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

i 

57–127 2010

[H.A.S.C. No. 111–130] 

REVIEW OF THE DOD PROCESS FOR ASSESSING THE REQUIREMENTS TO IMPLEMENT REPEAL OF DON’T ASK, 

DON’T TELL 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

MILITARY PERSONNEL SUBCOMMITTEE 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

HEARING HELD 

MARCH 3, 2010 
(II) 

MILITARY PERSONNEL SUBCOMMITTEE 

SUSAN A. DAVIS, California, Chairwoman 

VIC SNYDER, Arkansas 

LORETTA SANCHEZ, California 

MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, Guam 

PATRICK J. MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

HANK JOHNSON, Georgia 

CAROL SHEA-PORTER, New Hampshire 

DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa 

NIKI TSONGAS, Massachusetts 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina 

JOHN KLINE, Minnesota 

THOMAS J. ROONEY, Florida 

MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma 

JOHN C. FLEMING, Louisiana 

MICHAEL HIGGINS, Professional Staff Member 

JOHN CHAPLA, Professional Staff Member 

JAMES WEISS, Staff Assistant 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF HEARINGS 

2010 

Page 

HEARING: 

Wednesday, March 3, 2010, Review of the DOD Process for Assessing the 

Requirements to Implement Repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell ........................... 1 

APPENDIX: 

Wednesday, March 3, 2010 ..................................................................................... 31 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 3, 2010 

REVIEW OF THE DOD PROCESS FOR ASSESSING THE 

REQUIREMENTS TO IMPLEMENT REPEAL OF DON’T ASK, DON’T TELL 

STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

Davis, Hon. Susan A., a Representative from California, Chairwoman, Military Personnel Subcommittee ............................................................................. 1 

Wilson, Hon. Joe, a Representative from South Carolina, Ranking Member, 

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

WITNESSES 

Ham, Gen. Carter F., USA, Commanding General, U.S. Army Europe, CoChair of the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Working Group ........................................... 7 

Johnson, Hon. Jeh C., General Counsel of the Department of Defense, CoChair of the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Working Group ........................................... 6 

Stanley, Dr. Clifford L., Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, U.S. Department of Defense ...................................................................... 6 

APPENDIX 

PREPARED STATEMENTS: 

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

Stanley, Dr. Clifford L., joint with Hon. Jeh C. Johnson and Gen. Carter 

F. Ham ........................................................................................................... 45 

Wilson, Hon. Joe ............................................................................................... 38 

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD: 

January 20, 2010, letter from Mr. McKeon to Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen, with attached memorandum .................................................... 49 

WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING THE HEARING: 

[There were no Questions submitted during the hearing.] 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING: 

[There were no Questions submitted post hearing.] 

(1) 

REVIEW OF THE DOD PROCESS FOR ASSESSING THE REQUIREMENTS TO IMPLEMENT REPEAL OF DON’T ASK, 

DON’T TELL 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, MILITARY PERSONNEL SUBCOMMITTEE, Washington, DC, Wednesday, March 3, 2010. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:45 p.m., in room 

2118, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Susan A. Davis (chairwoman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SUSAN A. DAVIS, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM CALIFORNIA, CHAIRWOMAN, MILITARY 

PERSONNEL SUBCOMMITTEE 

Mrs. DAVIS. Good afternoon everybody. Today the subcommittee 

will hear testimony about the Department of Defense’s process for 

implementing a repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. The President has 

made clear that this fundamental injustice should not be tolerated. 

Now, Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen have set in motion a 

study group to determine what needs to be done to implement repeal of this law, and they have called for a comprehensive examination. And this issue deserves no less. When it comes to repeal, 

the question is not whether, but how and when. 

The President and our civilian and military leadership in the 

Pentagon have stated the need for repeal. A majority of Americans 

now see repeal as not only in our national security interest, but 

also in standing with the principles of America. I would ask those 

who oppose repeal to join us on the right side of history. 

I understand and support the position of our civilian and military 

leadership that comprehensive analysis should accompany any decision of this importance, to include outreach to service members 

and their families, to ensure we understand all perspectives on the 

issue. 

The purpose of this hearing is for the witnesses to help the subcommittee understand what you want to learn and how you plan 

to become better informed about any possible challenges surrounding repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. Since the Department 

does not customarily poll service members before making these 

tough personnel decisions, we need to know what type of information you are seeking that will allow the Department to craft and 

implement a policy that will be successful. 

While I appreciate the intent of this review, I believe the evidence would suggest a quicker solution is possible and, indeed, necessary. Public opinion supporting repeal is strong, and as the 

public’s tolerance for open service grows, so too do the financial and 
2 

readiness costs of the policy that removes members of the volunteer 

force, many with critical skills, at a time when other service members are seeing repeated deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan. 

Additionally, our North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) allies serving beside us in Afghanistan and other nations have moved 

to accept the service of openly serving men and women, and have 

experienced no loss in unit cohesion and combat readiness. 

And finally, the 1993 RAND study on the strategy needed to successfully implement repeal provides a blueprint that can be quickly 

updated to fit today’s environment. In my view, part of this blueprint should include a moratorium on discharges while the Department decides how to implement repeal. 

I was disappointed that the Secretaries of the military departments and the service chiefs viewed a moratoria on separations 

during the study process as potentially disruptive, and I believe 

that there is a way to stem the tide of these painful and unnecessary discharges, especially those instigated by third parties, and 

avoid subjecting the force to confusion about the direction of this 

policy. Sound, positive leadership can and will be the key to bringing an end to the separation of gay men and lesbians and ensuring 

that readiness and unit cohesion do not suffer as a result. 

To assist us in understanding the repeal process, we are fortunate to have the top personnel official at the Department of Defense (DOD) and co-chairs of the working group tasked with the responsibility to fulfill Secretary Gates’ call for a comprehensive 

study. 

I would like to introduce our panel today. Secretary Clifford L. 

Stanley, the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness; General Carter F. Ham, United States Army Commanding 

General, U.S. Army Europe; and Honorable Jeh C. Johnson, General Counsel of the Department of Defense. 

Welcome to each of you, and I want to thank you for being here. 

We recognize the difficulty of your presence here today and that 

you really have not had a chance to embark on this study, but it 

is important, and I think it will be helpful for us to hear from you, 

but also perhaps for you to hear the views of the members of this 

subcommittee. 

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

Mrs. DAVIS. Mr. Wilson, do you have some opening remarks. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOE WILSON, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM 

SOUTH CAROLINA, RANKING MEMBER, MILITARY PERSONNEL SUBCOMMITTEE 

Mr. WILSON. Yes, Madam Chairwoman Davis, I join you in welcoming our witnesses, all three of whom are appearing before us 

for the first time. Unlike most hearings when we receive testimony 

from task forces and study groups at the completion of their work, 

this time we will have the opportunity to examine and assess the 

objectives and scope of the work of the study group just beginning 

its efforts. This also gives us the opportunity to shape the group’s 

work effort. 

We have heard clearly from the senior leadership of the Department of Defense and each of the military services of the importance 
3 

of this study and the necessity of doing nothing to repeal, change, 

or suspend current law until this group study completes its work. 

I fully support such an approach. 

Furthermore, I believe until this committee and Congress have 

had the opportunity to review and assess the recommendations of 

the study group and those of the Department of Defense, which we 

expect at some point after December 2010, we should not rush suddenly into action. I am sure our witnesses know Ranking Member 

McKeon wrote the Secretary of Defense and Chairman of the Joint 

Chiefs of Staff in January setting out a series of issues to be examined, as well as requirements for evidence to be presented to Congress before Congress could make an informed judgment about the 

repeal of section 654, title 10, U.S. Code. I ask unanimous consent 

that the letter and the attachment be entered into the record. 

Thank you. 

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

page 49.] 

Mr. WILSON. Further, I ask the staff now to distribute copies of 

Mr. McKeon’s letter to members of the subcommittee, some of 

whom may not be familiar with it, and to the witnesses. 

The central focus of the letter is the fourth paragraph, reflecting 

the fact that the responsibility for deciding this issue rests with 

Congress, not the President, the Secretary of Defense, or the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. 

The fourth paragraph reads, ‘‘Ultimately, one responsibility of 

this committee is to ensure that legislation enacted improves the 

readiness of the Armed Forces. No action to change the law should 

be taken by the administration or by this Congress until we have 

a full and complete understanding of the reasons why the current 

law threatens or undermines readiness in any significant way, 

whether a change in law will improve readiness in measurable 

ways, and what the implications for and effects on military readiness, cohesion, morale, good order and discipline are entailed with 

the change in the law.’’ 

Given its mandate from the Secretary of Defense, I am concerned 

the study group will focus its efforts solely on the third requirement, the implications of change, and not present Congress with 

evidence to decide the first two fundamental issues: one, why current law threatens or undermines readiness in any significant way; 

and two, whether repeal of the current law would improve readiness in measurable ways. If the study does not address these 

issues, then its overall credibility and usefulness for the congressional decision-making process will be significantly undermined. 

I would ask during the course of this hearing for Mr. Johnson 

and General Ham to commit to us that they are fully and objectively to explore the first two fundamental issues raised by Mr. 

McKeon and present the evidence of that examination in their final 

report. Secretary Stanley, this is a tough issue to break in on, but 

it is one that your predecessors have had to deal with. 

As you know, a central argument of the proponents for the repeal 

of section 654 is that repeal is a military necessity, because in time 

of war the military services need every willing and able person to 

serve, and the discharge of more than 13,000 people because of section 654, since 1993, has hurt military readiness. 
4 

Your predecessor, Dr. David Chu, addressed this issue in July 

2005, in the fourth year of the global war on terrorism, when he 

testified before this committee. ‘‘It, the loss of personnel due to section 654, is not, speaking frankly, a significant factor in our attrition experience, and the loss generally occurs early in someone’s 

service.’’ 

I would like to hear from you today whether you agree or disagree with Dr. Chu’s assessment, and whether you agree with the 

advocates for repeal of section 654 that repeal is a military necessity. 

Further, I would like to hear from you whether the discharge of 

personnel under section 654, especially during the time of war, has 

negatively impacted the readiness of our military services in any 

measurable or significant way. 

Based on the data recently provided to this committee by the Department of Defense and military services, I would guess your objective assessment would be that you would agree with Dr. Chu. 

For example, during fiscal year 1999 through fiscal year 2008, 8 

of those years being wartime years, the military service separated 

more than 1.9 million people; 8,300 of those, less than one-half of 

1 percent, were as a result of section 654. That is about 800 people 

being discharged per year. And unless you contradict me, that is 

not a significant loss from an overall DOD manpower perspective. 

Moreover, your Department’s own data shows that the discharge 

of personnel under section 654 has not affected the ability of the 

military services to recruit or retain high quality people in numbers that meet or exceed Department requirements. According to 

the Department data, fiscal year 2009 was the best year for recruiting in the active duty, national guard and reserve forces in the history of the all volunteer force. 

Nor has section 654 inhibited the ability of the Army, Marine 

Corps, and the Army National Guard to increase manpower significantly while fighting two wars and at rates of annual growth exceeding expectations. 

Furthermore, the Department’s own data undercuts the assertion 

that section 654 must be repealed because in time of war this nation needs to attract and retain all the qualified people it can who 

want to serve. 

For example, both the Navy and Air Force have made significant 

manpower reductions during the last 10 years, totaling some 

77,000 personnel. To achieve such reductions the services used 

measures not only to reduce the numbers of new recruits, but also 

to entice or force people to leave the service. In short, both services, 

in time of war, for reasonable and justified good of the service reasons, have denied service to tens of thousands of persons who otherwise qualified to serve and wanted to serve. Such actions, it 

seems to me, only reinforce the congressional finding in 1993 that 

there is no constitutional right to serve in the military. 

Dr. Stanley, taken as a whole, the Department’s own data over 

the last 10 years refutes the argument that repeal of section 654 

is a military necessity, and supports General Conway’s statement 

that current law appears to be working well. If you disagree with 

regard to the conclusions drawn from the Department’s data, we 

would like to hear from you today on this point. 
5 

Before closing, I would like to come back to some critical questions raised by Mr. McKeon’s letter and ask for assurances from 

Mr. Johnson and General Ham that the study committee will address them in detail. 

A critical area that needs to be examined by the study group is 

the impact of a repeal of section 654 on military family readiness. 

As our Chairman, Ike Skelton, frequently points out, ‘‘If mama 

ain’t happy, nobody is happy.’’ Family readiness today equates to 

military readiness. How families feel about military service has a 

direct impact on retention, and repeal of section 654, that will have 

a direct impact on military family culture. 

Tied closely to the potential impact on military family readiness 

and culture is the issue of eligibility for benefits. Specifically, Mr. 

Murphy’s bill, H.R. 1283, to repeal section 654, would not require 

dependent benefits to be provided if such provision would be in violation of the Defense of Marriage Act. Such a prohibition would 

seem to extend to any federal benefit, such as veterans benefits, for 

which married military spouses and dependents or survivors of 

military personnel are eligible. 

Knowing that family readiness is a major factor in maintaining 

the all volunteer force, Mr. McKeon asked for an evaluation of the 

limitation of benefits created by the Defense of Marriage Act in 

H.R. 1283. In terms of its effect on cohesion, morale, good order 

and discipline, would enactment of this limitation create a wide diversity of benefits between legally married couples and families, regardless of their orientation? If so, how would this diversity of benefits affect family readiness, morale and cohesion? To effectively 

implement a repeal of section 654 in a manner that does not create 

disparities between the benefits of legally married couples, regardless of their orientation, would the Defense of Marriage Act have 

to be repealed or amended? 

Finally, a key element of Mr. McKeon’s request is the need for 

credible, substantive, comprehensive and objective data and information from the Department of Defense. I am concerned the Department of Defense may be creating actual or perceived obstacles 

to achieving that objective. Specifically, we understand the study 

group considering has contracted with RAND to carry out on a potential repeal of section 654. If accurate, I believe the study group 

will prejudice from the outset the perceived credibility and objectivity of the results and recommendations. I say this because 

RAND’s 1993 effort raised significant concerns about its comprehensiveness and objectivity. 

More recently, RAND’s prejudgment, as well as lack of original 

work, was evident in a November 2009 report that used data collected by the Palm Center to support, not surprisingly, the repeal 

of section 654. We understand RAND is a well-recognized and competent research entity in many areas. However, given RAND’s history on this issue, I believe even if RAND were able to produce a 

product that was comprehensive and objective in the study group’s 

view, it will never be seen as such by others and will ultimately 

poison the overall perception of the study group’s efforts. 

To help minimize potential criticism that the group study’s survey methods and instruments were designed to cook the books to 

support the President’s desires, I would strongly recommend the 
6 

Department rely primarily, if not exclusively, on its own significant 

in-house survey and study capabilities; that any external survey, 

polling or studies not done by the Department be carried out by 

reputable organizations that have not previously done study polling, survey, or analysis work on this issue; and that you engage 

both proponents and opponents of section 654 to help shape the 

survey and study questions. 

I appreciate the patience of the witnesses and my colleagues for 

this longish opening statement, but given our limited ability to 

question the service chiefs, I thought it was necessary to get some 

of the more critical issues out on the public table in order to ensure 

this study group and the Department of Defense could address 

them in this hearing. And I look forward to your testimony. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Wilson. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Wilson can be found in the Appendix on page 38.] 

Mrs. DAVIS. And Secretary Stanley, do you want to begin? Once 

again, thank you to all of you for being here. 

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

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Dr. STANLEY. Absolutely. Good afternoon, Chairwoman Davis, 

Mr. Wilson, other members. I am, first of all, honored to be here 

to represent the men and women in uniform who are serving today, 

and their families. I have been on the job now for just about two 

weeks. I have to assure you I hit the ground running, and this 

being the first hearing, and I am looking forward to your questions. 

We have prepared a joint statement that I believe you have—myself, Mr. Johnson, and General Ham. 

[The joint prepared statement of Dr. Stanley, Mr. Johnson, and 

General Ham can be found in the Appendix on page 45.] 

Dr. STANLEY. And at this time I will turn it over to them for at 

least the opening comments here. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JEH C. JOHNSON, GENERAL COUNSEL 

OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, CO-CHAIR OF THE 

DON’T ASK, DON’T TELL WORKING GROUP 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you very much. My name is Jeh Johnson. 

I am general counsel for the Department of Defense. As Secretary 

Stanley pointed out, you have our prepared written statements. 

I would just like to say, in summary, that Secretary Gates has 

appointed General Ham and me to co-chair this working group. 

The goal of our working group is to assess the impacts of a repeal 

of 10 U.S.C. 654, should the Congress decide that is the course of 

action that it should take, and to develop an implementation plan 

for repeal—should there be repeal—and to understand all of the 

issues associated with the repeal of 10 U.S.C. 654. 

We are at the outset of that process. We are just beginning at 

this stage. General Ham and I both are committed to conducting 

an objective, thorough, and comprehensive assessment of the repeal 

of 10 U.S.C. 654. Some of the guiding principles that we have set 

for the working group are as follows: 
7 

One, that we should enlist the views and the opinions of a broad 

array of people within the service as well as, as Congressman Wilson has pointed out, military families. We believe that is important. I know Secretary Gates believes that is important. And we 

have asked working group members to set aside their personal 

opinions regarding repeal or not repeal and to go about their work 

in an objective, comprehensive fashion, because, frankly, that is in 

my experience the best way in which members of the U.S. military 

go about their work, if we are all asked to set aside our personal 

opinions and do the best we can as an objective, thorough analysis. 

We intend to solicit the views of organizations and groups that 

are familiar with the issue, not just within the active duty force, 

but organizations that have spent a considerable amount of time 

studying policies, studying the potential for repeal of the policy. 

And that includes groups that have a diverse range of opinions on 

the issue. We are determined to do that. 

We are also determined to conduct our review in a way that 

minimizes any disruption to our activities on the front lines. We 

are engaged in two wars right now. So that is one of the guiding 

principles Secretary Gates has given to us, among others. So, I 

think we all look forward to your questions. 

[The joint prepared statement of Mr. Johnson, Dr. Stanley, and 

General Ham can be found in the Appendix on page 45.] 

STATEMENT OF GEN. CARTER F. HAM, USA, COMMANDING 

GENERAL, U.S. ARMY EUROPE, CO-CHAIR OF THE DON’T ASK, 

DON’T TELL WORKING GROUP 

General HAM. Chairwoman Davis and Congressman Wilson, 

members of the committee, thanks for allowing us to come here 

today. When I was informed that Secretary Gates had selected me 

to co-lead this working group along with Mr. Johnson, I will admit 

to feeling humbled, honored and, frankly, a little bit nervous all at 

the same time. I would also tell you that I feel a strong obligation, 

consistent with our terms of reference, to ensure we have broad 

representation and engagement of the force and of their families. 

To that end, we have built a team that includes a wide variety 

of ranks, ages and military specialties. All services, to include the 

Coast Guard, are included. We have members from the national 

guard and from the service reserves. Key in our effort is to ensure 

the enlisted force has a prominent role. 

Seated behind me is Fleet Master Chief Scott Benning, United 

States Navy, who is the senior enlisted leader for the DOD working 

group. He reports to no one but Mr. Johnson and myself, and has 

full access to all that we do. All of us in uniform who are privileged 

to participate in this effort understand the special trust and confidence placed in us by you, by our Department senior leaders, and 

most importantly, by our fellow service members and their families. 

We shall do our very best every day to merit that trust. Thank 

you. 

[The joint prepared statement of General Ham, Dr. Stanley, and 

Mr. Johnson can be found in the Appendix on page 45.] 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you very much. I certainly appreciate your 

opening comments. And I know we have a number of members 

here. We are going to go to the five-minute rule. And we are cer-
8 

tainly hoping to have two rounds if we can. I am sure we are going 

to be interrupted by votes along the way as well, but we will do 

the best we can. 

And I understand, I believe, Mr. Johnson, you have a 4:00 stop; 

is that correct? 

Mr. JOHNSON. I have an invitation from the Senate Armed Services Committee to come see them at 4:30. 

Mrs. DAVIS. At 4:30. Okay. Thank you so much for that. 

First, I wanted to just clarify the objective of the working group. 

The Secretary of Defense memorandum to the co-chairs of the comprehensive review infers that the objective of the working group 

may not be to facilitate repeal when it states, ‘‘the assessment of 

the implications of such a repeal, should it occur.’’ 

I am just wondering, what does that say to you? I think that, you 

know, you really did try to clarify it, Mr. Johnson. But I am just 

wondering, is there anything you want to add to that in terms of 

clarifying what you believe the objective of this study is? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, Secretary Gates said a month ago in his testimony that the question is, in terms of the guidance we have from 

the President, the issue is not whether but how best. And I know 

Secretary Gates believes that if the Congress and the President determine that repeal of the law is appropriate, we should go about 

that in a careful, deliberate fashion and think through the issues 

associated with repeal. 

And that is what he has appointed us to do, should repeal occur. 

So I hope I have answered your question. 

Mrs. DAVIS. What aspects of the military environment that Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen consider critical to the successful 

implementation of repeal that require research, study and collection of information, can you clarify what aspects require that? 

And then I think, really, my basic question is, you know, what 

do you want to know, and how are you going to find out? 

Mr. JOHNSON. The aspects that come to mind immediately are 

some of the things you seem to make issue of in the terms of reference that were made public, I think, yesterday. 

First of all, readiness, impact on readiness. We are engaged in 

two conflicts right now. I know Secretary Gates would like to know, 

and I know our leaders would like to know, and I assume the Congress would like to know what the impact, if any, either way, 

would be on recruiting and retention. As I mentioned earlier, we 

are interested in assessing the impact on what we call family readiness, our military families and unit cohesion. 

So the way I would sum it up is to say the impact on readiness, 

impact on family readiness, and the effects, if any, on recruitment 

and retention. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Have you all had a chance to think through—and 

again, I know that this may be premature—how you intend to get 

that information? We all can anticipate that there might be some 

surveys, but I also would wonder about face-to-face interviews that 

might be helpful as well. 

We know that we have all had, you know, the discussions here 

around post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), for example, and the 

questions that are asked of returning troops, which may or may not 

be valid down the line. 
9 

And I am just wondering, you know, whether there is an anticipation of a lot of face-to-face discussion, whether it would be done 

more under surveys, and how we reach out to families. What do 

you think is likely going to be a good vehicle for this? 

General HAM. Madam Chairman, I think the issues that you 

have addressed are exactly what we are thinking about. We in 

principle—what Mr. Johnson and I are envisioning at the direction 

of the Secretary of Defense is wide outreach to get a wide variety 

of views. In that effort, we envision a survey instrument of the 

force and of their families to get their sense on the issues that are 

outlined in the terms of reference. 

We absolutely agree with you that that survey must be enriched 

by personal contact, focus groups, if you will, some of them specifically targeted to specialized groups and families within the Department of Defense, active, reserve and national guard. We think that 

personal interaction is very important. 

And thirdly, we envision outreach through social media, so that 

a wide variety of individuals, both within the Department of Defense and without, who will have views on this matter have an opportunity for their voice to be heard. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Do you anticipate that—focusing on whether or how, 

or a combination perhaps of both? 

General HAM. It really is on ‘‘how.’’ As you indicated, Madam 

Chairman, we don’t poll the force on difficult decisions of should we 

do this or should we not do that. In this regard, it is much more 

important for us to, as we survey the force and conduct these focus 

groups and reach out to groups, is to understand the implications 

of repeal, should it occur, so that necessary policy adjustments, if 

required, can be foreseen and envisioned. So it is ‘‘how.’’ 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you. Mr. Wilson. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Again, thank all of 

you. And first time here, good luck. 

And Mr. Johnson and General Ham, I am concerned that the direction given to you by the Secretary of Defense will not result in 

your study group examining two fundamental questions: whether 

current law threatens or undermines readiness in any significant 

way; and two, whether repeal of current law would improve readiness in measurable ways. 

Would the two of you commit to us today that you will examine 

these two questions as part of your study and provide the Secretary 

of Defense with your data, findings, and recommendations regarding them? 

And General Ham, in your personal view, do you believe these 

questions should be examined? If examination of these two issues 

is not in your current charter, would you object to them being 

added, either by the Secretary of Defense or by Congress? 

Mr. JOHNSON. I think, Congressman, let me start. I think that 

if we do a comprehensive and thorough job, a necessary component 

of that would be to look at the two questions you raised. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you. 

General HAM. Congressman, I would agree. It was again clear to 

me in the terms of reference and in our discussion with the Secretary of Defense that military readiness and effectiveness must retain primacy here; that is, that is what you expect of us, that is 
10 

what the nation expects of us, and we will clearly examine that as 

directed in the terms of reference. 

Mr. WILSON. And in looking at both of your backgrounds, I am 

very impressed, and so I am not surprised at the high integrity 

that you both just indicated. Thank you very much. 

Dr. Stanley, taken as a whole, the Department’s own data over 

the last 10 years with regard to recruiting, retention, and end 

strength, as well as practices of the Navy and Air Force to reduce 

manpower levels in wartime, refutes the argument that repeal of 

section 654 is a military necessity, and supports General Conway’s 

statement that current law appears to be working. 

Do you agree with this assessment? Why or why not? 

Dr. STANLEY. Well, in my opening statement I said that I have 

been here for a couple of weeks, but I am not new to this discussion. As I joined the Secretariat, my marching orders were pretty 

clear. I am open-minded. The Secretary of Defense has given me 

some orders here that basically lay out exactly what we are expected to do, which is to study, make an assessment, and do a review to look into the questions or the issue that you are raising 

right now. So agreeing or disagreeing with General Conway would 

actually be part of, at the end of the day, the process of exactly 

what do we have in the assessment. 

Mr. WILSON. And again, your background is such that I take 

what you say very accurately. And General Ham, I would like to 

have your personal views on, one, whether the repeal of section 654 

is a military necessity; and two, whether you agree with General 

Conway that current law, that section 654 is working. 

General HAM. Congressman, my personal view is that we should 

carefully study the implications of repeal, should that occur, before 

we make change. And I believe that is precisely what Secretary 

Gates has charged Mr. Johnson and myself with doing. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you. And Dr. Stanley, based on the data provided by your Department, discharge of people under section 654 

does not seem to have had any effect on the quality, ability of the 

military services to recruit and retain high-quality people in numbers that meet or exceed Department and service requirements. 

Moreover, section 654 has not inhibited the Army, the Marine 

Corps or national guard from rapidly expanding their manpower 

levels, while fighting two wars, at rates of growth that exceeded expectations. Do you agree with the assessment that section 654 is 

no significant barrier to successful recruiting, retention, and end 

strength growth in wartime? 

Dr. STANLEY. Congressman, I hope that the assessment or the review that we are going to be doing will be able to answer that 

question. I can’t answer that question right now, but I will say that 

I know that as we go forward we will be able to answer more accurately in the future. I am sure we will. 

Mr. WILSON. Again, thank all of you for your effort. I wish you 

well as you pursue this issue. And I yield the balance of my time. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you. Dr. Snyder. 

Dr. SNYDER. Thank you, Madam Chairman. And thank you for 

doing this hearing. Gentlemen, thank you for being here. I appreciate your work at this important time in our history. I want to as-
11 

sure you, I think your work is not only important, but it will be 

used. 

I know that there are people who are opposed to changing this 

policy. The policy will be changed. I mean, even some of those people who are opposed to the change recognize it will be changed. 

There is a generational thing going on here. America is changing, 

the world is changing, and your work will be put to good use. 

Whether it will be this month, this year, next year, the following 

year, I don’t know. But if you do a good job, you will provide guidelines to your country and your military. And we appreciate your 

work. 

I wanted to ask, Mr. Johnson, you probably heard this question 

I have asked about 17 times, and you and I have had some discussions about the split of authority between the Ninth Circuit and 

the First Circuit. And when I hear people say, as Senator McCain 

has said, and my good friend, the Commandant has said, that the 

current policy is working well, I have to ask what their definition 

of working well is. 

When you have different sections of the country under different 

legal opinions about exactly what the reach and authority of that 

law is, that is not my definition of working well. 

My question is: How have you and the military responded in the 

Ninth Circuit? What are you doing differently now in the States of 

California, Idaho, Oregon, and Washington, in light of the Ninth 

Circuit opinion which is not being appealed? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Dr. Snyder, as you and I have discussed in the 

past, the decision in Witt v. Department of the Air Force in the 

Ninth Circuit creates what we lawyers call a split in the circuits. 

The rule of law there is different than the rule of law in all the 

other circuits. We in the Department of Justice have been very actively working through how that split in the circuits should be applied and implemented throughout the force. We have put out guidance to our lawyers to inform them of the decision. I certainly 

have. And we continue to work through how to address whatever 

pending cases exist within the Ninth Circuit versus the other circuits. So it is something we are actively looking at right now with 

the Department of Justice. 

Dr. SNYDER. One of the service Secretaries made a comment here 

at this committee last week, full committee, that they were applying the law nationally the same, consistently. And when I said, are 

we ignoring the Ninth Circuit, there was a little bit of backpedaling. But it is a terrible problem, I think, for you to be in. 

Now, the second part of that question is: What are you doing 

with regard to—not at the legal level. I mean, you can certainly 

take every case to the courts and lose at the District Court level 

who will cite the Ninth Circuit over and over and over again to 

States, or you can send direction to commanders and legal authorities throughout those States that say there is now a category of gay 

and lesbian service members that, if they meet these following criteria, they indeed can serve, even though we know they are gay 

and lesbian. 

Now, have you made those kinds of statements? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well—— 
12 

Dr. SNYDER. Otherwise, you are going to just have a series of litigations, are you not? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, the Witt case, as you know, Congressman, 

requires an intermediate level of constitutional scrutiny to the policy. We have to balance that against applying the law as the Congress has given to us. We say consistently within the Department 

of Defense that we apply the law, we faithfully implement the law 

in as fair and as balanced a way possible. We have got to balance 

that against the rule of law that Witt has created for us in the 

Ninth Circuit. It is a complex exercise that we are working through 

right now with the Department of Justice. I have had discussions 

with them as recently as yesterday on this very topic. 

Dr. SNYDER. So at this time, there have been no different directions given to base commanders, Judge Advocate General (JAG) officers, that a certain number of cases meeting certain criteria, 

there is no reason to move ahead with those cases because they 

would be overturned in the Ninth Circuit. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Not right now, in any formal way, but it is something I am actively thinking about. 

Dr. SNYDER. I will ask one quick question in my 13 remaining 

seconds. In your terms of reference, you say, ‘‘Recommend appropriate changes of any of the Uniform Code of Military Justice 

(UCMJ).’’ Is one of those provisions under consideration, the sodomy section that prohibits oral sex between married men and 

women? 

Mr. JOHNSON. We are undertaking a comprehensive review of the 

UCMJ, and I would imagine that that would be one of the provisions we would focus on. But the UCMJ is a focus of our review. 

Dr. SNYDER. I understand. Thank you. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you. Mr. Murphy is next. 

Mr. MURPHY. Thank you, Mrs. Chairman. Thank you for everybody on the group today. Mr. Johnson, General Stanley—and General Stanley, I know you are two weeks, and this is your first hearing. So congratulations. And General Ham, I know, General Ham, 

you mentioned that you were nervous a little serving as co-chair. 

I am sure you were nervous as an 18-year-old infantryman, or I 

should say paratrooper in the 82nd Airborne Division, but we are 

not going to be asking you to jump out of any perfectly fine airplanes today or in the future. But we do appreciate your service to 

our country. We understand this is an issue that the American people and our military care deeply about. 

And I want to echo what Chairwoman Davis said, in that be very 

clear that what we are talking about today is that this is a hearing—it is not to discuss if we are going to repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t 

Tell, because it has been pretty clear that President Obama, Admiral Mullen, and Secretary Gates have already made it very clear 

that we are going to repeal the law. 

The discussion today, though, is how the services will implement 

repeal in a way that will ensure that there is no disruption in our 

force. I am grateful that you volunteered to co-chair the Don’t Ask, 

Don’t Tell working group. We should move forward with care. And 

we should also understand that this review, though, cannot be an 

excuse for delay. Repeal must be a dual-track process. The working 

group and the services must figure out how to implement the 
13 

changes, but it is the Congress’ duty to change the law. There is 

no reason why these two processes cannot happen simultaneously. 

The 2010 Defense Authorization Act did not become law until October 28, 2009. The 2009 Defense Authorization Act became law on 

October 14, 2008. My point is that if we attach repeal of Don’t Ask, 

Don’t Tell in the fiscal year 2011 defense bill, it will not likely become law until at least seven months from today. 

Secretary Gates stated that the working group, your working 

group, will have finished its work by December 1 of this year, 2010. 

So Congress could put repeal language in this year’s Defense Authorization Act with a delayed date of enactment, which is how it 

is written currently. So the statute would be changed at the end 

of this year, but full repeal would not take effect until sometime 

in 2011. 

Would you agree that this would give your group, your working 

group, ample time to complete its study and prepare the services 

for implementation of its findings? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Congressman Murphy, I think that the approach 

you have just outlined, there are some aspects of it that we should 

carefully consider. I think there are some intriguing aspects to it. 

I want to be sure that in our review, we hit all of the right issues, 

make all the adequate, thorough assessments. I would think that 

our review might inform what this Congress wants. 

So our work is due to the Secretary of Defense on December 1. 

That may well touch upon how the Congress decides to go about 

repeal. So I want to think about and carefully study the approach 

you have outlined. But as I see it, our work would not just be relevant to any implementing regulations, but it may well be relevant 

to how you fashion a legislative approach. 

Mr. MURPHY. But Mr. Johnson, you would agree that at the same 

time that you are working on the working group, the Congress can 

get busy in looking at the repeal and have the debate about finally 

repealing the law. 

Mr. JOHNSON. I would not undertake to tell the Congress about 

what to do with their timetable. 

Mr. MURPHY. So you do not oppose Congress taking such action. 

Mr. JOHNSON. I am not here to oppose or support any particular 

congressional action. We are here to do an exhaustive, thorough, 

comprehensive review of the impact of repeal of the policy. 

Mr. MURPHY. Okay. Anybody else? 

Opponents of the repeal argue that allowing open service members would harm morale and unit cohesion. Yet my experience in 

the Army and the stories that I hear from our young American heroes point to the exact opposite. 

You know, one company commander who happened to be gay, 

currently serving his second deployment in Afghanistan, wrote me 

a letter recently that exemplified how Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell harms 

unit cohesion. He discussed how his repeated deployments since 9/ 

11 have broken up his relationship with his partner, but also how 

Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell made it impossible for him to confide in his 

battle buddies. He had thought of suicide, but had no one to turn 

to because of fear of losing his job. 

He wrote to me. He said, and I quote, ‘‘Gay soldiers should have 

the right to go to a commander, a first sergeant, or a battle buddy, 
14 

and not have to worry about the ramifications of Don’t Ask, Don’t 

Tell. The Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy shackles the hands of leaders 

like me. It prevents us from giving our all to our troops and a supportive leadership that they deserve.’’ The Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell 

policy throws up walls between battle buddies. 

There are an estimated 66,000 gays and lesbians currently serving, and they are the ones who are most impacted by Don’t Ask, 

Don’t Tell. How is the working group going to take into account the 

experiences and views of gay service members, like this officer, 

without violating Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell? 

Mrs. DAVIS. I hope we can get that response in as we continue, 

and perhaps you can ask it again later. Okay, thank you. Mr. 

Fleming. Dr. Fleming. 

Dr. FLEMING. Yes, thank you, Madam Chairman. Just a comment before I ask questions. I realize that the President wants this 

policy, but he is not a king. We will have to vote on that. So I don’t 

think that our President can decide unilaterally that we will repeal 

Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. 

My question to the three panel members, first, is: Is the primary 

purpose of our military to stand ready to protect Americans or to 

be a force for social change? I would like to hear from each one of 

you. 

Mr. JOHNSON. The primary purpose of the United States military 

is to defend the nation. 

Dr. FLEMING. Okay. Yes, sir. 

Dr. STANLEY. I concur. The primary purpose is to defend our nation. 

General HAM. Absolutely agree. 

Dr. FLEMING. Yes, sir. Thank you. 

I am not sure who is best able to answer this question, but I am 

sure among the three of you, someone will be able to. How well are 

we meeting recruiting goals at this point, or certainly in the year 

2009? 

Dr. STANLEY. We are not only meeting but exceeding in the active, national guard and reserve, our goals across the board. 

Dr. FLEMING. Okay. So that would certainly imply—I certainly 

infer from that that our current policy doesn’t appear to be hurting 

our recruitment abilities at this point. How many service members 

were removed as a result of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy in 2009? 

Mr. JOHNSON. 428. 

Dr. FLEMING. 428. 

Mr. JOHNSON. That is the number that I have, 428. 

Dr. FLEMING. And that is for the year 2009? 

Mr. JOHNSON. I could be off by a couple, but I think it is 428. 

Dr. FLEMING. Right. And what is the total size of our military? 

Mrs. DAVIS. Excuse me, Mr. Johnson, if you could just make sure 

that we hear you. Bring your mike—just put it a little closer to 

you. That would be great. 

Mr. JOHNSON. The number I mentioned was 428. 

Dr. FLEMING. Okay. 

Dr. STANLEY. Counting the approximate with national guard, reserve and active, because it is hard to separate total force, we are 

about 3 million. 
15 

Dr. FLEMING. Okay. So less than 500 out of 3 million. So it seems 

to be certainly not a lot of people are being affected one way or another, service members, at least being removed, I think we could 

all agree percentage-wise, and I would just really open the floor to 

what do you see, from your standpoint, what have you seen in 

terms of the current policy and how it is adversely affecting readiness for our military? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Congressman, I will let General Ham answer that. 

I will just at the outset say that we are at the beginning of the 

process and that is one of the things that we are—— 

Dr. FLEMING. Well, I am just asking you to draw on your experience. You know, to begin with, as I understand it, this—what we 

are doing is pivoting off of a 1993 RAND study that studied not 

whether to implement this policy, but how best to implement the 

policy, and that we are going to try to I guess update the study. 

Am I correct about that? 

General HAM. Yes, Congressman, that is one of the things that 

Secretary Gates has directed us to do. 

Dr. FLEMING. Right. So I was just asking your personal opinions 

and observations with your exposure to the military, what have you 

seen, what observations have you made in which our current policy 

has harmed our ability in terms of readiness and the ability to defend the Nation? 

General HAM. It is clear to me, as a long-serving soldier, that our 

military is clearly the best military in the world. The challenge to 

us, and the task passed to Mr. Johnson and myself, is to assess the 

impact on that standing, should the current law be repealed. So 

that is what we shall endeavor to do. 

We have not yet decided exactly how to do that. But we know 

at the beginning of this process, that that is foundational to our 

work, is to assess the impact on readiness, should the law be repealed. 

Dr. FLEMING. Any other gentlemen? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Congressman, if I could just go back to your first 

question. The primary mission of the United States military, as I 

said, is to defend the nation. Having said that, I think that the 

U.S. military is proud of the fact that it is one of the most diverse 

institutions in America, and we have a track record for being a diverse institution. 

Somebody once told me—and I don’t know whether this is, in 

fact, true—but somebody once told me that the United States military is the community where interracial marriage is most prevalent. It wouldn’t surprise me if that were, in fact, the case. But we 

are very proud of our racial and cultural diversity of people who 

are all dedicated to a common mission once they have been given 

their orders to do something. 

Dr. FLEMING. But you would agree that the primary purpose is 

not to invoke social change, but to be ready for war, which we do 

frequently around here, as you know. 

So, thank you gentlemen. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you. Mr. Johnson. 

Mr. JOHNSON OF GEORGIA. Thank you, Madam Chairman, for 

holding this hearing. I am in full support of and a cosponsor of 

H.R. 1283, which my colleague, Patrick Murphy of Pennsylvania 
16 

had the courage to introduce. And I am also in favor of doing right 

by the people who are called, who give of themselves to protect the 

rights that we hold dear. And whether or not they are gay, lesbian, 

straight, bisexual, transgendered individuals, makes no difference. 

If you were to cut people open, to dissect them, after you looked 

at them, you would see that they have got eyes, ears, nose, mouth, 

teeth, legs, two legs, two arms. They have, you go inside—I’m not 

going to talk about what else I could see from the outside, but you 

go inside, everybody’s got a brain, thyroid, heart that hurts when 

you get discriminated against. Everybody’s got, you know, an intestinal system, respiratory system. We are all the same people regardless of the color, regardless of nationality, regardless of sexual 

identity. That is just a basic fact. 

And so, when we talk about defending freedom in this country, 

it is hypocritical for us to have a government-sponsored discrimination set up. And it really needs to change. And Mr. Murphy, I admire your courage, being a military man yourself, the classic sergeant, as far as I am concerned. And now you have become a general in my mind as far as prosecuting this war on discrimination 

in the military. To do a study and to—so, in other words, the point 

I am making, let’s go ahead and pass H.R. 1283 now, and then during the transition period, we can look into all of the complicated 

issues that you all need to look into. No question about it. 

But let’s change the policy so that we send a message to those 

who would be surveyed under your policy that, let’s, you know, let’s 

not send the wrong message as we go out and talk to people, servicemen and women and their families, and hear what their 

thoughts are on the process. 

What you are going to find is some people are polarized. Some 

people don’t like gays, and other people do. And that is just going 

to be the end of it. The question is: What kind of policy is the 

United States Government going to have? Is it going to allow this 

discrimination or is it going to ban it and then expect the men and 

women in service for this country to abide by the change? And I 

believe that those men and women will, if they have got a problem. 

And so having said that, are we sending a message with our current policy that we have in place, are we sending a message when 

we go out and survey men and women in the military insofar as 

their personal opinions about removal of this policy which is evidenced in section 654? 

Mr. JOHNSON. We, Congressmen, intend to do a comprehensive, 

methodical study of the assessments of repeal, which I expect will 

include some form of survey. 

Mr. JOHNSON OF GEORGIA. Why can’t it be done after passage of 

the legislation? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, that depends in large part on what type of 

legislation, if any, the Congress chooses to adopt. As I said earlier 

to Congressman Murphy, the Secretary of Defense believes that we 

should go about repeal in a careful, methodical way and first study 

the impact, all of the impacts of repeal of the current policy. I 

would think that the Congress would like to hear from us first before undertaking to consider repeal of section 654 of title 10 U.S.C. 

I suspect many in Congress would ask for the results of our study 

before taking this issue up. 
17 

But as I said to Congressman Murphy, in effect a two-track approach is one that I think we will have to consider in some form. 

I am not ruling that out or ruling it in. We are at the beginning 

of this process, and the Congress on its own, in its wisdom, could 

choose to undertake legislative action in this area, irrespective of 

what we do. But I would think that Members of Congress would 

like to go about this being informed by our work. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you. Ms. Tsongas. 

Ms. TSONGAS. I would like to sort of follow a track that we sort 

of have been hearing a little bit here. And the reason is, as you see 

the questions we have, we tend to break down by our party and 

our view of whether or not we should go forward with the repeal 

of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. And given our fundamental belief, it 

guides us in our questions and our views of how things should proceed. 

And given your very important role in developing an approach 

should Congress repeal this policy, I just would like to ask you 

each of you personally how you feel about it, because I think as you 

have seen in all of us, it has guided our view and the questions we 

ask. I think really the goal is to see how you craft up a process that 

is fair and open to repeal or not, but somehow is guided by the very 

conflicting views that understanding that should we repeal it, you 

have to move forward. 

I would like to ask each of you your personal views on repealing 

Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, without a doubt I am a member of the 

Obama administration. The President has said he would like the 

Congress to repeal. So I am part of his administration. Having said 

that, my assignment and General Ham’s assignment is to do an objective, comprehensive review of the implications of repeal of the 

policy. And what General Ham and I are really trying to do here 

in recruiting people to our working group and soliciting views from 

the force is to, within our working group, not solicit personal opinions and not have people take sides on what is a very emotional 

issue so we can gather information in an objective, thorough way 

and encourage people to tell us what they think about the impact 

of repeal. 

So I am trying very hard to approach this in an objective, thorough, comprehensive fashion and create an environment conducive 

to others within the force telling us what they think the impact of 

repeal would be. But I am without a doubt a member of the Obama 

administration, but I am trying to approach my assignment like a 

lawyer, as for me, to gather information in an objective and thorough way. 

Ms. TSONGAS. Doctor. 

Dr. STANLEY. Congresswoman, as the Under Secretary of Defense 

for Personnel and Readiness, as soon as I assume that responsibility, knowing that I am a part of the Obama administration, and 

knowing exactly what the intent was with regard to repeal, my job 

immediately became obviously to be not only open-minded and objective, but to be ready if Congress actually repealed the law. So, 

I mean, literally the whole issue of readiness is center, it is like 

my plumb line, and the working group that I am not an active part 

of, but have—you know, working with them, is something that I 
18 

am very focused on because I have to make sure that we are ready 

in the Department of Defense if, in fact, Congress repeals the law. 

Ms. TSONGAS. General. 

General HAM. Congresswoman, as stated, my personal view is 

that I think it is very important that we understand the impacts 

of repeal should it occur, and that is where I am personally. I really want to have a better understanding of what the impacts may 

be before repeal occurs. That is, frankly, why I am honored to be 

a part of this effort, because I think that is exactly the question 

we are going to answer. 

Ms. TSONGAS. As you crafted and put together the working 

group, what is the mechanism by which you find balance? I think 

there is a variety of views here. What is the mechanism by which 

you make sure as you are bringing others into the group that you 

find a balanced approach so that we can move forward? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, to be sure, in reaching out to bringing people 

to the working group, we haven’t asked their personal views about 

the policy. We want objective, thoughtful people. We have endeavored to get working group members from all four services, from a 

cross section. Secretary Gates believes that the enlisted force, hearing from the enlisted force in particular, is very important, and the 

group consists of civilian and military. When we sit around a conference table with our working group leaders, most of the people 

at the conference table are in uniform. And I think that that is essential in conducting this. 

Ms. TSONGAS. It will eventually go back to Congressman Murphy’s question, too, about how you are going to solicit the opinion 

of gays and lesbians currently serving without putting them at risk 

so you get that full, balanced view of those actively serving today. 

Mr. JOHNSON. That is something we want to do, and we are looking at mechanisms for doing that. 

Ms. TSONGAS. Thank you. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you. 

Ms. Sanchez. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. And thank you 

for having this hearing. 

I think it is very important. I wish we could just get this done 

and move on as some—many other militaries have. At least 28 

other countries, including Great Britain, Australia, Canada and 

Israel, already allow open service by gay and lesbian service members. And the experiences of these countries show that open service 

works, and that implementation of open service has been—historically been uneventful in those countries. 

So my question to you will be are you going to look at the experiences of these other countries that have led with open service during your review of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell? And what would you expect to learn from these experiences? How would you expect to use 

that in your deliberations and your report? 

General HAM. Congresswoman, I will start off. It is an important 

part of our study, in two particular ways. First, we have been directed by Secretary Gates to update the 1993 study performed by 

RAND, which did look at what are called analogous institutions, 

which included the foreign militaries. So an updating of that, I 

think, is required by the study, and so we shall do. 
19 

Secondly, both Mr. Johnson and I have already met with senior 

leaders, both military and civilian, from other nations’ militaries. 

Last week I was in Israel. I have scheduled visits to other European nations upcoming in the near future. We will have the opportunity to engage with their senior leadership, both military and civilian, to discuss precisely the matters that you address: How did 

they implement? What were the challenges, if any, that they encountered? In some cases after an initial period of implementation, 

were there other manifestations that affected sometime after laws 

or policy changes? So I think we have a good way ahead to look 

at foreign militaries. 

Having said that, we must understand that our military is our 

military, and we have a uniquely American culture and approach 

to how we do things. But I believe that our effort, and certainly 

this working group’s effort, will be informed by the experience of 

others. 

Mr. JOHNSON. I agree, Congresswoman. I think it is relevant information. We intend to look at that issue, recognizing that the 

United States military is unique in its size and its scope. There is 

no perfect comparator to the United States military, but I think it 

is relevant information. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. I would agree, I think it is relevant information, 

especially when you look at all the work that we do on the interchangeability of our military working with other militaries, whether it is with respect to NATO, for example, or just—I sit on Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation (WHINSEC), 

where we work with Latin American countries to teach their military about the way we work and to get them to work more in a 

civilian to military standpoint, for example. So I think that is important, especially when you look at, for example, the NATO lines, 

which I believe has only two countries right now that do not have 

openly gay members serving, if you will. That would be the United 

States and Turkey. 

My next question is the military currently has strict regulations 

regarding sexual assault, fraternization and other illegal or inappropriate conduct. Nothing about open service seems to indicate 

that these rules would not be able to be applied directly or in an 

equal manner to gay and straight service members. So why would 

the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell require a change to the current 

code of conduct? And shouldn’t gay and straight members be held 

to the same strict standards that we have, standards that already 

exist in our code? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Congresswoman, I don’t know that a repeal of a 

policy would require any changes to the rules on fraternization or 

otherwise. It is one of the things we are going to look at, but I don’t 

assume that it would or it wouldn’t. There are many who believe 

what you just said. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Thank you. Thank you, gentlemen. In the interest 

of time, I will yield back. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you very much. 

I think we are going to try and do another round quickly. I am 

going to ask one or two questions, and then Dr. Fleming. I think 

some Members would certainly like to come back. I know, Mr. 

Johnson, you are not able to. 
20 

Secretary Stanley and General Ham, can you come back? We 

have about maybe as much as 40 minutes. Is that going to be a 

problem for you? You can come back? 

Dr. STANLEY. I can come back. 

General HAM. I can come back. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Great. Thank you very much. 

Quickly, I wanted to get to the issue that has been posed, and 

I think that Secretary Gates had said that something should be 

done about third-party outings, and suggested that perhaps by 

mid-March that you would have had a chance to look at seeing if 

the policy could be done in a fairer manner. And actually it was 

suggested that this could be done by mid-March. Can you confirm 

that the working group will be prepared to look at those possible 

changes? And do you believe that Congress should have an opportunity as well to look at those proposed changes? 

Mr. JOHNSON. What Secretary Gates has directed me to do is to 

review the implementing regulations and look to see whether within the confines of the existing law, and that is the key, within the 

confines of the existing law, the regulations can be revised in a way 

to make them fairer and more appropriate. That he asked me to 

do, and that is separate and apart from the working group’s assessment. And he has put me on a 45-day track, which would mean 

that my recommendation to him is due on or about March 19th. 

And that is something that is under way. We are doing that right 

now. We are getting comprehensive input from the services on that 

topic, and I expect that we will meet our 45-day timeline. 

Mrs. DAVIS. I believe that Mr. Murphy had asked earlier, and I 

cut him off, how you are going to get the views of service members 

who are gay and lesbian that are serving without any sense of retribution. Do you have anything else you would want to add to that 

statement? 

Mr. JOHNSON. We think that is something we should do, and we 

are looking at mechanisms for doing that within the confines of the 

law. 

Mrs. DAVIS. And finally, just from this question, women tend to 

be separated proportionally greater than men. Have you had a 

chance to look at that issue? Is that something that you think you 

will be taking a look at? And why that is the case, and how would 

it impact what you are doing? 

General HAM. Madam Chairwoman, I think it is obvious to all 

of us the statistics tell us that. And I think as part of our review 

is to try to gain an understanding as to why that is; are there some 

underlying causes for that disparity to occur. And again, keeping 

military readiness and effectiveness foremost in our minds as we 

look toward how policies might change should the law be repealed, 

I think that would be an important consideration, the gender difference. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you. 

I am going to turn to—Mr. Wilson, I believe, is going to defer to 

Dr. Fleming. 

Dr. FLEMING. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

One quick question. This report that you are going to do is due 

in December; is that correct? December of this year. 

Mr. JOHNSON. December 1st. 
21 

Dr. FLEMING. Have you looked at or are you considering what 

other laws, rules, policies that this may impact that are not directly related to this? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Our mandate is to look at the impact of a repeal 

of section 654 of title 10 U.S.C. I do not construe our mandate to 

make recommendations about the repeal or amendment of any 

other law. 

Dr. FLEMING. Are you going to study the impact that that might 

have on others, unintended? I mean, obviously if this repeal were 

to occur, we could get unintended consequences that no one would 

be happy with. Certainly we should look out into the horizon to see 

if there might be others. And I am just asking if that is something 

the panel would be looking at. 

Mr. JOHNSON. I would say that that is part of our mandate, consequences. 

Dr. FLEMING. I would certainly ask that if it is not planned, that 

you do plan to do that, to take a look at what the unintended consequences might be for repealing section 654. 

And with that I yield back. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you. 

So we will come back in about 30 to 40 minutes, and really appreciate your hanging around with us this afternoon. Thank you 

very much. 

Mr. Johnson, good luck. We thank you for saying yes. We know 

this was a volunteer activity of sorts, but we know what that is 

like. 

Mr. JOHNSON. You are assuming it was voluntary. 

Mrs. DAVIS. We appreciate it very much. We will be back. I certainly encourage Members to come back. 

[Recess.] 

Mrs. DAVIS. Okay. Thank you very much for waiting during that 

voting period. We are going to begin again. We will begin with Dr. 

Snyder. 

Dr. SNYDER. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

And thank you for being here. 

I want to visit this issue that we have talked on and touched on 

already today about how do you get input from lesbians and gays 

that are already serving? Mr. Murphy mentioned the problem of 

gays and lesbians that are serving being able to share with—I 

guess the term was ‘‘battle buddies,’’ some of the joys and sorrows 

of life. 

I was talking with a lesbian colonel a week or two ago. She described to me a situation that she knows has happened where 

somebody serving in Iraq on Skype was able to watch in real time 

the birth of his child. Sitting right next to him was a lesbian 

woman who had a partner back home who was pregnant, and she 

knew she would not be able to do that same thing; that she put 

herself at risk for losing her job and the ability to support her family, her growing family. Those are the kinds—just one narrow example—the kind of risks that gays and lesbians in the service feel. 

So I don’t see how you gather the kind of information, have the 

kind of exchanges you want. 

General, describe that for me. I suspect since you have been appointed, you have already had people come up to you, 
22 

heterosexuals, express views back and forth against repeal. My 

guess is you haven’t had full-bird colonels or general officers come 

up to you and say, I want you to know that I am lesbian or gay, 

and I really think this policy should be repealed. They would be 

foolish to have that kind of exchange with you; it puts their career 

at risk. 

So how are we going to do this to gather the kind of information 

you want when you talk about readiness issues? I consider the situation I described a readiness issue. That woman will not be able 

to view the birth of her child the way that her partner could. 

General HAM. Congressman, you ask a great question, and today 

we don’t have a great answer for you. Other than the fact that Mr. 

Johnson and I both agree that we must find a way for the views 

of homosexuals who are currently serving in the military to have 

their voice heard without triggering the separation actions which 

are currently required by law. I am not sure how we are going to 

go do that just yet, but we are looking for ways. 

A way that we know we can do it is there is a third party conducting a focus group or conducting interviews that would be outside of the Federal Government, outside of the Department of Defense, and not obliged to pass that information that—prohibited 

from passing that information, personalized information, to myself 

or Mr. Johnson such that would trigger separation action under the 

current law. We will work for ways to do that. 

It is also important for us, as I mentioned at the outset, as we 

endeavor to explore opportunities to use social media as an opportunity for individuals to report anonymously their concerns. 

So we share with you the concern and the absolute necessity to 

reach out and hear from homosexuals who are today serving in the 

force. We don’t yet know how to do that, but my pledge to you is 

that we will find a way, and we will do that. We know that we 

have an opportunity to engage those who have been separated 

under this current law. We think that would be instructive to us, 

but those who are currently serving as a special group and require 

special attention as to how we gain their insights, again without 

triggering separation action. 

Dr. SNYDER. I asked General Casey a week or so ago, I think I 

kind of rudely phrased my question, why do I have more confidence 

in your leadership skills than you do? And my point being that I 

have no doubt, given all the challenges the military has faced over 

the last couple decades, the level of training, the level of professionalism, my experience as an Armed Services Committee member 

for almost 14 years now, that whatever this Congress decides, that 

you all will be able to carry it out at all levels of leadership. 

So my question for you, General Ham, is should we follow the 

recommendation of Mr. Murphy and do the repeal, recognizing that 

it will be several months, if not longer, before it would be fully implicated, do you have any doubt of the leadership skills of the military today to be able to carry out that policy in an effective way? 

General HAM. Congressman, when I enlisted as a private and 

served in the 82nd Airborne Division, I took an oath, and as a general I took an oath. And that oath begins that I will support and 

defend the Constitution of the United States. That means we obey 

the law, and we follow the law in all that we do. And if the law 
23 

changes, there is no doubt in my mind that the leadership within 

the Department of Defense and in the uniformed services will follow the law as required and with full energy. 

Dr. SNYDER. Thank you. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you. 

Mr. Murphy. 

Mr. MURPHY. Thanks, Madam Chair. 

And, General Ham, thank you for that opening statement. And 

I couldn’t agree more. And that was a great honor not just to serve 

in the 82nd Airborne Division, but also to teach what that Constitution stands for to the next generation of military leaders when 

I taught firsties at West Point for a few years, and then deployed 

with those young second lieutenants in two deployments after 9/11. 

I know there will be a lot of facts and studies thrown your way 

as you go about your due diligence. I applaud you, and I am praying for you, as everyone else in the country is, because it is important work. 

I am sure there is no doubt that you have either already or will 

read a few months ago the Joint Force Quarterly, titled ‘‘The Efficacy of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’’ by Colonel Prakash from the United 

States Air Force. And for those who are not aware, Joint Force 

Quarterly is published for the Chairman and the Joint Chiefs of 

Staff by the National Defense University. The Colonel obviously 

spoke in his article and giving a balanced view of the debate within 

the military community. And while I encourage everyone to read 

that article, which I thought was very well done, also I would like 

to point out several of the most striking quotes that I thought were 

worth noting. And I quote, ‘‘There are potential lessons to learn 

from other countries that have lifted the ban on homosexuals serving openly. There was no mass exodus of heterosexuals, and there 

was [also] no mass ‘coming out’ of homosexuals. Prior to lifting 

their bans, in Canada 62 percent of the servicemen stated they 

would refuse to share showers with a gay soldier, and in the 

United Kingdom, two-thirds of males stated that they would not 

willingly serve in the military if gays were allowed. In both cases, 

after lifting their bans, the result was ‘no-effect.’ In a survey of 

over 100 experts from Australia, Canada, Israel and the United 

Kingdom, it was found that all agree the decision to lift the ban 

on homosexuals had no impact on military performance, readiness, 

cohesion, or ability to recruit or retain, nor did it increase the HIV 

rate among troops.’’ 

He concluded his article by saying, Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell ‘‘has 

been costly both in personnel and treasure. In an attempt to allow 

homosexual Servicemembers to serve quietly, a law was created 

that forces a compromise in integrity, conflicts with the American 

creed of ‘equality for all,’ places commanders in difficult moral dilemmas, and is ultimately more damaging to the unit cohesion its 

stated purpose is to preserve. Furthermore, after a careful examination, there is no scientific evidence to support the claim that 

unit cohesion will be negatively affected if homosexuals serve openly. In fact, the necessarily speculative psychological predictions are 

that it will not impact combat effectiveness. . . . Based on this research, it is not time for the administration to reexamine the issue; 
24 

rather, it is time for the administration to examine how to implement the repeal of the ban.’’ 

And I know you are going to look at as far as how it affects gay 

and lesbian soldiers, and marines, and airmen in showers in our 

military. And I understand we have kicked out 13,000 in the past 

almost 17 years. I also understand the estimate is there are 66,000 

gays and lesbians currently serving in our military that are, frankly, willing to take a bullet for every single one of us in this room, 

and for the Americans in our country. 

But I also think that when we look at not just those 66,000, it 

is also those 13,500 units out there that they are a part of, and the 

fact that when you rip out one of those, when you initiate a chapter 

15 hearing just because there is a SAM, a statement, act, or marriage, that means that you are having an administrative hearing 

to determine whether someone is gay or someone is straight. I have 

seen cases and I heard of soldiers that they were actually straight 

and had to go prove and get women to testify that they slept with 

them, that they were really straight. And when our country is at 

war right now—and I am not trying to lecture you, I am just very 

passionate about it, so please don’t take it against you. But when 

you understand that there was 3,000 innocent Americans that were 

killed, that were murdered on 9/11, that we are fighting against 

people that want to still kill us today, and we are fighting against 

al Qaeda that are doing all they can to go into Pakistan to get their 

hands on their nuclear weapons, we need to focus energy on capturing and killing the enemies of the United States of America, not 

to have hearings to determine whether or not they are gay or 

straight and how it affects the 13,500 units that are all working 

as one team, no matter what their race is, their color, their creed, 

or their sexual orientation. 

Gentlemen, I appreciate what you are doing for our country, and 

I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you. 

Ms. Tsongas. 

Ms. TSONGAS. I think Congressman Murphy has said it so well 

about the concerns we have. And as we have asked so many times 

how you are going to protect gay and lesbians service members as 

you do the work going forward, and when you hear that huge number of 13,000-plus, I would hate to see that in the course of your 

doing this work any single member separated because they are 

willing to come forward and talk to you. And as you talk about the 

hoops you are going to have to jump through to solicit their opinion 

to put in place third-party people who don’t have the same responsibility, it just seems to me a more appropriate way to go forward 

was simply to put in place a moratorium so that you can do your 

work, do it well, get the full range of opinions without anybody 

fearing reprisal, and go on from there. 

So I welcome your thoughts on something that is a moratorium, 

a straightforward, simple, but sounds to me like it is going to become so layered in the interest of getting all the appropriate opinions that you need. And related to that, too, General Ham, you talk 

about soliciting information from families. I am just also curious as 

to how you define a family. Is it parents, spouse, siblings? And how 
25 

as well you would get the opinions from gay and lesbians’ family 

members. 

General HAM. Congresswoman, again, I think it is vitally important that we seek the opinions and the views and the effects on 

readiness that homosexuals who are currently serving can express 

to us. Again, I am not certain yet how to do that. I am confident 

we will find a way to be able to do that without triggering the separation actions that are required by the current law. As we work our 

way through this, I am confident that we would keep you informed 

as to how we might be able to do that. 

With respect to your question about families, it is not further defined in our terms of reference. And so I think Mr. Johnson and 

I have some degree of latitude in how we reach out to the families 

that are supporting our servicemen and women in the force today. 

Again, we are very early in this process, and so we haven’t crafted yet the precise mechanisms to do that, but I would assure you 

that we will find a way to seek a wide range of views and opinions 

on this very important matter. 

Ms. TSONGAS. And what would be the purpose of soliciting families’ input? What would you be looking to? 

General HAM. We know, Congresswoman, that the families have 

a direct relationship on civilians’ willingness to enlist, service members’ willingness to reenlist or to extend their service. We know 

that service members’ commitment to the service and to the mission is affected by the way in which their families are cared for. 

That is particularly notable in this time where we require so many 

of our service members to deploy into remote areas. The assurance 

that their families are well cared for while they are deployed has 

a direct contribution to readiness, and therefore I agree wholeheartedly with Secretary Gates’ direction to us that we must consider that in our review. 

Ms. TSONGAS. Doctor, would you like to comment at all? 

Dr. STANLEY. Actually I don’t have much to add to that. 

Ms. TSONGAS. Thank you. I yield back. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you. 

I wonder if you could try and map out for us just a little bit. I 

know there are going to be several working groups, and I don’t 

know about how many people are going to be in each of those 

groups. Just let us know how you see this—when you are, say, in 

the middle of this process, how do you see that working? And do 

you expect to call on individual contractors who could be helpful in 

terms of whether it is surveys or face-to-face contact, whatever that 

may be? Do you have any sense of that at this point, how this is 

going to be playing out? 

General HAM. Madam Chair, we do have a reasonable sense of 

how we are going to proceed. We have an organizational framework 

upon which we are building the teams. The leadership of those 

teams is pretty well decided. The functional teams for this review 

are four. There is a team that we call the survey team that is focused on answering the first questions of what does the force believe will be the impacts of repeal should that occur, again, reaching out to family members as well and to other interested parties 

in this process. 
26 

A second group is focused on the legislative and legal aspects of 

this. Not surprisingly, that team is comprised mostly of civilian and 

military judge advocates general to look at the aspects of the laws 

outlined in the terms of reference to us. 

A third team looks at the policy, and this is perhaps the core of 

the effort, what policies would be affected by a potential repeal of 

the law. So first is to determine what that body is, and then to assess and make recommendations as to how policy might have to 

change or would appropriately change if the law were changed. 

And then finally, the fourth team we call education and training, 

and that is essentially how you promulgate change. Should repeal 

occur and policies are changed, how do we in a coherent and consistent manner ensure the force in being today and those who join 

the force from top to bottom are adequately trained and informed 

as to these changes so our service members of all ranks, our commanders at all levels are applying new law and policy consistently. 

Secretary Gates also directed that our effort be very closely 

aligned with the individual service efforts in this regard. To that 

end, he has formed what we call an executive committee, comprised 

of Secretary Stanley, the service under secretaries, the service vice 

chiefs, the chief of the National Guard Bureau, to provide linkage 

between the DOD working group effort and the effort of the individual services who, if the law is repealed and policy changes, 

would necessarily be those who would implement such changes. So 

in broad term that is how we are organized, Madam Chair. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Do you anticipate seeking the help or the input from 

our recruiters out in the field, and how would you use them? 

General HAM. Yes, ma’am, we would again seek a broad range 

of inputs. Recruiters of all services and all components would certainly have interesting insight into this to answer the specific question as to what effect, what impact might be on recruiting if the 

law were repealed. Similarly we will reach out to the service academies, for example, to the Reserve Officer Training Corps programs 

to get their assessment of what the impact of repeal might be. So 

again, a broad range of inputs. 

Mrs. DAVIS. One of the issues that is difficult to get a handle on, 

and I suspect that in the past there has been some effort to do this, 

I think what you are focusing on, and quite appropriately, is the 

here and now, the people that are serving today. But we know that 

20 percent or so of men and women in this country are eligible for 

service, and for a number of reasons they choose not to apply, not 

to be part of the service. 

Many people are concerned that one of the things that is very important right now is to say to young people, we want you to think 

about being in the Army, the Marines, what have you. We want 

you to even think about some of the specialties within our services 

that take graduate and further education. How do we get at trying 

to ascertain the extent to which people who happen to be gay or 

lesbians choose very early on that this is not something that they 

care to do because of the inability to serve openly? Are you interested in any way trying to get at that issue? Because national security is primary here. That is what we are all about. And the ability 

to have every person in this country who chooses to serve their 

country do that is very, very important. 
27 

And I am wondering if there is some way that you can also get 

a handle on that issue, because I am certain that there are people 

who would suggest that maybe they don’t want to be in the service 

anymore. We have a lot of people who may choose to be, but today, 

quite honestly—and I have met a number of them who come up 

and say, you know, I want to go on to further training in medicine, 

I have been asked to have a scholarship in the service, but I am 

not sure I want to do that. Can you help me with that? How are 

we going to get a handle on that issue? And do you think it is important to your work? 

General HAM. I will try first, Madam Chair, and the Secretary 

can add on. 

We do have a task to seek the assessment of influencers. And I 

think that gets to the group perhaps that you are addressing, educators, employers, groups of individuals who do exert an influence 

on particularly young people who may be considering military service. Again, early in this process, I am not sure how we will do that, 

but we will find a way, and I think it is an important group for 

us to listen. 

Dr. STANLEY. Actually I was listening to your question, Chairwoman Davis, because I actually thought that you were going to 

go at it from a different way, because I was actually thinking that 

some of what our assessment would be would be to really get to 

the root of some of that, because there are people who would not 

join, as well as people who would join, and that becomes a readiness impact issue, which is something I hope the assessment, the 

review would bring out. 

As I was looking at it, that is actually one of the kind of things 

I was looking at, because I am thinking now 10, 15 years down the 

pike. The issue of readiness is a critical issue. It deals with the 

armed forces, and the primary mission as mentioned by the Congressman is a question that was asked early on. We know what 

that mission is, and it is very important that that mission not be 

compromised. It is critical, vital that mission not be compromised. 

So I am just joining at a certain level the working group, but the 

bottom line is that central, again, is readiness, and hopefully the 

review will give us what we need to get that question from a number of perspectives. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you, because if we approach it recognizing 

that there are certainly a pool of people out there, and we certainly 

want to make certain that they at least can consider the services, 

I think that is going to be very important as well. 

We really appreciate your being here. Are you okay to take a few 

more questions? 

Mr. Wilson, no? 

Dr. Snyder. 

Dr. SNYDER. I had three questions. Does the study envision 

learning from other parts of our government in deployed situations? I don’t know, the classic myth or metaphor of the shower. 

Well, we already have civilian contractors, we have U.S. civilian 

employees that don’t have policies of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. Are you 

planning to learn from folks that you already serve with and use 

the same facilities of other branches of the U.S. Government other 

than the military? Is that your intent, General Ham? 
28 

General HAM. It is, Congressman. One that comes immediately 

to mind is the United States Agency for International Development 

(USAID) and organizations like that. I think certainly our effort 

would be well informed by reviewing how they are conducting business today. 

Dr. SNYDER. Particularly since they are conducting business in 

the same environment with the same facilities that your soldiers 

are serving in. 

The second one is the point has been made more than once that 

recruiting is good. Our memories are not so frail that we forget we 

went through some problems with recruiting several years ago. In 

fact, the Army was changing standards in terms of raising ages, 

and stop-loss policy, and change educational standards for recruiting, and recruiters were having to work at it real hard. And so that 

is part of the history of this, too, not just what it is today, but what 

can it be at times when unemployment rate is 31⁄2 percent, and it 

is a lot harder to get people to come in the military as it was several years ago. 

How are you going to process the issue—you all have done a good 

job of putting the study together. At some point I think there is 

something to be said—or maybe that is the congressional role rather than your role to step back and say, this is about America being 

America. And there is such an unfairness when we aggressively encourage—and I do it, too. Just a couple weeks ago I held an academy fair in my district and had representatives of all the services 

there. We aggressively recruit 16- and 17-year-olds to start thinking about the military, and you all aggressively recruit 17-, 18-, 19- 

year-olds to enlist in the military. And if you talk to folks and 

spend some time with folks as they go through this process of discovering what their sexual orientation is—I mean, there is a lot of 

confusion whether you are homosexual or heterosexual when you 

are 16, 17 and 18. That can be kind of a volatile period. 

This unfairness of where we aggressively target people to sign up 

at a young age and then pretty aggressively tell them that they 

can’t serve. The comment was made earlier that, well, there was 

this many that had been—13,000 or whatever—put out since 1993, 

but most of them were in the earlier years of their service, as if 

they are, what, throwaways? I mean, we went after them at that 

young age. How does that fit in with the whole idea of fairness towards young people that we aggressively recruit at a time when 

folks are trying to sort out the most intimate aspects of their personality? 

Dr. STANLEY. Well, Congressman, again, I am not trying to sound 

like a broken record, but I am hoping that the review, the assessment that is ongoing, just started, will be addressing what you are 

talking about. When I joined the military now over almost 40 years 

ago, those issues of fairness, equity, they were with me then, and 

they are with me today. I left for a few years; I am now back in 

a different capacity. But the issues of fairness and equity, I would 

go without saying they are absolutely important. 

Again, the vital role of readiness, our nation and where we are— 

and that is where the assessment comes in, because there are some 

unknowns, and there are some hypotheticals that we don’t know 

right now, and the assessment and review will give us the answers. 
29 

I will go as far as to say, which I hope will be obvious, that we are 

looking forward to working very closely with you. 

Dr. SNYDER. I think most of us—I should say Patrick and Ms. 

Davis and I are convinced that ultimately this country will conclude that not only is our country better off, but our military is better off, that our Army is better off, that our grunts on the ground 

are better off by having the kind of leadership and dynamic within 

the military amongst those young people, those 18-, 19-, 20-yearolds that are serving overseas today, that recognize that gays and 

lesbians can openly serve, that America becomes a better America; 

that this is not about doing favors to gays and lesbians, it is about 

recognizing this is a step of America being a better America. Thank 

you for your service. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you. 

Mr. Murphy. 

Mr. MURPHY. I would just like to echo that, gentlemen, I do think 

our country and, most importantly, our military will be better off, 

and that it will help our national security not to throw out 13,000 

troops who are willing to fight for us to keep us safe, and also 

among them some of the best Arabic, Farsi translators, some of our 

fighter pilots, some of our infantry officers, some of our mechanics. 

Secondly, the American taxpayers will be better off. There are 

studies that show this wrongful policy is costing the American taxpayer $1.3 billion. 

So it kind of goes back to Mr. Snyder’s earlier comments in his 

first question in that, you know, when we all took an oath as either 

a Marine officer or an Army officer, you know, that special trust 

and confidence that our government put in us, in our leadership 

ability. And I would just say that we should have special trust and 

confidence in these young American heroes. And we should have a 

special trust and confidence in the non-commissioned officer (NCO) 

corps and also the officer corps to do the right thing. 

And when you are doing your study, I would just say make sure 

we are cognizant of the fact that—to put in the historical context; 

that when we were in the middle of the Korean War, when we lost 

tens of thousands of our young Americans over there, the fact is, 

is that when half of our country was still segregated between black 

and white, and we had colored water fountains, and colored bathrooms, and colored restaurants, the fact is, is that we said that we 

were going to desegregate our military because we all wore green, 

we all took that oath, we all picked up the rifle and defended our 

country overseas. 

And that same challenge is going today in both Iraq and Afghanistan, and I do think that when you make your decision that not 

to be so cautious, so meticulous; to realize that at the end of the 

day, it goes back to the goodness of our country, and it is that 

young GI, the young man or woman who is willing to take the 

same oath that we all took. 

And of course, General Ham, I am going to have to give you another shout out with the 82nd Airborne Division real quick because 

when I was there in division, you know, when I was there in 2003 

in the middle of Baghdad when it was 138-degree heat, I think the 

greatest thing that I got to witness as a captain was that you 

would get these paratroopers, and if you grabbed an 18-year-old 
30 

paratrooper in the 82nd Airborne Division, you could say, paratrooper, I am going to give you one week to learn how to fly the 

space shuttle. By God darn it, that paratrooper would help make 

it happen somehow. If we just go and just say we have a nondiscrimination policy because we all take the same oath, and we 

are all different colors in our military, we are all different races, 

and we are all different religions, and we all have, frankly—some 

of us have different sexual orientation, but the fact is that we are 

focused on keeping America safe and taking that oath to support 

and defend the Constitution. 

So thank you, gentlemen. I appreciate it. God bless you, and God 

bless our military. Thanks. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you. We really do appreciate your coming at 

this stage of your work. 

One of the things I would just add, because I would suspect that 

there may be some differences as you begin to reach out that you 

find regionally. Urban, suburban, rural, you know, there really are 

differences, but I don’t think that we ask our young men and 

women who join the services today to do anything different depending upon where they come from. And so the expectations should all 

be the same, and I think that as we work to try and develop the 

very, very best process that you can, we need you to take that certainly into consideration. 

I would ask and wonder if you could commit to us that perhaps, 

you know, as you get under way, and whether it is halfway through 

or three-quarters the way through the process, that perhaps you 

might come back to the committee, let us know how things are 

going, is there anything that you need from us, and to give us a 

sense of where you are, how tough has this been, where have you 

found some roadblocks that you have been surprised by. What is 

it that has been very different than what you expected as you take 

this journey? And we certainly would be very pleased if you could 

do that, and I am wondering, General Ham, if you might commit 

for your side if that would be a possibility. 

General HAM. Madam Chair, Secretary Gates felt strongly 

enough about this that he included it in the terms of reference. It 

is a specific direction to Mr. Johnson and myself to engage with the 

Congress and keep you advised. So we look forward to doing just 

that. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Great. Thank you very much. 

And to you, Secretary, welcome again. We know we are going to 

be working very closely with you, and I look forward to that. Thank 

you very much. 

[Whereupon, at 5:22 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 
A P P E N D I X 

MARCH 3, 2010 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD 

MARCH 3, 2010 

(35) 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD 

MARCH 3, 2010 

(49) 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 
66 

Æ