John McCain

It has not been able to produce reliable, auditable financial statements in the 20 years that it has been required by law.

I say with great respect, I would think that a decision of this impact, two highly classified programs, that perhaps the general counsel would have at least played an advisory role.

My opinion is that the decision to publish them was justified. Were it my decision to make, I would not have made that decision.

I would take an aggressive action against anyone in the Department of the Army who leaked classified information.

Congress enacted the funds, and, as with most funds, I think Congress intended them to be spent as enacted.

I think most Americans would be astonished to know that we have never been able to have an audit of the largest expenditure of taxpayers' dollars, a half trillion dollars.

You think they'll make that?

I will ask him some additional questions today, in view of his nomination for this important DOD position, about his views regarding the release of this information and how he, as chief legal officer of the Department in the Army, would…

I welcome all the nominees and their families who accompany them today.

They are provisions that were not allowed or provided to every other state in America. That's what makes them a special deal. That's what makes Americans think that the way we do business around here is not in their interests. It makes…

If the report is biased toward 'how to,' then I think it's flawed to begin with.

Do you have a problem with that review?

I wonder why anyone would object to a thorough, complete review as to assess the impact on our military, on our battle effectiveness in two wars.

The military is not a democracy. I don't see this issue as any different, Senator.

I will strongly oppose any attempt to change the current law based on an incomplete and inadequate review of this policy.

We have the best-trained, best-equipped, most professional military that I have known in the many, many years I've had the honor of serving

I honor their service. I honor their sacrifices, and I honor them. We should not change the current policy until we are confident, from a military standpoint, with the informed advice of the Service Chiefs, that such a change is consistent…

I think that, to say that those points of view count less than a younger generation, doesn't really look at the issue in its totality.

I'd like to ask all three witnesses, do you have any objection to a thorough, complete review of the present implications of the issue, as to whether it's working or not, and whether it needs to be changed, and, if so, how?

The 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' policy is not perfect, but it reflects a compromise achieved with great difficulty that has effectively supported military readiness.

If you can demonstrate this, that it would improve combat capability, clearly demonstrate, then change the law.

I will continue to argue and fight and do whatever I can to make sure that we have a thorough and objective review of the impact on the military of a change of this law.

I have problem with taking the input of the men and women in the military, the views of the Service Chiefs, as to whether it will enhance battle effectiveness or harm battle effectiveness, whether it should be maintained or not.

We ought to have a careful and thorough review, not only of the views of the men and women in the military who serve at the top, but the views of the men and women who are serving today in harm's way.

I will continue to insist that we use the next 8 months to study not 'how' to implement a change to the current policy, but 'whether' and 'why' the men and women of the Armed Forces--the generals, the officers, the noncommissioned…