but this has not changed that dynamic. i do think that one of the things that will be true once this is implemented is that we will not have the sailors who, because of orientation, are always looking over their shoulder. because of or >> i would only echo what the other chiefs have said. it's too early to tell. but we have seen nothing that

would indicate so far there will be any mo individuals who indicate a desire to leave than there would be with any other policy that possibly could be changed. again, we feel very, very good so far at really not hearing a lot of that. we have not heard those reports except in an organization of 1.1 million, again, there are no doubt going to be a few. >> yes, sir. thank yoso much. mr. chairman, my time is almost up. i yield back. >> thank you, mr. ryan. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and again thank you for accommodating our schedule today. i think this is obviously an important issue and i want to thank all of you for your thoughtfulness in not only your remarks today but throuout this entire process i want to say thank you. this is something that i think has been a long time coming for our country. a lot of the issues we talk about as a country, that we

fight about as a country, are the issues of freedom and liberty and we hear the words thrown around a lot and i think the implementation of this policy is an opportunity for us to create that more perfect union here in the united states in allowing free american citizens to serve their country in whatever way they see fit. so i want to thk you for tha and really just mention a couple stories here, mr. chairman, from back in ohio because we've gotten a lot into the logistics here today. and i think it's important that we recognize that these are real folks that want to serve our country. we have someone back in ohio, former air force major general mike ulmey, native of dayton, ohio, a gay soldier discharged under don't ask don't tell. 13-year veteran of the air force, kicked out of the armed services after superiors investigated his personal e-mails and found the correspondence between he and his partner patrick malagni,

cincinnati, ohio, rotc student outed shortly before graduation and discharged. still wants to serve. still wants to come back and serve his country. brian endicott from columbus, ohio joinld the army in 1992 when then candidate clinton talked about the promise to end the ban from the service when don't ask don't tell was implemented he opted not to re-enlist. then lastly, josh crease served a full term as a combat medic in iraq. after returning he was discovered by someone who had unauthorized access to his e-mail, another soler got his pass word somehow. heas brought up on discharge proceedings but those proceedings were putn hold until he served a second full term in iraq and he was discharged shortly after he returned. he's from upper sandusky in ohio. these are real people who want to serve our country that are talented so again i want to just say thank you and ask one quick question and apologize if i

missed in the transition if this question has already been asked. but how soon following certification will former service members who wish to return to service be allowed to begin the process? some former service members approaching 40 are worried that theyill age out before the process begins. >> congressman in the case of the marine corps once certificatio is done, and the law is 60 days later the law becomes effective then in the case of the marine corps those that have been discharged in the past, and we' had about 1400 marines since 1993, that have been discharged for homosexuality, can apply and what they'll do, they will go to a service recruiter and apply just like anybody else that left the marine corps with an honorable discharge, come back in and if their skill sets and age meet all the requements, and there is a need, then

they'll be allowed to come back on active duty but they will fall in the competition with everybody else that has gotten out and have come back as a ior service marine. >> is that the same for all? >> same for the army. >> exactly as general amus laid it out and quite frankly this is something that is going on all the time in the army with soldiers who have left for whatever the reason might be. many of them petitioned to come back in. >> great. well, my time is winding down here. thank you so much again. this was a long time coming and we appreciate your help and the training and implementation of this. thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. wilson. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for being here today. general, my sympathy to the casy fami. we certainly have just the highest regard for general joyce casy and his service. as we are proceeding, i share the concerns of chairman mckeon that there were hasty decisions

made in december in regard to passage of this law. in fact, it is really bizarre. it was a lame duck session of defeated members of congress who have made this change in the w. normally, you would think of a representative democracy that people would be representing their people but these were people who had actuallyeen rejected by the voters of the united states and then they changed this law. i find that i find that really just undemocratic. it's also shocking to me that these are the same people who did not pass a budget, and that's what we're facing today. but it's amazin that they could have made such a decision and that makes it even more important as to the certification effort that every effort is made to look into morale, unit cohesion, good order, discipline, recruit, and retention, and combat readiness

because members of congress, defeated ones, did not look at that and did not care. it's my view in my 31 years of service that extraordinary surveys, anonymous surveys, so that people could speak freely, are really very helpful. will there be any surveys as you're considering the certification procesof members of the military? >> sir, not surveys in the context of what was performed la fall, but certainly there will be an aggregation o information through the command chains and other normal porting mechanisms to give us the information and the situation we're in as we need to make the recommendation in our case to the chairman, and just to address what congresswoman hartsler indicated earlier, you can rest assured that each one of us will give our best military advice to the chairman

of the joint chiefs. >> congressman, in our case, the objective criteria which we talked about earlier on, tier one, tier two, tier three training, that will be complete. the subjective part for us will be surveys which is a formal survey. it's not a -- it's not a jump on a blog site survey. it's a real -- we bring trained ople in, do a command climate survey, and then we have our earlier reteng surveys we do. those are all fixed thing we do. we'll also have input from the commander. so there are surveys. it's not a specific one to deal with this, but it will talk about marines, how they're feeling about staying on active duty in the marine corps, how is the climate in their command, which are things i'm very concerned about. to your point about retention and combat effectiveness and unit cohesion. >> congressman, i would say that

we make several changes in the navy from time to time on policies and other issues. and i will tell you that at no time have i seen a continuous feedback, the continuous assessment on the part of the training that's going on to the degree that we are doing here. so i do believe that the pulse of the force is going to be monitored throhout this in ways that we have never done before. >> i can only echo that. and with your experience in the united states army, congressman, you know that commanders are best suited to be able to tell whether a change in policy is going to have effect on any of the things that you mentioned. and that's why we have put it four square on their shoulders to be the one to conduct the training and get the feedback from their units and soldiers. >> and i appreciate your statements. i am also concerned about first

amendment rights of chaplains. will there be guidelines for chaplains as to how they conduct themselves and their ability to comment on thipoli? >> yes, sir. in fact, chaplains are part of the tier one training, very focused on that. the chief of chaplains was involved in the development of that training. and the rights of not just chaplains but all of our sailors to practice the ten nets of the belief is unaffected. >> and will not be retaliation against those who may disagree with the policy in expressing their point of view? >> i believe that those who have moral objections and find that -- that it is a challenge for them because of their beliefs, those beliefs can be

expressed. that said, any expression of that that goes beyond the norms of the normal decency and respect that we have for one another, that's a line that i think could be crossed. but their ability to deal with their religious beliefs, to discuss those beliefs, to seek guidance from our chaplain corps will be unaffected. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. reyes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. gentlemen, thank you both for being here, for your patience, and also for your service. i don't have any doubts that the results you will report accoingly. so i really don't have any questions except to tell you how much we appreciate the work that you are -- that you've done and

the work that you're doing. thank you all. i yield back, mr. chairman. >> thank you. mr. hunter. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and to all of you, thank you so mu for basically being the custodians and guardians of our young men and women who volunteer to serve and whose parents trust you with their lives and livelihoods. first question for everybody is basically, tell me -- i'd like to know how the repeal increases combat effectiveness. >> as i mentioned earlier, we don't knowxactly yet howit's going to. but i would argue that if we are able to -- if the decision is made to repeal and certification does take place, as we've worked this over time, inclusive organizations are usually the best kinds of organizations. and we will look at that and the ability to ensure that soldiers

are able to stay in as possible areas where it could improve ranks. >> i think that one of things that's important, as you so well know because of your service, congressman, is the integrity and belief that people can have in being frank and honest and open. and i believe that that now becomes part of our force in a way that it has not been. i also would echo what general corelli said in that there are some talented people who have left the navy because of this. >> xefkly combat arms -- you think the navy s.e.a.l.s, the special task forces that fall under the navy? >> i think th across the navy, when -- oftentimes people talk about the combat arms. and that really conjures up the

ground force. but i would submit that those who serve in our submarines, who serve in our airplanes, are as much of a combat arm as anything at we have. >> do you think it would increase the effectiveness of -- >> i believe that we will see great young sailors who perhaps otherwise would not serve will be able to serve, and to quote an anecdote from some of the surveys that were done with regard to one of our navy s.e.a.l.s were made, he's big, he's bad, he kills a lot of bad guy, and by the way, he's gay. i think we will see goold people serving, yes, sir. >> congressman, too soon for me to tell. i think the one thing that will happen, i think some of this will be a little bit evolutiona evolutionary, will become revealing over time. but i'm not in a position right now where i can comment on will it increase combat effectiveness. i think it will increase peace of md for a portion of our marine corps that is gay and

lesbian. they've been there since 1993 when the law was in there. i don't know how many of them are. myuspicion is the number are probably pretty small. but we know that they're there. i don't know who they are and i don't care at this point. so but my sense for them, there will be a peace of md that they've been unable to have prior to this. have we lost high-quality folks with unique talents that were onesie twossie, i can't tell that. so for me, it will be a while yet before i'll be able to look back and say our combat effectiveness has increased. >> thanks for your honesty and your blunt answer. gentleman? >> i agree with that. clearly peace of mind. there's the poen theitential fo keeping people who would otherwise have to depar our air force and potentially increases the recruiting pool. we shall see. >> i don't think we've heard

whether or not it will increase combat effectiveness or not yet. last question because i only have a minute left. say that you and your commanders on the ground or your combat units specifically do not think that -- let's be hypothetical, even though we all hate that. in six months the repeal happens but your commanders tell you that your combat units are not ready yet. and you either don't make a recommendation at that point yet because you're not ready for the repeal, or you do and it's that we don't do it yet, that we need more training, we need more whatever. what would you do then if the implementation of the repeal is forced upon you? do you have any recourse? >> conessman, i would say that i'm comfortable andonfident in the voice that we have with regard to the assessment of where we are objectively and

subjectively thashgs when we make our recommendation with regard to where we are in training, how we believe it has gone, do we have to circle back, perhaps to emphasize some other points that need to be made, that we may have identified as part of this feedback mechanism. i'm confident that -- >> i'm sorry. >> i'm confident that our recommendation will be heard. >> and your recourse if it isn't? if you're not ready and the recommendation is forced upon you? >> i'm confident that the recommendation i make with regard to the reaness of a navy will be a fact in whether or not we go forward as a force or not. >> is everybody comfortable with that? >> i would only add a very significant factor. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you very much. mr. kaufman.

>> thank you, mr. chairman. i had asked for the office of the secretary of defense for some additional questions on how this impacted thecombat -- from the survey as to drill down further as to how the survey impacted our ground combat arms elements in the united states army and the united states marine corps having served in both. as a soldier in the u.s. army infantry and as an officer in the marine corps, and i did get the raw data for the survey results of the specific questions i had. and it's amazing when the office of the secretary of defense has something they want to get to me that they agree with me on how quick they are. but i believe that they intentionally delayed this. and it took them two months to give me the information that they had righ on the top of their desk contained in that binder here. and going through the raw data, what it showed to me is how flawed this survey was, that it

was no more than a conclusion looking for a survey. it's not legitimate. it's flawed. this speaks to the lack of honesty in this process. i don't want you to put you in middle of this but i want to thank you for your service and trying to make this work in our armed forces because it doesn't matter at the end of the day what you tell the secretary of defense or the chairman of the joi joint chiefs of staff. they are political appointees, and we have a commander in chief who made this as a campaign promise. and they will -- they will follow through with that promise with him. there's no question in my mind. one thing. my heart is with the infantry

weather the army and the marine corps. i'm very concerned. i think that there's aeason today why we don't have women serving in ground combat units ere their primary mission is combat. and that is because we've chosen not to interject sexuality in those units to maintain unit cohesion. we are going to be interjecting sexuality in those units. and having served in combat with a ground combat team, interventional operations in the first gulf war, i served in in iraq but not in the infantry, but in the first gulf war when you went out and you stayed out, that young people sexual ly ti s an emotion very prom iocent in their lives.

so i just want you to take extra caution in recognizing differences in these ground combat units. because you look at the survey, the questions,because obviously it's a survey -- it's a conclusion looking for a survey, are not geared to those units. i want to thank you for your service and what you do. i know you're in tough position but know you'll do the best you can in what is not a military decision at the end of the day. it is a political decision. i yield back. >> thank you. mr. palazzo. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, gentlemen, for your service. in a large sense i feel like sam houston when he arrived to the site of the alamo and saw the destruction and the death and he codn't help his fellow americans, texans, tennessean,

and so forth. i do have a few questions. i share most of the views with the republican members, this is a policy that shouldn't be passed in a lame-duck session. i kind of sagree with some comments that if soldiers who are enlisted or become commissioned officers under a certain thought that their military was a good military, a correct military, or just whatever they thought the military was when they joined, and this congress comes and tinkers with it and no longer see it being what they envisioned or what their grandfathers in the pacific war envisioned it being. and we may need to provide them some relief to exit the military because, you know, we don't want to hurt them on their way out, they served honorably, so let's just please keep those considerations, becaus i've heard comments from high ranking

officials that they're either going to accept it or they know what they can do. and i think that in its face is a disservice to the people who have sacrificed so much for so many people. how many responded to the survey? if anybody has all the technical information, feel ee to input. >> we can take that for the record. for theair force it was 117,000 or thereabouts. >> okay. out of how many -- did you say about how many responded and how mu is your total force including reserves? >> a response rate slightly over 30%. >> 30%. >> congressman, i will also take that for theecord and give you the precise numbers, t it was well over 40,000, and there were spouses, family members, who were also allowed. three parts to the survey. actually, four. one was the actual survey for the service member. the second was the spousal survey. there was a blog site, kind of a

free-for-all kind of a thing, and there was another one. but we'll get you that information. >> congressmanfor the navy it was 28% of the active force, 33% of the reserve component, which is consistent with the normal response rates on all the strums we use to make significant decisions in the navy. thank you. >> for the army, i'll take that for the record but it was under 30% of those surveyed and it was higher in the reserve components than in the anctive component. >> il get you those numbers. >> i appreciate that. of course that brought other questions to my mind. why do you think the number was so low? and i'd like to inject some comments with that. you know, from what i've seen in my service is that two things were taking place. one, they didn't bieve it was an anonymous survey. their computer, their ako account, there was somebody out there who was going to watch

them and they thought there was going to be a -- you know, if they didn't agree with it, not that they were going to be on some list but there's something out there. now, that's just a perception, and sometimes perception is reali reality. second, they were scared. i covered that. they were resigned because they saw the writing on the wall and they saw the democrats pushing this through in a lame-duck session, saw the commitment from the president and also may have thought that the joint chiefs and others up top weren't going to have an honest discussion about this. and i'm just -- these are feedbacks they've gotten. because i have yet to find a soldier in the national guard reserves or when we took a tour on the western base, anybody that is in support of repealing don't ask, don't tell. and i just find ut -- it just makes me believe the way i took it, i think it was very limited in its response, it was bogus, and i hope if going forward

after you do your technical criteria, and i hope it's better than some of the critia we choose -- you know, the recipients of military contracts, but it's a fair, honest discussion. and maybe we should have another survey, one that maybe this congress, the 112th congress have help draft with your help to ask some more direct questions to our men and women in uniform. my time's coming close. if you want to comment for the record, please do so. and plea don't -- this isn't directed personally at you. i know y'all -- i've seen your bios, you're true american heroes. i don'tnvy you. where admil halsey and patton, mcarthur are going to go down under different pretenses, i just hope your names aren't going to be going down related to the certification of this policy. please think long and hard.

please make sure that it's not going to affect our recruitment, our retention, our readiness. and please -- i'm saying this -- i just apologize to our veterans who have served before us, those currently serving on active duty in the reserves and tho who have had the opportunity to serve because i don't think this is a good policy. and, you know, please take that into consideration. thank you. >> thank you. mr. mitchell. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i thank you gentlemen for your patience with the testimony today. i had the privilege of being with our troops in afghanistan just a couple weeks ago. they are first a reflection of their parents and a great reflection buthey are well equipped, well motivated, doing everything we're asking of them. i commend you for that. as a first-time electe official i still own a business i had the privilege to start 20 years ago

thismonth. i know over the course of that that time and probably today there are those serving with us in my company who are gay and lesbian. i have neve made any distinction. it was completely irrelevant to me what their sexual orientation was. i think don't ask don't tell was a reasonable but imperfect policy, at the end of the day you don't go home with your co-workers. there's a profound difference. my military career is very limbed. i'm the first say that. but i it will you, you go to parris island at 1978 and still this way today i know because my son went through i and i went back in the barracks and the showers are just about the size of an american garage.

you literally lose your right to privacy. you know that going in. i'd like to talk about this if this certification is a foregone conclusion. it seems like it. but it's not, we catalk about that as well. but if you would, sir, i would appreciate, what guidance is given to like a platoon commander, platoon sergeant -- not just a widespread i can't work with a person who's a homosexual. i don't have toll rangs for that. but when you get down to close accommodations and those kinds of things where i think a reasonable person would say i can understand, that's a genuinely held view, we're going to work with you on that. it's my understanding, i'd like to be corrected, but it's my understanding we're not going to make accommodations for those views. could you clarify that for me? >> congressman, i'd be happy to.

the marine corps billets two by two, so if we put two marines in a room, shared a head facility and two on the other side. we're the only service that does that. we do it for a specific reason, for unit cohesion, for the -- we are a young force, as you know, the youngest of all the services. so we have 18-, 19-year-olds in there and we breed the buddy system and we breed that cohesive bonding. so we're two by two. as i said earlier, without kn knowing exact numbers, my suspicion is there are numbers of gays and lesbians currently on active duty in the marines and the numbers are small. the is no need to build a separate barracks. there is no intention to do

that, i certainly don't have an intention to do that, nor can i afford it. but i have confidence, and here's the guidance i've given my generals and commanders, is that i expect the privacy and the rights of each marine to be honored with respect and dignity. i suspect there are going to be issues when marines are allowed to come out in the open, to declare themselves as openly gay. i don't know how that's going to happen, but i suspect that when that happens, there will be some marines that will say i don't want to room with that marine. and that's why we had staff sergeants, platoon sergeants and first lieutenants and company commanders. and they're going to look them in the eye and they're going to resolve it at the lowest level. it's the standard mari corps leadership. i'm confident of that. >> and the rights of the person asking for the accommodation to be moved, those rights will be respected as well. is that correct? >> they will. each case will be unique. each case will be handled

uniquely by that leader. each case will no doubt be different. but there will be a common thread that respecting the rights of both marines will be nored. >> the backdrop of this, though, at least for us, i think for all of us, is that we're not trying to change anybody's beliefs or their belief system. but we do and will mandate a standard of conduct. >> thank you all for your testimony. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. thank you. mr. franks. >> thank you, mr. chairman. gentlemen, i'm coming in here pretty late. i know you've probably covered a lot of areas that may be having some redundancy here. but first thank you for your service. i try to say every time when people, officers, other of leadership in our armed forces come forward, we know you've

given profound sacrifice and time in your life for the cost of freedom. and those of us that talk about freedom are certainly very grateful for those of you that carry its burden. and appreciate you very much. when the debate was occurring on this issue, some of us were trying to focus on what was the impact of military readiness and the effect of our capability to fight and win wars. and some of the leadership of the armed services had asked us for a ti to be able to study this issue and to be able to come back before the vote occurred to give us some at least insight as to whether or not this was a good policy or not. i can start by asking general schwartz, ifit's all right, i'll aim at you firs sir. did any efforts continue to go forward to ascertain the impact on milita readiness of this policy? and if so, are there any ongoing

erts like that or any data collection, any things that you're studying now as leadership of the military to ascertain what is the actual impact of this on our ready snns. >> congressman, weave routine measures and efforts under way to ascertain our unit readiness and so on for employment, for whater the ca may be. that is continue and we monitor that routinely. i would simply they is a we, all of us, are fundamentally concerned with our ability to execute and that none of us are inclined to endorse any approach that would somehow diminish that capability. >> general amos, do you have any thoughts there, sir? >> congressman, our training is intima intimate, it's personal, both at the platoon level, the compy level, ta bahhal i don't know,

squadron level. we watch it very carefully. it's very structured. we know what our readiness is, a, to give them time and preparation for deploying to combat -- most of our units are either in combat, have just come home and are resetting to go, so it's a personal matter. readiness and combat effectiveness is personal to our marine leadership. and in that regard, we've not seen any drop. but, again, we are in the implementation stage right now. but my expectations are the truth of the matter is i don't think we're going to see a drop in it. >> at this time, if you had to point to any one area, i'll throw it out to the panel, just the most challenging area that you may have as a result of is policy. is there anything that stands out in your mind? >> congressman, i would say we're training a ver large foe. and quite frankly, the responses

that we're getting, the tone of the questions, the nature of the questions are consistent with what we believe as we went forward. i think in the case of the navy, there are questions such as issues of accommodation. but they are being answered by the training teams and we'r just going to work our way through those types of questions. and the tone -- and i place a great deal of emphasisnhe tone of the force -- remains very good as we go through this. >> last question. i know that the issue of the chaplaincy has already been broached at least once. let me ask anyone here that would suggest or would say -- be able to say that -- has there been any impact on the chaplaincies?

has the there been any requirement vul of this policy placed o chaplains that would be considered a change of policy or have chaplains exhibited any sort of challenge with this policy in general? and isle start again, general sh wartsz, if you -- >> not in the air force, sir. >> and there's no indication that chaplains have been required to adapt to this policy in any way. is that your testimony? >> the chaplains -- we haven't certified -- we've not implemented the policy yet, but the fundamental part of this is twofold. one is that they minister to airmen. and in those cases where they are performing the context of their faith and their denomination that they do that consistent with their faith, however that may unfold. but in a broader sense, they minister to all amen. >> thank you, gentlemen, very much. thank you, mr. chairman.

>> thank you. and again, thank you for your patience. i apologize for the interruption. that's one of the things we have do here is vote. i encourage you to take into account all of the things you've heard here today on all the various sides of the issue as you go forward in preparing yourself to train the forces to see that they're trained and certify their readiness and the time that will be ready to implement this. thank you very much for your service. this committee stands adjourned.

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

>> tonight, a memorial service honoring david broder remark from the vice-president joe biden and washington post chairman and ceo at 8:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span. sunday, republican national committee chairman reince priebus at 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span. >> follow c-span on twitter. it is the fastest way to get schedule updates and links to the events that we cover. joined the viewers who already follow our feeds. get started at

twitter.com/cspan. >> the u.s. ambassador to the united nations susan rice outlined the priorities for reforming the united nations at a house committee meeting. she called on congress to approve the budget request for the united nations and other international agencies. now, a look at that hearing starting with an opening statement. this portion is almost two hours. . >> thank you very much for scheduling thi >> thank you very much, madam chairmawoman. where we share the same goals

but have very different views. i would like to thank the ambassador for taking time out for scheduled to be with her today. i want to follow-up on the opening comments. i want to remind our colleagues that these are not just -- behind every mission, there are real people with the dedicating their lives to feeding the hungry, organizing democratic elections and keeping the peace. as the chairman mentioned, over 40 u.n. staff and contractors have been killed in the line of duties in five different countries around the world. we have mentioned the seven that were murdered in afghanistan. a peacekeeper that was the abducted and killed in our for and another peacekeeper that was

killed inaiti. -- a peaceeper that was abducted and killed in darfur. we send condolences to their families. you deserve credit for this work to pass and for your efforts to secure u.n. backing for the no- fly zone in libya. we appreciate the work you have done to promote transparency. there is a possible recognition of a palestinian state, the continuation of a flawed -- process. it is essential that the u.s. maintains a leadership role in the organization. it will be dramatically weakened if they pass legislation that would be considered in this committee. by withholding a significant

portion of our dues unless a nearly impossie list of conditions is that, this bill would severely hinder our ability to pursue u.s. foreign- policy and natnal-security interests and support our allies and achieve the reforms. this encourages changes in the executive branch. we are one of 192 member states. we have tremendous leverage over the security council and other organizations, simply refusing to pay our bills is counterproductive. the last time congress forced congress into significant our readers into the u.n.,n effort led by jesse helms, we lost our

seat on the administrative and budgetary queions which is the important u.n. budget panel. if the goal was to diminish u.s. influence and a genuine reform on the back burner, than that goal was achieved beyond anyone's dreams. if the objective was to foster meaningful reforms, this withholdinof dues much be just a failure. one of the republican witnesses who testified, not the witness that i called. even the long ionesco withdrawal can be shown to have any much long-term impac on the effectiveness or the integrity of the u.n. system.

ambassador rice, i looforward to hearing your views on how withholding u.s. dues would impact our efforts to prevent the recognition of the palestinian state and pursue other u.s. foreign-policy and national-security interests. much of the debate has been characterized by dated and sometimes exaggerated allegations such as the cash for kim scandal. i agree with ambassador mark wallace who argued that the state department and congress and the verifiable metrics. the transparency initiative, an effort he spearheaded.

they are evaluating the issues to make sure at funds where utilize efficiently and effectively for their intended purpose. is a told that the u.n. cesspool of corruption and a money pit for u.s. taxpayer dollars. based on our review of the data, -- has demonstrated a marked improvement among nearly every u.n. agency and fund. this is the initiatives that the previous administration achieved before they left office. why are my friends so eager to bypass and undermine a promising effort begun by republican appointees under george w. bush? madam chairman, we agreed that much remains to be done to promote greater efficiency, accountability, and transparency and to eliminate the anti israel

vitriol that emanates from the human rights council and other bodies. we have in different ways to achieve that reform. withholding u.s. dues simply does not work and a much better approach is to continue and accelerate the quiet but effective approach to you in the form begun in the previous administraon. finally, i would like to reiterate my strong support for the work that you have done to promote our foreign policy interests. we are corp. very grateful to have you there. madam chairman, i yield back. >> the subcommittee on africa, a glal rights to share it is recognized.

>> i would like to know if the administration has increased their efforts to seek -- who won the election in the ivory coast. we greatly appreciate the administration trying to defeat that. if you can speak to whether or not we plan on not attending. as you know, allf the major jewi organizations have strongly recommended that we pull out. finally, as i have asked repeatedly, the ongoing problems in the democratic republic of congo or the relatively fresh allegations of peacekeepers abusing young people and especially young women is an ongoing scandal. peacekeepers obviously deal with

a great amount orisk. it is intolerable to think that some of those peacekeepers are raping and committing sexual violence. >> the ranking member on the subcommittee on africa is recognized. >> thank you very much. i commend you for the work that you do. i agree with the ranking member that i don't think that withholding dues is the way to go. i would like to commend the u.s. for their overwhelming vote in the human rights cocil. this is one that we will put ourselves up for reelection again. let just say that i commend the great job done in south

sudan with the election and we hope that this can be dealt with. this can increase the troops in somalia which is a very important area. maybe we can hav stability on the somalia region. i will rurn the balance of my time. >> welcome, ambassador. i would disagree with my friend. all of us to not have the same goals in mind. there are people on your side of the aisle and my side of the aisle that believe that we should move towards global government. the fact that the u.n. is being used as a vehicle to see how used as a vehicle to see how global government will