Senator Simplson's Wisdom Rebuts General Pace's Prejudice

Floor Speech

SENATOR SIMPSON'S WISDOM REBUTS GENERAL PACE'S PREJUDICE

* Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, on Wednesday, March 14, former Senator Alan Simpson published an eloquent and well-reasoned argument for total repeal of the restrictions that now exist on patriotic gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered people serving in the military. It is particularly noteworthy that Senator Simpson, like General John Shalikashvili, was an influential supporter of the current restrictive policy when it was imposed in 1993. Like General Shalikashvili, Alan Simpson with the forthrightness and intellectual honesty that marked his distinguished career in the Senate now says that it is time to end that policy, noting that there has been a substantial diminution of anti-gay and lesbian prejudice among the American people, which means that the argument that allowing those of us who are gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered openly to serve would somehow cause morale problems because of widespread prejudice against us.

* Senator Simpson goes on to note that at a time when we are facing a shortage of people able and willing to serve in the military, it is particularly foolish to refuse to allow people who want to serve to do so based on outdated prejudices against them. And I do want to note in this context that even when he was defending a total ban on gays and lesbians in the military in 1990, then General Colin Powell acknowledged that that was not because there was any reason to conclude that gay or lesbian people would be inferior members of the military, but again, only that we were the victims of a prejudice that could be disruptive.

* It is particularly disappointing to me, Madam Speaker, therefore, that just as Senator Simpson and General Shalikashvili have acknowledged the diminution of this prejudice, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General Peter Pace, has tried to reinvigorate it. General Pace's comment that we who are gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgendered are ``immoral'' solely because of that fact, without any judgment about how we in fact interact with other human beings, is prejudice at its worst. If he were a private citizen, the fact that he felt so unfairly negative towards so many of his fellow citizens would be purely his business. But in fact he cited his condemnation of us as one of the main justifications for a public policy that excludes patriotic gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered people from serving in the military. He has since, of course, retracted that part of his statement, but it is clear that he did so only because he has been criticized for it, and not because there has been any change in his opinion.

* Madam Speaker, it is entirely wrong for such a high position as Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff to be occupied by someone who is prepared to consign millions of other Americans to second class status because he disapproves of consensual, mutually respectful intimate behavior--that the Supreme Court has made clear can never be criminalized--between consenting adults. Such an effort to use public policy to enforce private views would be strongly rejected, I hope, by the President and others in the administration if it were to be aimed at any other group. I deeply regret that we have not seen a similar reaction when the victims are those of us who are gay or lesbian.

* The article by Alan Simpson follows:[From the Washington Post, Mar. 14, 2007]

BIGOTRY THAT HURTS OUR MILITARY
(By Alan K. Simpson)

As a lifelong Republican who served in the Army in Germany, I believe it is critical that we review--and overturn--the ban on gay service in the military: I voted for ``don't ask, don't tell.'' But much has changed since 1993.

My thinking shifted when I read that the military was firing translators because they are gay. According to the Government Accountability Office, more than 300 language experts have been fired under ``don't ask, don't tell,'' including more than 50 who are fluent in Arabic. This when even Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice recently acknowledged the nation's ``foreign language deficit'' and how much our government needs Farsi and Arabic speakers. Is there a ``straight'' way to translate Arabic? Is there a ``gay'' Farsi? My God, we'd better start talking sense before it is too late. We need every able-bodied, smart patriot to help us win this war.

In today's perilous global security situation, the real question is whether allowing homosexuals to serve openly would enhance or degrade our readiness. The best way to answer this is to reconsider the original points of opposition to open service.

First, America's views on homosexuals serving openly in the military have changed dramatically. The percentage of Americans in favor has grown from 57 percent in 1993 to a whopping 91 percent of 18- to 29-year-olds surveyed in a Gallup poll in 2003.

Military attitudes have also shifted. Fully three-quarters of 500 vets returning from Iraq and Afghanistan said in a December Zogby poll that they were comfortable interacting with gay people. Also last year, a

Zogby poll showed that a majority of service members who knew a gay member in their unit said the person's presence had no negative impact on the unit or personal morale. Senior leaders such as retired Gen. John Shalikashvili and Lt. Gen. Daniel Christman, a former West Point superintendent, are calling for a second look.

Second, 24 nations, including 12 in Operation Enduring Freedom and nine in Operation Iraqi Freedom, permit open service. Despite controversy surrounding the policy change, it has had no negative impact on morale, cohesion, readiness or recruitment. Our allies did not display such acceptance back when we voted on ``don't ask, don't tell,'' but we should consider their common-sense example.

Third, there are not enough troops to perform the required mission. The Army is ``about broken,'' in the words of Colin Powell. The Army's chief of staff, Gen. Peter Schoomaker, told the House Armed Services Committee in December that ``the active-duty Army of 507,000 will break unless the force is expanded by 7,000 more soldiers a year.'' To fill its needs, the Army is granting a record number of ``moral waivers,'' allowing even felons to enlist. Yet we turn away patriotic gay and lesbian citizens.

The Urban Institute estimates that 65,000 gays are serving and that there are 1 million gay veterans. These gay vets include Capt. Cholene Espinoza, a former U-2 pilot who logged more than 200 combat hours over Iraq, and Marine Staff Sgt. Eric Alva, who lost his right leg to an Iraqi land mine. Since 2005, more than 800 personnel have been discharged from ``critical fields''--jobs considered essential but difficult in terms of training or retraining, such as linguists, medical personnel and combat engineers. Aside from allowing us to recruit and retain more personnel, permitting gays to serve openly would enhance the quality of the armed forces.

In World War II, a British mathematician named Alan Turing led the effort to crack the Nazis' communication code. He mastered the complex German enciphering machine, helping to save the world, and his work laid the basis for modern computer science. Does it matter that Turing was gay? This week, Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, said that homosexuality is ``immoral'' and that the ban on open service should therefore not be changed. Would Pace call Turing ``immoral''?

Since 1993, I have had the rich satisfaction of knowing and working with many openly gay and lesbian Americans, and I have come to realize that ``gay'' is an artificial category when it comes to measuring a man or woman's on-the-job performance or commitment to shared goals. It says little about the person. Our differences and prejudices pale next to our historic challenge. Gen. Pace is entitled, like anyone, to his personal opinion, even if it is completely out of the mainstream of American thinking. But he should know better than to assert this opinion as the basis for policy of a military that represents and serves an entire nation. Let us end ``don't ask, don't tell.'' This policy has become a serious detriment to the readiness of America's forces as they attempt to accomplish what is arguably the most challenging mission in our long and cherished history.

Source