[House Hearing, 112 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]
[H.A.S.C. No. 112-41]
REPEAL OF LAW AND POLICIES
GOVERNING SERVICE BY OPENLY
GAY AND LESBIAN SERVICE MEMBERS
__________
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
HEARING HELD
APRIL 7, 2011
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
----------
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
65-812 PDF WASHINGTON : 2011
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
HOUSE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
One Hundred Twelfth Congress
HOWARD P. ``BUCK'' McKEON, California, Chairman
ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland ADAM SMITH, Washington
MAC THORNBERRY, Texas SILVESTRE REYES, Texas
WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina LORETTA SANCHEZ, California
W. TODD AKIN, Missouri MIKE McINTYRE, North Carolina
J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia ROBERT A. BRADY, Pennsylvania
JEFF MILLER, Florida ROBERT ANDREWS, New Jersey
JOE WILSON, South Carolina SUSAN A. DAVIS, California
FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island
MICHAEL TURNER, Ohio RICK LARSEN, Washington
JOHN KLINE, Minnesota JIM COOPER, Tennessee
MIKE ROGERS, Alabama MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, Guam
TRENT FRANKS, Arizona JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut
BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania DAVE LOEBSACK, Iowa
K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona
DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado NIKI TSONGAS, Massachusetts
ROB WITTMAN, Virginia CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine
DUNCAN HUNTER, California LARRY KISSELL, North Carolina
JOHN C. FLEMING, M.D., Louisiana MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico
MIKE COFFMAN, Colorado BILL OWENS, New York
TOM ROONEY, Florida JOHN R. GARAMENDI, California
TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania MARK S. CRITZ, Pennsylvania
SCOTT RIGELL, Virginia TIM RYAN, Ohio
CHRIS GIBSON, New York C.A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland
VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri HANK JOHNSON, Georgia
JOE HECK, Nevada KATHY CASTOR, Florida
BOBBY SCHILLING, Illinois BETTY SUTTON, Ohio
JON RUNYAN, New Jersey COLLEEN HANABUSA, Hawaii
AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia
TIM GRIFFIN, Arkansas
STEVEN PALAZZO, Mississippi
ALLEN B. WEST, Florida
MARTHA ROBY, Alabama
MO BROOKS, Alabama
TODD YOUNG, Indiana
Robert L. Simmons II, Staff Director
Michael Higgins, Professional Staff Member
Debra Wada, Professional Staff Member
James Weiss, Staff Assistant
C O N T E N T S
----------
CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF HEARINGS
2011
Page
Hearing:
Thursday, April 7, 2011, Repeal of Law and Policies Governing
Service by Openly Gay and Lesbian Service Members.............. 1
Appendix:
Thursday, April 7, 2011.......................................... 37
----------
THURSDAY, APRIL 7, 2011
REPEAL OF LAW AND POLICIES GOVERNING SERVICE BY OPENLY GAY AND LESBIAN
SERVICE MEMBERS
STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
McKeon, Hon. Howard P. ``Buck,'' a Representative from
California, Chairman, Committee on Armed Services.............. 1
Smith, Hon. Adam, a Representative from Washington, Ranking
Member, Committee on Armed Services............................ 2
WITNESSES
Amos, Gen. James F., USMC, Commandant, U.S. Marine Corps......... 6
Chiarelli, GEN Peter W., USA, Vice Chief of Staff, U.S. Army..... 4
Roughead, ADM Gary, USN, Chief of Naval Operations, U.S. Navy.... 5
Schwartz, Gen. Norton A., USAF, Chief of Staff, U.S. Air Force... 8
APPENDIX
Prepared Statements:
Amos, Gen. James F........................................... 47
McKeon, Hon. Howard P. ``Buck''.............................. 41
Roughead, ADM Gary........................................... 43
Schwartz, Gen. Norton A...................................... 51
Smith, Hon. Adam............................................. 42
Documents Submitted for the Record:
Hon. Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon's Letter Dated April 4, 2011,
with Questions for and Responses by GEN George W. Casey,
Jr., USA, Chief of Staff, U.S. Army........................ 57
Witness Responses to Questions Asked During the Hearing:
Mr. Palazzo.................................................. 63
Questions Submitted by Members Post Hearing:
Mr. McKeon................................................... 67
Mr. Wilson................................................... 67
REPEAL OF LAW AND POLICIES GOVERNING SERVICE BY OPENLY GAY AND LESBIAN
SERVICE MEMBERS
----------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC, Thursday, April 7, 2011.
The committee met, pursuant to call, at 1:00 p.m. in room
2118, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Howard P. ``Buck''
McKeon (chairman of the committee) presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. HOWARD P. ``BUCK'' MCKEON, A
REPRESENTATIVE FROM CALIFORNIA, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON ARMED
SERVICES
The Chairman. The committee will come to order. We are, I
think, going to have votes in about 20 minutes. So we will try
to get through as much as we can before we have to break before
that.
Today, the committee will receive a status report on the
process for repealing the law and changing the policies
governing the service of openly gay and lesbian service
members. This past fall, I was troubled by the process employed
to set the stage for repeal of the law known as ``Don't Ask,
Don't Tell.''
Following the December release of the Department of Defense
report on the issues associated with repeal of Don't Ask, Don't
Tell, there was none of the in-depth analysis that is so
essential to sound decisionmaking here in the House of
Representatives. As a result of the rush to judgment that
bypassed this committee, Congress was denied the opportunity to
ask questions and identify weaknesses in the repeal
implementation plan. Now we are confronted by an implementation
process that is moving quickly to completion and the education
and training phase.
Our primary interest today is to ensure that the senior
leaders of each Service have the opportunity to communicate
their current views about the implementation of repeal. Several
of the Service chiefs have expressed reservations about the
timing and potential impacts of repeal during a hearing before
the Senate Armed Services Committee, and we want to understand
if our military leaders remain concerned about the prospect of
full repeal of the law.
For example, General Casey, Chief of Staff of the Army,
indicated that the repeal was a major cultural and policy
change in the middle of a war that would add stress and
complications for combat units. He stated that he felt
implementation would be more difficult than what the Pentagon
survey would suggest.
General Schwartz, Chief of the Staff of the Air Force,
recommended not carrying out any repeal until 2012 because of
the strain of the high operations tempo on our forces. He
stated, ``I do not agree with the study assessment that the
short-term risk to military effectiveness is low.''
General Amos, Commandant of the Marine Corps, stated, ``If
the law is changed, successfully implementing repeal and
assimilating openly homosexual marines into the tightly woven
fabric of our combat units has strong potential for disruption
at the small unit level, as it will no doubt divert leadership
attention away from an almost singular focus on preparing units
for combat.''
Those comments were made a couple of months ago at the
Senate hearing.
The one outcome that must be avoided is any course of
action that would put the combat readiness of our military
forces at risk.
Our witnesses today are the four leaders of our Armed
Forces: General Peter Chiarelli, Vice Chief of Staff, United
States Army; Admiral Gary Roughead, USN [United States Navy],
Chief of Naval Operations; General James Amos, Commandant, U.S.
Marine Corps; General Norton Schwartz, Chief of Staff, U.S. Air
Force.
General Chiarelli, we thank you for standing in for General
Casey today and ask you to please extend our heartfelt
condolences from all the members of the committee and the staff
of the Armed Services Committee to General Casey and his family
on the passing of his grandson, Jackson Ryan Casey.
Admiral Roughead, you are moving closer to departure from
your current position and may not have the opportunity--some
would probably not call it an opportunity--to testify before
this committee again. I want to express the collective thanks
of all the members of the committee for your 38 years of
service and best wishes for the future.
Ranking Member Smith.
[The prepared statement of Mr. McKeon can be found in the
Appendix on page 41.]
STATEMENT OF HON. ADAM SMITH, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM WASHINGTON,
RANKING MEMBER, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I join you in welcoming our witnesses and passing along my
condolences to General Casey.
I welcome General Chiarelli, General Amos, General
Schwartz, Admiral Roughead. Thank you for being here, and thank
you for your incredible service to our country.
Don't Ask, Don't Tell was put into place almost 18 years
ago. Since that time--I guess even at the time--it was hotly
debated, discussed, studied, and argued about. And in the 18
years since, that has continued. We have had countless studies
and countless opinions expressed through those years.
And I will disagree a little bit with the chairman. This
committee has had many hearings on precisely this subject on
the subcommittee level, and we have also debated it on the full
committee level over the course of the last several years.
I don't think it is fair to say that we haven't thought
about this or that the military services haven't thought about
this and of course, culminating in the very, very large study
of service members to get their feedback and their opinions. I
believe we have analyzed this at enormous length over an
enormous period of time. And at some point, you have to make a
decision about what the best way to go forward is.
And I am pleased this Congress and the President made that
decision last year and made what I think was the only logical
choice and that was to allow gays and lesbians to serve openly
in the military, because it is interesting, we all know that
gays and lesbians have been serving in the military for quite
some time, and I have yet to meet a service member who wasn't
abundantly aware that somebody they were serving with was gay
or lesbian, and yet we have the finest military in the world.
The unit has been able to function--and function quite well--
under that circumstance.
The only oddity that we had in the law was if the fact that
there was a gay and lesbian serving in the military happened to
bubble up to the command structure, the law required you at
that point to take that person out of the military. They have
served, served well, and served alongside other service members
who have found a very easy way to work with them and give us
the finest military in the world.
When you look at these questions, it is frequently asked by
many people about whatever policy comes up before the military,
is a simple question: Does this policy make us safer? Does it
strengthen our national security? In this case, the answer to
Don't Ask, Don't Tell is clearly no. Driving able-bodied people
out of the military who are serving and serving us well at a
time when we are at war does not make us safer and does not
give us a better military.
Now I will grant you that there is going to be some
implementation issues here. But there are many policies that
are problematic and difficult throughout the military for the
Service people to work with, and they find a way to work with
them, and they find a way to move forward.
And I applaud you gentlemen. I applaud the military for the
way they have approached this. They are trying to do it in the
most user-friendly way possible to make sure that it works and
is effective. But it is long past time to study this issue. It
is making us weaker to drive people out of the military who are
serving us well. And I hope we will go forward with the
implementation of the change in this policy as quickly and
expeditiously as possible.
I look forward to your testimony. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Smith can be found in the
Appendix on page 42.]
The Chairman. As bipartisan as this committee is, we can
disagree, but we can do it in a gentlemanly-like way. And I
thank the ranking member for his comments.
Mr. Smith. I should have said I think the chairman is doing
an outstanding job running this committee, and I agree with him
most of the time, and we have worked very well together. We
just have those moments, like everybody.
The Chairman. Thank you. I do have a unanimous consent
request, knowing that General Casey, Chief of the Staff of the
Army, would not be able to testify, I asked that he provide
answers to a series of questions I put to him in writing. We
have his response.
At this time, I ask unanimous consent that my letter of
April 4, 2011, to General Casey and the General's response of
April 6, 2011, be entered into the record. The letters are now
or have been distributed to the members. Without objection, so
ordered.
[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix
on page 57.]
The Chairman. General Chiarelli.
STATEMENT OF GEN PETER W. CHIARELLI, USA, VICE CHIEF OF STAFF,
U.S. ARMY
General Chiarelli. Chairman McKeon, Ranking Member Smith,
distinguished members of the committee, I thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the Army's
implementation plans for the repeal of legislation commonly
referred to as Don't Ask, Don't Tell.
As you acknowledged, Mr. Chairman, General Casey is
unavailable to participate in today's hearing due to the recent
loss of his grandson, and he deeply appreciates everyone's
thoughts and prayers during this very sad and difficult time.
In December, General Casey testified before the Senate
Armed Services Committee, stating his belief that: While the
implementation of the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell would add
yet another level of stress to a force already stretched by
nearly a decade of war, it would be more difficult in combat
arms units and it would, in general, be more complicated an
endeavor than the comprehensive review suggested. If properly
implemented, the repeal would not preclude our force from
accomplishing its worldwide missions, to include combat
operations.
General Casey assured the members of the committee that we
have a disciplined force, led by experienced, seasoned leaders,
who with appropriate guidance and direction, can be relied upon
to effectively oversee the implementation of Don't Ask, Don't
Tell repeal, with moderate risk to our military effectiveness
in the short term and to our ability to recruit and retain
America's All-Volunteer Force over the long haul.
Finally, he assured the members that if directed to
implement the repeal, the Army would work closely with the
Department of Defense and other Services to make certain the
implementation is conducted successfully, in a timely fashion,
and in the same disciplined manner that has characterized our
service to the Nation for over 235 years.
I stand by the Chief's previous remarks. I know he does as
well.
Since that hearing, consistent with Congress' decision and
the President's and Secretary of Defense's guidance, the Army
has begun a deliberate process of training and educating our
force on exactly what the repeal means in terms of regulation
and policy changes.
As in everything we do, ultimately the success of our
implementation plan rests on the shoulders of our leaders. As
such, our plan is based on the chain teach method of training.
Simply put, chain teaching places direct responsibility on
commanders to ensure all leaders, officers and noncommissioned
officers, soldiers, army civilians, and interested family
members are properly and sufficiently educated on this
important policy change, its potential impact on them, and our
expectations of them. To this end, General Casey's guidance to
commanders is clear: Leadership matters most.
This training is not disruptive. In February, General Casey
personally led the first session with all four-star Generals,
flanked by the Army subject-matter experts, the Judge Advocate
General, Inspector General, Chief of Chaplains, and the Deputy
Chief of Staff for Personnel. I participated in this session,
and I can attest the process works. The chain teaching program
facilitates thoughtful, constructive dialogue between leaders
and subordinates. This dialogue is hugely important, especially
at the lowest levels, where ownership and consensus are most
critical.
While soldiers' response to the repeal has so far been
generally positive, we cannot assume there will be no
opposition from within our ranks in the days ahead. In fact, we
recognize there are some segments of the force, primarily
within the combat arms, that have expressed concern regarding
the repeal.
On the whole, our force is stretched and stressed by nearly
a decade of war, a war that is not over yet. Mindful of these
and other considerations, we recognize if we mitigate the risks
to readiness, recruiting, and retention, we must continue to do
this deliberately. Training is just the start. Although I am
confident our efforts to implement the repeal of Don't Ask,
Don't Tell are on track, the entire process, done properly,
will take time.
Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, on behalf of our
Secretary, John McHugh, and our Chief, General George Casey, I
thank you for your patience, for your continued generous
support and demonstrated commitment to the outstanding men and
women of the United States Army and their families, and I look
forward to your questions.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Admiral Roughead.
STATEMENT OF ADM GARY ROUGHEAD, USN, CHIEF OF NAVAL OPERATIONS,
U.S. NAVY
Admiral Roughead. Chairman McKeon, Representative Smith,
and distinguished members of the committee, thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today to address how our Navy
is preparing to implement repeal of 10 U.S. Code 654.
I testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee in
December that I supported the repeal of 10 U.S. Code 654. The
United States Navy can successfully implement a repeal of the
law. Combat effectiveness is what we provide the Nation, and
repeal will not change who we are or what we do. Your Navy will
continue to be the professional global effective and relevant
force for the Nation that it has always been.
Although a specific date for repeal has not been set, we
have begun the process for a prompt and thoughtful transition.
We are preparing the necessary policies and regulations to
implement this change in law, and we are training our sailors
and leaders at all levels. Our training emphasizes the
principles of leadership, professionalism, discipline, and
respect. We are not conducting sensitivity training. We are
focusing on ensuring our sailors understand what repeal means
to them, their families, and the Navy, and that our standards
of conduct and behavior will not be compromised.
We are carrying out our training using a tiered approach to
ensure all sailors receive the appropriate level of training.
We have 17 master mobile training teams providing training to
command leaders in 17 geographic regions. Once certified by
these master trainers, command leaders will then train
personnel within their respective commands. Specialized
training is also being provided to experts who may deal more
frequently with repeal issues, such as chaplains, judge
advocates, personnel support professionals, and recruiters.
I have established 1 July as Navy's goal for completing
training, and we are on track to achieve this goal. Feedback
from our sailors indicates the training they are receiving is
comprehensive, well delivered, and effective. Additionally, we
have not observed any impacts to readiness, effectiveness,
cohesion, recruiting, or retention during this training period.
I continue to provide regular updates on our training
progress to the Secretary of Defense and the chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff and remain personally engaged with them
throughout this process.
I am confident my assessment of Navy's readiness for repeal
will be carefully considered during the certification process,
and I do not believe it is necessary to provide additional or
separate input outside of this process. I have the ultimate
confidence that the men and women of the United States Navy,
with their character, discipline, and decency, will
successfully implement this change in the law.
Navy leaders will continue to set a positive tone, create
an inclusive and respectful work environment, and enforce our
high standards of conduct throughout the Navy as we serve the
Nation. Our sailors will continue to live by our core values of
honor, courage, and commitment, which endure as the foundation
of our Navy.
I thank you and I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Admiral Roughead can be found in
the Appendix on page 43.]
The Chairman. Thank you.
General Amos.
STATEMENT OF GEN. JAMES F. AMOS, USMC, COMMANDANT, U.S. MARINE
CORPS
General Amos. Chairman McKeon, Ranking Member Smith members
of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear here
today and report on the Marine Corps' progress toward
certification of Don't Ask, Don't Tell. I had the opportunity
to specifically address Congress on Don't Ask, Don't Tell on
December 3, where I stated to the Senate Armed Services
Committee that should Congress change the law, our Nation's
Marine Corps will faithfully support the law.
The law signed by the President on December 22 established
the conditions for the eventual repeal of Don't Ask, Don't
Tell. The Marine Corps is working diligently to meet the
corresponding requirements, as are all the uniformed Services.
Once met, the required certification process may be provided by
the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Secretary of
Defense, and the President to the congressional committees.
Overall, I am confident that Marine leaders at all levels
will ensure compliance with the spirit and intent of the new
law once it goes into effect. As such, your Marine Corps has
taken the following significant actions in line with the
direction of our civilian leadership: After the House of
Representative and the Senate voted to repeal Title 10 U.S.
Code 654 in December of 2010, I published the following
guidance to the entire Marine Corps: ``As marines, we abide by
the laws of our Nation, and we will implement the new policy in
accordance with specific directions and implementing guidance
from our chain of command. Fidelity is the essence of who we
are. Accordingly, we will faithfully execute this new law and
will continue to treat each other with dignity and with
respect.''
While in Afghanistan over Christmas, Sergeant Major Kent
and I spoke to more than 12,000 marines and sailors about the
pending repeal and my expectations for successful
implementation. Shortly after returning from Afghanistan, he
and I made a video for all marines and their families to
reinforce our message and to reach out to marines in locations
that we could personally visit.
Your Marine Corps has closely followed the recommendations
of the Comprehensive Review Working Group in developing and
executing our implementation training. Some of the very first
marines to receive this training were my three- and four-star
general officers in late January. On 7 February, the Marine
Corps as a whole began Corps-wide training.
I am pleased to report to this committee that the Marine
Corps has completed 100 percent of all Tier 1 and Tier 2
training. As of today, our Tier 3 training is 41 percent
complete throughout the Marine Corps. And I anticipate full
completion of all training by 1 June. We will complete this
training with the aid of the Internet online when absolutely
necessary, but the majority of our training is done face-to-
face.
Successful implementation of this policy depends upon
leadership, professionalism, discipline, and respect. Leaders
at all levels of our Corps are setting the example and are
fully committed to the sustainment of our unit effectiveness,
readiness, and cohesion.
In our profession of arms, adherence to standards of
conduct is essential. Leadership is the key to creating and
sustaining an environment where the opportunity to contribute,
achieve, and advance to all is available.
Before making my final recommendation to move forward with
repeal, I intend to use both the objective and the subjective
measures to gauge the effectiveness of training and our
readiness to implement this new policy. Before I recommend
certification, the Marine Corps will have completed 100 percent
of its special staff and leader training and approximately 90
percent of all remaining marines' training for both Active and
Reserve Components.
While useful, objective measures alone are not sufficient
for me to recommend certification. I will also use subjective
tools to include command climate surveys, enlisted retention
surveys, and Inspector General reports to measure training
success. Additionally, I will rely heavily on feedback from my
commanders throughout the Marine Corps. Prior to recommending
certification, I will confirm that all the preconditions for
certification have indeed been met.
I am confident that your Marines will faithfully abide by
the laws of this Nation and will conduct themselves in
accordance with the intent of the new policy. While leadership
is the ultimate key to successful implementation of Don't Ask,
Don't Tell repeal, our core values of honor, courage, and
commitment will guide us through our training and
implementation. I appreciate the opportunity to provide these
details, and I stand ready to answer any additional questions
the committee may have.
[The prepared statement of General Amos can be found in the
Appendix on page 47.]
The Chairman. Thank you.
General Schwartz.
STATEMENT OF GEN. NORTON A. SCHWARTZ, USAF, CHIEF OF STAFF,
U.S. AIR FORCE
General Schwartz. Mr. Chairman, Congressman Smith, members
of the committee, thanks for the opportunity to report on Air
Force implementation of the pending repeal of the Don't Ask,
Don't Tell policy.
Our implementation plan comprises two key components:
Necessary revisions to policies and regulations, and then
training of all airmen. We will rely on steady leadership at
all levels to implement this change in a manner that is
consistent with standards of military readiness and
effectiveness and with minimum adverse effect on unit cohesion,
recruiting, and retention in our Air Force.
Until applicable directives are updated and released,
current policies remain in effect and will be enforced
uniformly. Overarching policy changes involving updates to
accession processes, recruiting guidance, standards of conduct
and separation actions are the basis for our implementation
training, which began on February 14 and will complete on or
about June 30 of this year.
The Air Force is administering the Office of the Secretary
of Defense standardized three-tier training program, which was
developed in conjunction with the Services and with OSD's [the
Office of the Secretary of Defense's] Repeal Implementation
Team to ensure consistent training themes for the entire force,
from functional experts to commanders and senior leaders to all
airmen across the force.
So far, we have trained 23 percent, some 117,000 of our
members, and are on track to train the remainder within the
prescribed training window. We will assure implementation is
achieved responsibly, deliberatively, and effectively. Our
preferred method of training is in person. However, when face-
to-face Tier 3 training is not feasible, for example, during
convalescent leave or deployment to locations where
interrupting the mission to conduct training would have an
adverse impact, commanders have discretion to use computer-
based training or to schedule training upon return to garrison.
As training progresses, we will continue to report
completion data to OSD twice a month. In the post-repeal
environment, we will continue to monitor the effectiveness of
our training through existing processes for follow-on
assessment and monitoring.
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, we thank you
again for your support of the Armed Forces, the standards of
conduct that we expect, that you expect of all airmen,
entitling every airman to dignity, respect, and equal
opportunity, and a commitment to service above self will not
change. Guided by our core values of integrity, service, and
excellence, we will implement this policy change with the same
professionalism that we demonstrate in all of our daily
endeavors.
Mr. Chairman, I look forward to your questions. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of General Schwartz can be found in
the Appendix on page 51.]
The Chairman. Thank you.
And thanks to each of you.
The law was passed. You understand the relationship between
the military and civilian law. You are doing your best to see
that the law is implemented and followed correctly. I have
would have expected nothing different.
General Chiarelli, General Amos, General Schwartz, as I
indicated in my opening statement, each of you--and in your
case, General Chiarelli, I am referring to the comments of
General Casey--expressed reservations during your testimony to
the Senate about the central conclusion of the DOD [Department
of Defense] Comprehensive Review Working Group that the risk of
repeal to overall military effectiveness was low.
As you proceed with the education and training phase of the
implementation plan, has your attitude changed, and what is
your current professional military judgment about the risk to
military effectiveness?
General Chiarelli. Mr. Chairman, thank you for that
question.
As you indicated, General Casey did indicate that he felt
that risk was moderate. I believe he feels that it remains
moderate today, given as far as we have gotten in our training.
I will say that I had a session with commanders last Friday.
They have indicated no issues so far in Tier 1 and Tier 2
training as they get ready to kick off our Tier 3 training. But
I think that General Casey would remain with moderate risk only
because we are not far enough in our training to change that.
The Chairman. Thank you.
General Amos.
General Amos. Chairman, you remember the results of the
survey that came back for the Marine Corps, and it was well
above the 50 percentile from our combat forces that had
concerns about unit cohesion and combat effectiveness. I
reported that in my December 3 testimony.
I have had an opportunity to visit Afghanistan, as I said
in my opening statement, over Christmas, travel around the
Marine Corps. In fact, just this morning, I was on the VTC
[video teleconference] with our commander on the ground in the
Helmand Province. I am looking specifically for issues that
might arise coming out of the Tier 2 and Tier 3 training. To be
honest with you, Chairman, we have not seen it.
I mean, there are questions. There are questions about
billeting for marines; the kinds of questions you would be
expect. But there hasn't been the recalcitrant pushback. There
has not been the anxiety over it from the forces in the field.
I will tell you that I asked specifically this morning Major
General Toolan, I said, John, what are you seeing in the young
marines that are out there?
He said, Sir, quite honestly, they are focused on the
enemy, and maybe they will have questions when they return back
to the United States of America, but right now, they are very
focused. And he doesn't think it is an issue.
The Chairman. General Schwartz.
General Schwartz. Mr. Chairman, I am not prepared to fall
off of my assessment of moderate risk either, but we have
trained a 100,000-plus airmen to date, and the way we have
approached this and the reaction that we have experienced thus
far indicates to me that we are mitigating the risk in the way
we are approaching this. And so I am more comfortable than I
was on the 22nd of December, but we still have a ways to go.
And it requires the constant attention of all of us to bring
this home.
The Chairman. Admiral Roughead, what are your thoughts
today?
Admiral Roughead. I think, Mr. Chairman, my view, as the
report was concluded, the survey was concluded, and as I
testified in December, it was pretty consistent with what I
sensed in the force that I had the opportunity to engage over
time. Our training is going very well. In those areas that we
detected that there may be some areas of moderate risk,
particularly some of the expeditionary forces that we had
engagements similar to my shipmates here, indicate that it is
not at the level that we had originally forecast and it is
going rather well.
Similarly, as the training is conducted, the types of
questions reflect the professionalism, the maturity, and the
decency of our people. And so I am very comfortable. I was
comfortable in making the recommendation last December, and it
is consistent with what I continue to see in the Navy today.
The Chairman. I think one of the problems I had, as I
expressed in my openings statement and a little of the
difference that I had with Ranking Member Smith, was kind of
the way it was presented to us and given to us. We didn't hold
a hearing at the full committee level. We were given a
briefing. The study was handed out to us just as the briefing
started. So we really didn't have adequate time to read it to
ask I felt appropriate questions. And so my concern was more
the procedure of how it was all laid out.
But I--that is past, and now we are moving forward. I just
want to make sure that we really are in tune with what is going
on and that everybody has the opportunity to be involved in the
process.
I will hold my other questions for later.
Ranking Member Smith.
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I will make a quick comment. I have a question. I think you
generally have answered all the pertinent questions in your
opening statements and to the chairman's question, which is, do
we have a fair process in place and are you having time to
implement it? You seem to be working through it. It seems to be
going better than expected. And we will see what happens as it
proceeds. It was not a rush to judgment here. We didn't
automatically repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Part of the reason
we put in place the way we did was to give you gentlemen the
chance to do what you are doing right now. And ultimately, it
has to be approved by the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman
of the Joint Chiefs.
I guess the comment is the question about the impact it
will have on unit cohesion and effectiveness. I would imagine
there are a fair number of things on a day in and day out basis
that challenge unit cohesion, and you all have to figure out
how to pull together and make it work. And I think when you ask
the question in a survey, do people have concerns, they may
well express them. But then if you follow up, as happens on
numerous occasions within the military, I mean, part of the job
of the people serving is you have to do a lot of very difficult
things and to do some things they would rather not do, but they
come together and they do it. That is why we have such an
incredible military.
I think your comments about the initial stages of your
training bear that out. Yes, we have concerns, but we will make
it work. That seems to be the direction that it is going and
that it is not going to undermine what the military is doing.
Because, again, as all you gentlemen I think would acknowledge,
it is not the first time it has occurred to anyone in the
military that they are serving with gays and lesbians. That has
been well known for a while.
So I appreciate your work, and I think that the training
you are doing helps make sure that this will be a successful
implementation. But I, too, am 100 percent confident that our
military, that all of the Services, will keep doing the
fantastic job they are doing, and they will be better for it
because we won't have to drive people out of the military who
are doing a good job just because of their sexual orientation.
So I applaud your effort and I applaud the process you are
going through. I guess I will just say for this committee, we
stand ready to help in any way we can with that effort and with
that process.
With that, I yield back.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Akin.
Mr. Akin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I had a couple of questions, again going back to when we
had the hearing, although it wasn't technically a hearing, I
guess.
The first thing is that particularly there was a sense of
resistance in the combat arms. Now that doesn't surprise me
particularly. At least it seems to make sense. Because if you
are dealing with a regular office situation, that seems to me
to be a very different environment than if you are bivouacked
in the field somewhere or you are under the stress of combat in
very tight quarters and under a lot of pressure and all. So it
doesn't surprise me.
What were the numbers, first of all, in the Marine Corps in
the combat arms section there? What were the numbers on that
survey?
General Amos. Congressman, they were in the 60s for the--
and I don't have a precise number.
Mr. Akin. Rough number.
General Amos. Sixty percent for combat arms.
Mr. Akin. Was that your assessment, the same as what seems
to me to make sense, that in a more combat-type environment,
then tensions could be--stress is higher and also the
conditions you are living in are more complicated; do you think
that is what drove that number?
General Amos. I think it could be that. I also think that
in the units that predominantly are our principal command
units, they are all male, typically. There are a few that have
our females in it, but predominantly male. I think it is a
function of they are just worried about combat. They are not
sure what to expect. I think it was expectations and
anticipation.
Mr. Akin. The way the policy used to work, particularly in
one of those combat situations or whatever--Admiral, if it is a
submarine or wherever there is a tremendous amount of
pressure--if someone's behavior started to become detrimental
to the mission, the way it used to work, then they could be
asked to leave the Service. So that tended to be a pretty
strong--sort of kept a cap on behavior, perhaps.
With the new policy, you have to figure out new guidelines
as to how that is all going to work. We can say everything is
going okay, but obviously, you have had to do a lot of
thinking. And then if this happens, if this happens, how do you
handle those different kind of situations? If there is somebody
who is openly homosexual and their behavior starts to get in
the way of the mission, what are your alternatives now, and how
are you advising the officers to handle those kind of
situations?
Admiral Roughead. Thank you.
Mr. Akin, I would say that the fact that someone is gay or
lesbian doesn't really enter into a disruption to the mission.
As you know, on most--almost in all of our communities, and
very soon to be the submarine community, we are a very diverse
force. It is not necessarily someone's sexual orientation or
even someone's gender. If there is inappropriate behavior, if
the conduct is unacceptable and undermines good order and
discipline, that is the mechanism that causes a commander to
take action and then process that individual or individuals
through a judicial process or administrative process.
So the same standards, the same regulations and standards
of conduct will apply as to good order, discipline, and sexual
harassment and sexual misconduct. So it is not as if we are
having to create new policies. We will be enforcing these as we
have for many years.
Mr. Akin. So, then, in the scenario that I am talking
about, that is handled in the same way as if somebody were
disruptive in a heterosexual type conduct, and if someone's
behavior is a distraction and getting in the way of mission,
then you discipline them the same as any other situation.
Admiral Roughead. Absolutely.
Mr. Akin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Ms. Sanchez.
Ms. Sanchez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, gentlemen, for being before us again today.
You know, when we were going through this whole process of
Don't Ask, Don't Tell, I did not believe that our military
units were so fragile that finding out having somebody next to
you that was openly gay would be so disruptive to the mission
of our units.
And I am very proud so far, as you have discussed today, of
all our men and women in uniform who have--who not only go out
and fight for us every day but who are also working through
this new policy that you are trying to implement.
So I always thought they were strong and a great military
force. And I think they are proving us right.
My question today, gentlemen, is about those gay and
lesbian members, service members, who were discharged because
they were gay under the--during the time of Don't Ask, Don't
Tell. Now it is my understanding that those service members, if
they didn't have anything else on their record, there was no
other problem or judicial issue or anything, that they would be
discharged with an honorable discharge. Is that correct?
Okay.
And in the normal--that now the policy will be that in the
normal process, that those who were discharged under Don't Ask,
Don't Tell can come back and ask to be put back into military
service. Is that correct?
General Schwartz. Ma'am, those members--those former
members can apply to reenlist and will be considered for
reenlistment based on the needs of the Services and our normal
entry process.
Ms. Sanchez. So will they have to start over, or will they
get to reenter with given credit for the service that they have
held if the only reason they were put out is because it was
known that they were gay?
General Schwartz. It is an individual case consideration.
But there is no guarantee for returning at the same grade,
necessarily. Again, it depends on the needs of the Service.
Ms. Sanchez. But if that position were open, is there a
process or are you working on the process in which a person
says, I have been out for 2 years, but I am still fit, I want
to go back, I had a career, I would like to go back to where I
was, and I see that there are openings there?
General Schwartz. Once again, if that scenario unfolded, it
would properly be accommodated.
Ms. Sanchez. What are the guidelines if someone feels that
they have gone back to the recruiter or they have gone back to
try to reenlist and they have pushback? What are the policies
in place, or what are you working through to ensure that they
get a fair shake to try to get back their old career, if you
will?
General Schwartz. There are opportunities for appeal both
to the Inspector General of the recruiting service, in our
case, as well as the Air Force Board of Corrections for
Military Records. And in those two mechanisms, former members
can appeal the designation that they have received.
Ms. Sanchez. Lastly, what are the reporting--if you get
harassed by someone of the same sex who happens to be gay, is
it the same process as you would in any normal--I know I heard
it from the other side, but I just--and what happens if the
perpetrator is in the chain of command, is the supervisor? Is
it the same rules as what we see, for example, under sexual
assault or sexual harassment in the normal context that we have
been working with?
General Schwartz. Zero tolerance.
Ms. Sanchez. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Those were my questions.
Thank you, gentlemen.
The Chairman. Thank you.
We have a series of votes. It is probably going to take
close to an hour. Mr. Simmons has said he will make his office
available if the chiefs would--I apologize. We are trying to go
see that your pay continues. We will be in adjournment until
the votes are concluded.
[Recess.]
The Chairman. The committee will come to order.
Thank you for your patience.
Mr. Wittman.
Mr. Wittman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Gentlemen, thank you for so much for joining us. Thanks so
much for your service to our Nation.
I wanted to pick up on the issue of readiness. I know, as
this discussion comes up about Don't Ask, Don't Tell and the
policy and the change in that policy, as I have heard from
folks in my district, both those that are recently retired and
those that are in Active Duty, one of the elements that they
bring up to me is an issue of readiness. And I know that, in
looking at the past survey work that was done, if you look at
the survey results that you get back from those men and women
that serve in combat zones, you see the results are a little
bit different than those that are serving in other capacities.
So I think that naturally begs the question about, as we
are going forward and looking at how this policy is put in
place, are we going to expect from you all the proper due
diligence to make sure that evaluations take place that are
rigorous and that really drill down to look at our readiness
capability, and then making sure, too, that we understand, if
there are problems with the implementation here, what is then
going to happen?
So I have a couple of questions. One is, from each of you,
the rigor under which you will pursue evaluating the
implementation of this policy. And then if it does create
issues on readiness, operational issues, how do you expect to
address them? And then will that affect certification?
And, General Schwartz, I will go ahead and begin with you.
General Schwartz. Sir, the bottom line is, we will do this
through the chain of command. And we will certainly monitor all
the typical metrics that we look at, whether it be inspector
general reports, whether it be sexual harassment indices, and,
certainly, the commander-to-commander contact, which is
continuous. If problems develop, we will design, you know, an
approach to mitigate and to eliminate those challenges. I mean,
we understand what the law of the land is, and that is the
approach we will take.
It is my conviction that we will probably have some
occurrences, some deviations from our standards of conduct. And
we will deal with them as we do others, whether it is
heterosexual, whether it is personal conduct of other matters
not of a sexual nature and so on.
We are a force, as we all are, that are compliance-based,
and we are going to continue to be that way.
Mr. Wittman. General Amos.
General Amos. Congressman, this may sound, I guess, trite,
but, really, the backbone, I think, for all our Services--and I
can speak for ours--is that it really is leadership. So we are
not putting additional training, additional hours of training,
once we get past or get through and complete the Tier 3
specific kind of training, because our leadership is going on
12 months a year every week with our young marines. So it is
face-to-face, there is, ``How are we doing?'' That is when we
will get a real sense that, what are the real issues that may
come out of this?
We can probably expect there will be some. I can't
anticipate what they will be. I don't want to be naive about
it, and I want to manage some expectations here. But,
conversely, I am absolutely confident that good order and
discipline, standards of conduct, those things are the hallmark
of all our Services will prevail at the end of the day.
And that is the part that will make sense to our young men
and women. It is not, okay, we are going to go another 30 hours
of this kind of instruction, or every year we are going to hit
the refresh button and do this. It will be that constant,
persistent leadership by our NCOs [Noncommissioned Officers]
and our staff NCOs and our officers. And that will be our
metric. We will get that feedback, and we will work our way
through that.
Admiral Roughead. Thank you, Congressman.
We monitor readiness and all of the components of readiness
continuously, and all of the factors that are involved. And we
look at how we are constantly making those improvements. So the
visibility that we are going to have on readiness I think will
be very good.
I think it is also telling that, in the survey itself, in
those units where members served with gay and lesbian sailors,
that they rated the unit readiness either well or very well.
So I think that our observation of readiness, the factors,
the elements of tone of the force that we pay attention to will
be clear indicators of where we are.
Mr. Wittman. My time is running out, but I did want to
emphasize how important readiness is in our role here in
oversight to make sure that, in no way, shape, or form, in any
respect, is readiness to be sacrificed with the implementation
of this policy.
With that, I yield back, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mrs. Davis.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you all for being here. I certainly apologize for
the time. I know that you are all extremely busy, and we
respect greatly what you do and respect your professionalism.
I wanted to also express my condolences to General Casey
and certainly his family. And I also wanted to acknowledge--I
know he had been here just a little while ago, and we
acknowledged the fact that that might be his last hearing.
And thank you, General Chiarelli, for being here, as well.
But I know that, as we look at the timelines that we are
working with on Don't Ask, Don't Tell after the training and
the opportunity to move toward implementation, I wondered if
you could just comment, General, to General Casey's comment, I
think, to the chairman that the force would be about half-
trained before the time to actually certify.
And I wonder whether General Dempsey has been involved in
this process and the current training agenda and whether you
think that he is up to speed on the process. And do you see any
changes in terms of trying to conclude the training of the
Army, which we know is taking longer just by virtue of the
numbers?
General Chiarelli. As you mentioned, General Casey did say,
ma'am, that he felt that he would be able to certify on or
about--on or around the 15th of May, based on having trained 50
percent of the force. And I think his reasoning is the fact
that we have commanders doing it. And we really feel that
commanders, because they are doing the training, are going to
pick up on any issues that we might have.
And the session that I had last Friday was the first in
trying to get any feedback. Now we will be going heavy into the
Tier 3 training.
I can't tell you whether General Dempsey will, in fact,
feel the same, but he has been involved in the training, as the
TRADOC [United States Army Training and Doctrine Command]
commander, prior to confirmation. And I have no reason to
believe that--if it is adjusted, I have no reason to believe it
would be much longer than what General Casey felt.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you.
I know that, initially, the directive and, certainly, the
law was to be certain that the President, the Secretary of
Defense, and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs would be able to
make that certification, everything being equal, that the
process had moved forward and there was a belief that, in fact,
readiness and the host of other criteria were being managed
well. And, at the same time, there was some reluctance to, I
think, move forward on the part of the members unless you had
an opportunity to be here.
And I wanted to just be certain that there was no pressure,
that there were no--you didn't feel that your voices were not
being heard as we moved forward with this, and, in fact, when
the actual certification was made, no matter what occurred,
that, in fact, you would have the kind of input that would be
required of all of you in your position. Is there any reason
that people would have been concerned about that?
Admiral Roughead. No, ma'am. No pressure, no question that
our voice will be heard, as we go through the training and
engage routinely with the Secretary of Defense and the chairman
on this. And I have no doubt whatsoever about that.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you.
General Amos.
General Amos. Ma'am, I want to be really clear that we have
had complete open communication opportunities with the chairman
and with the Secretary of Defense. They value our opinion. And
we talk about this pretty close to weekly, or at least every
other week. We sit down and talk about it, and it is a very
frank and honest discussion. So we will have plenty of
opportunity between now and certification.
General Schwartz. Ma'am, we will make a written input, I
will, to the chairman on my recommendations to him. And I am
sure that my secretary will make a similar interaction with the
Secretary of Defense.
Mrs. Davis. Uh-huh.
General Chiarelli. And I know General Casey has mentioned
to me several times the direct input that he has had often with
both the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the
Secretary of Defense over this issue as they have met.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you.
I know that you responded earlier to the question about the
implementation. Can I just ask you briefly, in the letter of
the chairman to General Casey, he mentioned that it had been
stated that the general felt that implementation would be more
difficult than what the Pentagon's survey would suggest.
Is it going to be more difficult? Is it going to be as
expected? Less difficult? How would you characterize that?
General Chiarelli. Well, it is always difficult when you
are working with a force of 1.1 million, with the large Reserve
Component that we have, and the fact that they only meet 3 days
a week, if not deployed, and with soldiers moving in and out of
theater--that is the difficulty in working through that. And
add that to the fact that, some concern with combat arms
officers and soldiers in the survey indicated that they had
more concern than others.
But what we feel good about, at least at the beginning, is
that the training package is a quality training package that,
at least with early results, seems to be mitigating some of
that concern.
Mr. Wilson. [Presiding.] Thank you, Mrs. Davis.
And thank you, General.
Congressman Allen West of Florida.
Mr. West. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ranking Member, and
to all the great soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines. And I just
want to thank you for your service and thank you for the people
that you represent here.
And I will be very upfront and honest. I mean, this is
going to be implemented. I don't think that we need to sit up
here and banter back and forth about what is going to happen,
because, you all being great leaders, you will take the
guidance that has been given to you and you will make sure that
it happens, the same as I did when I was in the military.
But, you know, once again, my concern is very simple. The
military exists to win the Nation's wars. And I think that when
we get to the point where we are starting to discuss about how
the military conforms to accommodating individual behavior,
that is what I get concerned with.
Because, General Chiarelli, if I am not wrong, I think we
still do have a height standard to be a member of the ``Old
Guard,'' the Third Infantry Regiment, if I am correct?
General Chiarelli. I didn't get--what standard, sir?
Mr. West. A height standard.
General Chiarelli. Height standard? Yes, we do.
Mr. West. Absolutely. So even though I was a pretty
strapped soldier, I am 5'9'', I was a shorty, and so I never
could get into that unit.
General Amos, without a doubt, I think the Marines still do
have PFTs [physical fitness test], correct?
General Amos. Congressman, we absolutely do.
Mr. West. And if there was a great Marine that is serving
well but if he cannot pass that PFT and he has a problem with
weight, we still separate that marine, correct?
General Amos. That is absolutely correct.
Mr. West. And, you know, General Schwartz, I am sure that
when we look at a commanding officer out there in your force,
if a commanding officer has a DUI [Driving Under the
Influence], chances are that is going to put his career at
risk, am I correct?
General Schwartz. In all likelihood, it would, sir.
Mr. West. So my point is this: You know, the United States
military is a military of standards, and it is a military of
standards that are somewhat different from the civilian world.
And as we go forward--this is me kind of getting on my pulpit--
I think what the people on this side and the people in the
administration need to understand is that we are different. We
have haircut standards. Now, I am sure a person with a ponytail
could go out there and maybe they could serve just as well, but
that is not part of who we are and that is not part of our
standards.
So I think that the most important thing is, us on this
side must understand that we must set the military up for
success. My worry is, when I think about the Major Nidal Hasan
case, where we had subordinate leaders who were concerned about
political correctness and didn't report that situation up, I
want to make sure that our subordinate leaders understand that,
if they see problems with the implementation of this program,
that they are not afraid of retribution from special-interest
civilian groups that will cause them to exacerbate what could
be a dangerous situation.
So, with that being said, I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Congressman West.
At this time, Ms. Pingree of Maine.
Ms. Pingree. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
And thank you all for the service that you give to our
country, for being here with us today, for your patience in
waiting for us to come back. I appreciate that.
I, personally, am a longtime supporter of the repeal of
Don't Ask, Don't Tell, so I am very pleased to hear your
positive comments, to hear what I think many of us believed
would happen, was that our military would be ready to do this,
it be would fully prepared, and that people would be handling
it well. So I am glad to hear many of your positive remarks and
the fact that all of you are working hard to implement this.
Last week, in the Military Personnel Subcommittee, we were
able to hear from Dr. Stanley, who I thought gave wonderful
testimony about the implementation process that we are in, and
talked a little bit about how this has, frankly, cost around
$10,000. And that is a big contrast to what many people
estimate, between 2004 and 2009, the cost of $193 million to
discharge members of the military, who were highly trained,
served their country well, and I don't believe we could afford
to lose them.
I have a slightly different question. And while I am very
pleased to hear so much positive coming out of this process
that we are going through, I have had one early, isolated
report of a training session where the educator--the education
and training of open service was mocked and disparaged by the
commander. I know those are isolated reports, but I am
interested to hear your comments on them. When we hear about
them, should we report them back to all of you or to Dr.
Stanley?
And I guess I would ask you if you have any concerns about
the idea that a commander who may mock the training or wink or
nod or, you know, show something that is slightly disparaging
may encounter future problems when we are in the serious
implementation of open service.
I do believe these are isolated, and I know you have all
said very positive things. But when we hear those things,
isolated as they are, I am just interested in your take on
them, how they are being handled, and, frankly, what we should
do and how we should convey it when we hear that.
Any of you.
General Chiarelli. I have had one incident that has been
reported to me of three senior officers engaging in such
activity. I will tell you, it was immediately reported by their
superior, and proper action is being taken, like it would be in
any situation where something like that happens.
Ms. Pingree. Thank you.
Admiral Roughead. In our case, ma'am, as we do the
training, there are opportunities for those who participate in
training to comment on the effectiveness of that training. And
it also allows us to measure retention of certain elements of
the training that we provided.
So there is ample feedback on our Web site that deals with
the topic. There are opportunities for individuals to post
comments, to post questions.
So we have good visibility that is not in a filtered
process but one that I think is quite open and allows us to get
a sense of the tone of the training and the receptivity of the
training.
Ms. Pingree. Great.
And let me just say before the rest of you answer, thank
you, Admiral Roughead. And I know we are looking forward to
launching another good Navy ship from the Bath Iron Works, I
think in May or June, and we are excited about that.
Admiral Roughead. It is May, ma'am.
Ms. Pingree. Thank you. We are anxious to have that happen.
General Amos. Congresswoman, we have not had any reports
that have come up to me. And if any Member of Congress were
ever to get that, I would certainly want to know about it,
because it really violates the very premise of marines will get
in step and do it smartly and follow orders. And this is about
obeying our Nation's laws, and so we would take that very, very
seriously.
We have worked pretty--in fact, have worked very hard to
make sure everybody understands that we follow the law in the
Marine Corps. And so, as Admiral Roughead has described, we
have these open forums and discussion.
Now, I will tell you, I have asked for feedback out of
these things from the commanders. And it will be consistent
between now and the time that I recommend that the Marine Corps
is ready to go or not ready to go to the chairman.
And I would say the clear majority of it is very positive,
but there are questions about billeting, there are questions
about policy changes, there are questions about base housing,
there are questions about gang showers. I mean, these come up
in the discussions, but that is healthy.
And I have not heard of a commander--but we have 202,000
Marines on Active Duty and 39,600 Reserve. It would be
unrealistic to think that there is not a salty individual or
two out there that is probably going to turn askance at this.
And we will deal with that at the time.
Ms. Pingree. Thank you.
General Schwartz. And I would just amplify what General
Amos said. This is about the Constitution and our oath to it,
and we are loyal. And if you have information about an airman
that is not on board, I would appreciate knowing about it,
ma'am.
Ms. Pingree. Right. Well, I appreciate your comments, and I
thank you for your hard work to make this work.
I yield back.
Mr. Wilson. Next, we proceed to Congresswoman Vicki
Hartzler of Missouri.
Mrs. Hartzler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First, I just would like to ask--I am very concerned with
what I am hearing today, that we are going to expose our troops
to moderate risk. And General Casey said it is another level of
stress, it is more complicated.
I just want to know, I guess, from each of you, when have
you suggested a change in policy before that would put our men
and women at moderate risk?
Start with you.
General Chiarelli. Well, I believe General Casey indicated
that he felt that the report characterized it at less risk than
he felt, given the fact we are an army that had been fighting
for 10 years in both Iraq and Afghanistan. And he rated it as
moderate risk.
However, we have not completed enough of our training for
him at this time to say it is not still moderate risk. But, at
the same time, we have put together a very, very good, good
training package that emphasizes our role as professional
soldiers that we believe is going to mitigate that risk and
drive it down.
Mrs. Hartzler. Have you been involved in recommending a
policy, though, where there was a moderate risk before? That
was the question. Have you done that yet, at some other time in
your career?
Yes, General, go ahead.
General Schwartz. Ma'am, I would say yes, and I would say
it is going to war places the force at at least moderate risk.
Mrs. Hartzler. Uh-huh.
General Amos.
General Amos. Yes, ma'am. When you put someone's life at
risk in an operation, it is oftentimes heavy risk--high risk.
Mrs. Hartzler. Sure.
Admiral Roughead. And, ma'am, what we do is inherently
dangerous.
Mrs. Hartzler. Right.
Admiral Roughead. Whether it is flying from the deck of an
aircraft carrier, running a nuclear-powered submarine at 800
feet under the sea, it is inherently dangerous, and we know how
to manage the risk.
That said, for the process we are going through, I am very
comfortable with where we are.
Mrs. Hartzler. Okay. Well, I think there is a difference,
though. I mean, war is risk, I mean, obviously. But this is a
change in policy that is going to add a moderate risk onto the
already inherent risk of war. We are at war at two levels, and
maybe three if you call Libya. We have men and women in harm's
way. We are at war as a country. And yet we are talking about
one of the most monumental changes of policy that this country
has ever faced in its military forces.
And I just want to speak from my heart to each one of you.
I have the utmost respect for you. And I appreciate what you
are doing to lead our forces and to keep our country safe. And
there is no higher respect that I have for you.
But I want to challenge you, that you are the last force to
be able to stop this onerous policy. And I have to believe from
my heart, in your gut, you know this is not the right thing. I
appreciate that you follow command, you follow the
Constitution, and you are fulfilling what you are charged to
do. But there is an opportunity to not certify this. And it has
fallen upon you, at this time in history, to be able to give
the final say to the Secretary of Defense and to Admiral Mullen
whether you, in your right mind, in your heart of hearts, in
your professional career, you believe this is going to help
improve our forces from this time on out and help us win wars.
And I would ask you to consider this and to stand strong,
like you stand strong against other forces, foreign and
domestic, that have come upon our country, and that you would
not certify this. And, with that, I am going to get into some
specific questions, but that is an appeal I hope you will think
about in the privacy of your own home, in your own heart,
before you do this. Because you can stop it still, and not do
something just for political correctness.
But regarding chaplains, will chaplains face career
penalties if they defer performing same-sex marriage to someone
else?
Any of you.
General Schwartz. No, ma'am. We expect our chaplains to
minister to all, but, in those activities that are specific to
denominations, they can practice as they see fit.
Mrs. Hartzler. Does that hold true for ministry assistants
and having to hire them who openly engage in homosexual
behavior, or suffer career penalties for failing to do so?
General Schwartz. Again, we have not experienced any of the
ecclesiastical agencies withdrawing their endorsement of their
chaplaincies. And so, to date, that has not been an issue,
ma'am.
Mrs. Hartzler. Okay. Our time is up, but I appreciate your
consideration. And, once again, I respect what you are doing,
and we are counting on you. Thank you.
Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Ms. Hartzler.
We now proceed to Mr. Bill Owens of New York.
Mr. Owens. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
As a former JAG [Judge Advocate General] officer, I want to
know if you are comfortable both with the status of the UCMJ
[Uniform Code of Military Justice] as well as your regulations
for handling the implementation and, as I think you expressed
before, the ability of the chain of command to process and
handle complaints and deviations from military standards.
I would ask that of each of you.
Admiral Roughead. I am comfortable with that, yes, sir. I
mean, we deal with adherence to standards every day throughout
our military, and nothing will change in that regard.
Mr. Owens. Thank you.
General Chiarelli. It is our belief that commanders have
sufficient tools to address conduct that violates good order
and discipline. We certainly support the recommendations
included in the CRWG [Comprehensive Review Working Group]
report to modify the UCMJ but consider that mostly
housecleaning, at this particular point in time, and that we
have what we need now to move toward implementation.
Mr. Owens. Thank you.
General Amos. Congressman, I believe that what we have in
place currently is more than adequate standards of conduct for
us. In all the things that we have kind of thought through the
implementation process, quite honestly, the UCMJ, the
authorities, and that was something that was probably the least
of our concerns and that we believe the current standards of
conduct that are in place are more than adequate.
Mr. Owens. Thank you.
General Schwartz. There are 63 Air Force instructions that
deal with this issue either tangentially or centrally, sir. Out
of that, there are 27 that require some changes given the
change in policy, 16 of which are relatively minor and will be
done and ready to promulgate shortly. There are 11 which
require more work, and that will take a couple more months to
put together. But they will be ready to roll out at the time
when, and if, the chairman, Secretary, and the President
certify.
Mr. Owens. Thank you.
Are the Services, at a joint level, doing an overall or
combined plan for implementation? Or is this being done by the
individual Service without any type of coordination?
Admiral Roughead. Congressman, we are responsible and
accountable for training our own Service. The nature of the
training, the way it has been constructed and coordinated has
been done among the Services as we go forward together.
But the best accountability, in my belief, is through the
Services so that we can account for the training, that we can
get the feedback that we need. But it has been something that
has been well-coordinated.
General Amos. Congressman, all through the summer, while
the surveys were taking place last spring and summer and fall,
part of the effort of the comprehensive working group was the
implementation portion of this, looking at policies and
training and everything else. They have developed, with all the
Services--we all had representatives on that effort--a very
comprehensive training package that addresses, really, the 99
percentile of the issues and those significant things that we
have to look at with regards to training and issues.
So each Service, then, was told we will use that as the
framework and the backbone, and then we will impart our own
culture, our own Service culture. By that, I mean we don't
change the nature, but for the Marines we get down and dirty,
look them in the eye, and go, ``Okay, pay very close attention
to me. We are going to have a discussion about this.'' I mean,
that is the culture part, but the framework is the same among
all the Services.
Mr. Owens. Thank you.
General Schwartz. Sir, I think we are executing in our
Service lane, but you can tell there is a high degree of
coordination at every level.
The one exception might be joint entities, where we have a
mix of Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, and so on. And, in those
cases, the individuals are getting their training from their
senior Service leadership in the commands.
Mr. Owens. Thank you very much.
I have great faith that you will implement this and make a
certification decision, or advise senior leadership of the
certification decision that you think is in the best interest
of accomplishing the mission.
Thank you, and I yield back.
Mr. Wilson. Ms. Martha Roby of Alabama.
Mrs. Roby. Well, good afternoon. And I certainly thank you,
Mr. Chairman.
And I appreciate your patience with us this afternoon. So
thank you all for being here and for what you do for our
country.
And I know you talked a little bit, there was a lengthy
question about readiness and the effects of the implementation.
But I wanted to ask you just very directly and simply how each
of you would feel about the implementation of this repeal. How
would it improve the standards of our military effectiveness,
unit cohesion, recruiting and retention for our military?
General Amos. Ma'am, I can't tell you at this point that it
will improve it. We don't know yet. We are--the law has not
been repealed. We are in the implementation phase right now, so
we are in the training and education portion of this. So we
can't say one way or the other.
I think that is something that will happen probably a year
or two later. In other words, you will get a sense within--in
my community, we will get a sense within probably 6 months to
12 months what the impact is on retention.
We have not seen any impact on retention, we have not seen
any impact on recruiting right now while we are in the signed
law implementation phase. But will it improve recruiting and
retention and combat effectiveness? I can't address that right
now because I don't know.
Mrs. Roby. Well, just to follow up with that, General, one
of our members actually referenced to me a letter that was
received from a marine, specifically discussing resignation in
light of this repeal.
And so I guess I could further my question and say, do you
know specifically that there have been resignations throughout
our military as it relates to this repeal?
General Amos. I would suspect, out of 202,000 Marines, that
there will be some marines that will step forward, they will
turn letters in, they will talk to their Congressman, they will
write articles in the press. But because they say they want to
resign, there is--constitutionally, they stepped up and joined
the Marine Corps. So the fact that they are uncomfortable at
this point or the fact that they want to resign doesn't
necessarily mean they are going to be allowed to resign. They
have a commitment to our Nation, the same as any other service
man or women has.
So I don't know of a specific one, but I would be the most
surprised person if there weren't a couple out there that said,
``I am going to resign.'' Doing that and actually following
through are two different things.
Mrs. Roby. Yes, sir.
General Schwartz. Ma'am, I would just say that, you know,
our experience so far hasn't--we haven't accumulated enough
data points to sort of make a judgment.
But I would say that, conceptually, you can argue that
there might well be improvements at some point because fewer
people leave the Service and so on. And, ideally, that is the
right people who stay.
But I think, at this point in time, it is premature to make
a judgment.
Admiral Roughead. Ma'am, I would say one of the biggest
challenges that we face today is too many people want to stay
in the Navy, and that that has not changed as a result of the
process that we are going through. In fact, it is just becoming
more pressurized for people who want to stay or who even want
to come in. And you can debate the reasons as to why. But this
has not, in any way, shape, or form, changed that dynamic that
we are dealing with.
I do think that one of the things that will be true once
this is implemented is that we won't have sailors who, because
of orientation, are always looking over their shoulder.
General Chiarelli. I would only echo what the other chiefs
have all said. It is too early to tell, but we have seen
nothing that would indicate, so far, that there will be any
more individuals who indicate a desire to leave than there
would be with any other policy that possibly could be changed.
Again, we feel very, very good, so far, at really not
hearing a lot of that. We have not heard those reports except--
I mean, in an organization of 1.1 million, again, there are, no
doubt, going to be a few.
Mrs. Roby. Yes, sir. Thank you so much.
Mr. Chairman, my time is almost up. I yield back.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Ryan.
Mr. Ryan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And, again, thank you for accommodating our schedule today.
And I think this is obviously an important issue, and I want to
thank all of you for your thoughtfulness in not only your
remarks today but throughout this entire process. I want to say
thank you.
This is something that I think has been a long time coming
for our country. A lot of the issues that we talk about as a
country, that we fight about as a country are the issues of
freedom and liberty. And we hear the words thrown around a lot.
And I think the implementation of this policy is an opportunity
for us to create that more perfect union here in the United
States and allowing free American citizens to serve their
country in whatever way they see fit. So I want to thank you
for that.
And, really, just mention a couple stories here, Mr.
Chairman, from back in Ohio, because we have gotten a lot into
the logistics here today, and I think it is important that we
recognize that these are real folks that want to serve our
country.
We have someone back in Ohio, former Air Force Major
General Mike Almy, native of Dayton, Ohio, who was a gay
soldier who was discharged under Don't Ask, Don't Tell. A 13-
year veteran of the Air Force kicked out of the armed services
after his superiors investigated his personal e-mails and found
the correspondence between he and his partner.
Patrick Moloughney, Cincinnati, Ohio, a ROTC [Reserve
Officer Training Corps] student outed shortly before graduation
and discharged, still wants to serve, still wants to come back
and serve his country.
Brian Endicott from Columbus, Ohio, joined the Army in 1992
when then-candidate Clinton talked about the promise then to
ban from the Service. When Don't Ask, Don't Tell was
implemented, he opted not to re-enlist.
And then, lastly, Josh Kreais served a full term as a
combat medic in Iraq. After returning, he was discovered by
someone who had unauthorized access to his e-mail; another
soldier got his password somehow. He was brought up on
discharge proceedings, but those proceedings were put on hold
until he served a second full term in Iraq, and he was
discharged shortly after he returned. And he is from Upper
Sandusky in Ohio.
So these are real people who want to serve our country that
are talented.
So, again, I want to just say thank you, and ask one quick
question. And I apologize if I missed in the transition if this
question has already been asked. But how soon after
certification will former service members who wish to return to
service be allowed to begin the process? Some former service
members approaching 40 are worried that they will age out
before the process begins.
General Amos. Congressman, in the case of the Marine Corps,
once certification is done and the law--it is 60 days later the
law becomes effective. Then, in the case of the Marine Corps,
those that have been discharged in the past--and we have had
about 1,400 Marines since 1993 that have been discharged for
homosexuality--can apply.
And what they will do, they will go to a prior-service
recruiter, and they will apply just like anybody else that has
left the Marine Corps with an honorable discharge, come back
in, and if their skill sets and their age and they meet all the
requirements and there is a need, then they will be allowed to
come back on Active Duty. But they will fall in the competition
with everybody else that has gotten out and have come back as a
prior-service marine.
Mr. Ryan. The same.
General Chiarelli. Same for the Army. Exactly as General
Amos laid it out. And, quite frankly, this is something going
on all the time in the Army with soldiers who have left, for
whatever the reason might be, many of them petition to come
back in.
Mr. Ryan. Great. My time is winding down here. Thank you so
much. Again, this is a long time coming. And we appreciate your
help in the training and implementation of this. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Mr. Wilson.
Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you for being here today.
General Chiarelli, my sympathy to the Casey family. We
certainly have just the highest regard for General George Casey
and his service.
As we are proceeding, I share the concerns of Chairman Buck
McKeon that there were hasty decisions made in December in
regard to passage of this law. In fact, it really is bizarre.
It was a lame-duck session of defeated Members of Congress who
have made this change in the law.
Normally, you would think of a representative democracy
that people would be representing their people. But these were
people who had actually been rejected by the voters of the
United States, and then they changed this law. I find that just
really undemocratic. It is also shocking to me that these are
the same people who did not pass a budget. And that is what we
are facing today.
But it is amazing that they could have made such a
decision. And that makes it even more important as to the
certification effort that every effort is made to look into
morale, unit cohesion, good order, discipline, recruiting and
retention, and combat readiness. Because Members of Congress,
defeated ones, did not look at that. And didn't care.
It is my view in my 31 years of service that extraordinary
surveys--anonymous surveys so that people could speak freely--
are really very helpful. Will there be any surveys as you are
considering the certification process of members of the
military?
General Schwartz. Sir, not surveys in the context of what
was performed last fall, but certainly there will be an
aggregation of information through the command chains and other
normal reporting mechanisms to give us the information, the
situational awareness we need to make the recommendation, in
our case, to the chairman. And just to address what
Congresswoman Hartzler indicated earlier, you can rest assured
that each one of us will give our best military advice to the
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs.
General Amos. Congressman, in our case, I have the
objective criteria which we talked about earlier on, Tier 1,
Tier 2, and Tier 3 training. That will be complete.
The subjective part for us will be command climate surveys,
which is a formal survey. It is not a jump on a blog site kind
of survey, but it is a real--we bring trained people in; we do
a command climate survey. And then we have our retention
surveys, our early retention surveys that we do. Those are all
fixed things that we do. We will also have the input from the
commanders.
So there are surveys. It is not a specific one to deal with
this. But it will talk about marines, how they are feeling
about staying on Active Duty in the Marine Corps, how is the
climate in their command, which are things I am very concerned
about and that to your point about retention and combat
effectiveness and unit cohesion.
Admiral Roughead. Congressman, I would say that we make
several changes in the Navy from time to time on policies and
other issues. I will tell you that at no time have I seen the
continuous feedback, the continuous assessment on the part of
the training that is going on to the degree that we are doing
here. So I do believe that the pulse of the force is going to
be monitored throughout this in ways that we have never done
before.
General Chiarelli. I can only echo that.
And with your experience in the United States Army,
Congressman, you know that commanders are best suited to be
able to tell whether a change in policy is going to have an
effect on any of the things that you mentioned. And that is why
we have put it foursquare on their shoulders to be the one that
conducts the training and get the feedback from their units and
soldiers.
Mr. Wilson. I appreciate your statements. I am also
concerned about First Amendment rights of chaplains. Will there
be guidelines for chaplains as to how they conduct themselves
and their ability to comment on this policy?
Admiral Roughead. Yes, sir.
In fact, chaplains are part of the Tier 1 training, very
focused on that. The Chief of Chaplains was involved in the
development of that training. The rights of not just chaplains
but all of our sailors to practice the tenets of their belief
is unaffected.
Mr. Wilson. There will be not be retaliation against those
who may disagree with the policy in expressing their point of
view?
Admiral Roughead. I believe that those who have moral
objections and find that it is a challenge for them because of
their beliefs, those beliefs can be expressed.
That said, any expression of that that goes beyond the
norms of the normal decency and respect that we have for one
another, that is a line that I think could be crossed. But
their ability to deal with their religious beliefs, to discuss
those beliefs, to seek guidance from our chaplain corps will be
unaffected.
Mr. Wilson. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Reyes.
Mr. Reyes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Gentlemen, thank you, both for being here and your patience
and also for your service. I don't have any doubts that the
results that you see, you will report accordingly. So I really
don't have any questions, except to tell you how much we
appreciate the work that you have done and the work that you
are doing. Thank you.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Hunter.
Mr. Hunter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And to all of you, thank you so much for basically being
the custodians and guardians of our young men and women who
volunteer to serve and whose parents trust you with their lives
and livelihoods.
The first question for everybody is, basically, I would
like to know how the repeal increases combat effectiveness.
General Chiarelli. As I mentioned earlier, we don't know
exactly yet how it is going to. But I would argue that if we
are able to--if the decision is made to repeal and
certification does take place, as we work this over time,
inclusive organizations are usually the best kinds of
organizations. And we will look at that and the ability to
ensure that soldiers are able to stay in critical MOS's
[military occupational specialties] longer as possible areas
where it could improve readiness.
Admiral Roughead. I think that one of the things that is
important, as you so well know because of your service,
Congressman, is the integrity and the belief that people can
have in being frank and honest and open. I believe that that
now becomes part of our force in a way that it has not been. I
also would echo what General Chiarelli said, in that there are
some talented people who have left the Navy because of this.
Mr. Hunter. Specifically, combat arms. Do you think the
Navy SEALs' [Sea, Air, and Land Teams'] combat effectiveness
will increase after the repeal and different Special Forces
Task Forces that fall under the Navy?
Admiral Roughead. I think that across the Navy when--
oftentimes, people talk about the combat arms, and that really
conjures up the ground force. But I would submit that those who
serve in our submarines, who serve in our airplanes, are as
much of a combat arm as anything that we have.
Mr. Hunter. Do you think it will increase the
effectiveness?
Admiral Roughead. I believe that we will see great young
sailors, who perhaps otherwise would not serve, will be able to
serve. And to quote an anecdote from some of the surveys that
was done with regard to one of our Navy SEALs, a comment was
made: He's big, he's bad, he kills a lot of bad guys. And, oh,
by the way, he's gay. So I think that we will see good people
serving, yes, sir.
General Amos. Congressman, too soon for me to tell.
I think the one thing that will happen, some of this will
be a little bit evolutionary. It will become revealing over
time. But I am not in a position right now where I can comment
on, will it increase combat effectiveness?
I think it will increase peace of mind for a portion of our
Marine Corps that is gay and lesbian. They have been there
since 1993 when the law was in there. I don't know how many of
them are. My suspicions are the numbers are probably pretty
small. But we know that they are there. I don't know who they
are. And I don't care at this point. But my sense for them,
there will be a peace of mind that they have been unable to
have prior to this.
Have we lost high-quality folks with unique talents that
were ``onesie-twosie''? I can't tell that. So, for me as a
marine--as a commandant, it will be a while yet before I will
be able to look back and say, our combat effectiveness has
increased.
Mr. Hunter. Thanks for your honesty and your blunt answer.
General.
General Schwartz. I agree with that.
Three things: Clearly, peace of mind. There is the
potential for keeping people who otherwise might have to depart
our Air Force. And it increases--potentially increases the
recruiting pool. We shall see.
Mr. Hunter. I think I heard that we don't know whether it
will increase combat effectiveness or not yet. I think that was
what everybody has agreed on.
The last question. I have only got a minute left. Say that
you and your commanders on the ground for your combat units
specifically, do not think that--let's be hypothetical, even I
know we all hate that. In 6 months, the repeal happens but your
commanders tell you that your combat units are not ready yet
and you either don't make a recommendation at that point yet
because you are not ready for the repeal, or you do and it is
that we don't do it yet, that we need more training, we need
more whatever. What would you do then if the implementation of
the repeal is forced upon you? Do you have any recourse?
Admiral Roughead. Congressman, I would say that I am
comfortable and confident in the voice that we have with regard
to the assessment of where we are objectively and subjectively
that when we make our recommendation with regard to where we
are in training, how we believe this went, how we believe it
has gone, do we have to circle back perhaps to emphasize some
other points that need to be made that we may have identified
as part of this feedback mechanism, I am confident that our
recommendation will be heard.
Mr. Hunter. And your recourse if it isn't? If you are not
ready and the implementation is forced upon you.
Admiral Roughead. I am confident that the recommendation I
make with regard to the readiness of the Navy will be a factor
in whether or not we go forward as a force or not.
Mr. Hunter. Is everybody comfortable with that?
General Schwartz. I would only add: A very significant
factor.
Mr. Hunter. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Mr. Coffman.
Mr. Coffman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I had asked for the Office of the Secretary of Defense for
some additional questions on how this impacted--from the
survey, as to drill down further as to how the survey impacted
our ground combat arms elements of the United States Army and
the United States Marine Corps, having served in both as a
soldier in the U.S. Army infantry and as an infantry officer in
the Marine Corps. I did get the raw data for the survey results
of the specific questions I had. And it is amazing, when the
Office of the Secretary of Defense has something that they want
to get to me that they agree with me on, how quick they are.
But I believe that they intentionally delayed this. And it
took them 2 months to give me the information that they had
right on the top of their desk. And it is contained in this
binder here.
In going through the raw data, what it showed to me is how
flawed this survey was; that it was no more than a conclusion
looking for a survey. And it is simply not legitimate. It is
flawed. And I think this speaks to the lack of honesty in this
process. But I just want to--and I am not going to put you in
the middle of this because you are already in the middle of it,
whether you want to be or not, but I just want to thank you not
just for your service but for making this work in terms of
trying to mitigate whatever stresses this has on our forces.
Because it really doesn't matter at the end of the day what you
tell the Secretary of Defense or the Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staffs, they are political appointees. And we have a
commander in chief who made this as a campaign promise, and
they will follow through with that promise with him, there is
no question in my mind.
I think I would only ask of you one thing, and that is my
heart is with the infantry, both the Army and the Marine Corps.
And I am very concerned. I think that there is a reason today
why we don't have women serving in ground combat units where
their primary mission is combat. And that is because we have
chosen not to interject sexuality in those units to maintain
unit cohesion. We are going to be interjecting sexuality in
those units. And having served in combat with a ground combat
team in conventional operations in the first Gulf War--I served
in Iraq, but not in the infantry--but in the first Gulf War,
where you went out and you stayed out--that young people, for
young people, sexuality is an emotion that is very prominent in
their lives.
So I just want you to I take extra caution in recognizing
the differences in these ground combat units. Because as you
look at the survey, the questions--because, obviously, it is a
conclusion looking for a survey--are not geared to those units.
And so, again, I just want to thank you for your service
and what you do. I know you are in a tough position, but I know
you are going to do the best you can in what is not a military
decision, at the end of the day. It is a political decision.
I yield back.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Palazzo.
Mr. Palazzo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Gentlemen, thank you all for being here today. Thank you
for your service.
In a large sense, I guess I kind of feel like Sam Houston
when he arrived on to the site of the Alamo and saw the
destruction and the death, and he couldn't help his fellow
Americans, Texans, Tennesseeans, and so forth.
So I do have a few questions. I do think I share most of
the views with the Republican members that this is a hasty
policy. It was a policy that shouldn't have been passed in a
lame duck session.
I kind of disagree with some comments that if soldiers who
have enlisted or become commissioned officers under a certain
thought that their military was a good military, a correct
military, or just whatever they thought the military was when
they joined, and this Congress comes and tinkers with it and
they no longer see it being what they envisioned or what their
grandfathers in the Pacific War envisioned it being, then I
think we may need to provide them some relief to exit the
military, because we don't want to hurt them on their way out.
They have served honorably. So let's just please keep those
considerations.
Because I have heard comments from high-ranking officials
that, well, you know, they are just going to either accept it
or they know what they can do. And I think that on its face is
a disservice to the people who have sacrificed so much for so
many people.
I would like to just address the survey real quick. How
many people responded to the survey? If anybody has all the
technical information, just feel free to input.
General Schwartz. We can take that for the record. But for
the Air Force, it was 117,000, or thereabouts.
Mr. Palazzo. If you could say about how many responded and
how much your total force, including Reserves.
General Schwartz. It was a response rate slightly over 30
percent.
General Amos. Congressman, I will also take that for the
record to get you the precise numbers, but it was well over
40,000. And then there was spouses. Families members were also
allowed. Three parts to the survey. Actually, four. One was the
actual survey to the service members. The second one was the
spousal survey. There was a blog site, kind of a free-for-all
king of thing. And there was another one. We will get you that
information.
Admiral Roughead. Congressman, for the Navy, it was 28
percent of the Active Force, 33 percent of the Reserve
Component, which is very consistent with the normal response
rates on all the instruments that we use to make significant
decisions in the Navy.
General Chiarelli. For the Army, I will take that for the
record, but I know it was under 30 percent of those who were
surveyed, and it was higher in the Reserve Components than it
was in the Active Component force. I will get you the exact
numbers, Congressman.
[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix
on page 63.]
Mr. Palazzo. I appreciate that.
Of course, that brought so many other questions in my mind
right now. Why do you think the number was so low? And before--
I would like to inject some comments with that. From what I
have seen in my service is that two things were taking place.
One, they didn't believe it was an anonymous survey. They
thought their IP [Internet Provider], their computer, their CAC
card [Common Access Card], however, their AKO [Army Knowledge
Online] account, somebody out there was going to watch them,
and they thought there was going to be--if they didn't agree
with it, not that they are going to be on some list, but
something out there.
Now that is just a perception. Typically, perception is
reality in some things. And the second, they were scared. Well,
that was--I already covered that.
They resigned. They were resigned because they saw the
writing on the wall. And they saw the Democrats pushing this
through in a lame-duck session. They saw the commitment from
the President. And I think they also may have thought that the
Joint Chiefs and others up top weren't going to have an honest
discussion about this.
And I am just--these are feedbacks that I have gotten,
because I have yet to find a soldier in the National Guard,
Reserves, or when we took a tour on the Western bases with
Chairman McKeon, anybody that is in support of repealing Don't
Ask, Don't Tell. I just find it--it just makes me believe--A,
the survey, I took it. I think it was very limited in its
response. It was bogus. I hope, going forward, after you do
your technical criteria--and I hope it is better than some of
the criteria we choose the recipients of military contracts--
but it is a fair, honest discussion. And maybe we should have
another survey, one that maybe this Congress, the 112th
Congress can help draft, with your help, to ask some more
direct questions to our men and women in uniform.
My time is coming close. If you want to comment for the
record, please do so. And please don't--this isn't directed
personally at you. I know you all--I have seen your bios. You
are true, true American heroes. I don't envy you. Where Admiral
Halsey and Chesty Puller and Patton and MacArthur are going to
go down under different pretenses, I just hope your names
aren't going to be going down related to the certification of
this policy.
Please think long and hard. Please make sure that it is not
going to affect our recruitment, our retention, our readiness.
And please, and I am saying this--I just apologize to our
veterans who have served before us, those who currently serving
on Active Duty and the Reserves and those who have yet had the
opportunity to serve because I don't think this is a good
policy. Please take that into consideration. Thank you.
The Chairman. Mr. Rigell.
Mr. Rigell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I thank each of you have gentlemen for your patience with
the testimony today. I had the privilege of being with our
troops in Afghanistan just a couple of weeks ago.
They are first a reflection of their parents. And they are
a great reflection of their American parents. But they are also
a reflection of your leadership. They are well equipped, well
led, and they are motivated. And they are doing everything that
we are asking of them. I commend you for that.
I am here as a first-time elected official. I still own a
business that I started, I had the privilege to start 20 years
ago this month. I know over the course of that time and
probably today, there are those serving with us in my company
who are gay and lesbian. And I have never made any distinction.
It just was completely irrelevant to me what their sexual
orientation is.
Now I think the difference is and why I think that Don't
Ask, Don't Tell was a reasonable, though imperfect, policy, was
at the end of the day, you don't go home with your coworkers.
There is a profound difference.
My military career is very limited; I am the first to say
that. But I tell you, you go through Parris Island in 1978, and
it is still this way today, I know, because my son went through
and I went back in the barracks and you know, the showers are
just about the size of an American garage. No stalls. It is
done by design and I think with good purpose and good intent.
It is just you literally lose your right to privacy. And you
know that going in.
So given we are headed down this path, and if my time
permits, I would like to talk about if this certification is
truly a foregone conclusion. It sure seems like it. But if it
is not, we can talk about that as well.
Commandant Amos, if you would, sir, I would appreciate,
what guidance is given to like a platoon commander or platoon
sergeant for those who have a genuine, genuine moral concern
about very close--I am not talking about a widespread ``I just
can't work with a person who is homosexual.'' I, frankly, don't
have any tolerance for that. But when you get down to close
berthing accommodations and those kind of things, where I think
a reasonable person would say, you know, I can understand that
is a genuinely held view, we are going to work with you on
that.
Now it is my understanding, and I would like to be
corrected today, but it is my understanding we are not going to
make accommodations for those views. Could you clarify that for
me?
General Amos. Congressman, I would be happy to. The Marine
Corps billets two by two, which means that we put two Marines
in a room, shared head facility in between, and two marines on
the other side. We are the only Service that has a waiver to do
that. We do that for a specific reason--for unit cohesion, for
we are a young force, as you know. We are the youngest of all
the Services. So we have 18-, 19-year-olds in there, and we
want--we breed the buddy system, and we breed that cohesive
bonding. That is how we do business in the Marine Corps. So we
are two by two.
Again, as I said earlier, without knowing the exact
numbers, my suspicions are our numbers of gays and lesbians
that are currently on Active Duty in the Marines, the numbers
are reasonably small. There is no provision to build a separate
barracks or have separate rooms for marines that are gay or
lesbian. There is no intention to do that. I certainly have no
intention to do that, nor can I afford it.
But I have confidence--and here is the guidance I have
given my generals and my commanders, is that I expect the
privacy and the rights of each marine to be honored with
respect and dignity. I suspect that there are going to be
issues when marines are allowed to come out in the open and
declare themselves as openly gay. I don't know how that is
going to happen, but I suspect that when that happens, there
will be some marines that will say, I don't want to room with
that marine. And that is why we have staff sergeants, platoon
sergeants, and first lieutenants and company commanders. And
they are going to look them in the eye, and they are going to
resolve it at the lowest level. And it is the standard Marine
Corps leadership. I am confident of that.
Mr. Rigell. And the rights of the person asking for the
accommodation to be moved, those rights will be respected as
well, is that correct?
General Amos. They will. Each case will be unique. Each
case will be handled uniquely by that leader, and each case
will, no doubt, be different. There may be a common thread, but
the respect and rights of both marines will be honored.
Mr. Rigell. Thank you.
General Schwartz. The backdrop of this, at least for us,
and I think for all of us, is that we are not trying to change
anybody's beliefs or their belief system. But we do and we will
mandate a standard of conduct. And that is inviolate.
Mr. Rigell. Thank you all for your testimony.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Franks.
Mr. Franks. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Gentlemen, I am coming in here pretty late and I know you
probably covered a lot of areas that I may be having some
redundancy here. But first let me thank you for your service. I
try to say every time when people, general officers and others
of leadership in our Armed Forces come forward, we know that
you have given profound sacrifice and time in your life for the
cause of freedom. Those of us that talk about freedom are
certainly very grateful for those of you that carry this
burden. And I appreciate you very much.
When the debate was occurring on this issue, some of us
tried to focus mostly on what was the impact on military
readiness and the effect of our capability to fight and win
wars. And some of the leadership of the Armed Services had
asked us for a time to be able to study this issue and to able
to come back before the vote occurred to give us some at least
insight as to whether or not this was a good policy or not.
Let me start by asking General Schwartz, if it is all
right, I will aim at you first, sir. Did any efforts continue
to go forward to ascertain the impact on military readiness of
this policy? If so, are there any ongoing efforts like that, or
any data collection, any things that you are studying now as
leadership of the military to ascertain what is the actual
impact of this on our readiness?
General Schwartz. Congressman, we have routine measures and
efforts underway to ascertain our unit readiness and so on for
employment, for whatever the case may be. And that is
continuing. And we monitor that routinely. I would simply say
that we, all of us, are fundamentally concerned with our
ability to execute and that none of us are inclined to endorse
any approach that would somehow diminish that capability.
Mr. Franks. General Amos, do you have any thoughts there,
sir?
General Amos. Congressman, our training is intimate. It is
personal both at the platoon level, the company level, and the
battalion squadron level. We watch it very carefully. It is
very structured. We know what our readiness is at any given
time in preparation for deploying to combat. Most of our units
are either in combat, have just come home and are resetting to
go. So it is a personal matter; readiness and combat
effectiveness is personal to our Marine leadership. And in that
regard, we have not seen any drop in it. But, again, we are in
the implementation stage right now. But my expectations are the
truth of the matter is I don't think we are going to see a drop
in it.
Mr. Franks. At this time, if you had to point to any one
area--and I will throw it out to the panel--the most
challenging area that you may have as a result of this policy,
is there anything that just stands out in your mind?
Admiral Roughead. Congressman, I would say that we are
training a very large force, and quite frankly, the responses
that we are getting, the tone of the questions, the nature of
the questions, are consistent with what we believed as we went
forward. I think in the case of the Navy, there are questions
such as issues of accommodation. But they are being answered by
the training teams, and we are just going to work our way
through those types of questions. And the tone--I place a great
deal of emphasis on the tone of the force--remains very good as
we go through this.
Mr. Franks. One last question. I know that the issue of the
chaplaincies has already been broached at least once. Let me
ask anyone here that would suggest or would be able to say, has
there been any impact on the chaplaincies? Has there been any
requirement as a result of this policy placed on chaplains that
would be considered a change of policy, or have chaplains
exhibited any sort of challenge with this policy in general?
I will start again, General Schwartz.
General Schwartz. Not in the Air Force.
Mr. Franks. There is no indication chaplains have been
required to adapt to this policy in any way, is that your
testimony?
General Schwartz. The chaplains--we haven't implemented--we
haven't certified and we have not implemented the policy yet.
But the fundamental part of this is twofold. One is that they
minister to all airmen. And in those cases where they are
performing the context of their faith and their denomination,
that they do that consistent with their faith, however that may
unfold. But in a broader sense, they minister to all airmen.
Mr. Franks. Thank you gentlemen very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you.
And again, thank you for your patience. I apologize for the
interruption. That is one of the things that we have to do
here, is vote. I encourage you to take into account all of the
things that you have heard here today on all the various sides
of the issue as you go forward in preparing yourself to train
the forces to see that they are trained and to certify their
readiness and the time that we will be ready to implement this.
Again, thank you very much for your service.
This committee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:22 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]
=======================================================================
A P P E N D I X
April 7, 2011
=======================================================================
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
April 7, 2011
=======================================================================
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
=======================================================================
DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
April 7, 2011
=======================================================================
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
=======================================================================
WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING
THE HEARING
April 7, 2011
=======================================================================
RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. PALAZZO
General Chiarelli. For the Service Member Survey the Army received:
Total Army response = 30,433. Respondents Response Rate:
AC = 11,488 = 19%
ARNG = 10,311 = 22%
USAR = 8,634 = 25%
Response rates consistent with Army's recent norms.
For the Spouse Survey:
Total (All Service) = 44,266 returns = 31.0% return rate:
Active Army = 5,480 returns = 26.4% return rate.
Army Guard = 5,432 returns = 30.3% return rate.
Army Reserve = 4,004 returns = 30.4% return rate.
[See page 31.]
General Schwartz. 39,065 people responded to the survey:
Active Duty: 18,644 or 47.7% of respondents; 5.6% of
total active duty force of 332,200.
National Guard: 11,024 or 28.2% of respondents; 10%
of total Guard force of 106,700.
Reserve: 9,397 or 24.1% of respondents; 13% of total
Reserve force of 71,200. [See page 31.]
?
=======================================================================
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING
April 7, 2011
=======================================================================
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. MCKEON AND MR. WILSON
Mr. McKeon and Mr. Wilson. 1) Secretary Stanley has concluded that
all the findings in the original law relative to military life and
readiness remain valid except (13) concerning the longstanding law in
the unique military culture prohibiting homosexuality and (15)
concerning the conclusion that homosexuals in the military would create
an unacceptable risk to morale, good order, discipline, and unit
cohesion that are the essence of military capability.
Do you agree with that assessment?
If findings 13 and 15 are no longer valid, why must we
develop and implement a training program to prepare the force for the
repeal of the law? It would seem that if we've ``moved on'' from those
points that we'd just recognize that fact rather than educate the
force.
General Chiarelli. Yes. Any major changes to laws, regulations, or
policies should be clearly explained to all personnel to ensure
universal understanding and compliance. For instance, although sexual
harassment/assault was clearly unacceptable and not in accordance with
Army Standards of Conduct, major education initiatives were needed to
bring about a full understanding of the issue and consequences, and
this education is still necessary and required.
Mr. McKeon and Mr. Wilson. 2) Secretary Stanley has indicated that
he agreed with the interpretation that the response on the survey
``equally as positively as negatively'' was an appropriate indicator
that the respondent believed that repeal could be implemented without
adverse impact on readiness. That conclusion is the basis for the
statistical justification that the force agreed with repeal.
Do you believe that was an accurate interpretation of the
response, ``equally as positively as negatively''?
Do you think the survey would have been better to draw
more clearly defined negative and positive responses?
Do you believe the surveys should have simply asked, ``Do
you believe repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell should occur?'' How do you
think the force would have responded to that question?
General Chiarelli. The survey conducted by Westat was not designed
to be a referendum on the issue of DADT repeal, nor were any decisions
based solely on this survey. The survey was conducted to measure what
Service members and their spouses were thinking about a potential
repeal and was used as one of many contributors to the decision making
process. As to how I believe Soldiers would have responded to a
specified question asking if the ban on homosexuals in the military
should be repealed, it is difficult to say and I have no basis on which
to provide an informed opinion.
Mr. McKeon and Mr. Wilson. 3) On the issue of collecting data on
gays and lesbians and behavior that results from open service of gays
and lesbians, DOD has been adamant that privacy is more important than
information.
As a commander charged with the responsibility to
assessing the success of repeal, how would you evaluate the
consequences of repeal and protect the rights of gays and lesbians
without data?
General Chiarelli. The Army will protect the rights of all Soldiers
irrespective of sexual orientation. However, where sexual orientation
may be a factor in clear violations of Standards of Conduct or with
criminal behavior, investigators are allowed to record the information
as necessary.
Mr. McKeon and Mr. Wilson. 4) Secretary Stanley has indicated after
a commander takes action to relocate the billeting of personnel because
of privacy concerns there was no concern that gays and lesbians will
have then been stigmatized and unit cohesion disrupted.
Do you agree with that assessment?
General Chiarelli. Yes. Commanders move Soldiers all the time for
various reasons, and I do not expect this issue to cause any
extraordinary concern.
Mr. McKeon and Mr. Wilson. 5) Secretary Stanley has indicated that
there will be no need to change any regulation or cultural behavior to
restrict heterosexual behavior because of gays and lesbians being
present in the force.
Do you agree?
For example, do you expect that ceremonies welcoming home
units from deployment will be conducted in the same manner as they are
today, to include personal displays of affection while in uniform?
General Chiarelli. Yes, I agree with the Secretary. Standards of
Conduct will be applied equally to all Soldiers regardless of sexual
orientation. With exceptions, deployment homecoming ceremonies for
example, public displays of affection are not permitted while in
uniform regardless of sexual orientation.
Mr. McKeon and Mr. Wilson. 6) Secretary Stanley indicated that
commanders would be able to determine when inappropriate sexual
behavior was occurring in billeting and will be empowered to restore
good order and discipline.
Do you agree that commanders will be able to identify
such misconduct between gays and lesbians and take appropriate action--
and do all that without disrupting unit cohesion?
General Chiarelli. Yes. Commanders, through the chain of command,
are able to identify and correct inappropriate behavior of all kinds
without disrupting unit cohesion. I do not expect this to change with
repeal.
Mr. McKeon and Mr. Wilson. 7) Secretary Stanley was not concerned
that the involvement of Military Equal Opportunity (MEO) authorities in
a policy development role will result in MEO procedures being used to
resolve gay and lesbian harassment and discrimination issues despite
the DOD commitment to keep those processes separate.
Are you concerned about MEO processes eventually taking
over gay and lesbian complaints?
General Chiarelli. No. Complaints about abusive treatment related
to sexual orientation will be handled through the chain of command. I
do not expect there will be a need for any additional adjudication.
However, the MEO program is a commander's program. MEO advisors can and
do provide advice and expertise to commanders outside of an EO
investigation and will continue to do so.
Mr. McKeon and Mr. Wilson. 8) In response to a question about the
Administration's decision to not defend the constitutionality of the
Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), Secretary Stanley indicated that
benefits would not be extended to gay and lesbian couples and the law
would be upheld.
As prudent managers, are you now considering the
likelihood that DOMA will be found unconstitutional and developing
contingencies for how you would extend all family benefits to gay and
lesbian families?
General Chiarelli. The Army has been working in conjunction with
DoD to evaluate the subject of benefits accorded to same-sex couples.
Mr. McKeon and Mr. Wilson. 9) Secretary Stanley indicated that
there has been no additional research to better understand the concerns
about open service of gays and lesbians among service members in ground
combat units.
Are you concerned about the attitudes of service members
in ground combat units and have you made any special effort to
understand those feelings better and address the issues with
specifically designed training?
General Chiarelli. No. The research conducted under the
Comprehensive Review Working Group was extremely thorough and addressed
the issues faced by combat units. The standards of conduct are the same
across the Army regardless of type of unit.
Mr. McKeon and Mr. Wilson. 10) Are you comfortable that there are
sufficient procedures for service members to report their concerns
about problems in their units resulting from the open service of gays
and lesbians?
Do service members with concerns understand they have
access to processes for circumventing commanders who are reluctant to
take action?
Are you comfortable that service members believe that
they can report problems associated with openly serving gays/lesbians
without fear of retaliation by peers or by superiors?
General Chiarelli. Yes. The Army does not tolerate harassment,
discrimination or violence against any Soldier, for any reason.
Existing mechanisms such as the chain of command, IG, Sexual Assault
Response Coordinator (SARC) or Unit Victim Advocate (UVA) are available
for redress of issues based on sexual orientation. False accusations
are not tolerated and failing to properly address any actionable
complaints regardless of sexual orientation factors may have
implications, including:
Being the subject of an IG investigation
Being the subject of a complaint of wrongs filed under
UCMJ Article 138
Being the subject of a command investigation
Being investigated for possible criminal misconduct under
the UCMJ (dereliction of duty)
A commander's duty is to take appropriate action to ensure mission
readiness and to maintain good order and discipline in their
organization and to seek assistance as needed. Feedback is encouraged
and a mechanism is in place through command channels and with the many
subject matter experts trained and tasked to assist commanders.
Mr. McKeon and Mr. Wilson. 11) Have you encountered any complaints
from service members that the repeal implementation training promotes
the acceptance of gay and lesbian sexual orientation and, if so, what
has been your response?
General Chiarelli. I am aware of one inquiry from the field
expressing concern that the Army was promoting an ``acceptance agenda''
of the GLB lifestyle. However, this particular Soldier had not been
through training yet and was reacting to something he had read in the
media.
The Army reply was: ``Education includes an explanation that the
application of Army policies will be neutral regarding Soldiers' sexual
orientation and reinforces that all Soldiers will continue to be
treated with dignity, respect and professionalism at all times.''
Mr. McKeon and Mr. Wilson. 12) Secretary Stanley testified that the
standards clarifying the types of religious and moral statements in
opposition to homosexuality that would be acceptable for chaplains were
being developed.
Do you believe that all service members should be given
guidelines for the types of statements and activities in opposition to
homosexuality that would be acceptable and not considered contrary to
good order and discipline?
Do you believe that it is important that service members
have the ability to speak freely in opposition to homosexuality in
appropriate circumstances and are you confident that effective
guidelines can be formulated and published?
General Chiarelli. There will not be any modifications or revisions
to policy regarding Soldier protections and obligations with respect to
free speech and free exercise of religion.
Soldiers can continue to freely practice their religion, consistent
with military standards of conduct. Soldiers may, in appropriate
circumstances and within the limitations of law and policy, express
their moral or religious beliefs regarding sexual orientation. The
subtlety, nuance, tone and sheer number of statements that might be
prejudicial to good order and discipline cannot be captured in a list.
The Army does, however, rely on leadership, professionalism, discipline
and respect to govern our implementation of the new policies.
The Army recognizes the right of all Soldiers of the Military
Services to hold individual beliefs consistent with their moral
foundations and conscience and does not seek to change them.
Soldiers can continue to freely practice their religion and express
their personal views within the limitations of the UCMJ and Service
standards of conduct.
Mr. McKeon and Mr. Wilson. 13) Secretary Stanley has indicated that
the First Amendment freedoms for chaplains will not be impacted by the
repeal process.
Are you hearing from chaplains that they fear that repeal
implementation training is having a chilling effect on chaplain speech
and that chaplains are afraid to express their true beliefs because
they will be penalized?
What procedures will be available to afford chaplains the
opportunity to report pressures placed on them to temper comments and
chill their freedom of religious speech and what procedures will be put
in place to protect such chaplains from punitive career personnel
actions from supervisors and others who do not share their views?
Will there be a process to track chaplain complaints
about religious oppression?
General Chiarelli. No. I am not aware of any negative effect that
implementation training is having on our chaplains.
Chaplains will continue to have freedom to practice their religion
according to the tenets of their faith. In the context of their
religious ministry, chaplains are not required to take actions that are
inconsistent with their religious beliefs (e.g., altering the content
of sermons or religious counseling, sharing a pulpit with other
chaplains or modifying forms of prayer or worship).
Chaplains of all faiths care for all Soldiers and facilitate the
free exercise of religion for all personnel, regardless of religious
affiliation of either the chaplain or the individual.
Chaplains minister to Soldiers and provide advice to commanders on
matters of religion, morals, ethics and morale in accordance with and
without compromising, the tenets or requirements of their faith. If, in
chaplains' discharge of their broader duties within the unit, they are
faced with an issue contrary to their individual faith, they may refer
the Soldier to other appropriate counsel.
Mr. McKeon and Mr. Wilson. 14) Are you concerned that among some
people that influence the attitudes of recruit candidates that a
negative view of openly serving gays and lesbians will negatively
impact recruiting and retention?
General Chiarelli. No. We have not seen any changes to expected
recruitment and re-accession patterns.
Mr. McKeon and Mr. Wilson. 15) Does the need for fairness cause you
to believe that DOD should provide disability retirement benefits to
former service members discharged under Don't Ask, Don't Tell who wish
to return to active duty, but are no longer able to do so because of a
medical condition?
General Chiarelli. Lawful standards in effect at the time of a
Soldier's separation will not be changed with retroactive effect. DoD
has not authorized compensation of any type for Soldiers separated
under DADT.
Mr. McKeon and Mr. Wilson. 1) Secretary Stanley has concluded that
all the findings in the original law relative to military life and
readiness remain valid except (13) concerning the longstanding law in
the unique military culture prohibiting homosexuality and (15)
concerning the conclusion that homosexuals in the military would create
an unacceptable risk to morale, good order, discipline, and unit
cohesion that are the essence of military capability.
Do you agree with that assessment?
If findings 13 and 15 are no longer valid, why must we
develop and implement a training program to prepare the force for the
repeal of the law? It would seem that if we've ``moved on'' from those
points that we'd just recognize that fact rather than educate the
force.
Admiral Roughead. Yes. I agree with Secretary Stanley's assessment
that findings 13 and 15 in the original law are no longer valid. As
with any change in law that affects the military services, there are
associated changes in policies and instructions. Accordingly, it is
important for our leaders and Sailors to receive training to ensure
they understand fully these changes and to reaffirm our guiding
principles of leadership, professionalism, discipline, and respect.
This thoughtful, steady approach establishes the foundation for a
smooth and orderly transition and ensures the force is prepared to
implement a repeal of the law.
Mr. McKeon and Mr. Wilson. 2) Secretary Stanley has indicated that
he agreed with the interpretation that the response on the survey
``equally as positively as negatively'' was an appropriate indicator
that the respondent believed that repeal could be implemented without
adverse impact on readiness. That conclusion is the basis for the
statistical justification that the force agreed with repeal.
Do you believe that was an accurate interpretation of the
response, ``equally as positively as negatively''?
Do you think the survey would have been better to draw
more clearly defined negative and positive responses?
Do you believe the surveys should have simply asked, ``Do
you believe repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell should occur?'' How do you
think the force would have responded to that question?
Admiral Roughead. The purpose of the Comprehensive Review Working
Group's service member survey was to ask Service members about the
potential impacts of a repeal of DADT to help the military more fully
understand how a change in the law may impact unit cohesion, readiness,
effectiveness, recruiting, and retention. The survey did not ask
service members to express their opinions about whether repeal of DADT
should occur. This would have been a referendum, and I do not believe
military policy decisions should be made through a referendum of
service members. Since the survey did not ask service members whether
DADT should be repealed, I cannot speculate on how they would have
responded.
I believe it is appropriate, from the standpoint of assessing the
impact of repeal, to consider the ``equally as positively as
negatively'' responses alongside the ``no effect'' and ``positive''
responses. When asked to predict the impact of repeal, I believe a
response of ``equally as positively as negatively'' supports an
assessment that repeal can be implemented without adverse impact to the
force.
Mr. McKeon and Mr. Wilson. 3) On the issue of collecting data on
gays and lesbians and behavior that results from open service of gays
and lesbians, DOD has been adamant that privacy is more important than
information.
As a commander charged with the responsibility to
assessing the success of repeal, how would you evaluate the
consequences of repeal and protect the rights of gays and lesbians
without data?
Admiral Roughead. Sexual orientation is a personal and private
matter. Sailors will not be required to identify their sexual
orientation, nor will any such information be collected and maintained
in a system of records except when incidental to an investigation or
other official action. We will be able to assess the impact of repeal
through existing tools, such as anonymous surveys of the force, command
climate surveys, exit surveys, and recruiting and retention data, none
of which require the collection of information about an individual's
sexual orientation.
Mr. McKeon and Mr. Wilson. 4) Secretary Stanley has indicated after
a commander takes action to relocate the billeting of personnel because
of privacy concerns there was no concern that gays and lesbians will
have then been stigmatized and unit cohesion disrupted.
Do you agree with that assessment?
Admiral Roughead. Yes, I agree with Dr. Stanley's assessment. In
the Navy, we live and work in close-quarters in many of our operating
environments with individuals from many different backgrounds.
Commanders have always had the authority to alter berthing or billeting
assignments for a variety of reasons, on a case-by-case basis, in the
interest of maintaining morale, good order, and discipline, consistent
with the performance of the mission.
Mr. McKeon and Mr. Wilson. 5) Secretary Stanley has indicated that
there will be no need to change any regulation or cultural behavior to
restrict heterosexual behavior because of gays and lesbians being
present in the force.
Do you agree?
For example, do you expect that ceremonies welcoming home
units from deployment will be conducted in the same manner as they are
today, to include personal displays of affection while in uniform?
Admiral Roughead. Yes, I agree with Secretary Stanley that no
changes are necessary. Gay and lesbian Sailors already serve in our
Navy. I have reviewed our standards of conduct in preparation for
repeal and confirmed they can be applied without regard to sexual
orientation. As has always been the case, all Sailors are expected to
abide by Navy's high standards of personal and professional conduct,
and leaders are expected to apply these standards uniformly across the
force. Accordingly, ceremonies welcoming home units from deployment and
other related activities will be conducted in the same manner as they
are today.
Mr. McKeon and Mr. Wilson. 6) Secretary Stanley indicated that
commanders would be able to determine when inappropriate sexual
behavior was occurring in billeting and will be empowered to restore
good order and discipline.
Do you agree that commanders will be able to identify
such misconduct between gays and lesbians and take appropriate action--
and do all that without disrupting unit cohesion?
Admiral Roughead. I agree with Secretary Stanley. As always,
commanders will continue to be mindful of all behavior that is
inconsistent with our standards of conduct and have the flexibility and
authority to resolve issues that fall within their respective areas of
responsibility. As in all situations, commanders may make reasonable
accommodations in the interest of maintaining morale, good order, and
discipline, consistent with the performance of the mission and the
environment in which we live. I have full confidence in Navy leaders to
set a positive tone, create an inclusive and respectful environment,
and continue to enforce our high standards of conduct throughout the
Navy without disruption to morale or unit cohesion.
Mr. McKeon and Mr. Wilson. 7) Secretary Stanley was not concerned
that the involvement of Military Equal Opportunity (MEO) authorities in
a policy development role will result in MEO procedures being used to
resolve gay and lesbian harassment and discrimination issues despite
the DOD commitment to keep those processes separate.
Are you concerned about MEO processes eventually taking
over gay and lesbian complaints?
Admiral Roughead. No. I am not concerned. The Department of Defense
will not designate sexual orientation as a class eligible for various
diversity programs, tracking initiatives, and the Military Equal
Opportunity program complaint resolution processes. I am confident that
complaints regarding harassment or discrimination based on sexual
orientation will be effectively addressed through existing mechanisms
available for other such complaints not involving race, color, gender,
religion or national origin, to include the chain of command and the
Inspector General. All service members, regardless of sexual
orientation, are entitled to an environment free from discrimination
and harassment. As always, Navy leaders are charged with setting a
positive tone, creating an inclusive and respectful work environment,
and enforcing our high standards of conduct.
Mr. McKeon and Mr. Wilson. 8) In response to a question about the
Administration's decision to not defend the constitutionality of the
Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), Secretary Stanley indicated that
benefits would not be extended to gay and lesbian couples and the law
would be upheld.
As prudent managers, are you now considering the
likelihood that DOMA will be found unconstitutional and developing
contingencies for how you would extend all family benefits to gay and
lesbian families?
Admiral Roughead. To date, there has been no ongoing planning or
study conducted by the Navy on the extension of all family benefits to
gay and lesbian families.
Mr. McKeon and Mr. Wilson. 9) Secretary Stanley indicated that
there has been no additional research to better understand the concerns
about open service of gays and lesbians among service members in ground
combat units.
Are you concerned about the attitudes of service members
in ground combat units and have you made any special effort to
understand those feelings better and address the issues with
specifically designed training?
Admiral Roughead. Throughout this process, I have monitored the
tone of the force through engagements with officer and senior enlisted
leadership, all-hands calls with Sailors throughout the Navy, questions
submitted by Sailors through our repeal website, and command climate
reports from command leadership teams. We have not experienced any
special issues during the course of training nor have we observed any
degradation to readiness for our Sailors assigned to ground combat
units that would necessitate additional or special training. I am
satisfied that the combination of comprehensive training, policy
changes and clarifications, continued respect for the moral and
religious beliefs of our members, and strong, engaged leadership has
adequately addressed the concerns of all Sailors.
Mr. McKeon and Mr. Wilson. 10) Are you comfortable that there are
sufficient procedures for service members to report their concerns
about problems in their units resulting from the open service of gays
and lesbians?
Do service members with concerns understand they have
access to processes for circumventing commanders who are reluctant to
take action?
Are you comfortable that service members believe that
they can report problems associated with openly serving gays/lesbians
without fear of retaliation by peers or by superiors?
Admiral Roughead. Yes. I am comfortable that there are sufficient
procedures in place for service members to report their concerns. As
always, Sailors are expected to abide by Navy's high standards of
personal and professional conduct. Leaders are expected to apply these
standards uniformly across the force and hold individuals accountable
for their behavior. Behavior that is inconsistent with our standards of
conduct will not be tolerated. Existing policies ensure that all
service members have multiple avenues through which they can address
their concerns without fear of reprisal, to include their chain of
command, legal office, and the Inspector General.
Mr. McKeon and Mr. Wilson. 11) Have you encountered any complaints
from service members that the repeal implementation training promotes
the acceptance of gay and lesbian sexual orientation and, if so, what
has been your response?
Admiral Roughead. We have not encountered complaints from service
members that the repeal implementation training promotes the acceptance
of gay and lesbian sexual orientation. The training clearly emphasizes
that no one is expected to change their religious and moral beliefs
regarding homosexuality after repeal of DADT and as always, Sailors are
expected to treat each other with professionalism and respect. Feedback
from our Sailors indicates the training was comprehensive, well-
delivered, and effective.
Mr. McKeon and Mr. Wilson. 12) Secretary Stanley testified that the
standards clarifying the types of religious and moral statements in
opposition to homosexuality that would be acceptable for chaplains were
being developed.
Do you believe that all service members should be given
guidelines for the types of statements and activities in opposition to
homosexuality that would be acceptable and not considered contrary to
good order and discipline?
Do you believe that it is important that service members
have the ability to speak freely in opposition to homosexuality in
appropriate circumstances and are you confident that effective
guidelines can be formulated and published?
Admiral Roughead. I believe that all Navy personnel should be
provided with guidance addressing acceptable conduct in the Navy, to
include speech. As directed by Dr. Stanley, we conducted a review of
our policies and standards of conduct, and confirmed they provided
adequate guidance to our personnel. The Navy's DADT repeal
implementation training clarified Department of Defense policies
regarding service members' freedom of expression and free exercise of
religion. Service members can continue to freely practice their
religion and express their personal views in appropriate circumstances
within the limitations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and our
standards of conduct. As always, Navy personnel may not make statements
detrimental to good order and discipline and are expected to treat all
others with dignity and respect.
Mr. McKeon and Mr. Wilson. 13) Secretary Stanley has indicated that
the First Amendment freedoms for chaplains will not be impacted by the
repeal process.
Are you hearing from chaplains that they fear that repeal
implementation training is having a chilling effect on chaplain speech
and that chaplains are afraid to express their true beliefs because
they will be penalized?
What procedures will be available to afford chaplains the
opportunity to report pressures placed on them to temper comments and
chill their freedom of religious speech and what procedures will be put
in place to protect such chaplains from punitive career personnel
actions from supervisors and others who do not share their views?
Will there be a process to track chaplain complaints
about religious oppression?
Admiral Roughead. No, we have not heard concerns expressed by Navy
chaplains that the DADT repeal implementation training is negatively
impacting their freedom of religious expression. Prior to the release
of the Comprehensive Review Working Group's (CRWG) report, some
chaplains initially expressed concerns about their free exercise of
religion and free speech post-repeal and the potential for adverse
personnel actions against chaplains who, consistent with their
religious beliefs, express opposition to repeal or homosexuality.
However, these concerns were effectively mitigated by policy guidance
provided by the CRWG and our associated Tier 1 training for chaplains,
both of which emphasized that in their preaching, teaching, and
pastoral care/counsel, chaplains will not be required to take actions
that are inconsistent with their religious beliefs and that the
evaluation of chaplain performance will be consistent with these
policies.
Existing policies adequately protect chaplains' freedom of
expression and their ability to discharge their duties of providing for
and facilitating religious practice within a religiously diverse
population. As is the case with all Sailors, chaplains have recourse
through their chain of command or the Inspector General for reporting
issues of concern. No separate process for tracking chaplain complaints
is anticipated at this time.
Mr. McKeon and Mr. Wilson. 14) Are you concerned that among some
people that influence the attitudes of recruit candidates that a
negative view of openly serving gays and lesbians will negatively
impact recruiting and retention?
Admiral Roughead. No. I assess there will be minimal impact of
repeal on the attitudes of people who influence recruit candidates.
According to the Comprehensive Review Working Group (CRWG) survey, 76%
of Navy spouses reported that repeal of DADT would not affect their
willingness to recommend military service or would make them more
likely to recommend military service. Approximately 80% of Sailors
reported that repeal would not negatively impact their willingness to
recommend the military to a family member or close friend.
The Joint Advertising Market Research & Studies (JAMRS) surveys are
also important sources of information about the attitudes of American
youth and those who influence the decisions of potential recruits, to
include parents, grandparents, and teachers, regarding military
service. According to a JAMRS survey conducted for the CRWG, 70% of 15-
34 year olds reported that repeal of DADT would have no effect on their
propensity to join the military, while 8% reported that it would
increase their likelihood of joining. Additionally, 73% of influencers
reported that repeal of DADT would not affect their likelihood to
recommend the military.
To date, we have not observed any impacts to recruiting and
retention in the Navy related to repeal of DADT.
Mr. McKeon and Mr. Wilson. 15) Does the need for fairness cause you
to believe that DOD should provide disability retirement benefits to
former service members discharged under Don't Ask, Don't Tell who wish
to return to active duty, but are no longer able to do so because of a
medical condition?
Admiral Roughead. No. Navy was following current law when
discharging members under DADT. All honorably discharged service
members have an equal opportunity to apply for re-entry. Service
members separated under DADT will be evaluated according to the same
criteria and service requirements as all individuals seeking re-entry
into the military. A former Sailor who applies for re-entry and is
denied is not entitled to retroactive compensation or retirement
benefits. Not being able to meet the physical standards required for
entering the military is not a compensable condition because the
applicant is not entitled to basic pay at the time of the entrance
physical examination.
Disability payments are handled on a case-by-case basis by the
Veteran's Administration (VA). If prior-service members discharged
under DADT were rated for a disability by the VA upon discharge, they
would already be receiving compensation based on the VA rating. If the
disability was incurred by the member after discharge from the service,
there is no obligation on the part of the VA to provide disability
payments.
Mr. McKeon and Mr. Wilson. 1) Secretary Stanley has concluded that
all the findings in the original law relative to military life and
readiness remain valid except (13) concerning the longstanding law in
the unique military culture prohibiting homosexuality and (15)
concerning the conclusion that homosexuals in the military would create
an unacceptable risk to morale, good order, discipline, and unit
cohesion that are the essence of military capability.
Do you agree with that assessment?
If findings 13 and 15 are no longer valid, why must we
develop and implement a training program to prepare the force for the
repeal of the law? It would seem that if we've ``moved on'' from those
points that we'd just recognize that fact rather than educate the
force.
General Amos. Based on the training and feedback from my visits
with commanders and Marines in various organizations and units both in
the U.S. and overseas, I agree with the assessment. However, agreement
with the assessment does not obviate training. Educating the force
ensures that our Marines receive clear guidance from Senior Leadership
in an area marking significant change to long-standing policy. Similar
to other topical areas of training, consensus is not the primary factor
determining its provision. The primary goal of this training is to
provide our Marines with the tools to maintain good order, discipline
and unit cohesion while conforming to the law.
Mr. McKeon and Mr. Wilson. 2) Secretary Stanley has indicated that
he agreed with the interpretation that the response on the survey
``equally as positively as negatively'' was an appropriate indicator
that the respondent believed that repeal could be implemented without
adverse impact on readiness. That conclusion is the basis for the
statistical justification that the force agreed with repeal.
Do you believe that was an accurate interpretation of the
response, ``equally as positively as negatively''?
Do you think the survey would have been better to draw
more clearly defined negative and positive responses?
Do you believe the surveys should have simply asked, ``Do
you believe repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell should occur?'' How do you
think the force would have responded to that question?
General Amos. In my estimation, an answer of ``equally as
positively as negatively'' would mean the same amounts of support and
disfavor; hence a neutral position. I believe the survey provided
adequate information to assess the possible impact to the Marine Corps
and feel that conjecture on how Marines might have answered
hypothetical question(s) not on the survey would not be sound or
advisable due to its speculative nature.
Mr. McKeon and Mr. Wilson. 3) On the issue of collecting data on
gays and lesbians and behavior that results from open service of gays
and lesbians, DOD has been adamant that privacy is more important than
information.
As a commander charged with the responsibility to
assessing the success of repeal, how would you evaluate the
consequences of repeal and protect the rights of gays and lesbians
without data?
General Amos. In my estimation, an answer of ``equally as
positively as negatively'' would mean the same amounts of support and
disfavor; hence a neutral position. I believe the survey provided
adequate information to assess the possible impact to the Marine Corps
and feel that conjecture on how Marines might have answered
hypothetical question(s) not on the survey would not be sound or
advisable due to its speculative nature.
Mr. McKeon and Mr. Wilson. 4) Secretary Stanley has indicated after
a commander takes action to relocate the billeting of personnel because
of privacy concerns there was no concern that gays and lesbians will
have then been stigmatized and unit cohesion disrupted.
Do you agree with that assessment?
General Amos. Yes, sexual orientation is not a relevant factor in
billeting assignments. Commanders are responsible for maintaining unit
cohesion, good order and discipline. Commanders who feel it necessary
to reassign Marines for privacy reasons must properly balance all of
these interests to eliminate or significantly reduce potential stigma--
for any reason.
Mr. McKeon and Mr. Wilson. 5) Secretary Stanley has indicated that
there will be no need to change any regulation or cultural behavior to
restrict heterosexual behavior because of gays and lesbians being
present in the force.
Do you agree?
For example, do you expect that ceremonies welcoming home
units from deployment will be conducted in the same manner as they are
today, to include personal displays of affection while in uniform?
General Amos. Yes, Marine Corps Standards of Conduct govern the
behavior of all Marines, regardless of sexual orientation. We will not
tolerate behavior that detracts from unit cohesion, good order and
discipline, respect for authority or mission accomplishment. Leaders
and Marines at all levels have the responsibility to enforce the
Standards of Conduct. Our Standards of Conduct govern acceptable public
displays of affection and are addressed in our drill and ceremonies
manual and our uniform regulations as well as our customs of the
service.
Mr. McKeon and Mr. Wilson. 6) Secretary Stanley indicated that
commanders would be able to determine when inappropriate sexual
behavior was occurring in billeting and will be empowered to restore
good order and discipline.
Do you agree that commanders will be able to identify
such misconduct between gays and lesbians and take appropriate action--
and do all that without disrupting unit cohesion?
General Amos. Yes, I remain confident in the leadership of the
Marine Corps to identify and address unacceptable behavior that
detracts from unit cohesion, good order and discipline and to take
appropriate remedial action(s) where required.
Mr. McKeon and Mr. Wilson. 7) Secretary Stanley was not concerned
that the involvement of Military Equal Opportunity (MEO) authorities in
a policy development role will result in MEO procedures being used to
resolve gay and lesbian harassment and discrimination issues despite
the DOD commitment to keep those processes separate.
Are you concerned about MEO processes eventually taking
over gay and lesbian complaints?
General Amos. No, I am not concerned. Our commanders may use their
Equal Opportunity advisors as a source of knowledge in addressing
complaints, but there are other avenues readily available to all
Marines to file complaints and to seek redress. Most notable of these
avenues are service member rights under Article 138 of the Uniform Code
of Military Justice. Hotline and Inspector General complaint processes
are also available to service members to address grievances.
Mr. McKeon and Mr. Wilson. 8) In response to a question about the
Administration's decision to not defend the constitutionality of the
Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), Secretary Stanley indicated that
benefits would not be extended to gay and lesbian couples and the law
would be upheld.
As prudent managers, are you now considering the
likelihood that DOMA will be found unconstitutional and developing
contingencies for how you would extend all family benefits to gay and
lesbian families?
General Amos. I have not speculated about whether DOMA is
constitutional. Although I have had discussions about the law, I have
not directed any planning efforts in anticipation of any potential
ruling on DOMA. DOMA is the law and the Marine Corps will follow the
law.
Mr. McKeon and Mr. Wilson. 9) Secretary Stanley indicated that
there has been no additional research to better understand the concerns
about open service of gays and lesbians among service members in ground
combat units.
Are you concerned about the attitudes of service members
in ground combat units and have you made any special effort to
understand those feelings better and address the issues with
specifically designed training?
General Amos. All Marines have received or will receive the same
training. The Marine Corps is complete with Tier 1 (special staff) and
Tier 2 (leadership) training. As of 30 June 2011, Tier 3 (Marines)
training is 95% complete. I recently spoke to commanders on the ground
in Afghanistan, who indicated that our Marines there are able to
accomplish their mission and have received sufficient training. Morale
is high and our deployed Marines have positive attitudes.
Mr. McKeon and Mr. Wilson. 10) Are you comfortable that there are
sufficient procedures for service members to report their concerns
about problems in their units resulting from the open service of gays
and lesbians?
Do service members with concerns understand they have
access to processes for circumventing commanders who are reluctant to
take action?
Are you comfortable that service members believe that
they can report problems associated with openly serving gays/lesbians
without fear of retaliation by peers or by superiors?
General Amos. Yes, we will handle concerns regarding sexual
orientation harassment and abuse through the chain of command, the
Inspector General and other means established by the services.
Marines are trained about and are aware of their right to Request
Mast under the provision of Article 138 of the Uniform Code of Military
Justice and can contact the Inspector General hotline or communicate
directly with my staff through Marine Mail--all without fear of
reprisal.
Mr. McKeon and Mr. Wilson. 11) Have you encountered any complaints
from service members that the repeal implementation training promotes
the acceptance of gay and lesbian sexual orientation and, if so, what
has been your response?
General Amos. Overall, the training has been well received without
complaint. Marines understand that their personal beliefs are not
required to change. Rather, Marines know that they are to show
tolerance through treating their fellow service members with
professionalism, respect and dignity.
Mr. McKeon and Mr. Wilson. 12) Secretary Stanley testified that the
standards clarifying the types of religious and moral statements in
opposition to homosexuality that would be acceptable for chaplains were
being developed.
Do you believe that all service members should be given
guidelines for the types of statements and activities in opposition to
homosexuality that would be acceptable and not considered contrary to
good order and discipline?
Do you believe that it is important that service members
have the ability to speak freely in opposition to homosexuality in
appropriate circumstances and are you confident that effective
guidelines can be formulated and published?
General Amos. Marine Corps Standards of Conduct govern the behavior
of all Marines. We will not tolerate behavior that detracts from unit
cohesion, good order and discipline, respect for authority or mission
accomplishment. We further will not tolerate harassment or abuse of
Marines for any reason, and will address all issues of this nature
accordingly through command or inspector general channels. Leaders and
Marines at all levels have the responsibility to enforce the standards
of conduct.
DoD policies already exist governing all types of appropriate/
inappropriate statements and/or activities which may impact good order
and discipline, and service members receive instruction in these
policies. A service member's right of expression is preserved to the
maximum extent possible in accordance with constitutional and statutory
provisions and consistent with good order and discipline and the
national security.
Mr. McKeon and Mr. Wilson. 13) Secretary Stanley has indicated that
the First Amendment freedoms for chaplains will not be impacted by the
repeal process.
Are you hearing from chaplains that they fear that repeal
implementation training is having a chilling effect on chaplain speech
and that chaplains are afraid to express their true beliefs because
they will be penalized?
What procedures will be available to afford chaplains the
opportunity to report pressures placed on them to temper comments and
chill their freedom of religious speech and what procedures will be put
in place to protect such chaplains from punitive career personnel
actions from supervisors and others who do not share their views?
Will there be a process to track chaplain complaints
about religious oppression?
General Amos. No, I am not hearing that. Chaplains can Request Mast
under Article 138 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, contact the
inspector general hotline or communicate directly with my staff through
Marine Mail, all without fear of reprisal. Additionally, many of these
procedures are also available through the administrative chain of the
Navy Chaplain Corps. At this time, I do not anticipate any process for
tracking chaplain complaints as a result of the repeal of DADT. To my
knowledge, we have never had reason to track complaints about religious
oppression of chaplains.
Mr. McKeon and Mr. Wilson. 14) Are you concerned that among some
people that influence the attitudes of recruit candidates that a
negative view of openly serving gays and lesbians will negatively
impact recruiting and retention?
General Amos. No, I am not concerned. My experience has been that
recruiters focus on achieving their mission of obtaining the requisite
numbers of the best qualified applicants. Moreover, as of 11 July, over
98 percent (5,038 personnel) of those assigned to Marine Corps
Recruiting Command (active and reserve) have received appropriate DoD-
directed, DADT Tier level training.
Mr. McKeon and Mr. Wilson. 15) Does the need for fairness cause you
to believe that DOD should provide disability retirement benefits to
former service members discharged under Don't Ask, Don't Tell who wish
to return to active duty, but are no longer able to do so because of a
medical condition?
General Amos. Marine Corps separations are effected according to
law and applicable implementing regulation and policy. I do not take my
obligation to follow the law lightly. Nor do I take lightly the impact
of the change in the law on Marines who have been separated. I am now
considering factors to determine where true fairness would lie if this
becomes the situation.
Mr. McKeon and Mr. Wilson. 1) Secretary Stanley has concluded that
all the findings in the original law relative to military life and
readiness remain valid except (13) concerning the longstanding law in
the unique military culture prohibiting homosexuality and (15)
concerning the conclusion that homosexuals in the military would create
an unacceptable risk to morale, good order, discipline, and unit
cohesion that are the essence of military capability.
Do you agree with that assessment?
If findings 13 and 15 are no longer valid, why must we
develop and implement a training program to prepare the force for the
repeal of the law? It would seem that if we've ``moved on'' from those
points that we'd just recognize that fact rather than educate the
force.
General Schwartz. Although I agree with Dr. Stanley's assessment, I
also believe educating the total force is important to explain how the
repeal of 10 U.S.C. Sec. 654 will be implemented. There is a need for,
and definite purpose for, the training of our Airmen.
Mr. McKeon and Mr. Wilson. 2) Secretary Stanley has indicated that
he agreed with the interpretation that the response on the survey
``equally as positively as negatively'' was an appropriate indicator
that the respondent believed that repeal could be implemented without
adverse impact on readiness. That conclusion is the basis for the
statistical justification that the force agreed with repeal.
Do you believe that was an accurate interpretation of the
response, ``equally as positively as negatively''?
Do you think the survey would have been better to draw
more clearly defined negative and positive responses?
Do you believe the surveys should have simply asked, ``Do
you believe repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell should occur?'' How do you
think the force would have responded to that question?
General Schwartz. I agree with Dr. Stanley's interpretation of the
survey response ``equally as positively as negatively.'' No survey is
perfect, but I am satisfied the survey was comprehensive and
informative.
Mr. McKeon and Mr. Wilson. 3) On the issue of collecting data on
gays and lesbians and behavior that results from open service of gays
and lesbians, DOD has been adamant that privacy is more important than
information.
As a commander charged with the responsibility to
assessing the success of repeal, how would you evaluate the
consequences of repeal and protect the rights of gays and lesbians
without data?
General Schwartz. Existing processes for follow-on review and
monitoring have been used to the maximum possible extent in order to
minimize potential disruption to the force as a result of new and
potentially burdensome reporting instruments. Therefore, to
systematically analyze workforce climate and military effectiveness,
our intent is to use existing Air Force assessment tools such as
command climate surveys, the Inspector General's command assessments,
annual reports on sexual assault prevention and response, unit climate
assessments, Air and Joint Expeditionary Force tasking surveys, annual
retention surveys, and other extant mechanisms for feedback from the
field.
Additionally, as they always have, commanders at every level assess
the morale of their personnel through personal assessment and
observation of unit climate and mission accomplishment.
Mr. McKeon and Mr. Wilson. 4) Secretary Stanley has indicated after
a commander takes action to relocate the billeting of personnel because
of privacy concerns there was no concern that gays and lesbians will
have then been stigmatized and unit cohesion disrupted.
Do you agree with that assessment?
General Schwartz. A commander has the discretion to direct
billeting and berthing assignments based on a number of factors
including work schedules, friendships, and compatibility. Because
commanders already use this discretion to address a number of morale
concerns, its use to address privacy concerns is not noteworthy.
Mr. McKeon and Mr. Wilson. 5) Secretary Stanley has indicated that
there will be no need to change any regulation or cultural behavior to
restrict heterosexual behavior because of gays and lesbians being
present in the force.
Do you agree?
For example, do you expect that ceremonies welcoming home
units from deployment will be conducted in the same manner as they are
today, to include personal displays of affection while in uniform?
General Schwartz. The Air Force has an instruction on public
displays of affections that is sexual orientation neutral and simply
reaffirms the standards we have consistently expected of our service
members over time. Ceremonies will be conducted in the same manner as
before, including welcoming home ceremonies.
Mr. McKeon and Mr. Wilson. 6) Secretary Stanley indicated that
commanders would be able to determine when inappropriate sexual
behavior was occurring in billeting and will be empowered to restore
good order and discipline.
Do you agree that commanders will be able to identify
such misconduct between gays and lesbians and take appropriate action--
and do all that without disrupting unit cohesion?
General Schwartz. I am confident commanders will be able to
identify misconduct between gays and lesbians as accurately as they do
between heterosexuals. Our instructions continue to clearly articulate
the difference between professional and unprofessional relationships,
and their provisions will continue to be enforced.
Mr. McKeon and Mr. Wilson. 7) Secretary Stanley was not concerned
that the involvement of Military Equal Opportunity (MEO) authorities in
a policy development role will result in MEO procedures being used to
resolve gay and lesbian harassment and discrimination issues despite
the DOD commitment to keep those processes separate.
Are you concerned about MEO processes eventually taking
over gay and lesbian complaints?
General Schwartz. No. Long-standing parameters for MEO complaints
will continue to guide MEO officials to determine, on a case-by-case
basis, whether equal opportunity implications exist for a particular
complaint.
Mr. McKeon and Mr. Wilson. 8) In response to a question about the
Administration's decision to not defend the constitutionality of the
Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), Secretary Stanley indicated that
benefits would not be extended to gay and lesbian couples and the law
would be upheld.
As prudent managers, are you now considering the
likelihood that DOMA will be found unconstitutional and developing
contingencies for how you would extend all family benefits to gay and
lesbian families?
General Schwartz. In the event that the Defense of Marriage Act
should be found unconstitutional, we anticipate the Department of
Defense (DoD) would issue guidance on the extension of family benefits
to gay and lesbian families. The Air Force would follow DoD guidance.
Mr. McKeon and Mr. Wilson. 9) Secretary Stanley indicated that
there has been no additional research to better understand the concerns
about open service of gays and lesbians among service members in ground
combat units.
Are you concerned about the attitudes of service members
in ground combat units and have you made any special effort to
understand those feelings better and address the issues with
specifically designed training?
General Schwartz. I do not believe additional specific training is
necessary for Airmen serving in ground combat units. All Airmen are
trained to treat all others with dignity and respect regardless of
their duty location.
Mr. McKeon and Mr. Wilson. 10) Are you comfortable that there are
sufficient procedures for service members to report their concerns
about problems in their units resulting from the open service of gays
and lesbians?
Do service members with concerns understand they have
access to processes for circumventing commanders who are reluctant to
take action?
Are you comfortable that service members believe that
they can report problems associated with openly serving gays/lesbians
without fear of retaliation by peers or by superiors?
General Schwartz. The Air Force's command channels and Inspector
General program are well suited to address such complaints. We strive
for a climate in which all service members will treat each other with
dignity and respect regardless of sexual orientation, and I am
confident current procedures will be able to respond appropriately to
deviations from those standards.
During training on the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, for
example, Airmen are informed they can address complaints through their
local inspector general's office. This training will also be provided
to all new accessions.
Mr. McKeon and Mr. Wilson. 11) Have you encountered any complaints
from service members that the repeal implementation training promotes
the acceptance of gay and lesbian sexual orientation and, if so, what
has been your response?
General Schwartz. I have not personally received any complaints
from service members regarding repeal implementation training. The
training very clearly explains its purpose is to address standards of
behavior, not to change an individual service member's beliefs.
Mr. McKeon and Mr. Wilson. 12) Secretary Stanley testified that the
standards clarifying the types of religious and moral statements in
opposition to homosexuality that would be acceptable for chaplains were
being developed.
Do you believe that all service members should be given
guidelines for the types of statements and activities in opposition to
homosexuality that would be acceptable and not considered contrary to
good order and discipline?
Do you believe that it is important that service members
have the ability to speak freely in opposition to homosexuality in
appropriate circumstances and are you confident that effective
guidelines can be formulated and published?
General Schwartz. Current DoD and Air Force policy and regulations
provide sufficient guidance about service members' protections and
obligations with respect to free speech and free exercise of religion.
As part of repeal implementation, service members are receiving
training on the effect of repeal on individual rights and
responsibilities. Similarly, our Chaplain Corps will continue to have
freedom to practice according to the tenets of their respective faiths.
We do, however, expect our Chaplains to offer general pastoral services
to all Airmen in need. In the context of their religious ministry,
chaplains are not required to take actions inconsistent with their
religious beliefs (e.g., altering the content of sermons or religious
counseling). Service members--including chaplains--can continue to
freely practice their religion and express their personal views within
the limitations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and service-
specific standards of conduct.
Mr. McKeon and Mr. Wilson. 13) Secretary Stanley has indicated that
the First Amendment freedoms for chaplains will not be impacted by the
repeal process.
Are you hearing from chaplains that they fear that repeal
implementation training is having a chilling effect on chaplain speech
and that chaplains are afraid to express their true beliefs because
they will be penalized?
What procedures will be available to afford chaplains the
opportunity to report pressures placed on them to temper comments and
chill their freedom of religious speech and what procedures will be put
in place to protect such chaplains from punitive career personnel
actions from supervisors and others who do not share their views?
Will there be a process to track chaplain complaints
about religious oppression?
General Schwartz. A limited number of chaplains expressed concerns
about a chilling effect on religious speech. An April 28, 2010, letter
signed by 41 retired military chaplains raised concerns within the Air
Force Chaplain Corps that chaplains' religious liberties, including
their speech, may be limited.
Current procedures empower and/or allow chaplains to use their
functional chain of command to address concerns and issues regarding
freedom of religious speech. Program Budget Decision 720 established
the Air Force Chief of Chaplains Plans, Programs, and Budget Division
(AF/HCX) as reach-back office for all Chaplain Corps issues and
concerns. Thus, any issues or concerns, including freedom of religious
speech, can be elevated through major commands to AF/HCX for
resolution.
These procedures track freedom of religious speech concerns and, in
conjunction with other functional communities and ecclesiastical
endorsing agents, ensure prudent, non-punitive resolution.
Mr. McKeon and Mr. Wilson. 14) Are you concerned that among some
people that influence the attitudes of recruit candidates that a
negative view of openly serving gays and lesbians will negatively
impact recruiting and retention?
General Schwartz. It is my assessment the United States Air Force
can accommodate the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell with modest risk to
recruiting and retention. We will pay close attention to the attitudes
of those who influence our recruit candidates for any negative impacts.
Mr. McKeon and Mr. Wilson. 15) Does the need for fairness cause you
to believe that DOD should provide disability retirement benefits to
former service members discharged under Don't Ask, Don't Tell who wish
to return to active duty, but are no longer able to do so because of a
medical condition?
General Schwartz. No. As stated by the Under Secretary of Defense
for Personnel and Readiness, the Department of Defense is not
authorized to provide compensation of any type for those service
members previously separated under 10 U.S.C. Sec. 654. Thus, service
members previously separated under 10 U.S.C. Sec. 654 who are unable to
return to active duty due to a medical condition cannot be provided
disability retirement benefits.
|
NEWSLETTER
|
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
|
|
|
