U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,

U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202–512–1800, or 866–512–1800 (toll-free). E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.

i 

65–805 2011

[H.A.S.C. No. 112–34] 

HEARING 

ON

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012 

AND

OVERSIGHT OF PREVIOUSLY AUTHORIZED 

PROGRAMS 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILITARY PERSONNEL HEARING 

ON

REVIEW OF THE IMPLEMENTATION 

PLANS FOR THE REPEAL OF LAW 

AND POLICIES GOVERNING SERVICE 

BY OPENLY GAY AND LESBIAN 

SERVICE MEMBERS 

HEARING HELD 

APRIL 1, 2011 
(II) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILITARY PERSONNEL 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina, Chairman 

WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina 

MIKE COFFMAN, Colorado 

TOM ROONEY, Florida 

JOE HECK, Nevada 

ALLEN B. WEST, Florida 

AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia 

VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri 

SUSAN A. DAVIS, California 

ROBERT A. BRADY, Pennsylvania 

MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, Guam 

DAVE LOEBSACK, Iowa 

NIKI TSONGAS, Massachusetts 

CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine 

MICHAEL HIGGINS, Professional Staff Member 

DEBRA WADA, Professional Staff Member 

JAMES WEISS, Staff Assistant 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF HEARINGS 

2011 

Page 

HEARING: 

Friday, April 1, 2011, Review of the Implementation Plans for the Repeal 

of Law and Policies Governing Service by Openly Gay and Lesbian Service 

Members ............................................................................................................... 1 

APPENDIX: 

Friday, April 1, 2011 ............................................................................................... 29 

FRIDAY, APRIL 1, 2011 

REVIEW OF THE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS FOR THE REPEAL OF 

LAW AND POLICIES GOVERNING SERVICE BY OPENLY GAY AND 

LESBIAN SERVICE MEMBERS 

STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

Davis, Hon. Susan A., a Representative from California, Ranking Member, 

Subcommittee on Military Personnel ................................................................. 2 

Wilson, Hon. Joe, a Representative from South Carolina, Chairman, Subcommittee on Military Personnel ........................................................................ 1 

WITNESSES 

Gortney, VADM William E., USN, Director, Joint Staff, Joint Chiefs of Staff .. 4 

Stanley, Hon. Clifford L., Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and 

Readiness, Co–Chair, Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Repeal Implementation Team ... 3 

APPENDIX 

PREPARED STATEMENTS: 

Davis, Hon. Susan A. ....................................................................................... 35 

Stanley, Hon. Clifford L., joint with VADM William E. Gortney ................. 37 

Wilson, Hon. Joe ............................................................................................... 33 

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD: 

‘‘D.A.D.T. Repeal Is Good for Recruiting, Commanding General Says,’’ 

by Andrew Keatts, The Daily Transcript, March 16, 2011 ....................... 45 

The Hon. Clifford L. Stanley’s Responses to Questions Submitted by 

the Hon. Joe Wilson ...................................................................................... 46 

WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING THE HEARING: 

Mrs. Davis ......................................................................................................... 67 

Mrs. Hartzler .................................................................................................... 67 

Mr. Scott ............................................................................................................ 67 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING: 

[There were no Questions submitted post hearing.] 

(1) 

REVIEW OF THE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS FOR THE REPEAL OF LAW AND POLICIES GOVERNING SERVICE BY 

OPENLY GAY AND LESBIAN SERVICE MEMBERS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILITARY PERSONNEL, Washington, DC, Friday, April 1, 2011. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9:30 a.m. in room 

2212, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Joe Wilson (chairman 

of the subcommittee) presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOE WILSON, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM SOUTH CAROLINA, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE 

ON MILITARY PERSONNEL 

Mr. WILSON. Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to welcome everyone to a meeting of the Subcommittee of Military Personnel of 

the House Armed Services Committee. 

I am very grateful to be serving as chair of this subcommittee. 

I am Congressman Joe Wilson from South Carolina, and our ranking member is Congresswoman Susan Davis of California. We have 

actually taken each other’s place. And I always like to point out 

that she served with such distinction in a bipartisan manner, and 

I look forward to continuing a positive relationship. 

Today, the subcommittee has an opportunity to influence the future of the course of implementation of a change of law regarding 

the service of openly gay and lesbian service members. 

I was troubled by the process employed through appeal of the 

law known as ‘‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’’ this past fall. I felt the repeal 

was rushed through Congress without adequate review and consideration of the full extent of the implications of repeal. 

I believe the lame-duck session was undemocratic, in that dozens 

of defeated Congress Members adopted a law with significant consequences but it failed to even pass a budget. It was a violation of 

the principles of representative democracy. Elected officials should 

be reflective of the views of the voters, and Congress Members who 

had voted then had been rejected for not reflecting the views of 

their constituents. 

I believe the comprehensive review chartered by the Secretary of 

Defense Gates was flawed, in that it was never asked of military 

members and families whether the law should be repealed and it 

took great liberties during the assessment process to count survey 

responses that directly expressed concern about the wisdom of repeal as being supportive of repeal. 

It is now essential that the Congress ask questions that were 

glossed over during the comprehensive review. We must get the 
2 

process for considering the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell on track 

and ensure that our military is truly prepared for open service of 

gays and lesbians. We must ensure that we do not make a mistake 

by allowing the repeal to move ahead when there is any possibility 

that it will put the combat readiness of our force at risk at a time 

that our Nation is in three wars, with worldwide instability. 

We have two excellent witnesses who are directly engaged in this 

process: Dr. Clifford L. Stanley, the Under Secretary of Defense for 

Personnel, Readiness and co-chair, Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Repeal 

Implementation Team; and Vice Admiral William E. Gortney, 

United States Navy, director of the Joint Staff of the Joint Chiefs 

of Staff. 

At this time, I will turn to our Military Personnel Subcommittee 

ranking member, Susan Davis, for her opening statement. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Wilson can be found in the Appendix on page 33.] 

STATEMENT OF HON. SUSAN A. DAVIS, A REPRESENTATIVE 

FROM CALIFORNIA, RANKING MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

MILITARY PERSONNEL 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And, Dr. Stanley, we are certainly glad to have you back. 

And, Admiral Gortney, welcome to the committee. 

We appreciate both of you being here, and we look forward to 

hearing how the services are doing in their efforts to train the force 

in anticipation of the repeal of the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy. 

Last year, as we all know, on December 22nd, the President 

signed into law H.R. 2965, the ‘‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Repeal Act 

of 2010.’’ The law requires the President, the Secretary of Defense, 

and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff—and, I would say, 

in consultation with the service chiefs—to transmit to Congress a 

written certification that they have considered the recommendation 

in the comprehensive review report and the report’s proposed plan 

of action, that the Department has prepared the necessary policies 

and regulations needed to repeal the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy, 

and that the policies and regulations are consistent with the standard of military readiness, military effectiveness, unit cohesion, and 

recruiting and retention of the Armed Forces. 

Once they have submitted their certification and 60 days have 

passed, the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy will come to an end. And 

the underlying law, which prohibits gay, lesbian, and bisexual 

Americans from serving in uniform, will become history. 

Mr. Chairman, I think the debate is no longer really on whether 

or not to allow gay, lesbian, and bisexual Americans from serving 

in uniform. The issue that we are here to focus on today is how 

the services and the Department are preparing and informing leadership on how the policies and regulations that are being considered have an impact, if any, on military readiness, military effectiveness, unit cohesion, and recruiting and retention of the Armed 

Forces. 

I look forward to hearing how the training has been going; what, 

if any, issues have been raised during the training; and when the 

Department expects the services to provide their final input in 
3 

order to move forward in allowing all Americans, regardless of sexual orientation, to serve in uniform. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I look forward to the hearing 

today. 

[The prepared statement of Mrs. Davis can be found in the Appendix on page 35.] 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you, Ms. Davis. 

And as we begin this morning, I have a unanimous consent request. At this time, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman 

from Mississippi, Congressman Steve Palazzo, be recognized and 

granted a 5-minute period to ask questions of the witnesses after 

the members of the Military Personnel Subcommittee have been 

recognized. 

Without objection, so ordered. 

Additionally, at this time, I ask unanimous consent that my letter of March 8, 2011, to Secretary Stanley listing a series of questions, 49 questions, concerning implementations of the repeal and 

the March 30, 2011, reply from the Secretary with his response to 

the questions be entered into the record. The letters have been 

placed before the Members today. 

Without objection, so ordered. 

[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix on 

page 46.] 

Mr. WILSON. And, as you just heard, we actually are beginning 

a vote. And what we will do is recess at this time and return immediately and proceed. And it is just one vote; this is a miracle. And 

so, we will be back. And so, at this time, we will recess, and we 

will begin immediately with Secretary Stanley. 

Thank you. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. WILSON. Ladies and gentlemen, thank you. We have concluded that vote. We may have another vote relatively soon. But, 

again, we appreciate everyone accommodating. And I particularly 

want to thank the subcommittee members for their persistence to 

return. So this is a real testimonial to their commitment to service. 

At this time, we have Secretary Dr. Clifford L. Stanley. 

STATEMENT OF HON. CLIFFORD L. STANLEY, UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR PERSONNEL AND READINESS, 

CO–CHAIR, DON’T ASK, DON’T TELL REPEAL IMPLEMENTATION TEAM 

Secretary STANLEY. Well, good morning, Mr. Chairman and Ms. 

Davis and members of the committee. Thank you for inviting me 

and Vice Admiral Gortney to testify before you today. 

As you know, on December the 22nd, 2010, the President signed 

the enactment of repeal of Title X, section 654, the policy concerning homosexuality in the Armed Forces. And, subsequently, the 

Secretary of Defense directed me to lead the implementation process for the Department. 

As the Secretary testified, the Department will execute this 

change in a purposeful and careful manner. By organizing a Department of Defense [DOD] repeal implementation team, we have 

been able to synchronize the implementation of the services’ rel-
4 

evant policy changes and delivered standardized training materials 

to all services on February 4th, 2011. 

Just 2 weeks ago, I testified before this same body and told you 

that, as Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, 

my focus is total force readiness, caring for our people, creating a 

culture of relevance and effectiveness and efficiency. I view the 

total force readiness as a mental, physical, emotional, and spiritual 

state of preparedness and resilience. 

Now, this policy change embodies that view of total force readiness. More simply put, it is also about respect. ‘‘Respect’’ is not a 

word that I use lightly. It embraces the true meaning of honorable 

service. And ‘‘respect’’ is also a word that captures the indelible 

bond shared by all who serve, especially those who serve in harm’s 

way. 

The training materials were developed—that have been developed are based upon the Comprehensive Review Working Group’s 

support plan for implementation by a team of people from across 

all the services. Emphasis has been placed on leadership, professionalism, discipline, and respect, which we believe will enable any 

change in policy to be executed with minimal disruption to the 

force. 

Each service began training on or before March 1st, 2011. And 

while there is no department timeline or deadline for completion, 

the services anticipate that training will be completed by mid-summer. 

Every 2 weeks throughout the training process, the services have 

provided and will provide a report on the status of training. After 

having received the first 3 reports over the past 6 weeks, the last 

of which was submitted today, the services reported no issues or 

problems with training and that all is going well. 

It remains the policy of the Department of Defense that sexual 

orientation is a personal and private matter and to treat all members with dignity and respect. Leadership, professionalism, discipline, and respect will be essential to the implementation of this 

change in policy fairly and consistently. 

Rest assured that we are committed to making this historic 

change in a timely manner. And that is consistent with standards 

of military readiness, effectiveness, unit cohesion, and recruiting 

and retention in the Armed Forces. 

I want to thank you again for this opportunity to update you on 

our progress in this important policy. Thank you. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary. 

And, at this time, Vice Admiral William E. Gortney. 

STATEMENT OF VADM WILLIAM E. GORTNEY, USN, DIRECTOR, 

JOINT STAFF, JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF 

Admiral GORTNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mrs. Davis, distinguished members of the subcommittee. And good morning. I appreciate the opportunity to comment regarding the policy and procedures that have been put in place to support the implementation 

of the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. 

We have implemented a three-step process to support the successful repeal of the law, the first step being implementing or 

changing policies, the second step being training changes, and the 
5 

third step, training the actual force. And we have achieved good 

progress in all three steps. The services have reviewed policies and 

directives that will require change and are on target to implement 

them upon effective date of repeal. 

The repeal implementation team of the Office of the Secretary of 

Defense, in full coordination with the services, developed standard 

training materials as well as effective plans to deliver that training. The services have implemented these plans and are proceeding 

smartly with the training of Tier I, who we call experts; Tier II, 

the leadership; and Tier III, the total force. Each service has implemented systems to track the training of their force. 

In order to assess our progress, the effectiveness of education and 

training, and identify any obstacles of unforeseen issues that could 

impact the force, we are receiving the biweekly reports that the 

Secretary mentioned from the Service, the Coast Guard, and the 

combatant commanders. These reports track the degree of progress 

in training the overall force and give commanders a direct line to 

the Chairman on issues that may emerge. The Chairman and the 

service chiefs also meet regularly to discuss this progress. 

We are indeed moving responsibly toward repeal. Training is 

under way, policies are under revision, and we are tracking the Department’s progress. Our intent is to ensure that a preponderance 

of the force, including the Reserve and National Guard Bureau, is 

prepared expeditiously but in a careful and responsible manner. 

Repeal will occur 60 days after the certification required by law. 

The Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of 

Staff will certify only after careful consideration of the views of the 

Secretaries of the military departments, the military service chiefs, 

and the combatant commanders. 

The Secretary of Defense and the Chairman will not certify until, 

in their judgment, they are satisfied the force is prepared to implement the new policies and regulations consistent with our standards of military readiness, military effectiveness, unit cohesion, and 

recruiting and retention of the Armed Forces. 

We are proceeding deliberately and purposefully toward preparing the force and certifying their readiness. The law assured 

them of time to answer their questions and prepare for repeal. We 

appreciate this flexibility, as well as your confidence in the force 

and their leadership in implementing this law. 

Thank you for the opportunity to update you on the progress, 

and I look forward to your questions. 

[The joint prepared statement of Secretary Stanley and Admiral 

Gortney can be found in the Appendix on page 37.] 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you very much. 

And, as we proceed, we will be under a 5-minute rule. And we 

have a person above reproach, Michael Higgins, who is going to be 

the timekeeper. And he will maintain the time. And, actually, the 

5-minute rule begins with me. And then, as we proceed, we may 

have time for two rounds, depending on the level of votes that we 

have. 

For both of you, a question I have—I hope that both of you are 

involved in the process of evaluating, training, and advising the 

Secretary of Defense and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff 

about whether to proceed with certification. 
6 

And I have two questions. One is, what are the objective and 

subjective criteria you will use to conclude that the education and 

training program associated with the repeal of the law is, first, effective and, second, sufficiently complete to justify your recommendation that the Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the 

Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the President proceed with certification? 

Secretary STANLEY. First of all, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The objective criteria are very specific. The first is, make sure 

the policies and regulations are in sync. And we have about 87 policies that actually have to be reviewed and updated by the services. 

We also want to make sure that, objectively, as we go toward our 

confirmation process, or in this, that we have the Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, as well as the 

President of the United States, they are involved in that process. 

And that becomes also a part of it, as we look at the criteria for 

implementation. That is very specific. 

And then, also, we have subjective criteria that we are looking 

at, is ensuring that, in the commanders’ judgment, we are looking 

at things like unit cohesion, standards of military readiness, effective recruiting and retention in terms of whether or not there has 

been any impact, as well as IG reports, inspector general reports, 

things like that, to look at. 

And I will ask my service counterpart to talk a little bit. 

Admiral GORTNEY. Yes, sir. The objective measures are really an 

easy part. The policy regulations that have to be changed, what 

percentage of the force is trained by tier—that is fairly straightforward. 

The more meaningful is the subjective measures that are coming 

up at the same time, both through the service change and through 

the combatant commanders, which is—the importance of leadership 

in this cannot be overstated. It is the single most important thing. 

And feedback from the leadership on the progress of the training, 

the quality of the training, the questions that come up in that 

training or any barriers that may come up are the critical part. 

Mr. WILSON. And my second question would be, following training, how will you know the troops in the field believe they are prepared to cope with the complications that will follow? Will you conduct surveys to validate the effectiveness of the training? 

Secretary STANLEY. Well, at this time, Mr. Chairman, there is no 

plan for surveys. 

But, again, as Admiral Gortney said, the leadership piece is significant here. And the relationship now with not only the President 

but also we are talking about the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of 

Staff and the Secretary of Defense, the meetings they have been 

having in terms of the implementation process that we have been 

going through, meeting with service chiefs, meeting with service 

secretaries, the reports we have been getting so far, and the relationship that we have with the field, the leadership piece, that subjective part, is probably the most significant when it comes to keeping your fingers on the pulse of what is happening and whether or 

not your troops understand and, you know, understand what the 

rules are. 

Mr. WILSON. And I would hope—I know in my 31-year service in 

the Army Guard and Reserves that we did annual surveys on dif-
7 

ferent issues in general. And so I would hope that maybe there 

could be a survey question. 

A final question for me is, in regard to religious rights and chaplains, I would like to know from both of you, are there going to be 

detailed guidelines provided to chaplains to ensure they know 

when and where they can express their views? Where is the line 

drawn—a private counseling session, a hallway conversation, offduty conversations? 

Secretary STANLEY. Mr. Chairman, we are reviewing the guidelines now, so the specificity of the guidelines is actually under review. But, for the most part, most of what is happening now with 

the chaplains’ responsibility to serve all who are in uniform, that 

has remained unchanged. The chaplain still has a responsibility to 

serve, and we have seen no indication that that will change. 

Mr. WILSON. And I am very grateful, the chaplains school, the 

joint chaplains school is located at Fort Jackson, South Carolina. 

And my son who served in Iraq, his roommate was the chaplain. 

So I really do appreciate chaplains, and I really don’t want them, 

though, to be constrained in their ability to serve. 

And, at this time, I conclude. 

Ms. Davis. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. Stanley and Admiral Gortney, what issues or concerns have 

been raised during these training events? Could you take us 

through that? Have there been any issues with respect to the potential impact the proposed change will have on military readiness, 

military effectiveness, and unit cohesion, also recruiting and retention? Are there some issues that we should be aware of that have 

been raised and any concerns or issues that you have around them? 

Secretary STANLEY. Well, Congresswoman Davis, so far, it has 

been pretty much—it has been very good. The training has gone 

very well. By nature, I sort of say, okay, it has gone very well, but 

I am still looking. I am certain that the commanders out there and 

everyone involved in the process is still looking. But it actually has 

gone extremely well so far. No implications on recruiting because 

it has actually been pretty early. 

We have, to date now, trained almost a little over 200,000 of the 

force has actually gone through training, about 9 percent. 

And I will ask my colleague here. 

Admiral GORTNEY. Yes, ma’am. Once again, all of the subjective 

assessments from the commanders have been that the training has 

gone well. None of the issues that have come up were not things 

that we were not already aware of as a result of the survey that 

was out there that we were then able to tailor the training to, to 

answer. 

So, thus far, no surprises, and we are pretty pleased where we 

are. And, once again, 9 percent of the force has been trained. 

Mrs. DAVIS. One of the issues that I have heard is something 

that we had talked about before, and that is that there are some 

generational differences in the response of the troops. And I wonder if you could comment on that briefly. 

And then I wanted to ask you just about the deadlines that the 

services are trying to meet. 
8 

Secretary STANLEY. Well, as far as generational—now, I am obviously familiar with the Comprehensive Review Working Group. 

From the repeal implementation process that the Secretary has 

asked me to do, that has not come up as an issue. We are dealing 

with the Active Force. We haven’t done any more surveys, so we 

are not bringing in more data. 

Bottom line is that the training has been very effective, and we 

have been very pleased with what we have seen. But our antenna 

are up because this is not a rushed process, and we want to be deliberate and purposeful in doing this. 

I will ask my colleague. 

Admiral GORTNEY. Yes, ma’am. The results of the survey told us 

key indicators that we need to be aware of. One of them, in the 

combat arms—or, told us that, with the combat arms parts of the 

forces for the different services, that we are going to have to pay 

particular attention to them. And it gives the service chiefs the opportunity to apply the attention that is required there. And, once 

again, we don’t anticipate any show-stoppers there. 

Mrs. DAVIS. The Army, as I understand it, is going to be the last 

to conclude their training. And I wonder what timeline you would 

expect, then. If they do meet their deadline, what is the timeline 

that you would expect that the President, the Secretary, and the 

Joint Chief, that they could actually send that certification to Congress? Have you looked at that and what we might be looking at 

here in terms of a timeline? 

Admiral GORTNEY. Yes, ma’am. As the Secretary said, we anticipated about mid-summer, in order to meet the completion of the 

preponderance of the force to be trained and the regulations to be 

in there and to get the recommendations from the service secretaries and the service chiefs to the Chairman. 

That deadline is really a function of the Army in order to get— 

just because of the size of the force and to include the Reserve and 

the National Guard in that. That is really the long goal there. And 

it is just a function of numbers that have to be trained. 

Mrs. DAVIS. When we talk about the President and the Secretary 

and the Joint Chiefs sending their certification, there is an assumption there that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs is consulting 

with the service chiefs, as well, and that their input would certainly be very much part of that decision-making process that you 

would go through? 

Admiral GORTNEY. Absolutely, ma’am. The service chiefs and the 

Chairman meet twice a week. It is a scheduled, what we call, ‘‘the 

tank.’’ And about once a month, one of the subjects is a review of 

how the training is going to date. And he will not provide his advice to the Secretary until he has heard from the service chiefs. 

Secretary STANLEY. And I just want to add that Secretary Gates 

has met at least twice now with the service chiefs, service secretaries, and is in consultation, also, with the combatant commanders, also, to get their input. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you, Ms. Davis. 

And, based on the time of arrival prior to the vote, we will now 

proceed with Congressman Mike Coffman of Colorado. 
9 

Mr. COFFMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

First of all, I think that I had requested out of the survey a byrank, by-MOS [military occupation specialty] breakdown. And I 

think that that was not provided until about a month after the 

vote. And I want to say for the record, I think that was intentional, 

because the numbers for those combat arms personnel, particularly 

in leadership, were certainly more opposed in greater numbers 

than non-ground combat arms. And so I want to state that for the 

record, and my disappointment with the forthrightness of this process, not simply with Members of Congress but with the American 

people. 

And, with that said, let me ask a question of Secretary Stanley. 

One of the policy implications of repealing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is 

considering reinstatement of service members who were discharged 

under the policy. 

Given the increasingly competitive environment of joining our 

military, our All-Volunteer Force, how will the Department institute a fair process regarding service members who were discharged 

under the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy versus other former service 

members honorably discharged who are reapplying for Active 

Duty? 

Secretary STANLEY. Yes, thank you for your question, Congressman. 

The process now, as we see it, will be that, as members are coming back in, they can apply to come back in just as anyone else in 

America would come back in the services. There is no special dispensation, but they will come back in. And we will be looking at 

them based upon the needs of the services, MOS qualifications, 

their physical qualifications, where they are at that particular 

time, and all of that still based on the needs of the service. But 

they will be looked at and have an opportunity to come back. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Thank you. 

Let me just conclude with this. As someone who served in both 

Army and Marine Corps infantry, that I virtually have no confidence in your process. I think that this survey, this study was the 

conclusion looking for a study. And I think that this is a political 

decision, obviously, made by the executive branch, and the military 

will follow it under whatever circumstances or ramifications it has 

to the combat effectiveness of our forces. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you, Mr. Coffman. 

And we proceed to Congressman Dave Loebsack of Iowa. 

Mr. LOEBSACK. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Thanks to both of you for being here today and for your service. 

I have a question that sort of goes back to before the actual 

training and education. With whom did you consult or did the services consult as to what the education programs or the training program ought to look like? How did you come up with these in the 

first place? 

Secretary STANLEY. Well, I will address part of this. I mean, I 

know that the services now worked with each of the services. I 

don’t know if they had to even go out; we have excellent educational capacities within. I am not aware of any external sources. 

But we have, as you know, academicians in the military. We looked 
10 

at our training edifices, in terms of how they are set up. And each 

service cooperated and worked together. We have the Defense 

Equal Opportunity Management Institute, which is significantly 

steeped in terms of education, research, to develop the training 

packages as we move forth. 

Mr. LOEBSACK. Methodology is one thing, but substance is another thing. Can you sort of explain the difference in that sense? 

I mean, it is one thing to have training programs as such and 

methodology employed. But we are talking about a specific area of 

expertise that will be needed in this case, and that has to do with 

homosexuality and basically changing, perhaps, even the culture of 

the military. 

Secretary STANLEY. Well, I think the substance—and let me add 

one more category. 

Mr. LOEBSACK. All right. 

Secretary STANLEY. And that is, we also consulted with and 

talked to the other countries, other nations—— 

Mr. LOEBSACK. Ah. 

Secretary STANLEY [continuing]. Some who have already gone 

through this. 

Mr. LOEBSACK. Okay. 

Secretary STANLEY. And so when you add that in there, people 

who have gone through this already, that gets into substance as 

well as methodology. 

Mr. LOEBSACK. All right. 

Did you want to add anything, Admiral? 

Admiral GORTNEY. No, sir. 

Mr. LOEBSACK. Okay. 

I appreciate that. 

I do have a question also, having been to Iraq three times and 

Afghanistan six times now in the 4-plus years that I have been in 

Congress, I do have a question as to how you are ensuring that the 

training of our combat troops does not disrupt their carrying out 

their mission. 

Admiral GORTNEY. The service chiefs really looked hard at that, 

and that is why they started training the force as early as they 

possibly could, so they could catch the force that will be deploying 

to Iraq and Afghanistan before they get there, and then leave it to 

the commanders on the field, for those that are there, to determine 

whether or not it is best to do it then or when they return from 

their deployment. 

It looks, at this time, as if the service chiefs feel that the training 

can be done, but they are leaving it up to the commanders in the 

field to make that ultimate determination, then would get it on 

their return. 

Mr. LOEBSACK. And, so far, we have not seen any disruption in 

terms of their ability to carry out their mission; is that correct? 

Admiral GORTNEY. None whatsoever, sir. 

Mr. LOEBSACK. No examples, even anecdotal? 

Admiral GORTNEY. No, sir. 

Mr. LOEBSACK. Okay. Well, that is good to hear. I appreciate 

that. 
11 

What about retention and recruitment as a result of the change 

in this policy? How are we doing on that front, recruitment and 

then retention? 

Secretary STANLEY. Congressman, no data points yet; too early to 

tell. I mean, that is one of those things where the environment 

right now, particularly with the—I mean, our enlistment rate, reenlistment, everything is good. But I am not putting a lot in that 

right now. It is just early. 

Mr. LOEBSACK. Right. 

Secretary STANLEY. As we go through this, we are watching that 

very closely. 

Mr. LOEBSACK. What are the expectations? We must have some 

expectations or thoughts about whether this will have any effect or 

not. 

Secretary STANLEY. The expectations—— 

Mr. LOEBSACK. On recruitment, in particular. 

Secretary STANLEY. Sorry. But the expectations would be that 

there will be no impact. But, by nature, I just continue to look, because readiness is in the portfolio, and we have to take that very 

seriously. 

Mr. LOEBSACK. Right. Well, I appreciate waiting until we have 

data. As a former social scientist myself, I think we have to be evidence-based in this process, all the way through the process from 

beginning to the end. 

Did you want to say anything on that? 

Admiral GORTNEY. Yes, sir. And I think, as far as metrics, retention and recruitment are going to be the last metrics we are going 

to get. It is going to take time to get that information in. 

However, when we surveyed the services from around the world 

that have implemented this, as far as recruitment, they did not see 

an impact to that. So we will have to wait and see from here. 

Mr. LOEBSACK. All right. Thanks to both of you. 

And I yield back the balance of my time. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you, Mr. Loebsack. 

At this time, we proceed to Congressman Allen West of Florida. 

Mr. WEST. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, also Madam Ranking 

Member. 

Secretary Major General Stanley and also Vice Admiral Gortney, 

thank you for being here today. 

Part of me is going to speak from the experience that I had, 22 

years as a commander of the company and also at the battalion 

level. 

And one of the things I look at is, the mission of the United 

States military is to fight and win the wars of our Nation. And I 

think this is a very serious situation in which we find ourselves, 

in that we are now looking at a behavior and we are starting to 

try to conform the military to a behavior. And I remember, coming 

into the military, we took behaviors and we formed it to the military, we formed that cohesion. And using a term that they have 

over in the Middle East, I just am very wary of the fact that this 

could be the camel getting his nose under the tent, and then what 

comes from there. 

So, with that being said, my question is this—and I go back to 

the episode with Major Nidal Hasan, where we had commanders 
12 

up here at Walter Reed that saw some very disturbing behaviors 

there with Major Nidal Hasan, but, for whatever reason—I think 

that one of the main reasons is the retribution of an atmosphere 

of political correctness—they did not speak up about that. And, of 

course, we know what happened when he was transferred down to 

Fort Hood, Texas. 

How do you let us in this committee or give us the comfort in 

knowing that commanders and leaders that are out there and see 

failures in the implementation of this program are free to speak up 

and not have to worry about an environment, a political environment, where they are told to shut up and make this happen or 

else? 

Secretary STANLEY. Well, Congressman West, thank you for the 

question. 

I think it starts with the President of the United States, goes to 

the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman, in terms of selecting 

the very best leaders. I think that nothing can be said even stronger about having the best people. This is about leadership, as Admiral Gortney said. 

We all know that this world we live in doesn’t have perfection, 

but we know we can do better. And as a person who is charged 

with readiness, I am not saying I own that but I will tell you that 

I have a role in that, in ensuring that we work toward having our 

leadership to ensure that what you have alluded to will not happen. 

I will yield. 

Admiral GORTNEY. Yes, sir. The importance of leadership in this 

cannot be overstated. It is just like the importance of leadership in 

all of combat readiness. 

And as I read the results of the survey, the thing that jumped 

out at me was once again the importance of leadership, and that 

if I would be looking for where there might be challenges with this, 

it would be in commands that already have indicators of poor leadership. 

And you are aware of what those indicators are. And it is tied 

to combat readiness, it is tied to discipline, and it is tied to morale. 

And so those commands that don’t have that, I know the service 

chiefs are looking really hard at, because they know in those individual commands they may have challenges. 

It comes back to leadership. And we all know that we don’t have 

perfect leadership all the time, but we are looking as hard as we 

can to make sure that we do have it. 

Mr. WEST. Well, the leadership is a concern. And I can tell you 

that, having friends that are still wearing uniforms, that is their 

big concern. 

And I go back to the incident that happened back at Fort Campbell, Kentucky, in the 101st Airborne Division, when we had the 

young soldier that, unfortunately and tragically, was beaten to 

death in his unit, in his platoon. But what ended up happening 

from there was a series of the chain of command, from that level 

all the way up to a division commander, was lost. And so, that is 

the thing that I want to make sure of, is that we do not go now 

on a witch hunt because of external social engineering, special in-
13 

terest groups that will affect the readiness of the United States of 

America. 

So, with that being said, I yield back the remainder of my time. 

Thank you, gentlemen. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you, Colonel West. 

And we now have Congresswoman Niki Tsongas from Massachusetts. 

Ms. TSONGAS. Thank you both for your testimony here today and, 

Dr. Stanley, for your co-chairmanship of the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell 

Repeal Implementation Team. It is not a simple process, and many 

questions. 

But just to reiterate why we moved to repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t 

Tell, since 1993 more than 14,000 gay service members have been 

discharged under the discriminatory Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy. 

And, of these discharges, nearly 1,000 were specialists with vital 

mission-critical skills—Arab linguists, for example. We hear those 

figures over and over again. I have always believed that this policy 

actually threatens the readiness of our military, by discharging 

hundreds of military personnel critical to our national security and 

shutting the door to thousands more. 

And it is also unconscionable to maintain a policy when at least 

24 other countries, including allies such as Great Britain, Australia, Canada, and Israel, already allow open service by lesbian 

and gay service members. And that is why I have always strongly 

supported repeal of this policy. 

And I concur wholeheartedly with Admiral Mullen’s distinguished leadership about this issue; his assessment when he stated 

in his testimony before the Armed Services Committee last year 

that this policy, quote, ‘‘forces young men and women to lie about 

who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens,’’ unquote, undermining a basic tenet of military service, which is to be honest. 

And so I was proud to vote for the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. 

And I am glad you are both here today to give us a sense of how 

much progress has been made and when final repeal may occur. I 

am hopeful that certification will occur by the second quarter of 

this year. 

So I am curious—you are testifying, basically, that on both objective and subjective measurements that things are proceeding fairly 

smoothly. So do you have some sense of when that certification 

might finally occur, given that you have yet to detect or determine 

that there are real obstacles to it? 

And, also, how has the Department complied with Secretary 

Gates’ instruction that he announced on January 6 of this year to 

accelerate the preparation of efforts to move ahead? 

Secretary STANLEY. Thank you, Congresswoman Tsongas. 

We have embraced, obviously, our leadership—Secretary Gates 

was very specific. We want to do this deliberately and purposefully; 

a process that we don’t want to rush because we want to make sure 

that it is done right. At the same time, we don’t want to take forever to do it. So we have been moving with deliberate speed to get 

it done. And just the sheer size in the numbers of people, what we 

are talking about, has actually shaped the process. 

We are looking at mid-summer to go toward certification. But 

even when I say that, if there is something that comes out that we 
14 

didn’t anticipate, which is what we are looking for, particularly 

with readiness implications, we would be prepared to even either 

slip it or whatever from that. But mid-summer is what we are looking at realistically, with no problems so far. 

I will ask my counterpart. 

Admiral GORTNEY. I completely agree with the doctor, mid-summer. All of the services wanted to move out in a deliberate process. 

No one was trying to drag their feet in this. It is really the magnitude of the challenge that is out there and making sure that, as 

we get our arms around the magnitude of the challenge, we don’t 

miss anything. 

And so we are grateful for the deliberate process that has been 

laid out for it. And we think mid-summer for the recommendation, 

followed by 60 days after that repeal, is achievable. 

Ms. TSONGAS. As you have looked at other countries, which you 

suggested you had, have you seen sort of markers, things that you 

know might emerge that you can anticipate and head off? You 

know, what are the lessons learned from those other countries that 

have moved ahead on this and done so with great success? 

Secretary STANLEY. Well, thank you for the question, Congresswoman Tsongas. 

The other countries didn’t have the kind of problems that we anticipate, but we are the United States, and we are a little different 

in terms of our culture. I mean, we are different. And so, as a result, we didn’t take the nonevent or uneventful things that happened in other countries as being indicative of what may happen 

here, which is why our antennae are still up as we move forward 

deliberatively and purposefully in the process. 

Ms. TSONGAS. Thank you both. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you, Ms. Tsongas. 

We next proceed to Congresswoman Vicky Hartzler of Missouri. 

Mrs. HARTZLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you, gentlemen, for being here today. 

There has some discussion that certain members of the military 

were let go. But surveys that I saw have shown that possibly up 

to 10 percent of the military that are currently in the force possibly 

may leave as a result of this. 

So how will you know that this repeal won’t harm recruitment 

or retention? What indicators are you setting up? What surveying 

process is going to be in place? What follow-up reports are going 

to be generated? And will Congress have an opportunity to see 

those? And what is anticipated? How will you gather that information? 

Secretary STANLEY. Well, thank you, Congresswoman Hartzler. 

First of all, thank you for the question because I wanted to come 

back to something that was asked earlier. We do climate surveys, 

by the way, and this is a commander’s tool that is available to 

them, to do assessments, you know, routinely. That is a constant. 

Also, it is difficult to forecast. We haven’t seen any indication 

that that would happen. But there is an obligation now that each 

service member takes; they have a contract. And just because you 

want to get out, you don’t get out. Now, it doesn’t mean that you— 

the commander, though, on the ground makes the call, according 
15 

to good order and discipline and what is most effective for the unit. 

But the bottom line is, it is not an automatic. 

But the readiness implications are significant if everyone wanted 

to get out. We don’t have the data point that you have to say 

that—whatever the percentage is that wants to get out. 

And I will yield at this time. 

Admiral GORTNEY. Yes, ma’am. One of the things from the other 

services from around the world that implemented it, they had a 

similar perception, that more people would get out at the end of— 

in reality, it didn’t happen. That doesn’t mean that that can’t happen in this particular case. 

Retention is a function of personal beliefs. It is a function of 

sense of purpose. And it has a large degree with the economy on 

the outside. 

Mrs. HARTZLER. Uh-huh. 

Admiral GORTNEY. And so, separating retention statistics when 

we get down to it, when we are finally able to gather those, we are 

going to have to sift very carefully to find the true cause. And we 

survey—for every service member that gets out, we do survey for 

the reasons as to why they get out. 

Mrs. HARTZLER. Okay. That was my question. So when they 

leave, they are going to be asked that question and have an opportunity to say. 

And then, so, is there a report—I am new. I wasn’t here when 

this passed. So is there a, 1 year from now, the military shall report back to Congress on the implications and how many people— 

I mean, is there something like that in statute? 

Secretary STANLEY. Yes, ma’am. In fact, before this very committee, we actually appear, not regarding just this issue, but the 

entire shaping of our military force, the force structure, the size, 

the numbers that get out, the numbers that stay in. And there are 

a whole range of reasons for that, as well as skill—and particularly 

skill sets, as we deal with readiness. So there is a lot of information that comes to the House as well as to the Senate. 

Mrs. HARTZLER. Okay. So, no report per se that is in the works, 

but just—okay. 

Can you tell me how implementation of this new policy is going 

to improve the standards of military readiness, effectiveness, unit 

cohesion, recruiting, retention? How is it going to improve things 

by doing this? 

Secretary STANLEY. Well, we don’t—there are a lot of unknowns 

right now, in terms of improving readiness. We do know that, from 

an integrity standpoint, as already alluded, that we won’t have 

members having to lie about who they are as they are serving. 

But having said that, the unknown right now is what we are 

going through in the implementation process. So, ideally, we will 

know more later on, but keeping the skill sets—there are people 

who have been discharged. We want to keep the right people in. 

If I took this away from the conversation of today, looking at balancing the force, looking at having the right people with the linguistic backgrounds, intelligence backgrounds, different things like 

that, that shaping, in itself, is significant, taking away this variable. And I know the purpose of this hearing is different, but that 

is where I am coming from. 
16 

Mrs. HARTZLER. Well, the mission of the military is to win wars 

and to protect and defend the land. And I am very concerned that, 

in a time of war in our country—we have men and women in 

harm’s way—that we are making such a radical, major shift in our 

policy and, I believe, jeopardizing missions and putting people in 

harm’s way. So I am very concerned. 

How do you think it will increase our mission of being able to 

win wars by doing this? 

Admiral GORTNEY. Ma’am, we are—it is the service chiefs’, 

Chairman’s best judgment that it is not going to impact our ability 

to fight and win our Nation’s wars. And I happen to believe it, as 

well. 

I think we can go through this based on the analysis, the detailed analysis that led us up to this point, and the process, the 

procedures we are putting in place to train the force, and the feedback mechanisms that are in place to get back to the chain of command if we hear something otherwise, are all there, that we will 

be able to then apply good leadership to make sure that that 

doesn’t happen. 

Mrs. HARTZLER. Okay. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you very much, Ms. Hartzler. 

And we proceed to Congresswoman Chellie Pingree of Maine. 

Ms. PINGREE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. 

Secretary Stanley and Vice Admiral Gortney, thank you very 

much for being here today, for your service to this country, and for 

taking on a challenging transition. I appreciate all that you have 

had to say today. 

I know we have sort of said this isn’t about reconsidering whether or not we should have done this, but I want to reiterate some 

of the things that my colleagues have said and Representative 

Tsongas said very well, that this is a good policy, this was a change 

that we needed to act on. I was very proud to vote for this and to 

support it. And for all of the reasons that have already been discussed, whether it is about unit cohesion or the cost to our country—and, in the end, the fact is, Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell was a morally reprehensible policy. And I just think that it violated the fundamental value of fairness and equal treatment that we cherish in 

this country. And I am just so pleased that we are here to talk 

about the end of it and the transition out of it, which I think is 

great. 

I also want to say, I know some people have talked about their 

concerns about whether or not the surveys were accurate or how 

this is going to affect the actual troops in the field. And I am 

pleased to hear that you have said there has been very little evidence of that. And I want to we remind everyone that those surveys show that 90 percent of our military personnel who said that 

they had served with a gay or lesbian person had no reaction to 

it and said it was perfectly fine in their unit. And I think that is 

an important thing to remember. 

I think that is very important when we think about how quickly 

we implement this policy. You know, we can drag ourselves down 

in kind of the, you know, political window of, ‘‘Well, it is not quite 

done yet, and you haven’t finished the training.’’ So I just want to 
17 

push a little bit on the implementation. I am pleased to hear that 

you are moving forward, that you have 9 percent accomplished. But 

I just want to ask a little bit about, can we move any faster? 

Because I do believe that, once it is fully implemented, it will be 

a conversation we won’t have any more. And our troops will not 

have to think about it; they will be working. We won’t debate it politically, and our country will continue to move forward in a way 

that we need to do in a time of a lot of conflict. 

So is there a way to move faster or hurry up on the process? 

Secretary STANLEY. I will just make an opening comment, that 

the conditions on the ground and the commanders are actually 

driving this. I mean, whatever the Secretary—Secretary Gates 

wants it to be fast, but, at the same time, we are listening to the 

services. 

And I will defer to my colleague. 

Admiral GORTNEY. Yes, ma’am. I think the pace that we are 

going on is appropriate, entirely appropriate. 

Once again, surveys are only so accurate. And so, it goes back 

to, as we do the training in a deliberate manner, we train the experts first, we train the leadership who are the key part of this, 

then train the force, and that we have the ability to, as the doctor 

says, antennas up, pick up if we have something wrong here that 

we need to go back and address. And we are going to have to collect that information, we are going to have to assess and come up 

with a way to address it head-on. And the only way to do that is 

in a deliberate process. So, any faster, we might miss something. 

And so, I think we are on the right path. I think mid-summer 

is achievable and will allow us to pick up on anything if we are 

picking up any of the signals that we are so carefully looking for. 

Ms. PINGREE. There is a 60-day statutory waiting period, right? 

So I wonder, can any of the process that you are working on now 

happen during that period? 

Secretary STANLEY. Well, actually, during the 60-day process, we 

actually have things even planned there. 

Ms. PINGREE. Okay. 

Secretary STANLEY. As the certification takes place, there is still 

a little bit more training of the force going on then, because you 

never really get to 100 percent, and that is the reality—— 

Ms. PINGREE. Right. 

Secretary STANLEY [continuing]. Because you always have people 

coming in, there are people leaving, there are people sick, there are 

people in transportation. There are just lots of other things going 

on. So that will be—doing some of that, people going into combat, 

coming out of combat, that kind of circumstances, so that is also 

in that. 

Ms. PINGREE. Great. 

Well, one other point. I mean, I am pleased to hear that you say, 

in the time period you have gone through, it has gone smoothly, 

people are reacting well to it. As I understand, many of the things 

that people bring up as concerns, frankly, just don’t happen much 

in the military. We haven’t had incidents, we haven’t had a lot of 

things that people have been concerned about. 

And there are already a lot of policies in place. You know, people 

talk about, what if I need to change my roommate? Well, you can 
18 

already do that, whether it is a homosexual or heterosexual roommate. Chaplains, as the chair appropriately asked, can already 

make a decision that they won’t meet with a certain person and 

have it be with someone else or if they have some, you know, issues 

that they have to deal with. 

Can you talk a little more about that? I mean, I appreciate the 

fact that the military already has a lot of policies in place and they 

are there for people today. 

Admiral GORTNEY. That is correct, ma’am. Really, it is treating 

people with dignity and respect. We are not creating a special class 

within the military. And all of the issues that you brought up are 

really just leadership issues that we confront every single day, regardless of your preference. So most of the questions that do come 

up are what is not changing. 

Ms. PINGREE. Great. Well, that is my time. Thank you very 

much. I appreciate your work on this. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you, Ms. Pingree. 

We now proceed to Congressman Austin Scott of Georgia. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Admiral, would you agree with me that military service in this 

country is a privilege, not a right? 

Admiral GORTNEY. Absolutely. 

Mr. SCOTT. And we have an All-Volunteer Force, at this stage. 

Nobody is forced to join our military. 

Admiral GORTNEY. That is correct. 

Mr. SCOTT. And this policy change that was passed, did it pass 

as a stand-alone piece of legislation, or was it tied to the military 

appropriations act? 

Admiral GORTNEY. That I am not familiar with, sir. 

Mr. SCOTT. Secretary Stanley. 

Secretary STANLEY. I am going to take that for the record. I 

think I know that for the record, but I don’t want to say something 

for the record that is not correct. 

[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix on 

page 67.] 

Mr. SCOTT. Well, would you tell me what you think the answer 

is? 

Secretary STANLEY. Okay. I was under the impression that this 

was stand-alone. And I saw nothing to indicate anything other 

than that. 

Mr. SCOTT. Okay. 

Secretary STANLEY. But I just wanted to make sure there wasn’t 

something else there. That is all. 

Mr. SCOTT. Okay. I would like to know the facts about that. 

Next question: How much money that could have been spent 

equipping the warfighters has been spent on the implementation of 

this? 

Secretary STANLEY. So far, the calculation for the training materials is about $10,000. The other areas, there has actually been no 

calculation yet. The active services are working now to compute 

what the timing has been for, you know, the time taken out for 

training; there are transportation costs. The services are working 

on that. We have that. 
19 

Mr. SCOTT. Secretary Stanley, if something was done at the DOD 

for $10,000, I would like to know what it was. I haven’t seen anything come out of there with a price tag that low. But I would like 

to know the price tag for this and how much has been spent on this 

implementation. 

And I hope that, as we move forward, that we are able to undo 

some of these things. And I will tell you, in talking to the military 

personnel in my district, you have a lot of men and women who we 

have spent a lot of money training—I can tell you, the last one that 

I spoke with, we have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars training that gentleman on how to disarm IEDs [improvised explosive 

device]. He will not re-enlist, nor will his brother, who has been 

trained the same way. They simply will not re-enlist. And you are 

going to lose and this country is going to lose a lot of very, very 

valuable members of our military because of this social policy. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield my time back. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Scott. 

And we will proceed with the second round. 

I continue to be very concerned about the First Amendment 

rights of chaplains. I have heard from chaplains; they are concerned that the repeal implementation training could have a 

chilling effect on their speech. Chaplains are afraid to express their 

true beliefs because they could be penalized. 

With that, what procedures will be available to afford chaplains 

the opportunity to report pressures placed on them to temper comments and chill their freedom of religious speech? What procedures 

will be in place to protect such chaplains from punitive career personnel actions from supervisors and others who do not share their 

views? 

Secretary STANLEY. Well, Mr. Chairman, first of all, the chaplains still have their First Amendment rights. Chaplains still serve 

a pretty diverse population in the military. Those same rights that 

existed before exist now. 

But the policy review we are going through is actually being conducted to address the potential that there is something that we 

have overlooked. And we haven’t finished the policy review yet. 

But protecting those First Amendment rights—and, also, when 

we look at this particular equation or this question, the religious 

endorsers haven’t withdrawn anyone and the chaplains are still engaged. I think we are there addressing what may be potential 

issues, but we don’t have issues yet. 

And I will ask the—— 

Admiral GORTNEY. We are blessed to have great chaplains in the 

service. And there are, I am certain, moral dilemmas for all the 

chaplains on many issues out there. I think the policy review that 

the doctors bring will help bring those to light. And we are not asking anybody to change their beliefs, we are not asking anybody to 

change their feelings, just treat everybody in the service with the 

same dignity and respect that we, ourselves, would like to be treated. 

Mr. WILSON. But if somebody feels like they are being religiously 

oppressed, their First Amendment rights, is there a process or procedure where they can express concern without retaliation? 
20 

Admiral GORTNEY. Absolutely, sir. That is why we have a chain 

of command. And, you know, I have never worked in a perfect 

chain of command, never had one, didn’t have one under me. But 

you do have a chain of command, and you do have opportunities 

to bypass that chain of command if you think you are being 

wronged. And all those processes and procedures are still in place. 

Secretary STANLEY. Mr. Chairman, it is so much, again, about 

the leadership equation that we talked about earlier, dealing with 

commanders, providing that kind of environment where people can 

talk and have an opportunity to go up the chain of command as 

well as down the chain of command. But leadership is really the 

most important part of what we are talking about right now. 

Mr. WILSON. Will it be monitored at all, complaints by chaplains, 

as to if they feel that they have been chilled in their ability to 

serve? 

Admiral GORTNEY. Well, sir, the policy is still in place. But I will 

tell you that, as a commander, I am very sensitive since we know 

that some chaplains may have concerns about this. The commanders in the fields are going to know those chaplains and are 

going to know whether or not they are going to have a concern with 

it. And then, if that chaplain can’t come to grips with dealing with 

this service member’s particular challenges because of the service 

member’s beliefs, then we will get a chaplain that will be able to 

meet his or her needs. 

Secretary STANLEY. Mr. Chairman, although we aren’t there yet 

with repeal, it is moving in that direction. After certification, if we 

get into the sustainment phase, my recommendation to Secretary 

Gates would be that these kinds of things would be the things we 

would be looking for, to ensure that we have a policy that is implemented fairly, equitably, and purposefully. 

Mr. WILSON. And I am particularly hopeful that, as you proceed, 

that there will be regulations and guidelines that could be realworld understood by chaplains so they don’t feel that, in fact, they 

have truly lost their First Amendment rights. And so I really will 

be monitoring this and would like to see what is done. 

Another concern I have is that we will be providing troops in 

countries where the culture and laws provide that homosexual acts 

are culturally not approved or even illegal. Are our troops going to 

be briefed on this prior to going? And what kind of training will 

they receive? 

Admiral GORTNEY. Yes, sir. Prior to any service member’s deployment overseas, we do cultural awareness training for the specific 

country or region that they are going to. And this will be included 

into that training. 

Mr. WILSON. And I thank you very much. 

And we will proceed to Ms. Davis. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I know that the issue of cost has been brought up, and I know, 

during the debate, there was discussion about the cost to the country, the cost to taxpayers, for having to essentially dismiss, kick out 

members who were serving in the armed services. 

Dr. Stanley, do you happen to have the price tag on that? 
21 

Secretary STANLEY. No, Congresswoman Davis, I don’t have the 

price tag on the numbers—you mean the numbers who were discharged, like pilots, special MOSs, things like that? 

Mrs. DAVIS. The numbers of service members who were discharged as a result of their homosexuality, who were essentially— 

yeah, who were dismissed. I mean, as I recall, there was a price tag of about $300 million 

to dismiss those service members. And then you had the cost of actually recruiting and filling those skill sets in the services, as well. 

I guess, if you could just come back to the committee, perhaps, 

as we have opportunities down the line, to have those numbers, 

that would be very helpful. 

Secretary STANLEY. Absolutely. 

Mrs. DAVIS. I know that they were out there. And I think the 

first 13 years of the policy may be in the neighborhood of about 

$300 million. 

Secretary STANLEY. Absolutely. I would like to take that for the 

record and get back to you. 

[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix on 

page 67.] 

Mrs. DAVIS. Okay, great. Thank you. 

I also wanted to ask about status of the several court cases that 

are seeking to end Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. What would be any difference in the process if the decision was made by the courts regarding those cases? 

Secretary STANLEY. There are several court cases right now, and 

I know they are with the Department of Justice as they move those 

through the process, the Ninth Circuit, I believe. And I am not sure 

what the other circuit is. But the bottom line is, I know that the 

Department of Justice is working those; they continue to move forward. I don’t anticipate any other changes, in terms of what we are 

doing, in those court cases right now. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Okay. Thank you. 

And, if I could, Mr. Chairman, I happen to have just a report 

from the Daily Transcript in San Diego. There was a meeting there 

where Major General Ronald Bailey, who heads the Marine recruiting depot, was speaking to a group of service members and other 

individuals in San Diego and just commenting on the fact that has 

been said here before: When asked about repealing Don’t Ask, 

Don’t Tell, he said he was very much in favor of it. ‘‘It is about 

leadership, and my leadership philosophy is to treat everyone with 

respect and dignity. There is no separation. All I ask is that you 

be a marine.’’ 

So if I could put that in the record, sir. Thank you. 

[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix on 

page 45.] 

Mr. WILSON. Without objection. 

Mrs. DAVIS. And I will yield back my time. Thank you. 

Mr. WILSON. Mr. Coffman. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The former Commandant of the Marine Corps raised questions, 

General Conway, about billeting his marines. And I think the 

statement was, he would need extra funding, that he did not want 

to mix heterosexual marines with homosexual marines. And I think 
22 

that—and I suspect that his same rationale was why he doesn’t insist on having men billeted directly with women, to avoid not simply because of cultural issues but also to avoid unwanted sexual 

contact. 

Have you all—when I was a soldier and a marine, I can remember sleeping in those squad bays. I think they have broken a lot 

of those up now. I think they still using them in a training environment, but I think after that they have gone to these, I think, twomen or two-women rooms. 

Has that issue been discussed? And how will you deal with that? 

Secretary STANLEY. Yes, Congressman Coffman, the issue has 

been discussed. And I am going to yield to my colleague here, but 

I would just say that, as we approach that, that sexual orientation 

is a private, personal matter. We have not been putting in—the 

issue of separate berthing is not something that we are not going 

to be separating because of sexual orientation. 

And I am going to ask my colleague to address that in more detail. 

Admiral GORTNEY. Leadership has had billeting challenges between personalities as long as there has been leadership and personalities in commands. And it is going to be up to leadership to 

handle those on a case-by-case basis, as they have for centuries. 

And we don’t anticipate it to be a problem. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Thank you. 

And, with that, because we are repealing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, 

so, obviously, now we are saying that the behavior is acceptable, 

sexual orientation in any form certainly is acceptable, then why 

don’t you simply remove the precautions? Why don’t you simply 

change, then, that, irrespective of not simply sexual orientation but 

gender, that people be housed together? If you are going to go down 

that road, why don’t you completely go down that road? 

Secretary STANLEY. We are dealing specifically with sexual orientation, which is very private, very personal. We are serving with 

service men and women every day and, in many cases, don’t even 

know where they are, where they orient themselves, unless they 

actually say something. 

And so, what we have said and where we are today is that orientation, being private and personal, is a leadership issue that 

commanders can deal with. And commanders have the authority 

today to actually put people in separate rooms or have separate 

billeting if it is best for the command, unit climate, morale, unit 

cohesion, as you move forward. But that is a commander’s call. The 

commander can do that. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you, Mr. Coffman. 

We now proceed to Ms. Tsongas. 

Ms. TSONGAS. You all have talked so much the issue of leadership and the role of the commander, and we see that come up in 

many different contexts. And I am just curious if you could talk 

about the specifics of the kind of training that are now going to 

commanders around the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. You know, 

do you walk them through various scenarios? What is the process 

for, sort of, implementing this repeal with the commander? 

Admiral GORTNEY. Very good question, ma’am. 
23 

What the services wanted to make sure is that they didn’t relearn lessons learned from previous training evolutions. And so the 

training is—a lot of effort went into the training, into what was the 

training content itself. It is a mixture of a video that describes 

process, procedures, policy. And then it breaks, and then it is a 

give-and-take, an exchange by one of the mentors of the training, 

to pull out the key training aspects from what they had just witnessed. And in there, they also go into vignettes for whatever particular part of the policy or the procedure that was discussed in 

that video. Once that is out there, then they move on to the next 

part of the training. 

I went through it about 3 weeks ago, and I was very impressed 

with the quality of the content and the manner in which it was 

presented and the ability to draw out conversation with the training audience. It was very good. 

Ms. TSONGAS. Do you envision, as we get into the sort of 

sustainment mode—I think that was the word, I think, Secretary 

Stanley, that you used—that this kind of training would continue 

to take place as new commanders sort of rise up through the chain 

and are tasked to deal with issues they may not have in a lesser 

spot so that it is an ongoing, ever-present element of training of the 

commanders as they rise up? 

Secretary STANLEY. Absolutely. I mean, the training, it is—I 

don’t want to say phased, but we are doing the total force. At the 

same time that we are doing the entire force, we are also bringing 

in new recruits, so their training has to occur. 

So it will become part of not only the recruits—as recruits come 

in, as initial training, those that we might have missed, and then 

all the services will make it part of their general military training 

that covers many of the different issues that happen to be out 

there. So it will continue to be ongoing, just as we do anyway. 

Ms. TSONGAS. And then, another question on the service academies. I happen to be on the board of visitors for the Air Force 

Academy. And I know that, in discussing repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t 

Tell, the thinking was to wait to see how you all come forward, 

what the recommendations are. But how will this be implemented 

in the service academies? 

Admiral GORTNEY. It is no different. The service academies had 

their experts trained, have their leadership trained, and then training the force. And their force is the future leadership once they 

graduate there. So a lot of effort going into that. 

Ms. TSONGAS. Thank you. 

I yield back. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you very much. 

Mr. West. 

Mr. WEST. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Madam Ranking Member. 

Back in the mid-’90s, under the Clinton administration, I remember being a Brigade S–3 (officer responsible for unit training and 

operations) at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, and the re-enlistment 

NCO [noncommissioned officer] came in and told me that there was 

a new mandate coming down from the administration. This administration sent down a—it was called the ‘‘consideration of others 

training.’’ And it was mandated monthly that we had to do it down 

to the platoon level. And then it became known by the soldiers as 
24 

‘‘sensitivity training.’’ And it was all of a matter of someone had 

said that the Army and certain parts of our military had too much 

of a warrior ethos. 

I hear what you are saying here now, that we are going to not 

just be a one-time training, that this now is going to be a sustained 

type of training. I understand in the educational processes, you 

know, being at TBS [the basic school], or being at OBC [officer 

basic course], or being at the service academies. But now we are 

really starting to talk about something that is going to continually 

be a monthly sustainment requirement in our units. Because it is 

one thing to train recruits when they come into the service, but 

now, you know, what happens, as you both know, having been commanders, you continue to have training within your units down to 

that platoon level all the way up to the collective level. 

So what guarantee are you going to give me that, once again, the 

camel has not gotten its nose under the tent and, the next thing 

you know, this is going to become a monthly training requirement 

throughout the United States military? 

Admiral GORTNEY. Sir, the training that I was alluding to that 

we didn’t want to go back to was that sensitivity training that we 

lived through in the mid-’90s, which is why we put so much effort 

into this particular—the training venue and the models. We do not 

want to do that again. No one enjoyed that back in the mid-’90s. 

I can’t tell you that the training will be monthly, ongoing training will be monthly. I don’t imply that it will be monthly. What it 

will become part of is part of general military training that is ongoing: honor, courage, commitment, treating people with dignity and 

respect, all of that that goes into that. It will be part of that reoccurring thing. 

Secretary STANLEY. And, Congressman West, I concur and echo 

what the admiral said. But I will also say that this is definitely not 

about changing people’s beliefs and where they are. This is really 

about leadership, professionalism, discipline, and respect. It is 

about being good soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines, and Coast 

Guard. 

Mr. WEST. My only concern is that, as you all know, we are a 

military in combat, we are a military that is engaged, and there 

are so many training requirements that we already place out there 

on our units. And just the same as we have a government that 

places, you know, mandatory requirements and unfunded mandates on our State and local levels of government, I don’t want to 

see us start to now, from a political aspect, mandate more training 

requirements, which takes away the training time that that young 

platoon leader, that young company commander needs to be able 

to have an effective, fighting force. 

Because what I saw as a Brigade S–3 was that the time that I 

spent having to do the ‘‘consideration of others training,’’ that was 

the time when guys were not at the rifle range, guys were not out 

there in the motor pool, guys were not out there shooting their artillery pieces. 

So, please, go back to the administration and tell them that they 

just opened up a third combat theater of operations. Now is really 

not the time to play around with the lives of our men and women 

that are out there in combat. 
25 

Thank you so much, and I yield back. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you, Colonel West. 

And we now have Ms. Pingree. 

Ms. PINGREE. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate that. And 

thank you for the chance to talk about this a little bit more. 

I just want to address a couple of things that have been part of 

our discussion here. I mean, first, as far as both the costs and the 

continuing training go, I think I see this differently than some people in the conversation. I think this is a transition we are asking 

our military to make. And I, in fact, have tremendous faith both 

in the leadership, which you have talked about quite a bit, and the 

ability of the leaders in the military to help our soldiers and everyone else to make this transition, but also in our armed services personnel, themselves, across the country. 

I mean, we have been through a lot of transitions in the military, 

whether it was integrating the military, whether it was the huge 

role that women now play in the military, and I believe that you 

have always risen to the task and you have come forward. And so, 

I think this won’t be something you have to talk about month after 

month after month. This is going to change the culture, and then 

it will be done. And I appreciate that. And that is why I emphasize, 

you know, the faster you can do it, I think the more it will be an 

old conversation that we won’t have to continually have. 

So, that is my perspective on it. 

And the other side is the cost. People have brought that up. I ap- preciate the fact that you said it cost $10,000 for the training materials. And I, too, am impressed if we can do this for a relatively 

low cost. 

But I would also like to reiterate: Even if it costs us money to 

go through the training process, which I think you are being thorough and very thoughtful about, I see numbers from the GAO 

[Government Accountability Office] that say that the cost of discharges between 2004 and 2009 was $193.3 million. I know you are 

going to validate in writing what this costs. 

But discharging soldiers, 14,000 members of the military who 

have been let go because of their sexual orientation, it is not only 

unconscionable that these people who were willing to serve their 

country and came forward and were asked to leave, but the costs 

are horrendous. 

I was thinking about one of the soldiers that we have seen a lot 

about, Colonel Fehrenbach, who was highly decorated. It was $20 

million worth of training that we put into his service, and then we 

asked him to leave. 

So, to me, this is not only an unfair and unreasonable policy for 

all the reasons we have already discussed, but it seems to me it 

has been very expensive. And as you have talked about earlier and 

I would be happy to hear you talk about more, we have lost many 

highly trained personnel, but losing anyone in the military is a 

trained soldier. 

So, yes, there may be some members of the military who choose 

to leave, but I find it hard to believe it will be equal to the cost 

of the numbers that have already left. And I think that is important to remember. 

I don’t know if you have any comments about any of that. 
26 

Well, thank you. I yield back my time. 

And I, again, appreciate the work that you are doing, and I hope 

that it continues at a rapid pace. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you, Ms. Pingree. 

Ms. Hartzler. 

Mrs. HARTZLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Just wondering, are men and women currently housed together 

in the barracks? Do they shower together, men and women soldiers? 

Admiral GORTNEY. No, ma’am. 

Mrs. HARTZLER. Why not? 

Admiral GORTNEY. Well, good order and discipline. And they 

choose not to do it, leadership is smart not to do it, to keep them 

separated for good order and discipline. 

Mrs. HARTZLER. Is it due to their sexual orientation? 

Admiral GORTNEY. No, ma’am, it is not. It is due to gender. 

Mrs. HARTZLER. So there may be some opposite-sex attraction 

there, and so it would disrupt order and discipline if they showered 

together and were housed together. Is that correct? 

Admiral GORTNEY. By not separating the sexes? 

Mrs. HARTZLER. Right. 

Admiral GORTNEY. That is correct. 

Mrs. HARTZLER. How come, then—you said that this is due to 

sexual orientation, that there is not going to be any change in policy. What is the difference? It seems to me that you have a double 

standard here. 

Admiral GORTNEY. Well, one is because the gender is very public, 

and sexual preference is very private. And we are not asking about 

their sexual preference. 

Mrs. HARTZLER. Well, I think you are not being consistent there. 

But I wanted to ask, will persons requesting reassignment for 

themselves or someone else due to their sexual privacy concerns be 

subject to negative fitness reports and other career penalties? 

Admiral GORTNEY. Absolutely not. 

Mrs. HARTZLER. So you feel confident that they will feel comfortable going to their commanders and expressing concerns with 

that without being penalized in any way? 

Admiral GORTNEY. That is our intent, and that is what we hold 

our leadership accountable to do. 

Mrs. HARTZLER. Okay. Shifting gears, I was a teacher, and so I 

care a lot about children. And as we are talking about training and 

education, I was wondering, what training and education is being 

required of family members and children and DOD family support 

programs, schools, childcare centers? 

Secretary STANLEY. The family service centers, the Web sites, the 

family centers within the different services actually have training 

available on their Web sites. Military OneSource, some other 

sources are actually available on the Web, as well as doing them 

in their actual family centers. And commanders actually work toward that. It is not mandatory, not required, but certainly the 

training is there. 

Mrs. HARTZLER. There is a lot of controversy, as you know, about 

different curriculum, LGBT [lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender] 

curriculum in civilian schools. And I am just wondering, with the 
27 

DOD schools, you know, will authorities make it possible for military families to have access to alternative education choices for 

their children which do not mandate the use of LGBT curriculum 

in classrooms or extracurricular activities on bases? 

Secretary STANLEY. I think the question is pretty heavy. I would 

like to take that for the record and then take part of that. First 

of all—and the reason I am taking it for the record is because I 

am not versed in everything that is mandatory in the curriculum 

of our DOD schools. 

The big issue, though, also, is that most of our children are actually not in the schools. They are actually in the communities, you 

know, out in society. Most of them are. 

And so looking at that a little bit more holistically is why I want 

to take it for the record, look at the curriculum, and then get back 

to you on the specifics of where we are on that. Thank you for the 

question, though. 

[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix on 

page 67.] 

Mrs. HARTZLER. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back my time. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you, Ms. Hartzler. 

Mr. Scott. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Admiral, have you ever had to dismiss anybody from the service? 

Admiral GORTNEY. I have. 

Mr. SCOTT. Was it because of their race? 

Admiral GORTNEY. No, it was not. 

Mr. SCOTT. How about their gender? 

Admiral GORTNEY. No, it was not. 

Mr. SCOTT. Their faith? 

Admiral GORTNEY. No, it was not. 

Mr. SCOTT. Sexual orientation? 

Admiral GORTNEY. Yes, it was. 

Mr. SCOTT. It was because of their sexual orientation. 

Admiral GORTNEY. My first command, VFA–15, had an incident 

shortly after Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell passed, that we—a young sailor 

came forward through his chaplain, through our chaplain, that he 

was gay, and we discharged him from the service. 

Mr. SCOTT. Did you discharge him from the service because he 

was gay or because he violated a standard of conduct? 

Admiral GORTNEY. Because he was gay. 

Mr. SCOTT. He did not violate a standard of conduct before he 

was dismissed? 

Admiral GORTNEY. He did not. 

Mr. SCOTT. That is not the answer I thought you would give, to 

be honest with you, Admiral. 

Admiral GORTNEY. It happens to be the truth. 

Mr. SCOTT. Well, I appreciate that. Sometimes we don’t get that 

from testimony. 

Admiral GORTNEY. You are welcome, sir. 

Mr. SCOTT. So somebody was dismissed simply because of their 

sexual orientation, not because of the code of conduct. 

Admiral GORTNEY. Yes, sir. And it was, if I could explain the situation—— 
28 

Mr. SCOTT. Yes, sir. 

Admiral GORTNEY [continuing]. Because it kind of cuts through 

this whole issue, and it was a defining moment for this young commanding officer. 

A crusty old command master chief, my command master chief, 

walks up to me and says, ‘‘Skipper, I have a problem.’’ And, ‘‘Master Chief, what is your problem?’’ He says, ‘‘Well, Airman’’—pick a 

name—‘‘has come to me through the chaplain, and he is gay. I 

don’t know how to handle this. I have never dealt with this before.’’ 

I said, ‘‘Master Chief, I have got it,’’ and called the chaplain in. 

And the chaplain had been working with this young sailor for 

some time through the individual mental trauma that he was having with this particular issue, and the chaplain said, we need to 

bring it forward to the commanding officer. And that is how we 

handled it. 

And it was the chain of command working. And it was the chaplain doing his job, working, given the situation that was confronted 

with us with the law that was confronted with us. 

Mr. SCOTT. How long ago was this? 

Admiral GORTNEY. Oh, now you are testing. This would have 

been 1994, 1995 time frame, I believe it was. 

Mr. SCOTT. Sixteen, 17 years ago. 

Admiral GORTNEY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. SCOTT. Are you aware of any other incident where somebody 

has been dismissed simply because of sexual orientation? 

Admiral GORTNEY. I will have to get back to you on the record 

on the numbers of that. That was the one personal instance that 

I have had in my five command tours, that we had to do that. 

[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix on 

page 67.] 

Mr. SCOTT. And your testimony before this committee is that 

there has been no violation of the standard of conduct? 

Admiral GORTNEY. Not that I am aware of, no, sir. 

Now, there are instances where gays and lesbians were discharged but there were also personnel conduct that was resulted 

with it, that was a factor as well. But, in my case, that was not 

the case. 

Mr. SCOTT. Do you think that in most cases, though, that there 

is a violation of the standard of conduct associated with the dismissal? 

Admiral GORTNEY. I would say in very few cases is standard of 

conduct involved. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you, Mr. Scott. 

And, at this time, we will proceed to adjourn. 

And, again, I thank you for being here today. 

And I want to particularly thank the subcommittee members for 

being here today and remaining through the whole hearing. 

We are adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:10 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 
A P P E N D I X 

APRIL 1, 2011 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD 

APRIL 1, 2011 

(33) 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD 

APRIL 1, 2011 

(45) 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 

WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING 

THE HEARING 

APRIL 1, 2011 

(67) 

RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. SCOTT 

Secretary STANLEY. The ‘‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’’ Repeal Act of 2010 (Public Law 

111–321–Dec. 22, 2010) is, in fact, a stand-alone piece of legislation, and was not 

tied to the Military Appropriations Act. [See page 18.] 

Admiral GORTNEY. Since the ‘‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’’ law was enacted in 1993, the 

Department of Defense has separated more than 13,000 Service members under the 

law. [See page 28.] 

RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MRS. DAVIS 

Secretary STANLEY. There have been two GAO reports that have addressed the 

costs to the Department of Defense of separating and replacing Service members 

separated under ‘‘Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.’’ The first report, released in 2005, estimated 

the cost to be at least $190 million during the period of 1994 through 2003. In 2011, 

the GAO released its second report and calculated the cost to the DoD to be approximately $193 million during the period of 2004 through 2009. In total, the GAO has 

calculated the cost to the Department to be $383 million for the period from 1994 

through 2009. As the report states, these costs would generally include recruiting 

and training replacements, as well as the administrative costs associated with separating these Service members. [See page 21.] 

RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MRS. HARTZLER 

Secretary STANLEY. After review of the Department of Defense Education Activity 

(DoDEA) curriculum standards, in particular Health Education Standards, DoDEA 

does not have a curriculum regarding LGBT that is taught in classrooms. One particular unit taught in high school health classes is titled ‘‘Family Life & Human 

Sexuality’’. This unit consists of ten standards and one standard addresses recognizing that there are individual differences in growth and development, body image, 

gender roles and sexual orientation. The text book used for this unit is published 

by Harcourt Education Company and is titled ‘‘Lifetime Health’’. Parents do have 

the right to opt out of any unit by contacting the school administration, the school 

counselor or the classroom teacher. An alternative curriculum will be provided for 

the material not taught. [See page 27.] 

Æ