[House Hearing, 110 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.A.S.C. No. 110-163]
DON'T ASK, DON'T TELL REVIEW
__________
HEARING
BEFORE THE
MILITARY PERSONNEL SUBCOMMITTEE
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
HEARING HELD
JULY 23, 2008
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE TIFF FORMAT]
----------
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
44-634 PDF WASHINGTON : 2009
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
MILITARY PERSONNEL SUBCOMMITTEE
SUSAN A. DAVIS, California, Chairwoman
VIC SNYDER, Arkansas JOHN M. McHUGH, New York
LORETTA SANCHEZ, California JOHN KLINE, Minnesota
NANCY BOYDA, Kansas THELMA DRAKE, Virginia
PATRICK J. MURPHY, Pennsylvania WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina
CAROL SHEA-PORTER, New Hampshire JOE WILSON, South Carolina
NIKI TSONGAS, Massachusetts
Michael Higgins, Professional Staff Member
John Chapla, Professional Staff Member
Rosellen Kim, Staff Assistant
C O N T E N T S
----------
CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF HEARINGS
2008
Page
Hearing:
Wednesday, July 23, 2008, Don't Ask, Don't Tell Review........... 1
Appendix:
Wednesday, July 23, 2008......................................... 47
----------
WEDNESDAY, JULY 23, 2008
DON'T ASK, DON'T TELL REVIEW
STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
Davis, Hon. Susan A., a Representative from California,
Chairwoman, Military Personnel Subcommittee.................... 1
McHugh, Hon. John M., a Representative from New York, Ranking
Member, Military Personnel Subcommittee........................ 2
WITNESSES
Alva, Staff Sgt. Eric, USMC, (Ret.), Wounded Iraq War Veteran.... 7
Coleman, Maj. Gen. Vance, USA, (Ret.), Former Artillery Officer
and Division Commander......................................... 4
Darrah, Capt. Joan E., USN, (Ret.), Former Naval Intelligence
Officer........................................................ 6
Donnelly, Elaine, President, Center for Military Readiness....... 9
Jones, Sgt. Maj. Brian, USA, (Ret.), Former Army Special
Operations and Current Business Owner and Chief Executive
Officer........................................................ 12
APPENDIX
Prepared Statements:
Alva, Staff Sgt. Eric........................................ 68
Coleman, Maj. Gen. Vance..................................... 56
Darrah, Capt. Joan E......................................... 62
Davis, Hon. Susan A.......................................... 51
Donnelly, Elaine............................................. 74
Jones, Sgt. Maj. Brian....................................... 168
McHugh, Hon. John M.......................................... 54
Documents Submitted for the Record:
DOD Statement Regarding Section 654, Title 10 U.S. Code...... 179
DOD Statement Regarding ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell''............ 180
Witness Responses to Questions Asked During the Hearing:
[There were no Questions asked during the hearing.]
Questions Submitted by Members Post Hearing:
[There were no Questions submitted post hearing.]
DON'T ASK, DON'T TELL REVIEW
----------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Armed Services,
Military Personnel Subcommittee,
Washington, DC, Wednesday, July 23, 2008.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:05 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 of California. Good afternoon. Welcome to the
hearing. Today the Military Personnel Subcommittee will turn
its attention to an issue that has not been before this body in
15 years, the issue of gay men and women serving openly in the
military. At this time of war for our men and women in uniform,
it has been asked why we would hold this hearing, and clearly
this subcommittee has a number of competing issues that need
our attention and that have received it. That is why we pushed
through needed measures in the House version of the National
Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for fiscal year 2009 and have
held hearings on health care for our service members and their
families, mental health care for those returning from war and
quality-of-life issues. This afternoon we are taking a closer
look at yet another important issue impacting the men and women
who serve.
Since 1993, the Department of Defense (DOD) has removed
approximately 12,600 service members from the military under
section 654, Title 10 U.S. Code, commonly known as the Don't
Ask, Don't Tell policy. With this policy comes the loss of
service members with critical skills needed in the field right
now, including much-needed language expertise. In my opinion we
must carefully review a policy that rejects otherwise well-
suited individuals from military service. This is especially
true at a time when the military is trying to reduce the strain
on our military by growing the force.
Our purpose today is to begin a long overdue review of the
various perspectives of this law and policy and to start a
conversation about the real-life impact on our service members
and their families, and, most importantly, on the operational
readiness of our military.
This hearing is a bit different from the typical hearings
conducted by this subcommittee. With two very distinct and
strongly held views of the law and policy, the subcommittee has
worked very hard to ensure that both sides are afforded
identical opportunities to present congressional members with
the data and real-life examples to support their perspectives.
While the focus of the hearing is to provide a fair and balance
forum for debate, I think it is only fair to share my personal
belief that the current policy should be repealed. I came to
this position after talking with many service members, active
duty, Reserve and retired, and concluded that the open service
of gay men and women need not present an operational problem.
Many Americans who happen to be gay or lesbian want to answer
our Nation's call to service, and allowing them to serve in an
open and honest manner would uphold the ideals of military
service.
I would like to enter into the record a statement from the
Department of Defense regarding Don't Ask, Don't Tell. The
Department will not be testifying today and has been hesitant
to address the issue in open session. I regret that the
Department will not be here since I believe that there are
issues that would likely be raised where their experience could
prove to be helpful. However, when pressed to describe how they
would respond to a change in the law, senior Department of
Defense officials have indicated that they would comply fully
with any new legislation, although they do not advocate in
favor of changing the policy at this time. Without objection, I
ask the Department of Defense statement be entered into the
hearing record.
[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix
on page 180.]
Mrs. Davis of California. Because equity is a priority
characteristic of this hearing, I would remind witnesses that I
intend to strictly adhere to the time limits for opening
statements. Each side will be given 15 minutes to make their
case.
Before I turn to Mr. McHugh, I would like to extend my
appreciation to those on both sides of this issue who agree to
testify. We all know that this is a very difficult issue. It is
a very personal issue. It is a very emotional issue. And we
expect that everyone here will be treated with the utmost
respect during the course of this hearing.
[The prepared statement of Mrs. Davis can be found in the
Appendix on page 51.]
Mrs. Davis of California. Mr. McHugh, I yield to you for
your opening statement.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN M. MCHUGH, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM NEW
YORK, RANKING MEMBER, MILITARY PERSONNEL SUBCOMMITTEE
Mr. McHugh. Thank you, Madam Chair. Let me echo your words
of both appreciation and encouragement to everyone involved in
this hearing today. Certainly we as a subcommittee on both
sides thank the witnesses for agreeing to be with us, and we
expect and look forward to a perhaps lively, but nevertheless
informative and civil discussion of as what the chairlady
described as one very important issue.
In 1993, when this subcommittee--and I might add I was here
as a member of the full committee at that time--and the full
committee examined proposals to change the policy regarding
military service by gay and lesbian personnel, that process
that was undertaken was, I think, fairly described as
comprehensive, and it was intense. There were no less than 5
hearings involving 37 witnesses ranging from the Secretary of
Defense and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs to current as well as
former military, sociologists, and legal experts who provided a
wide range of views and perspectives. Not surprisingly, the
issues that were expressed at that time were complex, and,
again unsurprisingly, the debate was at times very passionate.
Interestingly, the chairman of the House Armed Services
Committee (HASC) at that time supported the change, while the
chairman of the Personnel Subcommittee did not, which I think
rather illustrates the divisions that this question can give
light to. In the end, the committee in the House and the Senate
concluded, and I want to quote, ``The presence in the Armed
Forces of persons who demonstrate a propensity or intent to
engage in homosexual acts would create an unacceptable risk to
the high standards and morale, good order and discipline and
unit cohesion that are the essence of the military
capability.''
That is the issue that should be at question here today.
The gentlelady spoke, I think, very accurately to the passions
that both sides bring to this question. I think we as a
Congress owe it to both sides and to the American people to
conduct our inquiries and whatever decisions may come out of
this process based on that issue defined in the 1993 findings
of the HASC and the Senate as good order and discipline and
unit cohesion. That statement, even today, under brims the
current law, and our challenge is to examine and determine
whether that conclusion of 1993 remains valid here in 2008.
Let me note I certainly recognize the chairwoman's long-
standing desire, as she stated it, to repeal the current law,
and I would hope that she would commit to ensuring that no
change would take place without a comprehensive, and open
debate on the full range of issues.
I want to state I share the chairlady's disappointment that
thus far the services as a whole have not agreed to step
forward. I don't see as an individual member how I fully and
fairly consider this question and, more importantly, the issue
of changing this question without the input of those in the
active military who have the heavy responsibility of commanding
our forces at a time of war. I would hope and encourage both
the Department of Defense and various services to reconsider
their reluctance that they have displayed to this point.
While some will argue that much has changed since 1993, and
the current law is no longer relevant or needed, one thing has
not changed in those 15 years. As it was in 1993, the question
of whether the law is to be changed shall ultimately rest on
matters of military readiness, morale, good order and
discipline.
So, Madam Chair, I join you, as I said earlier, in
welcoming our witness today, and I truly look forward to their
testimony. And I yield back.
Mrs. Davis of California. Thank you, Mr. McHugh.
[The prepared statement of Mr. McHugh can be found in the
Appendix on page 54.]
Mrs. Davis of California. I ask unanimous consent now that
nonsubcommittee members be allowed to participate in today's
hearing after all subcommittee members have had an opportunity
to ask questions. Is there any objection?
Without objection, nonsubcommittee members will be
recognized at the appropriate time for five minutes.
Now I would like to introduce our panel. We will begin with
witnesses representing the coalition seeking repeal of the
current law and policy. First will be Major General Vance
Coleman, United States Army, Retired, former Artillery Officer
and Division Commander; Captain Joan Darrah, United States
Navy, Retired, Former Naval Intelligence Officer, and
Congressman Moran welcomes you to the hearing and thanks you
for being here; Staff Sergeant Eric Alva, United States Marine
Corps, Retired, wounded Iraq war veteran. Thank you very much.
Those witnesses will be followed by the witnesses
representing the coalition that supports the current law, but
opposes the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy, which they view is
improperly connected to the law: Ms. Elaine Donnelly,
President, Center for Military Readiness; and Sergeant Major
Brian Jones, United States Army, Retired, former Army Special
Operations and current business owner and Chief Executive
Officer (CEO).
Welcome to the hearing, and, General Coleman, if you will
start, the three speakers will have five minutes apiece, and
then when we move into--Ms. Elaine Donnelly will actually have
10 minutes, and then Sergeant Jones 5 minutes. We have 15
minutes per panel.
STATEMENT OF MAJ. GEN. VANCE COLEMAN, USA, (RET.), FORMER
ARTILLERY OFFICER AND DIVISION COMMANDER
General Coleman. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Madam Chairman, members of the committee, and my fellow
witnesses, during my more than 30 years of service to the
United States, I have seen and experienced what happens when
second-class citizens--and, conversely, what we can achieve
when we reverse those views and embrace all of our troops as
first-class patriots with an important contribution to make.
I enlisted in the Army when I was 17 in the days before we
desegregated our unit fighting forces or our park fountains. I
served in segregated units in the United States and in Europe
before being selected to attend an integrated leadership
academy and then on to Officer Candidate School (OCS).
After Officer Candidate School I was assigned to a combat
unit. When I reported for duty, however, I was promptly
reassigned to in an all-black service unit. The message was
clear: It didn't matter that I was a qualified field artillery
officer who was qualified to serve in the combat arms unit; it
only mattered that I was black.
Madam Chairman, I know what it is like to be thought of as
second-class, and I know what it is like to have your hard work
dismissed because of who you are or what you look like. I also
know the difference made when we place qualifications ahead of
discrimination and tore down the walls of racial prejudice in
our fighting forces.
As an Army commander, I also know how disruptive it would
be to remove a trained, skilled service member from a unit. It
is bewildering and counterintuitive to me that we maintain a
Federal law that says no matter how well a person does his or
her job, no matter how integral they are to their unit, they
must be removed, disrespected and dismissed because of who they
happen to be or who they happen to love. That is why I am
grateful to have the opportunity today to urge Congress to
repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell. The military has shown it excels
at blending people together from different backgrounds and
beliefs and putting the mission first. I ask Congress to
repeal, Don't Ask, Don't Tell and allow the military to benefit
from having the best and the brightest serve regardless of
sexual orientation.
In Korea I was assigned to a field artillery unit that was
totally integrated. The unit consisted of individuals from all
walks of life, black, white and brown. There was never a
problem of unit morale or unit cohesion. The only thing that
mattered to the soldiers was the ability to perform and whether
you could be depended upon when the going got tough.
One thing that I learned while serving in Korea in the
Korean conflict is that in a 24-hour combat situation, the
troops are not concerned about who you are or what you believe;
they only want to know whether or not you can perform.
Performance would mean the difference between winning or
losing, living or dying. I soon learned from the senior non-
commissioned officers (NCOs) that the key to success was
performance. That is true 50 years later, and it will be 100
years from now.
As a battery executive officer in Korea, I supervised a
supervisor first class, who happened to be gay. He was the
communication chief in our unit. He was in charge of the unit's
communication, the system setup, the maintenance, and to make
sure all the systems were working. He was, to put it in plain,
essential terms, a critical part of that unit. Having to remove
him from the position and from the Army entirely would have
harmed our unit's ability to perform its mission.
This committee should be concerned first and foremost about
the readiness of Armed Forces and the personnel policies that
best serve that readiness. And all of us here today know that
when the Federal Government gives the order, commanders
reiterate it, and the service members salute and implement it.
As a combat leader I learned to constantly train my troops
to adapt to change in combat situations, to change in weapons
system, to change in terrain. In the 1980's, I was Division
Commander of the 84th Army Reserve Training Division, testing
our mobilization planning by establishing new training models.
Military leadership indeed is about being able to constantly
adapt. That is why we have the best military in the world, and
that is why we are better than the outdated arguments that some
still use to prop up Don't Ask, Don't Tell.
Don't Ask, Don't Tell hurts military readiness. It
undermines our commitment to being a Nation where we are all
equal in the eyes of the law, and it ties the hands of
commanders who want to welcome and retain America's best and
brightest into the military fold.
It is the time, for the sake of our military, to end this
modern-day prejudice and embrace all of our troops as first
class patriots with an important mission to make.
I will close by saying to you unequal treatment to one of
us is unequal treatment to us all. Thank you.
Mrs. Davis of California. Thank you, General Coleman.
[The prepared statement of General Coleman can be found in
the Appendix on page 56.]
Mrs. Davis of California. And if you could all make sure to
speak into the mike, that would be very helpful.
Captain Darrah.
STATEMENT OF CAPT. JOAN E. DARRAH, USN, (RET.), FORMER NAVAL
INTELLIGENCE OFFICER
Captain Darrah. Good afternoon, Chairwoman Davis and
committee members. Thank you so much for the opportunity to
testify during this important review of the Don't Ask, Don't
Tell law.
My name is Joan Darrah. I joined the Navy in 1972 and
served for 29-1/2 years. I was an intelligence officer and
retired in June 2002 at the rank of captain. I was awarded
three Legions of Merit and three Meritorious Service Medals. My
final tour of duty was as the officer and enlisted community
manager where I was responsible for all policies that impacted
recruiting and retention for the intelligence community. Thus I
fully understand and appreciate the importance of being able to
recruit and retain the highest-quality people.
When I join the Navy, I didn't know that I was gay. By the
time I realized it, I was well into my Navy career. And
according to my promotion record and my fitness reports, I was
making a significant contribution.
It is only now that I have been retired for six years that
I fully realize how incredibly stressful it was to live under
Don't Ask, Don't Tell. For the last many years of my career,
whenever the admiral would call me into his office, I would be
99.9 percent certain it was to discuss an operational issue,
but there was always that fear in the back of my mind that
somehow I had been outed, and that the admiral was calling me
in to tell me that I was fired. The constant fear of being
outed and fired, even though your performance is exceptional,
is hard to quantify.
Don't Ask, Don't Tell discourages thousands of talented and
patriotic citizens from joining the military because, rightly
so, they refuse to live a lie. This is a tremendous loss to our
military. When a smart, energetic young person who happens to
be gay asks me about joining the service, I recommend that they
do not join. I love the Navy. It is painful for me to encourage
someone who could contribute so much to take their talents
elsewhere.
When I was assigned as the deputy commander and chief of
staff at the Naval Intelligence Command, I supervised almost
1,500 people and had several openly gay civilians in my
command. The morale and productivity of the command was
extremely high, and these gay employees were judged, like
everyone else, on their demonstrated ability and performance.
In September 2001, the true impact of Don't Ask, Don't Tell
on me personally came into sharp focus. On Tuesday, September
11th, I was at the Pentagon attending the weekly intelligence
briefing. During the briefing we watched cable news network
(CNN) as the planes hit the Twin Towers. Finally at 9:30 my
meeting was adjourned. When American Flight 77 slammed into the
Pentagon, I was at the bus stop. As it turned out, the space I
had been seven minutes earlier was completely destroyed, and
seven of my coworkers were killed. The reality is that if I had
been killed, my partner then of 11 years would have been the
last to know, as I had not dared list her name in any of my
paperwork or on any of my emergency contact information.
It was the events of September 11th that made me realize
that Don't Ask, Don't Tell was taking a much greater toll than
I had ever admitted. It caused me to refocus my priorities, and
on 1 June, 2002, one year earlier than I had originally
planned, I retired.
Since I have retired, I have come out to many people with
whom I served, seniors, juniors and coworkers. Many said they
already knew that I was gay, and, without exception, everyone
has said they were pleased that I continued to serve.
Military readiness is achieved by attracting and retaining
the best and the brightest. Don't Ask, Don't Tell clearly
undermines the military readiness of our country. When Don't
Ask, Don't Tell is repealed and replaced with a policy of
nondiscrimination, many highly qualified young people who
refuse to live a lie will be much more inclined to join the
military. Other people, especially younger ones who are likely
already out to some of their shipmates, will be more apt to
reenlist, while more senior, older personnel might opt to keep
their sexual orientation private. At least they will finally be
able to go to work each day without the fear of being fired
because someone has discovered they are gay.
In summary, I care so much about the Navy, and I want our
military to be the very best, but for us to have the most
capable and ready military, we must be able to recruit and
retain the best and the brightest. Don't Ask, Don't Tell stands
in the way of that goal. Thank you.
Mrs. Davis of California. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Captain Darrah can be found in
the Appendix on page 62.]
Mrs. Davis of California. Sergeant Alva. I appreciate the
fact that everybody is really keeping to the time.
STATEMENT OF STAFF SGT. ERIC ALVA, USMC, (RET.), WOUNDED IRAQ
WAR VETERAN
Sergeant Alva. Good afternoon, Ms. Chairwoman and members
of the committee. My name is Eric Fidelis Alva. I was a staff
sergeant in the United States Marine Corps. I am honored to
testify today and to share my experiences with the
subcommittee. Thank you for holding this hearing.
I grew up in a military family in Texas. My father served
in Vietnam, my grandfather in World War II. I guess you could
say that service was in my blood. I inherited my middle name,
Fidelis, from my father and grandfather. As you know, the
Marine credo, Semper Fi is short for Semper Fidelis, always
faithful. Loyalty is literally my middle name. So I guess you
could say that serving my country was my calling.
I joined the military because I wanted to serve. I joined
the Marines because I wanted a challenge. I was 19 years old, I
was patriotic, idealistic and also gay.
For 13 years I served in the Marines Corps. I served in
Somalia during Operation Restore Hope. I loved the discipline
and camaraderie. What I hated was concealing part of who I am.
My military service came to an end on March 21st, 2003.
Three hours into the invasion of Iraq we had to stop to wait
for orders. I went back to the Humvee to retrieve something, to
this day I can't remember what, and as I crossed that dusty
patch of desert for the third time that day, I triggered a land
mine.
I was thrown through the air, landing 10 or 15 feet away
from the vehicle. The pain was unimaginable. My fellow marines
were rushing to my aid, cutting away my uniform to assess the
damage and treat my wounds. I remember wondering why they
weren't removing my right boot. It wasn't until later that I
had realized that was because that leg was already gone. When I
regained consciousness in a hospital outside Kuwait City my
right leg was gone, my left leg was broken, and my right arm
permanently damaged. I also had the dubious honor of being the
first American injured in the Iraq war. I received a Purple
Heart along with visits from the President and the First Lady.
I was told I was a hero.
That land mine may have put an end to my military career
that day, but it didn't put an end to my secret. That would
come years later when I realized that I had fought and nearly
died to secure the rights for others that I myself was not free
to enjoy. I had proudly served a country that was not proud of
me. More importantly, my experience just proved all the
arguments against open service by gays and lesbians.
I knew I had to share my story. Even under the military's
Don't Ask, Don't Tell law, I was out to a lot of my fellow
marines. The typical reaction from my fellow service members:
So what? I was the same person, I did my job well, and that is
all they cared about. Today I am godfather to three of those
men's children.
Normally I was cautious about whom I divulged my secret to;
I thought I had to be. Then one evening out with some guys from
our unit, I let my guard down. One of the guys commented on
some women in a bar. When my response was less than
enthusiastic, he asked me jokingly if I was gay. As a matter of
fact I am, I responded. He swore to keep my secret, but I
suppose he thought it was just too good a piece of gossip to
pass up. He was wrong. No one he told cared. The response from
everyone was the same as it had been from the friends in whom I
confided: So what? I was still Eric, still one of them, still a
marine. I was still trusted.
That was a very powerful thing for me, that I still had
their trust, because the supporters of Don't Ask, Don't Tell
are right about one thing: Unit cohesion is essential. What my
experience proves, they are wrong about how to achieve it. My
being gay and even many of my colleagues knowing about it
didn't damage unit cohesion. They put their lives in my hands,
and when I was injured, they risked their lives to save mine.
My experience gives me confidence in our military men and
women. I am confident that just as they are capable of immense
professionalism and dedication to duty, putting their lives on
the line every day, our soldiers are equally capable of putting
aside personal bias and standing shoulder to shoulder with gay,
lesbian, and bisexual service members. They are there to
fulfill a mission. This is my unit, and our war. They will do
their duty.
As a former marine and patriotic American, I am horrified
that Don't Ask, Don't Tell forces trained and ready troops to
chose between serving their country and living openly, a choice
I myself would have been faced with had a land mine not made it
for me. I am appalled that Don't Ask, Don't Tell forces the
involuntary separation of thousands of skilled service members
during a time of war, threatening our country's military
readiness for no good reason.
My experiences serving the military demonstrate that Don't
Ask, Don't Tell is an outdated, useless law. Since leaving the
military, the opportunities I have had to speak with Americans,
both gay and straight, have shown time and again that the
American people support open service by gay, lesbian and
bisexual troops. Those who support Don't Ask, Don't Tell claim
they do so in the interest of unit cohesion, while as a former
marine, I can tell you what it takes to build unit cohesion:
Trust.
Mrs. Davis of California. Sergeant Alva, I am sorry, could
you finish your remarks very quickly?
Sergeant Alva. Yes, ma'am.
I can also tell you that Don't Ask, Don't Tell does nothing
but undercut the trust and with it our Nation's security. I
urge the members of the subcommittee to rethink this failed
law. Thank you.
Mrs. Davis of California. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Sergeant Alva can be found in
the Appendix on page 68.]
Mrs. Davis of California. Ms. Donnelly.
STATEMENT OF ELAINE DONNELLY, PRESIDENT, CENTER FOR MILITARY
READINESS
Ms. Donnelly. Thank you for the opportunity to testify,
Madam Chairman.
Mrs. Davis of California. Make sure your microphone is on.
Ms. Donnelly. I am Elaine Donnelly. I founded the Center
for Military Readiness in 1993. In that year Bill Clinton
announced his intent to lift the ban on homosexuals in the
military. He proposed a concept known as Don't Ask, Don't Tell,
which Congress rejected.
In fact, most of the problems we are hearing about today
are coming about because the Department of Defense--Bill
Clinton imposed Don't Ask, Don't Tell on the military even
though the law says something different. If the law had been
given a name of its own, it would have been called the Military
Personnel Eligibility Act of 1993, because, you see, it is all
about eligibility, but it doesn't have a name of its own other
than the technical name, section 654, Title 10. We support this
law; we do not support Don't Ask, Don't Tell.
The law was passed with overwhelming bipartisan majorities,
and it has been upheld as constitutional several times. The
only compromise was the dropping of the question, are you
homosexual? It used to be on induction forms. That question can
be reinstated at any time, and it should be, because to say
that you can't ask questions about eligibility is like telling
a bartender that you cannot serve liquor to people who are
underage, but you cannot ask them for ID. It makes no sense. It
is not good policy. But the law is good policy. The law is
there and it is designed to promote good order and discipline.
I want to talk about the future. I would like to talk about
what would happen if you actually repealed this law. The result
would be devastating because the military doesn't do things
halfway. If you say that this is in the tradition, the proud
tradition, of civil rights, which we have seen in our history
in positive ways, if we say that a sexual minority here on is
going to have special rights, that means that anybody who
disagrees is contrary to the zero tolerance policy. It means
that anybody whose attitudes are different from what is
advocated by the American Civil Leberties Union (ACLU) and the
left--the San Francisco left, who want to impose their agenda
on the military, those people become unacceptable, and they
would have to eventually be forced out of the military.
You see, when promotions are denied, that means people get
the message they cannot stay in the military. We would lose
thousands of people if they were told under a zero tolerance
policy that you must accept the new paradigm, which is forced
cohabitation of men and women with homosexuals in the military,
forced cohabitation in all branches of the service, all
communities. I am talking about the infantry, Special
Operations Forces, Navy SEALs, cramped submarines.
We are not talking about a Hollywood role here, but we are
talking about real consequences for real people. If we say that
this is going to be the new paradigm, we are going to tolerate
absolutely no dissent, that would put a tremendous, perhaps
unacceptable, burden on people who do have religious
convictions or those who simply believe that the policy, the
law as it is now, is a good idea. They would become
unacceptable to the military and would be driven out. Some
people say, ``well, that is okay.'' for the sake of diversity
we cannot afford to lose so many people if they disagree with
this policy of forced cohabitation of heterosexuals and
homosexuals in the military.
How would enforcement work? Well, if a female soldier
reports an incident of harassment, she enjoys the presumption
of truthfulness. But under the new civil rights standard or
zero tolerance standard, if a male soldier reports or is made
to feel that there is a sexual atmosphere that is unacceptable,
the suspicion would be that he has intolerant attitudes. The
military don't tolerate people with intolerant attitudes. That
man is probably not going to make a complaint, but if he does,
he will suffer serious sanctions.
In the messy disputes that would ensue, commanders are
supposed to sort all of this out? You know, we have
difficulties right now with sexual misconduct. We have issues
with regard to male and female sexual misconduct of various
kinds. If we want to increase that threefold, then we have a
new policy that says we are going to have disputes or problems
between male and male and female and female.
I invite you to read in my testimony a letter from a young
woman named Cynthia Yost, who served in the Army, the
experience she had with an assault. I invite you to think about
her suggestion that when photographs were taken of her and her
fellow soldiers in the shower, was this the kind of thing that
we want to see in the future, especially in the days of the
iPhone and the Internet? Do we want to have a sexualized
atmosphere in our Armed Forces, all branches, submarines,
infantry, all the rest of it?
There is not enough time to go into all the various kinds
of things that would ensue, but perhaps I can talk about a
couple of things. Number one, you will not get full information
about what is happening in the field. We have had an incident
just recently, a Navy chaplain who abused midshipmen and two
other members of the service. He was Human Immunodeficiency
Virus (HIV) positive, he abused his authority, and yet the
record of his court martial doesn't show homosexual conduct. It
shows the worst things that he did. But you will not get a
feedback of what is happening in the field because as even Navy
Times agreed we are not getting adequate information from the
Department of Defense.
You should ask about cases like Lamar Dalton, the soldier
who was HIV-positive, infected an 18-year old. You need to
think about the situation of HIV positivity. We have troops who
are not deployable because of HIV-positive status. The
legislation to repeal the law says we should invite in
everybody who was denied before. What will that do to our
medical system? How does that encourage trust or help our
military to have strong discipline and morale?
If we follow the example of the British military, they are
now looking at the issue of transgenders in the military. They
are very much into this model. They are different in their
culture. They accepted a European court order to accept
homosexuals in the military. We don't do that in our system. We
have responsible people, people like you who look at these
issues. We don't take orders from courts.
I would like to talk to you if there is time about many of
the unconvincing arguments for repeal that we have heard. We
keep hearing about polls. In an article that I wrote for Duke
University Journal of Gender Law & Policy, I have analyzed
every one of these reports. Every one of them falls apart under
closer scrutiny. We don't need to make decisions based on
polls. For instance, Zogby, they didn't mention the one
question on the Zogby poll that mattered of military people
supposedly: Do you agree or disagree with allowing homosexuals
to serve openly in the military? Only 26 percent agreed. A
combination of those who disagreed and were neutral was 69
percent. You did not hear about that poll unless you read the
article that I wrote about it. The Military Times polls have
consistently been 57 to 59 percent opposed. The polls are by no
means an argument for repealing the law.
Discharges, how many discharges are there? The numbers are
very small. You have my written testimony. The documentation is
there. Pregnancy, weight loss standard violations, the
discharges are much greater numbers.
Is the Department of Defense not enforcing the law? Well, I
would agree the Department of Defense has been derelict. They
have not enforced the law properly when they suggest there is
nothing against gays and lesbians being in the military based
on sexual orientation. That is dissembling. The law doesn't
even say that phrase, ``sexual orientation.'' It is so vague,
you cannot define it. It is based on conduct. A person who
engages in that conduct and says so is someone who is not
eligible to be in the military.
Do we have shortages in certain categories? Linguists, yes.
There are ways to resolve that. The number one way would be to
reinstate that question. Why was the Defense Language Institute
training people who were not eligible to be in the Armed
Forces? That is where the problem is. The problem is not with
the law itself.
We have heard speculative claims all based on guesstimates
and suppositions and assumptions. Sixty-five thousand
homosexuals in the military? Have you looked at that report and
seen just how flimsy the research is? Use common sense. We are
talking about common sense. If people who disagree are driven
out of the military, you are going to lose thousands of people
in the military. We can't afford that.
Foreign militaries. We know their experience is very
different. We know what they do in their military is nothing
like the demands that we have in our Armed Forces. We have the
strongest military in the world. Good order and discipline is
important.
My recommendation would be support the law, keep the law,
recommend the Department of Defense enforce it properly. We
should drop the Don't Ask, Don't Tell regulations put in place
by Bill Clinton. They are administrative and can be eliminated
at any time. We need to keep priorities straight. Equal
opportunity is important, but the needs of the military, our
military, must come first. It is the only military we have, and
we have to make sure that policy is the best we can have for
our brave men and women in the military.
Thank you.
Mrs. Davis of California. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Donnelly can be found in the
Appendix on page 74.]
Mrs. Davis of California. Please go ahead.
STATEMENT OF SGT. MAJ. BRIAN JONES, USA, (RET.), FORMER ARMY
SPECIAL OPERATIONS AND CURRENT BUSINESS OWNER AND CHIEF
EXECUTIVE OFFICER
Major Jones. Thank you for the opportunity to testify
today. I am a retired sergeant major, U.S. Army. I am a Ranger
first, and I am a Ranger always. The most common attribute I
see on a military evaluation report is selfless service. I
chose a career path that placed me in a Ranger battalion. I
served in Delta Force as a Detachment Sergeant Major in a
Ranger Regiment.
Selfless service is what makes a good team great within the
U.S. military. You won't find that in the corporate world.
Selfless service is what an individual will do for the good of
the team. Self-service is doing what is personal self-interest
at the expense of the team.
Recently a U.S. Navy SEAL received a Congressional Medal of
Honor by throwing himself on a grenade to protect his team.
That is selfless service. While deployed to Somalia in 1993,
commonly referred to as Black Hawk Down, two of my unit members
received the Medal of Honor for asking to be inserted into a
crash site to protect a pilot, knowing what their fate would
be.
That is selfless service, and combat effectiveness depends
on it. It doesn't happen by accident. It must be taught with
concentrated training, no distractions. Selfless service is
reinforced with discipline and encouraged by the example of
combat leaders.
The Ranger way of life trained me for what I do now as a
CEO of the company I started three years ago, Adventure
Training Concepts (ATC). The concept is to use the U.S. Army
training model to teach the value of teamwork during corporate
team building and leadership development training.
Our clients are diverse, men and women, adventure seekers
of all ages, and I suspect some are homosexuals. All of them
enjoy and benefit professionally from the lessons and teamwork
taught by our programs. There is a notable difference, however,
between the ATC environment and military units such as
infantry, Special Operations Force and submariners.
On my facility people learn about teamwork and leadership,
but they do not share close, intimate living conditions
comparable to those in the military. The difference is
critically important and disregarded at great risk.
In the civilian business world, decisions frequently are
based on bonuses and job security. In the military environment,
team cohesion, morale and esprit de corps is a matter of life
and death. Bonuses and job security comes second to the reality
of writing a hard letter home to a loved one or holding the
hand of a teammate who is fighting for his or her life.
In my 21 years of service in the U.S. Army, I sat and
performed in as many leadership positions that I could. As a
leader my first obligation was to the Nation. It meant keeping
our soldiers ready for any situation for which our country
called upon them. It meant taking care of each soldier I had
the honor of leading. It meant being fair and impartial to
every soldier. It also meant keeping the soldiers under my
charge safe, secure, trained, equipped and informed as I
possibly could. And on their behalf I would respectfully like
to say at this time of war, I find it surprising that we are
here today to talk about this issue of repealing the 1993 law.
Our soldiers are overtasked with deploying, fighting,
redeploying, refitting and deploying again. These brave men and
women have achieved what many million Americans thought
impossible. With all the important issues that require
attention, it is difficult to understand why a minority faction
is demanding that their concerns be given priority over more
important issues.
As a U.S. Army Ranger, I performed long-range patrols in
severe weather conditions, teams of 10, with only mission-
essential items on our back, no comfort items. The only way to
keep from freezing at night was to get as close as possible for
body heat, which means skin to skin. On several occasions, in
the close quarters that a team lives, any attraction to the
same sex teammates, real or perceived, would be known and would
be a problem. The presence of openly gay men in these
situations would elevate tensions and disrupt unit cohesion and
morale. Repealing the 1993 law will not help us win this war on
terrorism or any conflict that our military is called upon to
fight and win in the future.
Too much time is being spent on how we can hinder our great
men and women in the military. Let us do all we can do to lift
the morale, give them more resolve and motivate them to
continue the absolutely great job they are doing. I hope that
this Congress will not make their jobs more difficult and
dangerous than they already are by repealing a solid law that
continues to support the morale, discipline, and readiness of
our troops.
Thank you.
Mrs. Davis of California. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Sergeant Jones can be found in
the Appendix on page 168.]
Mrs. Davis of California. We appreciate all of your
testimony today, and I think before we start, we all want to
recognize that we are the best military in the world because we
have men and women who would want to serve their country today
and serve very, very ably. All of them do.
Perhaps I will start with you, Sergeant Major Jones,
because you have brought up an important issue that my
colleague brought up initially, too, Mr. McHugh, the one of
unit cohesion and how important that is. I wonder as we look at
the numbers today, we are talking about serving in a time of
war, that the separation of gays and lesbians from the service
seems to be going down. And some would suggest that it is
because commanders want to hold onto their skilled men or women
in their units. And perhaps there has been a suggestion that
they are looking the other way or they are not as concerned
about it. How would you respond to that, and do you think that
that is what is at issue here?
And I am also going to turn to Sergeant Alva about unit
cohesion. Could you talk to us a little bit more about why you
see that as a problem? Is that less a problem; is that why we
are seeing the changes today?
Major Jones. No, ma'am. A lot of the problem that you see
within the unit cohesion question regarding turning their backs
on problems out there, I believe that is a myth. I am talking
from experience. I have 21 years in mostly leadership positions
in some of the hardest places to lead that you can imagine.
When you get the troops as busy as they are right now, in part
of my testimony I talked about the deploying, redeploying,
refitting and deploying again, and that is what they are called
to do right now. It is not that they turned back on problems,
it is that they have no time to deal with it.
A problem person in a company for a commander takes a lot
of time, because we are very thorough. And when you have two
weeks to get your troops into the Iraqi theater or the
Afghanistan theater, you are going to have to put that on hold.
You are going to have to put that on the back burner and deal
with it at a later time.
Well, just to talk a little bit more about the cohesion
problem----
Mrs. Davis of California. May I ask, if you had a very
capable person in a position, be it a medic or whoever that
might be serving, and yet you knew you had a very important
mission ahead of you, would you want that person separated from
your unit if that person, in fact, was the very best, but you
also knew that it had been recognized that this person was gay?
Is there a choice that commanders make occasionally?
Major Jones. My first duty and responsibility to this
Nation, which is utmost over everything, is to obey the laws
and the orders, and I take an oath to do that when I join the
service. And every time I reenlist, I raise my right hand, and
I mean every word of it when I say it. It is a very important
time, and I remember every one of those times when I was in the
Army that I did that.
My officers above me and my country gave me orders that
just because I have someone I want in my unit, if they are
there illegally, then my duty as a sergeant major is to get
them out of that unit, because that is my duty.
Mrs. Davis of California. Could you speak to that, Sergeant
Alva or Captain Darrah?
Sergeant Alva. Unit cohesion is a very essential part of
the military. That is one of the biggest priorities and goals
of each unit, whether it be a squad, platoon or a company.
Speaking from experience, as the major has stated, we all
have our different individual experiences, and my experience in
2001 while serving on a unit deployment program to Okinawa,
Japan, in Camp Schwab, I was in charge of about 15 junior
marines, and one of the examples of unit cohesion that can also
be destroyed is the particular conduct of how a service member
behaves when they don't want to adhere to orders regardless of
who that person is in title or rank. Maybe it is the
dereliction of duty that that one marine or soldier-airman has.
And I particularly had one of those cases where this one
particular marine had to go through two nonjudicial
punishments, consecutive 45 days restriction, and still would
break those. And every time he broke it or had another
nonjudicial punishment, or even when we processed to his
administrative court martial, it was destroying the unit
cohesion of my other 14 marines, because they were having to do
other things to make up for his dereliction of duties or not
upholding his conduct, which the Uniform Code of Military
Justice (UCMJ) states that each and every service member should
do.
That is what destroyed our unit cohesion, someone who
didn't do their job, someone who wasn't abiding by the
professionalism and doing the merit that they should when they
joined the United States Armed Forces. No one else was
concerned about what he was doing, you know, as far as on the
weekends or who he was dating while in Japan or anything. It
was about the job he was not fulfilling to complete the unit
cohesion that existed within our unit.
Mrs. Davis of California. Thank you.
Captain Darrah.
Captain Darrah. I think, frankly, it is much more
disruptive to unit cohesion and morale if you have a hard-
charging performer who is doing a bang-up job for the unit, and
the next thing, the commanding officers have to fire this
person because they figured out that they are gay. I think that
causes much more disruption.
Mrs. Davis of California. Thank you. My time is up.
Mr. McHugh.
Mr. McHugh. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
And to all of you, as I tried to indicate in the beginning,
I deeply appreciate, as we all do, your being here. It is a
difficult issue, and I know sharing your most innermost
thoughts and passions is not easy, particularly before cameras,
unless you are a politician. Then it is a different
perspective. But for you I know it is difficult.
I appreciate particularly the service of the four of you
who have given so much to this Nation and the uniform of your
country. Regardless of what other labels are placed upon you,
you are American heroes, and thank you for all that you did.
General Coleman, let me ask you a question, because I got a
little confused. What year did you join the service, sir?
General Coleman. 1947.
Mr. McHugh. So you were one year before the segregation of
the units pursuant to the order of integration, the order of
the President, true?
General Coleman. Yes, sir.
Mr. McHugh. You were immediately assigned to a segregated
unit?
General Coleman. Yes, sir. I took basic training in a
segregated unit.
Mr. McHugh. And then I believe I heard you say in the
Korean conflict you were again assigned to a segregated unit.
General Coleman. Yes, sir.
Mr. McHugh. Help me understand why it was after so many
years after the order of desegregation you were still in
segregated units in the Korean conflict.
General Coleman. In 1951, I completed Officer Candidate
School at Fort Sill, Oklahoma, and was reassigned to a National
Guard unit from Alabama, Mississippi, the southern part of the
United States. I reported for duty in that organization.
Incidentally, some of my classmates were also assigned to the
same unit, and they were there.
Mr. McHugh. I should make it clear. I am not disbelieving
you. I am curious as to what the process was in 1948 onward to
desegregate previously segregated units. Apparently this took
some time, because the Korean war they were still segregating
units; is that accurate?
General Coleman. I was reassigned to a segregated unit once
I reported for duty. That was 1951, and that was after
President Truman had signed the Executive Order. I believe the
process was taking place at that time, some units were
integrating, some were not. All the services were not on board
to comply with the Executive Order by the President. However,
in Korea, the commanders in Korea were smart. They said, we
want qualified people. I happened to be lucky enough to be one
of those people, qualified people, who got assigned to a unit
and to Korea in compliance with the Executive Order.
Mr. McHugh. So what I believe your experience would teach,
and this is really the crux of my question, regardless of your
talking about desegregation or lifting a Don't Ask, Don't Tell,
do you think there ought to be some program available to
accommodate the transition, or do you think it just should
happen?
General Coleman. I----
Mr. McHugh. Because in your case it didn't just happen. In
fact, I think we would find African American soldiers today
that would argue in 2008 it still hasn't happened. Would you
agree with that?
General Coleman. No. I think they are all integrated in
2008.
Mr. McHugh. Well, I mean, for practical purposes, not by
numbers.
General Coleman. Now, I would say that in response to a
question about a program, no, I don't think a program is
necessary. What I see is a leadership decision, a leadership
attitude, a leadership problem. A leadership problem. If a unit
is integrated, no matter who gets assigned to my unit, they
have been assigned to my unit, it is my responsibility to train
and equip them and prepare them for combat.
Mr. McHugh. I was thinking more along those others who were
assigned to units, rather than the command. I assume if command
is given a command, they follow it. I don't want to be naive
about it. I am just trying to understand, if this order were to
be lifted, what the process should and might be to accommodate
it. But I appreciate your response.
Let me ask Captain Darrah. I believe I heard you say you
were not yet to the realization you were gay when you joined.
Captain Darrah. That is true.
Mr. McHugh. If you were, would you have still joined? I
know that is a hypothetical question, but to the best of your
ability, what do you feel?
Captain Darrah. If I were--if this--if I were 19 or 21 now
today, I would not join.
Mr. McHugh. You would not join.
Captain Darrah. I would not.
Mr. McHugh. Sergeant Alva, you were of the realization when
you joined that you were gay?
Sergeant Alva. Yes. Yes, sir.
Mr. McHugh. And you did join.
Sergeant Alva. Yes, sir.
Mr. McHugh. Help me to understand your motivation and what
your expectations were.
Sergeant Alva. Well, in 1989, after graduating from high
school, a five-foot-one individual weighing 90 pounds, it
turned in more to a challenge when people told me I couldn't
join because they didn't see me tall enough or even able enough
to join, and I wanted to serve my country. As fellow high
school seniors were coming back from boot camp, and I had seen
the metamorphosis they have gone through from going away as
boys and coming back as grown men and disciplined men, I wanted
that same challenge. I wanted to serve my country as a
patriotic American.
Mr. McHugh. So you were aware of Don't Ask, Don't Tell at
the time?
Sergeant Alva. Not at this time, sir. Don't Ask, Don't Tell
wasn't until 1993. It was in 1991 when I joined.
Mr. McHugh. You joined in 1991. Would you have joined in
1991 had it been the policy in 1991?
Sergeant Alva. Yes. Yes, sir.
Mrs. Davis of California. Thank you, Mr. McHugh.
Dr. Snyder.
Mr. McHugh. Thank you.
Dr. Snyder. Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate you.
Sergeant Major Jones, I was reading your biography, and it
says, quote, ``He is married to Michelle Jones, who spent 13
years in the U.S. Army. She was a captain who commanded two
companies in the Transportation Corps to include one year in
combat.''
After this hearing you may want to have a discussion with
Ms. Donnelly, because she has been leading the charge for the
last several years to put more restrictions on women in the
military, and we could use your help. And if this issue flares
up again, which I don't think it will----
Ms. Donnelly. Captain Jones is a friend of mine. I support
her.
Dr. Snyder. Excuse me, Ms. Donnelly, it is my time here.
Thank you.
I wanted to ask on this issue of unit cohesion, what
concerns me when we define or talk about that, this is not a
novel concept. It has been written about a lot over the years,
but it is a unit cohesion, as it is defined by the proponents
of the status quo, by the lowest common denominator. There are
people in the military who think unit cohesion would be
enhanced if our military reflected the opportunity and freedom
that we believe is America.
I am a veteran myself. I certainly have a lot of friends in
the military currently, a lot of veterans. And so this idea
that unit cohesion is somehow if we rock the boat with those
who have the greatest fears, that unit cohesion is enhanced if
we don't scare them, what about the people that want to see
their military reflect the great strengths of America? I don't
get this definition of unit cohesion. I think that is why this
policy will fail.
Incidentally, Ms. Donnelly, you can comment if you like, I
think the bringing up of HIV is so inappropriate. By this
analysis, you know what we ought to do, we ought to recruit
only lesbians for the military, because they have the lowest
incidence of HIV in the country. I mean, I don't get it. I
think--I have heard a lot of dumb things in my life, but that
is one of them.
Ms. Donnelly. Would you like me to comment?
Dr. Snyder. I want to ask, if I might, Captain Darrah, I am
going to pick on you a little bit if I might. One very
specific--and this is really facetious. Ms. Donnelly in her
written statement on page six refers to ``inappropriate
passive/aggressive actions common in the homosexual
community.'' I am almost tempted to ask you to demonstrate that
for me, but I don't think I will. I have never seen such bias,
such discriminatory kind of--it is just bonkers.
I want you to spend the rest of my time, Captain Darrah,
and talk about this issue of fear. I think that we tend to go
above the issue when we talk about unit cohesion and those
kinds of things and all-important readiness.
I agree with Sergeant Major Jones in terms of any big
changes, we need to be careful about what--how we--
implementation is key. But I don't think enough people
appreciate the day-to-day life of a gay or lesbian person in
the military who wants to serve. Would you talk more about
that? What does that mean day to day with your coworkers,
coming back from weekends, going to parties on the base, all
those kinds of things?
Captain Darrah. Well, I wanted to qualify my comment also
to Representative McHugh.
I wouldn't join only because I spent 29-1/2 years, most of
it, living under Don't Ask, Don't Tell; and I know how
incredibly stressful it is. I still love our country, and I am
so proud I had a chance to serve it.
It is the little things. It is day to day going to work and
knowing, no matter how good your performance is, if somehow
somebody outs you, you are fired. That is just--I mean, that is
the day-to-day stress.
For example, if I----
Dr. Snyder. That you could slip up.
Captain Darrah. Absolutely.
Dr. Snyder. And you could say----
Captain Darrah. Yes, sir.
Dr. Snyder [continuing]. I don't know your partner's name--
Leslie and I had a great time at the beach.
Captain Darrah. Right. My partner actually is Lynn Kennedy,
sitting right behind me, a Library of Congress former employee,
but yes. She wouldn't even dare to call me at work. If there
were any kind of an emergency, she would get a male co-worker
to call me.
And you are right. If I slipped up and said, my partner and
I went to the movies, I would be fired. And I know so many
people in the military that are still living under this, and I
admire them, and that is why I am here.
Dr. Snyder. Well, and my experience is that people who are
out of the military, when they think of that time, as you have
today, it continues to be something that they well up with
tears to talk about. Here they are, we talk about special
rights, the right to serve your country, and the tension and
stresses.
My time is up. I appreciate your all service. And thank
you, Madam Chair.
Mrs. Davis of California. Mr. Jones.
Mr. Jones of North Carolina. Madam Chairman, thank you very
much.
And I join my colleagues who, no matter how you feel about
this issue, thank you for being here today.
And I want to ask--and I am going to go to you, Ms.
Donnelly, because I think you wanted to respond to my
colleague, but I do have a question first. What other countries
have the military opened the doors to the homosexuals who would
like to join the military and how did that impact in those
countries?
Ms. Donnelly. There are very few. Britain accepted a
European court order. They are now well into progressing to
accepting not only homosexuals and bisexuals but also
transgenderism is on the agenda now for the British military.
They do have recruiting and retention problems. They have
problems and issues with what is called homosexual bullying.
This is from the Stonewall Group that objects to anybody who
objects to the agenda of the Stonewall Group.
When we hear about training, the question was asked earlier
about a transitional program to teach our military to accept
homosexuals in the military. Let us talk about that. And, Dr.
Snyder, it is okay to ask me a question about my own testimony.
I am more than happy to answer your question.
What do I mean by passive-aggressive behavior? It means
something that is sexualized short of assault. It means the
kind of thing like a woman who is stared at, her breasts are
stared at. She is made to feel uncomfortable. She feels she has
no recourse. She feels she cannot say anything, can't complain
about it, because it would hurt her career. That is the kind of
thing I am talking about.
Only a year ago, in the Minneapolis Airport, the Nation was
appalled to find that there were 39 men over a period of 3
months, and one of them a U.S. senator, who were found to be
engaging in what I would call passive-aggressive behavior,
something that sexualizes the atmosphere and makes it difficult
for everybody else.
Brian Jones talked about the kind of impact on introducing
erotic factors into that kind of a close combat unit. What that
would do, it would be absolutely devastating to morale, because
people would have no recourse. They can't leave.
In a Minneapolis Airport, you come and go. If you go to a
facility that involves families, private facilities at a
recreation center, there is a sign there that says no little
boys are allowed, no little girls are allowed in the other one.
Why is that? Because we respect the power of sexuality and the
desire for modesty in sexual matters.
That is what this issue is all about. It is not about race.
It is not about superficial things. It is about something very
profound: the power and importance of sexuality.
We have to respect the feelings that people have for the
sake of unit cohesion, for the sake of trust. We have to not go
down the road of saying, well, we are going to try to teach our
military to have different attitudes toward sexuality. How does
that benefit our military? How does that make it stronger? And
if people disagree they are going to be forced out of the
military because we have a new policy called zero tolerance of
any dissent. That means denial of promotions.
Major Jones. Can I add something to that? Because it is
something that bothers me that I heard. We are trying to find
out why we should do this, and one of the things was, well, all
the other countries are doing it. Why don't we?
Well, let me tell you why. I can answer that question.
I went on Operation Deep Strike in Poland in 1999. It was
the first deep strike operation into Poland. On a logistical
post, transfer post going into Poland, I pulled in there as a
sergeant major, and I found a situation that just appalled me.
The captain, United States captain, had put all the females
into a Polish infantry barracks. And in that barracks they were
harassed. The females were absolutely traumatized.
I had to stop where I was at, and I couldn't go forward
where I really need to be. I had to take charge there and fix
that situation. It was just absolutely out of control.
The reason I say that is to help us to realize that nearly
every country in the world wants an army like ours. The part
that is missing is the values training. It is those character
traits. And every single soldier that I have talked to, even in
Iraq when I was deployed there recently in 2004, talked to me
about the need for the discipline type training, the change in
their life to get those things that our leaders teach that
hardly any other country does to prepare our soldiers. And they
are proud of that.
And if you want retention to go down, take that training
away and make it a wide-open army and anything goes and see
what happens. What is going to happen is retention rates are
going to absolutely go down.
And I am not talking off of a poll that can be skewed any
way you want it to read. I am talking to as a sergeant major
that has 21 years of service experience in leadership
positions, and I stay in tune with the soldiers that I lead.
Mrs. Davis of California. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Jones. Your time is up.
Mr. Murphy.
Mr. Murphy. Thank you, Chairwoman.
First, I want to say thank you to the panel for being here
and your testimony today.
I want to introduce myself. I am Patrick Murphy. I am a
freshman. I was in the Army, and I was in the 82nd Airborne
Division over in Iraq, five years ago. Airborne, that is right,
Sergeant Major.
Ms. Donnelly, you testified that gays and lesbians cannot
serve openly in the military because, and I quote, it would be
detrimental to unit cohesion, end quote. In essence, you are
basically asserting that straight men and women in our military
aren't professional enough to serve openly with gay troops
while successfully completing their military mission. And, as a
former Army officer, I can tell you I think that is an insult
to me and to many of the soldiers.
To answer your question, Mr. Jones, it was 24 countries
that military personnel served openly without any detrimental
impact on unit cohesion. Ms. Donnelly, can you please justify
your position that American service men and women are less
professional and less mission capable than service members of
other foreign militaries?
Ms. Donnelly. I respect all our men and women in the
military.
By the way, Dr. Snyder, Captain Michelle Jones--is a friend
of mine.
Mr. Murphy. No, it is just actually Patrick Murphy.
Ms. Donnelly. But I had to answer the other question,
because it wasn't put to me directly.
I respect all the people in the military, and I think your
question is not quite the essence of what we are talking about
here. If we say that forced cohabitation is the new rule and we
are saying that if you don't like the way you feel then just
relax and enjoy it or tolerate it, is that fair?
Mr. Murphy. Ms. Donnelly, that is not actually the
question. The question is, are you saying that you do not trust
our military professionals to serve openly with other people
that might not be heterosexual when 24 other countries do it?
It has nothing about forced cohabitation. In fact, we have----
Ms. Donnelly. Let me finish the question.
Mr. Murphy. You can, but I don't want you to
mischaracterize what my question was, Ms. Donnelly, with all
due respect.
Ms. Donnelly. You said professional, okay. Professional
does not mean automatons. It does not mean that people are not
human. They are human. People have sexual feelings, and they
are not perfect. We know that in the Armed Forces with all the
wonderful men and women we have, we do have issues regarding
sexuality. Men and women have issues because they are not
perfect.
Mr. Murphy. And that is why there is the UCMJ and Army
regulations and Marine Corps regulations. Because if there is--
--
Ms. Donnelly. Let me ask you this.
Mr. Murphy. Hold on now. It is my time, too.
Now, if there is misconduct, then there are regulations to
deal with that misconduct.
Ms. Donnelly. Yes.
Mr. Murphy. But we are talking about orientation, not
misconduct here. And that is the premise of my question to you,
Ms. Donnelly, is that you are saying that our military, the
greatest military in the world, one I was honored to serve with
when I first put the uniform on back in 1993, is not as
professional as 24 other countries because they can understand
what is right and what is wrong.
Ms. Donnelly. What would you say to Cynthia Yost, the woman
who on a training exercise was assaulted by a group of
lesbians?
Mr. Murphy. I would say to her the same thing I would say
to every single man or woman that serves in the military. You
go to your superior officer, and they will get prosecuted under
the Uniform Code of Military Justice. That is exactly what I
will tell them Ms. Yost.
Sergeant Alva, you lost your leg in Iraq, and thank you for
your service to our great country.
Sergeant Alva. As well as you, sir. Thank you.
Mr. Murphy. Can you please comment on my question about
unit cohesion? Do you not think that a Marine can answer the
call to duty if they are asked to by our Nation?
Sergeant Alva. Yes, sir. In fact, there was two fellow
Marines on my convey that day on March 21st. Losing my leg was
an unimaginable tragedy that I never would have thought of. But
on that convey that day--and people were aware of my
orientation--no one stopped to prevent my life from going on.
They did their job, which each man or woman is when we are
going into Afghanistan or Iraq, and that is to take care of
each other, accomplish the mission. And I was brought home
because those Marines did their job. The unit cohesion was not
broken. People did what they were supposed to do. They did
their jobs.
Mr. Murphy. General Coleman, you are a two-star general.
You also got the Purple Heart in your service in Korea. When
you joined our military, it was still segregated. It was
desegregated, as you mentioned in your testimony. Sir, you
testified that you felt like a second-class citizen; and could
you expound on that? Do you think that in your role----
And, again, when you take that oath to support and defend
the Constitution it is not just for your time on active duty,
it is for a lifetime of service to our country. Can you comment
on unit cohesion and your feelings on what we do with our
military?
General Coleman. Yes sir.
Well, unit cohesion is a leadership issue, and that starts
from the very lowest unit at the lowest level and works all the
way to the top. And there is a commitment for everyone. And you
build teams through cohesion. And if you take one member away
from that team, then you are breaking the cohesion, regardless
of what the sex is or what color they might be. You are
building a team, and that team lives and works together.
Mrs. Davis of California. Thank you, Mr. Murphy. I am
sorry. Mr. Murphy's time is up.
I am going to go in the numbers in which the people came in
early. Ms. Shea-Porter is next.
Ms. Shea-Porter. Thank you very much.
I had the great honor of being a military spouse. In those
days we called them military wives, because there weren't that
many men around who were spouses. So I thank all of you for
your service. And I know that when somebody is in the family,
everybody is in. And that means your partner or your spouse or
your children or anybody. So I thank all who have served and
stood by those who have served.
Ms. Donnelly, I have a question, and you may not want to
answer, but when did you decide to become a heterosexual?
Ms. Donnelly. I don't understand the point of your question
except to say this: Sexuality is important.
Ms. Shea-Porter. Let me ask you, was that a choice?
Ms. Donnelly. Homosexuals are human.
Ms. Shea-Porter. I'm not interested in a long talk. I just
want to know, do you think that is a choice or do you think you
just are what you are?
Ms. Donnelly. I am not an expert on why----
Ms. Shea-Porter. I have a pretty good sense that you would
answer it differently, and I respect that. But the point that I
am making is that this really does not interfere.
And from my experience--and, by the way, I have a cousin
who also is in the submarines, and I spoke to him about this.
It didn't bother him one bit. Because it really has to do with
how people perform at their job, not who they are or what they
are born to be.
So I think 10, 15 years from now we are going to look at
this hearing and we are all going to be embarrassed that we
actually sat here and talked about this. And I am embarrassed
right now. Because I think what we are looking for are men and
women who are willing to serve this country, love this country,
step forward to serve this country, especially in times of
great duress.
So I am going to ask you another question, Ms. Donnelly.
Ms. Donnelly. May I comment on what you just said?
Ms. Shea-Porter. Well, actually, not yet, but I will give
you a moment. What I would like to ask you is, are you aware
that the Army is now allowing 10 percent of recruits to come in
with moral waivers?
Ms. Donnelly. Yes, and I think it is wrong. I think the
Department of Defense could do much better than what they are
doing.
Ms. Shea-Porter. Okay. So you are going to blame it on the
Department of Defense.
Ms. Donnelly. Joining the military starting with the
President on down. And it is a problem. But you don't solve it
by repealing the law and saying that homosexuals are going to
be in the military.
Ms. Shea-Porter. Ms. Donnelly, I am not really sure why
these good people are your target, frankly. Frankly, I do not
understand it.
So I guess I will just turn to Captain Darrah and say that
I listened to what you were talking about when you were saying
how you constantly had to hide and how you lived in fear and
how you would not recommend it for people to go in. What kind
of talent do you think we are losing right now because of this
policy that we have?
Captain Darrah. Oh, tremendous talent. Every day I speak to
people that think about joining the military.
And my other fear is there is tremendous talent in the
military, and people that are living under Don't Ask, Don't
Tell and enduring the stress that I did, and if these people
decide they don't want to serve anymore, that is another
tremendous loss. So I think we lose a tremendous number of
people. And there are wonderful people out there that happen to
be gay that would love an opportunity to serve our country.
Ms. Shea-Porter. Right. And it is difficult, especially
right now when we are having trouble recruiting, to walk away
from people with a genuine love for their country.
Obviously, it is not a policy. And to turn away from people
who have done nothing wrong and to choose others who have
committed some offenses and have been arrested for offenses and
to say you are somehow better than others simply because of who
people are--I am embarrassed. I mean, there is not a whole lot
more to say except that I apologize that we use the wrong
yardstick to measure a person's worth and devotion to the
country. And it is my fervent hope that in 15 or 20 years we
will change. Because I will tell you for myself that I may be
straight, but I am not narrow. And I think that this policy
here is very, very narrow.
Thank you, and I yield back.
I am sorry, may I take that one question, Chairwoman?
Captain Darrah. First, thank you for your remarks; and I
certainly hope it is not 15 more years. But I wanted to comment
again.
I was somewhat offended by the comments about military
leadership. I mean, the military and I, as a leader and part of
the military, pride ourselves on our ability to be good leaders
and to take diverse groups of people, different colors,
different genders, different religions, and figure out how to
work together to accomplish the mission. And that was one of
the most wonderful things in my experience in the military.
I had never met a black person when I joined the military.
By the time I left, I didn't care anything about a person--
their religion, their ethnic, their skin color. All I cared
about was their performance and their ability to get the job
done.
Ms. Shea-Porter. Thank you. And thank you, General Coleman,
for being here as well to speak up for people who have not had
the same opportunities. We are getting there. Thank you very
much.
General Coleman. Do you still have time?
Mrs. Davis of California. We have a yellow. She has about
two seconds left. Did you want to comment quickly?
General Coleman. Yes, please. I was sitting here listening
to what is going on, which sent me back to 1948 when I first
came into the Army. I graduated from OCS, and I said I am going
into this unit with the same standards that people have been
assigned to who are able to stay there because they were
black--white. They weren't black. They were white, and I was
black, and I couldn't stay there. And then I look at some of my
gay peers, and I said they are being treated the same way. And
that is definitely, definitely not right, and we deserve equal
ground.
Mrs. Davis of California. Thank you.
Mr. Kline.
Mr. Kline. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thanks to all the panelists for being here today. Thanks
for your service, your military service, much of it at great
sacrifice and very distinguished service. This is--as you can
tell by, sometimes, the heat of the comments and the questions,
this is an emotional issue, and so I appreciate your
participation here today.
I have got to say, just as a matter of sort of personal
state pride, that we get a little bit defensive when people
talk about the Minneapolis Airport, but I can understand where
that might have come from.
My colleague, Mr. Murphy, said there were 24 countries who
I understand, I think, Mr. Murphy, who allow gays, homosexuals
to serve openly without any detriment to unit cohesion. I am
not sure on what basis you have made that determination that
there is no detriment. But I know that Sergeant Major Jones had
started to address that issue earlier, and I wonder if you have
any more that you would like to say about that.
Major Jones. Repeat the question, please.
Mr. Kline. Yes. The question is, there are countries who
have opened up their policies and allowed homosexuals to serve
openly. And the claim is that has had no detrimental effect,
and you started to say something about it.
Major Jones. Right. I wasn't able to finish my answer.
What I would like to say about that, the point I was trying
to make is that every country--I have worked alongside a lot of
them--Britain, France, England, Poland, the Italians--and what
I have seen, or a common thread between all of them, is they
want to be like us. And I can't for the world of me understand
why we would compare ourselves to them and say, well, you need
to be more like them.
We lead in every facet in the world here. They wait for us
to make the first move. They know our Army is capable. And you
talk about cohesion. We have the best cohesive Armed Forces
across the board than anybody in this world.
I could give you more specifics on some of those things I
have seen. The Italians in Iraq in 2004--I was on the ground
there. And what they would do is hang out at the post exchange
(PX) and wait for Army females to come shopping, and they would
invite them to a party where they are allowed to drink, and
drinking is encouraged. And the incidence of rapes just went
through the roof, misconduct, and some of the things is just
appalling. So they had to place the Italian compound off
limits.
It didn't stop anything, because they always seemed to be
one step ahead. They had poor discipline. They don't teach the
same value system that we have.
And what I have seen across the board, like I said, in
every aspect, the special operations, airborne units that I
have worked beside have always wanted to find out how they
could be more like us. A lot of that thing is it is the way we
train and mold teams.
It is not a matter of, what I have heard earlier,
discrimination. It is not that at all. We welcome anybody and
everybody, even in the most elite special operation units, like
Delta Force that I have been in. We welcome those Americans
across the board. It is not a matter of that. It is a matter of
having a team.
And some of the specific things I talked about, the trust
factors there, that nobody lied about how they got in the
military. Do we know that we can depend on these people? When
we get on the ground in that 10 degrees Fahrenheit in the
mountains somewhere and we can't build a fire and we have to
huddle together to stay warm to keep from freezing in the
night, there can't be any arousal. There can't be that awkward
feeling. It is going to hurt the cohesion of the team. And
those are the kinds of things that we have got to think about.
The other thing is, how are you going to implement this?
And I have talked about how busy we are. We got enough on our
plate. We are stretched as thin as we can. Okay, now let us
stop and retrain the whole Armed Forces and see how we are
going to make the time to implement that safely and securely so
that no one gets offended or hurt or court-martialed or
whatever the case may be. How in the world are we going to do
it?
Mr. Kline. Thank you very much, Sergeant Major.
Madam Chair, I see the light is getting ready to turn red,
so I will yield back.
Mrs. Davis of California. Thank you.
Ms. Tsongas.
Ms. Tsongas. Thank you, Chairwoman Davis, for holding this
long-overdue hearing; and as well thank you to our witnesses
for participating today. I currently represent a district that
was formally held by Congressman Marty Meehan who initiated a
discussion around this issue; and I thank you all, also to
Congresswoman Tauscher, for continuing the discussion. As you
can see, it is so important.
I would like to read something. We had it read into the
record. But the DOD statement regarding Don't Ask, Don't Tell,
in part.
Quote, there is no ban on gay and lesbian service members.
A service member's sexual orientation is viewed as a personal
matter and is not a bar to continued service unless manifested
by homosexual conduct. The law establishes a basis for
separation from the Armed Forces as conduct, not sexual
orientation.
I would like to ask Captain Darrah and Sergeant Alva, is
that the military you served in.
Captain Darrah. Yes ma'am. That is why I lived basically
two lives. My conduct was exemplary, my performance was
sufficient to promote me to the rank of captain and make me the
deputy commander of the Naval Intelligence Command, but I lived
two separate lives.
Sergeant Alva. Thank you, Congresswoman.
I agree with Captain Darrah. The same is that, you know, in
13 years of service, you know, my orientation was not a factor.
It was about me just doing my job. You know, especially going
into Iraq, it was about me as a staff noncommissioned officer
and is along the same lines. And I almost feel like we are
along the same paths other than, you know, with Sergeant Major
Jones.
I was in Somalia in 1992, 1993 and served along forces,
with Canadian and Italian troops. And even 15 years later I
have run into meeting some Canadian troops just out vacationing
in Puerto Vallarta or riding on a plane traveling the country.
And we always seem to discuss that--you know, because I wear
shorts, they see my prosthesis, and they ask me did you get
injured in the war? And I say, yes, sir. And they are like,
well, what do you do now? And I tell them I was going to
college; and I actually tell them, you know, that I actually
speak on repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell.
And every single person that I come across from a different
country doesn't understand why our Nation is so further behind
others when we seem to be the forefront of trying to be the
example. And it is amazing because it is all about us just
being recognized for doing a good job.
Ms. Tsongas. And yet this is also a policy in which conduct
is very broadly defined. So merely declaring your sexual
orientation can lead to a presumption of conduct that is a
basis for asking you to leave the service. So how does that
compromise----
Sergeant Jones, you were talking about the issue of values,
a values-based training, in which honesty is a very important
factor; and yet honesty is a very much compromised value for
someone who happens to be gay and can only stay in the military
by remaining secretive or lying.
Ms. Donnelly. May I comment on that, Brian? The statement
from the Department of Defense is not accurate. The law states,
and I quote, the prohibition against homosexual conduct is a
long-standing element of military law that continues to be
necessary in the unique circumstances of military service.
That statement makes no sense. And notice the dissembling
phrase, ``sexual orientation''. That phrase is nowhere in the
law. The law says that if you say you are homosexual that means
you will engage in the conduct that defines what homosexuality
is. It is very straightforward.
But the confusion, statements like that put out by the
Department of Defense, that is the source of problem that we
are hearing about today. Young people should know they can
serve their country in many ways. But some people, many people,
are not eligible to serve in the military. It is not a right.
Sometimes it is an obligation. But there is no right to serve
in the military.
And, by the way, who says that any group is any more
perfect than others? Who says that homosexuals are any more
perfect than heterosexuals? We know people are human. They have
failings. We need policies that encourage discipline rather
than indiscipline. If we know that it doesn't make sense to
have men and women sharing the same quarters, no privacy 24/7,
if we know that is not sound policy, why would we pretend that
it is okay to pretend that homosexuality doesn't matter?
This is all about sexuality, respect for common sense, the
desire for modesty in sexual matters. The sound policy of the
law has been undermined by Don't Ask, Don't Tell.
The question are you a homosexual that used to be in the
induction forms, that question ought to be reinstated.
Otherwise, it is like, as I said before, when bartenders have
said you have to enforce that law, you can't serve a person
under age, but you can't ask any proof, you can't have a sign
that says we check ID, and if that young person goes out and
has a fatal collision, well, then the bartender is responsible.
That is bad policy. On that one point we all agree. But the
law----
Mrs. Davis of California. Ms. Tsongas' time is up. Thank
you.
Mrs. Boyda.
Mrs. Boyda. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman, for
calling this hearing.
Sergeant Major Jones, I just wanted to clarify something--
and, again, I hope that you understand how much I deeply
appreciate your service, everyone's service here today. Keeping
our country safe is I think our number one--well, it is clearly
the number one responsibility of our National and Federal
Government.
And, Brian, when you were giving your opening remarks, I
just wanted to ask you to clarify something. Because I think
someone might have misinterpreted what you said, and I
couldn't--I can't imagine----
You talked quite eloquently about selfless service, and I
know that you were not implying that Staff Sergeant Eric Alva
didn't perform selfless service in his line of duty, did you?
Major Jones. No, ma'am, not at all. In fact, I really
appreciate his service to our country. And I know he is very
sincere, and I am proud of his service, as I would be anyone.
If you would like me to talk a little bit more what I meant
by selfless service, I could clarify.
Mrs. Boyda. I would just caution you in this conversation,
because I would have been shocked if you had said, no, I don't
think it was selfless service. But I would just caution you as
we move forward that we talk about the issue as openly and as
respectfully as we can. Because many people who would have
heard you and known what we were talking about, it wouldn't
have been hard to say that you were implying that you have
selfless service, a heterosexual. But that would have been easy
to imply.
Major Jones. Would you let me explain what I mean by that?
Mrs. Boyda. Actually, because I only have five minutes--if
we have more time, then I would be happy to do that.
And, again, when you said that, I believe every word. I
feel quite certain that Sergeant Alva believed every word as
well, too. So I would just caution while we have this
discussion----
And, Mrs. Donnelly, I just was curious, when we went back
into the 1930's and 1940's and we were trying to deal with the
very, very difficult issue of segregating and desegregation of
our military when it came to issues of race, if you could take
yourself back then, where would you have stood back in 1940 on
that issue of race? Where would you--it wouldn't be hard. Put
yourself back there. And now you are being asked to testify on
behalf of this. Where would you have stood on that issue?
Ms. Donnelly. Well, I wasn't born then, but I do know I
remember in high school when friends of mine went and were part
of the civil rights marches I was very proud of that movement,
what Martin Luther King said and did. The history of the
military with regard to civil rights is among our proudest
chapters.
On the Presidential commission on which I serve that looked
at the issue of women in combat, we established that the
executive order of Harry Truman was done for two reasons: to
advance equal opportunity, yes, but its number one reason was
to improve military necessity. We needed those soldiers, and we
are proud of them. But when you make it a sexual issue, it
doesn't fit the same tradition.
Mrs. Boyda. Reclaiming my time here. What would you have--
because, quite honestly, many of the same arguments were put
forward then on unit cohesion. What it would do to undermine
this great military? That we had the--you know, I think we all
recognize that the arguments sound very, very, very similar in
many, many ways, and it comes back mainly to unit cohesion. It
sounds like you feel very passionately that that was a good
decision.
Ms. Donnelly. Yes.
Mrs. Boyda. If you could again put yourself back there,
what would you have said to those people to help convince them
that, as well-intentioned as they were, they were just wrong.
What would you have said to them?
Ms. Donnelly. Prejudice is wrong. But feelings about
sexuality are different.
Mrs. Boyda. They weren't talking about prejudice. They were
talking about unit cohesion. And they weren't making a case
that black people were good or bad. They were just talking
about what it would do to unit cohesion.
Ms. Donnelly. Yes.
Mrs. Boyda. How would you have said--do you think it would
have--do you think their arguments about unit cohesion were
valid or not valid?
Ms. Donnelly. Prejudice is wrong. We are not talking about
racial prejudice. We are talking about feelings of sexuality.
Mrs. Boyda. Mrs. Donnelly, I am not asking you about that.
I'm saying----
Ms. Donnelly. Saying that sexuality does not matter----
Mrs. Boyda. Excuse me. I reclaim my time. Just a moment.
Again, the whole argument on cohesion--I would like you to
answer the question that I am asking. It sounds like you
believe you would have been on the other side of that issue
this time. And they were making an argument about unit
cohesion, not prejudice. They certainly didn't make this
argument on prejudice. What would you have said to somebody who
was saying this is going to be a bad thing for unit cohesion?
What would you have said to them?
Ms. Donnelly. I would say prejudice is bad for unit
cohesion. You do things for the best interest of the military.
What we are looking at today is the issue of sexuality. It
is personal. It is private. It is something that if we set out
as a military to say there will be zero tolerance on anybody
who is not willing to go along with this----
Mrs. Boyda. What I hear you saying then is it did not
affect unit cohesion, although many people said that.
Ms. Donnelly. I already answered your question at least
three times. This is a totally different issue.
Mrs. Davis of California. I am going to move on to Mrs.
Tauscher. Mrs. Tauscher.
Ms. Tauscher. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Thank you very
much for holding this hearing, and thank all of you who have
served and are here today to help us talk about what is a very,
very important issue.
I am the author of the Don't Ask, Don't Tell repeal. And I
am very proud to be here, not only because this is the first
time in 15 years that we have had the ability to talk about
this issue, but because this week is also the 60th anniversary
of President Truman signing the executive order ordering the
racial integration of the Armed Services.
And contrary to what Ms. Donnelly wants you to believe,
this is a civil rights issue. I believe that repealing the
Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy is probably the last civil rights
issue we have.
We have the finest military in the world. I think we all
know that and believe it. And what the military has done for
the American people over many generations is form a more
perfect union. Because, over time, it has been the perfect
union. Because it has been a place where we have gotten rid of
racial discrimination far before we did it in our own country.
And now we have a chance to take away discrimination by
sexual orientation; and I think that it is very, very important
that we look forward to doing that. Because not only do we have
issues of readiness that are very clear in our military now but
because I think the American people always want us to strive to
do better and because we know in our hearts that we have had
gay and lesbians serving in the military probably from the
first unit that was ever put together. And for now to have a
policy where those fine Americans can only serve if they lie
about who they are is a discredit to the American people. It is
a discredit to their service and their opportunity. It is a
discredit to people who have died in service. It is a discredit
to their families. And I am very happy and very proud to stand
with my colleagues who are supporting the future repeal of
Don't Ask, Don't Tell.
General Coleman, oddly Ms. Donnelly refers in her testimony
to inappropriate passive-aggressive actions common in the
homosexual community. To me, that relies on a rather dubious
assumption that the military does not have regulations and
procedures needed to address inappropriate actions. I would
like to ask you, is the military currently capable of
addressing inappropriate actions by service members? And if
Don't Ask, Don't Tell were repealed and replaced with a
nondiscriminatory policy based on such sexual orientation,
would that prevent commanders such as yourself from addressing
inappropriate actions by gay and straight service members?
General Coleman. The military does have a policy that
applies to all members, whether they be straight or gay or
otherwise; and it does not prevent commanders from exercising
that right. It is an exercise in leadership. As a matter of
fact--leadership will do that.
I would like to add a couple of other comments about the
company I led, training the Army during a long training
program. The Army is in a constant state of change, a constant
state of training. That is one of the things that we do in the
Army, is to change and to train. If we didn't change, we
wouldn't be the Army that we are. And it was very offensive to
me to hear the comments regarding the condition of our Army,
the people in the Army, how they react. Having been there, that
is unfair to the people that are there serving and serving
well.
And this is not about sexuality. This is about military
readiness. It is about giving young people the opportunity that
want to serve and the opportunity to serve and giving them
equality. And I hope when we look at that it is not at all
about sexuality.
Ms. Tauscher. Thank you, General.
I have heard a lot in this testimony today that has
surprised me and shocked me and disappointed me, including lots
of loaded words like ``San Francisco-based attitudes''.
And, Sergeant Major, your inference that this is a minority
faction that is pushing this, there is a poll just last week--
and I know that you discredit polls unless they work for your
argument--but the truth is that 75 percent of the American
people believe that Don't Ask, Don't Tell is the wrong policy.
Not shockingly, they are ahead of most of the military.
Major Jones. I have to agree with you. This may surprise
you. I disagree with Don't Ask, Don't Tell, also.
Ms. Tauscher. Well, you disagree with it in a very narrow
way.
But the truth of the matter is that they understand what
this is, that this is a policy that discriminates against good
Americans that are qualified to serve in the military for every
reason except for their sexual orientation. And they understand
how wrong it is.
And that poll says 75 percent of the American people
believe that that law should be repealed. That says that they
are, not shockingly, ahead of most of the military, you know,
people like you, and they certainly are ahead of the Congress.
And I think that it is important that we begin to listen to
them. They understand that we need everybody in the country
that wants to serve to be able to serve if they meet the
qualifications.
And, Ms. Donnelly, you used the term eligibility in a way
that, frankly, scares me. You used the term eligibility in a
way to discriminate, and I don't really think that that is what
you hope to do.
Ms. Donnelly. Actually, I am not eligible to be in the
military because I don't suit the eligibility standards of the
military. There is lots of people who are not eligible.
Mrs. Davis of California. Excuse me, Mrs. Tauscher, your
time is up. We can come back hopefully in another round.
Mr. Shays.
Mr. Shays. Thank you, Madam Chairman; and thank you so very
much for allowing me to have this opportunity.
I have been the chairman of the National Security
Subcommittee on the Government Reform Committee, and we have
dealt with issues about sexual misconduct in the military in
our academies, and they dealt with heterosexual misconduct. And
I am just struck by the fact that some of our witnesses will
talk about misconduct as if that is the issue that they pretend
to be focused on. But all of us agree in this room that if it
is heterosexual misconduct, homosexual misconduct, gay
misconduct, it would result in someone losing their command and
being forced out of the military. So there is no argument about
that. And then when you bring it up, when some of the witnesses
brought it up, I just think it is somewhat scurrilous because
it really distorts the issue.
The issue is, if someone performs perfectly well but they
have a different sexual orientation, should they be allowed to
serve in the military? In my home state in Connecticut, on
Memorial Day, we read off the names in Greenwich, Connecticut,
of everyone who lost their life from the French and Indian War.
I suspect some of them happened to have been gay. I don't have
a statistic of how many. I suspect when I look at Arlington
Cemetery some happened to be gay. I suspect--and I have a
little more proof of this--that the first person injured in the
Iraqi War happened to have been gay. God bless everyone who
served.
I think the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy is unpatriotic, I
think it is counterproductive. In fact, I think it is
absolutely cruel.
So I am going and meeting with an individual who served
here, Jim Kolbe. He shows me that he was a river rat in
Vietnam. I said, my God, you risked your life almost every day.
And then I thought about myself. I was a conscientious
objector, and I was in the Peace Corps with my wife, but I was
deemed worthy, but he wasn't. And for nothing else I am here
for Jim Kolbe.
And I have to say to you, Captain, I know that every day
you had to be afraid that you would be found out, that you
would have lost your command, you would have been forced out of
the service in disgrace. And, frankly, I don't care what you do
with your partner. What I care about is what you did for your
service to our country. God bless you. And it is just really an
outrage I think that you even have to be here to defend your
amazing service to our country.
Would you please tell me, Ms. Donnelly, why I should give
one twit about this woman's sexual orientation when it didn't
interfere one bit with her service?
Ms. Donnelly. I am here to talk about policy.
Mr. Shays. Answer my question, please. You are a witness
before us.
Ms. Donnelly. I respect the service of Captain Darrah,
General Coleman, Sergeant Alva, everybody who serves in the
military.
Mr. Shays. How do you respect their service? You want them
out.
Ms. Donnelly. I am standing for sound policy, Congressman.
We can't ignore the importance----
Mr. Shays. Can you answer my question?
Ms. Donnelly. I am trying to answer your question.
Mr. Shays. No. Let me make sure you know what my question
is. My question is, what difference does it make--let me say it
differently. How does the relationship that Captain Darrah has
with her partner have any impact on the service as long as it
is her own personal experience?
Ms. Donnelly. Mr. Shays, in the military, we don't make
policy based on individuals. We have groups of people who serve
in conditions of little or no privacy. ``Forced intimacy'' is
the phrase that is used in the law. That is what it is all
about, Congressman. And it is not fair to tell young men and
women that their feelings are going to be so disapproved of
that they will be in violation of----
Mr. Shays. Well, this is what I think is not fair. You
answered my question. Now you are saying something else.
Ms. Donnelly. I am answering your question.
Mr. Shays. I want my time back, and I want to be clear with
you. What you are saying is that she has no right to risk her
life and protect fellow soldiers, sailors and Marines. You are
saying that she has no right to serve her country because she
happens to have a different sexual orientation than you. And I
say, so what?
Ms. Donnelly. Congressman, you are saying that Cynthia
Yost, who wrote a letter to this committee, if she is assaulted
by a group of lesbians, that----
Mr. Shays. Then the lesbians should be let out. The
lesbians should be let out. That is what should happen. They
should be out immediately because of their bad conduct. Just
like when I had my hearing and we had people, men, who were
sexually assaulting women soldiers, they should be let out.
Their conduct is what matters in the service.
Ms. Donnelly. You just made my point. If you want to have
three times as many incidents of sexual misconduct----
Mr. Shays. We don't have three times as much. I don't know
of any misconduct to Ms. Darrah. Do you have any misconduct,
Ms. Darrah?
Mrs. Davis of California. Mr. Shays, your time is up. We
are going to move to the next----
Ms. Donnelly. That is not what we are talking about here.
Mrs. Davis of California. Mr. Sestak.
Mr. Sestak. Thanks, Madam Chair.
I don't have any--I couldn't ask it better than you did
sir, and so I just have a few--may I make a few comments?
There is this wonderful painting in the Pentagon right
across from the Secretary of Defense's Office. It is a young
service member kneeling in church with his young wife beside
him and a young child beside him. And under it that wonderful
saying in the Book of Isaiah where God turns to Isaiah and
says, who shall I send? Who will go for us? And Isaiah replies,
here am I. Send me.
It may not be a right, but it is an equal opportunity for
all of us to give selfless service to our Nation. I joined the
military in 1970. I can remember on an aircraft carrier you
didn't go below deck if you were an officer unless you had a
master of arms with you because of the racial tensions at that
time. And I can remember 35 or so years later having commanded
a carrier battle group in the war in Afghanistan and watching a
woman the first night off that dove down and saved four Special
Forces that had been surprised by the Taliban. We worked our
way through those racial and gender issues in those decades I
was in the military.
I can always remember a young man coming up to me and
starting to tell me he was gay; and all I could think about is,
please don't tell me, you are just too good. We knew by outside
surveys all those years I went into combat that we had gays in
the military. I never understood how you could come back home
and say you don't have equal rights or equal opportunity.
To my mind, it all began with George Washington--Sergeant
Major, you know it well--when he gave the very first medal in
the U.S. Army. And he says, with this little piece of purple
ribbon, it was only to be given to an enlisted man. Because he
wanted to demonstrate that the way to the top was open to
everyone, unlike the Hessians and the British that we were
fighting.
It was brought home to me when I pulled into a country in
the Middle East and we asked several officers to get under way
with us. It was my first command as a young commander. And as
these officers left one of them turned to me and said, you
know, Captain, you treat your enlisted different than we do.
You treat them as though they are equal to you.
And I said, they say, yes, sir, or no, sir.
He said, no, no, no. You treat them as if they are equal
human beings.
We have commanders, we have NCOs, we have chief petty
officers in the Navy to take care of the disciplinary problems
that my colleague from Connecticut put out. We worked our way,
as Patrick Murphy knows and others here, through all of those
issues because we had good leaders.
Because, ultimately, what I found out as we went around the
world all those decades is that we aren't born better, but we
are different in America. And at those times where our
character doesn't show through, potentially at a time like
this, we somehow happen to hold up a national mirror to
ourselves and say, that is not who we are. We are better than
that.
Equal human beings, that is what George Washington told the
first enlisted. They were men at the time, white; and we worked
our way through black and gender and now sexual orientation
because we are better than that.
Thank you all for your selfless service.
Mrs. Davis of California. Thank you.
We will go on to another round. Mr. Gingrey, would you like
to ask a question? I was told you didn't have one.
Dr. Gingrey. Thank you, Madam Chair. I don't have a
question right now. Thank you very much.
Mrs. Davis of California. All right. Thank you very much.
Then I am going to start again, and we will try to get a
round. I don't know how far we are going to go because we do
have some votes coming up.
One of the underlying issues and concerns--and I think it
has been pretty well expressed here by everybody--number one, I
think we know that we do put people in difficult positions in
the services. We especially do that with the integration of
gender. And there are issues that people face, and they face
them every day in the services, and we all learn to live with
that. The service members learn to live with that.
And it is not always easy, but there are rules around it,
and we try and enforce them as best we can. Quite honestly, I
know that this committee is aware that we don't always do our
best in doing that, but we really do have some regulations, and
we need to follow them.
But I am also sensing a concern on the part of Ms.
Donnelly, and certainly Sergeant Major Jones, that perhaps it
would be more harassment of homosexuals--of heterosexuals, I am
sorry, if in fact this policy changed and that it might be
difficult to prosecute because people would be uncomfortable
coming forward. They perhaps would not feel that they would be
heard from properly. And I am asking you if you believe that.
And perhaps, Sergeant Alva, whether you are hearing that people
are asking for different kinds of structure, a different kind
of protection to heterosexuals or to homosexuals in order to
have a policy that works?
Captain Darrah.
Captain Darrah. I would say, at the moment, the situation
you have for a gay person, if they happen to be being harassed,
they can't do anything.
If a black person or a female or anyone else in the
military, for that matter, is not being treated properly, they
go to the chain of command and then the leadership intervenes.
A gay person, unfortunately, is faced with the situation they
can either go to the chain of command and complain that for
some reason they are not being treated fairly, but if they do
that then they will have to out themselves, and they will be
fired.
Mrs. Davis of California. Yes.
General Coleman. As I was saying, prior to 1993, we didn't
have a problem with gays in the military. We created a problem
with Don't Ask, Don't Tell. People lived together, worked
together, and this family performed, our Army, my Army.
I spent most of my life in the military with my peers,
regardless of their sexual orientation; and there were
absolutely no problems. And I think we are obligated to improve
military readiness by lifting the ban Don't Ask, Don't Tell.
If I use myself as an example, if I might, as you can tell,
I am black, I am straight. But as a 17-year old I was probably
a day or two from a life of crime. Three of my peers ended up
over-dosing (OD'ing); the other four ended up spending time in
and out of jail. The Army saved me. The Army will save others.
We just got to give them the opportunity.
Mrs. Davis of California. Sergeant Major Jones, are you
suggesting that perhaps people would be asking for policies
that would protect gay men, lesbian women in the military
differently than they would the heterosexual community?
Major Jones. I am going give you a very honest answer, and
I am going to base it on the experience I had as a leader in
the Army many, many times, as many as I could find. And what
would happen if you repeal this 1993 law would be a knee-jerk
reaction--and we see it in the military all the time--of
overkill. And what would happen is, as you see now, it is very
hard to ask questions.
And that is why you see some of the problems with the
assaults. It is not a gang violence thing that we can fix. It
is something that people are afraid to ask about. Even in
investigation stages, a leader really has to be careful because
the leader might end up being the one in trouble.
What would happen if we lift this is you would see that the
problem would become a lot worse. It is going to be a--there is
going to be a whole lot of harassment. There is going to be a
whole lot of people not understanding until they are trained.
Mrs. Davis of California. I think one of the questions that
has been asked is, if you believe that people are not up to
that task, that professionalism of the service is not such that
people can----
Major Jones. Yes, they are up to the task. The average
American soldier can complete any task that is assigned to him,
and they will, because they follow the law. And you heard me
talk about raising their right hand and taking the oath and
following the law. Yes, they will do it.
Is it the best thing for the military to do that? I don't
think so. Is it going to get us more ready for what we are
facing right now, which a lot of people in America said that we
had failed before we started, the last buildup, going back into
Iraq and trying to win this? We were told you are going to
fail. We were told you did fail. In fact, we are about to win
this.
Mrs. Davis of California. I appreciate your response. My
time is up. Thank you.
Mr. McHugh.
Mr. McHugh. Well, Madam Chair, I am not sure I have any
more questions. I think, after having sat here for some two
hours, I am pretty well convinced where everyone on the panel
is on this issue. And I certainly respect all of their
perspectives.
I would say to Captain Darrah, because she understandably
followed up for my question about would you have joined. I
hope--I don't think you did, but I hope that my question didn't
suggest in any way that there was an integration factor to your
service. I was trying to understand how this policy would have
affected someone like you who was affected by it ultimately had
they had the opportunity to think about it.
And similarly with Staff Sergeant Alva, who didn't know
about that policy but in fact was banned under the existing law
at that time still joined.
So I was trying to get a perspective on that. So no
question to disservice.
Captain Darrah. I totally understood your question.
And it is--as I mentioned in my statement, it is hard for
me when I see young, energetic, patriotic gay kids that say I
want to join the military, that would be great, and I find
myself telling them no because I know how hard it is to try and
pretend.
Mr. McHugh. I understand. But, as I said, from a policy
perspective, I am trying to understand the net effect of it.
And I would say to General Coleman, who not just served
during the time of desegregation but obviously lived with it,
my question was intended to try to better recognize what
process, if any, was implemented back in 1948 under President
Truman's directive; and lessons learned is a big issue in the
military and maybe find some lessons learned with respect to
what would be required were we to change this policy.
But let me say, after, as I mentioned, two hours, Madam
Chair, for all of the passion--and I might say it was reflected
at times on this panel as well, meaning this side of the dais.
I think, if nothing else, it underscores what I tried to
indicate in my opening comments, how difficult this decision
is, how good people who have done amazing things can come to
our table and give totally opposite views and underscores, in
my judgment at least, the need to explore in a very substantive
way the data and the other opinions that are out there in the
Palm Center study, for example, and the polling data that is
often cited as to why this should be accommodated and is, at
the same time, cited as to why it should not.
Again, to underscore my opening comments about my
disappointment in the military services, because we have to at
some point, I would assume, come to a decision as to whose
opinion prevails and what is the greater good here. And with
all due deference and respect and appreciation to this panel
and the five individuals who have appeared here, that kind of
waiting decision from my perspective ought to be based on a
much broader foundation of input. And I would trust, as I again
mentioned in my opening comments, Madam Chair, that you would
afford us the opportunity to conduct those kinds of inquiries
so whatever we do, whatever we do at the end of the day is the
right thing for our men and women in uniform and, of course,
the right thing to do as the proud Americans that I trust we
all are.
So again, in a closing word of appreciation to our
panelists and the deepest thanks for their service and
obviously their sacrifice, I will yield back.
Mrs. Davis of California. Thank you, Mr. McHugh.
Dr. Snyder.
Dr. Snyder. Thank you.
Captain Darrah, you introduced your partner. I'm sorry,
what was her name again? .
Captain Darrah. Lynn Kennedy.
Dr. Snyder. How long have you been together?
Captain Darrah. Now 17-1/2 years.
Dr. Snyder. Does Ms. Kennedy have any comments she would
like to make about those stresses, what it was like for her?
Captain Darrah. Based on the last two days, she might have
liked it better when she was not part of my life.
Dr. Snyder. So I will take that as no, she wouldn't.
I wanted to ask you, Ms. Donnelly, I think the only openly
gay man that who serves in the Congress here is Chairman Barney
Frank, the Chairman of the House Financial Service Committee.
Barney has been adding a lot to this country, particularly
since he has been Chairman of the Financial Services, given the
great issues that we have facing us economically. I thought he
would add a lot here because of his intelligence, humor and his
great, great knowledge of these issues. It may be after hearing
your testimony today it is because he sexualizes the
atmosphere. And that was your phrase, ``sexualizes the
atmosphere.'' So I want to pursue this a little bit, if I
might.
As I went through your list of concerns, forced
cohabitation was one of them, your belief that there would be
increased risk of sexual misconduct, physical abuse, you
brought up what I thought was ill advised, but it is in your
list, potential for HIV. Those are all issues that also would
affect the civilian side of our government.
We have had thousands of DOD civilians serve in Iraq. We
have had I don't know what the total number is of folks from
other agencies, United States Agency for International
Development (USAID). In fact, my subcommittee has done
hearings, and we put out a report on the whole issue of other
civilians, Department of Agriculture, Justice, Treasury, all
these people serving in Iraq. We had the issue of embedded
reporters. We have had contractors from other places. And I
just confirmed, you may have seen my whispering session with
one of my fellows who served two tours there, when they are in
those areas, they serve. They use the same showers. They have
to find places for them to stay. They are treated--in terms of
living conditions, they are in the same area.
Based on the arguments you are giving today, is it your
recommendation this Congress should consider banning all gays
and lesbians for participating in overseas activities on the
civilian side also?
Ms. Donnelly. No, because in the civilian world people
don't live together. They don't cohabit together.
Dr. Snyder. So you just missed my point, didn't you, Ms.
Donnelly? I just gave you the situation, the scenario overseas.
They do live together. Apparently they are taking their phones
in the shower and taking pictures.
Ms. Donnelly. Not in the same----
Dr. Snyder. Of course they do.
Major Jones. Do you mind if I comment? I was a DOD civilian
in Iraq in 2004, and I can address this.
Dr. Snyder. Ms. Donnelly is the one who has made what I
think is a pretty egregious argument here.
Ms. Donnelly. I will defer to him.
Major Jones. I have experience on that, sir, to give you
the best answer I can possibly give.
Dr. Snyder. Go ahead.
Well, my question is, is it your recommendation, Sergeant
Major Jones, that all civilians, U.S. Government civilians, who
are gay or lesbian not be assigned overseas to Iraq or
Afghanistan?
Major Jones. I believe they should be able to serve
overseas.
Dr. Snyder. I do, too. The problem I have, then, with Ms.
Donnelly's arguments is then it is okay, forced cohabitation
with civilians, the risk of sexual misconduct, the risk of
physical abuse.
Major Jones. That is why I would like to give you my take
on that.
Sir, as I stated, I did serve over there in 2004 for
Department of Defense as a military action officer. And, no, I
did not have to shower with our civilians----
Dr. Snyder. No, but you missed my point. What I set this up
with, they clearly do. I mean, you may not have. I am not
saying every civilian does, but when they go overseas, they do.
That is the reality of the situation.
Ms. Donnelly. Dr. Snyder, I would like to comment.
Dr. Snyder. That is why the call it embedded reporters.
They use the same facilities. So I agree with you. I am sure
Ambassador Crocker does not shower with all the military guys
as a civilian, but a significant number of them do. That is
very clear.
Ms. Donnelly. Dr. Snyder, Congressman Frank--I am not aware
that Members of Congress are cohabiting with Congressman Frank.
I don't think I would have brought----
Dr. Snyder. We are in agreement. Ms. Donnelly, you finally
found it. You have found something that you and I agree with.
On that note I will end. Thank you.
Mrs. Davis of California. Mr. Murphy.
Mr. Murphy. Thanks, Ms. Chairwoman.
I want to comment about Mrs. Tauscher's and Mr. Sestak's
earlier remarks. Earlier this week is the 60th anniversary of
the Executive Order of President Truman, and you think that
when--we desegregated the Army when half of our country was
still segregated, and really the powerful thing that was when
there was a lot of social tensions obviously were there when
that decision was made. And Ms. Donnelly mentioned it was a
civil rights issue, but also, as you mentioned, a military
necessity why he made that decision.
I would like to point to the fact that since we implemented
the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy in our military, there have
been 12,000 servicemen and women who have been forced to
chapter out of the military; since 9/11, a combat brigade,
3,500, specifically 58 Arabic speakers, which they could be on
the ground right now in Iraq or Afghanistan producing vital
intelligence that would help us win the war on terror.
When I was in Iraq with the 82nd Airborne Division, my men
did not care if you were gay or straight. They just wanted to
get the mission done and come home alive.
So, you know, I would like to direct this first to Ms.
Donnelly. What would be the greater threat to a national
security military necessity, leaving a terrorist document
untranslated or having a gay soldier fight alongside a straight
one?
Ms. Donnelly. In order to have the documents translated, we
need to have the Defense Language Institute training people
eligible--who are eligible to be in the Armed Forces----
Mr. Murphy. There were 58 that actually were trained, and
they were put out of the military.
Ms. Donnelly [continuing]. About who is the best linguist,
by the way. We need people who are good linguists, but not
necessarily should they be gay. I mean, that is a stereotype.
Mr. Murphy. Ms. Donnelly, come on, let us be straight here.
Let us be straight here. That is what the American people want.
The fact is when we talk about military necessity, we are in
desperate need of more troops in Iraq, and especially in
Afghanistan. And we have let go 12,000 American men, women,
soldiers, not for sexual misconduct, but because of their
sexual orientation. Fifty-eight of those are translators.
Now, I tell you, if we are still running convoys over
there, I wish we had more translators. We are in desperate need
of Arabic speakers, and we don't have enough of them. It is a
military necessity.
Would you not agree that we have more troops right now in
Iraq than Afghanistan?
Ms. Donnelly. We need to find those linguists, and the
State Department is already working with that. I come from
community with a very large Arabic American community. There
are lots of things that can be done. But the number of
discharges, if you see this attached to my testimony, the
smallest column is the discharges for homosexuality, pregnancy,
weight standards, other kinds of things far more. But you could
reduce this number to zero or near zero if the Department of
Defense dropped Don't Ask, Don't Tell and enforced the law
properly. We should not be training people who are not eligible
to be in the Armed Forces. It is a very simple principle.
Mr. Murphy. I understand your point that they shouldn't
belong in Armed Services, and we are going to have a
fundamental disagreement on that, but I would like to restate
that there is a military necessity right now to keep our Nation
safe, and it is a detriment to our national security the fact
that we are discriminating against people for openly serving in
our military when there are already rules in place to address
sexual misconduct, whether it is homosexual misconduct or
heterosexual misconduct, as compared to your orientation.
I would like to mention also when you talk about military
necessity that, Sergeant, I think you would agree, we need more
soldiers in our military, and Army, and our Navy as well, and
the Marine Corps, especially when you look at the rapid amount
of deployments, the fact that the divorce rate is as high as it
has ever been. And the suicide rate in 2007 is the highest it
has ever been. We need help, and we need more good people,
whether they are gay or straight, to join our military and to
serve honorably.
Ms. Donnelly. As a daughter of a submariner, do you think
that there would be more people to join the submarine force if
they know that professed homosexuals would be on submarines? I
don't think so.
Mr. Murphy. Well, you and I would agree, I have faith in
those 18- or 19-year-olds. You asked me a question, I want to
answer it. Usually it comes from the other side of the dais.
But the fact is that I have a lot of respect for the 18- or 19-
year-old heroes, the best of the best that join our military,
and the fact that I have faith in them, as the commander said
before, the fact is I can grab a paratrooper in the 82nd
Airborne Division and say, listen, soldier, paratrooper, you
are going to run that space shuttle in one week, you better
learn to you to fly that thing. By golly, that paratrooper will
find out a way to make that happen.
The fact is that we are--President Truman had faith in the
American people and our men and women in uniform. He said, I
don't care if you are black or white, you wear green in the
Army. That is what we need right now.
The fact is, Sergeant Major, when you were a Ranger, and
thank you again for your service, you probably weren't happy
when General Shinseki said, hey, Rangers, you are not wearing a
black beret anymore, you have to wear a tan one. I know I
wasn't happy about it, but hey. You just salute, and you
execute those orders.
We need to have faith in our young American men and women
who do the right thing on behalf of equality in our
Constitution and what America is all about. I see my time is
up, Chairwoman. I thank you for my time.
Mrs. Davis of California. Thank you, Mr. Murphy.
Ms. Shea-Porter.
Ms. Shea-Porter. Thank you.
I would like to point out that I grew up in a household
that both my parents were conservative Republicans and Roman
Catholics. And I grew up with a wonderful attitude, I think, of
loving and accepting everybody. My mother was working in a
naval hospital and worked with a lot of Navy corpsmen, and that
was her first experience with people who were actually ``out.''
All of my early experience with these issues is one of
understanding that these were all people of great worth and
dignity. And I am grateful to my conservative Republican
parents for teaching me that, that we are all God's children.
We have a lot more to worry about right now. We have wars
going on. We have a shortage, as my colleague pointed out, of
good military people who are entering the service at this time.
I have been in Iraq twice. I was very concerned in March when I
went there and found out that our gates are being guarded by
Ugandan contractors instead of American soldiers. I think maybe
we better question them to find out who they are and what they
think, because we need American soldiers, good American
soldiers, to step up for this country.
I have also, as I said, been to Iraq twice. I have been on
aircraft carriers. I have sat with men on submarines. I have
been on Coast Guard cutters. When I say, what is on your mind,
nobody has said that. So that tells me maybe anecdotally these
are the men and women serving our country, and that is not the
number one issue, I can assure you that.
So I just want to say in closing that while I am
appreciating your perspective here, and certainly very grateful
for your service--and I think you indicate that you are the
daughter of a military man; did I hear that right?
Ms. Donnelly. Yes.
Ms. Shea-Porter. And I thank you, because, as I pointed
out, we really have to think about what is best for this
country and how do we best respect individuals who want to
serve this country. And I think you have heard the answer
pretty loudly and clearly here that those of us who have the
great opportunity to see the men and women who serve this
country know that we have really difficult issues, and we
should not divide ourselves. We should not split ourselves, and
we should not attack each other for something that--when I
asked you when did you decide to be a heterosexual, something
that really is just is not a choice, it is just who we are. We
need to embrace who we are, who we really are, Americans
wanting to serve our Nation.
Thank you, and I yield back.
Mrs. Davis of California. Thank you.
Mrs. Boyda.
Mrs. Boyda. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
I would just like to associate myself with the remarks of
Mr. McHugh. I think this has been a very interesting and
helpful hearing. It has been people's stories, their feelings,
opinions. And while it has been interesting, I would like to
see a little bit more just hard data on what is going on, a few
things that we could--again, interesting anecdotes, but
generally what we are talking about today are people's opinions
and feelings. I would love to see that as we get into this
issue more.
Mr. Jones, I would like to ask you a question, and I really
don't have an agenda with this. I am curious about something.
Major Jones. Okay.
Mrs. Boyda. I will assume--and maybe I am wrong on this--I
assume that you think that homosexuality is immoral?
Major Jones. No. I am not saying that at all. As I said, as
the good Congresswoman just pointed out, you can't help the way
you are made and you are born. If I were 6-foot-8 and I wanted
to be a pilot in the Air Force, I couldn't because I am too
tall.
Mrs. Boyda. Let me ask you a question. Maybe this is
hypothetical. If we had somebody who is a first sergeant, a
staff sergeant, sergeant major, and they did believe, do you
think--I thought--what I was going to ask you is do we think
our NCO officers, as well as our other officers--do you think
they are well just not--if they do really feel like this is
just terribly, terribly wrong, that they are not going to be
able to do their function?
Major Jones. The reason I am here, and what I believe is
true across the Armed Forces, it comes to a question of what is
best for our Nation right now, what is best for our Armed
Forces, especially at a time now when they are in a fight for
us. And I think the timing is bad. I really think the timing is
bad. I feel like we are sitting here discussing an issue that I
believe we could be sitting here discussing things that are a
lot more important.
Mrs. Boyda. Let me clarify. If this were in a different
time, then you would be okay with getting rid of Don't Ask,
Don't Tell?
Major Jones. I can't answer for that different time,
because I can't see in the future. What I can see is where we
are today and what our military men and women are facing. And I
understand that. And I think a lot of Americans, if you haven't
really spent a lot of time in the military in a lot of
leadership positions, they just really don't understand; the
American people don't understand what you are asking the
military to do, the Armed Forces people across the board.
Mrs. Boyda. So to clarify, it sounds as if what I hear you
saying is that this is really about not the policy, it is just
about implementing this change, because it is a change.
Major Jones. No, change is good, but you have to pick the
right change for the right time. I have seen it too many times
where the timing has been bad in the military, they are asked
to do something----
Mrs. Boyda. I am trying to clarify again. You are more
concerned about the timing of this than the actual policy
itself is what it sounds like, or are you saying that this is
because the time. If we were in a different time, and I would
like to envision that we are going to be in a different time--I
am glad the military, thank God they are here to serve the
country, but at some point I would like that we would find some
stability.
Major Jones. You are asking me to answer a question about
what I am going to feel about something in the future.
We heard the captain. She didn't know she was homosexual
until later on in her Navy career. So if you had asked her that
on day 1, she couldn't say, oh, yeah, I am going to be straight
in 10 years. She couldn't. And that is what I am trying to
express to you now. I couldn't know where I am going to stand
on this 10 years from now. But today I think--put it to you
this way. I am very--I am kind of baffled that we are sitting
in here today with this issue being this hot when we need to be
finding ways in supporting our troops and figuring out how we
are going to win this war in Iran, in Afghanistan and Iraq as
soon as possible, and as efficiently as possible. I think that
is where we should be concentrating.
Like I was trying to say a little bit earlier is that you
really don't know what you are asking the American Armed Forces
to do, but when you put such a huge policy change or a law
change into action as this would be on the repercussions of
that, what are those repercussions going to be?
Mrs. Davis of California. Thank you, Mr. Jones. We will
move on.
Mrs. Tauscher.
Ms. Tauscher. Sergeant Major Jones, I don't want you to
think that this 2 hours and 20 minutes that we have spent on
this issue is time that we are not spending as we do every day,
working very hard for the American people. I am a Chairman on
Armed Services. I Chair the Strategic Forces Subcommittee. We
have $50 billion of defense programs, all the nuclear weapons-
based intelligence, classified military intelligence programs.
We have hearings all the time.
Major Jones. Yes.
Ms. Tauscher. And we are good multitaskers. We can actually
do more than one thing at a time.
Major Jones. I understand that.
Ms. Tauscher. But after 15 years of not talking about this,
I certainly don't think that this is a waste of time to have
this hearing today.
Major Jones. I didn't mean to come across that way.
Ms. Tauscher. We appreciate you being here, but, once
again, this is about having the most perfect union. We have
constitutional responsibilities given to us by the Founding
Fathers, with good women, I assume, standing right behind them,
making sure that we have--the American people are making clear
what kind of military they want. And that is a lot what this is
about. And I do believe that this is the last frontier of civil
rights opportunities we have in this country, that we have
figured out how to deal with racial integration, gender
integration, and that this is the last frontier. And this is a
special thing, our United States military.
Major Jones. Yes.
Ms. Tauscher. A little overused now, not appreciated as
much as it might have been. When the decision was made to go
into Iraq, lots of people serving multiple tours, lots of needs
for different skills. As my colleague Mr. Murphy said, 12,000
people separated. That is a lot of people, a lot of skills to
be separated. And we have to make sure that the military not
only has everything it needs, has our respect, has our support,
but it also reflects American society and values. And that is
why the aspiration for the most perfect union has always
resided in the military. You are not going to be surprised to
find out that the best child care in the world is in the
American military.
Major Jones. Yes, I am not surprised.
Ms. Tauscher. Racial integration, as General Coleman said,
started in the military. We are not perfect on gender, we are
working it hard, but there is a special reason why we want to
be sure.
And, Ms. Donnelly, you have never really been for American
women serving in combat, and now you are not for this. And I
really think that what we need is to find a way to make sure
that we have the strongest American military, and that means
that we cannot have people that are well qualified to serve
that are eligible except for anything other than their sexual
orientation. We have plenty of laws in the UCMJ that say that
people that are aggressive, that are predatory, they are
assaulting types of people, are going to get adjudicated----
Ms. Donnelly. Please----
Ms. Tauscher [continuing]. Whether they are straight--
excuse me, I am not asking a question--whether they are
straight or gay. And it is mystifying to me what the real
opposition is that you have.
I want to ask Sergeant Alva, in his testimony Sergeant
Major Jones talks about experiences in Somalia in 1992. You
were there, too, weren't you?
Sergeant Alva. Yes, ma'am. I lived in the stadium.
Ms. Tauscher. Do you believe the presence of openly gay
soldiers would have compromised that mission in Somalia?
Sergeant Alva. Not at all. And just as in Iraq, I had
confided in several of my marines in my platoon that I was gay.
And we made several trips to the port, and the airfield, and
riding in a Humvee on a security patrol, whether I was in the
front or rear of that security patrol, and that marine was with
me. Our job was to make sure that convoy made it to the port
with any conflicts.
As we saw early in Somalia in 1993, there weren't that many
conflicts arising until late in 1993. But we did live amongst
each other, we slept--the stadium was pretty full with 3,000 to
5,000 Marines and Navy trying to live together. Some of our
cots were touching each other. We didn't have portable showers
like they do in Iraq as today. They were built out of plywood
and makeshift hoses that were made as our showers. Everybody
was there to do a job, regardless of how someone showered or
slept had nothing to do with it. It was there to make sure we
all finished the mission and came home.
Ms. Tauscher. Do you think it is appropriate, Captain
Darrah, to characterize anybody's work environment as
sexualized? Do you think people go to work thinking about, I am
too tired, frankly, to think about anything about going to
work, but I do think that because there are gay or lesbians in
a work environment that the work environment becomes
sexualized, as Ms. Donnelly wants us to believe?
Mrs. Davis of California. Mrs. Tauscher, I am going to
let--Mr. Shays, if it is all right on your time, can they
answer that, and then we will go to you. It will be part of
your time. Is that okay?
Mr. Shays. I would like to ask my questions.
Mrs. Davis of California. I am being very strict, as you
can see, but we also have votes coming up. But I would actually
like to hear the answer to her question.
Mr. Shays.
Mr. Shays. If you want to have her answer.
Mrs. Davis of California. I am going to put it under your
time.
Mr. Shays. I am sorry, I didn't hear the question. I am
still wrestling with anyone in this panel saying, I don't
understand why we are having this hearing. I could give you a
lot of reasons. Sergeant Alva is one reason. He lost his leg.
He will never have his leg back. And he risked his life for
everyone in this room, and we are asking why are we having this
hearing. He is serving in the military; I am not. We know that
gays have served in every conflict in our country. They served
in every war, and we know that gays have given their lives for
everyone in this room.
So, Sergeant Jones, that is why we are having this hearing,
because gays have given their lives in service to our country,
and you and every one of us has benefited from their service.
That is why we are having this hearing.
Major Jones. Sir, I am not denying that.
Mr. Shays. We are having this hearing because we are trying
to determine by not allowing gays to serve, are we losing the
advantage of a whole group of people who could help make this
country safer and better? That is why we are having this
hearing. We are having this hearing because when we go to Iraq
and we visit with all the men and women who have served, who
are serving like Mr. Alva, some may be gay, and they fear they
may be killed by the enemy, and they also fear that they may be
forced out of the military by their own government. That is why
we are having this hearing.
The amazing thing is when I go to Walter Reed Hospital or
Bethesda to talk to the men and women who have been brutally
damaged by the war, and they don't have a limb, and they say to
me, sir, I can't wait to get back to my comrades, my buddies; I
want to come home with them when they leave Iraq or when they
leave Afghanistan. The spirit that is in these people is just
unbelievable. That is why we are having this hearing.
We are having this hearing because do we think that maybe
all Americans should be allowed to serve their country if their
service is exemplary and in no way impacts on their conduct
while in the military? That is why we are having this hearing.
I had someone tell me, you better not come to that hearing
because there will be some people who will object to you
feeling that maybe gays should be allowed to serve in the
military as long as their conduct is exemplary. I thought, you
know what? There are probably millions of people who require me
to be here because they gave their life for their country and
they were gay. That is why we are having this hearing.
Mrs. Davis of California. Thank you, Mr. Shays.
In following up with the last question, you have a few more
minutes, I think the question was whether the environment has
become so sexualized that people are not able to function.
Captain Darrah. I mentioned when I was the deputy and chief
of staff of the Naval Intelligence Command, I had about 400
military and about 1,100 civilians and contractors. The
civilians, I had several openly gay civilians. We all worked
together. Everybody was judged on their performance and their
ability, and there was no problem at all.
Mrs. Davis of California. Thank you.
We have come to the end of the hearing, and I really
appreciate all of you being here sincerely, and for all of you
who have served our country so admirably, thank you very much.
We appreciate that, and certainly the work that you have all
put in. And I know, Ms. Donnelly, you spent years looking at
this issue, and we appreciate that effort as well.
You know, I sat at the service this afternoon commemorating
the 60th anniversary of the integration of the troops, and even
though I know people perhaps critique the idea of whether this
is the same situation that we are talking about, and I happen
to think it is a very important right that we are talking
about, I couldn't help but just change some of the words that
were being stated about how important it is for us to have
equal treatment under the law. I know everybody who was there
felt the same way.
I have been concerned by some of the discussion, because
there has been a sense that somehow if this policy is changed,
we will it will be an atmosphere where anything goes, and I
question that wholeheartedly. I think we do have laws and
policies in this country that demand that people act
appropriately. They don't always. We know that, we are
realistic. And yet we need to be certain that we develop the
leaders who are able to hold people accountable, and I think
that is also what this has been about.
And so we look to more conversations. As we said quite
publicly, this is starting a conversation. It is a conversation
that hasn't been held for a lot of years. It is a different
time. We are in the middle of two wars, and I totally
appreciate your concerns, Sergeant Major, that maybe this isn't
the best time, but I think you have to ask when is the best
time? And is this not the best time, because we have men and
women today who are on three and four and five deployments who
don't even know their children anymore. That is wrong. And this
won't solve that problem. But when you have men and women who
want so badly to serve and to serve openly and honestly, then I
think we have to at least listen to what that change in policy
could bring about.
So we know this is the beginning of the conversation. We
know that hopefully there will be other hearings. We absolutely
want the Department of Defense to be here. I would hope that
they would help us out with the operational issues as they see
them or don't see them, but that we can have those
conversations in the future, too. And I thank you very much for
being here. And I thank the audience also for your demeanor.
Thank you very much.
[Whereupon, at 4:35 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
=======================================================================
A P P E N D I X
July 23, 2008
=======================================================================
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
July 23, 2008
=======================================================================
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE TIFF FORMAT]
=======================================================================
DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
July 23, 2008
=======================================================================
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE TIFF FORMAT]