REP. SUSAN A. DAVIS HOLDS A HEARING ON THE MILITARY'S "DON'T ASK/DON'T TELL" POLICY.(Broadcast transcript)

Original Source: Political Transcript Wire

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILITARY PERSONNEL HOLDS A HEARING ON THE MILITARY'S DON'T ASK/DON'T TELL POLICY

JULY 23, 2008

SPEAKERS: REP. SUSAN A. DAVIS, D-CALIF.

CHAIRMAN REP. VIC SNYDER, D-ARK.

REP. LORETTA SANCHEZ, D-CALIF. REP. NANCY BOYDA, D-KAN. REP. PATRICK J. MURPHY, D-PA. REP. CAROL SHEA-PORTER, D-N.H. REP. NIKI TSONGAS, D-MASS.

REP. IKE SKELTON, D-MO. EX OFFICIO

REP. JOHN M. MCHUGH, R-N.Y. RANKING MEMBER

REP. JOHN KLINE, R-MINN. REP. THELMA DRAKE, R-VA. REP. WALTER B. JONES, R-N.C.

REP. JOE WILSON, R-S.C. REP. DUNCAN HUNTER, R-CALIF.

EX OFFICIO

WITNESSES: MAJOR GENERAL VANCE COLEMAN (USA, RET.), FORMER ARTILLERY OFFICER AND DIVISION COMMANDER

CAPTAIN JOAN DARRAH (USN, RET.), FORMER NAVAL INTELLIGENCE OFFICER

STAFF SERGEANT ERIC ALVA, (USMC, RET.) WOUNDED IRAQ WAR VETERAN

ELAINE DONNELLY, PRESIDENT, CENTER FOR MILITARY READINESS

SERGEANT MAJOR BRIAN JONES (USA, RET.), FORMER ARMY SPECIAL OPERATIONS AND CURRENT BUSINESS OWNER AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

[*] DAVIS: Good afternoon, and welcome to the hearing. Today the Military Personnel Subcommittee will turn its attention to an issue that has not been before this body in 15 years, the issue of gay men and women serving openly in the military.

At this time of war for our men and women in uniform, it's been asked why we would hold this hearing. And clearly, this subcommittee has a number of competing issues that need our attention and that have received it.

That is why we pushed through needed measures in the House version of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year for 2009 and have held hearings on health care for our service members and their families, mental health care for those returning from war, and quality of life issues.

This afternoon we are taking a closer look at yet another important issue impacting the men and women who serve. Since 1993, the Department of Defense has removed approximately 12,600 service members from the military under Section 654 Title 10 U.S. Code, commonly known as the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy. With this policy comes the loss of service members with critical skills needed in the field right now, including much needed language expertise. In my opinion, we must carefully review a policy that rejects otherwise well suited individuals from military service. This is especially true at a time when the military is trying to reduce the strain on our military by growing the force.

Our purpose today is to begin a long overdue review of the various perspectives of this law and policy and to start a conversation about the real life impact on our service members, their families, and most importantly, on the operational readiness of our military.

This hearing is a bit different from the typical hearings conducted by this subcommittee. With two very distinct and strongly held views of the law and policy, the subcommittee has worked very hard to ensure that both sides are afforded identical opportunities to present congressional members with the data and real life examples to support their perspectives.

While the focus of the hearing is to provide a fair and balanced forum for debate, I think it is only fair to share my personal belief that the current policy should be repealed.

I came to this position after talking with many service members -- active duty, reserve and retired -- and concluded that the open service of gay men and women need not present an operational problem.

Many Americans, who happen to be gay or lesbian, want to answer our nation's call to served, and allowing them to serve in an open and honest manner would uphold the ideals of military service.

I would like to enter into the record a statement from the Department of Defense regarding Don't Ask, Don't Tell. The department will not be testifying today and has been hesitant to address the issue in open session.

I regret that the department will not be here, since I believe that there are issues that will likely be raised where their experience could prove to be helpful.

However, when pressed to describe how they would respond to a change in the law, senior Department of Defense officials have indicated that they would comply fully with any new legislation, although they do not advocate in favor of changing the policy at this time.

Without objection, I ask that the Department of Defense statement be entered into the hearing record.

Because equity is a priority characteristic of this hearing, I would remind witnesses that I intend to strictly adhere to the time limit for opening statements. Each side will be given 15 minutes to make their case.

Before I turn to Mr. McHugh, I would like to extend my appreciation to those on both sides of this issue who agree to testify. We all know that this is a very difficult issue. It's a very personal issue. It's a very emotional issue. And we expect that everyone here will be treated with the utmost respect during the course of this hearing.

Mr. McHugh, I yield to you for your opening statement.

MCHUGH: Thank you, Madam Chair. And let me echo your words of both appreciation and encouragement to everyone involved in this hearing today. Certainly, we as a subcommittee on both sides thank the witnesses for agreeing to be with us.

And we expect and look forward to perhaps lively, but nevertheless informative and -- and civil discussion of, as what the chairlady described, was a very important issue.

In 1993, when this subcommittee -- and I might add I was here, a member of the full committee at that time -- and the full committee proposals to change the policy regarding military service by gay and lesbian personnel, that process that was undertaken was, I think, fairly described as comprehensive, and it was intense.

There were no less than five hearings involving 37 witnesses, ranging from the secretary of defense and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to current as well as former military sociologists and legal experts, who provided a wide range of views and perspectives.

And not surprisingly, the issues that were expressed at that time were complex, and again, unsurprisingly, the debate was at times very passionate. Interestingly, the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee at that time supported the change, while the chairman of the Personnel Subcommittee did not, which, I think, rather illustrates the divisions that this question can -- can give light to.

And in the end, the committee and the House and the Senate concluded, and I want to quote, "The presence in the armed forces of persons who demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards and morale, good order and discipline and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability," end quote.

That is the issue that should be at question here today. The gentlelady spoke, I think, very accurately to the passions that both sides bring to this question.

I think we as a Congress owe it to both sides, and to the American people, to conduct our inquiries and whatever decision may come out of this process based on that issue defined in the '93 findings of the HASC and the Senate as order -- good order and discipline and unit cohesion.

That statement, even today, underpins the current law, and our challenge is to examine and determine whether that conclusion in 1993 remains valid here in 2008.

Let me note I certainly recognize the chairwoman's longstanding desire, as she stated it, to repeal the current law. And I would hope that she would commit to ensuring that no change would take place without a comprehensive and open debate on the full range of issues.

I want to state I share the chairlady's disappointment that thus far the services as a whole have not agreed to step forward.

I don't see, as an individual member, how I fully and fairly consider this question, and more importantly, the issue of changing this question, without the input of those in the active military who have the heavy responsibility of commanding our forces in time of war.

I would hope and encourage both the Department of Defense and the various services to reconsider the reluctance that they have displayed to this point.

While some arguing that much has changed since '93 and the current law is no longer relevant or needed, one thing has not changed in those 15 years. As it was in 1993, the question of whether the law is to be changed shall ultimately rest on matters of military readiness, morale, good order and discipline.

So, Madam Chair, I join you, as I said earlier, in welcoming our witnesses today, and I truly look forward to their testimony. And I yield back.

DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. McHugh.

I ask unanimous consent now that non-subcommittee members be allowed to participate in today's hearing after all subcommittee members have had an opportunity to ask questions. Is there any objection?

Without objection, non-subcommittee members will be recognized at the appropriate time for five minutes.

And now I would like to introduce our panel. We will begin with witnesses representing the coalition seeking repeal of the current law and policy. First will be Major General Vance Coleman, United States Army, Retired, former artillery officer and division commander.

Captain Joan Darrah, United States Navy, Retired, former naval intelligence offer, and Congressman Moran welcomes you to the hearing and thanks you for being here.

Staff Sergeant Eric Alva, United States Marine Corps, Retired, wounded Iraq war veteran. Thank you very much.

Those witnesses will be followed by the witnesses representing the coalition that supports the current law, but opposes the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy, which they view is improperly connected to the law.

Ms. Elaine Donnelley, president, Center for Military Readiness, welcome.

And Sergeant Major Brian Jones, United States Army, Retired, former Army special operations and current business owner and chief executive officer. Welcome to the hearing.

And General Coleman, if you'll start, the three speakers will have five minutes apiece. And then when we move into Ms. Elaine Donnelly will have actually have 10 minutes, and then Sergeant Jones five minutes. We have 15 minutes per panel. Please begin.

COLEMAN: Thank you, Madam Chairman.

Madam Chairman, members of the committee, and my fellow witnesses, during my more than 30 years of service to the United States, I have seen and experienced what happens when second-class citizens and, conversely, what we can achieve when we reserve those views and embrace all of our troops as first-class patriots with an important contribution to make.

I enlisted in the Army when I was 17 in the days before we desegregated our unit fighting forces or our part films (ph). I served in segregated units in the United States and in Europe before being selected to attend an integrated leadership academy, and then on to Officers Candidate School.

After Officers Candidate School, I was assigned to a combat unit. When I reported for duty, however, I was promptly reassigned to an all-black service unit. The message was clear. It didn't matter that I was a qualified field artillery officer who was qualified to serve in the combat arms unit. It only mattered that I was black.

Madam Chairman, I know what it's like to be thought I was a second class. And I know what it's like to have your hard work dismissed because of who you are or what you look like.

I also know the difference it made when place -- when place qualifications -- when we placed qualifications ahead of discrimination and tore down the walls of racial prejudice in our fighting forces.

As an Army commander, I also know how disruptive it would be to remove a trained, skilled service member from a unit. It is bewildering and counter intuitive to me that we maintain a federal law that says no matter how well a person does his or her job, no matter how integral they are to their unit, they must be removed, disrespected and dismissed because of who they happen to be or who they happen to love.

That is why I am grateful to have the opportunity today to you -- to urge Congress to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell. The military has shown it excels in blending people together from different backgrounds, beliefs, and putting the mission first.

I ask Congress to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell and allow the military to benefit from having the best and the brightest serve, regardless of sexual orientation.

In Korea I was assigned to a field artillery unit that was totally integrated. The unit consisted of individuals from all walks of life -- black, white and brown. There was never a problem of unit morale or unit cohesion. The only thing that mattered to the soldiers was that their ability to reform and whether you could be depended upon when the going got tough.

One thing that I learned while serving in Korea in the Korean conflict is that a 24-hour combat situation, the troops are not concerned about who you are or what you believe or whether you can -- they only want to know whether or not you can perform.

Performance would mean the difference between winning or losing, living or dying. I soon learned from senior NCOs that the key to success was performance. That is true 50 years later, and it will be true 100 years from now.

As a battery executive officer in Korea, I supervised a sergeant first class who happened to be gay. He was the communications chief in our unit. He was in charge of the unit's communications, the systems set up, the maintenance, and to make sure that all the systems were working.

He was, to put it in plain and simple terms, a critical part of that unit. Having to remove him from position and from the Army entirely would have harmed our unit's ability to perform its mission.

This committee should be concerned first and foremost about the readiness of armed forces and the personnel policies that best serve that readiness. And all of us here today know that.

When the federal government gives the order, commanders reiterate it, and the service members salute and implement it. As a combat leader, I learned to constantly train my troops to adapt to changing combat situations, to change in weapons systems, to change in terrain.

In the 1980s I was division commander of the 84th Army Reserve Training Division. Testing our motivation planning, I established new training models.

Military leadership indeed is about being able to constantly adapt. That is why we are the best military in the world, and that is why we are better than the outdated arguments that some still use to prop up Don't Ask, Don't Tell.

Don't Ask, Don't Tell hurts military readiness. It undermines our commitment to being a nation where we are all equal in the eyes of the law. And it ties the hands of commanders, who want to welcome and retain America's best and brightest into the military fold.

It's time for the sake of our military to end this modern day prejudice and embrace all of our troops as first-class patriots with important missions to make.

I will close by saying to you that unequal treatment to one of us is unequal treatment to us all. Thank you.

DAVIS: Thank you, General Coleman.

And if you could all make sure and speak into the mike, that would be very helpful. Thank you.

Captain Darrah?

DARRAH: Is that good? Is that good?

DAVIS: If you bring it -- bring it a little closer, that would -- yes.

DARRAH: Good afternoon, Chairwoman Davis and committee members. Thank you so much for the opportunity to testify during this important review of the Don't Ask, Don't Tell law.

My name is Joan Darrah. I joined the Navy in 1972 and served for 29.5 years. I was an intelligence officer and retired in June 2002 with the rank of captain. I was awarded three Legions of Merit and three Meritorious Service Medals.

My final tour of duty was as the officer and enlisted community manager, where I was responsible for all policies that impacted recruiting and retention for the intelligence community. Thus, I fully understand and appreciate the importance of being able to recruit and retain the highest quality people.

When I joined the Navy, I didn't know that I was gay. By the time I realized it, I was well into my Navy career, and according to my promotion record and my fitness report, I was making a significant contribution.

It is only now that I've been retired for six years that I fully realize how incredibly stressful it was to live under Don't Ask, Don't Tell.

For the last many years of my career, whenever the admiral would call me into his office, I would be 99.9 percent it was discuss an operational issue, but there was always that fear in the back of my mind that somehow I had been outed and that the admiral was calling me in to tell me that I was fired.

The constant fear of being outed and fired, even though your performance is exceptional, is hard to quantify.

Don't Ask, Don't Tell discourages thousands of talented and patriotic citizens from joining the military, because rightly so they refuse to live a lie. This is a tremendous loss to our military.

When a smart, energetic young person, who happens to be gay, asks me about joining the service, I recommend that they do not join. I love the Navy. It is painful for me to encourage someone, who could contribute so much, to take their talents elsewhere.

When I was assigned as the deputy commander and chief of staff at the Naval Intelligence Command, I surprised almost 1,500 people and had several openly gay civilians in my command. The morale and productivity of the command was extremely high, and these gay employees were judged like everyone else on their demonstrated ability and performance. In September of 2001, the true impact of Don't Ask, Don't Tell on me personally came into shop focus. On Tuesday, September 11th, I was at the Pentagon attending the weekly intelligence briefing. During the briefing we watched CNN as the planes hit the twin towers. Finally, at 9:30 my meeting was adjourned.

When American Flight 77 slammed into the Pentagon, I was at the bus stop. As it turned out, the space I had been in seven minutes earlier was completely destroyed, and seven of my co-workers were killed.

The reality is that if I had been killed, my partner then of 11 years would have been the last to know, as I had not dared to list her name in any of my paperwork or on any of my emergency contact information.

It was the events of September 11th that made me realize that Don't Ask, Don't Tell was taking a much greater toll than I had ever admitted. It caused me to refocus my priorities, and on 1 June 2002, one year earlier than I had originally planned, I retired.

Since I have retired, I have come out to many people with whom I served -- seniors, juniors and co-workers. Many said that they already knew that I was gay, and without exception everyone has said that they were pleased that I continued to serve.

Military readiness is achieved by attracting and retaining the best and the brightest. Don't Ask, Don't Tell clearly undermines the military readiness of our country.

When Don't Ask, Don't Tell is repealed and replaced with a policy of non-discrimination, many highly qualified young people, who refuse to live a lie, will be much more inclined to join the military.

Other people, especially younger ones, who are likely already out to some of their shipmates, will be more apt to re-enlist. While more senior, older personnel might opt to keep their sexual orientation private, at least they will finally be able to go to work each day without the fear of being fired because someone has discovered they are gay.

In summary, I care so much about the Navy, and I want our military to be the very best. But for us to have the most capable and ready military, we must be able to recruit and retain the best and the brightest. Don't Ask, Don't Tell stands in the way of that goal.

Thank you.

DAVIS: Thank you.

Sergeant Alva?

And I appreciate the fact that everybody is really keeping to the -- keeping to the time.

ALVA: Good afternoon, Ms. Chairwoman and members of the subcommittee.

My name is Eric Fidelis Alva. I was a staff sergeant in the United States Marine Corps. I am honored to testify today and to share my experiences with the subcommittee. Thank you for holding this hearing.

I grew up in a military family in Texas. My father served in Vietnam, my grandfather in World War II. I guess you could say that service was in my blood.

I inherited my middle name, Fidelis, from my father and grandfather. As you know, the Marine credo, Semper Fi, is short for Semper Fidelis, always faithful. Loyalty is literally my middle name, so I guess you could say that serving my country was my calling.

I joined the military because I wanted to serve. I joined the Marines because I wanted a challenge. I was 19 years old. I was patriotic, idealistic, and also gay.

For 13 years I served in the Marine Corps.

ALVA: I served in Somalia during Operation Restore Hope. I loved the discipline and the camaraderie. What I hated was concealing part of who I am.

My military service came to an end on March 21st, 2003. Three hours into the invasion of Iraq, we had stopped to wait for orders. I went back to the Humvee to retrieve something. To this day I can't remember what.

And as I crossed that dusty patch of desert for the third time that day, I triggered a land mine. I was thrown through the air, landing 10 or 15 feet away from the vehicle. The pain was unimaginable. My fellow Marines were rushing to my aid, cutting away my uniform to assess the damage and treat my wounds.

I remember wondering why they weren't removing my right boot. It wasn't until later that I had realized it was because that leg was already gone. When I regained consciousness in a hospital tent outside Kuwait City, my right leg was gone, my left leg was broken, and my -- my right…