S. HRG. 111–899 

THE REPORT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

WORKING GROUP THAT CONDUCTED A

COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW OF THE ISSUES

ASSOCIATED WITH A REPEAL OF SECTION 

654 OF TITLE 10, U.S.C., ‘‘POLICY CONCERNING 

HOMOSEXUALITY IN THE ARMED FORCES’’ 

HEARINGS 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

DECEMBER 2 AND 3, 2010 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Armed Services 

THE REPORT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE WORKING GROUP THAT CONDUCTED A COMPREHEN-

‘‘POLICY CONCERNING HOMOSEXUALITY IN THE ARMED FORCES’’ SIVE REVIEW OF THE ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH A REPEAL OF SECTION 654 OF TITLE 10, U.S.C., 

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

65–073 PDF 2011

S. HRG. 111–899 

THE REPORT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

WORKING GROUP THAT CONDUCTED A

COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW OF THE ISSUES

ASSOCIATED WITH A REPEAL OF SECTION 

654 OF TITLE 10, U.S.C., ‘‘POLICY CONCERNING 

HOMOSEXUALITY IN THE ARMED FORCES’’ 

HEARINGS 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

DECEMBER 2 AND 3, 2010 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Armed Services 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov/ 

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

CARL LEVIN, Michigan, Chairman 

JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut 

JACK REED, Rhode Island 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii 

BILL NELSON, Florida 

E. BENJAMIN NELSON, Nebraska 

EVAN BAYH, Indiana 

JIM WEBB, Virginia 

CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri 

MARK UDALL, Colorado 

KAY R. HAGAN, North Carolina 

MARK BEGICH, Alaska 

ROLAND W. BURRIS, Illinois 

JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico 

EDWARD E. KAUFMAN, Delaware 

CARTE P. GOODWIN, West Virginia 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

SAXBY CHAMBLISS, Georgia 

LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina 

JOHN THUNE, South Dakota 

ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi 

GEORGE S. LeMIEUX, Florida 

SCOTT P. BROWN, Massachusetts 

RICHARD BURR, North Carolina 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine 

RICHARD D. DEBOBES, Staff Director 

JOSEPH W. BOWAB, Republican Staff Director 

(II) 

C O N T E N T S 

CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF WITNESSES 

THE REPORT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE WORKING GROUP THAT CONDUCTED

A COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW OF THE ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH A REPEAL OF SECTION 654 OF TITLE 10, U.S.C., ‘‘POLICY CONCERNING HOMOSEXUALITY IN THE

ARMED FORCES’’ 

DECEMBER 2, 2010

Page 

Gates, Hon. Robert M., Secretary of Defense ........................................................ 6 

Mullen, ADM Michael G., USN, Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff ....................... 9 

Ham, GEN Carter F., USA, Commander, U.S. Army Europe, Co-Chair, Comprehensive Review Working Group .................................................................... 12 

Johnson, Hon. Jeh C., General Counsel, Department of Defense, Co-Chair, 

Comprehensive Review Working Group ............................................................. 12 

TO CONTINUE TO RECEIVE TESTIMONY ON THE REPORT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF

DEFENSE WORKING GROUP THAT CONDUCTED A COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW OF THE

ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH A REPEAL OF SECTION 654 OF TITLE 10, U.S.C., ‘‘POLICY CONCERNING HOMOSEXUALITY IN THE ARMED FORCES’’ 

DECEMBER 3, 2010

Cartwright, Gen. James E., USMC, Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of 

Staff ....................................................................................................................... 83

Casey, GEN George W., Jr., USA, Chief of Staff of the Army ............................. 86 

Roughead, ADM Gary, USN, Chief of Naval Operations ..................................... 88 

Amos, Gen. James F., USMC, Commandant of the Marine Corps ...................... 90 

Schwartz, Gen. Norton A., USAF, Chief of Staff of the Air Force ....................... 93 

Papp, ADM Robert J., Jr., USCG, Commandant of the Coast Guard ................. 94 

Appendix A ............................................................................................................... 163 

Appendix B ............................................................................................................... 421 

(III) 

(1) 

THE REPORT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE WORKING GROUP THAT CONDUCTED 

A COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW OF THE ISSUES 

ASSOCIATED WITH A REPEAL OF SECTION 

654 OF TITLE 10, U.S.C., ‘‘POLICY CONCERNING HOMOSEXUALITY IN THE ARMED 

FORCES’’ 

THURSDAY, DECEMBER 2, 2010 

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:04 a.m. in room 

SDG–50, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Senator Carl Levin 

(chairman) presiding. 

Committee members present: Senators Levin, Lieberman, Reed, 

Bill Nelson, E. Benjamin Nelson, Bayh, Webb, McCaskill, Udall, 

Hagan, Begich, Bingaman, Manchin, Coons, McCain, Inhofe, Sessions, Chambliss, Graham, Thune, Wicker, LeMieux, Brown, Burr, 

and Collins. 

Committee staff members present: Richard D. DeBobes, staff director; and Leah C. Brewer, nominations and hearings clerk. 

Majority staff members present: Jonathan D. Clark, counsel; 

Gabriella E. Fahrer, counsel; Jessica L. Kingston, research assistant; Gerald J. Leeling, counsel; Jason W. Maroney, counsel; Michael J. Noblet, professional staff member; John H. Quirk V, professional staff member; and William K. Sutey, professional staff 

member. 

Minority staff members present: Joseph W. Bowab, Republican 

staff director; Christian D. Brose, professional staff member; Michael V. Kostiw, professional staff member; David M. Morriss, minority counsel; Lucian L. Niemeyer, professional staff member; 

Diana G. Tabler, professional staff member; and Richard F. Walsh, 

minority counsel. 

Staff assistants present: Jennifer R. Knowles, Kathleen A. 

Kulenkampff, Christine G. Lang, and Brian F. Sebold. 

Committee members’ assistants present: Christopher Griffin, assistant to Senator Lieberman; Carolyn Chuhta, assistant to Senator Reed; Nick Ikeda, assistant to Senator Akaka; Jeffrey Fatora, 

assistant to Senator Bill Nelson; Patrick Hayes, assistant to Senator Bayh; Gordon I. Peterson, assistant to Senator Webb; Tressa 

Guenov, assistant to Senator McCaskill; Jennifer Barrett, assistant 

to Senator Udall; Roger Pena, assistant to Senator Hagan; Lindsay 

2 

Kavanaugh, assistant to Senator Begich; Joanne McLaughlin, assistant to Senator Manchin; Halie Soifer, assistant to Senator 

Coons; Anthony Lazarski, assistant to Senator Inhofe; Sandra Luff, 

assistant to Senator Sessions; Clyde A. Taylor IV, assistant to Senator Chambliss; Jason Van Beek, assistant to Senator Thune; Erskine Wells III, assistant to Senator Wicker; Brian Walsh, assistant to Senator LeMieux; and Scott Schrage, assistant to Senator 

Brown. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARL LEVIN, CHAIRMAN 

Chairman LEVIN. Good morning, everybody. The committee 

meets this morning to receive testimony on the Department of Defense’s (DOD) comprehensive review of the issues associated with 

the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT). We will hear from Defense Secretary Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Admiral 

Mullen, as well as the Co-Chairs of DOD’s Working Group on this 

issue, DOD General Counsel Jeh Johnson and General Carter 

Ham. Tomorrow we will hear from the Vice Chairman of the Joint 

Chiefs and the Service Chiefs on this report. 

To examine this issue, DOD launched an unprecedented effort to 

seek the views of our troops and their families. Mr. Johnson, General Ham, your approach and the report that you have delivered 

are evenhanded and respectful. You were given a very tough job 

and your performance is of great value to our country. 

Today’s hearing is part of the committee’s own review of this 

issue, which has been before us for nearly a year. Secretary Gates 

and Admiral Mullen testified at a hearing on this policy on February 2, 2010. Each of the Service Chiefs were asked for their 

views during annual hearings on the defense budget in February 

and March, and on March 18, 2010, the committee heard testimony 

from outside experts in support of and in opposition to the policy. 

Both the House of Representatives and this committee have approved legislation that would repeal the statute underlying DADT 

if the President, the Secretary of Defense, and the Chairman of the 

Joint Chiefs certify to Congress that all of the following conditions 

have been met: 

First, they’ve considered the recommendations contained in the 

Working Group report and the report’s proposed plan of action; 

Second, DOD has prepared the necessary policies and regulations 

to implement a repeal of DADT; and 

Third, the implementation of these policies and regulations is 

consistent with the standards of military readiness, military effectiveness, unit cohesion, and recruiting and retention. 

Upon such certification, repeal would take effect after 60 days, 

a period during which Congress could review DOD’s action. 

This provision is included in the National Defense Authorization 

Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2011, approved by this committee, and 

it is my hope that the Senate will shortly take up this legislation. 

The requirement for the certification by the President, the Secretary of Defense, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs is a key element of this legislation, as it ensures that a repeal of this policy 

would be conducted in an orderly manner, with adequate opportunity to prepare for a change. This certification requirement, as 

3 

well as the 60-day period before repeal takes effect, were included 

at the initiative of our late esteemed colleague, Senator Byrd. 

Attitudes in the Nation and our military have shifted in the 

years since the adoption of DADT in 1993. The report before us 

provides important new evidence that the time for a change has 

come. It demonstrates that for the vast majority of our troops this 

change would be no big deal. They believe we can open our military 

to service by gay and lesbian servicemembers who would no longer 

have to conceal their sexual orientation and that we can do so 

without reducing our military effectiveness. A large percentage of 

troops say that they have already served with gay and lesbian coworkers who were effective members of their units. 

Secretary Gates has spoken eloquently on why decisions such as 

this are not subject to a referendum of servicemembers, and I 

would add that if referenda were the basis for decisions on who can 

serve, President Truman would not have racially integrated the 

Armed Forces in 1948, when, as the Working Group’s report points 

out, 80 percent or more of servicemembers opposed racial integration. 

In this case, while there has been no referendum, the Working 

Group’s review gives us persuasive evidence that repeal is not a 

problem for most troops. As the Co-Chairs wrote in this report, ‘‘If 

the impact of repeal was predominantly negative, that would have 

revealed itself in the course of our review.’’ 

A change in policy, while needed, will not be without its challenges. The report provides important and useful recommendations 

to address those challenges. I support these recommendations 

which focus on the importance of leadership, training, and education. 

But in my view, one of the most striking findings of this report 

relates to the experiences of servicemembers themselves. An overwhelming 92 percent of troops who have worked with a gay or lesbian coworker say there was no negative effect on their unit. The 

message here is that when troops have actually worked with someone that they believe is gay or lesbian, they learn that those troops 

can get the job done. 

As the report states, ‘‘Both the survey results and our own engagement of the force convinced us that when servicemembers had 

the actual experience of serving with someone they believed to be 

gay, in general, unit performance was not affected negatively by 

this added dimension.’’ The report also states that, ‘‘Much of the 

concern about open service is driven by misperceptions and stereotypes about what it would mean if gay servicemembers were allowed to be open about their sexual orientation and we conclude 

that these concerns about gay and lesbian servicemembers who are 

permitted to be open about their sexual orientation are exaggerated 

and not consistent with the reported experiences of many servicemembers.’’ In other words, real world experience is a powerful antidote to the stereotypes that are a major source of the discomfort 

that some feel about ending DADT. 

Repeal of this policy would bring our military in line with some 

of our closest allies, including Great Britain and Canada. DOD’s review found that resistance to openly gay and lesbian servicemembers among troops in those countries was much higher at the 

4 

time they changed their policies than it is in our military today. 

But they changed their policies and, as the Working Group found, 

‘‘the actual implementation of change in those countries went much 

more smoothly than expected, with little or no disruption.’’ 

Most important, ending this discriminatory policy is the right 

thing to do. DADT is an injustice to thousands of patriotic Americans who seek only the chance to serve the country they love without having to conceal their sexual orientation. Anyone who believes 

that maintaining this policy is necessary to preserve our military’s 

fighting effectiveness should read this report. 

Time and time again throughout our history, our military has 

overcome obstacles to reflect the diversity of American society, and 

in doing so our military has helped strengthen the fabric of our society while keeping us safe. 

We can end DADT and maintain our military strength, respect 

our troops and their families, allow patriotic Americans to serve 

their country without regard to sexual orientation, and uphold the 

principle that service and advancement in our military are based 

on merit alone. 

Again, I thank the witnesses for their impressive work, and I call 

upon Senator McCain. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN 

Senator MCCAIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me also thank 

our distinguished witnesses for their service to our Nation. I know 

that many people in DOD and in our armed services devoted countless hours in the preparation of this report, especially General Ham 

and Mr. Johnson. I’d like to thank them for their hard work. 

Today’s hearing will consider a complex and often emotional subject, the proposed repeal of the current law, commonly referred to 

as DADT, which evokes strongly-held and legitimate differences of 

opinion among many Americans. It’s no different among the U.S. 

military, as the Pentagon’s report demonstrates. 

However, I think we can all agree on a few facts as we begin this 

important hearing. We can all agree that our military today is the 

most effective, most professional, and arguably the most experienced force that our Nation has ever had. We can all agree that 

we appreciate and honor the service of every American who wears 

the uniform of our country, as well as their families, especially during this time of war, regardless of whether they are straight or gay. 

Finally, I think we can all agree, and I certainly would, that this 

capable, professional force of ours could, I emphasize, could, implement a repeal of DADT if ordered to, just as they so ably and honorably do everything else that is asked of them. 

What I want to know, and what is Congress’ duty to determine, 

is not can our Armed Forces implement a repeal of this law, but 

whether the law should be repealed. Unfortunately, that key issue 

was not the focus of this study. It is, however, the fundamental 

question that must be answered by Congress, not by the President 

or the courts, but by Congress. It is a question that must be answered carefully, deliberately, and with proper consideration for 

the complexity of the issue and the gravity of the potential consequences for our military and the wars in which we are engaged. 

5 

DOD has had 10 months to complete this report and the RAND 

study that accompanies it. Together these reports and supporting 

documentation contain over 1,500 pages of data, material, and 

analyses. The members of this committee received it 36 hours ago 

and my staff and I are still going through it and analyzing it carefully, including the more than 72,000 comments that our 

servicemembers provided to the Working Group. 

What I can say now, however, is that in addition to my concerns 

about what questions were not asked by this survey and considered 

in this report, I’m troubled by the fact that this report only represents the input of 28 percent of the force who received the questionnaire, and completely leaving out numerous servicemembers in 

combat areas. That’s only 6 percent of the force at large. I find it 

hard to view that as a fully representative sample set, but I’m 

nonetheless weighing the contents of this report on their merits. 

What appears clear at this time is that the survey and anecdotal 

data underlying this report do not lead to one unequivocal conclusion, which is no surprise considering the complex and difficult nature of this issue. So, for example, I recognize that of those surveyed who report having worked with a gay servicemember, 92 percent said their unit’s ability to work together was not negatively affected. Among those in Army combat units, 89 percent of respondents felt that way, as did 84 percent of respondents in Marine combat units. 

However, we also learn that of those surveyed, 30 percent of the 

total, 43 percent of the Marines, 48 percent of Army combat units, 

and 58 percent of Marine combat units, believe that a repeal of the 

law would have a negative or very negative impact on their units’ 

ability to work together to get the job done. 

Furthermore, 67 percent of Marines and nearly 58 percent of 

Army combat units believe that repeal of the law would have negative consequences on unit cohesion in a field environment or out at 

sea. 

This is supplemented by comments like these: ‘‘I believe this is 

not the time for us to make huge changes in the military. We’re 

at war and our men and women overseas do not need any more distraction. This issue should be addressed at the appropriate time. 

That time is not now.’’ 

I remain concerned, as I have in the past and as demonstrated 

in this study, that the closer we get to servicemembers in combat, 

the more we encounter concerns about whether DADT should be 

repealed and what impact that would have on the ability of these 

units to perform their mission. These views should not be considered lightly, especially considering how much combat our force is 

facing. 

Additionally, I am concerned about the impact of a rush to repeal 

when even this survey has found that such a significant number 

of our servicemembers feel that it would negatively impact military 

effectiveness. 

As we move forward with our discussion on this matter, I hope 

that everyone will put aside political motives and agendas. I also 

hope that everyone on both sides will refrain from questioning people’s integrity. Finally, I hope that everyone will recognize that this 

6 

debate is focused on our military and its effectiveness, not on 

broader social issues being debated in our society at large. 

This is a complex and important issue that could have significant 

repercussions for our force, a force that is engaged in its 10th 

straight year of sustained combat, and a force that is performing 

exceptionally well. At this time, we should be inherently cautious 

about making any changes that would affect our military and what 

changes we do make should be the product of careful and deliberate consideration. 

I’m not saying that this law should never change. I am simply 

saying that it may be premature to make such a change at this 

time and in this manner without further consideration of this report and further study of the issue by Congress. For of all the people we serve, one of our highest responsibilities is to the men and 

women of our armed services, especially those risking their lives in 

combat. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you very much, Senator McCain. 

Secretary Gates. 

STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT M. GATES, SECRETARY OF 

DEFENSE 

Secretary GATES. Mr. Chairman, Senator McCain, members of 

the committee: This past Tuesday, DOD released the report of the 

high-level Working Group that reviewed the issues associated with 

the potential repeal of the DADT law and, based on those findings, 

develop recommendations for implementation. The report’s findings 

reflect nearly 10 months of research and analysis along several 

lines of study, and report the most thorough and objective review 

ever of this difficult policy issue and its impact on the American 

military. 

First the group reached out to the force to better understand 

their views and attitudes about the potential repeal of the DADT 

law. As I said on Tuesday, and it is worth repeating again today, 

this outreach was not a matter of taking a poll of the military to 

determine whether the law should be changed. The President of 

the United States, the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces 

under the Constitution, made his position on this matter clear, a 

position I support. Our job as the civilian and military leadership 

of DOD has been to determine how best to prepare for such a 

change should Congress vote to change the law. 

Nonetheless, I thought it critically important to engage our 

troops and their families on this issue, to learn the attitudes, obstacles, and concerns needing attention, as ultimately it will be they 

who will determine whether or not such a transition would be successful. 

This outreach included a survey questionnaire answered by tens 

of thousands of troops and their families, which Mr. Johnson and 

General Ham can address in more detail. In summary, a strong 

majority of those who answered the survey, more than two-thirds, 

do not object to gay and lesbians serving openly in uniform. The 

findings suggest that for large segments of the military, with the 

exception of some combat specialties, the repeal of DADT, though 

7 

potentially disruptive in the short-term, would not be the wrenching, traumatic change that many have feared and predicted. 

Second, the Working Group also examined thoroughly all the potential changes to DOD’s regulations and policies. As the Co-Chairs 

will explain, the majority of concerns often raised in association 

with the repeal—dealing with sexual conduct, fraternization, 

billeting arrangements, marital or survivor benefits—could be governed by existing laws and regulations. Existing policies can and 

should be applied equally to homosexuals as well as heterosexuals. 

The key to success, as with most things military, is training, education, and above all strong and principled leadership up and down 

the chain of command. 

Third, the Working Group examined the potential impact of a 

change in the law on military readiness, including the impact on 

unit cohesion, recruiting and retention, and other issues critical to 

the performance of the force. In my view, getting this category 

right is the most important thing we must do. The U.S. Armed 

Forces are in the middle of two major overseas campaigns, a complex and difficult drawdown in Iraq and a war in Afghanistan. 

The Working Group concluded that overall, and with thorough 

preparation, there is low risk from repealing DADT. However, as 

I mentioned earlier, the survey data showed that a higher proportion—between 40 and 60 percent—of those troops serving in predominantly all-male combat specialties—mostly Army and Marines, 

but including the special operations formations of the Navy and the 

Air Force, predicted a negative effect on unit cohesion from repealing the current law. 

For this reason, the uniformed Service Chiefs are less sanguine 

than the Working Group about the level of risk of repeal with regard to combat readiness. The Service Chiefs will have the opportunity to provide their expert military advice to Congress tomorrow, as they have to me and to the President. Their perspective deserves serious attention and consideration as it reflects the judgment of decades of experience and the sentiment of many senior officers. 

In my view, the concerns of combat troops, as expressed in the 

survey, do not present an insurmountable barrier to a successful 

repeal of DADT. This can be done and it should be done without 

posing a serious risk to military readiness. However, these findings 

do lead me to conclude that an abundance of care and preparation 

is required if we are to avoid a disruptive and potentially dangerous impact on the performance of those who are serving at the 

tip of the spear in America’s wars. 

I will now outline my recommendations for the way ahead. Earlier this year, the House of Representatives passed legislation that 

would repeal DADT after a number of steps take place, the last 

step being certification by the President, the Secretary of Defense, 

and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and that the new policies 

and regulations were consistent with the U.S. military’s standards 

of readiness, effectiveness, unit cohesion, and recruiting and retention. Now that we have completed this review, I strongly urge the 

Senate to pass this legislation and send it to the President for signature before the end of the year. 

8 

I believe this has become a matter of some urgency because, as 

we have seen in the past few months, the judicial branch is becoming more involved in this issue and it is only a matter of time before the Federal courts are drawn, once more, into the fray. Should 

this happen, there is the very real possibility that this change 

would be imposed immediately by judicial fiat, by far the most disruptive and damaging scenario I can imagine and the one most 

hazardous to military morale, readiness, and battlefield performance. 

Therefore, I believe it is important, as Senator McCain put it in 

his opening remarks, that the question of whether the law should 

be repealed is a matter for Congress to decide. I believe the change 

should come via legislative means, that is, legislation informed by 

the review just completed. What is needed is a process that allows 

for a well-prepared and well-considered implementation, above all, 

a process that carries the imprimatur of the elected representatives 

of the people of the United States. Given the present circumstances, those who choose not to act legislatively are rolling the 

dice that this policy will not be abruptly overturned by the courts. 

I believe it would be unwise to push ahead with implementation 

of repeal before the force can be prepared for this change. The 

Working Group’s plan, with its strong emphasis on education, 

training, and leader development, provides a solid road map for a 

successful full implementation of the repeal. DOD has already 

made a number of changes to regulations that within existing law, 

applied more exacting standards to procedures investigating or separating troops for suspected homosexual conduct, changes that 

have added a measure of common sense and decency to a legally 

and morally fraught process. 

I would close on a personal note and a personal appeal. This is 

the second time that I have dealt with this issue as a leader in 

public life, the prior case being at the Central Intelligence Agency 

(CIA) in 1992, when as Director, I ordered that openly gay and lesbian applicants be treated like all other applicants, that is whether 

as individuals they met our competitive standards. 

That was, and is, a situation significantly different—in circumstance and consequence—than that confronting the U.S. Armed 

Forces today. Views toward gay and lesbian Americans have 

changed considerably during this period and have grown more accepting since DADT was first enacted. But feelings on this matter 

can still run deep and divide, often starkly, along demographic, cultural, and generational lines, not only in society as a whole, but in 

the uniformed ranks as well. 

For this reason, I would ask as Congress takes on this debate for 

all involved to resist the urge to lure our troops and their families 

into the politics of this issue. 

What is called for is a careful and considered approach, an approach that to the extent possible welcomes all who are qualified 

and capable of serving their country in uniform, but one that does 

not undermine, out of haste or dogmatism, those attributes that 

make the U.S. military the finest fighting force in the world. The 

stakes are too high for a Nation under threat, for a military at war, 

to do any less. 

Thank you. 

9 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you very much, Secretary Gates. 

Admiral Mullen. 

STATEMENT OF ADM MICHAEL G. MULLEN, USN, CHAIRMAN, 

JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF 

Admiral MULLEN. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, Senator McCain, 

and distinguished members of this committee: 

My personal views on this issue remain unchanged. I’m convinced that repeal of the law governing DADT is the right thing to 

do. Back in February when I testified to this sentiment, I also said 

that I believed the men and women of the Armed Forces could accommodate such a change, but I did not know it for a fact. 

Now I do. So what was my personal opinion is now my professional opinion. Repeal of the law will not prove an unacceptable 

risk to military readiness. Unit cohesion will not suffer if our units 

are well-led. Families will not encourage their loved ones to leave 

the Service in droves. 

I do not discount for a moment the findings in the Working 

Group survey which indicate resistance to repeal by those in the 

combat arms and irregular warfare communities. I do not find 

these concerns trivial or inconsequential, nor do I believe we can 

afford to ignore them. Given that this reluctance arises from the 

ranks of the very troops upon which much of the burden of these 

wars has fallen, we would do well to pay heed and to move forward 

in a deliberate and measured manner. 

Whatever risk there may be to repeal of this law, it is greatly 

mitigated by the thorough implementation plan included in the 

study, the time to carry out that plan, and effective, inspirational 

leadership. 

These are the things I know for a fact. These are the things the 

study tells us. Now let me tell you what I believe. I believe our 

troops and their families are ready for this. Most of them already 

believe they serve or have served alongside gay and lesbians, and 

knowing matters a lot. Those who said they knew they were serving with a gay or lesbian servicemember were consistently more 

positive in their assessment of the impact of repeal across all dimensions—cohesion, effectiveness, retention, and even privacy concerns. 

Our families feel the same. Most of our spouses know at least 

one gay or lesbian and very few of them believe repeal of the law 

would have any effect on family readiness. 

This tracks with my personal experience. I’ve been serving with 

gay and lesbians my whole career. I went to war with them aboard 

a destroyer off the coast of Vietnam. I knew they were there. They 

knew I knew it. What’s more, nearly everyone in the crew knew it. 

We never missed a mission, never failed to deliver ordnance on target. Readiness was not impaired. What mattered most, what made 

us a crew, was teamwork and focus on our combat mission. 

Back then, of course, it was a different time. Society on the whole 

wasn’t as accepting or as tolerant as it is now. So we didn’t speak 

of such things or of how little it really mattered that the sailor next 

to you was gay. But America has moved on and if you look closely 

at this study I think you’ll find that America’s military is by and 

large ready to move on as well. 

10 

Should repeal occur, some soldiers and marines may want separate shower facilities. Some may ask for different berthing. Some 

may even quit the Service. We’ll deal with that. But I believe and 

history tells us that most of them will put aside personal proclivities for something larger than themselves and for each other. 

There’s a special warrior bond in combat, a bond formed not by 

common values, as some have claimed, but rather by the common 

threat of the enemy, hardship, and peril. ‘‘Numerous soldiers have 

died more or less willingly,’’ writes J. Glenn Gray in his book Reflections on Men in Battle, ‘‘not for country or honor or religious 

faith or for any other abstract good, but because they realized that 

by fleeing their posts and rescuing themselves, they would expose 

their companions to greater danger.’’ 

It is those greater dangers that still motivate the heroism and 

comradeship our troops exemplify today. That’s why I believe the 

end of DADT will pass with less turbulence, even in the combat 

arms world, than some predict. In fact, it may be the combat arms 

community that proves the most effective at managing this change, 

disciplined as they are. 

It’s not only because our young ones are more tolerant. It’s because they have far more important things to worry about. The experiences of other militaries would seem to bear that out. Our 

study looked at 35 other militaries that chose to permit open service, including those of our staunchest allies. In no instance was 

there widespread panic, mass resignations, or wholesale disregard 

for discipline and restraint. 

Some will argue we are different. Of course, none of these foreign 

armies face the unique global demands we do and none are charged 

with the leadership roles we bear. True enough, but many of them 

fight alongside us in Afghanistan today and they fought with us in 

Iraq. Gay or straight, their troops patrolled with ours and bled 

with ours. They certainly shared with ours the fear, the loneliness, 

and the horror of combat. I don’t recall a single instance where the 

fact that one of them might be openly gay ever led to poor performance on the field. My sense is that good order and discipline, far 

from being cast to the winds when one of these governments 

changed the policy, was actually reinforced and reemphasized. 

It’s clear to me that our troops expect the same. They expect that 

whatever change we make to the current policy will be accompanied by rigorous training and high standards of conduct. In fact, 

the report indicates that one of the factors distressing to those who 

oppose repeal are fears that new policies will not be implemented 

fairly, evenly, and dispassionately. Let me be clear. Nothing will 

change about our standards of conduct. Nothing will change about 

the dignity, the fairness, and the equality with which we treat our 

people. Nothing will change about the manner in which we deal 

with those who cannot abide by these standards. 

The military is a meritocracy, where success is based on what 

you do, not who you are. There are no special classes, no favored 

groups. We may wear different uniforms, but we are one. 

There are some for whom this debate is all about gray areas. 

There is no gray area here. We treat each other with respect or we 

find another place to work, period. That’s why I also believe leadership will prove vital. In fact, leadership matters most. The large 

11 

majority of troops who believe they have served in a unit with gays 

and lesbians rate that unit’s performance high across virtually all 

dimensions, but highest in those units that are well-led. Indeed, 

the practical differences between units in which there were troops 

believed to be gay or lesbian and those in which no one was believed to be so completely disappeared in effectively led commands. 

My belief is, if and when the law changes, our people will lead 

that change in a manner consistent with the oath they took. As one 

Marine officer put it, ‘‘If that’s what the President orders, I can tell 

you by God we’re going to excel above and beyond the other Services to make it happen.’’ Frankly, that’s why I believe that in the 

long run repeal of this law makes us a stronger military and improves our readiness. It will make us more representative of the 

country we serve. It will restore to the institution the energy it 

must now expend in pursuing those who violate the policy. It will 

better align those organizational values we claim with those we 

practice. 

As I said back in February, this is about integrity. Our people 

sacrifice a lot for their country, including their lives. None of them 

should have to sacrifice their integrity as well. 

It is true there is no constitutional right to serve in the Armed 

Forces, but the military serves all the people of this country, no 

matter who they are or what they believe. Every one of those people, should they be fit and able, ought to be given the opportunity 

to defend it. 

Finally, Mr. Chairman, I believe now is the time to act. I worry 

that unpredictable actions in the court could strike down the law 

at any time, precluding the orderly implementation plan we believe 

is necessary to mitigate risk. I also have no expectation that challenges to our national security are going to diminish in the near 

future or that a more convenient time will appear. I find the argument that war is not the time to change to be antithetical with our 

own experience since 2001. War does not stifle change. It demands 

it. It does not make change harder. It facilitates it. 

There is, to be sure, greater uncertainty today and our forces are 

indeed under stress. I know the Service Chiefs are concerned about 

this. So am I. But I do not believe the stressors currently manifesting themselves in the lives of our troops and their families— 

lengthy deployments, suicides, and health care—are rendered insurmountable or any graver by this single policy change. Nor do I 

believe that simply acknowledging what most of our troops already 

know to be true about some of their colleagues threatens our ability 

to fight and win this Nation’s wars. Quite the contrary, today’s 

young leaders are more attuned to combat effectiveness than in 

any of the last 3 decades. Tempered by war, bonded through hardship, the men and women of the U.S. Armed Forces are the finest 

and most capable they have ever been. If there is a better opportunity or a better generation to effect this sort of change, I don’t 

know of it. 

One final word, with all due respect, Mr. Chairman and Senator 

McCain, it is true that as Chairman, I am not in charge of troops, 

but I have commanded three ships, a carrier battle group and two 

fleets, and I was most recently a Service Chief myself. For more 

than 40 years I have made decisions that affected and even risked 

12 

the lives of young men and women. You do not have to agree with 

me on this issue, but don’t think for one moment that I haven’t 

carefully considered the impact of the advice I give on those who 

will have to live with the decisions that that advice informs. 

I would not recommend repeal of this law if I did not believe in 

my soul that it was the right thing to do for our military, for our 

Nation, and for our collective honor. 

Thank you. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you very much, Admiral Mullen. 

General Ham. 

STATEMENT OF GEN CARTER F. HAM, USA, COMMANDER, U.S. 

ARMY EUROPE, CO–CHAIR, COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW WORKING GROUP 

General HAM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator McCain, and 

members of the committee. 

I must admit to you that when Secretary Gates appointed me as 

Co-Chair of this review I was not all that thrilled. But as I thought 

more about it I felt honored and humbled to be able to participate 

in a review of a subject that is of great importance to our men and 

women in uniform. I anticipated the task would be complex, tough, 

sometimes unpleasant and uncomfortable, and now I acknowledge 

that I underestimated those factors. 

After 9 months of study, I am convinced that if the law changes, 

the U.S. military can do this, even in a time of war. I do not underestimate the challenges in implementing a change in the law, but 

neither do I underestimate the ability of our extraordinarily dedicated service men and women to adapt to such change and continue to provide our Nation with the military capability to accomplish any mission. 

I came to this conclusion not only as a Co-Chair of the DOD 

Working Group, but perhaps more importantly as the Commander 

of U.S. Army forces in Europe. I was cognizant every day of this 

review that I might have to actually lead the changes included in 

our report. As a serving commander, I’m confident that, if this law 

changes, I and the leaders with whom I serve, can do just that. 

Thank you. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you very much, General Ham. 

Mr. Johnson. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JEH C. JOHNSON, GENERAL COUNSEL, 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, CO-CHAIR, COMPREHENSIVE 

REVIEW WORKING GROUP 

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. Chairman, Senator McCain: Thank you very 

much for the opportunity to testify here today. 

By now you have had the opportunity to read the report General 

Ham and I have co-authored. The report is voluminous and comprehensive, but we hope it speaks for itself. Our basic assessment 

is that our military can make this change, provided we do so in an 

orderly and reasonable manner, in accordance with the recommendations for implementation we offer in our report. 

This morning I’d like to take a moment to talk to you, not in my 

capacity as co-author of this report, but as the lawyer for DOD. I 

want to repeat and elaborate upon what Secretary Gates and AdVerDate Aug 31 2005 08:59 May 02, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 Y:\BORAWSKI\DOCS\65073.TXT JUNE PsN: JUNEB
13 

miral Mullen have said and ask that Congress not leave our military’s fate on this issue in the hands of the courts. I offer no view 

about the constitutionality of DADT or prediction about the outcome of the litigation that is under way. But regardless of how you 

feel about DADT or gays serving openly in the military, the fact 

that there is increased litigation in the courts on matters of gay 

rights is undeniable. 

Since 2003, when the Supreme Court decided Lawrence v. Texas, 

the courts have become increasingly receptive to gay rights claims. 

Within the last year alone, Federal district courts have for the first 

time declared California’s gay marriage ban, the Federal Defense 

of Marriage Act, and DADT all unconstitutional. We have appealed 

the lower court decisions on DADT, but after years in which DADT 

was upheld in the courts, the constitutionality of this law is now 

in litigation once again. We in DOD face the possibility that we 

must repeal DADT, not on the terms and timetable of the President, Congress, and DOD, but on the terms and timetable of a 

court and a plaintiff. 

We got a taste of that possible future in October and November 

in the Log Cabin Republicans case. On Monday, October 11, 2010, 

we had a law and a policy in place that required separation of 

members of the military who were found to have engaged in homosexual conduct. On Tuesday, October 12, 2010, a Federal district 

judge in California issued an order to the Secretary of Defense to 

suspend enforcement of that law on a worldwide basis. 

Eight days later on October 20, 2010, the appellate court issued 

a temporary stay of the injunction while it considered whether to 

grant a more permanent stay. On Monday, November 1, 2010, the 

Ninth Circuit agreed to keep the stay in place during the pendency 

of the appeal in that court. 

On Friday, November 5, 2010, the Log Cabin Republicans asked 

the Supreme Court to reverse the stay. On Friday, November 12, 

2010, the Supreme Court denied that request. 

Thus, in the space of 8 days, we had to shift course on the worldwide enforcement of the law twice, and in the space of a month face 

the possibility of shifting course four different times. This legal uncertainty is not going away any time soon. The Log Cabin Republican case is on an expedited appeal schedule and more lawsuits 

are being filed. 

Our plea to Congress is to not leave the fate of this law to the 

courts. As Secretary Gates has stated, if repeal of this law occurs 

it should be done by the elected representatives in the political 

branches of government, not by the courts. Indeed, in the course 

of our review we learned of other nations that acted to change their 

policies on gays in the military to head off adverse outcomes in 

court. 

From where I sit as the lawyer for DOD, the virtue of the legislation pending before the Senate is that if passed, repeal of DADT 

will be done on our terms and our timetable, upon the advice of our 

military leadership. As the Working Group report makes clear, 

there are many issues that must be addressed in connection with 

any repeal of DADT: education and training, the core messages to 

be delivered as part of education and training, same sex partner 

benefits, berthing and billeting, a policy on reaccession, and related 

14 

changes to the U.S. Court of Military Justice and others. The Secretary and Chairman have both made it clear that they will not 

sign the certification contemplated by the current legislation until 

we’ve written new post-repeal policies and regulations and have at 

least begun our education and training of the force—in other 

words, that repeal is brought about in a responsible and orderly 

manner. In all likelihood, this will not be possible if repeal is imposed upon us by judicial fiat. 

For these reasons, we urge that the Senate act now on the pending legislation. Thank you. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you very much, Mr. Johnson. 

We have a very large number of Senators here and Secretary 

Gates has to leave at 11:30. The others are able to stay later than 

that. But in order to give everyone a turn while he’s here, I think 

our first round will need to be limited to 5 minutes, and then we 

will have—— 

Senator MCCAIN. Mr. Chairman, I object to that. 

Chairman LEVIN. I’m trying to give—— 

Senator MCCAIN. I think 5 minutes is—— 

Chairman LEVIN. I agree, it’s a very small time. 

Senator MCCAIN. Then I suggest we have another hearing or reconvene in the afternoon. 5 minutes is not sufficient time for anything, frankly, but statements by the members. 

Chairman LEVIN. We’ve had rounds of 5 and 6 and 7 minutes for 

many, many hearings. In fact, that’s our tradition. But in any 

event, I’m trying to give every member here an opportunity while 

Secretary Gates is here. I’m not saying there is not going to be a 

second round. There will be a second round and a third round and 

a fourth round with Admiral Mullen and with—— 

Senator MCCAIN. He’ll be gone. 

Chairman LEVIN.—General Ham and Mr. Johnson. If we then 

need Secretary Gates back for an additional hearing, we’ll ask him 

back. But I have to accommodate both his schedule as well as give 

an opportunity to every member of this committee while he is here 

to ask him questions. 

Senator MCCAIN. My only response, Mr. Chairman, is this is obviously a transcendently important issue, and to allow our members 5 minutes with the Secretary of Defense is simply not adequate enough for us to have the much-needed information that the 

Secretary of Defense can provide. 

All I can do is say you’re not giving the members sufficient time 

to ask questions, which is maybe not the intent, but certainly the 

effect. Maybe we could, in the lame duck session that we are in, 

have another hearing as soon as possible, so that all members can 

have ample opportunity to get the information they need to make 

a very important decision. 

Secretary GATES. Mr. Chairman, if it would help I can do some 

rearranging and stay until noon. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you. We hope that helps, and we hope 

another hearing with you would not be necessary. We have our 

other witnesses here as long as we need them. If we need a second 

round with Secretary Gates, we will consider that at that time. But 

at least for the first round, we’re going to have a 5-minute round 

to give all of our members an opportunity while he’s here. 

15 

This is an important hearing and it’s important for all of our 

members to have that opportunity. 

Senator INHOFE. Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LEVIN. Let me proceed here. I think we just want to 

get going. 

Senator INHOFE. I’m just saying, doing the math around here, 

since he’s extended it by 30 minutes, you could change that to 6- 

minute rounds and still do the same thing. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you very much for that recommendation. We’ll have a 6-minute first round, given Secretary Gates’s 

ability to stay an extra half hour. 

Let me start with you, Admiral Mullen. You have told us that 

the Nation should now change our policy and that we should allow 

gay and lesbian servicemembers to serve in the military without 

having to conceal their sexual orientation. You’ve stated your position both personally and professionally now in a very eloquent way. 

You’ve also urged us, as have the others, to carefully consider the 

views of the Service Chiefs even where they might differ. Have you 

carefully and seriously considered the views of all of the Service 

Chiefs even where they might differ in reaching your own professional conclusion? 

Admiral MULLEN. I have spent a great deal of time with the 

Service Chiefs on this issue since the beginning of the year. I 

couldn’t tell you the number of sessions, but one of my goals 

throughout this process was not one of influence, but it was one of 

debate, discussion, and making sure that everybody understood 

where everybody else was on this. In particular, when we got the 

report, took the report, looked at it, assess probably more than anything else the risk that is associated with it, obviously understanding what’s in the report, but assess the risk. Each of us arrive 

at our own conclusions about that and not just from a service perspective. Certainly the Service Chiefs have that obligation, but this 

is also the Joint Chiefs, and so I asked them for their views from 

the joint perspective as well. 

We received that, and certainly all of that is taken into consideration in arriving at where I am with respect to the risk level tied 

to potential implementation of this repeal. 

Chairman LEVIN. So do I understand from your answer then that 

you have carefully considered the views of the Service Chiefs before 

you’ve reached your own professional opinion? 

Admiral MULLEN. Very carefully, yes, sir. 

Chairman LEVIN. Secretary Gates, you’ve also urged us to carefully consider the views of the Service Chiefs, and I fully agree 

with you. Have you done that in reaching your own conclusion? 

Secretary GATES. Yes, sir, I have. 

Chairman LEVIN. General Ham, have you carefully considered 

the views of all the Service Chiefs before reaching the conclusion 

in this report? 

General HAM. Mr. Chairman, I have, but it is important to note 

that the report from Mr. Johnson and myself to the Secretary is 

not reflective of the Service Chiefs’ views. 

Chairman LEVIN. I understand. But before you reached your 

views that you’ve transmitted, we understand there will be differences that the Service Chiefs will have and we’ll hear from them 

16 

tomorrow. But I want to know that, in considering your views, 

you’ve touched base with various stakeholders and people who have 

their own points of view inside the military. Have you touched base 

with the Service Chiefs and have you considered their views? 

General HAM. Yes, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LEVIN. Mr. Johnson? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, absolutely, Senator. During the comment period leading up to the publication of the report, General Ham and 

I took account of what we heard and in places revised our own assessment in response to views that were expressed to us by the 

Service Chiefs. 

Chairman LEVIN. There has been, in a number of places, revisions of this assessment based on the views of those Service Chiefs? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, sir. 

Chairman LEVIN. Now, General Ham, assuming we change the 

policy and repeal the policy of DADT, as Commander of the U.S. 

Army Europe, can you effectively implement a new policy allowing 

gay and lesbian servicemembers to serve in the military without 

concealing their sexual orientation, consistent with the standards 

of military readiness, military effectiveness, unit cohesion, and recruiting and retention in the Armed Forces? 

General HAM. Mr. Chairman, I am confident that I can. 

Chairman LEVIN. In terms of passing legislation now, the matter 

has been before this committee for almost a full year now, starting 

in February. We have had hearings on this matter. We have raised 

questions with the Service Chiefs. They’ve testified on this before 

and will again tomorrow. 

You’ve indicated, Secretary Gates, that it’s important that we act 

now, this month, I believe, and you’ve given us the reasons, primarily because the courts are involved now in this matter. 

You’ve also said we should not act, I believe your words were, ‘‘in 

haste.’’ Given the amount of time that we’ve already put into it, but 

given the fact that we’ve had this report now just for a couple days, 

would you consider our acting this month to be hasty? 

Secretary GATES. It certainly would be expeditious. I think that, 

as Senator McCain has said, this is a very important matter. 

Frankly, my sense of urgency would not be as great were it not for 

what we went through in October and November that Mr. Johnson 

described in his opening statement, which frankly was a very difficult period for us. In essence, overnight, we were told that the law 

had changed and that we couldn’t enforce it. We had done no training, no preparation, nothing whatsoever. 

It is my worry about the unpredictability of the situation with 

the courts, particularly this coming spring, that gives me a sense 

of urgency about this. But the timetable obviously has to be based 

on the will of the Senate. 

Chairman LEVIN. Would you consider that we have deliberated 

on this issue this year? 

Secretary GATES. I would like to see—I’m sorry? 

Chairman LEVIN. You’ve urged us to be deliberative, and I agree 

we need to be deliberative. We’re a deliberative body. We have had 

this matter in front of us now for a year, including testimony during the year, including a separate hearing on DADT, including 

17 

many hearings where we’ve asked the issue of Service Chiefs, 

where you’ve testified on this I believe as well. 

On the other hand, you’ve urged us to be deliberative. You also 

have urged us to act this month, and I want to know whether or 

not your two urgings are consistent. 

Secretary GATES. As I say, I am very worried about the courts, 

and frankly I do think it needs to be deliberate. The reality is I had 

expressed the hope in February that there would be no legislation 

until after the review was done, so that the review and what we 

learned could inform the legislative process. 

Now, I think the report is pretty stark. It’s pretty clear in its conclusions, agree or not with them. I think it’s pretty straightforward, 

and therefore I think that absorbing the lessons learned and the 

recommendations and the analysis of the report is doable within 

the time frame that you have before Congress adjourns. 

So I believe that, at least based on the information in the report, 

that Congress is in a position to act because it now has this information in hand. Frankly, I don’t think it’s all that complicated to 

absorb. I think the key issues have been described quite clearly in 

your opening statement, Senator McCain’s opening statement, and 

in the opening statements that the four of us have made. Those are 

the critical issues. 

Chairman LEVIN. Senator McCain. 

Thank you. 

Senator MCCAIN. General Ham, thank you for your hard work on 

this issue. Is it your personal opinion that this law should be repealed? 

General HAM. Senator McCain, I’ve given this a lot of thought. 

We certainly can. It is my personal view that I’m very concerned 

about the timing of the courts, and personally, I think it is time 

to move from debate and discussion to decision and implementation. Yes, sir, I think it is time to change. 

Senator MCCAIN. Secretary Gates, this survey says nearly 60 

percent of respondents in the Marine Corps and the Army combat 

troops say they believe there would be a negative impact on their 

units’ effectiveness in this context. Among Marine combat troops, 

the number was 67 percent. Nearly 60 percent of the Army combat 

troops and 66.5 percent, two-thirds, of the Marine Corps combat 

troops voiced these concerns about repeal. 

You have said that you conclude that those concerns of 

servicemembers, about deterioration of military unit cohesion are 

exaggerated. How are they exaggerated? 

Secretary GATES. I don’t remember using the word exaggerated 

because I take those concerns very seriously and, frankly, share the 

view of the Service Chiefs that the report’s evaluation of risk and 

particularly in the combat arms is perhaps too sanguine. 

What I believe is that, with proper time for preparation, for 

training, whether it’s before deployments or after deployments, 

however it works out, if we are allowed to do this on our terms, 

I believe that those concerns can be mitigated. To repeat one of the 

things that Admiral Mullen said in his opening statement, the experience of those who have served with someone they believe to be 

gay or lesbian was very different, even in combat troops, than those 

who had never done so. 

18 

I would point out that most of the Marines that are in combat 

are 18 to 25 years old. Most of them have never served with women 

either. They’ve had a very focused, very limited experience in the 

military, and it’s been a tough one. With time and adequate preparation, we can mitigate their concerns. 

Senator MCCAIN. I couldn’t disagree more. We send these young 

people into combat. We think they’re mature enough to fight and 

die. I think they’re mature enough to make a judgment on who 

they want to serve with and the impact on their battle effectiveness. Mr. Secretary, I speak from personal experience. 

Within the combat units of the Army and the Marine Corps, the 

numbers are alarming. 12.6 percent of the overall military force 

that responded to the survey say they will leave the military sooner 

than they had planned. 21.4 percent of Army combat troops indicate they will leave the force earlier. In the Marine Corps that 

number jumps to 32 percent, nearly a third of all Marine Corps 

combat troops, which is probably why the Service Chiefs, particularly the Commandant of the Marine Corps, is, in your words, less 

sanguine than you are about this issue. 

Also, if this 12.6 percent of the military left earlier, that translates into 264,600 men and women who would leave the military 

earlier than they had planned. Do you think that’s a good idea, replacing 265,000 troops across the force in time of war? Should we 

be undertaking that challenge at this time? 

Secretary GATES. First of all, the experience of the British, the 

Canadians, and some of the others has been that in their surveys 

prior to enacting a change in their laws and rules there were substantial numbers who said that they would leave, and in the end, 

those numbers were far smaller than the surveys had indicated. 

Again, I go back to the point that people who have had experience serving with gays or lesbians have had a different view of 

these things, and that will be true in a lot of our force. Again, I 

think that the training and so on will help mitigate these consequences. Frankly, while there are some concerns that you will 

probably hear tomorrow about some of our Special Operations 

Forces (SOF), where there are limited numbers of people and 

where any loss is potentially of concern for the force as a whole, 

I don’t think any of us expect that the numbers would be anything 

like what the survey suggests just based on experience. 

Also, you have the reality that servicemembers can’t just up and 

leave. They have enlistment contracts. The officers have contracts 

in terms of the amount of time they have to serve. It isn’t like they 

can just say, ‘‘well, I’m out of here.’’ They are going to have to complete their obligation. I believe that during that period their concerns can be mitigated. 

One of the encouraging aspects of this has been the fairly positive responses of spouses, because, as the saying goes, you enlist 

the soldiers, you reenlist the family. The positive responses of the 

spouses have been important. 

Senator MCCAIN. Mr. Secretary, finally, we are very deeply concerned about Wikileaks, the impact that it has had on identifying 

people who were cooperating with us in Afghanistan and Iraq. 

Some leaders have said they have blood on their hands. So far all 

we know is that one private first class was responsible for this. 

19 

Have you begun an investigation since July? Have you held any individual responsible for Wikileaks, punished anyone, put anyone on 

leave, or taken any disciplinary action whatsoever for this incredible breach of national security? 

Secretary GATES. I would answer in two ways, Senator. First, to 

a certain extent our ability to go down that path is limited by the 

fact that we have criminal proceedings under way that limit our 

ability to conduct an independent investigation while that criminal 

investigation is going on. 

By the same token, beginning in August we directed a number 

of steps to take every possible step—— 

Senator MCCAIN. My time has expired. I asked if you held anyone—— 

Secretary GATES.—so that this couldn’t happen again. 

Senator MCCAIN. Have you held anyone responsible, was my 

question. 

Secretary GATES. Not yet. 

Senator MCCAIN. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you, Senator McCain. 

Senator Lieberman. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

Thanks to all of you. In his opening comments, Senator McCain 

said that the survey and report that you put out yesterday, General Ham, Mr. Johnson, didn’t answer the question of whether the 

law should be repealed. It did answer the question, in my opinion, 

that if the DADT law is repealed that it will not compromise military effectiveness, unit cohesion, or morale. That’s a critically important element. 

The question of whether the law should be repealed is for Congress. I want to just very briefly say that to me, in reaching a judgment on that question, we’re on the front lines of a turning point 

in American history. We have these in every generation. This country from the beginning was defined not by its borders, but by our 

values. The Declaration of Independence says we’re all endowed by 

God with those equal rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. 

Every generation has realized those rights better, because they 

weren’t realized at the beginning, in 1776, for women, for people 

of color, et cetera. In our time, one of the great transitions occurring is the growing readiness and understanding among the American people, it’s just wrong and un-American to discriminate 

against people based on their sexual orientation. 

One of the great examples, and I think a heroic example of this 

change of public opinion, is the great man whose chair I am occupying today, who served on this committee until his death, Senator 

Robert C. Byrd, who strongly supported DADT in 1993 and then 

in our deliberations this year played a critical role, offered legislation to guarantee real due process and a deliberative process in removing this law. Essentially, said in voting for the change that 

DADT was wrong, it was not consistent with our values and it 

wasn’t good for the military. 

The U.S. military has a proud tradition of leading and reflecting 

the best values of America. In this case, I think the U.S. military 

20 

is behind the American people and behind the private sector, and 

it is because the law constrains you from reflecting our best values. 

The 1993 law says the Commander in Chief or the military don’t 

have the latitude to end this discriminatory policy, and that’s why 

I think it’s so critically important that we do this as quickly as possible. 

If we repeal DADT in this lame duck session, the deliberative 

process that the amendment and our law provides is really full of 

due process. In fact, there is no time limit on the certification required from the President, Secretary of Defense, and Chairman of 

the Joint Chiefs of Staff. That’s up to those three honored individuals. 

I think that Admiral Mullen said it well to me: ‘‘Success in America, in the military, is based not on who you are but what you do.’’ 

That’s true of American life generally, and this is our opportunity 

to change that. 

I want to ask just a couple of questions. The first is this. Why 

do I say this policy has been bad for the military? Because the 

record shows that almost 14,000 servicemembers have been tossed 

out of the military over the last 17 years, not because they were 

bad soldiers, not because they violated the code of conduct, but because they were gay, who they were. 

Admiral Mullen, in that sense, do you think we have lost some 

critical military personnel and in fact some who are gay or lesbian 

may have not enlisted in the military because of fear of what that 

would mean to them personally? 

Admiral MULLEN. I don’t think there’s any question about that. 

To the whole issue of both recruiting and retention, the report itself 

looks very specifically at the risk level with respect to that. It also 

flags areas that, should this change, we need to focus on as leaders. 

One of the things I struggle with is that we have lost upwards of 

13,000 to 14,000 individuals. Clearly, by implication alone, there 

are those that would choose not to come in to have to go through 

that. 

In addition to that, and this is very fundamental to me, which 

is this whole issue of integrity. We’re an institution that values integrity and then asks other people to join us, work with us, fight 

with us, die with us, and lie about who they are the whole time 

they’re in the military. That’s what doesn’t make any sense to me. 

While they’re here and able to do that, even in the policy that 

we have, they are actually individuals who go through extraordinary pain to sustain that lie. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. Let me read one of the more interesting and 

important statistics in the survey: ‘‘only 15 percent of gay and lesbian servicemembers who responded to the RAND study said that 

they would want their sexual orientation to be known in their 

unit.’’ Here’s a quote from one of those, to the interviewer: ‘‘I think 

a lot of people think there’s going to be this big outing and people 

flaunting their gayness. But they forget that we’re in the military. 

That stuff isn’t supposed to be done during duty hours regardless 

of whether you’re gay or straight.’’ 

So just to be clear, Admiral, if DADT is repealed the military 

code of conduct will apply to gay and lesbian members of the military as well as straight members, and just as a straight member, 

21 

a man, who may sexually harass a woman is subject to discipline, 

so too would a gay member of the military who subjects another 

person of the same gender be subject to disciplinary action? 

Admiral MULLEN. Standards of conduct will not change one bit. 

Leadership requirements to enforce those won’t change at all. So 

I fully agree with you. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. I appreciate, finally, your comment about 

the integrity of the military. We’re going through a tough time in 

American life now and it’s a time in which the American people 

have lost confidence in some of the great institutions of our society, 

the Government, and the business community. Probably the one institution, central institution in our country that the American people still have trust in is the American military, because it’s committed to a cause larger than individuals, because they are committed to one another, and they’re mission-focused. It’s not who you 

are, but what you do. 

I think DADT is a stain on the honor of the U.S. military that 

we have the capacity to remove in this session of Congress, and I 

hope that we will. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you, Senator Lieberman. 

Senator Inhofe. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Let me just state this. Back in 1993–1994 under the Clinton administration when DADT was installed, I was critical of it. I didn’t 

think it would work. Now that time has gone by and we’ve gone 

what, 16 or 17 years. There’s an old saying now that I recall, that 

I’ve used in the past; if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. It has worked. 

I really believe it has worked. 

Let me just ask the same question that Senator McCain asked, 

in perhaps a little different way. Right now we have the best, probably the best retention and recruitment percentages, over 100 percent everywhere except, I think, just the Army Guard, and there 

are some other reasons for that. This is something that has concerned me as to how repeal would affect that. 

When you look at the report under question 71.B, the question 

is: ‘‘Would it affect your immediate unit effectiveness at completing 

its mission,’’ and it’s results were a ratio of 21⁄2 to 1 that they’re 

stating repeal would have a negative effect. 

When you look at the other figures, you have to ask the question, 

how is this going to negatively impact the recruitment or retention. 

There’s another figure that can be used, that 23.7 percent would 

either leave or think about leaving the Service, Admiral Mullen. 

This is from the report. Also, 27 percent of the servicemembers surveyed said that if there was a repeal they would not be willing to 

recommend military service to someone else. 

Now, I know there have been studies made. As I recall, it’s about 

50 percent of the people who go into the military do so at the recommendation of someone who’s already in. Let’s assume that that’s 

right. Are you concerned at all about what’s going to happen to our 

retention and recruitment, Admiral Mullen? 

Admiral MULLEN. Senator, the report properly flagged these 

issues and I think that’s important. It’s certainly something, if implemented, we have to focus on. 

22 

I have not met a soldier, sailor, airman, marine, or coastguardsman in my whole life, man or woman, who didn’t think at one point 

or another about whether they were going to stay or go. Then from 

my point of view, that focuses on exposure and understanding and 

the report, which indicates how many, once exposed, it did not affect at the 90 percent level, including the combat arms, the Marines as well, that it did not affect unit readiness. 

Now, that’s the reality of exposure. There are clearly those, as 

the Secretary of Defense said, who have not been exposed. 

Senator INHOFE. I understand your answer, but it’s taking up all 

my time. 

Let me ask you this one further question. Why do you think only 

two-thirds of the people responded to this survey? 

Admiral MULLEN. Actually, by every indication, and you’d have 

to get somebody that does this for a living, it was an extraordinarily positive response, about 28 percent of the 400,000 surveys 

that were sent out to the men and women in uniform and the 

150,000 to our families, more than statistically significant in all the 

key categories. 

Senator INHOFE. I certainly disagree with that. I have talked to 

people in the field who have said that: ‘‘We didn’t respond because 

the decision was already made.’’ I think Senator McCain already 

covered that, so I won’t repeat that. 

Let me quickly get this in because I know tomorrow’s the hearing 

where we’ll have the Service Chiefs, but I think it’s important to 

get it in the record here. General Schwartz of the Air Force said, 

‘‘I believe it is an important matter of keeping faith with those currently serving in the Armed Forces that the Secretary of Defensecommissioned review be completed before there is any legislation 

to repeal.’’ Obviously, that didn’t happen because the legislation 

came through in the form of an amendment back on March 27. 

Admiral Roughead states, ‘‘My concern is legislative changes at 

this point leading sailors to question whether their input matters.’’ 

That’s what I’ve heard in the field: ‘‘It doesn’t really matter; why 

respond to it?’’ General Casey states, ‘‘I remain convinced that it 

is critically important to get a better understanding of where our 

soldiers and families are on the issue. I also believe that repealing 

the law before the completion of the review will be seen by men 

and women of the Army as a reversal of our commitment to hear 

their views moving forward.’’ 

Clearly they believed last January that before any decision was 

made we would hear their views. Then halfway through this legislation, the amendments, came. I might say right down party lines, 

to go ahead and do that. 

This is what we hear in the field. General Amos of the Marine 

Corps stated: ‘‘Now is the wrong time to overturn DADT. As U.S. 

troops remain in the thick of war in Afghanistan, there is risk involved. I’m trying to determine how to measure that risk. This is 

not a social thing. This is combat effectiveness. That is what the 

country pays Marines to do.’’ 

Now, I know they’re coming up tomorrow. We’ll have a chance 

to ask them. Let me just ask you for a brief answer. Do you think 

that they’re right or wrong? 

23 

Admiral MULLEN. I think there’s an opportunity to hear them before legislation passes, as they have asked in the past. 

Senator INHOFE. Secretary Gates? 

Secretary GATES. I would just say there was another person that 

said something along those lines in terms of the review and that 

was me, before this committee in February, when I urged that 

there be no legislation until the review had been completed. 

Senator INHOFE. All right. 

Now, lastly, I have heard several times that, whatever happens 

here now is not all that significant because there is a final step, 

and the final step is that the repeal provision contained within 

both the House of Representatives and the Senate Armed Services 

Committee versions of the NDAA would work as follows. Once the 

law is enacted, repealed and so forth, the President, Chairman of 

the Joint Chiefs, and the Secretary of Defense deliver to Congress 

their recommendation based on these assumptions that come out of 

this report, and that isn’t going to happen until that takes place. 

Yet halfway through this process, Secretary Gates, Chairman 

Mullen, and the President has made it very clear that you’ve all 

already made up your mind. Have you already made up your mind, 

so that this step is not going to be necessary? 

Secretary GATES. Absolutely not. The certification process is a 

critical piece of the legislation. Speaking for myself, I would not 

sign any certification until I was satisfied, with the advice of the 

Service Chiefs, that we had in fact mitigated, if not eliminated, to 

the extent possible, risks to combat readiness, to unit cohesion and 

effectiveness. 

Senator INHOFE. Even though you fully support the President’s 

decision, the question before us is not whether the military prepares to make the change, but how we prepare for it? 

Secretary GATES. That’s exactly right. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you very much, Senator Inhofe. 

Now, Senator Reed. 

Senator REED. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Admiral Mullen, You seem to be saying that there is a high correlation between those who have served with gay individuals and 

who believe that unit cohesion will not be affected, and that there’s 

a very low correlation between those who have never served with 

them and they feel that unit cohesion will be irreparably harmed. 

Which leads to the conclusion I think you’re getting at, the results are, if you had the opportunity to serve with individuals who 

you know or suspect to be gay, that you don’t have significant concerns about overall cohesion and unit effectiveness. Is that your 

conclusion? 

Admiral MULLEN. True, yes, sir. 

Senator REED. That is the conclusion of the study, too, as you 

look at the correlation of numbers? 

Admiral MULLEN. Yes, sir. The study laid that out. Additionally, 

the study also found that should the law change, the difference between those who are actually deployed and in combat, concerns 

were lower than those who were in combat arms but not deployed, 

because they’re very specifically focused on the mission in combat 

at the time. 

24 

Senator REED. That’s important to emphasize again. Let me understand it fully. Those units that were surveyed that were deployed in combat, their responses were less concerned about unit 

cohesion with the introduction of gay personnel? 

Admiral MULLEN. What the report showed specifically were those 

who were in combat situations or had been in combat situations on 

this issue found themselves much more focused on combat and expressed less concern about the policy than those who were combat 

arms who were not deployed at the time. It’s very clear that they 

were focused on succeeding in combat and succeeding in their mission. 

Senator REED. I think this survey data complements the best 

proxy we have for this question, which is the experience of our closest allies. I don’t know if you want to comment or Secretary Gates 

wants to comment on what you’ve heard from the British chiefs of 

service in terms of their combat arms, their Royal Marines and 

their SOF, who are operating side-by-side with our forces. 

Admiral MULLEN. I don’t approach this from the perspective of 

a one-to-one comparison because we are different countries, and I 

understand that. But when I talk to my counterparts in the U.K. 

and in Australia specifically, the theme from both chiefs was an 

awful lot of resistance upfront, an awful lot of hubbub before it 

changed, and then it virtually was implemented without an issue 

once the law changed in their own country. 

Senator REED. You have had no comments from the field from 

our commanders who are working with these units questioning 

their combat efficiency. In fact, my impression in Afghanistan is 

that they’re eager for the help, their support, and quite impressed 

with their performance. Is that fair? 

Admiral MULLEN. Their priorities are just not focused on this 

issue very specifically. 

Senator REED. General Ham, you have conducted 95 forums at 

51 bases. You’ve conducted 140 smaller focus group sessions. 

You’ve handed out 400,000 questionnaires, received a significant 

number back. But ultimately there is a judgment about whether 

you feel that the voice of the troops, the young men and women in 

the families, have been heard. I think you’re ideally suited to make 

that judgment. Is that your judgment? 

General HAM. Senator, it is. Through the administration of the 

survey, it provided us statistically sound and analytically rigorous 

information across a wide spectrum of categories. But it was the 

personal engagement face to face that Mr. Johnson and I and other 

members of our team conducted, the online inbox, and other mechanisms that allowed servicemembers and their families to voice 

their views. That gave us great context and gave us, frankly, some 

of the theme that we addressed in the survey. 

Senator REED. Thank you. 

Mr. Johnson, again, you stressed the pending impact of court 

cases, which are unpredictable. But it seems that there’s a growing 

willingness of courts to step in and make decisions based on the 

constitutional theories about the inadequacies of DADT. 

That, as you said in your remarks, again, adds another dimension that didn’t exist last February when we started talking about 

25 

how do we do this, do we do it legislatively, do we have the survey, 

et cetera. Obviously, that’s another factor we have to consider. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, absolutely, Senator. All three branches of 

Government are very actively involved in this issue right now. 

Senator REED. A final question, Mr. Secretary. You mentioned in 

your opening remarks you had the experience in 1992 in the CIA, 

and my perception would be you faced some of the same issues, 

which were initially opposition within the ranks, within the public. 

But you ensured that policy was carried out and that within the 

CIA there are analysts who are removed from small unit activities 

in the field and then field operations. Did you notice as we’ve had 

this policy in place now for over a decade, any significant difficulties in getting field operators to accept it, the counterpart to the 

combat forces of our military? 

Secretary GATES. No. In fact, the direction that I made in 1992 

has now been in place a year longer than DADT, and in talking to 

my successors it has not presented a problem. But I would say, just 

to be clear, as I said in my opening statement, the circumstances 

and the intimacy, particularly of those in combat, compared with 

those working for CIA is very different. 

Senator REED. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you, Senator Reed. 

Senator Brown. 

Senator BROWN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Secretary, I know we spoke privately. I appreciate that time 

in order to speed up the process and get additional information. I 

do just have a couple of follow-ups to you and potentially the other 

members of the panel. 

Mirroring what Senator Inhofe said about the participation, I can 

tell you from firsthand conversations when I visited Afghanistan 

and spoke to members of the Guard and Reserve that halfway 

through the process when the committee took certain actions they 

felt it was a done deal, and as a result they didn’t participate in 

the survey. 

Twenty-eight percent does not seem like a high number of participation, regardless of the total number, as it reflects to the nature and total amount of surveys that have gone forth. Is there 

anything additionally you can share in terms of your understanding, whether it’s anybody, General Ham or Admiral Mullen as 

well, as to why the participation still was only at 28 percent and 

not higher? 

Secretary GATES. Let me ask General Ham or Mr. Johnson to address the statistical significance of the numbers. 

General HAM. Senator, the 28 percent overall response rate is 

well within the normal range, the historical range of DOD surveys 

of military personnel. When we worked with the company which 

administered the survey, we wanted to make sure that the proportional number of surveys were distributed based on historical response rates by community. Each Service and, in fact, each community within the Services, have historical response rates and we 

tried to account for that in the distribution of those surveys. 

Having said that, there was some concern about the slowness, if 

you will, of the response rates. The Service Chiefs, senior enlisted 

leaders of the Services, Secretary of Defense, and others would 

26 

send out reminders encouraging servicemembers and families to respond. 

I’m comfortable that the response rate overall was within norms 

and, probably more importantly, Senator, that each category that 

we analyzed had a statistically significant number of responses. 

Senator BROWN. Mr. Secretary, just for the benefit of the people 

that are listening, and also for the committee, let’s assume for argument’s sake that we move forward and we say, okay, we’re going 

to accept the report and we’re ready to move on and take that next 

step and repeal DADT. Could you explain what the process would 

be in your mind, because a lot of the concerns that I personally 

have, as someone who’s still serving in the military, and others 

that have confided in me privately is that they want to make sure 

that the battle readiness and military effectiveness of our troops, 

is not affected. 

Do you envision starting with the noncombat units, the Guard 

and Reserve, moving up that way and implementing down the 

road? How will the certification process work? What’s your thought 

process in actually moving forward with that while not jeopardizing 

retention, battle readiness, and effectiveness? 

Secretary GATES. First of all, the key, as the report makes clear, 

is training of both leadership training and training of the entire 

force. That’s better than 2 million people. Whether we would begin 

with one segment or not, I think we haven’t addressed that issue 

yet. 

I would tell you that my personal approach to this would be that 

until all the training has been completed, until the Service Chiefs 

are comfortable that the risks to unit cohesion and to combat effectiveness had been addressed to their satisfaction and to my satisfaction, I would not sign the certification. In other words, my view 

is that before the certification is signed everything has to be done 

to get ready. It’s not something that I would start, that I would certify, while it was still in process, as it were. 

Senator BROWN. So that could be 4 months or 4 years, but really 

you just want to make sure that they’re at that point where you 

feel comfortable that those issues will be addressed? 

Secretary GATES. That is exactly why I have been very careful 

not to talk about how long I think this will take to implement. People will be watching to make sure we’re not slow-rolling the process. By the same token, I’ve said since February this process needs 

to be thorough, it needs to be very careful, and it needs to be completed before the certification is signed in my view. 

Senator BROWN. Is it your testimony here today that you will not 

certify until you feel that the process can move forward without 

any damage to the safety and security of our men and women that 

are serving, number one, and that our battle effectiveness will not 

be jeopardized? 

Secretary GATES. Absolutely. 

Senator BROWN. Thank you. 

I have no further questions. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you, Senator Brown. 

Senator Ben Nelson. 

Senator BEN NELSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, 

gentlemen, for being here today. 

27 

To me the issue seems to be not whether to allow gays to serve 

in the military, but whether to allow them to serve openly. By permitting them to serve, but not openly, undermines the basic values 

of the military: honesty, integrity, and trust. When that’s undermined anywhere, it’s undermined everywhere. 

It also seems that our military is expected to say, ‘‘I don’t want 

to lie, but you won’t let me tell the truth.’’ How do we square this 

circle? I think there are those who legitimately are concerned that 

this will adversely affect readiness and national security, and yet 

we have the report that seems to be somewhat overwhelming in 

certain areas saying it’s time to change the law. 

Can you help me understand how we move to something where 

it is now possible to tell the truth? I say that because I hear everyone saying to one degree or another, you’ve served with people who 

are gay, but if you knew they were gay and you didn’t turn them 

in were you lying, or was honesty a mobile commodity? Admiral? 

Admiral MULLEN. Senator Nelson, you’ve hit at the core issue, 

from my perspective. I can’t square the circle and certainly historically have not been able to. Your comment about if it exists anywhere, it exists everywhere, that’s been the case with respect to 

gay and lesbian servicemembers for my whole career, including 

under this law. 

I think it does fundamentally undermine who we are, because 

we’re an institution that is so significantly founded and based on 

integrity. I can’t square it. 

Senator BEN NELSON. Secretary Gates, I’ve seen your public comments about the core values of the military: honesty, integrity, and 

honor need to prevail. Doesn’t the current system undermine those 

values? 

Secretary GATES. Yes, sir, it does. 

Senator BEN NELSON. Those are the only questions I had, Mr. 

Chairman. I yield back my time. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you very much, Senator Nelson. 

Senator Collins is next. 

Senator COLLINS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize for my 

brief absence. I’m trying to do a Senate Homeland Security Committee hearing at the same time. 

But this is such a critical issue, and I want to begin my remarks 

by thanking General Ham and Mr. Johnson for doing an excellent 

job on this report. I want to thank you, Secretary Gates, for a 

thoughtful statement, and you, Admiral Mullen, for your very 

heartfelt and strong statement this morning. 

I want to go through some of the objections that we’ve been hearing from those who argue that we should leave the current law in 

place. Critics of this report state that our troops were not asked 

whether they believe that DADT should be repealed. I would point 

out that our troops aren’t asked whether they should be deployed 

to Afghanistan. They’re not asked whether we should have a war 

in Iraq. They’re generally not asked about policy decisions. 

However, the fact is, given the extensive feedback that the authors of the report and the task force received, from tens of thousands of servicemembers, in the forms of survey responses, emails, 

and townhall meetings, the report in fact does convey a sense of 

28 

what servicemembers think about repealing the law, even if a direct question was not included in the survey. 

I was struck by one observation by a special operations operator 

who said at a townhall meeting: ‘‘We have a gay guy in the unit. 

He’s big, he’s mean, and he kills lots of bad guys, and no one cared 

that he was gay.’’ 

Mr. Johnson and General Ham, is it fair to conclude that your 

report does incorporate and fairly represent the views of our forces? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Senator Collins, I believe it does. We were asked 

not to, we were not supposed to ask the referendum question. 

Senator COLLINS. Right. 

Mr. JOHNSON. However, we did put out a 103-question survey to 

400,000 servicemembers, which we got back 115,000 responses. The 

survey was quite comprehensive in asking in a number of different 

places for servicemembers to predict the consequences of the repeal 

in a variety of contexts. 

I would add to that that in the 72,000 emails and in the 24,000 

face-to-face interactions that we had, invariably the discussion and 

the input we got was whether to repeal the current law or not. 

That was always the topic of discussion. A lot of that is reflected 

in the report in the ‘‘What We Heard’’ section. 

So we believe that through this very comprehensive exercise we 

went through we did hear the force on the question of whether we 

can do this. Our conclusion is as you see it. 

Senator COLLINS. Presumably, if there had been widespread and 

large percentages of servicemembers expressing negative views, 

you would have reported that in the report, correct? 

Mr. JOHNSON. As we stated in the report, if the answer we got 

back from this exercise was in effect no, we can’t do that, I would 

have had a professional and fiduciary obligation to my client to report that. I know General Ham feels equally as strong about that. 

Senator COLLINS. Admiral Mullen, the second objection that we 

hear over and over is that we cannot implement this kind of 

change in the midst of a war. I thought you made an excellent 

point that the opposite may be true, that wartime facilitates 

change in some ways. In fact, wasn’t President Truman’s 1948 

order to integrate our forces actually fully implemented during the 

Korean War? 

Admiral MULLEN. It was. Actually, it was implemented throughout that, I don’t think fully until 1953. 

Senator COLLINS. In fact, on page 83 of the report it says that 

‘‘When the personnel shortages of the Korean War necessitated integrated units, Army field officers placed white and black soldiers 

side by side.’’ 

Admiral MULLEN. Right. Senator Collins, if I could. 

Senator COLLINS. Yes. 

Admiral MULLEN. I find it in my study of this, somewhat ironic, 

that in the year that this was passed—and if you read the law in 

detail, there’s a great deal of discussion in the law about combat, 

combat effectiveness, at a time when we were not at war. We have 

been at war. We’re in our 10th year right now. We understand 

what it takes in combat and what combat effectiveness means better than we did back then, just by virtue of that experience. 

29 

We have changed dramatically as a military since 2001, which I 

would argue puts us in a good position to facilitate additional 

change. There couldn’t be a better time to do it. We are better led, 

in my experience, at every level than we have ever been led. So 

leaders can do this. 

We are able to take advantage of our ability to change and sustain that combat readiness, and I believe making a change like this 

makes us better; it doesn’t make us worse. 

Senator COLLINS. Thank you. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you, Senator Collins. 

Senator Webb. 

Senator WEBB. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Secretary Gates, I’d like to begin by clarifying an exchange that 

you had with Senator Inhofe about the importance of this study in 

terms of moving forward into the law. I recall an exchange that you 

and I had on February 2, 2010, you and Admiral Mullen came in 

to testify on this. I made it very clear at that time that this survey 

was going to be vital in terms of evaluating whether we should 

move forward on this law. 

I have held firm on that position. In fact, Senator Inhofe is not 

correct. This was not a full committee vote that was strictly along 

party lines when we had the vote whether to move forward before 

this survey came in. I voted against moving forward on this legislation before we got the results of this survey, because I believe very 

strongly that it is important to listen to the people who are serving 

and to consider their views. 

As I mentioned to General Ham when he came forward at his 

confirmation hearing not long ago, this is, in my view, an incredible 

piece of work. I was privileged to be able to sit down with General 

Ham and Mr. Johnson on a couple of occasions to give my views 

about how important it is to listen to not only all different Services, 

but the rank structure, the occupational structure, and I believe 

you have really done the job here. 

This is a 343-page report. 160,000 respondents and, most importantly, this was done without politicizing the men and women in 

uniform, which is vitally important in our society. 

I would like to say that this report is probably the most crucial 

piece of information that we have in terms of really objectively 

moving forward in order to address the law. 

First of all, General Ham, I’d like to ask a question of you to 

begin with. Do we have any idea what percentage of the United 

States military today is gay or lesbian? 

General HAM. Senator, we do. Obviously, it’s imprecise because 

we cannot ask that question under the current law. But in RAND’s 

update of their 1993 study they did some work in this regard, admittedly an estimate. But the estimate is that the military population as a whole is about the same as the general population, 

somewhere in the 2 to 3 percent. It is RAND’s assessment that gay 

men are probably a lower percentage in the military and lesbians 

are probably a higher percentage in the military than in the general population. 

Senator WEBB. Thank you. 

Secretary Gates, I would like to follow on to a question that was 

asked earlier about the decision you made in 1992 at the CIA in 

30 

order to eliminate this issue in recruitment and advancement in 

the CIA. There are elements in the CIA who perform functions that 

are pretty similar to military functions, are there not? 

Secretary GATES. Yes, there are some. 

Senator WEBB. Have you heard of any unforeseen circumstances 

based on your decision in those units, taking place in those units? 

Secretary GATES. Not one. 

Senator WEBB. Admiral Mullen, a question that occurs to me 

when we look at the disparity in the percentages with respect to 

ground combat units, Army and Marine Corps. I take the point in 

the study about the percentage of people who have served alongside gay members having a higher comfort level. But do you have 

a different leadership approach? What would be the leadership approach that you’re contemplating in terms of those types of units? 

Admiral MULLEN. I think that the report itself did a terrific job 

in flagging those areas that we really would need to focus on. It 

goes back to what the Secretary of Defense said, and I agree completely. Until we’ve mitigated that to an acceptable level, until 

we’ve done the training—and in my remarks, the Marine who said, 

if this changes we’ll do it better than anybody else. 

This has to be, more than anything else, should it change, it has 

to be well-led. We understand where that leadership needs to be 

applied and I would not certify until we had mitigated to a point 

where we were satisfied that we could move ahead. 

So we would focus on those all-male combat units who didn’t 

have exposure and certainly do it in a way from a training standpoint, from a leadership standpoint, that was intense enough to 

achieve the outcome that we wanted there. 

Senator WEBB. Thank you. 

I’d just like to again conclude by expressing my respect and appreciation for the work that General Ham and Mr. Johnson did on 

this survey. It’s really a landmark piece of work in my view. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you, Senator Webb. 

We’re going to take a 5-minute recess. 

[Recess from 10:53 a.m. to 10:59 a.m.] 

[Reconvened.] 

Senator Thune, I believe you are next. 

Senator THUNE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Secretary Gates, you said the other day the Service Chiefs are 

less sanguine about the Working Group, about the level of risk of 

repeal with regard to combat readiness. We’ve heard that in testimony in front of this committee from the Service Chiefs themselves, that they’d like to keep the current policy in place. 

Of course, General Amos, the Commandant of the Marine Corps, 

told the committee a few months ago in his view: ‘‘The current law 

and associated policy have supported the unique requirements of 

the Marine Corps and thus I do not recommend its repeal.’’ 

Let me ask you, and I’d like to get a comment from Admiral 

Mullen as well. How should we weigh the fact that to date there’s 

not a consensus among the Service Chiefs and yourselves with regard to the issue of repeal? 

Secretary GATES. First of all, I think you’ll hear from the Service 

Chiefs tomorrow, despite their differing views, that they do have 

31 

high regard for the review and the implementation plan that has 

been put together as part of the review. 

To get to the heart of your question, Senator, I think that you 

have to take seriously the views of the Service Chiefs, as I said in 

my opening statement. The key question is, can the concerns that 

they have be mitigated? Can this be implemented without having 

an impact? If we take the steps that are recommended and perhaps 

others as well, can the concerns that they have be addressed and 

the risks they see be mitigated? 

Our view clearly is that it can. You can hear directly from them 

tomorrow. I think that they will give you their honest judgment on 

this. 

There are two pieces of this that I think need to be weighed and 

that I have discussed with the Service Chiefs. The first is the risk 

of the courts taking this out of our hands and having no time to 

prepare. The second is, if not now, when? When we’re out of Afghanistan? As I look ahead in the world, I don’t see the world getting to be a safer, easier place to live in where our troops are necessarily under less stress. 

The question of, if not now, when?, I think is a worthwhile question to address to them as well. 

Senator THUNE. Let me ask you as a follow-up to that. The current legislation on repeal requires yourself, Admiral Mullen, and 

the President to certify that repeal is consistent with standards of 

military readiness. Is there any reason why the Service Chiefs 

should not be also required to certify that repeal is consistent with 

military readiness and effectiveness? 

Secretary GATES. I think that this question came up this summer 

and you get to the point where you have eight or nine people. If 

not the Service Chiefs, then how about the combatant commanders? If the Service Chiefs, why not the Vice Chairman? So you 

all of a sudden end up with 10 or a dozen people. 

I said in answer to an earlier question, my view of when I think 

I could certify will depend heavily on the advice of the Service 

Chiefs of whether we have, in fact, mitigated the concerns that 

they have addressed. 

Senator THUNE. Would you be in favor of adding the Service 

Chiefs to the list of certifying officials when it comes to the proposed legislative language? 

Secretary GATES. No, I would not. 

Senator THUNE. Let me ask a question and direct this I think to 

General Ham and to Mr. Johnson. The survey report has a section 

which describes some of the main issues associated with repeal for 

servicemembers. The first one they list states that 44 percent of 

servicemembers who’ve been deployed to a combat environment 

since September 11, 2001, said that effectiveness in a field environment or out to sea would be affected negatively or very negatively 

by repeal. 

My question has to do with the risk level that you attach to that. 

It seems the risk level is very low for repeal when you have 44 percent of the troops who’ve been deployed into combat who said it 

would have a negative or very negative effect. I guess the followup question to that is, are you saying that you’re willing to accept 

32 

the negative impact this policy change could cause to nearly half 

of our combat troops when we’re fighting two wars? 

General HAM. Senator, it is, as all of this is, a pretty complex 

issue. As you cited, that was a very much concerning figure to us. 

But a subsequent question to that says, under intense combat what 

would your sense be, and we saw the negative rates drop quite dramatically. As with many of the other experiences—responses to the 

survey, when we asked the question, have you served in combat or 

are you serving in combat with someone in your unit who you know 

or believe to be gay, the unit performance is rated very, very highly 

and the matter of a gay member being in the unit is assessed as 

having only a minimal impact, in most cases no impact, in the 

unit’s performance. 

Senator THUNE. Anything to add to that, Mr. Johnson? 

Mr. JOHNSON. I would echo what General Ham said. The other 

thing I would add to that, Senator, is, as we note in the report, predictions in surveys of what will happen or what you will do in the 

event of something are valuable, but they’re of limited value, and 

this is reflected in social science data as well. Predictions very 

often are reflective of attitudes, which is one of the reasons why in 

the report we also put a lot of emphasis on asking people about 

their actual experience of serving in a unit with people they believe 

to be gay or lesbian. As you see in the report, even in the combat 

units and in Marine combat units, when people reported that they 

had the experience of serving with somebody who was gay or lesbian, the experiences reflect pretty high numbers in terms of how 

the unit functioned, 84 or 87 percent. 

Senator THUNE. My time has expired, but I would just again 

point out for the record that you have nearly half of those who 

have been deployed who say that it will negatively or very negatively affect combat effectiveness and readiness. That is really the 

bottom line issue here. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you very much, Senator Thune. 

Senator Manchin. 

Senator MANCHIN. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I want 

to say as a West Virginian, I’m very honored to be on this committee and to be here to hear this important discussion. 

I want to thank all of you for the work that you’ve done, from 

Secretary Gates to Mr. Johnson, General Ham, and to Admiral 

Mullen. I appreciate it so much. I know you’ve put in a lot of effort. 

I’m the new person on the block, if you will, so I’m trying to get 

up-to-speed as quickly as possible. To Secretary Gates, if this were 

to be repealed, is it all at one time, or would each branch have time 

to sequence it in, or would they use their best judgment if they 

thought that it would be appropriate for them or the readiness that 

I think the Senator from South Dakota just asked about? 

Is there going to be a mandatory implementation all at one time? 

Secretary GATES. I think that the question of whether there 

would be sequencing for different kinds of units, whether the Services would proceed at the same pace, and so on, this is something 

frankly where the review offers a good implementation plan in 

terms of training, leadership training, what needs to be done in 

terms of regulations, and so on. 

33 

In terms of how those things are actually carried out, I would 

give great weight to the views of the Service Chiefs in terms of how 

to proceed in that respect. 

Senator MANCHIN. Last week the Co-Chairmen of the Debt Reduction Commission issued a proposal that called for $100 billion 

in reductions in defense expenditures. Do you have a cost associated to the implementation of this plan? 

Secretary GATES. I would say that, first of all, probably minimal. 

There is one part of the report, frankly, that I disagree with. That 

is the idea of looking into a new benefit for single members of the 

Services who have a significant other or a gay or lesbian partner, 

and it would be for both heterosexuals and homosexuals, in terms 

of access to family counseling, and a variety of benefits of this kind. 

You might hear from the Service Chiefs tomorrow, their concern 

about this, partly because of the cost and the open-endedness of it. 

Also we’re trying to deliver those services to our married members 

of the Services today and there is worry of diluting the quality of 

those services if we created a new benefit for all single people who 

had a special person in their life. 

That one recommendation I did have a problem with, and partly 

because of the cost. 

Senator MANCHIN. Thank you. 

Mr. Johnson, would repeal cause a chaplain to deliver a moral 

message in a service about homosexuality? Would that cause a 

problem there or create a legal challenge? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Senator, we spent a lot of time focused on the 

chaplain community and, as reflected in the report, it’s our view 

that if repeal is brought about this would not require a chaplain 

to change what he preaches or what he counsels, in the religious 

context. The chaplain’s duty is also to care for all, so if a chaplain 

did not feel it was appropriate that he counsel a particular servicemember on the issue of homosexuality he should refer that servicemember to someone else. 

We heard a lot of concern about, will this require me to change 

my religious beliefs or my religious counseling, and the answer to 

that is no. 

Senator MANCHIN. Did you have any inkling of how many of the 

religious order in the military would not continue to serve or wish 

to opt out early? 

Mr. JOHNSON. There are definitely some pretty strong views 

within the chaplain community. I would not for a minute assume 

that if the law were repealed every single chaplain would stay in 

the military. I think we should assume that we may lose some of 

our chaplains. 

I also heard from many chaplains that they take very seriously 

their obligation to care for all and so I anticipate that we would 

have just as many who feel strongly that repeal is the right thing 

to do. 

Senator MANCHIN. General Ham, if I may, on the 40 to 60 percent that have responded back concerning combat readiness and 

the concerns in the combat units. I’ll ask concerning the Israeli 

military; how do they handle this situation? 

General HAM. Senator, first of all they have a very, very different 

culture. They’re a conscript force. I found in my personal engageVerDate Aug 31 2005 08:59 May 02, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 Y:\BORAWSKI\DOCS\65073.TXT JUNE PsN: JUNEB
34 

ment with the Israeli leaders, because they are a small force, they 

have the opportunity that if there is a servicemember who has different religious views with regard to homosexuality as perhaps 

their leader does, they can move that servicemember from one unit 

to another without major disruption because of the size. That 

would be an impractical solution for us. 

Senator MANCHIN. What I’m saying is that they’re more or less 

combat-ready continuously and they’re on the frontlines on a continuous basis. Do they have a DADT policy? Is there anything such 

as that in that type of a military, since they’re on combat alert at 

all times? 

General HAM. Senator, I have the highest respect for our Israeli 

counterparts, but they don’t have global responsibilities such as our 

military does. They do not have a specific policy. They do allow 

servicemembers in the Israeli Defense Forces to have same-sex 

partners and continue to serve. 

Senator MANCHIN. Thank you, sir. 

I thank all of you. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you, Senator Manchin. 

Senator Chambliss is next. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

To all of you, gentlemen, this has been a very difficult issue. I 

know you’ve put your heart and soul into it and for that we say 

thank you for the work you’ve done, whether we agree or disagree 

with the end result. Thanks for your service in this respect. 

Admiral Mullen, you stated earlier in your comments that you 

served alongside gays and you knew they were gay. I don’t think 

there’s any question in the minds of any of us that we know we 

have gay and lesbian members or individuals serving in every 

branch of the Services; and certainly they serve with courage and 

valor. That’s what I heard you say; is that correct? 

Admiral MULLEN. Yes, sir. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. You said they served under your command. 

Can you tell us a timeframe? When would they have served under 

your command when you knew there were gay and lesbians under 

your command? 

Admiral MULLEN. My first command was 1973 and then subsequently about 10 years later in the mid-1980s, the mid-1990s, the 

late 1990s, the early 2000s, and up through 2004 to 2005. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. In those first commands, when you knew 

there were gay and lesbians serving under you, what was the law 

at that time? 

Admiral MULLEN. Homosexuals, at that time, were not allowed 

to serve. If their conduct was exposed, they were typically discharged. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. Were you responsible for discharging a number of those that you knew were gay? 

Admiral MULLEN. Absolutely. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. Did you discharge everyone you knew was 

gay at that time? 

Admiral MULLEN. Essentially, it was a conduct offense. This was 

before DADT, and if you were known to be gay or lesbian it then 

had to be brought forward, oftentimes in the conduct system, and 

they were discharged. I did this and I also saw this. 

35 

Senator CHAMBLISS. Did that have an impact on the morale of 

your sailors that were serving under you? 

Admiral MULLEN. At the time, no, not noticeably. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. Secretary Gates, have you read the report? 

Secretary GATES. Yes, sir. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. I want to quote from page 49, paragraph 2. 

It’s part 6, ‘‘What We Heard.’’ Here’s what it says: ‘‘For this section 

of the report, there’s an important caveat. If the Working Group 

were to attempt to numerically divide the sentiments we heard expressed in information exchange forums, online inbox entries, focus 

groups, and confidential online communications between those who 

were for or against repeal of the current DADT policy, our sense 

is that the majority of views expressed were against repeal of the 

current policy.’’ 

Now, you’re basing your opinion on a 28 percent response to surveys that were sent to 400,000 men and women. The question, do 

you think we ought to repeal DADT, wasn’t even asked to them. 

The question was, can we implement it? Looking at this section of 

the report, it’s pretty clear that the authors of the report say that 

a majority of those men and women they interviewed across the 

spectrum were opposed to repeal. 

Knowing that, does that change your opinion as to whether or 

not this law ought to be repealed? 

Secretary GATES. What the Co-Chairs have told me, Senator, is 

that, particularly when it comes to the email inbox and those who 

came to many of the forums that they held, that these were clearly 

folks motivated to express an opinion. While those opinions were 

important, because they were basically self-motivated to show up 

and offer their opinion, what I was told was that it was important, 

but it wasn’t statistically significant in terms of representing the 

views of the force. That the survey, which was done anonymously, 

was more reliable in terms of gauging the overall views of the 

force. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. Mr. Secretary, I’ll have to tell you I’m really 

bothered by your response to that alongside of the response you 

gave to Senator McCain when he said, ‘‘what if you had 265,000 

members of the military leave tomorrow or within a short period 

of time?’’ Your response there was basically the same: ‘‘I really 

don’t think that’s important and that’s not going to happen.’’ 

What if it does happen? What if those 265,000 resign from the 

military over the next short period of time? What are you going to 

do? 

Secretary GATES. First of all, I didn’t say it was not important. 

As I said in response to an earlier question, very few people can 

leave immediately, and so people would be around for the rest of 

their enlistment, for the rest of their contract if they were officers. 

Our expectation is that, as you’ve heard from the authors of the report and from Admiral Mullen, based on the survey itself, experience would dramatically lower those numbers. 

If I believed that a quarter of a million people would leave the 

military immediately if given the opportunity, I would certainly 

have second thoughts about this. But I don’t believe that. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. But you do believe the rest of the survey is 

correct? 

36 

Secretary GATES. What I just described to you is the difference 

between what I’ve been told was statistically significant and the 

importance of the individual views that were expressed by people 

who showed up or who bothered to send in emails. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. Thank you. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you, Senator Chambliss. 

Senator Coons. 

Senator COONS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’d like to thank Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen for very compelling testimony, 

and the authors of the study, Counsel Johnson and General Ham, 

for your very hard work and your important contributions here 

today. 

One of the issues that was raised by several of the members of 

the panel today was the concern that if this issue is instead forced 

by the courts you will not have the opportunity to thoughtfully, responsibly, and professionally implement a change in policy, but will 

instead be compelled to do so brusquely, and that there might be 

really negative consequences to that having been done. 

In response to a question from the Senator from Massachusetts, 

I got a more detailed understanding, Mr. Secretary, of how that 

process might work forward. Would you share with us, Mr. Secretary, what harm might be caused by having a court-ordered repeal of this policy, what kind of differences in the timeline that 

might produce, and what sort of negative impacts that might 

cause? 

Secretary GATES. If the court decisions were to be similar to the 

district court order that was handed down in October, we would 

have zero time to prepare. That order took effect immediately and 

it was global. No time to train, no time to prepare, and, as I said 

in my prepared testimony, that is the worst imaginable outcome as 

far as I’m concerned and has a very high risk to the force. 

Senator COONS. Admiral Mullen, any further comments on the 

potential negative consequences of a court-ordered implementation, 

as opposed to a more phased-in, responsible, or timely implementation through the leadership of the Armed Forces? 

Admiral MULLEN. I would endorse what the Secretary said in 

terms of having time to be able to implement the training, leadership, or focus, before we implement the implementation plan that’s 

in the report. Certainly, an overnight decision from the court significantly raises the risk of being able to mitigate that in a way, 

and it would be much more disturbing to the force. 

Senator COONS. Admiral Mullen, I found part of your testimony 

very compelling, that many of our allies, I think it was 35, currently allow in their Armed Forces those who are openly gay or lesbian, including Australia, Canada, U.K., Germany, and France. 

That, in fact, many of those nations have troops currently serving 

in the field with us today. 

What could we learn from their experiences? Are there concerns 

that haven’t been addressed, based on their experiences, or do you 

think that the implementation of a change in policy can be better 

informed by the experience of our ally? 

Admiral MULLEN. I think that’s certainly an important part as 

we would look to, if the law changed, implementation, certainly the 

lessons learned from countries who have already been through this. 

37 

At the same time recognize that these countries are not the United 

States of America. I don’t correlate one-to-one an experience of another country with ours. 

That said, certainly from the field, from the combat areas, I’ve 

gotten no feedback that this was an issue in countries who allow 

openly gays and lesbians to serve and are fighting alongside us. 

Senator COONS. My last question. I found very compelling the 

testimony from several of you that this really is, at the end, about 

values, integrity, and allowing our men and women in the Armed 

Forces to serve openly with honor. Servicemembers who are currently, by this policy, required to conceal aspects of who they really 

are and to serve with some tension between their personal being 

and their desire to serve their Nation. 

Are there any other parallels or lessons to be learned from racial 

integration where the Armed Forces were asked to undertake what 

was initially perceived to be a very difficult, socially driven change, 

but ultimately has been, from what I’ve read in this report, a very 

positive impact on unit cohesion, military professionalism, service, 

and its broader impact on our society? Mr. Secretary? 

Secretary GATES. First of all, I think, as Admiral Mullen said, it’s 

worth noting that most of the implementation of integration took 

place during the Korean War, during a period of combat. We have 

to be honest and straightforward about this. These social changes 

in the military have not been particularly easy. Integration of the 

forces took place over a period of 5 years, from 1948 to 1953. But 

the reality is we had serious racial problems within the Services 

at least through the end of the Vietnam War. 

It’s been a number of years since we admitted women into the 

Armed Forces and the reality is, as everybody on this committee 

knows, we have a continuing problem with sexual assault. 

These are human beings we’re dealing with, and the report is 

honest in saying that there will be some disruption. This is a matter of leadership, training, and discipline in terms of how we implement this. 

Senator COONS. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary. I want to 

close by saying that I draw great confidence from today’s testimony 

in your ability as leaders of our Armed Forces to implement professionally, responsibly, and thoroughly any change we might recommend to the policy. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you very much, Senator Coons. 

Senator Wicker. 

Senator WICKER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Secretary, let me ask you about a couple of statements you 

made in your prepared statement to this committee. On the first 

page, third paragraph, you comment on why we didn’t ask the 

question to the military members, ‘‘do you think changing this law 

would be a good idea? Do you support this change?’’ 

You say this was not a matter of taking a poll of the military to 

determine whether the law should be changed. In justification of 

that decision, you say: ‘‘The President of the United States, the 

Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, has made his position 

on this matter clear.’’ 

38 

Now, on the second page, when discussing the various forms of 

litigation that are occurring about this, you say: ‘‘Therefore, it is 

important that this change come via legislative means, that is legislation informed by the review just completed.’’ 

Would you understand it if I said that it seems that you’re saying that the other two branches of the Federal Government have 

painted this Congress into a corner on this? On the one hand, the 

President has made a decision, therefore we didn’t take a full survey of military attitudes; we assumed in the survey that the decision was going to be made and we asked the members how they 

would respond to that. Then we’re saying, although this is technically a legislative decision, the court is closing in on you and you 

really don’t have much choice there. 

Would you understand it if I saw a contradiction in your testimony there? 

Secretary GATES. Let me make a couple of things clear, Senator. 

The President can’t change this law. It’s just that simple. 

Senator WICKER. That’s absolutely correct. 

Secretary GATES. What the President did in his State of the 

Union Address was say that he would like to see this law repealed. 

Now, there aren’t enough fingers and toes in this room to count all 

the times that a President has said that he wanted to see a law 

changed, so he expressed his view that he wanted this law 

changed. But he can’t do anything about it. The only way a law can 

change is if Congress acts or if the courts overturn it. 

The executive branch for all practical purposes in changing this 

law, is the odd man out. The action is either in the courts or in 

Congress. 

With respect to polling the Services, I didn’t spend a career in 

the military, but I’ve read a lot of history, and I can’t think of a 

single precedent in American history of doing a referendum of the 

American Armed Forces on a policy issue. Are you going to ask 

them if they want 15-month tours? Are you going to ask them if 

they want to be part of the surge in Iraq? 

That’s not the way our civilian-led military has ever worked in 

our entire history. The question needs to be decided by Congress 

or the courts as far as I’m concerned. 

Senator WICKER. Were you troubled at the answer we might 

have received if we had simply asked them, in addition to all the 

other questions they were being asked, do you think the law should 

be changed? If the servicemembers are so accepting of this, as the 

members of the panel have suggested today, what would have been 

the harm in giving that information to the body, which you acknowledge in your statement is the ultimate decisionmaking 

forum? 

Secretary GATES. In effect doing a referendum of the members of 

the Armed Forces on a policy matter is a very dangerous path. 

Senator WICKER. Do you think the answers to the questions 

would have been different had we asked them outright? 

Secretary GATES. I think that, as Mr. Johnson and General Ham 

have testified earlier, through the many questions in the survey 

you get a pretty clear view of the views of the force in terms of this 

change. What the review has highlighted is those areas of the force 

39 

that are clearly going to need the greatest attention and focus in 

terms of training, leadership effectiveness, and so on. 

I would say part of my considerations, going back to Senator 

Chambliss’s question, in terms of my certification would be what 

we learn during the preparation period with respect to recruitment 

and retention and what additional steps we need to take to mitigate whatever consequences that are there. 

Senator WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I don’t have a clock in front of 

me. Do I have time for an additional follow-up question? 

Chairman LEVIN. I haven’t been given a note, so take advantage 

of it. 

Senator WICKER. Let me ask you this, then. To Secretary Gates 

and to Mr. Johnson: I’ll ask Mr. Johnson to answer first. Will you 

acknowledge that there is considerable difference of opinion out 

there as to what the lower courts have actually said about DADT 

in regard to Supreme Court precedents? Mr. Johnson, will you commit to Congress that until such time as the law is indeed changed 

that you intend to do your job, in this respect, which is to fully and 

zealously defend the government’s position in this litigation? 

Mr. JOHNSON. It is my job to enforce and defend the law as Congress gives it to us. Which is why I and DOD recommended that 

we appeal the Log Cabin Republicans case and the Witt case, 

where we got adverse rulings on the constitutionality of this law. 

It is our obligation to continue to defend the law as it is given to 

us by Congress. 

There is a difference of opinion within the courts on the constitutionality of DADT, but part of what I was saying in my opening 

statement is there is definitely more litigation activity. We used to 

win all these cases and there is, I suspect, a trend that is taking 

place after the Lawrence decision in 2003 that we all need to be 

mindful of. 

Senator WICKER. Mr. Secretary, do you acknowledge that the role 

of the legal department within DOD is still to fully and zealously 

defend the DADT statute until, and if it is repealed? 

Secretary GATES. Absolutely. 

Senator WICKER. Thank you, sir. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you, Senator Wicker. 

Senator McCaskill. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I have an awful lot of confidence in our military, and the longer 

I have served on this committee, the more confidence I have. The 

men and women that serve our military in every capacity, are the 

best in the world because of professionalism, because of honor, integrity, and the utmost respect for the chain of command. 

I have been disappointed at some of the rhetoric surrounding this 

issue because I think it impugns some of the military leadership 

in this country, especially some of the civilian leadership. I would 

like to remind this country that, Secretary Gates, you were selected 

by President Bush to lead DOD. I’ll be honest with you; at the 

point in time you were selected, I wasn’t a Member of the Senate 

and I probably had some of those partisan tendencies that tend to 

invade all of our thought processes around here. I assumed that 

you were going to not call them balls and strikes. 

40 

I watched you under President Bush and I think you called balls 

and strikes. Now you serve President Obama. You represent the 

highest tradition of civilian leadership of our military that we may 

have ever had in this country. I want to congratulate you for that, 

because I think you’ve set a great example for all that will follow 

you, that you can serve two parties, two Presidents, and always 

stay focused on what your function is. To defend this country and 

to promote the professionalism, integrity, and honor of America’s 

military. I want to congratulate you for that. 

This issue has particularly been a challenging one, because obviously there is not unanimity of opinion about this very controversial subject. 

I want to remind everyone also about the timeline of the integration of our Services. My recollection is that President Truman did 

something that was beyond controversial when he integrated the 

Armed Forces in 1948. It was more than a decade later that Congress began to seriously look at the Civil Rights Act. 

I would ask anybody on the panel that can comment on this, 

what the acceptance is of changing this policy compared to the acceptance that was within the military at the time when President 

Truman integrated the troops? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Senator, let me try to answer that. I spent a considerable amount of time in the work on this report looking at that 

period of racial integration. I was surprised to find out that actually there were surveys done of the military back then. The sample 

sizes were much, much smaller, like 3,000 or 4,000 servicemembers 

then. But the opposition to racial integration ran very high. It was 

70 or 80 percent, and that’s reflected in the report. 

In addition, we were dealing with much larger numbers. The 

military then was about 8 million. By 1945, black soldiers were 

about 700,000. This was at a period of time before integration had 

been accepted in civilian society. 

Senator MCCASKILL. I think at the time that the Armed Forces 

was integrated, a black person couldn’t stay in the same hotel in 

the south with a white person; isn’t that correct? 

Mr. JOHNSON. As we say in the report, by 1953, 95 percent of 

Army units were integrated, but buses in Montgomery were not. 

My assessment is that the opposition to racial integration then 

was much more intense than the opposition to gays serving openly 

today in the military. 

Senator MCCASKILL. I understand that one of the common concerns of some of the servicemembers that were surveyed in this report on the repeal of DADT was a fear that some people would be 

getting special treatment in the implementation. Secretary Gates, 

if this policy is repealed, would it lead to a special set of benefits 

or entitlements for any gay or lesbian servicemembers of the military? 

Secretary GATES. One of the important contributions of the report and in its recommendations is that there not be any special 

class or special protected class, that everybody be treated the same. 

Everybody would be subject to the same discipline and the same 

standards. Admiral Mullen addressed this earlier. 

Senator MCCASKILL. What about on the recruitment process? Is 

there going to be any questions asked about sexual orientation? 

41 

Secretary GATES. No, there would be no need for that. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Would there be any special diversity programs or tracking in terms of trying to have some kind of quota 

or any attempt to distinguish from one member to the other based 

on sexual orientation? 

Secretary GATES. No. People would be evaluated and promoted 

on the same basis that people are evaluated and promoted today, 

and that is their competence, fitness for duty, and talents as a military officer. 

But let me ask Admiral Mullen to say a word about that. 

Admiral MULLEN. I would only echo that. There’s absolutely no 

consideration for any changes along the lines that you would suggest. 

The other comment I would make—and there have been a couple 

questions about integration of African Americans and women in the 

military. Yes, we have had our challenges, there’s no question 

about that. But categorically, for the last 40 years, from my experience, we are in a much better place as a military because of those 

steps taken when they were taken. 

Senator MCCASKILL. My time is up. Thank you all for your service. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you, Senator McCaskill. 

Senator Sessions. 

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

This is a difficult discussion. It was predicted that it would have 

some disruptive effect on the military. I believe it probably has. It 

probably has not been good for morale and the problems that have 

arisen from it. I’m inclined to the personal view that DADT has 

been pretty effective and I’m dubious about the change, although 

I fully recognize that good people could disagree on that subject. 

I would say that I think the courts are quite clear that on matters like sex or race, you can’t have discrimination on those bases. 

But this deals more with actions of an individual rather than who 

they are as a person. 

With regard to your statement, Mr. Gates, you say that the concerns arising from the legislation do not present an insurmountable 

barrier to repeal, and that you believe it could be done without posing a serious risk to military readiness. 

We have an uneasy situation. We are here because, as Senator 

Wicker suggested, the President made a commitment in a campaign and he’s delivering on that. I’m sure he believes it, but he 

made a political campaign commitment. There has been a lack of 

understanding when he made that commitment, I believe, of the serious ramifications and problems that might arise from it. 

I do believe that each of you serve at the pleasure of the President pretty much. You’ve been appointed by him or serve at his 

pleasure. We have a right to ask questions about this matter and 

raise questions when we have them, as the report itself stated, half 

the people in the United States military, if asked, would say they 

don’t want to change this policy. 

Mr. Johnson, several references have been made, including by 

General Ham and Secretary Gates, that the courts are on the way 

to overturning this law. I have done some research on that, not as 

a result of this hearing, but as a result of the Kagan hearing. She 

42 

was Solicitor General of the United States, who ardently opposed 

this policy, blocking the military from even going on the Harvard 

campus. 

Isn’t it a fact that just over a year ago the First Circuit Court 

of Appeals, sitting in Boston, rendered an opinion of 14 defendants, 

challenging the DADT law constitutionality, and the American 

Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), who represented the plaintiffs in 

that case, did not want to appeal a case they lost, did not want to 

appeal it to the Supreme Court? 

Now, I conclude from that that the Supreme Court, they believed, was likely to uphold the statute. One of the members in 

that case asked to have the case appealed and Ms. Kagan, after 

consulting with DOD before you got there, she said: ‘‘No, the California case, the Witt case, would be a better one; don’t take it to 

the Supreme Court.’’ They agreed to wait until the California case 

came along. 

You wrote a letter in the Witt case in California that acquiesced 

in the Court of Appeals remand of the Witt case to the lower court 

to take hearings on how that individual Witt decision would impact 

the military personnel affected by it in a process that would clearly 

be unacceptable, would eliminate the ability to enforce the statute 

nationwide. 

But you went along with that. You said: ‘‘A remand will allow 

DOD to develop a factual record in the case which will, we believe, 

demonstrate that the discharge was appropriate.’’ But it was not 

the right legal opinion, in my view. 

I asked Solicitor General Kagan, I gave her 20 minutes, that 

question and we don’t have 20 minutes today to go for it. 

I guess what I’m saying to you is, I believe that the record is 

crystal-clear that the Department of Justice (DOJ) and you acquiescing as counsel for DOD did not take the Witt case up to the Supreme Court and did not take the First Circuit case to the Supreme 

Court because you wanted to have a cloud over the legality of this 

matter and did not want a clear decision from the Supreme Court. 

Therefore, you would have an additional argument to Congress to 

overturn the statute because there’s a legal cloud over it. That’s my 

best judgment. 

Mr. Johnson, you’re now the Co-Chairman of the commission. 

Your vision about this issue is pretty clear, I think, that you were 

clearly for repeal of the law when you took this position; were you 

not? 

Mr. JOHNSON. I have two responses, Senator, if I may. First, on 

the Witt case, we spent a lot of time thinking about whether or not 

to recommend that the DOJ petition for cert in that case. Ultimately we reached the judgment, along with the DOJ, not to petition for cert for two reasons: One, we did not think it was a good 

idea to push this issue to the Supreme Court then, at that point 

in time, on that factual record, because the factual record as it existed then was basically her own allegations. It was on her own 

pleading. 

Second, we recognized then that we would have the opportunity 

to revisit the issue on appeal after the trial. So I recommended appeal. Now that we’ve had the trial and DOJ has gone along with 

that, we’ve appealed that decision. 

43 

Senator SESSIONS. In the Witt case? 

Mr. JOHNSON. In the Witt case, yes, sir. 

Senator SESSIONS. But it was delayed. That case or the First Circuit case could have possibly been decided by now had you taken 

what I would consider to be the appropriate position, which would 

be to have appealed them and supported the appeal in those cases. 

Mr. JOHNSON. The First Circuit case, it was for the plaintiff in 

the case to decide whether or not to appeal to the Supreme Court, 

and they declined to do that. 

Senator SESSIONS. As the ACLU favored, why did they not 

choose to appeal the case they lost? 

Mr. JOHNSON. I would note about the First Circuit case the court 

decided to hold us to an intermediate level of constitutional scrutiny, which was, just as in the Witt case, the first time the courts 

had ever done that. So in both the First Circuit and the Ninth Circuit, the appellate courts have held that we should now be held to 

an intermediate level, versus the lower, rational basis level of scrutiny that we typically got in these matters of the military. 

The other thing I’d like to add, Senator, I work for the Secretary 

of Defense. He is my client. I have a professional obligation to my 

client. It was very clear to me from the outset that if we felt that 

doing this would be bad, I could report that and should report that 

to the Secretary of Defense and he would fully support that point 

of view to the President. 

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you for sharing those thoughts. I would 

just say that clearly to me the Witt case should have been appealed 

interlocutorily, and I believe you could have gotten an opinion from 

the Supreme Court that would have affirmed this statute. There’s 

no history legally that would suggest otherwise. 

But it has been allowed to be under a cloud and have some of 

our top military leaders today say one of the reasons for changing 

this policy is the likelihood of a Supreme Court or a legal decision 

that would undermine the statute. I believe had it been vigorously 

defended we would not have that cloud today. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you, Senator Sessions. 

Senator Udall. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Let me just begin by thanking all four of you for the thorough 

and the thoughtful way in which you’ve conducted this review and 

the way in which you’ve explained the conclusions that have been 

drawn. Particularly, General Ham and Mr. Johnson, you took on 

an important task. General Ham, your comments were very heartfelt and will be remembered as we move forward. 

The study I believe confirms what many of us have heard for 

years, and that’s that DADT can be overturned without disrupting 

our Nation’s military readiness, particularly in the medium and the 

long-term. I think even those who have concerns about repeal—we 

heard about those today, have agreed that DADT forces our gay 

servicemembers to live a lie. They have to lie to their fellow 

servicemembers about their lives, activities, families, and what 

they care about. 

I think we’ve learned increasingly, that those lies can destroy 

morale and good military order. I listened to Admiral Mullen and 

others who’ve served. Those lies don’t just affect gay serviceVerDate Aug 31 2005 08:59 May 02, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 Y:\BORAWSKI\DOCS\65073.TXT JUNE PsN: JUNEB
44 

members; they affect straight servicemembers as well, who have 

knowledge about their fellow servicemembers that they are also 

called upon to hold close. 

It’s very clear to me that we’re on the right track. This is the 

21st century. A vast majority of Americans believe that we ought 

to repeal what’s an increasingly harmful law. We have now learned 

that our servicemembers, in large part, support moving forward. 

I’m not a statistician. I don’t think many Senators are statisticians. It’s easy to cut at some of the percentages in the reports. 

Again, General Ham and Mr. Johnson, you have shared with us 

the breadth and width of this study. You’ve compared it to previous 

surveys that, for example, surrounded the integration of the armed 

services some 50-plus years ago, and these numbers when you’re 

objective and you honestly consider the facts, are very powerful. 

So again, my congratulations to all of you. I did want to end my 

comments, before I move to a question or two, on this note. I think 

we should listen to Secretary Gates. He said this week and he’s 

said it here on numerous occasions in this hearing that a repeal 

by a Federal judge would be much more disruptive and damaging 

to morale than a conscious, thorough, and stepped approach to repealing this legislation that Congress has put in place. 

The best way to move forward is for the Senate of the United 

States to make it clear that this is the will of the Senate, therefore 

the will of the American people. 

I would just end by saying—and, Senator Gates and Admiral 

Mullen alluded to this earlier today, that this is not a done deal 

once we act. The process has to be certified. Secretary Gates, you 

would have to sign off, as well as Admiral Mullen and the President of the United States. You’ve made it clear that this would be 

done in a way that takes into account all that we’ve learned in the 

survey. 

My congratulations and my gratitude to you all for the very professional way in which you’ve taken on a very difficult, emotional, 

and sensitive subject. 

The question I’d like to direct to you in specific, I’ll direct this 

to Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen. Some have said that 

DADT is not a failed policy and that if there’s any failure it’s on 

the part of gay servicemembers to not keep their sexual orientation 

a secret. We had Major Mike Almy testify earlier this year. You 

may be familiar with his case. He testified to the committee that 

he never told anyone his sexual orientation, and that his personal 

emails were searched without his knowledge and then they were 

used against him. In my opinion, the policy clearly failed Major 

Almy. 

Would you agree that the Air Force would have retained him if 

not for these events, where in effect he was outed against his own 

will? Would you agree that the Air Force suffered a loss with his 

discharge? 

Admiral MULLEN. Senator, actually I’m not familiar with the details of the case. But just in general, as you describe it, it’s very 

important that we retain anybody who has talent and in fact is 

contributing, despite their sexual orientation. To the degree that 

that case represents the action that is associated with the current 

45 

law as you described it, certainly I consider that to be both action, 

energy, leadership, and direction focused on the wrong thing. 

I know that there have been adjustments to the policy, execution 

of policy, Secretary Gates has made over the course of the last 

year, to get at specifically the kinds of things that you just described, so that the current law would be executed in a more balanced and fair way, and that’s what it sounds like you’re speaking 

to. That kind of action wouldn’t be taken now, based on the 

changes that have been made even under current law. It wouldn’t 

stand up for discharge. 

Senator UDALL. If I might, Admiral Mullen, I’d direct an additional question to you. I know that, despite your long years of experience, it’s been suggested on a number of occasions and even here 

this morning that somehow the views of the Service Chiefs on the 

repeal of DADT are somehow more informed and valuable than 

your own. Would you speak to that point of view one more time 

here, as my time expires? 

Admiral MULLEN. I agree with the Secretary of Defense that the 

consideration of the Service Chiefs in all this is absolutely critical, 

and done so in independent fashion. I was asked this question earlier. I’ve spent a lot of time with the Service Chiefs on this and 

have incorporated their inputs into my advice to both the Secretary 

and the President. 

They can certainly speak for themselves tomorrow. I will say 

that all of us, all six of us, the Vice Chairman and the four Service 

Chiefs, and the chief of the Coast Guard, agree that the implementation plan that’s laid out in the report is a very solid way ahead 

specifically. They will also say that if the law changes they will 

lead the way in implementing it. 

Having grown up in the military, where unanimity amongst us 

is something that we seek in order to execute a policy, we do what 

we’re told to do. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you, Admiral Mullen. If I might make a 

personal comment, I would note for the record your testimony earlier this year and your testimony this morning and the very 

thoughtfully crafted and well-delivered and passionately delivered 

remarks will long be remembered. Thank you for your leadership. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you very much, Senator Udall. 

Senator Hagan. 

Senator HAGAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I just want to tell all of you here today, thank you for your time 

and your testimony, in particular, Mr. Johnson and General Ham, 

the work that you’ve done in compiling and presenting this report. 

The Commander in Chief has stated explicitly that he would like 

DADT repealed. Secretary Gates, you and Admiral Mullen have 

both gone on record in support of repeal. Constitutionally, it is the 

role and responsibility of Congress to make this change to the law, 

and I support moving forward with repeal because I personally believe that it is the right thing to do and that the discharge of highly-qualified servicemembers is unnecessary. 

I wanted to go over a question having to do with professionalism 

in our Armed Forces. The oath of enlistment and the oath of office 

that our men and women take as they enter the Armed Forces is 

46 

not to a specific political ideology or party. Rather, that oath is 

taken to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. 

My question is, are there any findings from the surveys to suggest that there would be a departure from that commitment once 

the statute concerning DADT has been repealed? General? 

General HAM. Senator, no. In fact, we heard loud and clear from 

the force, from the most junior servicemembers to the most senior, 

that if the law changes they will make that happen. 

Senator HAGAN. Since the implementation of DADT back in 

1993, over 13,000 servicemembers have separated due to their sexual orientation. Will the servicemembers that have been discharged 

under that provision of DADT be allowed to return to their respective Services without prejudice to their separation code? 

I understand that, although most servicemembers have been discharged, they’ve received an honorable discharge, but they also 

have what I understand is a reenlist code of RE–4, which makes 

it extremely unlikely that they would be accepted back into the 

Service by a recruiter. I understand that this separation code of 

RE–4 means they are not suitable or desired for continued service, 

even if the separation is under honorable circumstances. 

The Working Group recommended that servicemembers discharged under DADT be allowed to reapply for reaccession. But I’m 

just curious about what that reenlistment code actually would 

mean in this case. 

Mr. JOHNSON. What we’re recommending, Senator, is that 

servicemembers who were separated pursuant to the policy be permitted to seek reenlistment like anybody else and if there is an indication that they were separated for reasons of homosexual conduct, that that be set aside and they be considered for reenlistment 

in all other respects if they meet the right age, weight, physical requirements, and so forth. 

Senator HAGAN. Do you think anybody will, if this policy got 

changed? 

Mr. JOHNSON. We spoke to a number of former servicemembers 

who were gay and lesbian who said they would welcome the opportunity to seek reenlistment. 

Senator HAGAN. As I’ve said, I think that this policy is discriminatory in nature and unnecessarily creates an institutional barrier 

that impedes our servicemembers from rising to the highest level 

of responsibility. Senator McCaskill mentioned some of this, too, 

but what steps will be taken in the implementation of repeal to ensure that gay and lesbian servicemembers are treated under the 

same general principles of military equal opportunity policy, while 

at the same time not elevating those servicemembers into a special 

status as a protected class that would receive special treatment? 

Admiral MULLEN. There’s no plan at all to create any kind of 

special class. Our standards of conduct in how the military led 

would be enforced exactly as they are today. So I would not expect 

anything along those lines to change at all. 

Senator HAGAN. Mr. Chairman, I just again want to say I thank 

you for the hard work that all of you have put into this, and I appreciate your being forthright in your testimony. 

Thank you. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you, Senator Hagan. 

47 

Senator Graham. 

Senator GRAHAM. Thank you. 

Thank you, gentlemen. Thank you all for what you’re trying to 

do for the country. You present to us opinions from the military 

and there are some strong opinions in this study. The numbers are 

pretty astounding to me in terms of the people who say they would 

feel comfortable with a policy change, but when you look at combat 

units the numbers are pretty strong that the policy change may be 

disruptive. So we’ll have to balance what to do here. 

Jeh, if you could in a one or two-pager, send to the committee 

how the system actually works in the Army, Navy, Air Force, and 

Marine Corps about what kind of evidence is used to discharge 

someone, what type of events that would lead to discharge. I think 

there have been some substantial regulatory changes, I’ve looked 

at the Air Force regulations and I am pretty impressed with them, 

to make sure that we’re making rational decisions. 

It would be helpful to the committee to know exactly what kind 

of events would lead to discharge, because the regulatory changes 

you guys have made have cleaned up some of the abuses in the 

past. That would be helpful if you could send that information to 

me. 

Mr. JOHNSON. I would be happy to do that, Senator. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

Please see the provided correspondence on this issue from the Honorable Mr. 

Johnson to Senator Graham, dated 9 December 2010. 

48 


d02ful1.eps
49 


d02ful2.eps
50 


d02ful3.eps
51 

Mr. JOHNSON. I note, as we noted in the report, that approximately 85 percent of separations under this law are what we call 

statements cases, where the member himself makes a statement 

one way or another, I’m gay. If the law is repealed, obviously if 

somebody says ‘‘I’m gay’’ then it’s irrelevant. 


d02ful4.eps
52 

Senator GRAHAM. Right. What I’m trying to point out to the committee, that generally speaking it’s not a situation where people 

are hounded day-in and day-out, that we are trying to prevent that, 

quite frankly. The regulatory changes you guys have made has limited discharges to situations where you just described. 

We can debate among ourselves as to whether you want to take 

that final step, but the regulatory changes have been substantial 

in terms of the type evidence you would use for involuntary discharge. From 1973 to 2010 is a sea change. 

Admiral Mullen, what has led to your change in thinking, if you 

could share with the committee just a bit, about supporting the policy change? 

Admiral MULLEN. Fundamentally for me, Senator Graham, the 

issue is this mismatch of an institution that I’ve been raised in my 

whole life, that values integrity in many ways across everything we 

do, and then we have thousands of men and women who are willing to die for their country, that we ask them to lie about who they 

are every single day. 

I just, fundamentally, think that is wrong. 

Senator GRAHAM. I understand. 

Admiral MULLEN. I worry, Senator Graham, that it is corrosive 

over time. A light switch isn’t going to go on and it’s going to be 

a disaster. But it is corrosive over time, particularly during a time 

of war when we are focused so heavily on our combat missions. It 

undermines in ways our ability to do what we need to do, because 

of the people side of this, because of the leadership focus it takes, 

et cetera. 

That’s fundamentally what’s led me to my beliefs and conclusions 

with respect to where we are. 

Senator GRAHAM. I’m going to ask a question that is tough for 

a Navy guy to answer: Why do the Marines think the way they do? 

I say that jokingly and I’m not joking. I respect you very much. The 

Commandant of the Marine Corps is in a different place. We’ll have 

him come up and answer for himself here later on. 

But there is a difference of opinion on this issue between yourself 

and the Commandant of the Marine Corps and some other Service 

Chiefs. I think that fact needs to be known and understood. I’ll give 

you 30 seconds to take a shot at it. 

Admiral MULLEN. The Navy and the Marine Corps grew up together in many ways, so it’s not like I haven’t been around marines. 

Senator GRAHAM. I know you have. So have I. I’m glad their on 

our side. 

Admiral MULLEN. I think the way it’s been described both in the 

report—and it’s not just the Marines. It’s in the Army as well, the 

combat arms piece, they’re unique. Typically they haven’t fought 

with or integrated with women. They’re 18 to 24, trying to figure 

out their own selves at that particular age. It’s that combination 

of things and the focus right now, obviously, with an awful lot of 

Marines in Afghanistan. 

For me, it is that focus. I’m not sure it’s that much different per 

se than it is that exposure or that lack of exposure because of who 

the Marine Corps is. 

Senator GRAHAM. Fair enough. 

53 

Now, you worry about court challenges, Mr. Johnson and Secretary Gates. I don’t know how the courts are going to come out 

on this. I’d be surprised, quite frankly, if they strike the statute 

down. But you never know with courts. 

Could you supply to the committee, in the event that the courts 

did strike this policy down, some of the things that you would like 

to see Congress do in that event to make this more orderly? Because you’re worried about getting a court order on Monday and 

Tuesday you don’t know what the heck to do. So if that day ever 

comes, I would suggest that maybe you send us some information 

as a game plan where Congress could weigh in and maybe the 

courts would be sympathetic to a way for Congress to get involved 

to handle that transition if it ever did happen. 

I would just make that invitation to you to think ahead. Like I 

said, I don’t think we’re going to lose, but who knows. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

Please see previous correspondence from Mr. Johnson to Senator Graham. 

Senator GRAHAM. The last thing, and I think this is the most important thing for me. I’ve been in the military for a very long time. 

You have served longer and more sacrificially than I have, so I certainly defer to your leadership. I just haven’t heard a lot of people 

saying in the ranks themselves: I wish this policy would change. 

I understand that civilian leadership in our country makes policy 

and that’s the way it should be. 

If you asked the question and this was the only question you 

asked, ‘‘are you comfortable with the DADT policy and should it be 

changed,’’ what kind of response do you think you would get, if that 

were the only question you asked? 

Admiral MULLEN. It’s hard to know. I think you’d get answers 

on both sides. One of the reasons this work is so important is because 6 months ago or 8 months ago we were just talking about 

anecdotal evidence. We just didn’t have anything that was comprehensively done, and we do now. I think we’re much better informed. 

Senator GRAHAM. But you would agree with me, the question 

wasn’t asked that way? 

Admiral MULLEN. No, sir. But I haven’t asked soldiers if they’d 

like to deploy for 15 months at a crack. 

Senator GRAHAM. Don’t get me wrong. We’re not asking for you 

to turn the war into a referendum, would you like to go to Afghanistan and fight. That’s never going to be asked of the Services. You 

do what you’re told. 

But this is a change, a pretty significant change. The one thing, 

to my Democratic colleagues, passing the statute repealing during 

the study I think was a bad mistake. We should be listening, not 

dictating on this. I’m not asking the country to allow the military 

to make its own rules and take away public policy decisions from 

elected leaders. But I am asking us to listen a little bit better and 

ask better questions. 

I’ll leave it with that. Thank you. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you very much. 

Now, we promised the Secretary and I stated that he’d be out of 

here by noon. That was an extension of a half hour. We are going 

54 

to have a second round for the remaining members of the panel. 

Senator Bayh is here now. He is willing to just put any questions 

that he has for you, Mr. Secretary, first in his round, so that you 

can leave, and then he’ll ask questions of the other members of the 

panel. 

Thank you. 

Senator BAYH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I just have 1 or 2 minutes of preamble 

and then I’ll just ask one or two questions of you. I appreciate your 

courtesy in staying for just a couple moments. 

I’d like to begin by thanking all of you for your service to our 

country. One of the personal joys for me over the last 8 years has 

been serving on this committee, the last 2 as chairman on the 

Readiness and Management Support Subcommittee, and working 

with you to try and ensure our Nation’s security at a pretty difficult time. I want to thank you for that. 

I also want to say to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, 

while I may have a difference of opinion with some of them on this 

issue, I know their concerns are heartfelt and are premised upon 

trying to do what’s right for our country. I certainly respect that, 

even though I may end up at a different place at the end of the 

day. 

I come from a State that honors our military. The American Legion is headquartered in Indianapolis, Indiana. My capital city, Indianapolis, was designed by Pierre L’Enfant and there’s a northsouth axis of streets radiating off of a circle at the middle of our 

city. There is a huge war memorial on that circle. There is an 

American Legion Mall north of the circle, where we have memorials honoring our war dead from every conflict we fought as a Nation. 

Honoring our military, caring about our national security interest, is part of Hoosiers’ DNA. It’s part of my DNA. We tend to come 

from a place where national security has to come first. If you have 

competing values, well, you take care of your national security first 

and if some other considerations, cultural or otherwise, have to 

wait, well, that’s just the way it is. 

But as I understand your testimony, Mr. Secretary, and your colleagues’ testimony, we can make this change without impairing our 

Nation’s security. Is that a correct reading of this study and of your 

professional opinion? 

Secretary GATES. The way I would answer that question, Senator, is to say that I would not sign the certification if I did not 

think we were safeguarding national security. 

Senator BAYH. In fact, as I understand your testimony, other nations have made this change and some of the concerns that my colleagues sincerely hold did not come to fruition in terms of retention, morale, or effectiveness in combat and that kind of thing. Is 

that also a correct reading of your testimony? 

Secretary GATES. I think so. 

Senator BAYH. In fact, when we integrated the Armed Forces in 

the 1950s, some of these concerns had been raised, but were not 

realized following the integration of the Armed Forces along racial 

lines; isn’t that correct, gentlemen? 

55 

Secretary GATES. As I indicated earlier, the organizational integration took place between 1948 and 1953. We did have problems, 

racial problems inside the Armed Forces, for a number of years 

after that. Ultimately, through discipline, training, and professionalism, they’ve largely been eliminated. 

Senator BAYH. Our national security has not been harmed by the 

integration of the Armed Forces. I’m sure you agree. I know you 

agree with that. 

Secretary GATES. It’s been enhanced. 

Senator BAYH. Correct. 

Admiral Mullen, in your exchange with my friend, Senator 

Graham, I couldn’t help but think that if we had done polling back 

in the day, 1948, 1949, you would have found a diversity of opinion 

about the racial integration of the Armed Forces. And if a minority 

of people had objected, following that line of logic we wouldn’t have 

integrated the Armed Forces. 

So here’s the point that I’m trying to make, and then, Mr. Secretary, I’ll let you go. I’ve always felt that our Nation is strongest 

and most secure when we pursue our Nation’s security consistent 

with our values, to the extent that we can. Admiral Mullen, I associate myself with your comments and I assume, and I apologize I 

wasn’t here for all the hearing, the thinking of your colleagues. 

There just seems to be something fundamentally wrong when we 

ask men and women to lay down their lives for our country and 

yet they cannot be honest about who they are. 

There’s something fundamentally wrong about that. If we can 

pursue our Nation’s security without putting them or us as a country institutionalizing hypocrisy, I think America is stronger, we are 

a more just and secure country. That’s where I come from on this 

issue. 

General and Mr. Secretary, that’s just what I wanted to say. If 

you need to go, thank you. Again, it’s been an honor working with 

you. 

General Ham, in your testimony to my colleague, Senator Webb, 

you indicated that, to the extent we know, about 2 to 3 percent of 

the people who serve in the Armed Forces are gays and lesbians; 

is that correct? 

General HAM. Yes, sir, it is. 

Senator BAYH. There’s no reason to believe that that figure has 

changed over time, is there? There’s no way of knowing, but I assume that’s constant over time. 

General HAM. I don’t know, sir. The best we could do was try to 

get an assessment of where are we today. 

Senator BAYH. Sure. But I guess the point I want to make, in all 

likelihood there were gay Americans serving at Valley Forge, there 

were gay Americans at Gettysburg, there were gay Americans on 

Normandy Beach, there are gay Americans serving in Iraq and Afghanistan today. In all likelihood that’s probably true, wouldn’t you 

say? 

General HAM. Yes, sir, I think it’s a very reasonable assumption. 

Senator BAYH. There are probably gay Americans buried at Arlington Cemetery and at Normandy Beach, where I took my young 

sons a couple of years ago. One of the most inspiring things you 

can possibly see are those rows of crosses, the American flag flying 

56 

in the breeze, people who laid down their lives for our country. 

There are probably gay Americans buried there, aren’t there? 

General HAM. I think that would be a reasonable assumption. 

Senator BAYH. How do we say to them or to their families that 

we’ve honored their sacrifice, laying down their life, and yet if we 

knew who they were not only would they not be buried there, they 

would have been drummed out of the Armed Forces? 

General HAM. Senator, my response to that would be based on 

the oath that we took, that all of us in uniform take, and that is 

that we support and defend the Constitution of the United States. 

That means we follow the law. So we have to do that. 

Senator BAYH. I guess my point once again is, if there are Americans who are willing to lay down their lives for our country and 

make that kind of sacrifice, and we can enable them to be that 

kind of patriot without harming our national security, not only is 

it better for them, it is better for us and for our country. We are 

stronger, more noble, and more just with a policy like that. 

Gentlemen, I want to thank you for your service. It’s been a 

pleasure serving with you and I think our country is in your capable hands. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you, Senator Bayh. 

Beginning a second round, I don’t have any additional questions. 

I just, though, want to comment as to why I’m here. The suggestion 

was made by one of our colleagues that we’re here because the 

President made a campaign promise, that’s not why I’m here. 

That’s not why I believe the majority of us are here. 

I’m here because we passed a law in 1993 which I believe is discriminatory. Times have changed since then and it seems to me we 

should respond to those changes, changes in the attitude of our 

people, the acceptance of gay and lesbian people in the workplace. 

I am here because we have men and women now serving, men 

and women who have died for this country, who are gay and lesbian, and we should not discriminate against them. We should 

honor that service, honor that patriotism, the way we do the service and patriotism of any American who is willing to put on the 

uniform of this country. 

Now, that’s why I’m here. It’s not because of some campaign 

promise of President Obama. It’s because my conscience tells me 

it’s time now to allow men and women to serve their country and 

to do so without having to conceal their sexual orientation. 

I don’t have any further questions. Senator McCain. 

Senator MCCAIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I of course regret 

that I could not ask additional questions of the Secretary of Defense. 

I would like to point out that in 1993, at the time of the enactment of DADT, General Colin Powell now supports repeal of 

DADT, but at the time he was asked about the issue and comparing it to the racial integration of the military. He said that sexual orientation is different from the pigmentation of one’s skin. I 

think that that was an important statement. 

Admiral, I’m really taken aback at your and the Secretary’s 

statement that we won’t have a referendum by the men and women 

in the military and that you based this survey, which had 28 perVerDate Aug 31 2005 08:59 May 02, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 Y:\BORAWSKI\DOCS\65073.TXT JUNE PsN: JUNEB
57 

cent return, on how best to implement repeal, rather than asking 

them their views. Everything I ever learned about leadership, everything I ever practiced about leadership, every great leader I’ve 

ever known always consulted with his subordinates for their views, 

no matter what the issue. 

Certainly an issue of this magnitude deserves that leaders take 

into consideration the views of their subordinates. It doesn’t mean 

that they are dictated by the views of their subordinates. But I 

never made a major decision in the military without going around 

and talking to the enlisted people, the ones that would be tasked 

to carry out whatever the mission was. 

I’m almost incredulous to see that on an issue of this magnitude 

we wouldn’t at least solicit the views of the military about whether 

it should be changed or not. Now, those views may be rejected. 

Those opinions for the sake of the security of the country may be 

discounted. But to somehow say we’re not going to have a referendum—it’s not a referendum. That’s not what leadership is. 

Leadership is soliciting the views of your subordinates and thereby 

you’re able to carry out your mission, because you have to rely on 

them to do so. 

So to say we didn’t need to ask their opinion on whether it 

should be repealed or not, violates in my view one of the fundamental principles of leadership. 

Now, the Secretary said that he had concerns about the benefits 

that would be allotted to or that people would be eligible for Admiral, I’ll be glad to hear your response to my comment. 

Admiral MULLEN. Sir, I’ve grown up on the deckplates my whole 

life, and certainly one of the things that I pay attention to, have 

paid attention to in every leadership position I’ve been in, are my 

people, what motivates them, how they think, what they think. 

Clearly, they are the reason any of us is able to accomplish any 

mission, small or big. That’s a fundamental principle with me. 

I think the report has spoken to, in great part, their views of 

whether this can be successfully done or not and from my perspective, very much by implication, where they are on this. 

Senator MCCAIN. Then why wouldn’t we just ask the question? 

Admiral MULLEN. Because I fundamentally think it’s an incredibly bad precedent to ask them to essentially vote on a policy. 

Senator MCCAIN. It’s not voting, sir. It’s asking their views. It’s 

asking their views and whether they would agree or disagree with 

the change, the same way you would ask whenever any policy or 

any course of action were contemplated. You would ask the views 

of others. You wouldn’t necessarily accept them. 

But for you to sit there and say, ‘‘well, we wouldn’t want to ask 

them their views,’’ it makes this whole exercise here, that took so 

much time, effort, and money, a bit of an unrealistic situation. 

Admiral MULLEN. Sir, I guess I disagree with you. 

Senator MCCAIN. You disagree with asking them whether—— 

Admiral MULLEN. No, sir. I just disagree with the approach, that 

we would go out and ask them for their views on this specifically, 

although I think we’ve gotten them. 

Senator MCCAIN. I understand your answer is we would not ask 

them their views on whether this policy should be changed or not 

as the first question. 

58 

Admiral MULLEN. We’ve gotten in great part their views as a result of this survey. 

Senator MCCAIN. Obviously we’ll go around and around. But why 

we didn’t just simply ask them how they felt about it, just as you 

would about any other course of action. Every great leader I’ve 

known has said, what are your views on this issue. 

Finally, I guess it would be important to include for the record 

this survey: ‘‘Those who served in combat with a servicemember believed to be homosexual, effect on unit’s combat performance. 

Army, combat arms, 58 percent mostly negative. Marines, combat 

arms, 57 percent mostly negative.’’ 

Next question: ‘‘Those deployed in a combat environment since 

September 11, effect on unit effectiveness at completing its mission 

in a field environment or at sea if DADT is repealed, and working 

with a gay servicemember in your unit. Army combat arms, 57 percent, Marine combat arms, 66.5 percent, very negatively or negatively.’’ 

‘‘Those deployed in a combat environment since September 11, effect on unit effectiveness at completing its mission in an intense 

combat situation if DADT is repealed, and working with a gay 

servicemember in their unit. Army combat arms, 40.9 percent; Marine combat arms, 47.8 percent, very negatively or negatively.’’ 

It probably should not be a surprise to hear the views of the 

Commandant of the Marine Corps in his testimony tomorrow and 

perhaps the other Service Chiefs. 

Mr. Chairman, can I continue or will we just go to another, a 

third round? 

Chairman LEVIN. We’ll have a third round. 

Senator MCCAIN. Okay. Thank you. 

Chairman LEVIN. Senator Lieberman. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

Thanks again to the witnesses. On the survey, I just want to get 

a few things on the record, Mr. Johnson and General Ham. As I 

understand it, you had an independent group send out a survey to 

over 400,000 members of the military; is that right? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, sir. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. So therefore the 28 percent was more than 

100,000 responded, that is, sent their surveys back in? 

Mr. JOHNSON. It was 115,000. To just put that in context, 2 days 

ago there was a poll from Pew nationwide, on civilian attitudes on 

gays in the military, and the sample size there was 1,200 people. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. For the whole country? 

Mr. JOHNSON. For the whole country. This was a sample size of 

115,000. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. Let me just say that we base a lot of our 

decisions, probably too many, on samples about political questions 

and our standing that are a lot smaller than the number that you 

had responding here. 

My understanding is, I don’t know if the folks who did the survey 

indicated this to you, that 28 percent is actually a pretty high percentage response to a survey questionnaire sent out. 

Mr. JOHNSON. It’s average. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. It’s average, okay. 

Mr. JOHNSON. But it was very large. 

59 

Senator LIEBERMAN. Did they give you any indication of margin 

of error in reflecting the views of the military generally? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Given the size of the respondent pool, the margin 

of error is less than 1 percent, which is far lower than what you’d 

normally get in any kind of survey or poll. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. Okay. Second, Admiral, I want to go now to 

this question that you’ve been asked about, and I did earlier, about 

the negative impact of DADT on military effectiveness apart from 

whether we think it’s right or wrong. 

One of the things that we lost or wasted when the military had 

to evict 14,000 people from the military because they were gay or 

lesbian is the money we invested in training them. I saw one estimate that said it was as high as $500 million. I don’t know whether you have a credible estimate of that, but do you agree that the 

implementation of this policy over the last 17 years has meant that 

we’ve lost the services of a lot of troops who we invested a lot of 

money to train to do what we need them to do? 

Admiral MULLEN. I think the number is about right, between 

13,000 and 14,000 servicemembers. I just don’t have a financial impact. But clearly we do invest in every Service an extraordinary 

amount of effort, time, money, resources into people that we train 

to carry out these missions. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. Right. I’ve seen some estimates, not of numbers, but that among the 14,000 there were a significant number 

of troops that we call mission critical, with mission critical skills: 

translators, intelligence analysts, and perhaps health care personnel. Is that right? 

Admiral MULLEN. Yes, sir, I agree. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. Mr. Johnson, let me just go back to President Truman for a couple of questions. I know you said you studied 

this period. When he ended racial segregation in the military, he 

did so, am I right, by executive action, by presidential decision? 

Mr. JOHNSON. That is correct. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. He was able to do so because there was no 

law, as there is in this case regarding DADT, that prohibited him 

from doing so? 

Mr. JOHNSON. That is correct. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. I’m picking up from what Chairman Levin 

had to say, while it’s true that President Obama made clear in his 

campaign that he would act to end the DADT policy in the military, the fact is he cannot do it himself. Congress has to take action to give the President essentially the same latitude for executive action that President Truman had during his time. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, I agree with that way of looking at it, yes. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. I wonder whether, in terms of the question 

of what impact, one of my colleagues asked you projecting from 

some of the numbers, of the potential hundreds of thousands of resignations. During Truman’s time, obviously, it was an Army that 

was there because, as you said earlier, they were conscripted, they 

were drafted. I suppose any impact would have been seen in reenlistment rates. 

Is there any evidence on the impact of the racial desegregation 

order by President Truman on reenlistments in the military? 

60 

Mr. JOHNSON. There may be evidence to that effect in the report. 

I don’t recall any offhand. I do know that as integration was occurring, and this is reflected in the report, there were studies that indicated that the combat effectiveness of integrated units in the Korean War was just as good as it was for segregated units. 

If I could add, I happen to agree with Senator McCain that matters of sexual orientation and race are fundamentally different, 

which is why in this report we didn’t push the racial integration 

chapter too hard. I do think that it was relevant, in that, in the 

1940s some of our most revered heroes from the World War II period—Admiral Nimitz, General Eisenhower, General Marshall— 

predicted negative consequences for unit cohesion if there was racial integration, and the limited surveys that were done indicated 

very strong opposition within the force to racial integration. 

But we did it. It took some time. It was not without incident. But 

we did it, and I think the Chairman said that our military is 

stronger as a result. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. Amen. 

Thank you. My time is up. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you, Senator Lieberman. 

Senator Brown. 

Senator BROWN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I just have a couple of follow-up questions and I’m looking forward to tomorrow’s testimony as well. 

I also agree with Senator McCain that we should have asked, ‘‘do 

you favor repeal of DADT,’’ as one of the questions. Because you 

asked virtually everything else. But it was almost like you were 

right there; you never went right for the jugular. 

As somebody who’s served and continues to serve in the military 

for 31 years, I started as an enlisted man when I was 19. I’m a 

lieutenant colonel now and a U.S. Army National Guard Judge Advocate General (JAG) Corps. I find sometimes in the military we 

beat around the bush too much. We don’t go and ask the real question. So I think we missed a good opportunity. 

It doesn’t mean you needed to follow it, but it certainly would be 

nice to see where everyone’s heads are at. I think you would have 

gotten more of a response potentially. 

That being said, since my years in the military and since being 

in this position, I’ve had the opportunity to visit Walter Reed. I 

still can’t get out of my mind the one time I saw a soldier who lost 

both his legs, an arm, and most of another arm, doing crunches to 

try to get his torso strengthened enough so that he could still have 

a viable and fulfilling life. 

I’ve seen many other injured men and women who have not only 

given their limbs, but also their lives. I’ve been to many funerals, 

unfortunately, in my home State for those soldiers. 

One thing I never asked was are they gay or straight. It never 

even crossed my mind, to be honest with you. I just wanted to 

know if they gave their limb or their life with pride and with honor 

for our country. 

So, that being said, this is very uncomfortable, this whole situation. But I know for a fact that there are good people on both sides 

of these issues. I see it each and every day, whether they’re 

straight or gay. 

61 

That being said, I want to zero in for our viewers, I guess, and 

for the people who are in the audience, a couple of things regarding 

the legal part of it. First of all, has there been any instance, and 

Mr. Johnson and General Ham, maybe you can point on this, 

where a soldier has said for the purposes only of getting out of the 

military, hey, I’m gay? 

Do you have any records or documentation of people trying to 

avoid their service as a result of that action? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes. There are very strong indications, particularly during a period of time when the economy happens to be 

strong, that servicemembers would make statements, ‘‘I’m gay.’’ 

When I was Air Force General Counsel, we had a litigation where 

a servicemember had, right after we had paid for his medical education, declared he was gay. We separated him and then we sued 

him to get the money back. I think that was in the 1999–2000 time 

period. 

Very often there are cases where the servicemember is in his 

tour of duty and completes training and education, he makes such 

a statement and the indication is a pretty strong one that they’re 

making the statement so they can get out of the military. Obviously, if the law is repealed they can’t do that. 

Senator BROWN. As someone who is a JAG, I know that once you 

sign that contract, there was a question about what if 250,000 

servicemembers, give or take, decided that they want to get out. 

They can’t get out. Let’s be real. They can’t get out because they 

have an obligation, a contractual obligation, where unless they do 

something that warrants them being discharged for conduct or otherwise, they have to fulfill their military contract, whether it’s 4 or 

6 years in an officer’s case, in my case, it’s unlimited. 

Is that an accurate statement? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, that is correct. 

Senator BROWN. Who do you actually work for, just so that people know? I know I’m somewhat new, but who do you work for? 

Who’s your boss? 

Mr. JOHNSON. I am a Senate-confirmed presidential appointee. I 

serve at the pleasure of the President, but I am the lawyer for the 

Secretary of Defense. I take this very seriously. My political loyalty 

obviously is to the President and the Obama administration, but 

my professional and fiduciary duty is to the Secretary of Defense, 

and to me that is a higher obligation. 

Senator BROWN. So if he, in fact, says ‘‘I want to do away with 

this policy,’’ are you zealously representing him in those actions to 

do that? Because I know there was a line of questioning from a 

couple of Senators saying, ‘‘well, I don’t feel you were zealous 

enough in actually defending the position of the present law right 

now.’’ Do you have any comment on that? 

Mr. JOHNSON. At the outset of this assignment the Secretary 

made it very clear to both of us that he was very concerned that 

before we moved forward we had to have this comprehensive assessment, to know what the views of the force were, to systematically engage the force. That’s in our terms of reference. 

So he wanted to be informed by our review before he came to the 

views that he’s expressed today. He expressed support for repeal in 

February with the huge caveat, I believe Admiral Mullen said the 

62 

same thing, that he wanted to know the views of the force and to 

have this report done. 

In terms of defense of litigation, we made in the Witt case, for 

example, the strategic judgment not to push the case to the Supreme Court back then on that record. I believe that was in the 

best interests of DOD. 

Senator BROWN. Mr. Chairman, since it’s just us three may I 

have the courtesy of one final question? 

Chairman LEVIN. Actually, we’re going to have a third round 

anyway. Sure, if it’s all right with Senator McCain that would be 

fine. 

Senator BROWN. Thank you. 

Just on the legal part of it. Senator McCain and others have 

touched on this. Being an attorney, I just want to make sure I understand. Is it your professional opinion that if, in fact, we don’t 

do something that there is an imminent fear or concern that the 

courts will in fact act, and as a result we will in turn not be able 

to implement repeal in the manner that the military and DOD 

wishes? 

That’s the first part of my question. Second, do you have a professional opinion as to what the timing is with regard to court repeal? Is it next week, is it next year? What’s your gut? 

Mr. JOHNSON. I’m not here to express an opinion on the constitutionality of the law. I have not gone through that exercise. That, 

frankly, is for the courts, the Solicitor General, and our Office of 

Legal Counsel at DOJ they should be asked. 

In terms of timing, I think we are in a very unpredictable environment. We got a taste of that in October, where all of a sudden 

we had a court order that required the Secretary of Defense to shut 

down this policy worldwide. We were faced with a situation, first 

through our JAG community and then through our personnel and 

readiness community, where we had to get the word out. Then immediately what came back were a barrage of questions that we 

dealt with in this report, about what do we do with recruitment 

centers, what do we do with people who declare that they are gay 

in this period of time while the appeal is pending, and so forth. 

That was a very uncertain situation which I’d like to never repeat. The Log Cabin Republicans case right now is on an expedited 

appeal track. 

Senator BROWN. What does that mean, expedited? 

Mr. JOHNSON. It means the briefing to the Ninth Circuit will be 

done, I believe, by March. They have not told us when they will 

have oral arguments in the case, but I highly suspect it will be 

some time in the first half of 2011. We could have a decision very 

shortly after that. 

Senator BROWN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you. 

Senator McCain. 

Senator MCCAIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Again, I’m sorry that the Secretary of Defense isn’t here. We’re 

in a lame duck session. I don’t know what our schedule will be. 

I, and most Americans, remain concerned, Admiral Mullen, about 

the Wikileaks issue. General Petraeus said: ‘‘This is beyond unfortunate; this is a betrayal of trust.’’ There are source names and in 

63 

some cases there are actual names of individuals with whom we 

have partnered with in difficult missions in difficult places, and obviously that is very reprehensible. 

In response to my question, the Secretary of Defense said that 

no one so far has been held responsible except for the private first 

class who is presently incarcerated. 

Can you give us additional information? Is that correct? 

Admiral MULLEN. Yes, sir, that is. It is reprehensible and I have 

been very clear that I think it did and continues to put lives at 

stake. The limits of the criminal investigation, there has been no 

one else held accountable. 

Senator MCCAIN. Can’t you carry out an investigation at the 

same time that the criminal investigation is going on? 

Admiral MULLEN. Yes, sir, in certain kinds of incidents that’s 

certainly possible. 

Senator MCCAIN. At least to hold someone responsible for this 

besides a private first class. 

Admiral MULLEN. I think, sir, what the Secretary said and what 

we have done is taken significant steps to limit the possibility in 

the future. We just have not gotten to that point yet and I don’t 

know how this turns out. We have not gotten to the point where 

that action has been taken. 

Senator MCCAIN. It’s been going on since July. 

Admiral MULLEN. Yes, sir. 

Senator MCCAIN. Admiral, would you encourage Congress to take 

any punitive action against the leadership and personnel of 

Wikileaks, including asset freezes, travel bans, banking and financial sanctions, or any other such measures? Would you encourage 

Congress to act in that fashion, or is that maybe out of your area? 

Admiral MULLEN. It’s out of my lane, but I feel pretty strongly 

that this is an individual that should be held accountable for his 

actions. 

Senator MCCAIN. The people who facilitated it? 

Admiral MULLEN. Yes, sir. 

Senator MCCAIN. So you would support some kind of congressional action or legislative action, in coordination with the administration, to try to see that not only does it not happen again, but 

those who committed this reprehensible act, as you and General 

Petraeus described it, are somehow held accountable? I understand 

that foreign nationalities and all those things are aspects of it that 

are hard to pursue. 

Admiral MULLEN. I believe we, as a country, should do all we 

possibly can to make sure something like this doesn’t happen 

again, because it does put lives at stake. How to do that, the legalities of it, is obviously a very complex issue. But in my world, when 

I have men and women in harm’s way and they are now exposed 

because of this, I think we as a country should do all we can to 

make sure that it can’t happen again. 

Senator MCCAIN. Mr. Johnson, have you got any thoughts from 

a legal standpoint? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, I do, Senator. I don’t view Wikileaks as journalism. My personal opinion is the activity of Wikileaks is not 

media. At least several months ago when this first broke, if you 

look on their web page, it is an open solicitation for classified eviVerDate Aug 31 2005 08:59 May 02, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 Y:\BORAWSKI\DOCS\65073.TXT JUNE PsN: JUNEB
64 

dence. It’s an open solicitation to break the law, and a materially 

false and misleading representation that there will be no legal consequences to that. 

Wikileaks is on a different level from conventional journalism. As 

you’ve seen in the newspaper, an open criminal investigation, 

which I am briefed on a regular basis by DOJ. I have some private 

views which I’d be happy to share with you in private about what 

I think is going on here. But it is very troubling and I worry that 

this organization is out trying to solicit others right now for additional information. 

Senator MCCAIN. I thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, I think it’s worthy of our attention, along with 

Judiciary and Intelligence and even maybe Homeland Security. But 

this is of the utmost seriousness, and apparently it’s not stopping. 

I thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LEVIN. My understanding is we do have a briefing, I 

believe this afternoon at 4:30 on Wikileaks. I happen to share Senator McCain’s feeling that it’s not only reprehensible, but the people aiding, abetting, or otherwise involved, should be held accountable. Anyone who has been involved should be held accountable to 

the extent of the laws. If the laws aren’t strong enough, we ought 

to strengthen them. 

Admiral, I share your’s and Mr. Johnson’s statements relative to 

these leaks. This is not journalism. This is a threat to our security 

and we should act to make sure it doesn’t happen again and to hold 

those who have broken the law, accountable for that. To the extent 

that it’s consistent with the criminal investigation, I happen to 

agree with Senator McCain that the noncriminal investigation can 

take place at the same time, it should take place at the same time. 

We thank all of our witnesses, and we will stand adjourned. 

[Questions for the record with answers supplied follow:] 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN

INSTRUCTIONS GIVEN TO MILITARY PERSONNEL ABOUT REPEAL OF DON’T ASK, DON’T

TELL POLICY

1. Senator MCCAIN. Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen, the committee is interested in the personal and professional views held by military personnel and military 

leaders. However, over the course of the comprehensive review, individuals who expressed opposition to repeal have been met with warnings not to speak out publicly. 

Please describe, and provide copies to the committee, of the instructions given to 

flag and general officers and to members of the Armed Forces about their authority 

to express their views publicly or in their personal capacities. 

Secretary GATES. I agree with you about the importance of obtaining the views 

of military personnel and leaders on this difficult and complicated issue. That is 

why I directed that systematic engagement of the force be a centerpiece of the Department of Defense’s (DOD) comprehensive review. 

I am not aware of any warnings or instructions given to flag and general officers 

and to members of the Armed Forces about their authority to express their views 

publicly or in their personal capacities. I am confident that servicemembers who 

wanted to express their views on this issue had ample opportunities to do so, both 

through the mechanisms provided by the Working Group and through other means. 

In March, I commented publicly about a letter published by a senior officer that 

I did not think was appropriate. I also did not think it appropriate for military leaders to comment publicly on the content of the Working Group’s report prior to its 

completion and release. The report is now completed and released, and I am confident that military leaders requested to do so by the committee will provide their 

full and candid views. 

Admiral MULLEN. Obtaining the views of our military personnel and the views of 

their families was extremely important to me in forming my best military advice. 

65 

For this reason, I supported the engagement of the force by the Working Group and 

I encouraged all members and their families to express their frank and candid opinions. The views of our force and their families, positive and negative, are captured 

in the report’s and its supporting documentation. 

I am not aware of any warnings to military members against expressing their 

views on the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT). I did not provide written or 

verbal guidance in this area. The Services individually may have provided periodic 

written or verbal information about the Working Group as the review progressed. 

I did comment publicly in May 2010 about a letter published by a senior officer 

that I believed inappropriate. I also expressed my unease with public comment on 

the draft Working Group report prior to its delivery to the Secretary of Defense. 

Once the report was released, the Service Chiefs and I have spoken publicly and 

candidly to its findings. 

CONTINUATION OF SECRETARY-LEVEL APPROVAL FOR ADMINISTRATIVE SEPARATIONS

UNDER 10 U.S.C. SECTION 654

2. Senator MCCAIN. Secretary Gates, as a consequence of ongoing Federal litigation, DOD issued guidance several weeks ago precluding any administrative separations under the DADT policy except as approved by a service secretary in consultation with the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness. What is the 

justification for the continuing applicability of this rule in view of the decision by 

the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to stay the applicability of the District Court ruling? 

Secretary GATES. As your question notes, on October 21, 2010, I issued a memorandum that directed that no military member may be separated pursuant to 10 

U.S.C. § 654 without the personal approval of the secretary of the military department concerned, in coordination with the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel 

and Readiness and the General Counsel of DOD. I issued this memorandum in 

order to further ensure uniformity and care in the enforcement of DADT in light 

of the legal uncertainty that exists surrounding the law and policy. This legal uncertainty continues to exist, and, as such, I believe the procedures in my October 21, 

2010 memorandum remain warranted. 

3. Senator MCCAIN. Secretary Gates, when, if ever, do you contemplate that this 

authority will be redelegated to military commanders, and what changes do you anticipate, if any, to the revised rules regarding the process for separation placed into 

effect in April 2010? 

Secretary GATES. I am not currently contemplating further changes to the procedures for separations under 10 U.S.C. § 654. 

CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE DADT POLICY

4. Senator MCCAIN. Mr. Johnson, Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen testified 

about their fear of Federal litigation regarding the DADT policy and, despite the 

stay issued by the Ninth Circuit, their ongoing concern that Federal courts will 

overturn the policy and issue orders affecting the Armed Forces. Have you received 

any indication from the U.S. Attorney General or the Department of Justice that 

they will not continue to defend the existing law and the DOD DADT policy will 

not continue to be defended in response to the challenges? 

Mr. JOHNSON. I have not. 

SURVEY IN THE U.S. CENTRAL COMMAND AREA OF RESPONSIBILITY

5. Senator MCCAIN. General Ham, the manner in which the comprehensive review 

survey was presented to servicemembers currently deployed in support of Operation 

New Dawn and Operation Enduring Freedom has not been made clear. It would 

seem that obtaining the views of those who are in theater, living in combat conditions, and who are most familiar with the conditions that soldiers, sailors, airmen, 

and marines will face while serving in Afghanistan, Iraq, Kuwait, and elsewhere in 

the U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) Area of Operations, would be a high priority. Please describe the practices followed with respect to surveying military members who were deployed in the CENTCOM Area of Responsibility (AOR), about to 

deploy, or who had returned from deployment within the previous 6 months. 

General HAM. Obtaining the views of servicemembers who were deployed, were 

about to deploy, or who had recently returned from deployment was indeed an important aspect of the Working Group’s efforts to engage the force. Servicemembers 

66 

solicited to complete the survey were selected at random according to standard practice used by the Defense Manpower Data Center (DMDC) to sample the military 

population. The survey sample included servicemembers who were currently deployed (to include the CENTCOM AOR), as well as those who were about to deploy 

or who had recently returned from deployment. For example, in response to question 

6, ‘‘Have you ever been deployed for 30 days or more,’’ 10,114 of the survey respondents answered ‘‘Yes, and I am currently deployed’’; 75,383 answered ‘‘Yes, but I am 

not currently deployed’’; and 29,292 answered ‘‘No.’’ 

6. Senator MCCAIN. General Ham, how was this rule enforced by the Working 

Group, Westat, and others conducting the survey? 

General HAM. Servicemembers solicited to complete the survey were selected at 

random according to standard practice used by the DMDC to sample the military 

population. The survey sample included members who were currently deployed (to 

include the CENTCOM AOR), as well as those who were about to deploy or who 

had recently returned from deployment. For example, in response to question 6, 

‘‘Have you ever been deployed for 30 days or more,’’ 10,114 of the survey respondents answered ‘‘Yes, and I am currently deployed’’; 75,383 answered ‘‘Yes, but I am 

not currently deployed’’; and 29,292 answered ‘‘No.’’ 

7. Senator MCCAIN. General Ham, do you personally think that the views of soldiers and marines serving on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan would be probative? 

General HAM. Yes. The survey included the views of servicemembers currently deployed, about to deploy, and those recently returned from deployment. 

WORKING GROUP RECOMMENDATION FOR BILLETING OF OPENLY GAY MILITARY

MEMBERS

8. Senator MCCAIN. General Ham, with regard to proposed policies for the living 

arrangements for gay and straight military members living in barracks and tents, 

the Working Group’s implementation plan says: ‘‘In most of the Working Group’s 

engagements with the force, a large number of servicemembers expressed their discomfort with sharing bathroom facilities or living quarters with those they know to 

be gay or lesbian. Leaders at all levels should be aware of the frequency and intensity of discussion on this topic, and the broad range of views that exists among 

servicemembers.’’ 

The report goes on to recommend a prohibition of any special preference for openly gay members. The report dismisses separate living arrangements for openly gay 

or lesbian members citing the logistics nightmare that would accompany any effort 

to promulgate policies separating living and shower arrangements. However, the report and implementation plan offer no guidance on how commanders should resolve 

concerns about living arrangements other than proposing that they address concerns 

about living with a gay member at the local level on a case-by-case basis. 

Given that the survey results revealed that over 70 percent of respondents would 

take some type of action if assigned to share a shower, room, berth, or field tent 

with someone believed to be a gay or lesbian servicemember, did your review include any type of assessment of an increase in workload for leaders and commanders? 

General HAM. The Working Group did not specifically assess workload requirements for military leaders and commanders in dealing with issues pertaining to living arrangements. The responses to questions 86 to 91 of the servicemember survey 

offer insights into servicemember attitudes concerning billeting, berthing, and personal privacy. While about 30 percent of the respondents indicated they would ‘‘take 

no action’’ in the circumstances proposed, it seems more important to me that about 

25 percent said they would ‘‘discuss how we expect each other to behave,’’ and 18 

to 30 percent depending on the specific circumstance replied that they would ‘‘talk 

to a chaplain, mentor, or leader.’’ To me, this conveys the degree of maturity that 

is resident within the force and also indicates their confidence in their leaders and 

chaplains. We did assess that such issues would be manageable in a post-repeal environment, in part because we concluded that the number of incidents will likely 

be low, and also because commanders already today deal capably with any number 

of issues pertaining to living arrangements that may arise among the servicemembers under their command. 

9. Senator MCCAIN. General Ham, why should we be asking our local commanders 

to take on this additional set of circumstances? 

67 

General HAM. The Working Group was not tasked to determine whether the law 

should change, but to assess the impacts of such change and how it could best be 

implemented in light of those impacts. With regard to the recommendation regarding living arrangements in the Working Group’s report, I believe that commanders, 

and especially noncommissioned officers (NCO), are best equipped to deal, on a caseby-case basis, with issues that may arise with specific individuals within their units. 

Commanders today deal capably with any number of issues pertaining to living arrangements that may arise among the servicemembers under their command. 

10. Senator MCCAIN. General Ham, did the Working Group formulate a position 

on how to educate commanders to deal with such cases? 

General HAM. The Working Group provided suggested education and training materials in the recommended education and training framework, recommended leadership implementation guide, and frequently asked questions and vignettes contained in the Support Plan for Implementation. As envisioned by the Working 

Group, each Service will likely develop further education and training materials in 

a manner in keeping with their Service-specific approaches to education and training. 

11. Senator MCCAIN. General Ham, what is the recommendation of the Working 

Group regarding whether a military member has a right to know if the person he 

or she is assigned to live with is gay or lesbian? 

General HAM. The Working Group’s recommendation is that, consistent with current policy, sexual orientation should be considered a personal and private matter, 

and DOD and the Services should not request, collect, or maintain information 

about the sexual orientation of servicemembers. 

12. Senator MCCAIN. General Ham, what do you foresee will be a commander’s 

or senior NCO’s course of action if a straight member requests a change of living 

arrangements solely for the reason that their roommate is openly gay? Please address situations where the options are few, e.g., submarines, ships with small crews, 

and combat or field training exercises where individuals are required to live in confined spaces. 

General HAM. The Working Group’s recommendation is that DOD prohibit berthing or billeting assignments based on sexual orientation; however, commanders 

should retain the authority to alter berthing or billeting assignments on an individualized, case-by-case basis, in the interest of maintaining morale, good order, discipline, and consistent with performance of mission. What commanders and NCOs 

do in a particular situation will be highly dependent on the circumstances and how 

they believe the situation should best be addressed in a manner that promotes morale, good order, discipline, and mission readiness. I would anticipate that a commander’s or NCO’s first course of action in most instances would be to talk to the 

servicemember or members involved to understand their concerns or issues and try 

to resolve them. If those issues cannot be resolved, and if the commander or NCO 

determines it would be appropriate in that particular instance, a servicemember requesting a different room or berthing assignment could be assigned to a different 

space. However, as your question notes, in certain situations a change in living arrangement would not be possible because it would be inconsistent with performance 

of the mission, or would otherwise be impractical. In such cases, just as they do 

today, commanders and supervisors have full authority to deny a servicemember’s 

request for a change in living accommodations. In all instances, mission readiness, 

unit effectiveness, and good order and discipline remain the priority. 

As discussed in the Working Group’s report, it should also be recognized that commanders already have the tools—from counseling, to nonjudicial punishment, to the 

Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) prosecution—to deal with misbehavior in 

living quarters, whether the person who engages in the misconduct is gay or 

straight. 

13. Senator MCCAIN. General Ham, since your proposals eliminate the commander’s option of separate living arrangements for gay or lesbian members, what 

other course of action would he or she have? 

General HAM. The Working Group’s recommendation is that DOD prohibit berthing or billeting assignments based on sexual orientation; however, commanders 

should retain the authority to alter berthing or billeting assignments on an individualized, case-by-case basis, in the interest of maintaining morale, good order, and 

discipline, and consistent with performance of mission. What commanders and 

NCOs do in a particular situation will be highly dependent on the circumstances 

and how they believe the situation should best be addressed in a manner that proVerDate Aug 31 2005 08:59 May 02, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00073 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 Y:\BORAWSKI\DOCS\65073.TXT JUNE PsN: JUNEB
68 

motes morale, good order, discipline, and mission readiness. I would anticipate that 

a commander’s or NCO’s first course of action in most instances would be to talk 

to the servicemember or members involved to understand their concerns or issues 

and try to resolve them. If those issues cannot be resolved, and if the commander 

or NCO determines it would be appropriate in that particular instance, a 

servicemember requesting a different room or berthing assignment could be assigned to a different space. However, as your question notes, in certain situations 

a change in living arrangement would not be possible because it would be inconsistent with performance of the mission, or would otherwise be impractical. In such 

cases, just as they do today, commanders and supervisors have full authority to 

deny a servicemember’s request for a change in living accommodations. In all instances, mission readiness, unit effectiveness, and good order and discipline remain 

the priority. 

As discussed in the Working Group’s report, it should also be recognized that commanders already have the tools—from counseling, to non-judicial punishment, to 

UCMJ prosecution—to deal with misbehavior in living quarters, whether the person 

who engages in the misconduct is gay or straight. 

14. Senator MCCAIN. General Ham, since your proposed policy would not allow 

commanders to directly inquire about a member’s sexual orientation, if a military 

member only suspects their roommate is gay or lesbian, will that be grounds for a 

room reassignment? 

General HAM. The Working Group recommends that commanders should retain 

the authority to alter berthing or billeting assignments on an individualized, caseby-case basis, in the interest of maintaining morale, good order, and discipline, consistent with performance of the mission. If a servicemember has an issue with his 

or her rooming assignment for any number of reasons, including because he or she 

suspects that the roommate is gay or lesbian, the servicemember could request a 

room reassignment. Whether that request is granted would be determined at the 

discretion of the local commander or NCO in the individual’s chain of command, and 

only if doing so in that instance would be consistent with performance of the mission and would not degrade morale, good order, and discipline of the unit. 

15. Senator MCCAIN. General Ham, conversely, should the new policy permit an 

openly gay or lesbian military member to be afforded an opportunity to change 

roommates based on the roommate’s sexual orientation? 

General HAM. The Working Group recommendation is that policies regarding living arrangements would be applied uniformly, regardless of the sexual orientation 

of the person making a request for a room reassignment. Any such requests, by either a gay or a straight servicemember, would be determined at the discretion of 

the local commander or NCO in the individual’s chain of command, and only if doing 

so in that instance would be consistent with performance of the mission and would 

not degrade morale, good order, and discipline of the unit. 

IMPACT ON UNIT COHESION

16. Senator MCCAIN. Secretary Gates, in the executive summary of the report of 

the comprehensive review, one of the main survey questions offered as best evidence 

of an attitude among servicemembers that repeal of DADT will not have a negative 

impact on their ability to conduct their military mission was the following: when 

asked about the actual experience of serving in a unit with a coworker who they 

believed was gay or lesbian, 92 percent stated that the unit’s ability to work together was very good, good, or neither good nor poor. An overwhelming 92 percent 

of respondents adhere to the current law and believe the current policy is conducive 

to their ability to work together. 

Compare this to the survey result where over 60 percent of the respondents believed that a change in the policy would have a negative or mixed impact on a unit’s 

ability to work together to get the job done. Worse than that, over 70 percent of 

all servicemembers who have deployed since September 11, 2001, predicted a negative, 44 percent, or mixed, 26 percent, impact on their immediate unit’s effectiveness 

at completing its mission in a field environment or out at sea. In light of these responses, how can you assess that the results of the servicemembers’ survey reveal 

a widespread attitude among a solid majority of servicemembers that repeal of 

DADT will not have a negative impact on their ability to conduct their military mission? 

Secretary GATES. As stated in the executive summary of the Working Group’s report, in general the survey results revealed around 15 to 20 percent of serviceVerDate Aug 31 2005 08:59 May 02, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00074 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 Y:\BORAWSKI\DOCS\65073.TXT JUNE PsN: JUNEB
69 

members who answered that repeal would have a positive or very positive effect, 

and around 50 to 55 percent of servicemembers answered that repeal would have 

mixed or no effect. Around 30 percent of servicemembers said repeal would have a 

negative or very negative effect. 

However, as I stated in my opening statement, the survey data shows that a higher proportion, between 40 to 60 percent, of those troops serving in predominantly 

all-male combat specialties, mostly Army and Marines, but including special operations formations of the Navy and the Air Force, predicted a negative effect on unit 

cohesion from repealing the current law. 

17. Senator MCCAIN. Secretary Gates, the difference in your interpretation of 

most of the survey results as positive for the repeal, as opposed to negative, is your 

assessment of the response ‘‘Equally as positively as negatively.’’ In my view, the 

respondents who chose this answer acknowledged as much a negative impact on 

various readiness and morale factors as a positive one. What is your rationale for 

including this response as indicative of support for a change in the policy? 

Secretary GATES. These survey questions asked servicemembers to make predictions about the impact of repeal, not to express their support for or against a 

change in policy. I agree with the Co-Chairs that a response by servicemembers of 

‘‘equally as positively and negatively,’’ when asked to predict impact of repeal, would 

support an assessment that the repeal can be implemented without posing a serious 

risk to military readiness. 

18. Senator MCCAIN. Secretary Gates, do you agree that if the survey results were 

adjusted to remove those who responded mixed, a larger percentage of those surveyed predict a negative impact on readiness and effectiveness than those do of a 

positive impact? 

Secretary GATES. Yes. In general the survey results revealed around 30 percent 

of servicemembers who said repeal would have a negative or very negative effect, 

and around 15 to 20 percent who said repeal would have a positive or very positive 

effect. Around 50 to 55 percent of servicemembers answered that repeal would have 

mixed or no effect—these responses were divided more or less evenly between those 

who answered that repeal would have a mixed effect and those who answered that 

repeal would have no effect. 

IMPACT OF REPEAL ON RETENTION

19. Senator MCCAIN. General Ham, according to the report, nearly 20 percent of 

servicemembers would probably or definitely intend to leave military service at the 

end of their current obligation if DADT were repealed, and a whopping 38 percent 

of Marine Corps members. In other words, according to your survey, 1 in 5 

servicemembers would depart as a result of the change if it occurred. Given the importance of leadership in maintaining unit cohesion and readiness, what percentage 

of those who would probably or definitely leave military service as a result of repeal 

of DADT are military leaders and NCOs, upon whom we rely on for military effectiveness in fighting two major wars, and what is the impact of their departure? 

General HAM. Your question refers to the responses to question 81 of the 

servicemember survey, which asked ‘‘If Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is repealed, how, if at 

all, will your military career plans be affected.’’ The responses to this question, separated by pay grade, are contained in Appendix G of the report issued by Westat, 

the professional survey company engaged by the Working Group. The responses for 

officers and for enlisted servicemembers in pay grades E5 and above and were very 

similar, if slightly lower, than the force overall. Overall, 24 percent of servicemembers answered ‘‘I will think about leaving sooner than I had planned’’ or ‘‘I will 

leave sooner than I had planned.’’ For personnel in the grades E5 to E7 that number 

was 23 percent; for E7 to E9, 23 percent; O1 to O3, 22 percent; and O4 and above, 

23 percent. 

I believe that while some servicemembers will choose to leave military service earlier than they would have otherwise, that number will be much lower than 24 percent. My conclusion is based on a number of factors, including that the 24 percent 

figure includes those who answered ‘‘I will think about leaving sooner than I had 

planned,’’ that survey responses are often a poor prediction of one’s actual future 

behavior, and that the experience of our foreign allies indicates that far fewer military members actually left military service after a change in their policy than had 

indicated they would. Additionally, responses to questions 33 and 82 indicate that 

other factors are more important than DADT to servicemembers as they contemplate their future military service. Furthermore, many servicemembers have 

70 

Service obligations that preclude them from leaving the force immediately, even if 

they desired to do so. Still, there is no question but that commanders and NCO 

leaders must monitor the retention situation very carefully. The Working Group recommends that DOD conduct a follow-on review approximately 1 year after repeal 

of DADT to ensure retention programs remain effective. 

MAJOR ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH REPEAL FOR SERVICEMEMBERS

20. Senator MCCAIN. Mr. Johnson and General Ham, according to your report and 

survey: 

• 44 percent of servicemembers who have been deployed to combat since 

September 11, 2010, said that effectiveness in a deployed environment 

would be affected negatively or very negatively by the repeal of DADT; 

• 34 percent said that trust within the unit would be very negatively or 

negatively affected by repeal; 

• 31 percent said that unit readiness would be very negatively or negatively affected by repeal; 

• 31 percent said that unit effectiveness would be very negatively or negatively affected by repeal; 

• 30 percent said that concern for members in the unit would be very negatively or negatively affected by repeal; and 

• 37 percent of servicemembers who usually attend military family programs said they would stop participating in military family programs altogether if DADT were repealed and gay or lesbian servicemembers participated in the program with a partner. 

It is surprising in light of these findings that the Working Group concluded that 

repeal of DADT will present low risk to the United States military. In fact, the report characterizes servicemembers’ concerns about negative impacts of repeal as exaggerated. Please explain on what basis you conclude that concerns of 

servicemembers about deterioration of military unit cohesion are exaggerated, and 

that the risks to military readiness are acceptable for our national security. 

Mr. JOHNSON. I agree with the answer provided by General Ham. I would also 

call your attention to the executive summary, as well as section XII, ‘‘Our Assessment,’’ of General Ham’s and my report. 

General HAM. The survey numbers you cite are high and we spent considerable 

time focusing on them. However, these particular survey results reflect predictions, 

and research demonstrates that predictions are not always a good indicator of actual 

future behavior. To me, the responses provided by servicemembers who have had 

the experience of actually serving with a gay person are more instructive. 

Servicemembers who report that they have served with a gay person, to include 

combat service, indicate that factors other than a person’s personal sexual orientation are more important to mission accomplishment. This is consistent with information from other nations’ militaries and with conversations I have had with many 

of my European counterparts in my duties as Commander, U.S. Army Europe. But, 

the 30+ percent of respondents who express concern about the impacts on unit readiness and effectiveness indicates that leaders at all levels will be required to address 

this concern during implementation. As a serving commander, I think one of the 

most effective ways which we can do so is to emphasize performance rather than 

sexual orientation. 

COST OF REPEAL OF DON’T ASK, DON’T TELL

21. Senator MCCAIN. Secretary Gates, the estimated cost of implementing a repeal 

of section 654 of title 10, U.S.C., and the DADT policy have not been made clear. 

One figure put out during the press conference was the net annual cost of repeal 

of $30 to $40 million. What is the best estimate of the monetary cost to DOD and 

to the Services for implementing repeal? 

Secretary GATES. The best estimate DOD currently has is what is described in 

pages 150 and 151 of the Working Group’s report. This was a rough order of magnitude estimate that involved a number of assumptions about which of the Working 

Group’s recommendations may be adopted, especially those pertaining to benefits. 

Based on those assumptions, the Working Group estimated a gross annual cost of 

$50 to $60 million, plus approximately $20 million in savings, for a total net annual 

cost estimate of $30 to $40 million. As the Working Group report notes, this is a 

rough estimate that will depend in large part on how implementation occurs, especially with regard to benefits for single servicemembers and for same-sex partners 

71 

of gay and lesbian servicemembers. DOD will continue to study and refine the cost 

estimates as it works further towards implementation. 

22. Senator MCCAIN. Secretary Gates, where would the money come from in the 

fiscal year 2011 budget? 

Secretary GATES. Whether and how much cost DOD and the Services incur in fiscal year 2011 will depend in large part on the timing of any legislation and any subsequent certification. It will also depend on which of the Working Group’s recommendations, especially pertaining to benefits for same-sex partners, are adopted, 

and when any such policies are implemented. That said, if repeal were to become 

effective in fiscal year 2011, the Working Group estimates that net initial implementation costs in that fiscal year would be negligible, if any. 

BURDEN ON MILITARY LEADERS

23. Senator MCCAIN. Admiral Mullen, you have extensive operational and command experience, including command of three ships. Please describe the living conditions as you recall them on USS Noxubee and the other ships you commanded, 

with respect to berthing, habitability, and individual privacy. 

Admiral MULLEN. Early in my career, naval surface combatants had crowded and 

very basic living conditions. The space demands of a fighting ship require common 

berthing, showering, and living areas. 

24. Senator MCCAIN. Admiral Mullen, if indeed these conditions were spartan and 

lacking in privacy, to what degree do they still exist on ships, submarines, other 

seagoing Navy platforms, and for the many individual augmentees assigned by the 

Navy to duty in Iraq and Afghanistan? 

Admiral MULLEN. Our individual augmentees in Iraq and Afghanistan live in the 

same conditions as our ground forces, where we give them every measure of personal comfort consistent with the theater of operation. 

Our naval ships today are far superior to those of several decades ago. Our sailors 

and marines enjoy better equipment, personal comfort, and connectivity with their 

families. 

But while our combatants are much improved, going to sea on a warship remains 

timeless in most ways. Space demands still require common berthing, shower, and 

living areas. Hard work, long hours, danger, and a lack of privacy remain facts of 

a seagoing career, as well as the sense of pride, professionalism, and common purpose that make an effective crew. 

25. Senator MCCAIN. Admiral Mullen, what would you say to a petty officer, sergeant, or junior officer who objects to living under these conditions with an openly 

gay or lesbian individual and is struggling to find the words to convey to those sailors who look to him or her for an answer as to why they should subordinate their 

concerns? 

Admiral MULLEN. We ask much of our servicemembers, and put them into situations where they are living and working, day-in and day-out, under conditions that 

demand them to sacrifice privacy, comfort, and, at times, their separate individual 

interests. At all times, we must be attentive to good order, discipline, morale, and 

maintaining military effectiveness. We will always take the steps necessary to preserve effectiveness and readiness, consistent with our core values and military 

ethos, and our mission. This is what we do in the military. It’s what we have always 

done. 

I have enormous confidence in the ability of our leaders. I do not, however, expect 

leaders to change someone’s views about homosexuality. I do expect that our standards of conduct and professionalism will not change one bit. We hold ourselves and 

our people accountable to those standards and will make exceptions for no one, gay 

or straight. 

OPINIONS ABOUT THE EXISTING DADT POLICY

26. Senator MCCAIN. Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen, to what extent has the 

current law hindered the military’s ability, in a measurable way, to recruit and retain qualified personnel to meet service manpower requirements? 

Secretary GATES. The Services are currently meeting their recruiting and retention goals. I cannot say to what extent the current law and policy have affected the 

Services’ ability to attain these goals. However, it certainly is true that the current 

72 

law and policy have required the Services to separate, or to deny entry to, otherwise 

qualified individuals. 

Admiral MULLEN. The Services are currently meeting their recruiting and retention goals. I cannot say for certain how the current law affects recruiting and retention overall, as we do not ask those seeking enlistment or those separating about 

their sexual orientation or their views on sexual orientation. Recruiting and retention are impacted by many factors. 

27. Senator MCCAIN. Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen, to what extent has the 

current law hindered the ability of the Army and Marine Corps to expand? 

Secretary GATES. I cannot say for certain how the current law has helped or hindered the ability of the Army and Marine Corps to expand. However, it certainly 

is true that the current law and policy have required the Army and Marine Corps 

to separate, or to deny entry to, otherwise qualified individuals. 

Admiral MULLEN. The Army and Marine Corps have completed their growth to 

the Active Duty end strength levels authorized in the 2008 National Defense Authorization Act. I cannot say how current law has helped or hindered this process. 

28. Senator MCCAIN. Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen, to what extent does 

the discharge of personnel under section 654 create a measurable impact on readiness of the force? 

Secretary GATES. I cannot say for certain what the impact of the current law is 

on the readiness of the force. While over 13,000 Active Duty servicemembers have 

been discharged under the current law and policy, these discharges constitute a very 

small portion of the overall number of discharges from the military. However, it certainly is true that the current law and policy have required the Services to separate, 

or to deny entry, to otherwise qualified individuals. 

Admiral MULLEN. I cannot say for certain what the impact of the current law has 

been on readiness of the force. The number of annual separations in recent years 

has been extremely small (well less than four-tenths of 1 percent of all separations). 

No one likes to see talent leave the service, whatever the reason, but we have followed the law. It is certainly true that the current law and policy have required 

the Services to separate otherwise qualified members. 

29. Senator MCCAIN. Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen, to what extent do you 

think the repeal of the current law would improve military readiness, cohesion, morale, good order, and discipline? 

Secretary GATES. The Comprehensive Review Working Group’s report concludes 

that the risk of repeal on overall military effectiveness is low, when coupled with 

the recommendations offered in the report. I cannot say for certain how repeal of 

the current law would improve military readiness, cohesion, morale, good order, and 

discipline, and that was not a focus of the assessment. I do think that, if this law 

were not repealed by Congress, there is the very real possibility that this change 

would be imposed immediately by judicial fiat, by far the most disruptive and damaging scenario I can imagine, and the one most hazardous to military morale, readiness, and battlefield performance. I also agree with what Admiral Mullen has said 

about the importance of personal integrity; a law and policy that requires people to 

lie about themselves seems to me fundamentally flawed. 

Admiral MULLEN. I cannot say with certainty how the repeal of the current law 

might improve military readiness, cohesion, morale, good order, and discipline. 

Some of the force believe it will, but others believe it won’t. 

I do strongly believe the military would be improved if law and policy did not ask 

people to lie about who they are in order to serve, as is currently the case. Repeal 

of the current law would make our policy and the manner in which we treat each 

other consistent with our core value of integrity. 

The report of the Comprehensive Review Working Group does conclude, and I 

agree, that repeal of the current law creates low overall risk to military effectiveness. 

30. Senator MCCAIN. Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen, what is the nature of 

the disruptive, short-term effects that might be expected upon repeal? 

Secretary GATES. I think this issue is best addressed in the Working Group’s report, as well as in the testimony provided by the Service Chiefs to the committee. 

Admiral MULLEN. The report of the Comprehensive Review Working Group, the 

Support Plan for Implementation, and the supporting documents provided speak to 

this. The Working Group has identified the concerns of the force, and even provided 

scenarios to aid leaders in walking through issues that will arise should the law be 

repealed. 

73 

From this work, I expect questions and concerns to arise about changes in policy. 

In many cases, members may believe there will be bigger changes or impacts than 

will actually be the case. Sufficient time for education and training will greatly reduce the potential for disruption. 

31. Senator MCCAIN. Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen, to what degree and 

how would repeal of the current law improve military readiness? 

Secretary GATES. The Comprehensive Review Working Group’s report concludes 

that the risk of repeal on overall military effectiveness is low, when coupled with 

the recommendations offered in the report. I cannot say for certain how repeal of 

the current law would improve military readiness, and that was not a focus of the 

assessment. I do think that, if this law were not repealed by Congress, there is the 

very real possibility that this change would be imposed immediately by judicial fiat, 

by far the most disruptive and damaging scenario I can imagine, and the one most 

hazardous to military morale, readiness, and battlefield performance. I also agree 

with what Admiral Mullen has said about the importance of personal integrity; a 

law and policy that requires people to lie about themselves seems to me fundamentally flawed. 

Admiral MULLEN. Please see my answer to question #29. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR JAMES M. INHOFE

RECRUITING AND RETENTION

32. Senator INHOFE. Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen, when the DADT policy 

was first implemented in 1993, I was staunchly against it. As I see it now, the policy 

approved in 1993 has worked and I do not see a need to change something that is 

not impacting our force. Our military is meant for one thing: to fight and win America’s wars, not a social science laboratory. There is no constitutional right to serve 

in the Armed Forces and the military is a specialized society that is fundamentally 

different from civilian life, characterized by its own laws, rules, customs, and traditions, including numerous restrictions on personal behavior, that would not be acceptable in civilian society. I am concerned about the impact on our military if 

DADT is repealed and the DOD report only strengthened my concern. 

Admiral Mullen, you testified at this committee just over a year ago, stating: ‘‘I 

remain concerned that the pace of current operations prevents our forces from training across the entire range of operations and erodes our readiness to counter future 

threats. We must continue to institutionalize proficiency in irregular warfare while 

restoring the balance and strategic depth necessary to assure national security. Additionally, the demands on our equipment are simply unsustainable. Continued operations that are not matched with appropriate resources will further degrade our 

warfighting systems, equipment, platforms, and, most importantly, our people.’’ 

We have the greatest military in the world because we have the greatest men and 

women selflessly serving in that military, fighting every day to protect this country 

and freedom-loving countries all over the world. We all agree that recruiting and 

retention are critical to an All-Volunteer Force and I am concerned we will suffer 

irreparable damages to our previous successes. Examples of this are the recruiting 

and retention statistics for the Active and Reserve components for fiscal year 2010. 

Only the Army National Guard was below 100 percent but that was intentional in 

order to stay within end strength constraints. 

Roughly how long does it take to get a new recruit trained and ready to deploy 

into combat? 

Secretary GATES. Recruit basic training lasts anywhere from 6 to 13 weeks, depending on the Service branch. Follow-on training varies greatly depending on the 

Service and the military occupational specialty. In general, it takes from about 6 

months to 2 years to train and deploy a new recruit. 

Admiral MULLEN. The data provided by Secretary Gates reflect today’s force. 

33. Senator INHOFE. Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen, what decrease in retention and recruiting would you consider a significant impact, a sustained decrease 

over a few months or more, on our All-Volunteer Force? 

Secretary GATES. DOD and the Services closely monitor several recruiting and retention indicators every month. We do not have a formal definition of what constitutes a significant impact on recruiting and retention, but if the Services were 

not to meet their recruiting or retention goals, we would consider that significant. 

Recruiting and retention are affected by a host of factors, of which repeal is just 

one. It is not the assessment of the Working Group or of DOD that repeal would 

74 

cause the Services not to meet their recruiting and retention goals. DOD will continue to carefully monitor the Services’ achievement of their recruiting and retention 

goals. If we observe a downturn in these metrics, we will seek to identify the cause 

or causes and respond accordingly. 

Admiral MULLEN. Decreases in recruiting and retention have varying impacts, depending on force structure goals and occupational specialties affected. We don’t have 

specific decline we consider significant, but rather we always monitor our performance. Neither the Working Group nor DOD have concluded there will be an unmanageable change in recruiting or retention if the law is repealed. The Working Group’s 

assessment of the impact of repeal on retention is described further in its report. 

Because our recruiting and retention goals are impacted by many factors, we have 

mechanisms to monitor and respond as necessary. We will continue to do so. 

34. Senator INHOFE. Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen, according to your report, 30 percent of those who turned in a survey said repealing DADT would have 

a negative impact on their ability to conduct their military mission. The report also 

states that 23.7 percent would leave or think about leaving sooner than planned. 

What impact would a retention drop of 23 percent have on our force? 

Secretary GATES. A retention drop of 23 percent would be significant. However, 

it is not the assessment of the Working Group nor of DOD that such a drop will 

occur. As General Ham has stated in his responses to Senator McCain, the 24 percent figure includes those who answered: ‘‘I will think about leaving sooner than I 

had planned.’’ Also, survey responses are often a poor prediction of one’s actual future behavior, and the experience of our foreign allies indicates that far fewer military members actually left military service after a change in their policy than had 

indicated they would. Additionally, responses to questions 33 and 82 of the Working 

Group’s survey indicate that other factors are more important than DADT to 

servicemembers as they contemplate their future military service. Furthermore, 

many servicemembers have service obligations that preclude them from leaving the 

force immediately, even if they desired to do so. The Working Group’s assessment 

of the impact of repeal on retention is described further in its report. DOD will continue to carefully monitor the Services’ achievement of their recruiting and retention 

goals, as we currently do. 

Admiral MULLEN. Such a drop would be significant. However, neither the Working Group nor DOD find such a drop to be likely. As you note, this number includes 

those who say they would think about leaving earlier. After closely reviewing the 

report and supporting documentation, I believe that survey captured anxiety about 

change that sound leadership and sustained standards of professional conduct will 

address and resolve. Many servicemembers also have service obligations that preclude them from leaving the force immediately, even if they desired to do so. 

The Working Group’s assessment of the impact of repeal on retention is described 

further in its report. Because our recruiting and retention goals are impacted by 

many factors, we have mechanisms to monitor and respond as necessary. We will 

continue to do so. 

35. Senator INHOFE. Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen, the RAND study initially came up with a 7 percent decrease in recruiting then modified that to a 4 percent increase by looking at a different time frame, from July through September 

vice April through June. Yet, according to your survey, 27 percent of the military 

members surveyed said if repeal occurs, then they would not be willing to recommend military service to a family member or close friend. I am not confident that 

we actually know what the impact on recruiting will be but any decrease will compound our ability to sustain the force. What is your response to my concerns over 

impacts on recruiting and our ability to sustain the force? 

Secretary GATES. Your question refers to question 80 of the servicemember survey, which asked, ‘‘If Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is repealed, how if at all, will it affect 

your willingness to recommend to a family member or close friend that he or she 

join the military’’; 27 percent answered negatively. 

While I do not doubt the veracity of views expressed in the survey, our ability 

to recruit qualified individuals into military service depends on a large number of 

factors, of which referrals from current servicemembers is just one. I agree with the 

assessment of the Working Group, as described in pages 107 to 109 of their report, 

that risks to recruiting are low. DOD will continue to carefully monitor the Services’ 

achievement of their recruiting and retention goals, as we currently do. 

Admiral MULLEN. I recognize the concerns expressed in the survey. But as Secretary Gates has identified, our ability to recruit qualified individuals into military 

service depends on a large number of factors, of which referrals from current 

75 

servicemembers is just one. I agree with the assessment of the Working Group that 

risks to recruiting are low. Because our recruiting and retention goals are impacted 

by many factors, we have mechanisms to monitor and respond as necessary. We will 

continue to do so. 

USE OF PERCENTAGES IN THE REPORT

36. Senator INHOFE. Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen, according to your report, 400,000 surveys were sent to military members and 115,052, or 28 percent, 

were returned. As well, 150,000 spouses received surveys and 44,266, or 30 percent, 

were returned. I have been contacted or have spoken with military members here 

in the States and overseas. I was told some did not fill them out because they felt 

the decision had been made and others were concerned that if they answered 

against the repeal, they would be tracked down, despite the identity safety protocol, 

and targeted. Have you researched why roughly two-thirds of those surveyed did not 

respond? 

Secretary GATES. The response rate for the servicemember survey, as a whole and 

by Service, was in line with typical response rates for surveys within DOD. The 

number of responses to the survey provided a margin of error of less than 1 percent. 

The Working Group used standard techniques in administering the survey, based 

on industry practice. The Working Group did not undertake, nor did I feel they 

needed to undertake, additional research into those who did not respond. 

Admiral MULLEN. Like Secretary Gates, I understand that response rate for the 

servicemember survey was in line with typical response rates for surveys within 

DOD. The Working Group used standard techniques in administering the survey, 

based on established industry practice, and the size of the response to the survey 

provided a margin of error of less than 1 percent. The Working Group did not undertake additional research into those who did not respond, nor did the professionals administering the survey recommend such an effort. I support their analysis. 

37. Senator INHOFE. Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen, the panel assessed that 

repeal of DADT poses a low risk to military effectiveness. I did not see a definition 

of low risk. How is low risk defined? 

Secretary GATES. A thorough description of the panel assessment is contained in 

Section XI of the Working Group’s report. The panel did not itself provide an assessment of impact to overall military effectiveness, but assessed its various components 

(e.g., unit effectiveness, military readiness, unit cohesion, recruiting, retention, and 

family readiness) to assist the Working Group Co-Chairs in their overall assessment. I understand that the panel used a standard military decision support process 

regularly used by DOD in a variety of complex military decisions and risk assessments. Panelists were asked to rate the probability and magnitude of negative impact on these various components as low, medium, or high risk using a numeric 

scale; they used their individual professional judgment as to what these different 

levels of risk entailed. 

Admiral MULLEN. The panel assessment used by the Working Group is best described in their report. They assessed components of unit effectiveness, military 

readiness, unit cohesion, recruiting, retention, and family readiness in order to support the Working Group Co-Chairs in an overall assessment of military effectiveness. Panelists were asked to rate the probability and magnitude of negative impact 

on these various components as low, medium, or high risk using a numeric scale; 

they used their individual professional judgment as to what these different levels 

of risk entailed. 

38. Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen, the report also states that in the shortterm, there will be some limited and isolated disruptions to unit cohesion and retention, but it will not be widespread or long-lasting. Can you define short-term, limited and isolated, widespread, and long-lasting disruptions? 

Secretary GATES. Those terms are used in the report according to their standard, 

commonly-used definitions. 

Admiral MULLEN. The report is an independent product of the Working Group. 

In reading their work, I used the common definitions of those terms. 

39. Senator INHOFE. Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen, the report states that 

70 percent of military members think that repeal would have a positive, mixed, or 

no effect on unit effectiveness. It also states that a significant minority, around 30 

percent overall and 40 to 60 percent in the Marine Corps and in various combat 

arms specialties, said that repeal would have a negative effect. Mixed, according to 

76 

the report, is equally positive and negative. This means those who answered mixed 

feelings felt there would be both positive and negative effects if DADT is repealed. 

Why is the mixed percentage included in with the positive and no effect percentages? Additional examples appear on pages 195 and 210 of the report; it appears 

the negative impact percentages are consistently greater than the positive impact. 

Secretary GATES. I agree with you that negative impact percentages are consistently greater than the positive impact percentages. In general the survey results revealed around 30 percent of servicemembers who said repeal would have a negative 

or very negative effect, and around 15 to 20 percent who said repeal would have 

a positive or very positive effect. 

Around 50 to 55 percent of servicemembers answered that repeal would have 

mixed or no effect—these responses were divided more or less evenly between those 

who answered that repeal would have a mixed effect and those who answered that 

repeal would have no effect. I agree with the Co-Chairs that it is appropriate, from 

the standpoint of assessing the impact of repeal, to consider the mixed responses, 

alongside the no effect and positive responses. A response by servicemembers of 

equally as positively and negatively, when asked to predict impact of repeal, would 

support an assessment that the repeal can be implemented without posing a serious 

risk to military readiness. 

Admiral MULLEN. I have given careful consideration to the category-by-category 

results of the survey as well as the larger body of research undertaken by the Working Group, including the comprehensive engagement of the force using focus groups 

to illuminate the causes of concern. I agree with the Co-Chairs that a 

servicemember response of equally as positively and negatively, when asked to predict impact of repeal, supports an assessment that with proper implementation the 

risk of repeal to overall military readiness is low. 

MORAL AND RELIGIOUS CONCERNS

40. Senator INHOFE. Secretary Gates, Mr. Johnson, Admiral Mullen, and General 

Ham, the report states that you heard a large number of servicemembers raise religious and moral concerns. The report further states that some of the sharpest divergence of views about DADT exists among our 3,000 chaplains. The Chaplain Corps 

is critical to our overall military health and wellness. On April 28, 2010, 41 retired 

chaplains sent a letter to President Obama and Secretary Gates, stating that ‘‘normalizing homosexual behavior in the Armed Forces will pose a significant threat to 

chaplains’ and servicemembers’ religious liberty.’’ The letter warned that reversing 

the policy will negatively impact religious freedom and could even affect military 

readiness and troop levels because the military would be marginalizing deeply held 

religious beliefs. The report simply says the solution to this issue can be found in 

the existing guidance for our chaplains but yet, the concern remains. What are we 

doing to ensure our Chaplain Corps can continue to practice their faith and care 

for their members? 

Secretary GATES. The issue of moral and religious concerns, including for the 

Chaplain Corps, are discussed in Section XII of the Working Group’s report. Mr. 

Johnson and General Ham can provide further detail on their assessment and recommendations with respect to the Chaplain Corps. 

Mr. JOHNSON. As your question notes, our assessment is that existing DOD and 

Service policies and guidance pertaining to chaplains is adequate to accommodate 

a repeal of DADT. However, in recognition of the concerns expressed by chaplains 

and their endorsing agencies, we recommend that DOD should, in the event of a 

repeal of DADT, direct the Services to reiterate the principle that chaplains, in the 

context of their religious ministry, are not required to take actions inconsistent with 

their religious beliefs, but must still care for all servicemembers. Evaluation, promotion, and assignment of chaplains must continue to be consistent with these longstanding Service policies. 

Admiral MULLEN. The Working Group’s report examines moral and religious concerns, including for the Chaplain Corps. I defer to Mr. Johnson and General Ham 

for an explanation of the report’s findings and recommendations. 

General HAM. I would note that none of the ecclesiastical endorsing agencies that 

responded to the Working Group stated that it would withdraw its endorsements 

for military chaplains if the law were repealed. But, a significant portion of the respondents did suggest that a change in policies resulting in chaplains’ free exercise 

of religion or free speech rights being curtailed could lead them to withdraw their 

endorsement. Also, in the Working Group’s discussion groups with chaplains, while 

many expressed opposition to a change in policy, nearly all indicated that they were 

willing to continue their ministry in the military. Only 3 out of approximately 145 

77 

chaplains who participated indicated they would seek to separate or retire should 

the law be changed. As with all aspects of implementing repeal of this law and policy, leadership will matter the most. The Service Chiefs of Chaplains will set the 

tone within their respective Services and commanders must actively ensure that the 

freedom of chaplains to minister according to the tenets of their denominational 

practice is protected. Education, training, and leadership will ensure our servicemembers and their families continue to receive the spiritual support they deserve 

while simultaneously ensuring the rights of our chaplains are guaranteed. 

2007 UNTIL TODAY—WHAT HAS CHANGED

41. Senator INHOFE. Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen, I was disheartened 

when you divulged your personal opinions about gays in the military before the conclusion of the review. You are the voice of our military and our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines, all who listen to you. It is my opinion that this created a perception that the decision had been made from the President on down, and the inputs 

of your military members did not matter, that the survey was going to be used to 

justify a decision that had already been made. Back in March 2007, Senator Wyden 

wrote to you, Secretary Gates, and asked you to reconsider DADT. Defense Under 

Secretary for Personnel and Readiness, Dr. David Chu, responded on your behalf, 

stating that the ‘‘Global War on Terrorism is far-reaching and unrelenting,’’ and 

that a national debate on changing ‘‘the Pentagon’s ban on openly gay 

servicemembers would bring divisiveness and turbulence across our country,’’ which 

‘‘will compound the burden of the war.’’ What has changed? 

Secretary GATES. The views of servicemembers were taken very seriously and 

factored greatly into the assessment of the Working Group. As I stated in my memorandum establishing the Working Group; ‘‘it [is] essential that the working group 

systematically engage the force. The participation of a range of age, rank, and warfare communities in this study including families, in addition to active outreach 

across the force, is a critical aspect that will undoubtedly lead to insights and recommendations essential to DOD’s implementation of any change.’’ The Working 

Group accomplished this in what I believe was the most thorough and objective review ever of this difficult policy issue and its impact on the American military. 

I would also reiterate what I said in my statement before the committee: views 

toward gay and lesbian Americans have changed considerably and have grown more 

accepting since DADT was first enacted. But feelings on this matter can still run 

deep and divide. For this reason, I would ask, as Congress takes on this debate, for 

all involved to resist the urge to lure our troops and their families into the politics 

of this issue. What is called for is a careful and considered approach, an approach 

that, to the extent possible, welcomes all who are qualified and capable of serving 

their country in uniform, and that does not undermine out of haste or dogmatism 

those attributes that make the U.S. military the finest fighting force in the world. 

Admiral MULLEN. When nominated for my second term as Chairman of the Joint 

Chiefs of Staff, this committee required me to agree that I would provide my personal opinion on military matters. When I appeared before you on 2 February 2010, 

I expected to be asked my personal opinion on this issue. I chose to provide that 

opinion in my opening statement, in anticipation of that question. 

I have been very careful in fulfilling this obligation to you, and have made great 

efforts to separate my professional knowledge from my personal belief. 

Our force has been changing continuously over the 17 years this law has been in 

place. As I said in my testimony, our Nation has become more tolerant of openly 

gay and lesbian people, and I believe our military has as well. That is borne out 

in the survey results of the Working Group. What has also become clear to me in 

recent years—what has been made clear to me by many in the force—is the conflict 

between the law and policy, and our core military values. 

What has changed most significantly today is our professional understanding of 

this issue, following the report by the Working Group. To my knowledge, this has 

been the largest and most comprehensive assessment of any personnel-related matter in the history of the U.S. military. We have listened carefully to our force, and 

looked objectively at this issue. Because of this, I am confident that we will sustain 

our military readiness should Congress repeal the law. 

[Whereupon, at 12:47 p.m., the committee adjourned.] 

(79) 

TO CONTINUE TO RECEIVE TESTIMONY ON 

THE REPORT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE WORKING GROUP THAT CONDUCTED 

A COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW OF THE ISSUES 

ASSOCIATED WITH A REPEAL OF SECTION 

654 OF TITLE 10, U.S.C., ‘‘POLICY CONCERNING HOMOSEXUALITY IN THE ARMED 

FORCES’’ 

FRIDAY, DECEMBER 3, 2010 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, 

Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:04 a.m. in room 

SDG–50, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Senator Carl Levin 

(chairman), presiding. 

Committee members present: Senators Levin, Lieberman, Reed, 

Bill Nelson, Webb, Udall, Hagan, Begich, Manchin, McCain, Inhofe, 

Sessions, Chambliss, Thune, Wicker, Brown, Burr, and Collins. 

Committee staff members present: Richard D. DeBobes, staff director; Leah C. Brewer, nominations and hearings clerk; and Travis 

E. Smith, special assistant. 

Majority staff members present: Jonathan D. Clark, counsel; 

Gabriella E. Fahrer, counsel; Jessica L. Kingston, research assistant; Gerald J. Leeling, counsel; Jason W. Maroney, counsel; Michael J. Noblet, professional staff member; and William K. Sutey, 

professional staff member. 

Minority staff members present: Joseph W. Bowab, Republican 

staff director; Christian D. Brose, professional staff member; Michael V. Kostiw, professional staff member; David M. Morriss, minority counsel; Lucian L. Niemeyer, professional staff member; 

Diana G. Tabler, professional staff member; and Richard F. Walsh, 

minority counsel. 

Staff assistants present: Jennifer R. Knowles, Christine G. Lang, 

and Breon N. Wells. 

Committee members’ assistants present: Christopher Griffin, assistant to Senator Lieberman; Carolyn Chuhta, assistant to Senator Reed; Nick Ikeda, assistant to Senator Akaka; Jeffrey Fatora, 

assistant to Senator Bill Nelson; Gordon Peterson, assistant to Senator Webb; Tressa Guenov, assistant to Senator McCaskill; Jennifer Barrett, assistant to Senator Udall; Roger Pena, assistant to 

Senator Hagan; Lindsay Kavanaugh, assistant to Senator Begich; 

80 

Joanne McLaughlin, assistant to Senator Manchin; Halie Soifer, 

assistant to Senator Coons; Anthony Lazarski, assistant to Senator 

Inhofe; Lenwood Landrum and Sandra Luff, assistants to Senator 

Sessions; Clyde Taylor IV, assistant to Senator Chambliss; Jason 

Van Beek, assistant to Senator Thune; Erskine Wells III, assistant 

to Senator Wicker; Brian Walsh, assistant to Senator LeMieux; 

Charles Prosch, assistant to Senator Brown; and Ryan Kaldahl, assistant to Senator Collins. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARL LEVIN, CHAIRMAN 

Chairman LEVIN. Good morning, everybody. 

The committee meets this morning to continue to receive testimony on the Department of Defense’s (DOD) report on implementation of a repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT). Yesterday we 

heard from Secretary Gates, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Admiral Mullen, and the Co-Chairs of DOD’s Working Group on this 

issue. Today we hear from the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, 

General James Cartwright, and from the senior military officers of 

each of the Services: Army Chief of Staff General George Casey; 

Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Gary Roughead; Commandant 

of the Marine Corps General James Amos; Chief of Staff of the Air 

Force General Norton Schwartz; and Commandant of the Coast 

Guard Admiral Robert Papp. 

The Service Chiefs are tasked to organize, train, and equip our 

military forces. That’s an important and challenging task, we are 

all grateful to the service of each of you to this Nation. If we repeal 

DADT, as I believe we should, the legislation stipulates that repeal 

will not take effect unless and until there is a certification by the 

President, the Secretary of Defense, and the Chairman of the Joint 

Chiefs that they have adopted the necessary implementation steps 

to assure that we maintain our standards of military readiness, effectiveness, unit cohesion, recruiting, and retention. 

Several of you have testified before this committee that you had 

concerns about repeal of DADT. You also testified that you supported Secretary Gates’ intention to conduct the Working Group review and indicated that its findings might influence your view. We 

heard yesterday that your views helped shape the Working Group’s 

report and recommendations, and we heard Secretary Gates testify 

yesterday to the following: 

‘‘I would not sign any certification until I was satisfied, 

with the advice of the Service Chiefs, that we had in fact 

mitigated, if not eliminated, to the extent possible, risks to 

combat readiness, to unit cohesion and effectiveness.’’ 

The committee wants to hear from each of you, whether you’re 

satisfied by that assurance from the Secretary of Defense, and we 

want to know whether you were adequately consulted by the Working Group. 

The report before us confirms that a large majority of troops believe that repeal is consistent with maintaining unit effectiveness, 

as do the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint 

Chiefs. The Working Group found higher levels of concern about repeal in some segments of the military, such as the Marine Corps, 

combat arms branches of the Army, and Special Operations Forces 

(SOF). 

81 

The Working Group found that training, education, and leadership will be vital in mitigating those concerns. Also, the report 

demonstrates that actual experience serving alongside gay and lesbian colleagues has a powerful and positive effect on 

servicemembers’ attitudes. 

As the Co-Chairs of the Working Group, Jeh Johnson and General Carter Ham, wrote in their report: ‘‘While a higher percentage 

of servicemembers in warfighting units predict negative effects of 

repeal, the percentage distinctions between warfighting units and 

the entire military are almost nonexistent when asked about the 

actual experience of serving in a unit with someone believed to be 

gay.’’ 

Now, that is to say that predictions of negative effects are higher 

among troops in warfighting units, but the actual experience of 

troops in combat units who have fought alongside gays is that their 

units were largely unaffected, according to the Working Group report. 

This evidence is confirmed by the experience of some of our closest allies who have made this change. In the militaries of Great 

Britain and Canada, there was even greater concern about this 

shift before it was made, than exists today in our military. But the 

Working Group reports that their transition was smoother than expected and that there is no evidence that a change in policy has 

diminished combat effectiveness for these allies, who have fought 

side-by-side with us over the last decade. 

The Working Group has laid out a careful, deliberative plan to 

implement repeal while mitigating risks. While that plan focuses 

on the importance of leadership, education, and training, I agree 

with Admiral Mullen, who told us yesterday it is leadership that 

matters most. 

Senator McCain. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN 

Senator MCCAIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and let me thank 

our distinguished witnesses for their service to our Nation. As Admiral Mullen noted yesterday, we have before us today a group of 

officers who among them represent more than 100 years of service 

and experience in our Armed Forces. I welcome them all this morning, and I’m pleased that Admiral Papp and General Cartwright 

are joining us as well. 

As I said yesterday, we are considering in these hearings, a complex and often emotional subject, the proposed repeal of the current 

law, commonly referred to as DADT, which evokes strongly-held 

and legitimate differences of opinion among many Americans. It is 

no different among the U.S. military, as the Pentagon’s report demonstrates. However, I think we can all agree that our military 

today is the most effective, professional, and arguably the most experienced force our Nation has ever had. 

We can all agree that we appreciate and honor the service of 

every American who wears the uniform of our country, as well as 

their families, especially during this time of war, regardless of 

whether they are straight or gay. 

Finally, I think we can all agree, and I certainly would, that this 

capable, professional force of ours could implement a repeal of 

82 

DADT if they were ordered to, just as they so ably and honorably 

do everything else that we ask of them. 

What I want to know and what it is Congress’ duty to determine 

is not, can our Armed Forces implement a repeal of this law, but 

whether the law should be repealed. Unfortunately, that key issue 

is not the focus of this study. Let me say again, just to be clear. 

I’m not saying we should hold a referendum among our military on 

this issue and leave the decision in their hands. That’s not how our 

system works, nor should it. What I am saying is that leadership 

means knowing what your subordinates think, including whether 

they think the current law should be repealed or not, for that is 

the fundamental question that must be answered by Congress, not 

by the President or the courts, but by Congress. 

It’s a question that must be answered carefully, deliberately, and 

with proper consideration for the complexity of this issue and the 

gravity of the potential consequences for our military and the wars 

in which we are engaged. 

I appreciated hearing from Secretary Gates, Admiral Mullen, Mr. 

Johnson, and General Ham yesterday. All of these experienced 

public servants occupy leading positions within our military establishment and their respective views all deserve careful consideration. 

The same is true of our witnesses today. The Service Chiefs are 

responsible for the training, organization, and administration of 

the men and women of their respective Services. It’s their responsibility to recruit and retain men and women of their respective 

Services. It’s their responsibility to recruit and retain the best personnel possible and to implement policies consistent with the law 

that produce fully trained, motivated, and disciplined troops for 

employment in military operations. At present, that means sustained high-tempo combat. In short, it’s the job of the Service 

Chiefs to ensure that our military is ready and able to win the Nation’s wars. 

As such, their views are especially relevant to the current debate. 

I have always said that I would listen to and fully consider the advice of our military regarding the potential repeal of DADT. I did 

that yesterday. I will do that today. I will continue to do that, and 

anyone that alleges otherwise is disregarding the record. 

As we move forward with our discussion on this matter, I hope 

everyone will put aside political motives and agendas. I hope everyone on both sides will refrain from questioning people’s integrity. 

I hope everyone will recognize that this debate is focused, not on 

broader social issues being debated in our society at large, but on 

our military and its effectiveness. On this matter, I look forward 

to hearing the views of our witnesses. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you very much. 

We’re going to start with the Vice Chairman of our Joint Chiefs, 

General Cartwright. 

General CARTWRIGHT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LEVIN. General, can I interrupt you for a moment. 

I believe we have a quorum that is present and that means that 

we can vote on a confirmation. 

83 

A quorum now being present, I would ask the committee to consider the nomination of General Claude Kehler, U.S. Air Force, for 

reappointment to the grade of General, to be Commander of U.S. 

Strategic Command. His nomination has been before the committee 

for the required length of time. 

Is there a motion to favorably report the nomination? 

Senator LIEBERMAN. So moved. 

Chairman LEVIN. Second? 

Senator REED. Second. 

Chairman LEVIN. All in favor say aye. [Chorus of ayes.] 

Opposed, nay. [No response.] 

Motion carried. 

Thank you very much. 

General. 

STATEMENT OF GEN. JAMES E. CARTWRIGHT, USMC, VICE 

CHAIRMAN OF THE JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF 

General CARTWRIGHT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator 

McCain, distinguished members of the committee, and good morning. I appreciate the opportunity to comment on the final report 

from the Working Group regarding the potential impact of repealing section 654 of title 10, U.S.C., and the associated DOD policy, 

commonly referred to as DADT. 

The critical question is not the issue of acceptance, but how repeal might affect or impact military effectiveness. The Secretary of 

Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff emphasized 

early in this process that our men and women in uniform and their 

families deserve to have their voices heard on important issues 

such as this. I want to begin my remarks by commending the 

Working Group on this effort to reach out across the force and the 

military families to ensure the opportunity to participate was broad 

and far-reaching. As expected, the data gathered by the Working 

Group reflects a wide range of views on the service men and 

women in the U.S. military who are known to be gay or lesbian. 

If the law is repealed, implementation will require the deliberate 

and disciplined attention of leaders at all levels. 

It is my view that implementation of a new DOD policy would 

involve manageable risk with regard to military effectiveness, even 

during the high tempo of wartime operations. Some ask, why not 

wait for some more timely opportunity? There is never a perfect 

time. Change challenges organizations. However, contrary to expectations, this may be a better time than one might expect. Periods 

of reduced activity can create conditions wherein the challenges associated with making a change of any kind seem enormous. By contrast, in times of conflict the focus is on the war effort. U.S. servicemembers are devoted to defending our Nation and their comrades. 

When they are engaged in combat operations, they rely on the warrior ethos of their fellow service men and women. The character 

and capabilities of the individual become the focal point, not presumed or known attitudes or lifestyles. 

Based on my observations throughout 40 years of military service 

and reinforced by the findings of the report, I believe the men and 

women of the U.S. Armed Forces form the best trained and most 

professional military organization in history. They tend to think in 

84 

terms of mission accomplishment and look beyond issues of race, 

religion, and sexual orientation. In my opinion, the findings of the 

report confirm this view. 

The concerns of our warfighters are important and I both seek 

out and respect their opinions. It is accurate that predictions of disruption by servicemembers in combat arms units were higher than 

the predictions of men and women in supporting organizations. 

Any good survey, though, asks key questions in multiple ways. 

What stands out to me when reviewing the report is, whether assigned to combat arms or supporting units, servicemembers who 

have actually served with people known or suspected of being homosexual have almost universally experienced little or no disruption. 

It is right to be concerned about how the organization as a whole 

might be impacted by repeal. But when based on actual experience, 

our servicemembers seem confident in their ability to serve professionally and effectively alongside gay and lesbian servicemembers. 

I am inclined to trust the real-world experiences of our men and 

women on the battlefield. 

Recently we faced the very real potential the law would be repealed in the courts. My greatest concern, should the law change 

through the judicial process, is DOD may lose its ability to transition in a way that permits a managed implementation. Repealing 

the law by an act of Congress, on the other hand, offers the greater 

likelihood that DOD will retain the ability to manage implementation. Legislation can provide the structure and predictability DOD’s 

civilian and military leaders require, to effectively and efficiently 

implement a change in policy. 

We pride ourselves as a Nation that does not merely tolerate diversity, varying orientations, and attitudes; we embrace and are 

strengthened by the many differences among us. A preeminent 

strength of our Nation is the willingness to acknowledge diverse 

views, exchange in respectful debate, and at the end of the dialogue 

unite under the rule of law and pursue our national interests. 

The character and appeal of the U.S. Armed Forces lies in its 

equality, opportunity, and the inclusive character of our organizational ethos. Being more inclusive improves the institution as a 

whole. Strong and committed leadership has plotted the course of 

the U.S. military throughout history. It is a certainty that change 

brings challenge, and challenge demands leadership. The quality of 

leadership that is a hallmark of our military institution will be the 

determining factor on the question at issue today. 

My faith in our leadership from top to bottom and the fair-minded temperament of the American people, the reputational benefit 

derived from being a force defined by honesty and inclusiveness 

rather than by concealment, causes me to favor repeal of section 

654 of title 10, U.S.C., and the associated DOD policy known as 

DADT. 

Thank you, sir. 

[The prepared statement of General Cartwright follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT BY GEN. JAMES E. CARTWRIGHT, USMC 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator McCain, distinguished members of the committee, good morning. I appreciate the opportunity to comment on the final report 

from the Comprehensive Review Working Group regarding the potential impacts of 

85 

repealing 10 U.S.C. § 654 and the associated Department of Defense (DOD) policy 

commonly referred to as Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT). 

The Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs emphasized early 

in this process that, our men and women in uniform and their families deserve to 

have their voices heard on important issues such as this. I want to begin my remarks here today, by commending the Comprehensive Review Working Group on 

its efforts in reaching out across the force and to their families to ensure the opportunity to participate was broad and far-reaching. 

As expected, the data assimilated by the working group reflects a wide range of 

views on the service of men and women known to be gay or lesbian in the U.S. military. Many favor such a policy change, others are neutral, and some are opposed. 

That said, the critical question is not the issue of acceptance, but what if any, impact repeal would have on military effectiveness. I will focus my comments on this 

issue. 

Should the current law be repealed, it is my view implementation of a new DOD 

policy would involve manageable risk in regards to military effectiveness—even during the high tempo of wartime operations. It is clear to me, based on my observations throughout 40 years of military service and reinforced by the findings of the 

report, that the men and women of the U.S. Armed Forces form the best trained 

and most professional military organization in history. Our servicemembers tend to 

think in terms of mission accomplishment and look beyond issues of race, religion, 

gender and, frankly, sexual orientation. I do not say this to suggest that making 

such a significant personnel policy shift would be a simple matter. Certainly, not. 

If the law is repealed, implementation of a more transparent policy will be challenging and will require the deliberate and disciplined attention of leaders at all levels. 

So, you may ask why now? Why not wait for a more timely opportunity to consider this issue. Waiting for a more ideal time to decide this question is obviously 

one option; however, difficult tasks are rarely well served by delay. It is hard to 

foresee a time when the men and women of the U.S. military will be more focused 

and disciplined than they are today. We must be prudent in our approach, but there 

is little to suggest that the issues associated with a change in the law and DOD 

policy will diminish if we wait on the uncertain promise of a less challenging future. 

In times of conflict, whether one is in direct contact with the enemy or serving 

in a support role, the focus is on the war effort. The challenges associated with making a change of any kind that seem enormous during periods of inactivity become 

less distracting when you are defending your Nation and comrades. U.S, 

servicemembers engaged in combat operations rely on the expertise and reliability 

of their fellow service men and women. The character of the individual becomes the 

focal point, not presumed or known attitudes or lifestyles. The findings of the report 

would seem to confirm this view. 

The study reveals that the combat arms communities predict repeal would have 

a substantially higher negative effect on the force than the predictive view of the 

force as a whole. The perspectives of these warfighters is important and I respect 

their opinion; however, I agree with the report that this view is more likely the result of the lack of actual experience with serving in units with someone believed to 

be gay, in addition to the typical misperceptions and stereotyping. 

While the percentage of ‘‘predictive’’ negative effects was higher within the combat 

arms communities, it is important to note that the numbers in the report shift dramatically to the very positive when this same combat arms subgroup was asked 

about their actual experiences when serving in a unit with someone believed to be 

homosexual. In terms of actual disruption experienced, as opposed to predicted disruption, the distinction between combat arms communities and the force as a whole 

is negligible. 

Some may look at the numbers and suggest they are merely an indicator and not 

a complete picture. To that observation I say yes, a principal purpose of surveying 

the force was to obtain an indication of how change would impact unit cohesion, 

bonds of trust and the like. These indicators give me confidence that the risk to 

military effectiveness is manageable in much the same manner the Department 

manages other challenges and shortfalls that have a potential impact on readiness 

and effectiveness in general. 

In some respects the risk we will encounter should the law and policy change will 

be driven by how the law and policy is changed. Repealing the existing law by an 

act of Congress will enhance DOD’s ability to manage risk; whereas if the law is 

rescinded through the judicial process then, in my view, DOD’s ability to manage 

the risk of implementation is made more difficult. Legislation will provide the structure and predictability that DOD’s civilian and military leadership require to effectively and efficiently transition to a change in policy with the least disruption. It 

86 

is impossible to predict what will happen in the courts and unpredictability fuels 

risk. My greatest concern, should the law change through the judicial process, is 

DOD could lose the ability to transition in a way that facilitates managed implementation. 

We pride ourselves as a Nation that does not merely tolerate diversity, varying 

orientations and attitudes, but as a Nation that embraces and is strengthened by 

the many differences among us. A preeminent strength of our Nation is the willingness to acknowledge diverse views, engage in respectful debate, and at the end of 

the dialogue unite under the rule of law to pursue our national interests. The character and appeal of the U.S. Armed Forces lies in the inclusivity, equality and opportunity resident in our organizational ethos; being more inclusive, in my view, will 

improve the institution as a whole. Strong and committed leadership has plotted the 

course of the U.S. Armed Forces throughout history. It is a certainty that change 

brings challenge, but challenges demand leadership. The quality of leadership that 

has been the hallmark of our military institution will be the determining factor on 

the question at issue today. 

My faith in our leadership, from top to bottom, the fair-minded temperament of 

the American public, and the reputational benefit derived from being a force identified by honesty and inclusivity, rather than concealment causes me to favor repeal 

of 10 U.S.C. § 654 and revocation of the associated DOD policy known as DADT. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you, General Cartwright. 

General Casey. 

STATEMENT OF GEN GEORGE W. CASEY, JR., USA, CHIEF OF 

STAFF OF THE ARMY 

General CASEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator McCain, 

members of the committee. Good morning. 

Chairman LEVIN. Good morning. 

General CASEY. I’ve reviewed the final version of the Working 

Group report on the issues associated with the repeal of DADT and 

I want to be able to provide my informed military advice to the 

committee. I’ll begin by relating how I see the risks from a military 

perspective, and then I’ll give you my views on the impact on the 

force if DADT is repealed. 

First, I think it’s important that we’re clear about the military 

risks. Implementation of the repeal of DADT would be a major cultural and policy change in the middle of a war. It would be implemented by a force and leaders that are already stretched by the cumulative effects of almost a decade at war. It would be implemented by a force in which a substantial number of soldiers perceive that repeal will have a negative impact on unit effectiveness, 

cohesion, and morale, and that implementation will be difficult. 

Further, the report clearly states that over 40 percent of our 

combat arms soldiers believe that the presence of a gay 

servicemember in their unit would have a negative impact on the 

unit’s effectiveness, on the trust that the soldiers feel for each 

other, and on their morale. 

As such, I believe that the implementation of the repeal of DADT 

in the near term will: (1) add another level of stress to an already 

stretched force; (2) be more difficult in our combat arms units; and, 

(3) be more difficult for the Army than the report suggests. 

That said, if repeal is certified, the implementation principles in 

the report constitute a solid basis upon which to develop plans that 

will mitigate the risks that I just described. Properly implemented, 

I do not envision that the repeal of DADT would keep us from accomplishing our worldwide missions, including combat operations. 

We have a disciplined force and seasoned leaders who, with appropriate guidance and direction, can oversee the implementation of 

87 

repeal with moderate risk to our military effectiveness in the shortterm and moderate risk to our ability to recruit and retain this AllVolunteer Force over the long haul. 

I do believe that we will have to closely monitor the impact on 

our mid-level officers and noncommissioned officers (NCO) as they 

wrestle with implementing repeal simultaneously with the other 

challenges that they’re facing after 9 years at war. 

It’s my judgment that we could implement repeal with moderate 

risk to our military effectiveness and the long-term health of our 

force. 

Let me close by saying that if DADT is repealed, the Army will 

work with DOD and the other Services to finalize the implementation plans and implement repeal in the same disciplined fashion 

that’s characterized our service to this country for 235 years. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of General Casey follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT BY GEN GEORGE W. CASEY, JR., USA 

Thank you Mr Chairman, Senator McCain, and members of the committee. 

I have reviewed the final version of the Working Group report on the issues associated with the repeal of ‘‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT)’’, and want to provide my 

informed military advice to the committee. 

I’ll begin by relating how I see the risks from a military perspective and then give 

you my views of the impact on our force if repeal is directed. 

First, I think it’s important that we are clear about the military risks. Implementation of the repeal of DADT would be a major cultural and policy change in the 

middle of a war. It would be implemented by a force and leaders that are already 

stretched by the cumulative impacts of almost a decade at war. It would be implemented by a force in which a substantial number of soldiers perceive that repeal 

will have a negative impact on unit effectiveness, cohesion and morale, and that implementation will be difficult. Further, the report clearly indicates that over 40 percent of our combat arms soldiers believe that the presence of a gay servicemember 

in their unit would have a negative impact on the unit’s effectiveness, on the trust 

soldiers feel for each other and on their morale. 

As such, I believe that implementation of the repeal of DADT in the near term 

will: (1) add another level of stress to an already stretched force; (2) be more difficult in combat arms units; and (3) be more difficult for the Army than the report 

suggests. 

That said, if repeal is directed, the implementation principles in the report constitute a solid basis upon which to develop implementation plans that will help mitigate the risks I just described. Properly implemented, I do not envision that it 

would keep us from accomplishing our worldwide missions—including combat operations. We have a disciplined force and seasoned leaders, who, with appropriate 

guidance and direction, can oversee the implementation of the repeal with moderate 

risk to our military effectiveness in the short term, and moderate risk to our ability 

to recruit and retain our All-Volunteer Force over time. I do believe that we will 

have to closely monitor the impact on our mid-level officers and noncommissioned 

officers as they wrestle with implementing repeal simultaneously with the other 

challenges facing them after 9 years at war. However, it is my judgment we could 

implement repeal with moderate risk to our military effectiveness and long-term 

health of the force. 

Let me close by saying that if DADT is repealed, the Army will work with the 

department and the other Services to finalize implementation plans, and implement 

the repeal in the same disciplined manner that we have executed our country’s missions for the last 235 years. 

Chairman LEVIN. General, thank you so much. 

Admiral. 

88 

STATEMENT OF ADM GARY ROUGHEAD, USN, CHIEF OF NAVAL 

OPERATIONS 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator McCain, 

and distinguished members of the committee. Thank you for the 

opportunity to appear before you today to address the report of the 

Working Group and my perspective of the issues associated with 

the potential repeal of section 654 of title 10, U.S.C. 

I commend the Working Group for what they have accomplished 

and I applaud the professionalism and the seriousness of the men 

and women of the U.S. Navy as they participated in an unprecedented survey of our Armed Forces. I’m satisfied with the methodology and execution of the servicemember and spouse surveys and 

the extent to which the Working Group engaged sailors and their 

families. 

I believe the appropriate policy issues have been researched, examined, and the necessary courses of action have been considered. 

The responses helped me to assess the potential impacts to effectiveness, readiness, unit cohesion, and morale in our Navy. 76 percent of sailors believe the impact on these force characteristics will 

be neutral or positive. 

There will be issues to be addressed, especially in the period immediately following repeal. There’s a sizable minority of the Navy, 

approximately 24 percent, who believe the impact of a repeal will 

be negative. Areas of greatest concern expressed in the survey include social cohesion, privacy in sleeping and showering facilities 

aboard ships, submarines, and in certain training environments, 

and increased stress on the force during periods of high-tempo operations. 

I believe these concerns can be effectively mitigated through engaged leadership, effective communications, training and education, 

and clear and concise standards of conduct. While we will engage 

all sailors regardless of their points of view, it is this minority upon 

which leaders must focus. 

We all understand and appreciate the critical role of families in 

support of our sailors. The assessment of the spouses is important 

because of their support to our sailors and their role in reenlistment decisions that Navy families make. Of the more than 7,500 

Navy spouses who responded to the survey, 81 percent told us they 

do not expect family readiness to be negatively impacted as a result 

of repeal. 

Section 654 of title 10, U.S.C., is currently the subject of ongoing 

litigation and I cannot predict the outcome. I do believe any change 

in the law is best accomplished through the legislative process and 

not judicially. Legislative repeal affords us the time and structured 

process needed to effectively implement this significant change 

within our Armed Forces. 

Should the law be repealed, the U.S. Navy will continue to be the 

professional, global, and effective, relevant force for the Nation. Repeal of the law will not fundamentally change who we are and 

what we do. The U.S. Navy can implement the necessary changes 

to policies and procedures even in a time of war and increasing 

global commitments. 

89 

With the exception of the moderate risk associated with projected 

retention in some Navy irregular warfare specialties, I assess the 

risk to readiness, effectiveness, and cohesion of the Navy to be low. 

Based on my professional judgment and informed by the inputs 

from our Navy, I recommend repeal of section 654 of title 10, 

U.S.C. I have the ultimate confidence in the men and women of the 

U.S. Navy and in their character, discipline, and decency. Navy 

leaders will continue to set a positive tone, create an inclusive and 

respected work environment, and enforce our high standards of 

conduct throughout the Navy as we serve the Nation. Our sailors 

will continue to live by our core values of honor, courage, and commitment, which are fundamental to our character and our conduct. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Admiral Roughead follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT BY ADM GARY ROUGHEAD, USN 

Chairman Levin, Senator McCain, and distinguished members of the committee, 

thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to address the report of 

the Working Group and my perspective of the issues associated with a potential repeal of 10 U.S.C. § 654. 

I commend the Working Group for what they have accomplished, and I applaud 

the professionalism and seriousness of the men and women of the U.S. Navy as they 

participated in an unprecedented survey of our Armed Forces. I am satisfied with 

the methodology and execution of the servicemember and spouse surveys, and the 

extent to which the Working Group engaged sailors and their families. I believe the 

appropriate policy issues have been researched, examined and necessary courses of 

action have been considered. The servicemember survey was the largest survey of 

its kind ever conducted in the Department of Defense (DOD). More than 21,000 sailors responded to the survey producing a statistically valid assessment of the attitudes present within the Navy. The responses helped me to assess the potential impacts to effectiveness, readiness, unit cohesion, and morale on our Navy. Seventysix percent of sailors so believe the impact on these force characteristics to be neutral or positive. 

There will be issues to be addressed, especially in the period immediately following repeal. There is a sizeable minority of the Navy, approximately 24 percent, 

who believe the impact of repeal will be negative. Areas of greatest concern expressed in the survey include social cohesion, privacy in sleeping/showering facilities 

aboard ships, submarines and in certain training environments, and increased 

stress on the force during a period of high operational tempo. I believe these concerns can be effectively mitigated through engaged leadership, effective communications, training and education, and clear and concise standards of conduct. 

While we will engage all sailors, regardless of their points of view, it is this minority upon which our leaders must focus. 

We all understand and appreciate the critical role of families in support of our 

sailors. The assessment of the spouses is important because of their support to our 

sailors and their role in reenlistment decisions Navy families make. Of the more 

than 7,500 Navy spouses who responded to the Spouse Survey, 81 percent told us 

they do not expect family readiness to be negatively impacted as a result of repeal. 

Overall, I assess recruiting and retention will not be adversely affected in the 

short-term. However, I do note that Navy irregular warfare specialties, critical to 

ongoing combat operations, such as SEALs, EOD, and Seabees, expressed greater 

negativity and a lower propensity to reenlist should repeal occur. While these effects 

may not be fully realized, these specialties must be monitored closely to ensure we 

are positioned and resourced to respond to changes over the long-term. We cannot 

assume these projected retention losses away and we must take into account the 

past, current and future combat employment of these critical specialties. 

Should repeal occur, we will move quickly to bring Navy into compliance. We will: 

• Provide our leaders with clear policies and procedures necessary to effect 

change, 

• Clearly communicate what repeal means to sailors and their families, 

• Deliver tailored training and education to inform sailors at all levels, and 

• Emphasize the importance of our continued professional behavior for all 

through 77 clearly defined standards of conduct. 

90 

The Working Group’s recommended changes to benefits are tiered appropriately, 

but the costs must be addressed more fully. DOD should conduct a thorough analysis of the policy and resource issues involved prior to the proposed expansion of 

single-member designated benefits. I do not believe we have a full accounting of the 

costs and manpower associated with the expanded benefits that are recommended 

for prompt implementation. We must also understand whether a dilution of services 

could result from increasing the served demographic without a concomitant increase 

in resources. If not properly addressed, the quality of service to all servicemembers 

could diminish, and reduced access to benefits in a time of war would exacerbate 

negative perceptions of repeal. 

10 U.S.C. § 654 is currently the subject of ongoing litigation, and I cannot predict 

its outcome. I do believe any change in the law is best accomplished through the 

legislative process and not judicially. Legislative repeal affords us the time and 

structured process needed to 90 effectively implement this significant change within 

our Armed Forces. 

Should the law be repealed, the U.S. Navy will continue to be professional, global, 

effective, and relevant to the Nation. Repeal of the law will not fundamentally 

change who we are and what we do. The U.S. Navy can implement the necessary 

changes to policies and procedures, even in a time of war and increasing global commitments. With the exception of moderate risk associated with projected retention 

in some Navy irregular warfare specialties, I assess the risk to readiness, effectiveness and cohesion of the Navy to be low. Accordingly, based on my professional 

judgment, and informed by the inputs from our Navy, I recommend repeal of 10 

U.S.C. § 654. 

I have the ultimate confidence in the men and women of the U.S. Navy, and in 

their character, discipline and decency. Navy leaders will continue to set a positive 

tone, create an inclusive and respectful work environment, and enforce our high 

standards of conduct throughout the Navy as we serve the Nation. Our sailors will 

continue to live by our core values of honor, courage, and commitment which are 

the foundation of our character and conduct. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you very much, Admiral. 

General Amos. 

STATEMENT OF GEN. JAMES F. AMOS, USMC, COMMANDANT 

OF THE MARINE CORPS 

General AMOS. Chairman Levin, Ranking Member McCain, distinguished members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you to address the report of the DOD Working Group that conducted a comprehensive review of the issues associated with repeal of section 654 of title 10, U.S.C., ‘‘Policy Concerning Homosexuality in the Armed Forces.’’ 

I would like to begin by stating for the record that the study conducted by the DOD’s Working Group is a valuable examination of 

the issues associated with repealing the policy concerning homosexuality in the Armed Forces and serves to usefully frame the perspectives of our servicemembers and their families. I am grateful 

for the efforts of the Honorable Jeh Johnson and General Carter 

Ham. As team leaders, I believe they led their Working Group 

faithfully to uncover the attitudes and opinions of our servicemembers. 

The survey provides useful information about servicemember attitudes and issues regarding potential implementation of repeal 

across the Marine Corps. I would like to briefly share with you 

what this report says about our marines’ opinions concerning implementation. 

Viewed holistically across the Marine Corps, including all military occupational specialties (MOS), approximately 45 percent of 

marines surveyed viewed repeal negatively regarding unit effectiveness, unit readiness, and cohesion. 5 percent to 13 percent viewed 

repeal positively in those same categories. 

91 

Of particular concern to me is that roughly 56 percent of combat 

arms marines voiced negative concerns. Negative benchmarks for 

combat arms marines range between 66 percent for unit effectiveness and 58 percent for cohesion. These negative perceptions are 

held almost equally by all ranks within the combat arms communities. 

What the survey did not identify is the risk to the force should 

repeal be undertaken while the Corps is engaged in its 9th year of 

combat operations. With half of the Marine Corps operating forces 

either engaged in fighting in Afghanistan, returning from theater, 

or preparing to deploy to combat again, their readiness and associated focus are foremost in shaping my implementation assessment. 

My experiences throughout nearly 40 years in uniform tell me 

that young men and women who volunteer to be marines do so 

with honorable and patriotic intentions, and that even vast differences in backgrounds, beliefs, or personalities can be bridged. 

That said, if the law is changed, successfully implementing repeal 

and assimilating openly homosexual marines into the tightly woven 

fabric of our combat units has strong potential for disruption at the 

small unit level. It will no doubt divert leadership attention away 

from an almost singular focus on preparing units for combat. 

I do not know how distracting that effort would be, nor how 

much risk it portends. I cannot reconcile, nor turn my back on, the 

negative perceptions held by our marines who are most engaged in 

the hard work of day-to-day operations in Afghanistan. 

We asked for their opinions and they gave them to us. Their 

message is that the potential exists for disruption to the successful 

execution of our current combat mission should repeal be implemented at this time. 

In the final analysis, I’m faced with two questions. The first 

question is, could we implement repeal at this time? The answer 

is yes. Despite the challenges I have briefly outlined above, at the 

end of the day we are marines. Should Congress change the law, 

then our Nation’s Marine Corps will faithfully follow the law. Marine Corps authorities, even its very existence in law, flow directly 

from Congress. I promise you that we will follow the law. 

Chapter 13 of the study does a good job of articulating most of 

the elements of a successful implementation strategy. It will require and receive highly focused leadership at every level, beginning with me and the Sergeant Major of the Marine Corps. 

The second question is, should we at this time? Based on what 

I know about the very tough fight in Afghanistan, the almost singular focus of our combat forces as they train up and deploy to theater, the necessary tightly woven culture of those combat forces 

that we are asking so much of at this time, and finally the direct 

feedback from the survey, my recommendation is that we should 

not implement repeal at this time. 

Today your marines continue to faithfully serve around the globe, 

partnered with our sister Services and allies, defending our freedoms and our way of life. The focus of my complete energy is to 

ensure our marines are properly led, trained, and equipped and 

that their families are cared for, so that our marines can focus 

their energy on the vital task they are assigned. I can report to you 

that the combat effectiveness, readiness, health, and welfare of the 

92 

Corps are as high as it has been in my nearly 40 years of service. 

Your marines are accomplishing their many missions with professionalism and high morale, confident in the support of their families, fellow citizens, and elected leaders. 

Finally, on behalf of all marines, their families, and civilian marines, I want to thank you for your continued and faithful support. 

I know that the repeal issue has been difficult for all concerned. 

I am grateful for the opportunity to represent our Marine Corps 

on this important matter and I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of General Amos follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT BY GEN. JAMES F. AMOS, USMC 

Chairman Levin, Senator McCain, distinguished members of the committee, 

thank you for the opportunity to appear before you to address the report of the Department of Defense (DOD) Working Group that conducted a comprehensive review 

of the issues associated with a repeal of section 654, title 10, U.S.C., ‘‘Policy Concerning Homosexuality in the Armed Forces.’’ 

I would like to begin by stating for the record that the study conducted by DOD’s 

Working Group is a valuable examination of the issues associated with repealing the 

policy concerning homosexuality in the Armed Forces and serves to usefully frame 

the perspectives of our servicemembers and their families. I am grateful for the efforts of the Honorable Jeh Johnson and General Carter Ham; as team leaders, I believe they led their Working Group faithfully to uncover the attitudes and opinions 

of our servicemembers. 

The survey provides useful information about servicemember attitudes and issues 

regarding potential implementation of repeal across the Marine Corps. I would like 

to briefly share with you what this report says about our marines’ opinions concerning implementation. 

Viewed holistically across the Marine Corps, including all military occupational 

specialties, approximately 45 percent of marines surveyed viewed repeal negatively 

regarding unit effectiveness, unit readiness, and cohesion; 5 to 13 percent viewed 

repeal positively in those same categories. Of particular concern to me is that roughly 56 percent of combat arms marines voiced negative concerns. Negative benchmark measurements for combat arms marines ranged between 66 percent for unit 

effectiveness, and 58 percent for cohesion. These negative perceptions are held almost equally by all ranks within the combat arms communities. What the survey 

did not identify is the risk to the force should repeal be undertaken while the Marine Corps is engaged in the 9th year of combat operations. With half of the Marine 

Corps’ operating forces either engaged in fighting in Afghanistan, returning from 

theater, or preparing to deploy to combat, their readiness and associated focus are 

foremost in shaping my implementation assessment. 

My experiences throughout nearly 40 years in uniform tell me that young men 

and women who volunteer to be marines do so with honorable and patriotic intentions, and that even vast differences in background, beliefs or personalities can be 

bridged. That said, if the law is changed, successfully implementing repeal and assimilating openly homosexual marines into the tightly woven fabric of our combat 

units has strong potential for disruption at the small unit level, as it will no doubt 

divert leadership attention away from an almost singular focus of preparing units 

for combat. I do not know how distracting that effort would be, nor how much risk 

it portends. While the study concludes that’’ . . . repeal can be implemented now, provided it is done in [a] manner that minimizes the burden on leaders in deployed 

areas,’’ the survey data as it relates to the Marine Corps’ combat arms forces does 

not support that assertion. I cannot reconcile, nor turn my back, on the negative 

perceptions held by our marines who are most engaged in the hard work of dayto-day operations in Afghanistan. We asked for their opinions and they gave them 

to us. Their message to me is that the potential exists for disruption to the successful execution of our current combat mission should repeal be implemented at this 

time. 

I am faced with two questions. The first is ‘‘could we’’ implement repeal at this 

time? The answer is yes. Despite the challenges I have briefly outlined above, at 

the end of the day, we are marines—should Congress change the law then our Nation’s Marine Corps will faithfully support the law. Marine Corps authorities, and 

even its very existence in law, flow directly from Congress; I promise you that we 

will follow the law. Chapter XIII of the study does a good job of articulating most 

of the elements of a successful implementation strategy. It will require and receive 

93 

highly focused leadership at every level, beginning with me and the Sergeant Major 

of the Marine Corps. 

The second question is ‘‘should we at this time?’’ Based on what I know about the 

very tough fight on the ground in Afghanistan, the almost singular focus of our combat forces as they train up and deploy into theater, the necessary tightly woven culture of those combat forces that we are asking so much of at this time, and finally 

the direct feedback from the survey, my recommendation is that we should not implement repeal at this time. 

Finally, on behalf of all marines, their families, and civilian marines, I want to 

thank you for your concern and continued support. I know that the repeal issue has 

been difficult for all concerned. I am grateful for the opportunity to represent our 

Marine Corps on this important matter to you. 

I look forward to continuing to work with you to meet the challenges that lie 

ahead as our marines and sailors remain engaged in combat operations. I pledge 

you will always have my honest assessment of what is required to maintain the 

health of your Marine Corps and the security of our great Nation. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you, General Amos. 

General Schwartz. 

STATEMENT OF GEN. NORTON A. SCHWARTZ, USAF, CHIEF OF 

STAFF OF THE AIR FORCE 

General SCHWARTZ. Mr. Chairman, Senator McCain, members of 

the committee. Thank you for allowing the Service Chiefs to offer 

testimony and our best military advice on the proposed repeal of 

section 654 of title 10, U.S.C. 

The DOD study confirms that Air Force attitudes run roughly 70 

percent to 30 percent toward those who see positive, mixed, or no 

effect with respect to allowing open service by gay and lesbian airmen in the Air Force. The favorability distribution runs slightly 

higher for the spouse survey, at about 75 percent to 25 percent, 

and lower for close combat Air Force skill sets, at about 60 percent 

to 40 percent. 

The study recognizes that there are a number of complicating 

factors: cohabitation, privacy, and universal benefits, among others. 

Each of these complicating factors will require focused attention 

and in time will be accommodated satisfactorily. Thus, it is my assessment that the U.S. Air Force can accommodate repeal of DADT 

with modest risk to military readiness, effectiveness, unit cohesion, 

retention, and recruiting of your airmen. 

The Air Force will pursue implementation of repeal, if the law 

changes, thoroughly, professionally, and with conviction. Nonetheless, I do not agree with the study assessment that the short-term 

risk to military effectiveness is low. It is inescapable that our officers and NCO leaders in Afghanistan, in particular, are carrying 

a heavy load. While the demands of close combat affect fewer airmen in contrast to the personnel of the other Services, I remain 

concerned with the study assessment that the risk of repeal of military effectiveness in Afghanistan is low. That assessment, in my 

view, is too optimistic. 

I acknowledge the findings of the study that, under the pressures 

of combat, attitudes of our close combat skill personnel regarding 

DADT seem to moderate. After all, survival is a powerful instinct. 

Still, it is difficult for me as a member of the Joint Chiefs to recommend placing any additional discretionary demands on our leadership cadres in Afghanistan at this particularly demanding time. 

I therefore recommend deferring full implementation and certifiVerDate Aug 31 2005 08:59 May 02, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00099 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 Y:\BORAWSKI\DOCS\65073.TXT JUNE PsN: JUNEB
94 

cation until 2012, while initiating training and education efforts 

soon after you make a decision to repeal. 

Finally, I would like to emphasize and add my strong endorsement to Secretary Gates’ advice that legislative action on this issue 

is far preferable to a decision by the courts, from which we would 

enjoy much less latitude to properly calibrate implementation. Precipitous repeal is not a place where your Armed Forces want to be. 

Mr. Chairman, along with my colleagues, I look forward to your 

questions. 

[The prepared statement of General Schwartz follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT BY GEN. NORTON A. SCHWARTZ, USAF 

The study by the Working Group, regarding the proposed repeal of 10 U.S.C. 

§ 654, confirms that approximately 70 percent of the Air Force see positive, mixed, 

or no effect in allowing gay, lesbian, and bisexual airmen to serve openly in the U.S. 

Air Force, with approximately 30 percent who do not. This favorability distribution 

runs slightly higher for the spouse survey—at about 75:25—but lower for close-combat Air Force skill specialties, at around 60:40. 

The study also recognizes a number of complicating factors—among them: cohabitation, privacy, and universal benefits—which will require focused attention and, in 

time, will be accommodated satisfactorily. It is my assessment that the U.S. Air 

Force can implement a repeal of Section 654 and the policy commonly known as 

Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT), with modest risk to military readiness and effectiveness, unit cohesion, recruiting, and retention of your airmen. If the law changes, the 

Air Force will pursue implementation of repeal thoroughly, professionally, and with 

conviction. 

Nonetheless, my best military judgment does not agree with the study assessment 

that the short-term risk to military effectiveness is low. It is an inescapable fact 

that our officer and noncommissioned officer leaders in Afghanistan, in particular, 

are carrying a heavy load. Therefore, even while the demands of close combat affect 

relatively few airmen in contrast to personnel of the other Services, I remain concerned with the outlook for low short-term risk of repeal to military effectiveness 

in Afghanistan. 

I acknowledge that the study findings indicate that, under the pressure of combat, 

attitudes of our close-combat skilled personnel, regarding DADT, seem to moderate. 

After all, survival is a powerful instinct. Still; it is difficult for me, as a member 

of the Joint Chiefs, to recommend placing any additional discretionary demands on 

our leadership cadres in Afghanistan at this particularly challenging time. I therefore recommend deferring certification and full implementation until 2012, while initiating training and education efforts soon after you take any decision to repeal. 

Finally, I emphasize and add my strong endorsement to Secretary Gates’ advice 

that legislative action on this issue is far more preferable to a decision by the courts, 

insofar as we would be afforded much less latitude to properly calibrate implementation. Precipitous repeal is not where your Armed Forces wants to be. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you very much, General Schwartz. 

Admiral Papp. 

STATEMENT OF ADM ROBERT J. PAPP, JR., USCG, 

COMMANDANT OF THE COAST GUARD 

Admiral PAPP. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Senator McCain, 

and distinguished members of the committee. Thank you for inviting me and the Coast Guard to participate in today’s hearing. I’m 

grateful for the opportunity to provide you with my views regarding the Working Group’s findings, the potential impacts of repealing DADT, and the report’s recommendations for implementation. 

Let me start by saying I’m very proud of our Coast Guard men 

and women. They are individuals of extraordinary character and 

abilities who readily engage in the communities in which they live 

and serve. I’m particularly proud of the strong response by our 

coastguardsmen and family members in reply to the surveys put 

95 

out by the Working Group. Our Active Duty response rate was 54 

percent, our Reserve response rate was 39 percent, and our spouse 

response rate was 39 percent, which demonstrate their understanding of the importance of this issue. 

I concur with the report’s recommendations on how to implement 

the repeal of the current law. Allowing gay and lesbian Americans 

to serve in the Coast Guard openly will remove a significant barrier to those coastguardsmen who are already serving capably and 

who have been forced to hide or even lie about their sexual orientation. Forcing these coastguardsmen to compromise our core values 

of honor, respect, and devotion to duty to continue to serve is a 

choice they should not have to make. 

Now, I’m very respectful of the unique challenges facing each 

Service and I don’t for a second suggest my circumstances and 

judgment would inform our very different responsibilities. My professional opinion is my own and comes from the two worlds in 

which I sit. 

The Coast Guard is at all times a Military Service governed by 

the laws this committee advances to ensure the effectiveness of our 

Armed Forces. Though small in numbers, we are integrated with 

our sister Services around the world. But we’re also tightly woven 

into the law enforcement and first responder communities in our 

Nation. We work with Federal, State, and local forces where gay 

and lesbian Americans serve openly with distinction and heroism. 

While I concur with the report’s recommendations, prudence dictates that implementation must proceed with caution. I infer from 

the data relating to the Coast Guard that many coastguardsmen 

and their family members find gay and lesbian citizens in our Service acceptable. However, minority views cannot be ignored. Moreover, there is no total force view. Views within our Service communities vary to some degree. We must therefore fashion an implementation strategy that takes into account the attitudes that vary 

among our commands based upon where our people live and where 

they serve together. 

Thus, I ask the committee to avoid inferring from the report that 

implementation of this rather significant decision will be easy. I describe myself as a pragmatist, which I define as an optimist with 

experience. My experience leads me to conclude that we must inform you, our civilian leaders, that implementation will not be 

achieved without encountering challenges along the course ahead, 

some of which, despite our best efforts, we cannot foresee and 

which will likely take considerable time and resources to overcome. 

With that, I am absolutely confident that the Coast Guard leadership is prepared to implement any change that you direct. Moreover, I do not harbor the slightest doubt that Coast Guard men and 

women will be up to the task and will sustain their high levels of 

professionalism and effectiveness should the law change. They 

prove every day that they are among America’s best and I have 

unshakable confidence in their ability to weather change of this 

magnitude. 

Again, thank you for the opportunity to testify today and I look 

forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Admiral Papp follows:] 

96 

PREPARED STATEMENT BY ADM ROBERT PAPP, USCG 

Thank you Mr. Chairman, Senator McCain, and distinguished members of the 

committee for inviting the Coast Guard to participate in today’s hearing. I am grateful for the opportunity to provide you with our views regarding the Working Group’s 

Report of the Comprehensive Review of the Issues Associated with a Repeal of Don’t 

Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT) findings on the potential impacts of repealing DADT and 

its recommendations for implementation. 

The Coast Guard is at all times an Armed Force, and its 50,000 uniformed men 

and women in the Active and Reserve Force serve the American people by protecting our coasts, waterways, and maritime interests around the world. Our rescues in perilous conditions are legendary. Our law enforcement detachments board 

hostile vessels that carry drugs, traffic in human beings, or engage in piracy. Our 

maritime forces safeguard our national interests in places as diverse as the Bering 

Sea and the Northern Arabian Gulf. 

I am extremely proud of our Coast Guard men and women. They are individuals 

of extraordinary caliber, who readily engage in the communities in which they 

serve. I am particularly proud of the strong response of coastguardsmen and family 

members who responded to the Working Group’s survey—our Active Duty response 

rate was 54 percent; our Reserve response rate was 39 percent; and our spouse response rate was also 39 percent—which demonstrates their understanding of the 

importance of this issue. 

I concur with the Working Group’s recommendations on how to implement repeal 

of the current law. Allowing gays and lesbians to serve in the Coast Guard openly 

will remove a significant barrier to those coastguardsmen who are capably serving, 

but who have been forced to hide or even lie about their sexual orientation. Forcing 

these coastguardsmen to compromise our core values of honor, respect, and devotion 

to duty to continue to serve is a choice they should not have to make. 

While I concur with the report’s recommendations, prudence dictates that implementation must proceed with caution. I infer from data relating to the Coast Guard 

that many coastguardsmen and their family members may find gays and lesbians 

in our Service acceptable, however, minority views cannot be ignored. Moreover, 

there is no ‘‘total-force’’ view. Views within our Service communities vary to some 

degree. We must therefore fashion an implementation strategy that takes into account the attitudes that vary among our commands, based on where our people live 

and serve together. 

Effective implementation of any repeal will surely require leadership and a conscientious dialogue with our workforce to achieve success. The Coast Guard’s unique 

identity among the five armed services offers us potential advantages and challenges. We operate as both an Armed Force and a law enforcement agency. As a 

law enforcement agency, coastguardsmen partner daily with Federal, State, and 

local law enforcement agencies in which gays and lesbians serve with heroism and 

distinction. We also have many small units in remote localities throughout our Nation. Our personnel live in and are part of these communities. Indeed, 90 percent 

of Coast Guard personnel live on the economy rather than on base in military housing. This may facilitate the acceptance of gays and lesbians who serve among us. 

At the same time, living in many remote communities around the Nation may 

pose challenges to assimilating gays and lesbians. As a field commander, I have 

seen Coast Guard members who have been victims of insensitivity, intolerance and 

even discrimination. While such experiences have been the exception and not the 

rule, our experiences in the past may be predictors of the challenges we will face 

in the future if the law is repealed. Openly gay or lesbian coastguardsmen may find 

themselves targets, and the Service must confront this issue and craft an implementation strategy that will protect the well being of all of our people, while ensuring 

mission execution. 

By analogy, today the integration of women into the military is portrayed as a 

success story. However, we must not forget the rather significant challenges that 

accompanied our efforts to fully integrate women into the armed services—as well 

as the hurdles these first women encountered. The Coast Guard pioneered the integration of women—our Academy was the first Federal Service Academy to accept 

women, and the first to assign women to the fleet. We do not tolerate conduct that 

constitutes discrimination or harassment and we take proactive measures to prevent 

it. However, though we have a highly trained and educated workforce, now with 

three decades of experience serving in a gender integrated service, incidents of such 

conduct continue to be reported. 

Thus, I ask the committee to avoid inferring from the report that implementation 

of this rather significant decision will be easy. I am a ‘‘pragmatist,’’ which I define 

as an ‘‘optimist with experience’’. My experience leads me to conclude that we must 

97 

inform you, our civilian leaders, that implementation will not be achieved without 

encountering significant challenges along the course ahead, some of which, despite 

our best efforts, we cannot foresee, and which will likely take considerable time and 

resources to overcome. 

With that said, I am absolutely confident that Coast Guard leaders are prepared 

to implement any change you direct. Moreover, I do not harbor the slightest doubt 

that Coast Guard men and women will be up to the task, and will sustain the highest level of professionalism and effectiveness, should the law change. They prove 

every day that they are among America’s best and I have unshakable confidence in 

their ability to weather change of this magnitude and to prevail. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I look forward to your questions. 

Chairman LEVIN. I think we are going to start round one with 

a 7-minute round, and if we need a second round we will have a 

second round. 

Let me start with you, General Cartwright. Yesterday Secretary 

Gates and Admiral Mullen clearly and forcefully articulated that, 

with proper leadership, education, and training, the repeal of 

DADT can be done without unacceptable risks to standards of military readiness and effectiveness. Your testimony indicates your 

agreement with that. 

My first question to you is this. You are a marine. General Amos 

is a marine. I know you admire and respect each other greatly, not 

just because you’re marines, but as human beings, and for all the 

great professionalism and experience that you’ve had. But your 

view is very different, General Cartwright, from that of General 

Amos. His testimony speaks to the negative perceptions that are 

held by marines, which could create a problem for the day-to-day 

operations in Afghanistan. 

Can you comment on General Amos’ testimony? 

General CARTWRIGHT. First out, we sat next to each other as second lieutenants overseas in our first overseas deployment, and 

we’ve served together ever since. We do, at least from my perspective, share a great deal of respect for each other and our views. 

My view on this issue was shaped by the contrast in the questions and the way they were asked in the study and then by my 

own opportunities to go to the field and to talk, not only to marines, but other Services. I tend to reflect on, probably because of 

my billet and because of my joint time, a broader perspective than 

just one Service. But I certainly still wear this uniform and do so 

proudly and always will consider myself a marine. 

As I said in my statement, Senator, I think the difference here 

is the look at what the perception of the future might be, the ambiguities that are introduced when somebody tries to guess what the 

future might be. As the study indicated, the likelihood that stereotypes and misperceptions of how actions might occur in the future 

have some influence on how someone might look at the perspective. 

I tended to favor strongly the views of those that, the question 

that was put to them in the study was, if you suspected or knew 

that someone in your unit was gay or lesbian, did it affect their 

combat effectiveness, did it affect the unit’s combat effectiveness? 

The study numbers swing drastically when you ask them for their 

actual reflection, and they generally came in around the 92 percent 

level of it had no effect on the unit, it had no effect on their ability 

to conduct combat. 

In fact, there were some anecdotal comments in the study that 

were called out. One of them that is very memorable to me was 

98 

from a SEAL who reflected that a member in his unit he suspected 

to be gay, was the biggest and the meanest and killed the most 

people, and he wanted him in that unit, and that that individual 

carried a large portion of the unit’s effectiveness. 

I weighed that heavily, Senator. I weighed the opportunity to understand the difference between the actual and the prospective, 

looking forward into the future. My conversations, when I went out 

to visit marines over the past year, most recently over the Thanksgiving period in Helmand Province, I found that the study’s insights were, in fact, held up. Those that had not had any experience, or didn’t believe they’d had any experience, with gay and lesbians tended to believe that the future was more ambiguous. 

The RAND study also pointed in the same direction, that if you 

don’t know you tend to be more conservative in your opinion. If you 

have an opportunity to understand and serve with someone who is 

gay or lesbian, then the facts tend to weigh heavier on your mind, 

and in the study they showed 92 percent of respondents believed 

that it would not have an effect. 

That’s what weighed my opinion, Senator. 

Chairman LEVIN. I’d like to ask each of you a question about the 

other militaries. Transitions to policies of equal treatment without 

regard to sexual orientation have been successful in the militaries 

of our allies, even though opposition to change in their militaries 

was higher at the time that the change was made in those militaries than it is now for our military. 

That shows, to a significant extent, the change in attitude which 

has occurred just over the last 10 years or so. But putting that 

aside for a moment, these militaries report that when it came to 

implementation, the attitudes were not only different, but, most 

importantly, the change in those militaries had no negative impact 

on morale, recruitment, retention, readiness, or overall combat effectiveness. 

General Casey, let me start with you. Have you discussed the impact of repealing DADT with your counterparts in these other militaries? 

General CASEY. I have, Senator. In fact, I think it was a few 

months ago at a hearing here that Senator Wicker asked me to do 

that. In October, I sat down with my counterparts from the United 

Kingdom, Germany, France, the Netherlands, Canada, and Denmark, purposely to talk about this particular issue. They told me 

that the execution was with minimal disruption, pretty much as 

you had discussed. 

They suggested to me that when we do execute repeal we keep 

things as simple as possible and keep fraternization policy absolutely consistent. They did, however, point out to me two key differences. They said in almost every case, there was broad national 

consensus before the law was repealed, and in some cases the countries actually had laws that supported civil unions. That was a difference I took back and we should take into consideration. 

Chairman LEVIN. All right. 

Admiral, have you talked to your counterparts? 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. Yes, sir, I have. I’ve long maintained that 

our military is different than the other militaries of the world. But 

the way that I would characterize the response from those chiefs 

99 

of navies that have a policy that allows gay and lesbians to serve, 

the term that I would bring to mind is nonevent. 

Chairman LEVIN. Is what? 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. Nonevent. It just happened and they got on 

with things. 

I think it’s also interesting to note that most of those changes 

have occurred well over 10 years ago, and in that time with most 

of these navies we continue to have exchange programs where our 

sailors and officers serve on their ships and vice versa. So we are 

exposed in a routine way, if you will, to navies that have a different policy. 

Chairman LEVIN. General, I’m not sure who your counterpart is. 

General CARTWRIGHT. Sir, I do have counterparts in each of the 

countries, and I have talked to a good number of them. I tend to 

find the same consensus that Admiral Roughead just reflected. 

I will also highlight that, particularly with several of our North 

Atlantic Treaty Organization allies, that the issue of serving sideby-side with them, integrated with their forces on the battlefield, 

has not been a problem for our forces or for their forces. 

Chairman LEVIN. General Amos? 

General AMOS. Mr. Chairman, we have so few other Marine 

Corps forces around the globe, I did not ask their opinion. I have 

no reason to doubt the efficacy of the report as it talks to the ease 

of transition from the other Services around the world. I find no 

fault in that, and I suspect it’s absolutely correct. 

But we are the U.S. Marine Corps and we are heavily involved 

in combat right now. It would be difficult for me to reach back and 

look at the periods of time when these other Services, these other 

nations, made their transitions. I can only speak for where we are 

today, with over 50 percent of my combat forces heavily engaged. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you. 

General Schwartz. 

General SCHWARTZ. Mr. Chairman, I have chatted with my counterparts and they have indicated relative ease in terms of the transition. But I must state for you that I am not sure that that evidence is necessarily compelling. I find actually the fact that police 

departments, fire departments, and municipal public servants, that 

the case within the United States is a more compelling analogue 

to transition. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you. 

Admiral Papp. 

Admiral PAPP. Sir, it might not be expected, but we actually exchange quite a bit with foreign countries, primarily with Canada, 

but we also put law enforcement detachments on British, Dutch, 

and French ships. We work with the Australians and others in the 

Northern Arabian Gulf in terms of counter-piracy and other operations. 

We have pretty good exposure to other navies and coast guards 

around the world. In my discussions with some of their leaders, it 

would reflect the same as Admiral Roughead, as pretty much a 

nonevent. 

I might also add that I come from a department where we have 

other operating agencies as well, all of which employ gay and lesbian members, the Secret Service, Customs and Border Protection, 

100 

et cetera. I work on a daily basis with Services that have openly 

gay or lesbian members, and we see no effect. 

Chairman LEVIN. One of the conclusions of the Working Group 

report is that leadership is key to successful implementation of repeal of DADT. A couple of you have commented on that issue, but 

I want to ask all of you about that. Starting with you, General 

Casey, would you agree that if DADT is repealed, that successful 

implementation depends upon leadership? 

General CASEY. I would, Senator. Leadership is the key to everything. Leaders have to embrace the law or the policy that comes 

out and move forward to effectively implement it. 

I will tell you, as I mentioned in my opening statement, one of 

the concerns I have is that our captains, the company commanders 

and first sergeants, mid-level leaders, officers, and NCOs have a lot 

on their plate right now, and this will be another element that will 

be put on their plate. Operations in Iraq and Afghanistan are 

hugely complex already. If we do this, it will get done and it will 

get done well. But other things are not going to get done, and I 

worry about the implications of that in Iraq and Afghanistan. 

Chairman LEVIN. What would not get done? 

General CASEY. I’m talking about the broad numbers of tasks 

that a company commander has to do in general and in combat in 

particular. When he is focusing his effort on implementing a new 

policy, he won’t be able to devote the intellectual effort to some 

other things. I can’t tell you specifically what it will be. I’m talking 

about the totality of the tasks. 

Chairman LEVIN. Admiral Roughead, your opinion on leadership? 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. Leadership is absolutely critical, Senator. 

But it’s critical to everything that we do. It’s about setting the 

standards, adhering to the standards, and training your people to 

be able to accomplish the mission. I have great faith in our leaders, 

officer and enlisted, throughout the Navy. 

Chairman LEVIN. Does anyone else want to add a comment on 

this, because I want to go on to just one other question? [No response.] 

Let me ask you about the need for Congress to act. A number 

of you have commented upon the importance of Congress taking 

this action if the alternative is going to be the possibility of a court 

decision. For those of you who have not commented on that, because I think two of you have, could you make a statement about 

the relative importance of doing this legislatively with an implementation certification required that there will be no negative impact on recruitment, retention, and morale. That the certification 

and 60-day delay is of great value in this process, and that is not 

assured at all if there’s going to be a court opinion. 

For those of you who haven’t commented, please give us the importance of that? 

General CASEY. Do you want me to start? 

Chairman LEVIN. Yes. 

General CASEY. Senator, I believe that any course of action that 

gives us appropriate time to prepare is the right course of action. 

It’s the preparation time. Whether it comes from Congress or the 

courts I think is immaterial. But no matter what happens, we have 

to have the time to appropriately prepare. 

101 

Chairman LEVIN. Is that time which is part of the certification 

process that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and the Secretary 

of Defense must go through, plus the delay after that. Is that certification process, with the time required before certification and 

the fact that the Chairman must certify no impact, does that give 

you some reassurance as well? 

General CASEY. It does. That gives us the time we need. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you. 

Let me call on General Amos and General Schwartz in terms of 

the certification process, the implementation process, the time 

that’s involved in that, as well as the fact that there must be a certification by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of no impact or minimal impact on morale or recruitment; is that important to you in 

your judgment? General Amos, let me start with you perhaps. 

General AMOS. Mr. Chairman, I think it absolutely goes a long 

way towards easing some of the pressure. I thought a lot about the 

question, if not now, then when, which is the second part, I think, 

of what you’re asking, Mr. Chairman. 

From my perspective as I look at it, my concern is singularly 

those combat units that are in combat, preparing to go, or just coming back, resetting their clocks, and getting ready to go again. 

If that’s the case, as I represented and that’s what the survey 

came back and told me, then it would stand that what I would 

want to have, with regards to implementation, a period of time 

where our marines are no longer focused primarily on combat. 

I think the Iraq drawdown model for the Marine Corps would be 

instructive. The last year and a half, for all the marines in Iraq, 

things had settled down for us. There was fewer and fewer kinetic 

operations, and we began to dramatically draw down the size of the 

force. 

I can’t tie a timeline to the certification process, but my recommendation, Mr. Chairman, would be that it begins when our singular focus is no longer on combat operations or preparing units for 

combat. At that point, then I’d be comfortable with implementing 

repeal. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you. That’s very helpful. 

I apologize to my colleagues. I did not know that these slips had 

been placed in front of me and I obviously went over my time, and 

I apologize for that. 

Senator McCain. 

Senator MCCAIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank the witnesses again for their testimony and their courage. 

I think it’s pretty obvious from the comments made by the Chiefs 

of Staff and the Service Chiefs of the Army, Navy, Air Force, and 

Marine Corps today, that there is significantly divided opinion on 

this issue. It’s very obvious to me that there is a lot more scrutiny 

and work to be involved in before passing this legislation. That’s 

why we see such a diversity of views here amongst the Service 

Chiefs. 

I also think it would be helpful, and I would imagine that our 

witnesses, or at least most of them, would agree, that we hear from 

the senior enlisted people. The sergeant major of the Army, Marine 

Corps, and senior enlisted personnel are the ones who will bear the 

brunt of the responsibilities for the training and implementation of 

102 

any change in the law. I think we need to hear from the theater 

commanders of the various commands throughout the world, who 

also play a major role in ensuring the security of our Nation. 

I noted that on the DADT originally passed in 1993 there were 

some 13 hearings held on this issue and a much more extensive examination. 

I don’t have a lot of questions. General Cartwright, when you 

look at any report it’s a little bit like studying the Bible. You can 

draw almost any conclusion from any part you examine. But I don’t 

understand your allegation when on question number 66 it says, 

‘‘Those who served in combat with a servicemember believed to be 

homosexual, effect on unit’s combat performance, mostly negative: 

Army combat arms, 58.8 percent; Marine combat arms, 57 percent.’’ 

That seems to me a pretty straightforward indication of what 

those in combat arms feel about those who served in combat with 

a servicemember believed to be homosexual. Significant responses 

in both Army and Marine Corps combat arms were negative. 

General Casey, this is a very tough issue for you, I know. It’s a 

tough issue for all of our witnesses. I especially appreciated the 

way that you presented your testimony. You said, I believe that implementation of the repeal in the near term will ‘‘add another level 

of stress to an already stretched force.’’ That’s one thing that we 

can all agree on, that the force is very badly stretched and repeal 

would be more difficult for the Army than the report suggests. 

General Casey, what is your personal opinion about repeal at 

this time? 

General CASEY. Senator, I believe that the law should be repealed eventually. As I read through the report, it seemed to me 

that the report called into question the basic presumption that underpins the law, and that is that the presence of a gay or lesbian 

servicemember creates an unacceptable risk to good order and discipline. I don’t believe that’s true, and from the surveys it appears 

to me that a large number of our servicemembers don’t believe 

that’s true, either. Eventually I believe it should be repealed. 

The question for me, as I’ve said, is one of timing, about whether 

we can do this in the near term. 

Senator MCCAIN. At this time, what is your opinion whether it 

should be repealed at this time? 

General CASEY. I would not recommend going forward at this 

time, given everything that the Army has on its plate. 

Senator MCCAIN. Thank you. 

General Schwartz, and I don’t usually like to do this with this 

very important issue, but could I have your personal opinion about 

repealing DADT at this time? 

General SCHWARTZ. Sir, as I indicated, I agree with General 

Casey that we should repeal the law at some point, and I suggested 

that perhaps full implementation could occur in 2012. But I do not 

think it prudent to seek full implementation in the near term. I 

think that is too risky. 

Senator MCCAIN. Repeal at this time? 

General SCHWARTZ. Correct. Senator, if you calibrate this, if you 

allow us to begin a process of training and education, but do not 

103 

mandate that it happen in the very near term, not in 2011, but 

2012 at the earliest, that would be an acceptable approach to me. 

Senator MCCAIN. I thank you. I must say that I’m largely in 

agreement with those opinions. To rush this thing through in a 

lame duck session would be, of course, I think an action that would 

not have taken into full consideration of the views of our senior enlisted personnel. 

I’m sure that at least some of the witnesses at the table would 

agree that everything we learn about leadership as young officers 

is from our senior enlisted personnel. I think they could contribute 

enormously to this discussion, as well as our senior officer corps. 

I want to thank the witnesses. I want to thank those of you that 

have given us a very frank and forthright opinion. We appreciate 

your service to the country. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you, Senator McCain. 

Senator Lieberman. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

Thanks to all of you for your testimony today. You’re obviously 

the leaders of the uniformed military of the United States of America. This morning you’ve represented the best values of the U.S. 

military and have shown us why the Armed Forces of the United 

States remain in my opinion the one central institution of our 

country that continues to earn the respect and trust of the American people. 

I say that specifically here, you all know my position. I’m for repeal of DADT. But you have come before us and stated your opinions. Some have supported repeal, some not; some now, some later. 

But in the end each of you, regardless of your position, have said 

that you will not only follow the judgment of Congress, you will 

make it work. That’s a very powerful statement. 

General Amos, you’re the one who’s spoken with the most concern about repeal. But I found your words very moving. You said, 

‘‘Could we implement repeal at this time? The answer is yes. Despite the challenges I briefly outlined above, at the end of the day 

we are marines. Should Congress change the law, then our Nation’s Marine Corps will faithfully support the law.’’ 

The first thing I wanted to do is to thank you, all of you, for the 

honesty of your testimony and your ultimate respect for the law, 

for civilian leadership, for Congress, and for the larger mission to 

which you’re committed. That’s why, at a tough time in our Nation’s history, the U.S. Armed Forces remain the one institution 

that brings us together for a common cause, which is the security 

of our country and the freedom that is our blessing as Americans. 

I first wanted to thank you for that. 

I thought the question that Senator McCain asked was really 

quite interesting, about the positions that you all have, because as 

I heard the testimony that Admiral Roughead, General Cartwright, 

and Admiral Papp have said, three of the six of you, that they favored repeal at this time. General Casey and General Schwartz, I 

think, expressed concern about repeal, but then in response to Senator McCain’s questions said that they would favor repeal of 

DADT, but not now, for the reasons that you’ve stated. 

Even General Amos, and I want to let you respond to this, you 

said at the end of your testimony, ‘‘We should not implement repeal 

104 

at this time.’’ Do you want to state an opinion as to whether you 

think that some time, and I believe in saying ‘‘this time’’ you’re 

talking about the combat that the marines are involved in now, 

whether you would favor repeal at some future time of DADT? 

General AMOS. Senator, you captured it. My concern right now, 

as we talked before we walked in here, was on those forces that 

are tightly focused right now. I spent a portion of yesterday morning talking to our commander on the ground, our two-star commander, whom many of you know, Major General Rich Mills, via 

videoteleconference. Then I talked to our battalion commander, 

who is absolutely in the zone in the most dangerous fight, and 

tightly focused. 

Interesting. I asked both of them, I said, knowing that I was 

going to appear before the committee today, if they had any opinions on DADT and the repeal. Both of them said, ‘‘Sir, we are so 

busy right now with doing the business in Afghanistan that I 

promise you that there has not even been one ounce of discussion 

about it in Afghanistan.’’ 

You could interpret that a couple of ways. You could interpret it 

as they don’t care and it’s macht nichts. I chose to compare it to 

the survey results, which say they are concerned. 

But back to the issue at hand, I think this is, from my personal 

perspective, Senator, this is a social issue across our country. It has 

transcended into becoming a political issue. My suspicions are that 

the law will be repealed, and all I’m asking is the opportunity to 

do that at a time and a choosing when my marines are not singularly, tightly focused on what they’re doing in a very deadly environment. 

That particular battalion that I was talking to you about has 

been on the ground 3 months of their 7-month deployment. They’ve 

lost 18 marines and had over 100 seriously wounded. This is serious business for them. I think DADT will be repealed eventually. 

I just ask for the opportunity to be able to do it with my forces 

when they are not singularly focused on combat. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. I appreciate that answer. Actually, Senator 

McCain, Senator Graham, Senator Gillibrand, and I were over 

there and visited that unit. They’re doing remarkable work and 

showing extraordinary progress on the ground in Afghanistan. 

My conclusion is that in the end all six of you favor the repeal 

of DADT. I don’t mean to put words in your mouths, but the questions that the three of you have have to do with timing. 

I’m sure you know, but I just want to state for the record that 

the provision in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) 

before us that repeals DADT does not implement repeal until the 

President of the United States, the Secretary of Defense, and the 

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff certify to a series of effects 

or non-effects on military effectiveness, unit cohesion, morale, et 

cetera. 

I was part of drafting that legislation and we intentionally did 

not put a time limit in it. We didn’t say they had to do it by 90 

days after the law went into effect. Yesterday, Secretary Gates said 

that he would not certify until he had engaged in full conversation 

with the Service Chiefs. I just wanted to give you a quick chance, 

going down the road, to indicate whether you’re reassured by that 

105 

and whether that gives you some greater confidence, if we do repeal, that we can repeal it in a way that does not interfere more 

than you worry this will in the ongoing operations of our military. 

General Casey? 

General CASEY. Senator, I am very comfortable with my ability 

to provide military advice to Secretary Gates and have it heard. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. Good. 

Admiral Roughead? 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. The same for me, Senator. This has been an 

ongoing discussion within DOD. Access and freedom to talk about 

the issue and the way that we believe has been unquestioned. So 

I have no concerns about that at all. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. General Cartwright? 

General CARTWRIGHT. I have no concerns, and I look at this as 

an opportunity to tailor the mitigation and to tailor the timing, so 

that we can, in fact, accommodate the fact that our forces do rotate 

in and out of the country. So to me that is where the opportunity 

for timing comes in. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. That’s an important point, because Secretary Gates was asked that yesterday, whether he thought it was 

within his purview if the repeal passed to phase in the repeal in 

different ways for different Services or different units. I wonder 

whether you would respond to that possibility. 

For instance, it’s possible that Secretary Gates and Chairman 

Mullen might decide not to immediately implement this for Marines or Army in combat, but to do it over a period of time. How 

would you respond to that, General Amos? 

General AMOS. Sir, I think it sounds very selfish, but that would 

probably be acceptable for us. 

But back to your first question, we’ve had a great opportunity to 

provide our input to the Secretary and I highly regard his opinion. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. Good. 

General Schwartz? 

General SCHWARTZ. Senator, I’d repeat that, but I would suggest 

that having some differences between implementation time lines 

within different communities of the Armed Forces is not a way to 

proceed. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. I hear your point. 

Admiral Papp? 

Admiral PAPP. Senator, I know, as the committee knows full 

well, the Commandant of the Coast Guard is not a member of the 

Joint Chiefs of Staff. However, I’m given the great courtesy of sitting with the Joint Chiefs of Staff with regularity, and Secretary 

Gates has given me the privilege of speaking to him personally and 

with the Service Chiefs on all of these matters, and the Coast 

Guard has been a full participant. 

I would also add that I do have my own Secretary, Secretary 

Napolitano, who is very receptive, listens wisely, and has supported 

this effort as well. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. Thank you all very much. 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. Senator, if I may. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. Yes, sir. 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. I have 15,000 sailors on the ground in Iraq 

and Afghanistan. 

106 

Senator LIEBERMAN. Right. 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. They are mixed in with ground units. I 

think to parse it out by Service would cause confusion and inconsistencies that would not be helpful to the joint force. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. If repeal is adopted, then you’d say that it 

may be that the Secretary and the Chairman may want to wait to 

implement it, but when it’s implemented it should be implemented 

across our Armed Forces? 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. Yes, sir. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. Thank you. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you, Senator Lieberman. 

Senator Inhofe. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Let me ask the first question to the ground guys, General Casey 

and General Amos. Both of you in your opening statement talked 

about your great percentages on recruitment and retention, and 

that goes all the way across the Services. The report states that 

there are 23.7 percent who would leave or think about leaving 

sooner than planned. 

The question I would ask the two of you is, how would you face 

a 23 percent drop in retention? What does that do to you, General 

Casey? 

General CASEY. Senator, projections on retention are historically 

overstated. In other words, just in our normal retention business—— 

Senator INHOFE. Okay, let’s assume it’s overstated by 50 percent. 

How would you handle the 12 percent drop? 

General CASEY. It could have an impact, Senator. That’s why I 

said in my statement that I thought there was an increased level 

of risk over low for our ability to recruit and retain the force. I 

think it would be an increased level of risk, but because they 

wouldn’t all walk out the door at the same time, I think it would 

be an acceptable risk. 

Senator INHOFE. That’s on retention. Now, also they had some 

figures that it would have caused a drop in recruiting, too. I would 

assume that you’d feel the same way about that. Do you agree with 

that, General Amos? 

General AMOS. Sir, I agree with my colleague, General Casey, in 

that I think it’s overstated. My instincts as I read those figures, 

just knowing marines for 40 years, I don’t sense the same level of 

impact, either on retention or recruitment. Right now if you want 

to join the Marine Corps you’re going to wait 8 months. From the 

time you sign up today in the recruiting office, it will be 8 months 

before you can ship. 

I just don’t see that that would have an impact. 

Senator INHOFE. All right, that’s fair. 

Admiral Roughead, in your prepared statement you stated that 

60 percent of the sailors believe the impact on effectiveness, readiness, unit cohesion, and morale would be neutral or positive. Now, 

on the chart 71.A it shows that positive would be 13.8 percent, negative 35.3 percent. Now, I can see you also said neutral, so the no 

effects would go up there. But if they did, it still is more positive 

than negative. 

How did you come up with 60 percent? 

107 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. Senator, what we looked at in all areas, 

where I paid attention to are a series of questions in the survey 

that captured the general attitudes or what I would consider the 

negativity. 

Senator INHOFE. It appears, Admiral, that you put the ones in 

the category equally as positive as negatively all in the other category, because that adds up to 60 percent. I just thought there 

might be something other than this. 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. No, sir. As you look at the positives and the 

neutrals, we see within the Navy a positive to neutral effect on 

this. There are certain areas, as I mentioned, specific areas that we 

looked at more deeply. 

Senator INHOFE. I appreciate that. 

I don’t want the answer now, Admiral Papp, but for the record, 

I noticed on that same chart, and I didn’t notice it until we sat 

down today, that for some reason the Coast Guard, the positives, 

it’s 10 percent to 44 percent. For the record, I’d like to know why 

so many of the Coast Guard people are opposed to the repeal as 

compared to the other Services. Just for the record, if you can give 

that to me. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

I recommend caution when trying to draw conclusions about the Coast Guard as 

a whole from response rates of single questions. These questions were designed to 

assess servicemember attitudes across a wide range of topics and many of the questions are linked to responses of previous questions. It’s important to note, Coast 

Guard respondents to question 71 are a very small minority of the total Coast 

Guard responses. These respondents have been deployed since September 11, 2001, 

to a combat zone or an area where they received imminent danger pay or hostile 

fire pay. Although Coast Guard members deploy world-wide, very few deploy to a 

combat zone. A close examination of the response rates on question 71a of the 

servicemember survey (found on page 202 of the Working Group Final Report) 

shows that Coast Guard servicemember attitudes of this very small population are 

similar to DOD as a whole when estimating impact on a unit’s effectiveness at completing its mission in a field environment or out to sea. In this particular question, 

‘‘Very Positive’’ and ‘‘Positive’’ responses from Coast Guard members total 10.6 percent compared to 11.4 percent for the Armed Forces overall. ‘‘Very Negative’’ and 

‘‘Negative’’ responses from Coast Guard members total 42.5 percent compared to 

44.3 percent for the Armed Forces overall. These are not surprising, considering a 

frequently noted concern for servicemembers across engagement efforts has been 

privacy (including berthing and showering). It is aboard Coast Guard vessels where 

members encounter some challenging living arrangements. Again, these are small 

numbers of a very unique demographic within the Coast Guard. 

Senator INHOFE. We talked yesterday about the fact that only a 

third of servicemembers responded to this survey. I have felt that 

the reason for that was that they weren’t really asked the right 

questions. They were never asked the question, do you think we 

should repeal DADT. The question they were asked was, and this 

is in the instructions to this. They said: ‘‘Next, our mandate was 

to assess the impact of repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell and how best 

to implement the repeal should it occur. We were not asked to determine whether the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell law and policy should 

be repealed.’’ 

Can anyone tell me why that question shouldn’t have been 

asked? Let me ask you, General Casey; should that have been 

asked? 

General CASEY. Senator, I don’t think so. I don’t think the survey 

should have been a referendum or a poll of our soldiers. This isn’t 

108 

a democracy in the military, and I believe the way that the survey 

was executed gave us sufficient information to make our judgments. 

Senator INHOFE. Anyone else think that the question, should it 

be repealed, should have been asked? How about you, General 

Amos? 

General AMOS. Senator, during my confirmation hearing I was 

asked a similar question, and I made the statement at that time 

that I was pretty confident, after having gone through all the questions myself, that I would come away as a servicemember with a 

real sense for whether they support it or not. Sir, I’m with the Secretary of Defense and my colleagues. I don’t think we needed a referendum-type question. I got the information I needed. 

With regards to the low turnout, I would suggest that perhaps 

there was a sense of inevitability when the survey went out. 

Senator INHOFE. I think that’s right. 

General AMOS. Now that was sensed by, certainly by then-Commandant Conway, and he in turn went out to his Marine Corps 

and said, okay marines, set that aside. We need your honest opinions on this thing, and then our inputs jumped up almost two or 

threefold. 

I think we got what we needed, Senator. 

Senator INHOFE. Going from the time back when I was in the 

U.S. Army, if they wanted to get some results they’d give a survey 

and say: Fill it out. We could have had a 100 percent response. I 

think that’s probably what should have taken place. 

On this information exchange forum, a lot of work was done 

there. The Working Group conducted 95 information exchange forums. They contacted over 24,000 servicemembers, 140 smaller 

focus groups. This is quite an extensive review. They came up with 

a lot of information, but really not the kind of information that I 

think that we could have come up with. 

In chapter 6 of the report, on page 49 it states: ‘‘If the Working 

Group were to attempt to numerically divide the sentiments we 

heard expressed in information exchange forums, online box entries, focus groups, and confidential online communications between those who were for or against repeal of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t 

Tell,’ our sense is that the majority of views expressed were against 

the repeal.’’ 

Instead of just saying against the repeal, would any of you like 

to have the information as to quantify that in some way? Going 

through all these working groups, I’d ask the question. Shouldn’t 

that have been quantified in some way, or if not why go to all of 

this expense and time of having this, if we’re not going to get any 

results from it? 

Anyone want to respond to that? General Amos? 

General AMOS. Sir, I read some of the anecdotal comments that 

came back that were recorded. I think there’s value to get a sense 

for what the Services felt, what the service men and women felt. 

I think they got that. I don’t think there’s any question that the 

sense that I get, it was probably predominantly negative as it related to the marines. 

I think there is also a sense of group dynamics, that in any 

group, when you bring a bunch of marines together, you bring 300 

109 

of them together, there will be a sense of a stampede theory. I don’t 

know how they could have done that. I’ve thought about that. I’ve 

wondered, my sense is probably along your lines, wouldn’t it have 

been nice to be able to quantify that? I just don’t know how they 

could have, because it was all verbal and it was done in a group 

setting with group dynamics. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I would only say that it’s an awful lot of expensive work for not 

getting out and specifically getting results, in my opinion. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you, Senator Inhofe. 

Senator Reed. 

Senator REED. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

General Casey, in response to a previous question you made a 

comment, and I want to be clear, that what the last several 

months, if not several years, have indicated is the presence of gay 

and lesbian servicemembers does not undermine readiness or combat effectiveness. Again, is that your conclusion? 

General CASEY. What I said, Senator, is that I believe that what 

the survey indicates and the report indicates is that the presumption that underpins the law is that the presence of a gay or lesbian 

servicemember in a unit causes unacceptable risks to good order 

and discipline, and after reading the report I don’t believe that’s 

true any more and I don’t believe a substantial majority of our soldiers believe that. 

Senator REED. That’s a significant point, and I want you to respond. But I think what it shows is that, obviously, there are individuals in units that are perceived, even though they do not proclaim it, as being either gay or lesbian, and that perception is relatively common in every force in various numbers in the military. 

Yet, what the survey seems to suggest to you, and I’ll ask your 

colleagues too, is that that has not caused significant problems 

with the readiness, good order, or discipline. What it has, and it 

goes back to what the basic leadership issue is, and it’s not for us 

or even for you gentlemen. It’s going to be for company commanders, first sergeants, and platoon leaders which is how do you 

deal with an issue where at this moment there is the perception 

that there are gays in the unit and it doesn’t seem to affect good 

order and discipline. We’re arguing here about whether that individual, if he can be truthful about the situation, or assume around 

it. In fact, in some respects it might cause more leadership and 

more convolutions of trying to keep this policy going forward than 

simply admitting what seems to be the conclusion that you’ve 

reached, that we are at a point now where we can accept this service openly. 

Can you comment, General Casey? I ask this as a question, not 

a conclusion or as a rhetorical. 

General CASEY. The only thing I’d say, Senator, to what you had 

just talked about was that I do think we need to be careful with 

saying, do you feel this way if you believe someone is a gay or lesbian soldier, versus, do you know someone is a gay or lesbian soldier. I think there’s a difference. I saw what the survey said about 

that, but I put a little asterisk by that because there’s a difference 

between thinking someone is a gay or lesbian and knowing it. I 

think the soldiers might react differently to that. 

110 

Senator REED. Admiral Roughead, the same line of questions. 

Your comments? Again, this is a rather open-ended question, I 

admit. But your comments? 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. Yes, sir. I think fundamentally the military 

that we serve in today does not prohibit gay and lesbians from 

serving in the military. It’s whether that orientation is disclosed or 

not. What we are fundamentally talking about are the standards 

of conduct and behavior that will be acceptable in a force should 

the law be repealed. That gets to leadership. 

We have taken our Services through significant change before, 

and I have confidence in the ability of the leaders in the Navy to 

be able to do this. 

Senator REED. General Cartwright, from your position as the 

Vice Chairman? 

General CARTWRIGHT. I, like Admiral Roughead and the other 

members here, believe that the leadership is going to be the determinative factor. I had this exchange and Senator McCain commented on it, when you look at the data, I saw that, like you’re 

saying here, that if you believe there is someone in your unit who 

is gay, did that affect the morale, did that affect the behavior, did 

that affect the efficiency and effectiveness of the unit? By and 

large, everything I saw in there said no. 

Is there a difference between believing and knowing? This is a 

behavior activity. How do you behave? Do you behave in consonance with the rules? If you do and it didn’t affect readiness, 

then I believe that leadership is going to take care of this, and that 

is the main attribute. 

Senator REED. I’m trying to recollect back 30 years, but my sense 

is in small units, companies and platoons, the difference between 

believing and knowing is quite small in fact. There are some people, because of their mannerisms, imputations are made. But these 

are pretty tightly knit social units that have an idea what you’re 

doing. 

This distinction of believing and knowing at a higher level might 

be valid. I think we’re really talking about people whose beliefs 

have some basis in behavior or even evidence, and yet they still 

seem to be tolerating or the responses seem to be saying when it 

comes down to unit effectiveness that’s not what I’m worried about. 

Just an aside. 

General Amos, again this is a rather open-ended question, but 

your advice, please? 

General AMOS. Senator, the Marine Corps is the smallest force. 

We recruit a little bit differently. We recruit principally on a warrior ethos. We take less than one-tenth of 1 percent of the American population so that automatically begins to winnow out large 

portions of American society. 

The survey said that across all MOSs in the Marine Corps, 75 

percent of the marines, and I’m going to quote this ‘‘have not 

served with a gay or lesbian,’’ 80 percent of our combat forces said 

they ‘‘had not served with a gay or lesbian.’’ 

We have less experience at this, and I think that’s intuitive. My 

sole focus again is the combat effectiveness of the units. If you bear 

with me, one of the comments that came in on the online survey, 

not the town halls, this came from a Marine lieutenant who’s a plaVerDate Aug 31 2005 08:59 May 02, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00116 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 Y:\BORAWSKI\DOCS\65073.TXT JUNE PsN: JUNEB
111 

toon commander: ‘‘My team’s effectiveness is directly tied to its cohesiveness. Despite differences, we are so close that we anticipate 

each other’s next move in garrison and in combat. Our ability to 

do our job is predicated on this kind of relationship. If you were 

to add any element of sexual competition, intra-unit sexuality, or 

hesitance in trust, it would unquestionably prevent those bonds 

from forming or immediately destroy them if introduced.’’ 

My concern are those units that are involved in combat right 

now. That’s the cohesion that concerns me most. 

Senator REED. Sir, you have to be concerned with that, because 

the marines, soldiers, sailors, airmen, and coastguardsmen are at 

the tip of the spear, as they say. So that’s your job. 

Just one point because my time has expired. General Schwartz 

and Admiral Papp, I’d like you both to respond for the record, and 

I’d appreciate it. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

General SCHWARTZ. Based on analysis of Air Force responses to the Working 

Group survey, the presence of gay or lesbian airmen does not appear to have caused 

significant problems with unit readiness, good order, and discipline. 

Admiral PAPP. At less than 50,000 servicemembers strong, the U.S. Coast Guard 

is the smallest Military Service of the Armed Forces and as such, is a very tight 

knit entity and with our numerous specialized communities, shipmates serve with 

each other on multiple occasions, throughout the span of a career. 

You raise key points regarding the conflict that exists between the law on the 

books and the reality of gays and lesbians in the military. We very likely have gay 

and lesbian servicemembers serving in our Armed Forces today. Because of section 

654 of title 10, U.S.C., however, we are not allowed to ask, nor are these members 

permitted to disclose their orientation. So I cannot make definitive statements based 

on factual information about currently serving members. I can state that we have 

discharged over 230 members from the Coast Guard since the passage of section 654 

of title 10, U.S.C. The results of the servicemember survey suggest that a sizable 

portion of Coast Guard members believe they are serving, or have served with, a 

leader, peer, or subordinate they believed to be gay or lesbian; nearly one third of 

coastguardsmen believe they currently serve with someone who is gay or lesbian 

and nearly three quarters of coastguardsmen believe they have served with a coworker who was gay or lesbian. 

I earlier described myself as a ‘‘pragmatist, an optimist with experience.’’ Therefore, I feel very confident stating now, as I did in my opening statement, that gay 

and lesbian members are currently serving honorably within the Coast Guard today. 

I continually observe the excellent work Coast Guard men and women perform 

every day, from ensuring safety of disabled ships in the Bering Sea, to protecting 

the environment in the Gulf of Mexico, rendering humanitarian and port recovery 

expertise in Haiti, and working alongside our DOD counterparts in the Middle East. 

Everywhere we serve, our entire workforce, including gay and lesbian within our 

workforce, serve with excellence. The thought that the presence of gay and lesbians 

serving in the military is disruptive to the force is unproven. However, there is a 

distinction that must be addressed in your question. Currently, gay and lesbian 

servicemembers can serve only while concealing their sexual orientation from their 

fellow coastguardsmen. So admittedly, the question becomes, will repealing the law, 

such that members may serve openly, be disruptive to the force. 

I’m intrigued and inspired, but not surprised, by the results of the servicemember 

survey that suggest repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell would have very low negative 

effect on the Coast Guard. Between 75 percent and 92 percent of Coast Guard respondents indicated they believe repeal would have very positive, positive, equally 

as positively as negatively, or no effect on the areas of cohesion, unit effectiveness, 

and unit readiness. These are difficult subjects to assess and I believe the Working 

Group has done an exceptional job engaging the force, gathering data, and assessing 

those areas. 

Senator Reed, I agree with you about leadership. This policy change will occur at 

the hands of our leaders, in the Coast Guard’s case, our commanding officers and 

wardrooms, and especially from our chief petty officers—with leadership at the deck 

plates. The Working Group Co-Chairs have shown that leadership is key to successful implementation. That may seem obvious—leadership has always been critical to 

112 

taking care of people, ensuring standards of conduct are met, maintaining good 

order and discipline, as well as preparing for and executing our mission each and 

every day. In fact, I would submit that successfully managing those items is leadership. The Working Group has done an exceptional job analyzing and assessing the 

importance of leadership in this issue. 

I have no doubt in the ability of our excellent Coast Guard men and women to 

demonstrate the finest attributes of leadership, as they always do, if called upon to 

lead our shipmates through policy change should Congress decide to repeal section 

654 of title 10, U.S.C. 

Senator REED. One of the aspects here of this force, it’s a volunteer force. There’s a certain self-selectivity in terms of where do 

you go. That will continue, and that’s another factor that we have 

to reckon with. 

It comes down to also, what’s been repeated time and time again 

by all of you, is that in terms of the policy, change is coming. I 

think you all recognize that. What you just said, General Amos, is 

that it has to be done in a way that does not provide such an immediate and disruptive effect. 

Frankly, that’s the way we would expect every policy of this significance be implemented that affects marines, soldiers, sailors, 

and airmen in combat. 

Thank you, gentlemen. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you, Senator Reed. 

Senator Chambliss. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Gentlemen, as always, we appreciate your service, but particularly on an issue like this, that’s very sensitive and very emotional. 

You’ve all paid an awful lot of attention to it and, whether we 

agree or disagree at the end of the day with the result, your service 

is what’s important. Your commitment to your soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines, and coastguardsmen is unquestioned. 

Mr. Chairman, I just want to correct something that you inferred 

in your opening statement, that this survey indicates that a majority of those surveyed support this repeal. As Senator Inhofe correctly quoted from page 49 of the report, that’s not the case: 

‘‘After talking to all of the individuals through the information exchange forums, the online inbox entries, focus 

groups, confidential online communications between those 

that were for and against the repeal, it’s the consensus of 

the authors of the report that a majority of the views were 

in opposition to repeal of the current policy.’’ 

It’s pretty obvious, General Casey and General Amos, that combat troops, the guys who are in the foxholes, are the ones that have 

the largest percentage, at least in the survey, of objection to this. 

As I have been in theater and have had soldiers come up and talk 

to me, it’s been primarily in theater where I have had this issue 

brought up. 

I want to direct this question to General Casey and General 

Amos. Would the repeal of DADT at this time have a positive or 

negative impact upon the readiness of your troops? 

General CASEY. Senator, I think you could take from my testimony that I believe that it would increase the risk on our soldiers, 

particularly on our soldiers that are deployed in combat. As I said, 

we could execute it now at a higher level of risk than is suggested 

in the survey. 

113 

Senator CHAMBLISS. Would that higher level of risk, General 

Casey, have the potential to put soldiers in a greater position of injury or perhaps loss of life? 

General CASEY. It could, Senator, but I wouldn’t want to make 

a projection that it would. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. General Amos, let me ask that same question. Would it impact readiness of marines? 

General AMOS. Sir, would repeal impact the readiness of the marines? Is that the question, Senator? 

Senator CHAMBLISS. Yes, sir. 

General AMOS. I think it would absolutely have an impact on the 

combat forces, Senator. I’m not convinced it would have nearly as 

much of an effect on the remainder of the Marine Corps. But our 

combat units, I believe it would, and it goes back to this issue of 

cohesion, this bonding, this element of trust for those units that are 

heavily involved in combat right now. That’s where I think the potential impact would be the greatest. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. Let me ask that same follow-up question, 

would that negative impact on your combat troops or your troops 

who are in theater right now, would it have the potential of increasing the risk of injury or perhaps loss of life to those marines? 

General AMOS. Senator, as I read that quote, that tightly woven 

fabric of that bonded, heavily engaged, and tightly focused unit, I 

think the potential for damage is there. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. Thank you very much. I think that’s the 

heart and soul of this issue at this point in time. I appreciate the 

frankness of each and every one of you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you, Senator Chambliss. 

Senator Webb. 

Senator WEBB. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Let me begin by saying that I think we have an enormous 

amount of valuable material in this report. We can talk about what 

the response rate was, what it could have been, whether you could 

have sat people down and made every person in the military fill 

out a form. But we have 160,000 responses here, and it’s given us 

the capability of really examining this issue and discussing it, a lot 

of it, in the manner we’ve discussed it already this morning. 

I hope that on any side of this issue, and there are really valid 

concerns here, that people will really take a look at this in depth 

and read some of these numbers in depth. We have a tendency to 

cherry pick one item or another out of this survey. 

I said yesterday and I want to repeat today that this is a valuable piece of work, so that we can evaluate this issue in a proper 

way. 

I have tremendous regard particularly for General Ham. When 

you think about the integrity that he brought to this process, as 

he said yesterday, he didn’t exactly seek this task. He was probably 

the best person in the uniformed military to be asked to do it. He’s 

former enlisted. He’s an infantry officer. I, for one, listened to him 

very carefully in his remarks yesterday. 

I would like to actually focus on two different questions. One is 

this notion of the ability to tailor this process, as has been said 

today, or structure it if it were to occur. From what I’m hearing, 

114 

my initial impression on this was that there might be the ability 

to do this Service-by-Service or looking at the difficulties of implementing it in the combat arms, as General Amos has pointed out, 

where the need for cohesion is paramount and the amount of command attention that would be put into this in this environment. 

Let’s start with you, General Cartwright. From what I’m hearing, that’s not on the table. 

General CARTWRIGHT. I want to make sure I’m answering the 

right question. 

Senator WEBB. Let me restate it, after all that rambling, in one 

quick sentence. What I’m hearing here is that this talk of being 

able to structure any implementation of this process does not mean 

that it would be structured even in a time sequence for different 

Services or for operational units. Am I correct in that understanding? 

General CARTWRIGHT. As I read the plan as it was recommended 

by the study, the opportunity is there to structure the implementation phase. 

Senator WEBB. Service-by-Service or combat arm-by-combat arm? 

General CARTWRIGHT. I think that we would look at it from the 

perspective of the Service Chiefs, but also the combatant commander, in this particular case U.S. Central Command and the 

International Security Assistance Forces commander, to ensure 

that whatever implementation plan we came up with made sense 

on the battlefield. 

Senator WEBB. It’s not off the table? Is it something that there 

is mixed opinion on it among the Service Chiefs? 

General CARTWRIGHT. Where our opinion probably varies is in 

the how, whether it’s time, Service, unit, deployment cycle, or you 

have elements of the force—because most of our Service elements 

are mixed. They have liaisons, they have multiple types of particularly airmen for the air service, et cetera. 

What we’re trying to understand here is what would in fact be 

a logical implementation structure by which we could work forward. 

Senator WEBB. If the certification went forward, we’re talking 

about the certification process. The deliberations have been made, 

the certification went forward. Does that go to all units in the military the next day? 

General CARTWRIGHT. That’s what we’d have to work our way 

through. The question here is we’re trying to understand in the rotation cycles, since they don’t all line up and we do it by different 

elements. 

Senator WEBB. So basically it’s not? 

General CARTWRIGHT. It’s not locked down. 

It’s not being restricted, either. In other words, that opportunity’s 

not being taken away from us. The chiefs, when we sit down together, are both Service Chiefs and Joint Chiefs and we look at the 

problem that way. 

Senator WEBB. The correct interpretation of the way this process 

is being considered as of today, is that it could be considered Service-by-Service or combat arm-by-combat arm or unit-by-unit? That’s 

on the table? 

General CARTWRIGHT. Yes, sir. 

115 

Senator WEBB. The second question I would have—— 

General SCHWARTZ. Senator, may I make a comment? 

Senator WEBB. I know you don’t like that, General. I heard you 

say that earlier. I’m very short on time here. I want to put this 

other issue out on the table. 

Yesterday, I asked General Ham what percentage of the military 

he believed or that the statistics showed were gay or lesbian, and 

his comment basically was, just about the same as in society, a little lower on the male side, a little higher on the female side. That 

was his comment. 

I don’t think anybody at the table is advocating that those people 

who are now in the military under DADT should leave other than 

for the reasons of conduct. Is there anybody who would disagree 

with me on that? [No response.] 

Here’s the ultimate question on this policy as it evolved. That is, 

if someone is serving well and if they are gay or lesbian and they 

get through the wickets that General Amos so clearly points out in 

the small unit deployments, what is it that we should be doing 

when they’re 15 years into their service and they want to be able 

to live an open and honest life style? What should we be doing? 

What should we do with them? 

General Casey? 

General CASEY. Senator, you’re talking about the period between 

now and the time the law might be repealed? 

Senator WEBB. If we keep the policy as it is now with DADT. If 

we have someone who has given 10 or 15 years of service to their 

country, they’re valuable to the military, they want to be able to 

live an honest and open life. Their conduct inside the military is 

above reproach, how do we do that? 

General CASEY. Senator, we’ll follow the law. We’ll do what the 

law says. If the law changes, we’ll follow that. 

Senator WEBB. No, I’m not talking about changing the law. I’m 

saying if we keep the law. Under the present law, you see the dilemma that the individual is at? 

General CASEY. I understand the dilemma you’re putting. 

Senator WEBB. That’s basically the challenge I think that we all 

have. 

General CASEY. But right now we’re in a position where we need 

to follow the law. 

Senator WEBB. I understand that. I’m talking about the human 

dimension of someone having to live under the law. 

General CASEY. I understand that, Senator. I’m saying as the 

Chief of Staff of the Army I’m bound to execute the laws of the 

land. 

Senator WEBB. Right. But do you understand the human dimension? 

General CASEY. I do. 

Senator WEBB. Does anybody have any comment? Yes, sir? 

Admiral PAPP. Yes, Senator. I come at this from a slightly different perspective. I agree with all the leadership aspects of this. 

Where I come from on this is that all our leaders, whether it’s senior leaders or those senior enlisted leaders that Senator McCain 

spoke about, they need clear and unambiguous direction in terms 

of what they are supposed to enforce. 

116 

I would suggest that right now we find ourselves in a very ambiguous position in terms of those people who are gay and lesbian 

that are in the Service and those people who are supposed to enforce the law. What I think we’re doing is putting people who are 

gay and lesbian in a position that forces them to compromise our 

core values. We have leaders who are getting ambiguous signals 

from leadership in terms of the law that they are supposed to support, which puts them in a position of perhaps being selectively 

obedient. 

For those of you that have served in leadership positions, you understand that when you allow selective obedience that’s an insidious thing which hurts our overall military effectiveness. What I 

would say is we need to give our leaders out there very clear and 

unambiguous guidance in terms of what they’re supposed to enforce. 

Senator WEBB. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you, Senator Webb. 

Senator Chambliss made a reference to my opening statement as 

to the accuracy of my statement that the report before us confirms 

that a large majority of troops believe repeal is consistent with 

maintaining unit effectiveness. I’m going to put the entire report 

in the record at this point, [see Appendix A] as well as the plan 

for implementation. But the specific reference or statement in the 

report that I was referring to says: ‘‘The results of the servicemember survey reveal a widespread attitude among a solid majority of servicemembers that repeal of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ will not 

have a negative impact on their ability to conduct their military 

mission.’’ 

The entire report and the plan for implementation will be put in 

the record, not at this point, obviously, but at an appropriate place 

in the record. [See Appendixes A and B.] 

Senator Thune. 

Senator THUNE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you, gentlemen, very much for your great service to our 

country and for appearing here today to answer questions on a very 

difficult issue. 

Secretary Gates told us yesterday that the servicemembers are 

less sanguine than the Working Group about the level of risk of repeal with regard to combat readiness. We’ve heard that in testimony in front of this committee today, as well as in previous testimony many of you offered in front of the committee. General Amos, 

you told this committee a few months ago that in your view the 

current law and associated policy have supported the unique requirements of the Marine Corps and thus do not recommend its repeal. Your prepared statement for today’s hearing repeats that 

view. 

I would just pose the question of you that I did of Secretary 

Gates and Admiral Mullen yesterday. How should we, as Members 

of Congress, weigh the fact that there isn’t consensus among the 

servicemembers, the Secretary, and the Chairman of the Joint 

Chiefs on this important issue? General Casey? 

General CASEY. Senator, I think you should be grateful for that. 

What we’re trying to do is provide our informed military advice so 

117 

that you can understand all of the aspects of the problem. You will 

get a better decision out of it. 

Senator THUNE. Do you believe that implementing legislation, if 

in fact this moves forward, should allow for the Service Chiefs, 

servicemembers, or any of you, to certify? I asked the Secretary 

yesterday about whether or not that ought to be a requirement. He 

said that it should not. I think Senator Lieberman asked the question earlier today about consulting with the Service Chiefs. There’s 

a big difference between consulting and having the Service Chiefs 

certify that this can be done without impacting military readiness. 

General CASEY. Senator, as I said to Senator Lieberman, I am 

very comfortable with my ability to provide input to Secretary 

Gates and to the Chairman that will be listened to and considered. 

You could put it in there, but I don’t think it’s necessary. 

Senator THUNE. Would you agree that that’s a very different 

standard, though? If you had to certify as the Secretary, President, 

and the Chairman have to, that this would not impact military 

readiness? 

General CASEY. For me to certify rather than just provide advice? 

Senator THUNE. Right, right. 

General CASEY. It might take it up a notch. But believe me, I 

will make sure that my views are heard. 

The other thing. If you put that into the law, it undercuts the 

Goldwater-Nichols, that we’ve been trying to put the Chairman as 

the principal provider of military advice. That’s something for the 

committee to consider. 

Senator THUNE. Anybody else care to comment on that? 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. Sir, I’m very comfortable with the access 

and the input that we’ve had. In fact, as the report came along I 

could see the changes that we were recommending. I have no concerns whatsoever about my advice not being heard. 

Senator THUNE. The survey has been talked about a lot and yesterday there was some question, there’s a statement that I think 

that Senator Chambliss mentioned earlier today, that there were 

other comments that were provided, emails, et cetera, through the 

process, that suggested that the majority view was against repeal 

of the current policy. It was mentioned yesterday that it wasn’t scientific because it wasn’t part of the survey and that the integrity 

of the survey was the important part of this process. 

Do you all believe that there ought to be some consideration 

given to that. We all have heard and many people reference today, 

traveling abroad, talking with troops individually and the information, the feedback, that many of those of us up here get. I’m sure 

many of you get, as well, that type of input also is important in 

formulating an opinion of this nature? 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. Senator, I’d say that that type of input is informative, as is the survey, what we in the Navy call all hands 

calls, where we talk to our sailors. That all comes together to inform the opinion and the recommendation that I make up the chain 

of command. But it’s all-inclusive. 

Senator THUNE. The survey itself, 28 percent response. Arguably, 

that means there’s 72 percent of the people who were mailed the 

survey that didn’t answer the survey, which means there are a lot 

of people who have not registered their opinion on this. The point 

118 

was made yesterday that that’s not how we do business. I understand that. It’s the military, you don’t ask people for their opinions 

on everything. 

But to the degree that opinions were voiced as a result of this 

survey, there were a lot of conclusions drawn from what the contents and the ultimate outcome of that survey was. The number 

that’s been thrown out is that 70 percent approve of a change in 

the policy. Very different numbers when you talk about Marine 

Corps, Army, or people engaged in combat. Fifty-seven percent was 

the number for Army, and 66.5 percent for Marine Corps, of people 

who thought that this change would impact negatively or very negatively. 

Even if you take the broader number, question 68.a, which discusses the effect of repeal on military members’ ability to get the 

job done, if you add up mixed, negative, or very negative responses 

you get 61 percent. That means 61 percent of respondents said that 

having a gay or lesbian in their unit would have a mixed or negative effect on getting the job done. Yet the Working Group focused 

on, the report, the positive and mixed number, at 70 percent. 

It seems that you can, as is the case with a lot of these surveys, 

depending on which numbers you pick, draw very different conclusions. I’m curious about the Service Chiefs’ perspective on that 

issue and how you reconcile the different and almost in some ways 

opposite conclusions that were drawn from the Working Group survey. Anybody want to answer? 

General SCHWARTZ. Senator, my take is that categorizing the 

mixed group on the positive side does not undermine the basic 

credibility of the conclusions of the report. I might also add that 

it’s important to read all of page 49 in context. 

Senator THUNE. Right, and I understand that. I’ve read the context of page 49. But it’s very clear that a lot of the information that 

was received through these other sources, that non-scientific part, 

the anecdotal evidence. 

General SCHWARTZ. Yes, sir. As Admiral Roughead indicated, I 

digested my comments that came in to the inbox and so on. We 

looked at those, we digested those as well as the statistical data, 

in coming to our conclusions. I also gathered information from my 

leadership team, just as each of the others here have. This was a 

fairly comprehensive effort on everyone’s part. 

General CARTWRIGHT. I would just add, Senator, that we had innumerable meetings amongst us to understand and to highlight to 

each other what we were trying to bring out, what we interpreted 

the numbers as, et cetera. We compared back and forth. 

Now, that’s not always good, but it’s not always bad. But we all 

got a chance to compare with each other when we saw the numbers 

here, what does this mean to you, what does it mean to your Service, what did you find out working the deckplates? That helped us 

also. 

Senator THUNE. I don’t think this is entirely a scientific exercise. 

I think there’s a lot of input that comes, and the people who express their views, which was sort of discounted yesterday, because 

they’re motivated to express their views, I think they’re people that 

have to be listened to in all of this. 

119 

I appreciate your testimony. I think I know where all this is 

headed. I would simply say that the bottom line in this, in my view 

at least, is combat effectiveness. 

The military is a very unique and distinct group of people whom 

we task with an enormous responsibility. I know you all take that 

responsibility very seriously. As you consider final conclusions 

about this, I hope that the bottom line consideration is to make 

sure that the men and women in uniform in this country can serve 

and defend this country as effectively as possible. 

Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you, Senator Thune. 

Senator Udall. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Good morning to all of you. Thank you for the way in which 

you’ve brought this difficult but important discussion forward. I 

have an admiration for every single one of you and your service. 

Mr. Chairman, if I might, I’d like to enter into the record a statement which was released by 12 current and former faculty members at Service Academies and military universities in response to 

some of the concerns expressed at yesterday’s hearing about the repeal of DADT. 

Chairman LEVIN. It will be made part of the record. 

Senator UDALL. If I might, let me just summarize briefly some 

of their points. They pointed out concerns that repeal would undermine combat effectiveness are inconsistent with available evidence, 

and if gays actually undermine combat effectiveness it would be 

hard to understand why gay discharges always decline during wartime. 

Second, they point out concerns that we do not know what the 

troops would say if asked whether they support repeal, are not 

based on the evidence. In fact, they point out that three different 

polls found roughly the same result that the Working Group did, 

and that these surveys included combat troops. 

The faculty members also went on to point out concerns about 

the survey’s response rate, that the results are not reflective of the 

views of the overall force, are not correct. That, in fact, the 28 percent response rate is above average for surveys, and that the response rates have nothing to do with the validity of a survey’s results as long as the sample size is large enough and sampling is 

done properly. In this case, the survey has a margin of error that’s 

better than most surveys, and the Gallop’s editor in chief said yesterday that this survey represented a huge sample compared to 

most surveys. The director of the Marist College poll wondered why 

the survey, in fact, included as large a sample as it did. 

Then finally, Mr. Chairman, the faculty members point out that 

the claim that DADT has been effective is inconsistent with the 

evidence. A U.S. district court found that, according to all available 

research, DADT has actually harmed the military in several ways, 

including wasting valuable talent, undermining cohesion, and morale. 

A Government Accountability Office report found that the policy 

has led to the discharge of a significant number of mission-critical 

120 

specialists. No evidence has ever been provided to show that DADT 

promotes cohesion or is working in any way. 

I wanted that to be in the record, Mr. Chairman. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

MILITARY UNIVERSITY FACULTY RESPOND TO DON’T ASK, DON’T TELL SENATE

HEARING

Santa Barbara, CA—December 2, 2010—The Palm Center released a statement 

by 12 current and former faculty members at Service Academies and Military Universities, responding with factual evidence to claims made at today’s Senate Armed 

Services Committee Hearing on ‘‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT).’’ 

STATEMENT BY CURRENT AND FORMER MILITARY PROFESSORS

Combat Effectiveness: 

(1) Concerns that repeal would undermine combat effectiveness are inconsistent 

with available evidence. While it is true that many combat troops say that they 

think repeal would undermine combat effectiveness, a smaller percentage say that 

if they were going into a combat situation, fighting alongside gay troops would be 

a factor. Many troops in foreign militaries said, prior to repeal, that gays would undermine combat effectiveness. Subsequent to repeal, however, foreign militaries reported no decline in combat effectiveness. Statistical analysis by Dr. Laura Miller 

of the RAND Corporation and a colleague found that even though many troops think 

that repeal would undermine effectiveness, there is no statistical relationship between whether someone knows a gay peer and the reported cohesion or effectiveness 

of the unit. If gays actually undermined combat effectiveness, it would be hard to 

understand why gay discharges always decline during wartime. 

Process: 

(2) Concerns that the Working Group did not ask the troops whether they support 

repeal are disingenuous. The troops vocally expressed opinions about whether 

DADT should be repealed in an online inbox that received 72,384 comments, in 95 

face-to-face forums at 51 bases that included more than 24,000 troops, and in 140 

smaller focus groups. This data was not solicited in a scientifically valid way, but 

the Working Group certainly took them into account and even acknowledged that 

a majority of comments opposed repeal. 

(3) Concerns that we do not know what the troops would say if asked whether 

they support repeal are not based on evidence. Three different polls, by Annenberg, 

Zogby, and Military Times, found roughly the same result: approximately 40 percent 

of the troops oppose repeal, 30 percent favor repeal, and 30 percent don’t know or 

don’t care. Surveys included combat troops. The Zogby respondent pool, for example, 

consisted of 545 combat and combat support troops who were serving or who had 

served recently in the Middle East. 

Survey Validity: 

(4) Concerns about the Survey’s response rate, or that survey results are not reflective of the views of the overall force, are not correct: The 28 percent response 

rate is about average both for web-based surveys in general, and for military surveys in particular. The response rate to the military’s 2006 Workplace and Gender 

Relations Survey was 30 percent for Active Duty members. Furthermore, response 

rates have nothing to do with the validity of a survey’s results, as long as the sample size is large enough and sampling is done properly. In this case, the Working 

Group survey has a margin of error of plus or minus 1 percent, much better than 

most surveys. 

Timing: 

(5) Concerns that repeal is being rushed are not based on the historical trackrecord. The authors of DADT referred to it as a temporary compromise when the 

policy was enacted 17 years ago. Generals Colin Powell and John Shalikashvili have 

changed their views over this time, and military and public opinion shifted dramatically as well. The roughly year-long Pentagon review process has been one of the 

most comprehensive reviews ever undertaken on any military personnel policy in 

the history of the U.S. Armed Forces. More than 20 studies have been conducted 

on whether gays harm the military. 

Recruitment and Retention: 

(6) Concerns that recruitment will suffer are not based on evidence. In the British 

and Canadian militaries, approximately two-thirds of male troops said that they 

121 

1The views expressed by faculty at U.S. Government agencies are those of the individuals and 

do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of their Service, the Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government. Nonmilitary institutional affiliations are listed for identification 

purposes only, and do not convey the institutions’ positions. 

would not work with gays if bans were lifted. After the lifting of bans in those countries, there were only a handful of resignations, and no reported problems with recruitment or retention. The percent of troops in the U.S. military who say that they 

will not work with gays and lesbians is much lower. 

Effectiveness of DADT: 

(7) The claim that DADT has been effective is inconsistent with the evidence. A 

U.S. District Court found that, according to all available research, DADT has 

harmed the military in several ways including wasting valuable talent and undermining cohesion and morale. A Government Accountability Office report found that 

the policy has led to the discharge of a significant number of mission-critical specialists. No evidence has ever been provided to show that DADT promotes cohesion or 

is working in any way. 

(8) The claim that DADT does not involve situations in which people are hounded 

day-in and day-out is inconsistent with available evidence. While it is true that the 

military has suspended witch hunts and that most DADT discharges follow statements by servicemembers, the District Court found that gay and lesbian troops do 

have a constant sword hanging over their heads which undermines their ability to 

focus on their jobs. 

Executive Order: 

(9) The claim that only Congress can provide President Obama with the latitude 

to sign an executive order is incorrect. Congress already has provided such latitude 

in the ‘‘stop-loss’’ statute, which allows the President to suspend any law related to 

military separations during national security emergencies. 

Signatories: 

Professor John T. Ackerman, Air Command and Staff College 1

Lt. Col. Allen Bishop, USA (ret.), former professor, U.S. Military Academy at West 

Point 1

Dr. Kathleen M. Campbell, U.S. Military Academy at West Point 1

Lt. Col. Edith A. Disler, USAF (ret.), former professor, U.S. Air Force Academy 1

Professor Mark Eitelberg, Naval Postgraduate School 1

Professor Barry Fagin, U.S. Air Force Academy 1

Professor Craig A. Foster, U.S. Air Force Academy 1

Professor Gregory D. Foster, National Defense University 1

Professor Elizabeth L. Hillman University of California Hastings College of the 

Law, former instructor, U.S. Air Force Academy 1

Professor Janice H. Laurence, Temple University, and former professor, Industrial 

College of the Armed Forces 1

Professor George R. Austrian, U.S. Air Force Academy 1

Professor Steven M. Samuels, U.S. Air Force Academy 1

Senator UDALL. If I might, I’d like to move to a follow-up on 

what Senator Lieberman discussed, and that was the timing of certification. It seems to me that for implementation to work, the military needs a lot of planning, training, changing of regulation, and 

time to make sure it’s done right. None of that will begin to occur 

until there’s a certainty that the law will change. 

Since most of you, if not all, share the view that the law should 

be repealed, but some of you believe it just shouldn’t be implemented right now, doesn’t it make sense for Congress to pass the 

pending legislation right now? That way you could lay down some 

of the groundwork necessary for change which might be good to do 

anyway, given the concerns of court action, but you would have the 

flexibility not to implement right away. 

In that context, I move to what Secretary Gates said yesterday. 

He said that the certification process is a critical piece of the legislation and that he would not sign any certification until he was satisfied with the advice of the Service Chiefs, those of you sitting 

122 

here today, that we had in fact mitigated, if not eliminated, to the 

extent possible, risks to combat readiness, unit cohesion, and effectiveness. 

I’d like, in that spirit, to ask each of you if Secretary Gates’ comments alleviate some, if not all, of your concerns? General Casey, 

perhaps I could start with you. 

General CASEY. Secretary Gates’ comments that he’s not going to 

certify until the implementation is—we told him we’re okay with 

it. 

Senator UDALL. Yes. The quote I have in front of me, General, 

is he would not sign any certification until he was satisfied with 

the advice of the Service Chiefs that we had, in fact, mitigated, if 

not eliminated, to the extent possible risks to combat readiness, to 

unit cohesion and effectiveness. 

General CASEY. I would agree with that statement, Senator. I 

would also agree with what I’ve said several times here already. 

I’m very comfortable with my ability to get my opinions and advice 

to Secretary Gates and have them listened to. 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. I agree with that statement, sir. 

General CARTWRIGHT. I agree with that statement. 

General AMOS. Senator, I absolutely do agree. 

General SCHWARTZ. Likewise. 

Admiral PAPP. I agree too, Senator. 

Senator UDALL. I’m going to editorialize and then I have one 

final question. There’s concern here that’s been expressed in the 

committee, and I would as well add that I have been honored to 

serve on this committee, that we’re moving too hastily in Congress 

to repeal DADT. But my worry is that the courts may actually 

move in a much more hasty and chaotic fashion, and that were 

Congress to act now and put in place direction as to how we would 

proceed with the repeal, we could actually do it in a way that keeps 

faith with what you all have outlined today and with a particular 

focus on combat effectiveness. 

That’s my appeal to my colleagues in the Senate, that we actually act before this session of Congress adjourns. 

Let me end on this note with a final question. I’d just like to go 

down the line and ask each and every one of you, if we change this 

policy, can your branch in the U.S. military make it work? Perhaps 

I’ll start with Admiral Papp. 

Admiral PAPP. Yes, sir, Senator. I have complete confidence that 

we could make it work. 

General SCHWARTZ. As I indicated earlier, we would execute 

thoroughly, professionally, and with conviction. 

General AMOS. Senator, as I indicated in my written and verbal 

statement, we will follow the law and execute it faithfully. 

General CARTWRIGHT. I concur. 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. We can make it work. My most senior commanders believe that as well. 

General CASEY. I believe we can implement the policy and will 

implement the policy with moderate risk to our short-term effectiveness and long-term health of the force. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you, gentlemen. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you very much, Senator Udall. 

I believe Senator Wicker is next. 

123 

Senator WICKER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I have the greatest respect for my chairman and he is aware of 

that. I do have to wonder if the American people watching this 

today are thinking, why are we here? Why, during a time when our 

best military minds should be concentrated on winning in Afghanistan, winning the Global War on Terror, making sure our success 

in Iraq stays and is guaranteed, are we taking the time and energy 

of this committee and these talented military people away from 

that central mission? 

We’re doing it, in my judgment, because a political decision has 

been made in the White House that now is the time, when we have 

the votes to do this, to push this through. If I might say so, with 

all deference to my colleagues, it reminds me of the time spent on 

the health care debate last Christmas and during the early months 

of this year. At a time when the unemployment rate of this country 

was hovering near 10 percent and we were in one of the most serious recessions in my lifetime, we talked about an issue that had 

very little to do with creating jobs, preventing further unemployment, and further recession in this country. 

To paraphrase the members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff who have 

spoken today, really the question before us, and I suppose the question during this lameduck session, is should we, with all that’s 

going on and all of the demands made on our military, to paraphrase the words of General Amos, accept the strong risk of disruption during this time? Should we divert leadership away from the 

combat effort? Those were the words of the Commandant of the 

Marine Corps. 

Or, to paraphrase General Casey’s words, is this the time to be 

adding another level of stress to our Armed Forces? Those were his 

words. Is it the time to be making things more difficult in combat 

units? Or, to paraphrase the words of General Schwartz, place additional discretionary demands on our personnel, when we ought to 

be asking them to use all of their talents, effort, and energies toward winning the war? 

I wonder this. General Amos, you read a very compelling statement of a marine and I might ask you to read those words again, 

concerning a unit that is in combat now. Can you give us the most 

compelling sentences of that quote, sir? 

General AMOS. Senator, the lieutenant said that his team, his 

platoon, his squad, his fire team’s effectiveness is directly tied to 

its cohesiveness. I think that for me, as I work my way through 

this issue to come to my recommendations today, that became the 

center part of my concerns. 

He says: ‘‘Despite differences, we are so close that we anticipate 

each other’s moves in garrison and combat.’’ That’s that intricate 

woven—it’s almost a filial love that takes place in small units, 

where everybody thinks as one instead of as individuals. 

‘‘Our ability to do our job is predicated on this kind of relationship.’’ I think we would all agree with that. He says that: ‘‘To add 

any element of sexual competition, intra-unit sexuality, or hesitance in trust, it would unquestionably prevent those bonds, the 

bonds in that unit, from forming or immediately destroy them.’’ 

That’s the essence of what he said, sir. 

Senator WICKER. Thank you for reading that again. 

124 

I have to ask myself, there seems to be a resignation around this 

table and the panel that this is going to happen eventually; it’s just 

a matter of time and just a matter of timing. Let me be somewhat 

of a contrarian here. I can’t imagine that the situation is going to 

be that different in 2012 for that Marine Corps lieutenant, or in 

2013. We’re always going to be asking that type of fighting man to 

operate under those types of conditions. I wonder if 2012 or 2013 

is going to make that lieutenant or that type of lieutenant feel any 

better about it. 

Would you care to comment on that, General Amos? 

General AMOS. Sir, it goes back to the ‘‘if not now, then when?’’ 

Having worked my way through that, my recommendation would 

be not to do it as long as we have forces that are involved, singularly focused the way they are right now on combat. I’m assuming at some time in our future we will come out of Afghanistan. I 

think we all know that and believe that. I’m looking down the road 

at, if there is a more favorable time when our combat units have 

more time at home and we have more elasticity and flexibility in 

our training schedule? 

This particular unit, not this lieutenant, but the unit that I 

quoted earlier, had been deployed 21 of 43 months, 3 deployments, 

2 of which were heavily involved in combat, 1 in Iraq and 1 in Afghanistan. So in that very short period of time, their kit bag is 

pretty full, highly focused on reconstituting the force, training the 

force, language, culture, improvised explosive device training, and 

all that goes on to bring a unit together and make it cohesive. 

As long as that’s the case, where we are today, in the environment we’re in today, then my recommendation would be this is a 

bad time, Senator. If we get to a point down the road where that 

is not the case, then I think we could do this. 

Senator WICKER. Okay, I appreciate your answer. One final line 

of questioning. It’s been suggested that DADT has hurt military 

readiness by the separation of many individuals who are mission 

critical. The facts are that 13,000 servicemembers have been separated on the basis of homosexuality in 17 years. That’s certainly far 

less than 1,000 per year. 

I was a judge advocate in the U.S. Air Force involved in separation of homosexuals back during an earlier law. I didn’t serve on 

Active Duty during DADT. It was frankly my experience that many 

military members who were separated because of homosexuality 

actually came forward of their own volition and asked voluntarily 

to be separated and cited the requirement in the military at that 

time as the reason for their requested separation. 

Would any of you care to comment on that? Or would any of you 

take a stab at the circumstances under which these 13,000 

servicemembers, or the majority of these 13,000, have been separated over time? Certainly I think we would agree they were not 

rounded up in witch hunts. Under DADT, if they’re not willing to 

admit it then there’s no separation. 

Let me ask you, General Schwartz, since we’re both Air Force. 

Am I incorrect in assuming that a significant portion of the Air 

Force members who were separated during these last 17 years actually voluntarily came forward and asked for separation on those 

grounds? 

125 

General SCHWARTZ. Separations in support of DADT were less 

than 1 percent of the entire flow of individuals who separated. Yes, 

they were predominantly voluntary. 

Senator WICKER. Anyone else care to comment on that? General? 

Admiral Roughead? 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. Ours were predominantly what we call 

statement, as opposed to acts or marriage, which are the actions. 

Senator WICKER. Desiring to be separated, they came forward—— 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. People came forward. 

Senator WICKER.—and claimed to be homosexual or admitted to 

be homosexual, and asked to be removed? 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. That’s correct, yes, sir. 

Senator WICKER. Anyone else? 

General AMOS. Senator, the Marine Corps since 1993 has discharged a little over 625,000 marines, not for this but just normal 

discharges, honorable discharges, and retirements. Of that 625,000- 

plus marines that have returned back to the United States of 

America, we have discharged 1,304 marines for homosexuality. 

Of note, in that 1,304, 400 of them happened at boot camp, the 

first 12 weeks of a marine’s career. I was at Parris Island just 

about 3 or 4 weeks ago, and was there talking to a senior drill instructor, he talked to me about a young marine that had come forward just that day. So it happens there. 

The rest of them, I can’t comment on the remainder. I would suspect some were, as the term goes, outed. I’d suspect the majority 

of them were volunteers, but I don’t know that for a fact. 

Senator WICKER. Thank you very much. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you, Senator Wicker. 

Senator Manchin. 

Senator MANCHIN. First of all, let me say thank you for all of you 

who are here and the branches that you represent. I will say that 

every West Virginian is proud to be an American because of you. 

I want to thank you for your service. 

Yesterday we had some questions that I had asked Secretary 

Gates, and it was based around the cost, in a time of dire financial 

challenges that we all have. The armed services are talking about 

$100 billion in reduction in defense spending. Is this going to be 

a cost-effective measure for those of you and your branches you 

represent? Whoever would want to start and then whoever would 

want to comment on that, I’d appreciate it, based on cost. 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. Senator, if I may, one of the things that we 

have to understand before we get into costs will be the issue of benefits and what are the costs associated with putting in place the 

cadre that provides additional medical and counseling. But that’s 

all going to be a function of what the benefits are that are decided 

upon. 

I think that there are some unknowns and that would be part, 

at least from my perspective, of what would be involved in the certification process as well. In other words, if we are going to go forward, if the law is repealed and we’re going to go forward, then one 

of the things that I think is important, so that the combat effectiveness and cohesion is not affected, is that we can provide our people 

across the board the types of benefits, services, that maybe—— 

126 

Senator MANCHIN. You haven’t budgeted. Is it fair to say 

nothing’s been budgeted in each branch for this? 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. That’s correct, Senator, because we have yet 

to take ourselves through that process. 

Senator MANCHIN. You assume there will be an additional cost? 

Is it fair to say everyone assumes there will be additional cost? 

General SCHWARTZ. Senator, the report, at least by my reading, indicates a cost in the neighborhood of $40 to $50 million. I don’t 

know what the constituent pieces of that estimate are. 

Senator MANCHIN. Is that just in the Air Force? 

General SCHWARTZ. No, sir. That was for DOD-wide. 

Senator MANCHIN. The other thing we talked about also is the 

effect it has on the clergy. I have heard from the clergy yesterday 

after our meeting. Have you spoken to your clergy of what they feel 

that this would do to them and how it might cause some attrition 

a little bit more rapid than intended? 

General Casey, if you want to start on your end. 

General CASEY. I have, Senator. Welcome to the committee. 

Senator MANCHIN. Thank you. 

General CASEY. My Chief of Chaplains was involved with the 

survey group and he assures me that if the law is repealed that 

our chaplains will be able to serve and conduct religious services 

according to their faith, and that they will perform in accordance 

with the law and with Army regulations. 

Senator MANCHIN. Did you have, and I ask this question because 

it came to me yesterday afterwards. I had a few phone calls that 

they believed that there were some concerns that you might have 

more of the chaplain corps, if you will, in all the branches mustered 

out quicker and at a higher percentage. 

General CASEY. His assessment, Senator, we have about 2,800 

Army chaplains from about 200 different faith groups. He thought 

the attrition, if the law was repealed, would be small. His words 

were small. 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. We’re saying the same thing in the Navy, as 

well, Senator. Even though some of the chaplains, because on 

moral grounds, they have some issues, and the data that shows 

how many would leave is relatively small. 

General CARTWRIGHT. Sir, I had the opportunity to talk to many 

of the sponsors and their input was that they believe that they 

would be able to continue to sponsor if DADT were repealed. 

General SCHWARTZ. Senator, for us, similar to the others. The 

impact would be modest, based on feedback that we’ve received. 

The understanding is that the chaplains practice the protocols and 

the discipline of their faith but they also have a mandate to minister to the entire flock, and that is an ethic which all of our chaplains share. 

Admiral PAPP. Senator, our chaplains in the Coast Guard are detailed from the U.S. Navy Chaplain Corps, as they are to the Marine Corps as well. We have 42 chaplains and I’ve spoken to the 

senior leadership and, just as General Schwartz indicates, they understand that they are to minister to everyone regardless of their 

faith, and I don’t expect much of a change. 

Senator MANCHIN. In everything that we’ve been hearing, and I 

think that some of the Senators have commented on this, it’s just 

127 

a matter of time. It looks like it’s a policy that sooner or later is 

going to take effect, whether it’s by the courts, by this body, or if 

you all would see fit to do it yourselves. 

With that being said, if we took no action whatsoever as a body, 

as a Congress, and the President as I understand it has the statutory authority to suspend certain laws relating to promotion, retirement, or separation of any member of the Armed Forces who the 

President would determine is essential to national security. If we 

don’t repeal this, would it still be in the purview of the President 

to make that decision if he thought it was of national security or 

a need for us to act on it? 

General Amos? 

General AMOS. Senator, I really can’t comment on that because 

I don’t know, I don’t know the law that well. I just can’t give you 

an answer. 

Senator MANCHIN. Let me ask you, does the Commander in Chief 

have the statutory authority to suspend certain laws relating to 

promotion, retirement, or separation? Is there anyone that can 

comment to that? 

General SCHWARTZ. Sir, I’d like to take that question for the 

record to give you an accurate answer. 

General CASEY. You may have come up with a question, Senator, 

that is above our pay grades. [Laughter.] 

Senator MANCHIN. I wasn’t sure that was possible. [Laughter.] 

General CASEY. Me either. [Laughter.] 

Senator MANCHIN. I meant the pay grade. [Laughter.] 

If you could, that would be very helpful. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

Yes. Title 10, U.S.C., section 12305, often referred to as ‘‘stop loss’’ specifically 

provides that ‘‘Notwithstanding any other provision of law, during any period members of a Reserve component are serving on Active Duty pursuant to an order to 

Active Duty under authority of sections 12301, 12302, or 12304 of this title, the 

President may suspend any provision of law relating to promotion, retirement, or 

separation applicable to any member of the Armed Forces who the President determines is essential to the national security of the United States.’’ 

Since members of the Reserve components are currently serving on Active Duty 

pursuant to an order to Active Duty under authority of sections 12301, 12302, or 

12304, the President has the statutory authority to suspend any laws relating to 

promotions, retirements, or separation of any members deemed essential to national 

security. 

The President has delegated his authority under section 12305 to the Secretary 

of Defense, who, in turn, has delegated the authority to the Service Secretaries. 

Senator MANCHIN. Being the newest person on the block, if you 

will, and with what we have in front of us right now, I was just 

wondering on the timeliness. I’ve heard loud and clear that you 

would like to have that time guideline in your purview rather than 

ours. I think that’s a very worthy consideration that we should 

have for you. 

I appreciate very much your appearance and the job that you do 

and the service you perform for our country. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you very much, Senator Manchin. 

Senator Sessions. 

Senator SESSIONS. Trying to get a little legal advice? [Laughter.] 

I would just observe that I believe Senator Chambliss is correct. 

The report says, total evaluation of the members of the military 

and a majority of them oppose the change. We don’t need to be in 

128 

a misimpression that there is some great groundswell of support 

for this. 

Maybe we ought to talk a little bit about how hard our military 

men and women work to prepare for combat, how many hours they 

work, how many hours they work during the combat period, how 

anything that adds to that can be a difficult thing. 

I would observe that the Army, the Marine Corps, and the 

Armed Forces Chiefs of Staff all have questioned this change, and 

that represents 75 percent of the men and women serving our 

country today. 

I think the governor’s question about cost is something we probably should look at a little more. There are many other factors that 

go into that. 

General Schwartz, one quick question for you on a different subject. I know there was an inadvertent, I believe inadvertent, disclosure of competitive data in the Air Force tanker competition. I accept that you’ve taken remediation. You have a plan for that. One 

of the competitors’ supporter, a Mr. Warren Thompson of the Lexington Institute, has complained about this. I just want to give you 

an opportunity to say, first, can Congress have integrity in this 

procurement process as it goes forward? 

General SCHWARTZ. Senator, a couple of weeks ago we had an inadvertent disclosure that was a profound disappointment, considering the diligence that our program office and source selection 

team had demonstrated up to that point. 

What occurred was the inadvertent release of a single page of 

nonproprietary data that involved our analysis of the efficiency of 

the offerors’ proposals, but it did not include any offeror proposed 

prices. 

Senator SESSIONS. Do you have any information that would indicate either competitor has acted inappropriately when they received the data that should not have been sent to them? 

General SCHWARTZ. Both offerors reacted in a responsible manner and returned the disks that were mistakenly forwarded to 

them to the Air Force, and we have confirmed that by forensic evidence. 

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you. 

Admiral Papp, you talked about some confusion in the law. Almost every one of you and the previous panel has talked about the 

uncertainty of the law, that somehow the courts are liable to make 

this happen and therefore it would be better for the military to act 

on its own and get this done, or Congress act. 

I just want to say to you, I’ve looked at that law carefully. I am 

absolutely convinced that the American Civil Liberties Union 

(ACLU), who lost the first circuit case, 13 or 14 individuals who 

complained about the constitutionality of this law, the First Circuit 

Court of Appeals in Boston found the law constitutional, and they 

did not appeal. 

Why? Because they thought the Supreme Court was going to affirm, as it has consistently done throughout the history of this 

country, that being in the military is different than civilian life. A 

private or a sergeant can’t go out and attack the President of the 

United States, whereas an individual American citizen can. 

129 

I just want to tell you, to the extent to which that has caused 

you to believe this is somehow inevitable because the Supreme 

Court is going to rule otherwise, I don’t agree. I am very critical 

of Solicitor General Elena Kagan, whose personal views on this 

were so well known in opposition to the military policy, that she 

did not defend the United States, the military, and DOD effectively 

in the California case. The way that was done was to obtain a letter from the Chief Counsel at DOD to say that they thought that 

in the Witt case it should be sent back to the lower court for further hearings. That was Mr. Jeh Johnson, who the President or the 

Secretary of Defense has chosen to Co-Chair this Working Group. 

He should not have done that. The proper thing to do was to seek 

an appeal from this chaotic order of the Ninth Circuit. 

I do not believe that, under the present state of the law, that the 

Supreme Court is likely to overthrow the statute, and I think I’m 

in accord with the ACLU in that view. 

I saw in the report here, General Amos, a question—I’m not here 

to condemn anybody. We live in a great country and we have all 

kinds of people with different perspectives, lifestyles, and views 

and we accommodate that as best we can. But I did notice that in 

one of the questions where they asked individuals who had served 

with homosexuals in units how did it work and did it affect the morale or efficiency of the unit, and the numbers were pretty high. I 

think in the Marine Corps it was 45 percent, the Army was around 

30 percent, that it either affected adversely the morale of the unit 

by a lot, a little, or somewhat, in that range. 

It’s a little bit different from some of the testimony I’ve heard 

that people who have served in units with homosexual members, 

it made no difference to them. Is that a correct interpretation of 

that question as you recall it? 

General Amos? 

General AMOS. Sir, I’m drawing a blank on that. I know how 

many of our marines have answered saying that they have served 

with gays that they’re aware of. I’m drawing a blank on the question you’re talking about. 

Senator SESSIONS. I will submit that for the record. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you, Senator Sessions. 

Senator Hagan. 

Senator HAGAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I just wanted to thank all of you for being here today and for 

your service and for your leadership. I want you to know that I’m 

extremely proud of all the great men and women that we have in 

our military Service now and the job that they are doing on behalf 

of our country. 

You’ve all mentioned that leadership is going to be the determining factor in effectively implementing a repeal of this existing 

law. You also mentioned the importance of not phasing the implementation among military branches, units, or ranks if it comes to 

pass. 

Will the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the servicemembers coordinate 

the execution of this implementation plan so that it would be universally implemented at the same time? How would that actually 

happen? 

130 

General CARTWRIGHT. I’ll take the first swag at it. We would get 

together, sit down, and work our way through an implementation 

plan to understand where the challenges would be. I think each of 

the members here have highlighted various challenges we know we 

would have to take on. The rotation rates are different, the intermixing of units where you have different Services with different 

skills that rotate at different rates, trying to understand the likelihood of being able to do that while deployed versus while at home, 

and when at home is it appropriate. Those are the things that we 

would have to sit down and talk our way through and understand 

at that point. 

General AMOS. Senator, chapter 13 has a good framework to initially get started on implementation. It talks about some of the 

major muscle movements. Certainly with each one of the Services, 

we have an operational planning team that has been looking at 

this, trying to determine, okay, internal to the Marine Corps what 

are our current Marine Corps instructions, Marine Corps orders? 

Things like billeting, all the different things that are specific to the 

Marine Corps; we are going through that right now. 

It would be a holistic effort that would include all the Services, 

DOD, and then neck it down to each Service. 

Senator HAGAN. General Casey, do you have any idea of a timeframe of an implementation process that would be amenable? 

General CASEY. I don’t, Senator. Until we have a chance to study 

it a little bit more, I think we’re all hesitant to put a number on 

the table. 

Senator HAGAN. Any other comments on that question? 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. I would say, Senator, the way I would characterize it, if in fact there were to be repeal it would be a matter 

of months in the case of the Navy, taking into account some of the 

units that may be forward deployed and how we would want to 

work them in. 

But I think it’s important that if, in fact, we were to go forward 

we should do it relatively directly, because long periods of uncertainty are not helpful in any military organization. 

General SCHWARTZ. Senator Hagan, I agree with that, except 

that in my view the pacing item is the most challenging, not even 

the average units in our Armed Forces, and those are probably 

again those which practice close combat in any of the Services. 

Senator HAGAN. As Senator Lieberman has said, the provision in 

the existing version of the NDAA will not implement the repeal 

until the Secretary of Defense signs a certification that, among 

other things, effectively mitigates impact to unit cohesion, effectiveness, and readiness. We’ve been talking about the courts also and 

I was just wondering, do you believe that the unpredictability of 

the courts to overturn the existing law is negatively affecting our 

forces, and would it be preferable for Congress to repeal the existing law now, with implementation taking effect after the Secretary 

of Defense feels comfortable in signing the certification? 

General Cartwright? 

General CARTWRIGHT. My sense is that the uncertainty really 

surfaced here in the most recent court case. I’m not sure that it has 

really permeated from the Service down to the individual members. 

I would, at least speaking for myself, say that it certainly caught 

131 

my attention and that as a leader and sitting where I do, that I 

want to make sure to the extent that I can—our preference would 

be that this body do the implementation, not the courts drive it. 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. Senator, I would say that the uncertainty 

does permeate down, because a couple of months ago we had to 

provide additional guidance to recruiters. We had to make sure 

that everyone understood what any of the disclosures would be. I 

would say that even today it’s more pronounced because of the access that all of our forces have to instantaneous information, not 

necessarily good information. 

As that’s turning around, I think it injects an air of uncertainty 

into the force that is not helpful. 

General CASEY. I would just say, Senator, I agree that there was 

some uncertainty, but I couldn’t go as far as to say that it had a 

negative impact on the force. As I said earlier, no matter how the 

law is repealed, we need the implementation time to properly do 

it. 

General SCHWARTZ. Ma’am, I would say that injunctions and 

stays in quick succession were disruptive. 

Admiral PAPP. Yes, ma’am, exactly. As I stated earlier, this ambiguity that’s created for particularly our junior leaders and our 

people who are out on the front line, needs to be cleared up so they 

know exactly where they stand in terms of enforcement and the 

way ahead. 

Senator HAGAN. I think anybody at the recruiting offices would 

have uncertainties with the law changing or the courts going back 

and forth, and it would certainly be a problem. 

Yesterday, Admiral Mullen emphasized that implementing a repeal of the existing law in time of war is not an issue. He put forth 

an example that in 1948, President Truman ordered the military 

to racially integrate our forces, which was implemented throughout 

the Korean War. Admiral Mullen added that war facilitates change 

and our forces are completely different now than they were back 

in 1993, when this existing law was passed. 

Secretary Gates indicated that with enough time and preparation 

DOD could mitigate all concerns, even those of our combat and special forces units who are at the tip of the spear. 

Can you describe your assessment of how our forces have evolved 

since 1993, in being receptive to change regarding this issue, and 

maybe describe how the war has facilitated change in this regard? 

I know some of the branches are different, from what I’ve read in 

the report. 

General CASEY. Senator, I didn’t hear Chairman Mullen’s statement in its entirety, but I would say, as I said in our testimony, 

I believe that because we are at war it complicates repeal. I described there the additional tasks that we placed on small unit 

leaders in a combat zone to implement this and how that would detract from their ability to do the broad range of complex tasks that 

they’re required to do in Iraq and Afghanistan. 

Now, that said, I can understand what the Chairman was saying 

about a tight and close-knit bond and in some cases that may facilitate it. But frankly, I think that’s a bit of a stretch. 

General CARTWRIGHT. Senator, my sense is that the unknown 

here is the implementation plan. In other words, what does that 

132 

implementation plan allow us to do in mitigation? The Secretary 

was very clear about what he believed it gave us, which was he 

was not going to sign until the Service Chiefs were ready. If that’s 

the case, I think that that makes me very comfortable that the fact 

that there’s a war going on, but there’s an implementation plan 

that each of the Service Chiefs have had input into and feel like 

they’ve mitigated and can give that kind of advice to the Secretary, 

that we could in fact do this. 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. Senator, in the areas of specialty in which 

I’m most concerned, in talking to those commanders, I’m assured 

that the effect at the front line would not be that great because of 

their focus and their current level of activity. 

General SCHWARTZ. I think the Secretary of Defense indicated 

some measure of caution with respect to implementation and I 

think that’s warranted. 

Admiral PAPP. Yes, ma’am. As I said in my opening statement, 

there’s just things that we cannot foresee even though we try very 

hard to. While it’s not directly translatable, we had experience not 

too long ago introducing women into the Services and fully integrating them into our operational activities. 

Senator HAGAN. Yes. 

Admiral PAPP. Yes, ma’am. The Coast Guard Academy was the 

first Federal academy to introduce women, and we put women out 

into the fleet very early. Even with a lot of thoughtful consideration, there are things that you miss, that you don’t learn about 

until you actually go ahead and implement the plans. 

Senator HAGAN. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you, Senator Hagan. 

Senator Brown. 

Senator BROWN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I actually agree with Senator Wicker in that we’re in the worst 

recession we’ve had in quite a while and we seem to be doing everything except working on the one thing that can get our economy 

moving, which is jobs. I’m hopeful that when we get working that 

we will actually start to work on that one issue. 

But I do certainly appreciate participating in this process as well. 

As I said long before I got elected and then when I got here, I’ve 

been inquired about this and many other issues many, many times, 

and I always said that I would pledge to have an open mind, learn, 

and try to understand the intricacies of this very important decision. 

I’ve had the honor, sir, of meeting with you and speaking with 

you about this, and with Secretary Gates, General Petraeus, General McChrystal, and a whole host of probably about 1,000 people, 

not only in the continental United States (CONUS) but outside of 

CONUS as well. It seems to me one of the things, in following up 

with Senator Inhofe, is I’ve been in the military 31 years, so I understand this issue, more than maybe some folks or leaders here 

in the House and Senate that haven’t had any military experience. 

I understand it. I’ve observed it. As an Army Judge Advocate General, I read the rules and regulations concerning this issue. 

Senator Inhofe asked a question about surveys, and I’ve done 

many surveys in the Army. I don’t ever remember them being volVerDate Aug 31 2005 08:59 May 02, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00138 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 Y:\BORAWSKI\DOCS\65073.TXT JUNE PsN: JUNEB
133 

untary. I always remember them saying: Hey, here’s a survey; get 

it done. As a company commander: Here’s a survey; we want it 

done; get it done, 100 percent. 

I’m a little confused still as to why we didn’t just say: Hey, here’s 

a survey. We’re spending a ton of money. It’s a critical piece of 

what we’re dealing with in society and in our Armed Forces. Get 

it done, company commanders. 

Any thoughts on that, General Casey, as to why we just didn’t 

say: Hey, here’s the survey, get it done, and we’ll see you next 

week? 

General CASEY. I honestly don’t, I don’t know why they chose to 

do it the way they did it. 

Senator BROWN. Anyone else have any thoughts at all? 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. I think, Senator, from our perspective we 

use surveys for various purposes, looking at personnel issues and 

things like that. This is very consistent with the way that we survey our force, and the figures that we’ve seen in this survey are 

very consistent and the patterns are very consistent. This, in our 

opinion, was a good way to sample the force. 

Senator BROWN. That’s interesting. Like I said, I’ve been in the 

military 31 years and I don’t ever remember, and I’ve taken a ton 

of surveys, them saying it’s voluntary, just get it back. This is one 

thing that we’re dealing with is a very important part of where our 

military is going, not only now but in the future. I would have 

thought they would have said: ‘‘Hey, get it done, period.’’ I’ll just 

note that for the record. 

I read the report, I’ve spoken to at least 1,000 people in Afghanistan, National Guard, Reserves, Active Army, et cetera, getting 

their input. It seems to me that each and every one of you says 

you’re not opposed to the repeal. However, I do have very serious 

concerns about the battle readiness and effectiveness of the repeal 

on our battle troops, our troops who are actually on the front lines 

fighting. 

Is that an accurate representation of your positions? If it isn’t, 

if someone could clarify that for me. General Cartwright, did you 

have a comment? 

General CARTWRIGHT. My sense is that each of us have represented what we think are the key areas that either the mitigation has to be handled or some other method has to be handled before we’re ready to move forward. Clearly, this issue of, can we put 

one more stone in the rucksack, what are the implications and not 

knowing what the implementation is until we start to go through 

it, leaves us with questions. 

Senator BROWN. Thank you for that. 

Mr. Chairman, one of the things that concerns me greatly after 

speaking and doing my due diligence, is the one issue as Senator 

Thune also pointed out, the safety and security of our men and 

women that are serving, regardless of their sexual orientation. 

I want to make sure that we give them the tools and resources 

to do their job and come home safely and to implement social 

change in the middle of two battles. You’ve noted, I think quite eloquently not only to everybody on this committee but to anyone who 

was listening, your very real concerns. Quite frankly, I’m a little 

134 

surprised at the forthright nature in which you’ve conveyed that to 

us, and I appreciate that. 

I know, speaking with counsel, he said March is when they felt 

the next court battle would be done, and then thereafter I’m sure 

there would be an appeal. I’m hopeful that if, in fact, when or if 

DADT does get repealed, that you will be given the proper respect 

and input, with the three signers who are going to certify, to let 

them know what your very real concerns are, because I and many 

others share those concerns. 

Let’s assume for argument’s sake that it’s been repealed and we 

all agree that it’s time. One of the things that I need to be made 

aware of and be very comfortable with, sirs, is that you will do your 

utmost to convey to the three certifiers that we’re ready to implement the back-home troops first. That we have a plan for education, implementation, done our due diligence, and have a strategy. We’re going to focus on the troops that are home first, the 

back line, transportation, division support command service, and 

support units. Then with the battle units, we’re going to leave 

them as is. They have just too much on their plate. We’re going to 

leave them as is, and we’re going to let them do the force. 

But when they come home, we’re going to implement them and 

we’re going to get the training, education, work it through, and 

cycle it in. 

It would potentially be detrimental to just all of a sudden have 

the courts do something overnight. It would be exceedingly disruptive to the force. I’m basing that on everything I’ve learned, forgetting my personal opinion, but everything that you, with your 100- 

plus years of testimony, have indicated. 

Is there anything there that I’ve said that you feel needs to be 

corrected or is any different from your positions? 

General CARTWRIGHT. First is that none of us will be shrinking 

violets in this activity. We all feel like we have the access that we 

need and the opportunity that we’ll need in order to give advice. 

I put that up front. 

The details of exactly how we’ll do the implementation remain to 

unfold. 

Senator BROWN. Anyone else? 

General AMOS. Senator, I agree with the Vice Chairman. We 

often are in agreement and seldom in complete disagreement, but 

we have the opportunity. Each one of us have been hired for our 

own roles and confirmed by the Senate. I have great confidence in 

the leadership of DOD to do this thing the right way. 

Senator BROWN. General Casey, I have to hear from you, the last 

person before we wrap up. 

General CASEY. I’m very comfortable that we have access. I’ve 

said that several times today. We will have access and take great 

interest, because as you say it is about the safety and security of 

our force. 

I just wouldn’t commit to any kind of implementation plan now 

because we really haven’t had enough time. 

Senator BROWN. It’s premature, obviously. 

General CASEY. Yes. 

Senator BROWN. In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, like I suggested, 

I’m proud to be on this committee and I am glad that we’ve had 

135 

an opportunity to participate in this process. Timing what it is, 

we’re here; we might as well work. 

I want to thank you all for your accessibility in answering not 

only me, but my staff’s questions, and getting us appropriate information and guidance. I want to say thank you also for your and 

your families’ service to our country. It makes me very proud to be 

here. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you very much, Senator Brown. 

Let’s have a second round now. 

One of the real issues that people have focused on is the question 

of the warfighting units. I want to read to you from this report on 

page 6: ‘‘While a higher percentage of servicemembers in 

warfighting units predict negative effects of repeal, the percentage 

distinctions between warfighting units and the entire military are 

almost non-existent when asked about the actual experience of 

serving in a unit with someone believed to be gay. For example, 

when those in the overall military were asked about the experience 

of working with someone they believed to be gay or lesbian, 92 percent stated that their unit’s ‘ability to work together’ was very 

good, good, or neither good nor poor. Meanwhile, in response to the 

same question, the percentage is 89 percent for those in Army combat arms units and 84 percent for those in Marine Corps combat 

arms units—all very high percentages.’’ 

Then the report continues: ‘‘Anecdotally, we heard much the 

same. As one SOF warfighter told us: ‘We have a gay guy in the 

unit. He’s big, he’s mean, and he kills lots of bad guys. No one 

cared that he was gay.’ ’’ 

General Amos, that guy was not apparently in the Marine Corps. 

He was a SOF warfighter. I’m not sure what force he was in. But 

would you say that that expression of him, shouldn’t that be read 

two or three times also? 

General AMOS. Mr. Chairman, I don’t doubt at any given base or 

combat outpost that we’ll find men and women that are out there 

exactly like that Special Operations soldier, marine, sailor, whoever 

he was. 

Chairman LEVIN. What about the percentages that I read? 

General AMOS. Sir, I can’t comment on that, but I can say that 

80 percent of our combat arms marines say that they’ve never 

served with gays or lesbians. 

Chairman LEVIN. The ones who have? 

General AMOS. The ones who have, I suspect, probably are more 

tolerant of it. I think that probably is where you’re going to with 

this point. 

Chairman LEVIN. It’s not where I’m going. It’s where the report’s 

going. 

General AMOS. I understand that, sir. 

Chairman LEVIN. That’s critically important, it seems to me. It 

really needs a great deal of focus. I couldn’t agree more with colleagues who say that we have to look at this entire picture. I don’t 

know what percentage of our men and women in the military are 

at the point of the spear. I don’t know what that percentage is. 

General Cartwright, how many people in the military? All together, how many are there? 

General CARTWRIGHT. All together? 

136 

Chairman LEVIN. Yes. 

General CARTWRIGHT. Somewhere around 2.2 million. 

Chairman LEVIN. What percentage would you say are in combat 

arms units? 

General CARTWRIGHT. I’d have to go back and look, Senator. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

Percentage of servicemembers in combat arms skills/service combat arms definitions: 

Army: 37.70 percent 

Combat arms is defined as infantry (11), artillery (13), air defense artillery (14), 

aviations (15), special operations (18), cavalry (19), and combat arms immaterial 

(02) coded positions. 

Navy: 57.50 percent 

Officer: fleet support officer, surface warfare officer, submarine, special warfare officer, engineer duty officer, and aviations. 

Enlisted: aviations, surface, non-nuclear submarine, nuclear submarine, and special warfare/special operations. 

Marine Corps: 26.60 percent 

Infantry, artillery, tracked vehicles, and pilots. 

Air Force: 15.00 percent 

Officer Air Force Specialty Codes (AFSCs): control and recovery (13D) and security forces (31P). 

Enlisted AFSCs: tactical air command and control (1C4), survival, evasion, resistance and escape operations (1T0), pararescue (1T2), and security forces (3P0). 

Chairman LEVIN. It would be a minority that are in combat? 

General CARTWRIGHT. Yes. 

Chairman LEVIN. So we have to try to do this right for everybody. 

General Schwartz, you said that we ought to be paced by the people who are in combat. Okay. Obviously we ought to consider that. 

Then you said 2012, that’s the right date. Do you know how many 

people will be in combat in 2012? 

General SCHWARTZ. I don’t. 

Chairman LEVIN. Why is 2012 the right time? There may be people in combat. 

General SCHWARTZ. There may well be, sir. I have enough confidence in what’s going to transpire in 2011 that I think that’s too 

soon. 

Chairman LEVIN. I understand that. But you said it should be 

paced by the number of people in combat. You don’t know how 

many people will be in combat in 2012. Yet, you say do it then not 

now, without knowing that. 

General SCHWARTZ. There is uncertainty here, no question. But 

it is clear to me that you cannot disaggregate the force. 

Chairman LEVIN. No, I happen to agree with you on that, by the 

way. I agree with your point that you cannot have a different 

phase-in for a different place. Admiral Roughead, you also made 

that same point. I happen to agree with that. 

We like to say one-size-shouldn’t-fit-all and one-size-can’t-fit-all. 

There are ways in the implementation that you’ll be able to do 

some sensitive response to where various people are in terms of 

their education. I don’t think you can have an education program 

when people are in the fight. You have to wait for them to be rotated home. 

137 

There are things you can do. But I just think to delay this until 

2012 is totally arbitrary. 

General SCHWARTZ. Sir, what I offered in my testimony was that 

we would not execute full implementation until 2012. We could 

begin education and training soon after you acted to repeal. 

Chairman LEVIN. You have to repeal before the implementation 

stage comes. 

General SCHWARTZ. Absolutely. My forecast would be, unlike others, that it’s not a matter of months. 

Chairman LEVIN. For the implementation stage, even if it takes 

a year to begin, you have to begin with the repeal or else you can’t 

be implementing a repeal. The first step is to repeal. 

Why now? Why in a lameduck? That wasn’t our timing. We had 

this bill I believe in March. What was the month? 6 months ago 

we adopted the NDAA. The majority of the committee, I think 16 

to 12, said we should repeal a provision which the committee had 

adopted 18 years before. 

The bill contains, and I agree with what Senator Brown said 

here, the tools and resources that need to be given to our troops. 

If people want to vote against this provision, fine. We’re trying to 

get the bill to the floor so they can vote against the provision if 

they want to. 

In the mean time, the NDAA is being held up from getting to the 

floor. A bill which contains the provisions for the tools and the resources for our troops, and we can’t get to the floor. It only got 57 

or 58 votes the last time it was brought up. 

We’re trying to get the NDAA to the floor. We’ve been trying for 

a long time. We didn’t pick the lameduck session to bring this up. 

People understandably said to wait until we have the report and 

that was a reasonable request. Many felt strongly it was important 

that we have a report. We didn’t set the timing for the report. The 

report came in December 1. 

We have a bill which contains essential provisions for the men 

and women in the military: training, benefits, health care for them 

and their families, and many more things beyond that. We’re trying to get the NDAA to the floor, where people who oppose this provision could either vote to strip it or modify it. That’s what we’re 

trying to do. 

The timing isn’t our choice. We’ve been trying to get this to the 

floor for 6 or 8 months now, and we’re going to hopefully be able 

to find a way to get this to the floor this month. There’s a lot in 

that bill that is essential for the well-being of our troops. 

For those who think this is a mistake, I respect their position. 

I disagree with it because of the caution that’s in terms of the implementation phase and the certification. I commend all of you for 

saying that you feel very comfortable about having access before 

this is certified, if it is, that this can be done without any negative 

effect on cohesion or on readiness. I thank you all for your testimony in that regard. 

But that is in the NDAA. If that needs to be strengthened, fine. 

Someone offer an amendment to strengthen it. The timing, when 

we’re asked why now by one of my colleagues, believe me, we’ve 

been trying for 6 months to get this bill to the floor, because it was 

this committee that put DADT into the law in the beginning, it is 

138 

appropriate for this committee to address it should the majority see 

fit. 

My time is up. Senator McCain. 

Senator MCCAIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am sure that our 

witnesses were intrigued by the lecture on the legislative process 

here in the U.S. Senate, authenticating Mr. Bismarck’s comment 

about the two things you never want to see made are laws and sausages. 

I just finished a reelection campaign. Every place I went over all 

of my State for nearly 2 years, no one came up to me and, with 

military retirees, military bases, presence, none of them came up 

to me and said: ‘‘Gee, please, Senator McCain, get to work on 

DADT.’’ 

In fact, every place I went members of the military came up to 

me and said that things are fine; it’s working. But most importantly, they said they want to get a job, they want to stay in their 

homes. Unemployment this morning just went up to 9.8 percent, 

and we’re about to raise taxes on the first of the year on an overwhelming majority of Americans, middle income, high income, 

whatever it is. Because my friends on the other side of the aisle, 

in an incredible act of courage, went out of session without addressing the issue of tax extensions, so that the small and large 

business people in my State, what’s left of them, had no predictability as to what their investments could be, whether they could 

hire or not. This morning we find out an increase in the unemployment rate to 9.8 percent. 

I appreciate the candid assessment made by every member of 

this panel, whether I agree with them or not. As I said before in 

my opening statement, we should not be questioning anyone’s integrity or motives in addressing this issue. 

Admiral Roughead, obviously I disagree with your assessment, 

but I respect your assessment. General Cartwright, the same. 

I know it’s tough sometimes to speak truth to power, and I know 

the military culture, because it’s ingrained in every military person 

to respect and always look up to the civilian authorities that clearly are superior in our system of government. It’s tough sometimes 

to disagree with the Commander in Chief. It’s tough to disagree 

with powerful Members of Congress that have the influence and 

power over whether your Service receives the necessary training, 

equipment, and everything else to make you function effectively. 

I’d like to thank every member of this panel this morning for 

their candor and their honest opinions. It restores my faith and 

confidence in the loyalty and professionalism of the leadership of 

our military. 

I will not agree to have this bill go forward, and neither will I 

believe that 41 of my colleagues will either, because our economy 

is in the tank. Our economy is in the tank and the American people 

want that issue addressed. The military is functioning in the most 

efficient, professional, and courageous fashion in any time in our 

history. 

To somehow believe that this is some kind of compelling issue at 

a time when we’re in two wars, as General Amos’ subordinates so 

eloquently pointed out, is obviously not something that we should 

be exercising a rush to judgment. 

139 

I thank you, Mr. Chairman. I said earlier I want to hear from 

our senior enlisted personnel, the command master chiefs, the command master sergeants. I want to hear from them. I want to hear 

from our various component commands. I want to hear again from 

the men and women who are serving, who will be directly affected 

by this, and those who have the ultimate responsibility for carrying 

out whatever change in the law takes place. 

I think I would be more than eager in the coming year to have 

additional hearings, as they had some 13 hearings when DADT 

was enacted. I look forward to joining with you, Senator Lieberman 

and other members of this committee, next year in taking up this 

issue again. Examining all the ramifications of it, including cost, 

which was referred to a little bit here this morning. 

I would pledge to work with you on that effort, but certainly not 

in a lameduck session when parts of my State are suffering in ways 

that they never have in the history of my State. 

I thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you, Senator McCain. 

Senator Lieberman. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

I’d say to my friend, Senator McCain, that, of course, I agree that 

our top priority is restoring some economic growth and jobs in our 

country, but we can do both. We have the time, if we have the will, 

to work across party lines to both do the things that are best for 

our economy. In my opinion, that means not raising anybody’s 

taxes while the economy is as weak as the numbers that came out 

today say it is. 

But we also have the underlying NDAA, which, as the witnesses 

know, contains within it a large number of authorizations that are 

really important to the military, and particularly the troops in combat. If we don’t pass that, they’re not going to be supported in the 

way that they deserve to be supported. 

I really hope that we can come together and use our time wisely 

to meet all of our priorities. 

Senator Wicker asked earlier, why are we here doing this while 

we’re in combat? I think Senator Levin gave one answer. We’ve 

been at this for quite a while, really. We’re here in part because 

some of us, and Admiral Mullen particularly spoke to this yesterday, think that the current policy of DADT is not good for our military and not good for national security. 

To me, in part that meant that we put 14,000 people out, not because they were in any way inadequate members of the military or 

violated the code of conduct, but just because they were gay. I saw 

one estimate that we spent $500 million training those discharged 

servicemembers. I don’t know whether that’s right or not, but 

training those 14,000 people, who were then kicked out for no good 

reason, in my opinion, and we lost the benefit of that money. 

We’re also losing—incidentally, as you all know, several hundred 

of those who had mission-critical skills, like translators, health personnel, and intelligence analysts. We need those people in combat 

to support our combat troops. 

This policy does discourage a certain number of people who are 

gay and lesbian, have specialized skills or just the will and courage 

to be prepared to put their lives on the line for our country, from 

140 

enlisting in the first place because they don’t want to go through 

a system for fear that they’ll be outed. 

There was a really interesting part of the survey which I quoted 

yesterday and I’m going to quote again today. It struck me that the 

survey did interview a certain number of gay and lesbian military 

personnel, members of the Armed Forces. What surprised me was 

that only 15 percent of the gay and lesbian servicemembers who responded to the survey said they would want their sexual orientation known throughout their unit. This gets in a way beyond the 

belief or discussion, General Casey, that you had with Senator 

Reed. 

One member who said that said: ‘‘I think a lot of people think 

that there’s going to be this big outing and people flaunting their 

gayness. But they forget we’re in the military. That stuff isn’t supposed to be done during duty hours regardless of whether you’re 

gay or straight.’’ 

Then there’s other testimony that I’ve heard personally talking 

to people, which is that what they fear is that somebody will accuse 

them of being gay because they don’t like them for another reason, 

and it’ll be a basis for them being tossed out of the military, or 

they’ll be seen at a gay bar during hours when they’re not on duty 

and somebody will report that. For that reason, as part of their private life, they’ll be tossed out of the military, regardless of how effective they are as soldiers. 

This gets to the integrity question that Admiral Mullen spoke of 

yesterday, which is a core military value. Again, I repeat myself, 

the military is one institution that still lives by values in our country. A lot of other institutions say we do, including this one, but 

we don’t do it as well as we should. 

I think all of this soliloquy is to answer the relevant question 

that Senator Wicker asked, which is why are we here? Those of us 

who advocate change are here because we think the current policy 

is not good for the military in terms of its core values, but also, 

more relevant to the combat situation, because it deprives us of a 

number of members of the military who can contribute to our success in combat. 

We’ll all take from it, I suppose, what we will and what we want 

to take from it. I go back to what I said. Really, you’ve been the 

best. This has been a free exchange of ideas. In the end, you’ve said 

if the law is changed you’ll make it work. I’m encouraged. 

General Casey and others said that in the wording of the amendment that we have on the repeal, giving the Secretary unlimited 

time to certify. Secretary Gates, incidentally, said yesterday he’s 

not going to certify this theoretically if the repeal passes. In other 

words, he’s not going to certify this because he believes it can be 

done without effect on the military morale, unit cohesion, and effectiveness. He’s going to need to be convinced that there are plans 

in place that, as he said, mitigate or eliminate any concerns he has. 

I just hope we can find a way to agree that this underlying 

NDAA is so important to our military in combat that we have to 

find a way to get it done before we leave here this session. This 

will be the first time I believe in 43 years that Congress will not 

have passed a NDAA. Also that we let there be a free debate on 

the DADT policy, and with the confidence that if repeal passes 

141 

there is a process in place to make sure that it’s implemented as 

best we can do by law. That it is implemented, to use Secretary 

Gates’ words, to mitigate or eliminate any of the risks that a few 

of you have quite sincerely expressed concerns about here this 

morning. 

I thank you very much for your testimony and for your service 

to our country in many ways, including the integrity of your testimony before us today. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you, Senator Lieberman. 

Do you have more questions? 

Senator MCCAIN. No, except to say, Mr. Chairman, I want to 

thank the witnesses, and thanks for listening. 

I think it’s very clear that, given the testimony of the Service 

Chiefs, which I have said all along, that we need the testimony of 

our enlisted leadership, who we rely on so much and our senior enlisted personnel as well. 

The fact is that the testimony today clearly indicates that we 

should not rush forward on this issue or pass legislation. 

I’d also point out that the legislation that was referred to also 

has controversial issues in it, including abortions in military hospitals, including $1 billion worth of unmitigated outrageous pork 

that was added in the NDAA. Which the American people just 

spoke so decisively against, this earmarking and porkbarreling 

that’s been going on, which they have rejected soundly, and other 

controversial provisions. The problem with the NDAA isn’t confined 

to the DADT issue. 

Again, I am proud that we have the finest and best military that 

this Nation has ever seen, which contradicts my friend from Connecticut’s statements that there are so many problems in the military associated with this policy. Not when you have the highest retention, the best recruitment, and the most professional military in 

our history. We just have a difference of opinion. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you very much, Senator McCain. 

The place to address the kind of issues which Senator McCain 

raises is on the floor of the Senate. There are issues, of course, in 

any NDAA to come out of committee, and the only way those issues 

can be addressed is to debate them and resolve them in the Senate. 

I’m hopeful that we can get to that point yet this year, because 

that’s the only way we can get this bill passed is to debate issues 

where there are differences and to resolve those differences. 

That’s what’s been thwarted. I hope that we can somehow figure 

out a path to getting our bill up to the Senate so we can debate 

the kind of issues which are legitimate debates, including the ones 

that Senator McCain made reference to. 

I think all of us will hopefully read this report, including the 

statement of the people who wrote this report, our study group 

here, that: ‘‘The U.S. military’s prior experiences with racial and 

gender integration are relevant.’’ They pointed out on pages 7 and 

8 that in their assessment, in their words, ‘‘the resistance to 

change at the time’’—this is the time after World War II and during the Cold War—‘‘was far more intense. Surveys of the military 

revealed opposition to racial integration of the Services at levels as 

142 

high as 80 to 90 percent, and some of our best-known and most revered military leaders from the World War II era voiced opposition 

to the integration of blacks into the military, making strikingly 

similar predictions of the negative impact on unit cohesion.’’ 

That’s quoting from the study about how the military’s amazing 

ability to reflect what our people has been proven time and time 

and time again. It will be proven in this case, hopefully sooner 

rather than later. 

You gentlemen are in a unique position to make it happen, and 

you testified you can, should that be the decision of Congress. 

I want to join my colleagues in expressing my admiration to each 

and every one of you, our gratitude to you for your testimony, to 

the men and women that you command; their service and your 

service is extraordinary. 

We will now stand adjourned. 

[Questions for the record with answers supplied follow:] 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN

SINGLE MARINE BARRACKS CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS

1. Senator MCCAIN. General Amos, in reference to changes in living conditions as 

a result of the repeal, the working group does not recommend any new construction 

or modifications to facilities beyond low-cost, unit-funded adaptations where appropriate. The working group cites the Department of Defense (DOD) Unified Facilities 

Criteria (UFC), which requires that all new permanent party unaccompanied housing be designed to afford members private bedrooms and bathrooms shared by not 

more than one person (the 1+1 standard). However, the Marine Corps has had an 

exception to this policy for 15 years to support the tenet that two marines should 

share a room in order to promote unit cohesion and camaraderie for the 65,000 marines housed in barracks. Why is it important for the Marine Corps to maintain this 

2+2 standard? 

General AMOS. For the past 15 years, the Marine Corps has been granted a waiver from DOD design standards of the UFC 1+1 standard so it could billet marines 

E–1 to E–3 two to a room in order to promote a key component of our approach 

to developing strong unit cohesion. We believe that our standard promotes unity, increases morale, and develops bonds that are important in combat. 

2. Senator MCCAIN. General Amos, in your opinion, what changes to billeting policies would you have to implement to maintain good order and discipline in the Marine Corps? 

General AMOS. The Secretary of Defense has been clear that Services will not designate facilities for use by sexual orientation, and current Service policies regarding 

gender segregation in such facilities shall remain in effect. The Marine Corps’ implementation planning team is examining billeting policies closely and I will have their 

assessment. 

3. Senator MCCAIN. General Amos, do you have an estimate of the cost to the Marine Corps, if it were required to adopt the 1+1 living standard, both in terms of 

monetary cost and impact on unit cohesion? 

General AMOS. The Marine Corps has not completed a detailed analysis of fiscal 

impacts if it were to adopt the 1+1 living standard. Preliminary assessments indicate that building enough billeting spaces to accommodate a 1+1 living standard 

would be a significant and costly endeavor that would require the construction of 

new facilities on an expanded footprint of real estate. 

INSTRUCTIONS GIVEN TO MILITARY PERSONNEL ABOUT REPEAL OF DON’T ASK, DON’T

TELL POLICY

4. Senator MCCAIN. General Cartwright, General Casey, Admiral Roughead, General Amos, General Schwartz, and Admiral Papp, the committee is interested in the 

personal and professional views held by military personnel and military leaders. 

However, over the course of the comprehensive review, individuals in uniform who 

expressed opposition to repeal have been met with warnings not to speak out pubVerDate Aug 31 2005 08:59 May 02, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00148 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 Y:\BORAWSKI\DOCS\65073.TXT JUNE PsN: JUNEB
143 

licly. Please describe and provide copies to the committee the instructions given to 

flag, general officers, and to members of your Service about their authority to express their views publicly or in their personal capacities. 

General CARTWRIGHT. I am not aware of any warnings or instructions given to 

flag, general officers, and to members of the Armed Forces about their authority to 

express their views publicly or in their personal capacities. I am confident that 

servicemembers who wanted to express their views on this issue had ample opportunities to do so, both through the mechanisms provided by the Working Group and 

through other means. 

General CASEY. When the Comprehensive Review was released, I encouraged 

Army leaders to read the report but to refrain from entering into the public debate. 

My guidance issued to the field is attached. 


d03ful3.eps
144 

Admiral ROUGHHEAD. I am unaware of any instructions, either formal or informal, 

given to flag and general officers or to members of the Navy regarding their authority to publicly express their views regarding repeal of section 654 of title 10, U.S.C. 

My consistent direction to senior leadership and to sailors throughout this process 

was the expectation that all Navy personnel would fully cooperate with the efforts 

of the Comprehensive Review Working Group. 

Representative of my message is a podcast that I delivered on June 2, 2010. In 

that personal communication to the fleet, I provided the following guidance: 

‘‘I want to make sure that our sailors in the fleet and their families understand that it is as important as ever for me to hear from them. I encourage 

you to participate in the ongoing Department of Defense review on this subject. Every sailor needs to speak for themselves, and military family members need to be heard, too. Be honest and speak your own personal beliefs 

and opinion. The review is only valuable with full participation . . . [and] is 

important to making sure that we fully understand all aspects of the issue.’’ 

This podcast and transcript are available at http://www.navy.mil/swf/cnopd.html. 

The Chief of Naval Personnel subsequently issued a fleet-wide message 

(NAVADMIN 254–10) that encouraged participation in the Working Group survey, 

and reemphasized that everyone’s input mattered. 

As I testified before the committee, I am proud of the professionalism and seriousness of the men and women of the U.S. Navy as they participated in this unprecedented survey of our force. I found the responses, in confidential surveys and in all 

hands calls, to be honest, candid, thoughtful, and cognizant of the complexity of the 

issues involved. Their willingness to share their views enabled me to provide my 

best military advice to the Secretary of Defense and Congress on this issue. 

General AMOS. The Marine Corps—through all phases of the process for studying 

and considering Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT)—has actively sought the input of marines of all ranks, and encouraged marines to express their opinions honestly. Further, the Marine Corps takes seriously these opinions and will work to address concerns that may develop into an impediment to successful implementation. 

General SCHWARTZ. The Air Force has actively supported the DOD Comprehensive Review Working Group since its inception, through manning and subject matter 

experts in law, housing, medical, chaplaincy, education and training, recruiting, and 

survey methodology. The Air Force also established a subordinate working group 

that mirrors the Working Group structure, to provide professional, dispassionate, 

and informed advice to the DOD Working Group. 

On 1 June 2010, Secretary of the Air Force Michael B. Donley, Chief of Staff of 

the Air Force Norton A. Schwartz, and Chief Master Sergeant of the Air Force 

James A. Roy signed a memorandum published to all Major Command leaders and 

their personnel. A copy of the memorandum is provided below: 

145 

Admiral PAPP. Coast Guard members were encouraged to freely and fully express 

their views to the Working Group regarding impact of repeal via the engagement 

mechanisms developed (online inbox, survey, information exchange forums, focus 

groups and confidential communication mechanism). Correspondence, such as emails, were sent to all Coast Guard members encouraging participation in all surveys; a sample e-mail is provided below. 


d03ful2.eps
146 

SURVEY IN THE U.S. CENTRAL COMMAND AREA OF RESPONSIBILITY

5. Senator MCCAIN. General Cartwright, General Casey, Admiral Roughead, General Amos, General Schwartz, and Admiral Papp, the manner in which the comprehensive review survey was presented to servicemembers currently deployed in 

support of Operation New Dawn and Operation Enduring Freedom has not been 

made clear. It would seem that obtaining the views of those who are in theater, living in combat conditions, which are most familiar with the conditions that soldiers, 

sailors, airmen, and marines will face while serving in Afghanistan, Iraq, Kuwait, 

and elsewhere in the U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) Area of Responsibility 


d03ful1.eps
147 

(AOR), would be a high priority. Were members of your Service currently deployed 

to Iraq or Afghanistan surveyed? 

General CARTWRIGHT. Obtaining the views of servicemembers who were deployed, 

were about to deploy, or who had recently returned from deployment was indeed an 

important aspect of the Working Group’s efforts to engage the force. 

Servicemembers solicited to complete the survey were selected at random according 

to standard practice used by the Defense Manpower Data Center (DMDC) to sample 

the military population. The survey sample included members who were currently 

deployed, to include the CENTCOM AORs, as well as those who were about to deploy or who had recently returned from deployment. For example, in response to 

question 6, ‘‘Have you ever been deployed for 30 days or more,’’ 10,114 of the survey 

respondents answered ‘‘Yes, and I am currently deployed;’’ 75,383 answered ‘‘Yes, 

but I am not currently deployed;’’ and 29,292 answered ‘‘No.’’ 

General CASEY. Yes. Soldiers deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as soldiers 

based stateside, participated in the DADT on-line survey. 

Admiral ROUGHHEAD. Respondents to the survey included members who have 

served in Iraq or Afghanistan. Across all Services, 74 percent of respondents reported having been deployed to a combat zone, or an area in which they received 

imminent danger pay or hostile fire pay, since September 11, 2001. 

General AMOS. Yes. Now engaged in the 9th year of combat operations, half of 

the Marine Corps’ operating forces have either engaged in fighting in Afghanistan, 

are returning from theater, or are preparing to deploy to combat. According to the 

Westat data, 7 percent of marines surveyed self-reported being currently deployed 

at the time of the survey. 

General SCHWARTZ. There are 1,913 airmen currently deployed in support of overseas contingency operations who responded to the survey. Additionally, 23,505 airmen who have deployed in support of overseas contingency operations since September 11, 2001, responded to the survey. 

At the Secretary of Defense’s direction, information exchange forums were not 

conducted in Iraq and Afghanistan to avoid interference with the missions there. 

However, at installations such as Ramstein Air Base and elsewhere, the DOD Working Group encountered large numbers of servicemembers who had deployed to Iraq 

or Afghanistan one or more times, or were preparing to deploy. These 

servicemembers shared their perspectives concerning the effect of repeal in combat 

situations and deployed environments. 

Admiral PAPP. Because the survey was anonymous, the data to accurately answer 

this question is not readily available to the Coast Guard. The survey recipients, including coastguardsmen, were selected at random by the DMDC, and personnel deployed were not excluded from this random selection process. 

6. Senator MCCAIN. General Cartwright, General Casey, Admiral Roughead, General Amos, General Schwartz, and Admiral Papp, do you personally think that the 

views of members of your force serving on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan 

would be probative? 

General CARTWRIGHT. Yes. The survey included the views of servicemembers currently deployed, about to deploy, and those recently returned from deployment. 

General CASEY. Yes. The views of the force serving on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan are important to understanding the impacts of repeal. Since the Working 

Group survey included currently deployed soldiers, we feel confident that their 

views were accounted for in the Working Group’s review. 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. Respondents to the survey included members who have 

served in Iraq or Afghanistan. Additionally, I took into consideration the views of 

Commanders of Navy units currently serving on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan. All of these responses helped me to assess the potential impacts to effectiveness, readiness, unit cohesion, and morale on our Navy. 

General AMOS. No. 

General SCHWARTZ. It is my assessment that the U.S. Air Force can accommodate 

the repeal of DADT with modest risk to military readiness and effectiveness, unit 

cohesion, retention, and recruiting of your airmen. 

I do not agree with the study assessment that the short-term risk to military effectiveness is low. It is inescapable that our officer and noncommissioned officer 

(NCO) leaders in Iraq and Afghanistan, in particular, are carrying a heavy load. 

While the demands of close combat affect fewer airmen in contrast to personnel of 

the other Services, I remain concerned with the study assessment that the risk of 

repeal of military effectiveness in Iraq and Afghanistan is low. That assessment, in 

my view, is too optimistic. 

Admiral PAPP. As stated, the data on coastguardsmen currently deployed to the 

CENTCOM AOR is not readily available. However, approximately 1,200 Coast 

148 

Guard respondents indicated they had been deployed to a combat zone or an area 

where they received imminent danger pay or hostile fire pay since September 11, 

2001. This is a sufficient number of responses to understand the issues for this 

Coast Guard demographic. 

WORKING GROUP RECOMMENDATION FOR BILLETING OF OPENLY GAY MILITARY

MEMBERS

7. Senator MCCAIN. General Cartwright, General Casey, Admiral Roughead, General Amos, General Schwartz, and Admiral Papp, with regard to proposed policies 

for the living arrangements for gay and straight military members living in barracks and tents, the working group’s implementation plan says: ‘‘In most of the 

Working Group’s engagements with the force, a large number of servicemembers expressed their discomfort with sharing bathroom facilities or living quarters with 

those they know to be gay or lesbian. Leaders at all levels should be aware of the 

frequency and intensity of discussion on this topic, and the broad range of views 

that exists among servicemembers.’’ 

The report goes on to recommend a prohibition of any special preference for openly gay or lesbian members. The report dismisses separate living arrangements for 

openly gay or lesbian members citing the ‘‘logistics nightmare’’ that would accompany any effort to promulgate policies separating living and shower arrangements. 

However, the report and implementation plan offer no guidance on how commanders 

should resolve concerns about living arrangements other than proposing that they 

address concerns about living with a gay member at the local level on a case-bycase basis. 

Given that the survey results revealed that over 70 percent of respondents would 

take some type of action if assigned to share a shower, room, berth, or field tent 

with someone believed to be a gay or lesbian servicemember, do you foresee an increase in workload for leaders and commanders? 

General CARTWRIGHT. I anticipate a reasonable and acceptable increase in workload associated with repeal. As in all matters under their cognizance, commanders 

will have the flexibility and authority to resolve issues as they arise, to include 

issues surrounding living arrangements. 

General CASEY. I expect that there will be some turbulence as we adapt to the 

new policy. Leaders and commanders at the unit level are responsible for addressing 

issues brought to them by their soldiers. 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. I anticipate a reasonable and acceptable increase in workload 

associated with creating and maintaining an environment of inclusion for all. As in 

all matters under their cognizance, commanders will have the flexibility and authority to resolve issues as they arise. I expect and trust Navy leaders to set a positive 

tone, create an inclusive and respectful environment, and continue to enforce our 

high standards of conduct throughout the Navy. 

General AMOS. Implementing repeal and assimilating openly homosexual marines 

into the tightly woven fabric of our combat units will no doubt divert leadership attention away from an almost singular focus of preparing units for combat. I do not 

know how distracting that effort would be, nor how much risk it portends, but if 

there are issues we’re going to work through them with fundamental leadership and 

discipline. 

General SCHWARTZ. Local commanders are best equipped to deal with this issue 

as they know the men and women in their command. The Working Group did not 

make an assessment of the workload, but the Air Force views it as manageable. 

Current policies regarding gender segregation in such facilities should remain in effect, except that commanders should adjudicate requests for accommodation on an 

individualized, case-by-case basis consistent with good order and discipline considerations and mission requirements. 

Admiral PAPP. Yes. Any change to policy brings leadership challenges, which normally includes increased workload. With a careful and deliberate approach to repeal, utilizing the recommendations and support plan from the Working Group, the 

impact to Coast Guard leaders is estimated to be both minimal and manageable. 

8. Senator MCCAIN. General Cartwright, General Casey, Admiral Roughead, General Amos, General Schwartz, and Admiral Papp, why should we be asking our local 

commanders to take on this additional set of circumstances? 

General CARTWRIGHT. I anticipate a reasonable and acceptable increase in workload associated with repeal. As in all matters under their cognizance, commanders 

will have the flexibility and authority to resolve issues as they arise, to include 

issues surrounding living arrangements. 

149 

General CASEY. Assignment of soldiers to billets and any roommate conflict where 

a soldier may ask to be moved is up to the local command. This circumstance would 

be addressed in the same manner. 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. As always, leaders are charged with creating and maintaining an environment of inclusion for all. Accordingly, commanders have the flexibility 

and authority to resolve issues that fall within their respective areas of responsibility. I have full confidence in Navy leaders to adjust, as necessary, to changing 

circumstances in carrying out any policy changes promulgated to the Navy. 

General AMOS. Implementing repeal and assimilating openly homosexual marines 

into the tightly woven fabric of our combat units will no doubt divert leadership attention away from an almost singular focus of preparing units for combat. I do not 

know how distracting that effort would be, nor how much risk it portends, but if 

there are issues we’re going to work through them with fundamental leadership and 

discipline. 

General SCHWARTZ. Local commanders are best equipped to deal with this issue 

as they know the men and women in their command better than commanders at 

higher echelons, and have a better knowledge of local resources, budgets, and mission requirements. It is a reality that gays and lesbians currently serve in the Air 

Force’s ranks. As long as they serve in accordance with current policies, directives, 

and regulations, commanders at all levels will be responsible for their welfare, good 

order, and discipline, as they are responsible for all those under their command. A 

person’s sexual orientation is a private matter and all commanders are expected to 

uphold the law. Sexual orientation is just one of many aspects of the diversity of 

airmen that makes up today’s Air Force. The Working Group did not make an assessment of workload, but sees this issue as manageable. It has been the position 

of the Air Force that we will implement the law as it is, and similarly if and as 

it may change. Local commanders are charged with implementation of our Nation’s 

laws as they affect the military, and all military personnel under their command 

are duty-bound to comply. 

Admiral PAPP. Allowing gay and lesbian Americans to serve in the Coast Guard 

openly will remove a significant barrier to those coastguardsmen who are capably 

serving, but who have been forced to hide or even lie about their sexual orientation. 

Forcing these coastguardsmen to compromise our core values of honor, respect, and 

devotion to duty while serving their country is a choice they should not have to 

make. 

9. Senator MCCAIN. General Cartwright, General Casey, Admiral Roughead, General Amos, General Schwartz, and Admiral Papp, did the working group formulate 

a position on how to educate commanders to deal with such cases? 

General CARTWRIGHT. The Working Group provided suggested education and 

training materials in the recommended education and training framework, recommended leadership implementation guide, and frequently asked questions and vignettes contained in the Support Plan for Implementation. As envisioned by the 

Working Group, each Service will likely develop further education and training materials in a manner in keeping with their Service-specific approaches to education 

and training. 

General CASEY. The Army with the other Services is working with the Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness) to develop training for soldiers and 

leaders at all levels based on the recommendations laid out in the Working Group 

Report and Support Plan for Implementation. 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. The Working Group’s Support Plan for Implementation provides a robust plan founded on the themes of leadership, professionalism, and respect. This plan provides an education and training framework to assist the Services 

in developing material tailored towards specific audiences. The education and training framework is divided into three levels of understanding for DOD personnel: Tier 

1 (Expert), Tier 2 (Leader), and Tier 3 (Servicemember). Tier 2 materials, targeted 

towards servicemembers in leadership positions, include vignettes consisting of hypothetical, policy-related, teaching scenarios designed to stimulate discussion and 

provide commanders with the opportunity to prepare to respond to potential scenarios they may encounter. 

General AMOS. The Working Group provided suggested education and training 

materials in the recommended education and training framework, recommended 

leadership implementation guide, and frequently asked questions and vignettes contained in the Support Plan for Implementation. The Marine Corps will review its 

policies, as necessary, to ensure that such policies and procedures are consistent 

with guidance to develop further education and training materials in a manner in 

keeping with its approach to education and training. 

150 

General SCHWARTZ. The DOD Working Group’s Support Plan for Implementation 

provides a robust plan, founded on the theme of leadership-professionalism-respect. 

As part of repeal of DADT, the Working Group recommended that DOD issue generalized guidance to the Services that all standards of personal and professional conduct apply uniformly without regard to sexual orientation. Should repeal occur, we 

will continue to enforce Air Force standards of personal and professional conduct 

while ensuring sufficient education and training occurs within the force. 

Admiral PAPP. The Support Plan for Implementation is a comprehensive and wellcrafted document that lays out a framework for education and training that the 

Coast Guard will use to develop training programs to help deal with such cases. 

10. Senator MCCAIN. General Cartwright, General Casey, Admiral Roughead, 

General Amos, General Schwartz, and Admiral Papp, what is the recommendation 

of the Working Group regarding whether a military member has a right to know 

if the person he or she is assigned to live with is gay or lesbian? 

General CARTWRIGHT. The Working Group’s recommendation is that, consistent 

with current policy, sexual orientation should be considered a personal and private 

matter, and DOD and the Services should not request, collect, or maintain information about the sexual orientation of servicemembers. 

General CASEY. The Working Group’s recommendation was consistent with current policy which respects a soldier’s privacy. Soldiers should not try to obtain information regarding another soldier’s sexual orientation. The Army does not intend to 

collect, maintain, or discuss sexual orientation of soldiers. 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. The Working Group recommends that DOD continue the 

practice of not asking servicemembers or recruits to identify their sexual orientation. 

General AMOS. The Working Group’s recommendation is that, consistent with current policy, sexual orientation should be considered a personal and private matter, 

and DOD and the Services should not request, collect, or maintain information 

about the sexual orientation of servicemembers. 

General SCHWARTZ. If DADT is repealed, a servicemember would have the right 

to disclose his or her sexual orientation, but does not have a right to know the orientation of other servicemembers, if they have not made the information public 

knowledge. The Air Force does not contemplate maintaining a list of the sexual orientation of its airmen for the purposes of housing assignments or creating a data 

category for sexual orientation. This approach fairly treats all servicemembers alike, 

minimizes negative effects on the Air Force regarding any policy change, and to the 

maximum extent possible, works within existing regulatory and administrative 

structures. 

Admiral PAPP. Sexual orientation is a personal and private matter. Coast Guard 

policies will not change to collect information about sexual orientation, nor grant 

any servicemember the right to know if they are assigned with someone who is gay 

or lesbian. 

11. Senator MCCAIN. General Cartwright, General Casey, Admiral Roughead, 

General Amos, General Schwartz, and Admiral Papp, what do you foresee will be 

a commander’s or senior NCO’s course of action if a straight member requests a 

change of living arrangements solely for the reason that their roommate is openly 

gay or lesbian? Please address situations where the options are few, e.g., submarines, ships with small crews, and combat or field training exercises where individuals are required to live in confined spaces. 

General CARTWRIGHT. The Working Group’s recommendation is that DOD prohibit 

berthing or billeting assignments based on sexual orientation; however, commanders 

retain the authority to alter berthing or billeting assignments on an individualized, 

case-by-case basis, in the interest of maintaining morale, good order, and discipline, 

and consistent with performance of mission. 

General CASEY. Soldiers do not have a legal right to reject assignment with any 

other soldier within shared military accommodations and facilities. If a soldier has 

a concern with a billeting arrangement for any reason, he or she should address 

those concerns appropriately within their chain of command. Accommodation requests for any reason are considered on a case-by-case basis. Commanders may use 

discretion in personnel housing and other facilities to maintain morale, good order, 

and discipline based on Service policies and space available. Mission readiness, unit 

effectiveness, good order, and discipline remain the priority. There may be instances 

where commanders cannot accommodate a change request, especially in combat or 

training exercises where individuals must live together in confined spaces; in these 

cases, commanders will emphasize standards of conduct consistent with Army values and the law. 

151 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. I do not intend to establish quarters or berthing assignment 

regulations or policies that segregate servicemembers on the basis of sexual orientation. As in all situations, commanders may make reasonable accommodations in the 

interest of maintaining morale, good order, and discipline, consistent with the performance of the mission and the environments in which we live. 

General AMOS. Draft DOD guidelines prescribe that berthing or billeting assignments based on sexual orientation are to be expressly prohibited. Nevertheless, commanders will retain the authority to alter berthing or billeting assignments on an 

individualized, case-by-case basis, in the interest of maintaining morale, good order, 

and discipline, and consistent with performance of mission. 

General SCHWARTZ. Currently, commanders and enlisted leaders respond to individual requests for change of living arrangements based on personal preferences. 

Generally, where changes can be reasonably made without adverse effect on other 

airmen, good order and discipline, or the mission, they are accommodated. I do not 

anticipate any fundamental change to this approach. Further, commanders, senior 

NCOs, and NCOs can suggest that a servicemember modify his or her own dressing 

and grooming practices if he/she is concerned about sharing a shower, dressing area, 

or other comparable facility or environment with an openly gay or lesbian 

servicemember. For example, servicemembers regardless of sexual orientation concerned about privacy in a locker room setting may elect to change in a toilet stall 

or individual shower stall, if available. 

A related question involves larger open bay arrangements found in training, deployed, and exercise locations. Because these facilities are in continual use by transitory airmen, it may not be possible to move one airman based on this request. 

Commanders must balance the individual preferences of an airman against the 

needs of a disciplined force that adheres to lawful orders and regulations, and the 

ability to have consistent and enforceable local policy. 

Admiral PAPP. The Working Group has recommended that each Service and relevant commanders retain authorities to resolve any issues that may arise at the 

unit level. Coast Guard leaders are intelligent and capable of making operational 

decisions in the best interest of their crew members. Coast Guard commanders, 

commanding officers, and officers in charge will continue to work with their crews 

and their respective chain of command to find solutions to situations such as these 

that may arise. Our leaders will adhere to our core values when making these leadership decisions. 

12. Senator MCCAIN. General Cartwright, General Casey, Admiral Roughead, 

General Amos, General Schwartz, and Admiral Papp, since your proposals eliminate 

the commander’s option of separate living arrangements for gay or lesbian members, 

what other course of action would he or she have? 

General CARTWRIGHT. The Working Group’s recommendation is that DOD prohibit 

berthing or billeting assignments based on sexual orientation; however, commanders 

retain the authority to alter berthing or billeting assignments on an individualized, 

case-by-case basis, in the interest of maintaining morale, good order, and discipline, 

and consistent with performance of mission. 

General CASEY. It is up to the local leaders and commanders to address and deal 

with any roommate conflicts between soldiers and maintain good order and discipline in our barracks. Soldiers who are concerned with their living arrangements 

for whatever reason should take them to their unit leadership to discuss and resolve. 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. Commanders retain the authority to alter berthing or 

billeting assignments on a case-by-case basis, in the interest of maintaining morale, 

good order, and discipline, consistent with the performance of the mission. 

General AMOS. As per DOD guidelines, berthing or billeting assignments based 

on sexual orientation are expressly prohibited. Nevertheless, commanders will retain the authority to alter berthing or billeting assignments on an individualized, 

case-by-case basis, in the interest of maintaining morale, good order, and discipline, 

and consistent with performance of mission. 

General SCHWARTZ. The Air Force puts great trust in its leaders at all levels and 

will provide them a wide range of training and tools in order to prepare them for 

potential repeal of 10 U.S.C. § 654. Additionally, the Air Force will rely on existing 

policies and practices to address servicemembers who object to serving with openly 

gay, lesbian, or bisexual members. As a Service, we do not believe there should be 

separate facilities, berthing, or billeting assignments for gay and lesbian 

servicemembers. Moreover, the DOD Working Group’s engagement efforts revealed 

that the majority of airmen would resolve room or shower issues at their level without notifying a member of their chain of command. Commanders, senior NCOs, and 

NCOs have the authority to adjudicate an airman’s request for accommodation on 

152 

an individualized, case-by-case basis, consistent with good order and discipline considerations and mission needs. 

Admiral PAPP. The Working Group recommended against separate living arrangements, and I concur with this recommendation. I hesitate to provide a single overarching solution to a hypothetical scenario where numerous other factors could be 

relevant. Communication is essential to resolving personnel issues. The Coast 

Guard expects its unit commanders and officers in charge to seek an understanding 

of personnel differences, and then work to resolve them or seek additional guidance 

from their chain of command. 

13. Senator MCCAIN. General Cartwright, General Casey, Admiral Roughead, 

General Amos, General Schwartz, and Admiral Papp, since your proposed policy 

would not allow commanders to directly inquire about a member’s sexual orientation, if a military member only suspects their roommate is gay or lesbian, will that 

be grounds for a room reassignment? 

General CARTWRIGHT. The Working Group’s recommendation is that DOD prohibit 

berthing or billeting assignments based on sexual orientation; however, commanders 

retain the authority to alter berthing or billeting assignments on an individualized, 

case-by-case basis, in the interest of maintaining morale, good order, and discipline, 

and consistent with performance of mission. 

General CASEY. It is up to local commanders and leaders to establish the rules 

in which a soldier would be granted approval to change barracks room assignments 

based on discussion between the soldier and their unit leadership. There are multiple reasons a soldier may request to be assigned another barracks room, such as 

one is a smoker, personality conflicts, et cetera. Each will be reviewed on a caseby-case basis. 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. Sexual orientation is considered a personal and private matter. Servicemembers shall not be asked to identify sexual orientation as part of any 

routine application for assignment to unaccompanied quarters. Commanders may 

make reasonable accommodations in the interest of maintaining morale, good order, 

and discipline, consistent with the performance of the mission. 

General AMOS. Commanders will retain the authority to alter berthing or billeting 

assignments on an individualized, case-by-case basis, in the interest of maintaining 

morale, good order, and discipline, and consistent with performance of mission. 

General SCHWARTZ. As a Service, we do not believe there should be separate facilities, berthing, or billeting assignments for gay and lesbian servicemembers. If an 

airman is concerned about sharing a shower, dressing area, or other comparable facility or environment with an openly gay or lesbian airman, then a commander 

could, within his or her discretion and military judgment, accommodate the airman 

on a case-by-case basis, consistent with good order and discipline considerations and 

mission needs. 

Admiral PAPP. Sexual orientation is a personal and private matter. Coast Guard 

policies will not change to grant any servicemember the right to rooming reassignment based simply on sexual orientation, whether real or perceived. However, commanders, commanding officers, and officers in charge will retain the authority to 

alter berthing or billeting assignments on an individualized, case-by-case basis, in 

the interest of maintaining morale, good-order, and discipline, and consistent with 

performance of mission. 

14. Senator MCCAIN. General Cartwright, General Casey, Admiral Roughead, 

General Amos, General Schwartz, and Admiral Papp, conversely, should the new 

policy permit an openly gay or lesbian military member to be afforded an opportunity to change roommates based on the roommate’s sexual orientation? 

General CARTWRIGHT. The Working Group’s recommendation is that DOD prohibit 

berthing or billeting assignments based on sexual orientation; however, commanders 

retain the authority to alter berthing or billeting assignments on an individualized, 

case-by-case basis, in the interest of maintaining morale, good order, and discipline, 

and consistent with performance of mission. 

General CASEY. No. There will be no special policy established for openly gay or 

lesbian soldiers. A request for a room change will be reviewed by the unit leadership 

the same as any other request for room changes. 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. I do not intend to promulgate any broad policy permitting 

members to change roommates solely on the basis of sexual orientation. Commanders may make reasonable accommodations in the interest of maintaining morale, good order, and discipline, consistent with the performance of the mission. 

General AMOS. Policies regarding living arrangements will be applied uniformly, 

regardless of the sexual orientation. Conduct, regardless of the sexual orientation 

of the persons involved or whether it involves persons of the same sex or the oppoVerDate Aug 31 2005 08:59 May 02, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00158 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 Y:\BORAWSKI\DOCS\65073.TXT JUNE PsN: JUNEB
153 

site sex, is already regulated in the military environment, as reflected in the Uniform Code for Military Justice (UCMJ), Service regulations and policies, and unwritten Service customs and traditions. As stated above, any requests would be determined at the discretion of the commander, and only if doing so would be consistent 

and in the interest of maintaining morale, good order, and discipline. 

General SCHWARTZ. As a Service, we do not believe there should be separate facilities, berthing, or billeting assignments for gay and lesbian servicemembers. All 

servicemembers of diverse cultural background and experiences should be fairly and 

equitably treated, applying common standards. If an airman is concerned about 

sharing a shower, dressing area, or other comparable facility or environment with 

an openly gay or lesbian airman, then a commander could, within his or her discretion and military judgment, accommodate the airman on a case-by-case basis, consistent with good order and discipline considerations and mission needs. The policy 

applies to every airman, and the Working Group’s recommended policy was intended 

to be sexual-orientation neutral. 

Admiral PAPP. Sexual orientation is a personal and private matter. Coast Guard 

policies will not change to grant any servicemember the right to rooming reassignment based simply on sexual orientation, whether real or perceived. However, commanders, commanding officers, and officers in charge will retain the authority to 

alter berthing or billeting assignments on an individualized, case-by-case basis, in 

the interest of maintaining morale, good-order, and discipline, and consistent with 

performance of mission. 

IMPACT OF REPEAL ON RETENTION

15. Senator MCCAIN. General Cartwright, General Casey, Admiral Roughead, 

General Amos, General Schwartz, and Admiral Papp, according to the report, nearly 

20 percent of servicemembers would probably or definitely intend to leave military 

service at the end of their current obligation if DADT is repealed, and 38 percent 

of the Marine Corps. In other words, according to your survey, 1 in 5 

servicemembers would depart as a result of the change if it occurs. Given the importance of leadership in maintaining unit cohesion and readiness, what percentage of 

those who would probably or definitely leave Military Service as a result of repeal 

of DADT are military leaders and NCOs upon whom your force relies for military 

effectiveness in fighting two major wars, and what is the impact of their departure? 

General CARTWRIGHT. While some servicemembers will choose to leave military 

service earlier than they would have otherwise, I anticipate the number will be 

much lower than 24 percent. Research shows that survey responses are often a poor 

prediction of one’s actual future behavior. The experience of our foreign allies indicates that far fewer military members actually left military service after a change 

in their policy than had indicated they would. Additionally, responses to other survey questions (33 and 82) indicate other factors are more important than DADT to 

servicemembers as they contemplate their future military service. Furthermore, 

many servicemembers have service obligations that preclude them from leaving the 

force immediately, even if they desire to do so. Still, commanders and NCO leaders 

must monitor the retention situation very carefully. The Working Group recommends that DOD conduct a follow-on review approximately 1 year after repeal 

of DADT to ensure retention programs remain effective. 

General CASEY. From the total number of participants (24,466 soldiers; this represents less than 3 percent of the total force), the data indicated that 11.2 percent 

of NCOs at the Sergeant-Staff Sergeant levels would leave sooner based on the repeal, at the Sergeant First Class-Sergeant Major levels the percentage was 12 percent. The percentage for officers at the Lieutenant-Captain levels was 9.3 percent 

and 10.7 percent for Major and above. The Army would not want to see qualified 

soldiers leave; however, the Army would honor a soldier’s decision to leave at the 

end of his or her current obligation. The impacts of these soldiers leaving would be 

negligible for two reasons: (1) all losses are programmed and these programmed 

losses would occur over a period of months; and (2) surveys capture attitudes at a 

moment in time that do not always translate into quantifiable actions. 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. The Working Group servicemember survey indicates that the 

Navy may experience a decline in current retention levels of up to 6.8 percent for 

officers in pay grades O4–O6, and up to 7 percent for enlisted personnel in pay 

grades E7–E9, as a result of DADT repeal. Should those projections materialize, due 

to Service obligations, most of these losses will not be immediate and will occur over 

time. Accordingly, I believe that any adverse retention impacts will be manageable. 

General AMOS. The responses to question 81 of the servicemember survey, which 

asked ‘‘If Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is repealed, how, if at all, will your military career 

154 

plans be affected?’’ are contained in Appendix G of the report issued by Westat. The 

responses for officers and for enlisted servicemembers in pay grades E5 and above 

were similar; approximately 5 points lower than the rest of the overall Marine 

Corps. Overall, 38 percent of servicemembers answered ‘‘I will think about leaving 

sooner than I had planned’’ or ‘‘I will leave sooner than I had planned.’’ For personnel in the grades E5 to E7 that number was 36.1 percent; for E7 to E9, 34.5 

percent; O1 to O3, 33.8 percent; and O4 and above, 33.1 percent. 

As the Working Group report indicated, survey responses of future behavior are 

often a poor prediction of one’s actual behavior. According to the data and the experience of our foreign allies, far fewer military members actually leave Military Service than had indicated they would. Furthermore, many servicemembers have service 

obligations that preclude them from leaving the force immediately, even if they desired to do so. 

General SCHWARTZ. The Working Group report and the Air Force’s independent 

analysis of the survey data both determined that the more Active Duty time is 

served by airmen, the more likely they are to stay until eligible for retirement. The 

Air Force analysis showed that between 6 percent and 7.5 percent of airmen may 

separate, when Active Duty service commitments are complete, if the repeal 10 

U.S.C. § 654 occurs. The primary factors influencing career-oriented officers and enlisted personnel to stay appears to be the overall compensation/benefits package and 

the retirement program. Since unit leaders are well-vested in their careers, we do 

not foresee significant losses or an impact on unit cohesion and readiness. The 

Working Group also looked at the effect on foreign militaries after their policies 

were changed. The results showed very little effect, if any, on retention. 

Admiral PAPP. Question 81 as shown on page 210 of the Report of the Comprehensive Review of the Issues Associated with a Repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell indicates 

that 6.2 percent of the Coast Guard surveyed would leave the Service sooner than 

otherwise planned if DADT is repealed. The data does not provide a breakdown by 

rank. The 10-year average Coast Guard attrition rate is approximately 12 percent. 

Most likely, a portion of the 6.2 percent would have attrited regardless, resulting 

in a minimal impact on Coast Guard military effectiveness. 

MAJOR ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH REPEAL FOR SERVICEMEMBERS

16. Senator MCCAIN. General Cartwright, General Casey, Admiral Roughead, 

General Amos, General Schwartz, and Admiral Papp, according to the report and 

survey: 

• 44 percent of servicemembers who have been deployed to combat since 

September 11, 2010, said that effectiveness in a deployed environment 

would be affected negatively or very negatively by repeal of DADT; 

• 34 percent said that trust within the unit would be very negatively or 

negatively affected by repeal; 

• 31 percent said that unit readiness would be very negatively or negatively affected by repeal; 

• 31 percent said that unit effectiveness would be very negatively or negatively affected by repeal; 

• 30 percent said that concern for members in the unit would be very negatively or negatively affected by repeal; and 

• 37 percent of servicemembers who usually attend military family programs said they would stop participating in military family programs altogether if DADT is repealed and a gay or lesbian servicemember participated 

in the program with a partner. 

It is surprising in light of these findings, that the Working Group concluded that 

repeal of DADT will present low risk to the U.S. military. In fact, the report characterizes servicemembers’ concerns about negative impacts of repeal as exaggerated. 

Do you agree that the concerns of members of your force, as reflected in the survey, 

about deterioration of military unit cohesion are exaggerated, and that the risks to 

military readiness are acceptable for our national security? 

General CARTWRIGHT. These particular survey results reflect predictions, and research demonstrates that predictions are not always a good indicator of actual future behavior. The responses provided by servicemembers who have had the experience of actually serving with a gay person are more instructive. Servicemembers 

who report that they have served with a gay person, to include combat service, indicate that factors other than a person’s personal sexual orientation are more important to mission accomplishment. 

General CASEY. I believe implementation of the repeal in the near term will be 

more difficult for the Army than the report suggests, with increased risk particuVerDate Aug 31 2005 08:59 May 02, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00160 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 Y:\BORAWSKI\DOCS\65073.TXT JUNE PsN: JUNEB
155 

larly on our soldiers that are deployed in combat. If the law changes we must mitigate against these risks through engaged leadership, effective communication, education, and clear standards of conduct. Properly implemented, I do not envision that 

the repeal of DADT would keep us from accomplishing our worldwide missions, including combat operations. 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. According to the survey, 76 percent of sailors believe the impacts on effectiveness, readiness, unit cohesion, and morale will be neutral or positive. There is a sizeable minority, approximately 24 percent, who believe the impact 

of repeal will be negative. I am mindful of the concerns expressed by these individuals. However, I believe their concerns can be effectively mitigated through engaged 

leadership, effective communications, training and education, and clear and concise 

standards of conduct. I have the utmost confidence in the ability of the men and 

women of the U.S. Navy to implement change while setting a positive tone, creating 

an inclusive and respectful working environment, and maintaining high standards 

of conduct, mutual respect, and military decorum. As such, I assess the risk to effectiveness, readiness, unit cohesion, and morale of the Navy to be low and acceptable. 

General AMOS. The study conducted by the Working Group provided useful information about servicemember attitudes and issues regarding implementation of repeal across the Marine Corps. Surveys, in general, are excellent tools for measuring 

opinions and attitudes; in this instance, the Working Group survey appears to thoroughly and fairly capture the opinions expressed by its respondents. While the survey does provide useful information, it cannot be read to conclusively define risk to 

the force. It should not be understood to completely measure the effects and risks 

of implementation on unit cohesion, combat effectiveness, military readiness, retention, family readiness, leadership, or the other intangibles vital to the success of the 

Marine Corps. 

The House of Representatives and the Senate have voted and the President has 

repealed Title 10, U.S.C. § 654 ‘‘Policy Concerning Homosexuality in the United 

States Armed Forces.’’ The Marine Corps will faithfully implement this new policy. 

General SCHWARTZ. It is my assessment that the U.S. Air Force can accommodate 

the repeal of DADT with modest risk to military readiness and effectiveness, unit 

cohesion, retention, and recruiting of our airmen. 

I do not agree with the study assessment that the short-term risk to military effectiveness is low. It is inescapable that our officer and NCO leaders in Iraq and 

Afghanistan, in particular, are carrying a heavy load. While the demands of close 

combat affect fewer airmen in contrast to personnel of the other Services, I remain 

concerned with the study assessment that the risk of repeal of military effectiveness 

in Iraq and Afghanistan is low. That assessment, in my view, is too optimistic. 

Admiral PAPP. The Coast Guard has no reason to disagree with the assessment 

of the Working Group and Co-Chairs. 

COST OF DON’T ASK, DON’T TELL REPEAL

17. Senator MCCAIN. General Cartwright, General Casey, Admiral Roughead, 

General Amos, General Schwartz, and Admiral Papp, the estimated cost of implementing a repeal of section 654 of title 10, U.S.C. and the DADT policy have not 

been made clear. One figure put out during the press conference was net annual 

costs of repeal of $30 to $40 million. What is the best estimate of the monetary cost 

to your Service of implementing repeal? 

General CARTWRIGHT. The best estimate DOD currently has is what is described 

in pages 150 and 151 of the Working Group’s report. This was a rough order of magnitude estimate that involved a number of assumptions about which of the Working 

Group’s recommendations may be adopted, especially those pertaining to benefits. 

Based on those assumptions, the Working Group estimated a gross annual cost of 

$50 million to $60 million, plus approximately $20 million in savings, for a total net 

annual cost estimate of $30 million to $40 million. As the Working Group report 

notes, this is a rough estimate that will depend in large part on how implementation occurs, especially with regard to benefits for single servicemembers and for 

same-sex partners of gay and lesbian servicemembers. DOD will continue to study 

and refine the cost estimates as it works further towards implementation. 

General CASEY. The Army cannot validate the annual figure of $30 million to $40 

million released at the press conference because the Army does not have the historical data to provide a reliable cost estimate to implement the repeal of the DADT 

policy. The Army strongly supports the position that 1 year after the repeal of 

DADT, the Army conducts a follow-on review to monitor and assess the effectiveness 

of the implementation of the repeal to determine the adequacy of the recommended 

actions and proposed policy changes and a better assessment of the number of solVerDate Aug 31 2005 08:59 May 02, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00161 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 Y:\BORAWSKI\DOCS\65073.TXT JUNE PsN: JUNEB
156 

diers affected by the repeal. Without historical data to determine the cost, the collection of this initial data will provide the first cost estimates. The most reliable preliminary cost estimation the Army has identified is the education and training of 

the Army’s leadership and soldiers. This is an estimated cost of $2 million in fiscal 

year 2011 and $2.5 million in fiscal year 2012. Training examples included in this 

cost are unit training packages (pamphlets and training aids), interactive videos, 

specialized training for commanders, chaplains, the Judge Advocate General, and 

equal opportunity officers and leaders pamphlets. This represents the minimum 

costs if there are no policy changes such as in benefits and support resources, 

billeting or issues in recruiting and retention as examples in which there are currently no soldier data to determine an estimated cost. 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. Revisions to initial accession training curricula regarding 

sexual harassment, and travel and curricula changes for fleet sexual harassment 

training are estimated to be approximately $1.6 million. 

General AMOS. We are in process of determining a detailed estimate of the cost 

or other fiscal impacts to the Marine Corps. There are myriad variables that would 

affect this estimation, such as the current Force Structure Review Group effort 

(which may result in some adjustment to the affected population totals), implementation assumptions (especially with regard to benefits for same-sex partners of gay 

and lesbian servicemembers), and the determination by lawmakers on a qualifying 

relationship. 

General SCHWARTZ. The Air Force’s estimate of the cost to implement the repeal 

is approximately $8.6 million annually. 

Admiral PAPP. The specific monetary impact of repeal on the Coast Guard has not 

been estimated, but I do not expect to have significant monetary costs associated 

with the repeal. Near-term costs will include the administration and execution of 

training programs outlined in the Working Group report. Long-term costs are unknown at this time. 

18. Senator MCCAIN. General Cartwright, General Casey, Admiral Roughead, 

General Amos, General Schwartz, and Admiral Papp, where would the money come 

from in the fiscal year 2011 budget? 

General CARTWRIGHT. Whether and how much cost DOD and the Service incur in 

fiscal year 2011 will depend in large part on the timing of any legislation and any 

subsequent certification. It will also depend on which of the Working Group’s recommendations, especially pertaining to benefits for same-sex partners, are adopted, 

and when any such policies are implemented. That said, if repeal were to become 

effective in fiscal year 2011, the Working Group estimates that net initial implementation costs in that fiscal year would be negligible, if any. 

General CASEY. The Army did not budget for any costs associated with the repeal 

of DADT during the fiscal year 2011 budgeting process. Therefore, any costs associated with the potential repeal of DADT would be funded by offsetting funds from 

previously budgeted programs. 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. Pending decisions on additional funding, Navy will fund 

training from existing training funds, reprioritizing fiscal year 2011 funding requirements and deferring lower priority training changes to subsequent fiscal years. 

General AMOS. This is a question best answered by the leaders of DOD, Congress, 

and the Executive Office. 

General SCHWARTZ. To fund this emergent requirement, the Air Force will 

reprioritize within the fiscal year 2011 Operations and Maintenance budget. 

Admiral PAPP. Ensuring the smooth and timely implementation of the Working 

Group’s support plan is a high priority for the Service, and I plan to use available 

resources for the initial stages of implementation. 

OPINIONS ABOUT THE EXISTING DON’T ASK, DON’T TELL POLICY

19. Senator MCCAIN. General Cartwright, General Casey, Admiral Roughead, 

General Amos, General Schwartz, and Admiral Papp, to what extent has the current 

law hindered the military’s ability, in a measurable way, to recruit and retain qualified personnel to meet your Service’s manpower requirements? 

General CARTWRIGHT. The Services are currently meeting their recruiting and retention goals. I cannot say to what extent the current law and policy have affected 

the Services’ ability to attain these goals. However, it certainly is true that the current law and policy have required the Services to separate, or to deny entry to, otherwise qualified individuals. 

General CASEY. The current law and DADT policy have not negatively impacted 

the Army’s ability to recruit and retain soldiers. All components (Active, Army ReVerDate Aug 31 2005 08:59 May 02, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00162 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 Y:\BORAWSKI\DOCS\65073.TXT JUNE PsN: JUNEB
157 

serve, and Army National Guard) achieved fiscal year 2010 recruiting and retention 

goals. The Army currently has enough enlisted soldiers to fill all the current authorizations, which helps to mitigate the stress of the high operational pace. The current 

Active component end strength is 569,600 servicemembers compared to our targeted 

end strength of 569,400 servicemembers, which includes a 22,000 servicemembers 

temporary end strength increase. 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. There is no indication that the current law has impacted the 

Navy’s ability to recruit qualified personnel to meet manpower requirements. 

General AMOS. Since 1993, the Marine Corps has honorably discharged a little 

over 625,000 marines and of that number 1,304 were discharged for homosexuality 

(about 400 at boot camp during the initial stages of a marine’s time in Service). The 

number discharged due to breach of 10 U.S.C. § 654 represents about .2 percent of 

all discharges. Recruiting and retention are impacted by many factors. The Marine 

Corps has and is currently meeting its recruiting and retention goals. 

General SCHWARTZ. The Air Force faithfully executes current law and has separated 3,196 airmen under 10 U.S.C. § 654 since 1993. The Air Force has met or exceeded recruiting goals every year since fiscal year 2000. Based on the chart below, 

the Air Force had 200 or fewer discharges per year since fiscal year 2000. The current retention rate in the Air Force is at a 16-year high. The current law has not 

had a measurable negative effect on meeting recruiting goals and annual manpower 

requirements. 

Admiral PAPP. Assessing the impact of the current law on recruiting and retention 

was not a task or focus of the Working Group, nor has the Coast Guard examined 

these impacts. 

20. Senator MCCAIN. General Cartwright, General Casey, Admiral Roughead, 

General Amos, General Schwartz, and Admiral Papp, to what extent, if any, has the 

current law hindered the ability of your Service to increase end strength or in critical military skills? 

General CARTWRIGHT. I cannot say for certain how the current law has helped or 

hindered the ability of the Army and Marine Corps to expand. However, it certainly 

is true that the current law and policy have required the Army and Marine Corps 

to separate, or to deny entry to, otherwise qualified individuals. 

General CASEY. The current law and DADT policy have not negatively impacted 

the Army’s ability to recruit and retain soldiers. The Army has enjoyed tremendous 

success in meeting the end strength goals. All components (Active, Army Reserve, 

and Army National Guard) achieved fiscal year 2010 recruiting and retention goals. 

The Army currently has enough enlisted soldiers to fill all the current authorizations, which helps to mitigate the stress of the high operational pace. The current 

Active component end strength is 569,600 servicemembers compared to our targeted 


d03ful4.eps
158 

end strength of 569,400 servicemembers, which includes a 22,000 servicemembers 

temporary end strength increase. This success is based on both our recruiting and 

retention programs. 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. There is no indication that the current law has impacted 

Navy recruiting in our ability to increase end strength or critical military skills. 

General AMOS. Recruiting and retention are impacted by many factors. The Marine Corps has and is currently meeting its recruiting and retention goals. The Marine Corps has already completed its growth to the Active Duty end strength level 

of 202,000. 

General SCHWARTZ. The Air Force has not contracted or independently conducted 

any studies regarding retention with regard to the DADT policy. The 2009 Career 

Decisions and New Directions Surveys (officer and enlisted) suggest that the primary factors driving an airman’s decision to remain in the Air Force are economic, 

deployment/remote assignment-related, and satisfaction. The primary factors influencing career-oriented officers and enlisted personnel to stay appear to be the overall compensation/benefits package and the retirement program. The top two factors 

influencing officers who intend to separate from the Air Force are 365-day deployments and remote assignments. For enlisted personnel who intend to separate, the 

top two factors influencing them to separate are 365-day deployments and career 

field satisfaction. Therefore, the Air Force has not seen the current law as a hindrance to meeting end-strength goals or requirements for critical military skills. 

Admiral PAPP. Assessing the impact of the current law on increasing end-strength 

or in critical military skills was not a task or focus of the Working Group, nor has 

the Coast Guard examined these impacts. 

21. Senator MCCAIN. General Cartwright, General Casey, Admiral Roughead, 

General Amos, General Schwartz, and Admiral Papp, to what extent has the discharge of personnel in your Service under section 654 created a measurable impact 

on readiness of your force? 

General CARTWRIGHT. I cannot say for certain what the impact of the current law 

is on the readiness of the force. While over 13,000 Active Duty servicemembers have 

been discharged under the current law and policy, these discharges constitute a very 

small portion of the overall number of discharges from the military. However, it certainly is true that the current law and policy have required the Services to separate, 

or to deny entry, to otherwise qualified individuals. 

General CASEY. The number of discharges under section 654 have made up less 

than 1 percent of total separations in each fiscal year from 1983 to present. This 

has not made a measurable impact on the readiness of our force. 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. We have no empirical data upon which to base an assessment of the extent to which discharge of personnel under section 654 has had a 

measureable impact on military readiness. 

General AMOS. Since 1993, the Marine Corps has honorably discharged a little 

over 625,000 marines and of that number 1,304 were discharged for homosexuality 

(about 400 at boot camp during the initial stages of a marine’s time in Service). The 

number discharged due to breach of 10 U.S.C. § 654 represents about .2 percent of 

all discharges. 

General SCHWARTZ. The Air Force defines readiness as the ability of Air Force 

forces to deliver their designed capabilities without unacceptable delay. The Status 

of Resources and Training System (SORTS) is the readiness reporting system of 

record. In SORTS a unit commander makes an objective assessment about their 

unit’s readiness, and he/she can subjectively upgrade or downgrade the unit’s assessment based on factors such as collective training and morale. This has not been 

a significant factor in SORTS reporting. 

Based on the DOD Working Group’s report, the Air Force can accommodate the 

repeal of DADT with modest risk to military readiness and effectiveness, unit cohesion, retention, and recruiting of airmen. Based on the chart below, the Air Force 

had 200 or fewer discharges per year since fiscal year 2000. This has not had a 

measurable effect on readiness. 

159 

Admiral PAPP. Over the past 10 years, the average annual number of discharges 

related to the DADT policy was 16, or roughly 0.03 percent of the Coast Guard military workforce. This number of discharges had no measurable impact on military 

readiness. 

22. Senator MCCAIN. General Cartwright, General Casey, Admiral Roughead, 

General Amos, General Schwartz, and Admiral Papp, to what extent do you think 

the repeal of the current law barring service by openly gay or lesbian individuals 

would improve military readiness, cohesion, morale, good order, and discipline? 

General CARTWRIGHT. The Working Group’s report concludes that the risk of repeal on overall military effectiveness is low, when coupled with the recommendations offered in the report. I cannot say for certain how repeal of the current law 

would improve military readiness, cohesion, morale, good order, and discipline, and 

that was not a focus of the assessment. I do think that, if this law were not repealed 

by Congress, there is the very real possibility that this change would be imposed 

immediately by judicial fiat, by far the most disruptive and damaging scenario I can 

imagine, and the one most hazardous to military morale, readiness, and battlefield 

performance. I also agree with what Admiral Mullen has said about the importance 

of personal integrity; a law and policy that requires people to lie about themselves 

seems to me fundamentally flawed. 

General CASEY. In the near-term, there is a moderate level of risk that military 

readiness, cohesion, morale, good order, and discipline could be diminished, not improved. If the law changes we must mitigate against these risks through engaged 

leadership, effective communication, education, and clear standards of conduct. 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. Although I cannot quantify the extent to which repeal of the 

law would improve military readiness, cohesion, morale, good order, and discipline, 

I believe repeal, in the long-term, will make our Navy better. Gay and lesbian sailors already serve in our Navy. Repeal will end the otherwise unnecessary loss of 

these talented and dedicated men and women from the Service and improve our 

ability to provide an environment where all sailors can truly serve with honesty and 

integrity. I am confident that the professional men and women of the U.S. Navy will 

ensure we remain the world’s most ready, capable, and professional Navy, in which 

all shipmates continue to be treated with mutual dignity and respect. 

General AMOS. The House of Representatives and the Senate have voted and the 

President has signed repeal of Title 10, U.S.C. § 654 ‘‘Policy Concerning Homosexuality in the United States Armed Forces.’’ The Marine Corps will faithfully implement this new policy. 

General SCHWARTZ. It is my assessment that the Air Force can accommodate the 

repeal of DADT with modest risk to military readiness and effectiveness, unit cohesion, retention, and recruiting of airmen. Sexual orientation is one of many aspects 

of the diversity resident in today’s Air Force. 


d03ful4.eps
160 

Admiral PAPP. Allowing gay and lesbian Americans to serve in the Coast Guard 

openly will remove a significant barrier to those coastguardsmen who are capably 

serving, but who have been forced to hide or even lie about their sexual orientation. 

Forcing these coastguardsmen to compromise our core values of honor, respect, and 

devotion to duty while serving their country is a choice they should not have to 

make. 

23. Senator MCCAIN. General Cartwright, General Casey, Admiral Roughead, 

General Amos, General Schwartz, and Admiral Papp, what do you predict as the 

nature of the disruptive, short-term effects that might be expected upon repeal? 

General CARTWRIGHT. While there are likely to be short-term disruptions, I am 

confident repeal will make our military forces stronger in the long-term. 

General CASEY. The effect would be another level of stress on an already stretched 

force, particularly in the combat arms units. However, this would not prevent the 

Army from accomplishing its world-wide missions to include combat operations. The 

Army’s NCO and officer leaders within each unit will be able to mitigate any shortterm risk through proper guidance and direction. 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. The results of the Working Group servicemember survey indicated that approximately 76 percent of sailors believe the impact of repeal will be 

neutral or positive. Among the 24 percent who believe the impact of repeal will be 

negative, areas of concern include social cohesion, privacy, and increased stress on 

the force. I am confident these concerns can be effectively mitigated through engaged leadership, effective communications, training and education, and clear and 

concise standards of conduct. 

General AMOS. Successfully implementing repeal and assimilating openly homosexual marines into the tightly woven fabric of our combat units has strong potential for disruption at the small unit level, as it will no doubt divert leadership attention away from an almost singular focus of preparing units for combat. It is difficult 

to predict how distracting that effort would be, nor how much risk it portends. Nevertheless, the Marine Corps will step out smartly to faithfully implement this new 

policy. 

General SCHWARTZ. The short-term effects of repeal will center on the updating 

of policy, the education and training of the Air Force, to include those airmen serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is critical that the entire Air Force understands the 

changes of a repeal of 10 U.S.C. § 654. The Air Force will address concerns expressed by airmen in the Working Group survey. The Working Group report studied 

the effect of repeal of policies for many of our North Atlantic Treaty Organization 

partners, among others, and all reports demonstrated minimal negative effect on the 

military. 

Admiral PAPP. With any personnel policy change, educating and training members 

to the new policy changes is critical. The Working Group developed a comprehensive 

support plan that will assist in the education and training requirements for our 

servicemembers that will greatly reduce potential impacts. 

24. Senator MCCAIN. General Cartwright, General Casey, Admiral Roughead, 

General Amos, General Schwartz, and Admiral Papp, to what degree and how would 

repeal of the current law improve military readiness in your Service? 

General CARTWRIGHT. I cannot say for certain how repeal of the current law 

would improve military readiness; however, I do think that repeal will make our 

military forces stronger in the long-term. Gay and lesbian servicemembers already 

exist in the force. Repeal will end the otherwise unnecessary loss of these talented 

and dedicated men and women from the Service and improve our ability to provide 

an environment where all can truly serve with honesty and integrity. 

General CASEY. In the near-term, there is a moderate level of risk that military 

readiness, cohesion, morale, good order, and discipline could be diminished, not improved. If the law changes we must mitigate against these risks through engaged 

leadership, effective communication, education, and clear standards of conduct. 

Admiral ROUGHEAD. Although I cannot quantify the extent to which repeal of the 

law would improve military readiness, I believe repeal, in the long-term, will make 

our Navy better. Gay and lesbian sailors already serve in our Navy. Repeal will end 

the otherwise unnecessary loss of these talented and dedicated men and women 

from the Service and improve our ability to provide an environment where all sailors can truly serve with honesty and integrity. I am confident that the professional 

men and women of the U.S. Navy will ensure we remain the world’s most ready, 

capable, and professional Navy, in which all shipmates continue to be treated with 

mutual dignity and respect. 

General AMOS. The House of Representatives and the Senate have voted and the 

President has signed repeal of title 10, U.S.C. § 654 ‘‘Policy Concerning HomosexVerDate Aug 31 2005 08:59 May 02, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00166 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 Y:\BORAWSKI\DOCS\65073.TXT JUNE PsN: JUNEB
161 

uality in the United States Armed Forces.’’ The Marine Corps will faithfully implement this new policy. 

General SCHWARTZ. Based on the DOD Working Group’s report, the Air Force can 

accommodate the repeal of DADT with modest risk to military readiness. The fact 

that gays and lesbians are currently serving, but unable to disclose their sexual orientation should they choose to do so, forces them to protect their duty status. Lifting 

that barrier could have a positive effect on individual wellness, social cohesion, and 

morale, which ultimately contributes to overall military readiness. 

Admiral PAPP. Allowing gay and lesbian Americans to serve in the Coast Guard 

openly will remove a significant barrier to those coastguardsmen who are capably 

serving, but who have been forced to hide or even lie about their sexual orientation. 

Forcing these coastguardsmen to compromise our core values of honor, respect, and 

devotion to duty while serving their country is a choice they should not have to 

make. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR JEFF SESSIONS

EFFECTS OF REPEAL ON MORALE AND EFFICIENCY

25. Senator SESSIONS. General Amos, in the recent DADT survey, 58.5 percent of 

the Marine Corps respondents answered ‘‘a lot, some, or a little’’ to the question 

‘‘how much did the unit member’s belief that this coworker was gay or lesbian affect 

the unit’s ability to work together?’’ Additionally, 52 percent of Marine Corps respondents answered ‘‘a lot, some, or a little’’ to the question ‘‘how much did the unit 

member’s belief that this coworker was gay or lesbian affect the unit’s morale?’’ I 

heard at several points during testimony that the survey indicated that those who 

have served with homosexual servicemembers said that it made no difference to 

them. Do you agree with this statement in light of the survey results above? 

General AMOS. It is important to note that in many parts of the survey there are 

conditional questions to which other questions are derived. This is one such section 

of the survey. One must consider that in these instances, the responses reflected are 

percentages of percentages to the originating conditional question. This is a very important point. In this case, the questions are very specific to a marine’s response 

regarding his/her leader or co-worker or subordinate. There is not an aggregate of 

all three categories. The statistical responses to the initiating condition and the follow-on questions for the Marine Corps are as follows: 

Question 35—Ever served with gay leader = yes (30.8 percent of USMC) 

Question 36—Ever served with gay co-worker = yes (58.2 percent of 

USMC) 

Question 37—Ever served with gay subordinate = yes (43.4 percent of 

USMC) 

At least a few other members of the respondent’s unit also believed the leader/ 

co-worker/subordinate to be gay. 

Of the above percentage of ‘‘Yes’’ respondents, the follow-on questions apply: 

Questions 40, 48, and 56: ‘‘Among all the factors that affect how well a 

unit works together, how much did the unit members’ belief that this leader 

(Q40)/co-worker (Q48)/subordinate (Q56) was gay or lesbian affect the unit’s 

ability to work together?’’ 

[Percentage] 

Q40 Q48 Q56 

A lot ............................................................................................................................................... 15.90 13.20 12.20 

Some .............................................................................................................................................. 20.70 25.20 24.30 

A Little ........................................................................................................................................... 19.50 20.10 23.10 

Not at all ....................................................................................................................................... 36.60 33.40 33.90 

No basis to judge .......................................................................................................................... 7.40 8.10 6.50 

Questions 42, 50, and 58: ‘‘Among all the factors that affect a unit’s morale, how much did the unit members’ belief that this leader (Q42)/co-worker (Q50)/subordinate (Q58) was gay or lesbian affect the unit’s morale?’’ 

[Percentage] 

Q42 Q50 Q58 

A lot ............................................................................................................................................... 13.0 10.7 11.2 

162 

[Percentage] 

Q42 Q50 Q58 

Some .............................................................................................................................................. 20.3 21.4 21.4 

A Little ........................................................................................................................................... 19.5 19.9 21.5 

Not at all ....................................................................................................................................... 38.6 39.8 39.1 

No basis to judge .......................................................................................................................... 8.6 8.2 6.8 

26. Senator SESSIONS. General Amos, what do you predict the affect would be on 

recruitment and retention if the policy were repealed in light of these statistics? 

General AMOS. Since 1993, the Marine Corps has honorably discharged a little 

over 625,000 marines and of that number 1,304 were discharged for homosexuality 

(about 400 at boot camp during the initial stages of a marine’s time in Service). The 

number discharged due to breach of 10 U.S.C. § 654 represents about .2 percent of 

all discharges. Recruiting and retention are impacted by many factors. The Marine 

Corps has and is currently meeting its recruiting and retention goals. The Marine 

Corps has already completed its growth to the Active Duty end strength level of 

202,000. 

27. Senator SESSIONS. General Amos, do these statistics concern you as you look 

at the impact of repeal on the Marine Corps’ readiness? 

General AMOS. The study conducted by the Working Group provided useful information about servicemember attitudes and issues regarding implementation of repeal across the Marine Corps. Surveys, in general, are excellent tools for measuring 

opinions and attitudes. While these statistics provide useful information, it cannot 

be read to conclusively define risk to the force. They should not be understood to 

completely measure the effects and risks of implementation on unit cohesion, combat effectiveness, military readiness, retention, family readiness, leadership, or the 

other intangibles vital to the success of the Marine Corps. 

[The Report of the Comprehensive Review of the Issues Associated with a Repeal of ‘‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’’ and the Support Plan 

for Implementation for the Report of the Comprehensive Review of 

the Issues Associated with a Repeal of ‘‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’’ follow:] 

163 

APPENDIX A 


65073.001
164 


65073.002
165 


65073.003
166 


65073.004
167 


65073.005
168 


65073.006
169 


65073.007
170 


65073.008
171 


65073.009
172 


65073.010
173 


65073.011
174 


65073.012
175 


65073.013
176 


65073.014
177 


65073.015
178 


65073.016
179 


65073.017
180 


65073.018
181 


65073.019
182 


65073.020
183 


65073.021
184 


65073.022
185 


65073.023
186 


65073.024
187 


65073.025
188 


65073.026
189 


65073.027
190 


65073.028
191 


65073.029
192 


65073.030
193 


65073.031
194 


65073.032
195 


65073.033
196 


65073.034
197 


65073.035
198 


65073.036
199 


65073.037
200 


65073.038
201 


65073.039
202 


65073.040
203 


65073.041
204 


65073.042
205 


65073.043
206 


65073.044
207 


65073.045
208 


65073.046
209 


65073.047
210 


65073.048
211 


65073.049
212 


65073.050
213 


65073.051
214 


65073.052
215 


65073.053
216 


65073.054
217 


65073.055
218 


65073.056
219 


65073.057
220 


65073.058
221 


65073.059
222 


65073.060
223 


65073.061
224 


65073.062
225 


65073.063
226 


65073.064
227 


65073.065
228 


65073.066
229 


65073.067
230 


65073.068
231 


65073.069
232 


65073.070
233 


65073.071
234 


65073.072
235 


65073.073
236 


65073.074
237 


65073.075
238 


65073.076
239 


65073.077
240 


65073.078
241 


65073.079
242 


65073.080
243 


65073.081
244 


65073.082
245 


65073.083
246 


65073.084
247 


65073.085
248 


65073.086
249 


65073.087
250 


65073.088
251 


65073.089
252 


65073.090
253 


65073.091
254 


65073.092
255 


65073.093
256 


65073.094
257 


65073.095
258 


65073.096
259 


65073.097
260 


65073.098
261 


65073.099
262 


65073.100
263 


65073.101
264 


65073.102
265 


65073.103
266 


65073.104
267 


65073.105
268 


65073.106
269 


65073.107
270 


65073.108
271 


65073.109
272 


65073.110
273 


65073.111
274 


65073.112
275 


65073.113
276 


65073.114
277 


65073.115
278 


65073.116
279 


65073.117
280 


65073.118
281 


65073.119
282 


65073.120
283 


65073.121
284 


65073.122
285 


65073.123
286 


65073.124
287 


65073.125
288 


65073.126
289 


65073.127
290 


65073.128
291 


65073.129
292 


65073.130
293 


65073.131
294 


65073.132
295 


65073.133
296 


65073.134
297 


65073.135
298 


65073.136
299 


65073.137
300 


65073.138
301 


65073.139
302 


65073.140
303 


65073.141
304 


65073.142
305 


65073.143
306 


65073.144
307 


65073.145
308 


65073.146
309 


65073.147
310 


65073.148
311 


65073.149
312 


65073.150
313 


65073.151
314 


65073.152
315 


65073.153
316 


65073.154
317 


65073.155
318 


65073.156
319 


65073.157
320 


65073.158
321 


65073.159
322 


65073.160
323 


65073.161
324 


65073.162
325 


65073.163
326 


65073.164
327 


65073.165
328 


65073.166
329 


65073.167
330 


65073.168
331 


65073.169
332 


65073.170
333 


65073.171
334 


65073.172
335 


65073.173
336 


65073.174
337 


65073.175
338 


65073.176
339 


65073.177
340 


65073.178
341 


65073.179
342 


65073.180
343 


65073.181
344 


65073.182
345 


65073.183
346 


65073.184
347 


65073.185
348 


65073.186
349 


65073.187
350 


65073.188
351 


65073.189
352 


65073.190
353 


65073.191
354 


65073.192
355 


65073.193
356 


65073.194
357 


65073.195
358 


65073.196
359 


65073.197
360 


65073.198
361 


65073.199
362 


65073.200
363 


65073.201
364 


65073.202
365 


65073.203
366 


65073.204
367 


65073.205
368 


65073.206
369 


65073.207
370 


65073.208
371 


65073.209
372 


65073.210
373 


65073.211
374 


65073.212
375 


65073.213
376 


65073.214
377 


65073.215
378 


65073.216
379 


65073.217
380 


65073.218
381 


65073.219
382 


65073.220
383 


65073.221
384 


65073.222
385 


65073.223
386 


65073.224
387 


65073.225
388 


65073.226
389 


65073.227
390 


65073.228
391 


65073.229
392 


65073.230
393 


65073.231
394 


65073.232
395 


65073.233
396 


65073.234
397 


65073.235
398 


65073.236
399 


65073.237
400 


65073.238
401 


65073.239
402 


65073.240
403 


65073.241
404 


65073.242
405 


65073.243
406 


65073.244
407 


65073.245
408 


65073.246
409 


65073.247
410 


65073.248
411 


65073.249
412 


65073.250
413 


65073.251
414 


65073.252
415 


65073.253
416 


65073.254
417 


65073.255
418 


65073.256
419 


65073.257
420 


65073.258
421 

APPENDIX B 


65073.259
422 


65073.260
423 


65073.261
424 


65073.262
425 


65073.263
426 


65073.264
427 


65073.265
428 


65073.266
429 


65073.267
430 


65073.268
431 


65073.269
432 


65073.270
433 


65073.271
434 


65073.272
435 


65073.273
436 


65073.274
437 


65073.275
438 


65073.276
439 


65073.277
440 


65073.278
441 


65073.279
442 


65073.280
443 


65073.281
444 


65073.282
445 


65073.283
446 


65073.284
447 


65073.285
448 


65073.286
449 


65073.287
450 


65073.288
451 


65073.289
452 


65073.290
453 


65073.291
454 


65073.292
455 


65073.293
456 


65073.294
457 


65073.295
458 


65073.296
459 


65073.297
460 


65073.298
461 


65073.299
462 


65073.300
463 


65073.301
464 


65073.302
465 


65073.303
466 


65073.304
467 


65073.305
468 


65073.306
469 


65073.307
470 


65073.308
471 


65073.309
472 


65073.310
473 


65073.311
474 


65073.312
475 


65073.313
476 


65073.314
477 


65073.315
478 


65073.316
479 


65073.317
480 


65073.318
481 


65073.319
482 


65073.320
483 


65073.321
484 


65073.322
485 


65073.323
486 


65073.324
487 


65073.325
488 


65073.326
489 


65073.327
490 


65073.328
491 


65073.329
492 


65073.330
493 


65073.331
494 


65073.332
495 


65073.333
496 


65073.334
497 


65073.335
498 


65073.336
499 


65073.337
500 


65073.338
501 


65073.339
502 


65073.340
503 


65073.341
504 


65073.342
505 


65073.343
506 


65073.344
507 


65073.345
508 


65073.346
509 


65073.347
510 


65073.348
511 

[Whereupon, at 12:18 p.m., the committee adjourned.] 

Æ