[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 83 (Friday, May 28, 2010)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E998]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                          HON. LYNN C. WOOLSEY

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                         Thursday, May 27, 2010

       The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of 
     the Union had under consideration the bill (H.R. 5136) to 
     authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2011 for military 
     activities of the Department of Defense, to prescribe 
     military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for 
     other purposes:

  Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Chair, we've heard these arguments before.
  The Secretary of the Army said he was concerned about how the 
proposed change would affect ``the efficiency . . . of the Army.''
  A five-star General warned of ``social experiments'' and worried that 
with reform in military personnel policy ``. . . we may have difficulty 
attaining high morale.''
  Those are not quotations from 2010 about the right of gay and lesbian 
Americans to serve openly in the military. They're from more than 60 
years ago, during the debate over racial integration of the armed 
forces.
  Does anyone believe they were right? If so, please speak up.
  Is anyone prepared to argue that our military has suffered from the 
full participation of African-Americans in its ranks?
  I hope we all remember this history lesson as we prepare to vote on a 
repeal of the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy, an embarrassment unworthy 
of a great country and a great military.
  It is responsible for the discharge of 13,000 honorable Americans, 
men and women who were told their service is dispensable . . . not 
because of how they behaved, but because of who they are.
  It does violence to cherished American values like equality, 
inclusion, and tolerance. And it damages our national security too.
  Given the military's recruitment challenges at a moment that we're 
still, unfortunately, fighting two wars . . . it is incomprehensible to 
me that we would reject any capable person who wishes to serve.
  It was particularly galling to watch as hundreds of language 
specialists who could speak Farsi and Arabic were dismissed just when 
they were needed most, when our occupation of Iraq began.
  The assertion that openly gay service members would undermine unit 
cohesion is just bunk, Madam Chair.
  It is an argument based on fear, not fact. The research suggests that 
Iraq and Afghanistan veterans are comfortable serving side-by- side 
with fellow soldiers who happen to be gay or lesbian.
  To suggest otherwise is to insult our troops, as the author of the 
amendment Mr. Murphy has pointed out. Because the morale argument 
assumes our soldiers are so unprofessional--and even unpatriotic--that 
they would let another soldier's sexual orientation distract them from 
the mission.
  Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, may have 
put it best when he said, ``I cannot escape being troubled by . . . a 
policy which forces young men and women to lie about who they are in 
order to defend their fellow citizens. For me personally, it comes down 
to integrity--theirs as individuals and ours as an institution.''
  And now it comes down to our integrity, the integrity of those of us 
privileged to serve in the people's House.
  We must have the integrity to do what's right . . . to support our 
troops and strengthen our military . . . by repealing the cruel and un-
American Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy.

                          ____________________