[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 83 (Friday, May 28, 2010)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4564-S4565]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                      DON'T ASK, DON'T TELL POLICY

  Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, yesterday the Senate Armed Services 
Committee completed its markup of the Defense authorization bill. 
Normally, Senators are asked to wait for a period of days until the 
report can be issued and the specifics are made public. But yesterday 
the chairman clearly understood when we were finished with business 
that there were two items dealing with social policy that would be 
widely known immediately. I speak on those topics today with a clear 
understanding that the Chair knows that these items will be talked 
about, an exception to the general rule.
  Yesterday, I believe, the committee made a very grave mistake with 
regard to the provision involving the repeal of the don't ask, don't 
tell policy. This has been the policy since the days of the Clinton 
administration. It has worked reasonably well. I am opposed to the 
repeal of the don't ask, don't tell policy.
  In February of this year, Secretary Gates announced that a survey 
would be conducted with a view toward assessing whether this policy 
should be changed. There was a working group that was going to be 
established and a survey of servicemembers and their families would be 
conducted. This working group would report the results of this 
assessment by December of this year. At that point, the Congress and 
the administration would have additional information about how today's 
servicemembers and their families would feel about a change which would 
allow gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military. This would, of 
course, be a dramatic change.
  That was the policy. A number of us were skeptical about it, but that 
was the announced policy. Somehow, in the last few days that has 
changed, and a so-called compromise has been put forward and adopted 
now by the committee and apparently by the House of Representatives 
also that would say that while the assessment is going on--which, as I 
said, is to end in December--that we would vote on this bill this 
summer, possibly in the next few weeks, to go ahead and repeal the 
don't ask, don't tell policy and then to allow the President, the 
Secretary of Defense, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to 
review the assessment in December and see whether, indeed, the 
enactment of the bill by the Senate and House should go forward.
  This seems to be getting the cart before the horse. I want to make 
several points.
  This so-called compromise is not a compromise. It is, in effect, for 
all intents and purposes, a repeal of the don't ask, don't tell policy. 
Giving the President and the two military people who are most 
answerable to him the authority to make this decision and pretend they 
might decide against it is a mockery, and it is a figleaf.
  Does anyone doubt what their decision will be? After all, the 
President of the United States campaigned that he wanted to do away 
with the don't ask, don't tell policy. There is no question he favors 
this. The Secretary of Defense answers directly to him. The Chairman of 
the Joint Chiefs of Staff answers directly to the President of the 
United States. It is foolhardy for anyone in this Senate to suggest 
there will be any decision other than a repeal of the don't ask, don't 
tell policy.
  It is said that these three people will wait for the assessment to 
see what military members and their families think. I think Congress 
has the authority to do this. Congress should wait for the assessment. 
We might be surprised. We might be troubled by what the assessment 
shows. But it is, as I said, a mockery to make the decision now in May 
or June or July and then look forward to an assessment which is due in 
December.
  What has changed? I ask my fellow Members and the American people: 
What has changed? What has brought about this sudden compromise over 
the past weekend and attaching this bit of social engineering to the 
national Defense authorization bill?
  Frankly, I think a lot of Americans are going to conclude that 
politics changed. We can look at RealClearPolitics that estimates 
Republicans may gain six seats in the November election. That would be 
before the December assessment is due. Some people say Republicans may 
gain 8 to 10 seats. That would change attitudes considerably with 
regard to don't ask, don't tell. It would allow the people of the 
United States to be heard on this issue.
  Americans are justified in concluding that with this election 
looming, that is what changed. There has been no change in the national 
security needs to rush this process ahead and get the cart before the 
horse and make the decision before the assessment is made.
  The point of view of those of us in the committee who voted against 
the Lieberman amendment yesterday is supported by the heads of the four 
branches of our service. They support the original plan of Secretary 
Gates announced in February to do an assessment and then to make a 
decision based on what we find out in the assessment.
  I have a letter dated May 26, 2010, to Senator John McCain from 
George Casey, general, U.S. Army, the Chief of Staff of the Army. He 
says to Senator McCain that his views have not changed since his 
testimony.
  I quote directly:

       I continue to support the review and timeline offered by 
     Secretary Gates.
       I remain convinced that it is critically important to get a 
     better understanding of where our Soldiers and Families are 
     on this issue.

  Yesterday, in their wisdom, the members of the Armed Services 
Committee decided they knew better than our soldiers and their 
families.
  General Casey said we need to know whether this ``impacts on 
readiness and unit cohesion.''
  He concludes by saying:

       I also believe that repealing the law before the completion 
     of the review will be seen by the men and women of the Army 
     as a reversal of our commitment to hear their views before 
     moving forward.

  ADM Gary Roughhead, Chief of Naval Operations, in a letter to Senator 
McCain dated May 26 says, among other things:

       I testified in February about the importance of the 
     comprehensive review that began in March and is now well 
     under way within the Department of Defense. We need this 
     review to fully assess our force and carefully examine 
     potential impacts of a change in the law.

  Yesterday, the members of the Armed Services Committee said: No, we 
disagree with Admirable Roughead, the Chief of Naval Operations. We 
don't need this review. We, as the elected representatives of the 50 
States, are going to punt that decision to someone whose mind is 
already made up.
  Admirable Roughead goes on to say:

       I have spoken with sailors and fellow flag officers alike 
     about the importance of conducting the review in a thoughtful 
     and deliberate manner.

  In this quick reversal that occurred just yesterday in the Armed 
Services Committee, we abandoned the thoughtful review.
  GEN James T. Conway, Commandant of the Marine Corps, said to Senator 
McCain in a letter dated 25 May 2010:

       During testimony, I spoke of the confidence I had as a 
     Service Chief in the DOD Working Group that Secretary Gates 
     laid out in the wake of President Obama's guidance on ``Don't 
     Ask-Don't Tell.'' I felt that an organized and systematic 
     approach on such an important issue was precisely the way to 
     develop ``best military advice.''

  He goes on to say:

       I encourage the Congress to let the process the Secretary 
     of Defense created to run its course.

  That was the Commandant of the Marine Corps.
  Finally, a letter from GEN Norton A. Schwartz, Chief of Staff of the 
Air Force, says:

     . . . my position remains that DOD should conduct a review 
     that carefully investigates and evaluates the facts and 
     circumstances, the potential implications, the possible 
     complications, and potential mitigations to repealing this 
     law.

  All four of our service heads were explicit in asking the committee 
to let the process continue. Yet, in our wisdom, with an election 
looming, the committee voted with a majority vote to go ahead and say: 
We really don't care to hear what the assessment says. We are just 
going to let three people make that decision on their own.

[[Page S4565]]

  I have this question for Members of the Senate who will be asked to 
vote on this after the break: What if the assessment comes back and 
says that soldiers and marines in significant numbers are not willing 
to continue in a voluntary service under these conditions? What if that 
is the result of the assessment? Then it will be too late for the 
Members of the House and Senate to make a change in this policy.
  The time to take a pause and the time to see what our members 
actually think is now. We can force this on the services, but in a 
voluntary armed force, we cannot force members to enlist. We cannot 
force marines, who are putting their lives on the line for what they 
believe is the American way of life and for our freedom and for the 
security of all Americans, to reenlist when their time is up. We need 
to know if they are going to be willing to stay in the service and to 
make that commitment and to put themselves in harm's way under this 
very drastic, dramatic change. We should not substitute our judgment 
for what the members of the service and their families think. And I 
regret that we have gone this far and regret the action of the Armed 
Services Committee.
  There is one other issue that was regrettably voted on in the 
affirmative by the committee yesterday, and that is with regard to 
abortion policy. Since 1996, we have had a policy that abortions--
elective abortions--will not be performed on our military 
installations. This is a policy that was passed by the House and Senate 
and signed into law by a Democratic President, President Clinton. For 
the past 14 years, it has been our policy that elective abortions will 
not be performed in our military installations.
  Yesterday, the committee decided to reverse this longstanding policy 
and to say that, indeed, abortions for whatever reason will be 
performed in these facilities that are paid for at taxpayer expense and 
are there for the care of our servicemembers, to keep them healthy and 
to repair their injuries. We are going to use those facilities for 
elective abortions.
  I guarantee you this will be challenged on the floor of the House and 
Senate with separate amendments, and Members will be given a chance to 
vote on this separate issue. But if this amendment stands, the medical 
facilities of our military installations--Fort Bragg, Columbus Air 
Force Base, Keesler Air Force Base in my home State of Mississippi--
will be able to be used for abortions performed late term, abortions 
performed for purposes of sex selection, abortions performed for any 
reason, abortions at will. That will be the requirement for our 
military installations and the medical facilities on those 
installations--again, another piece of social engineering, another vast 
and serious and consequential departure from longstanding Department of 
Defense policy.
  I regret these two positions. I call on my colleagues, Mr. President, 
during this Memorial Day break, when we are talking with those who have 
served, who have put themselves in harm's way, and when we are talking 
with the families of those who have served and who have given the 
ultimate sacrifice, that we seriously consider whether the committee 
has made the right decision and that we come back to Washington, DC, 
with a determination to reverse these two very harmful and, in my view, 
mistaken actions by the Armed Services Committee.
  With that, I wish my friend, the Acting President pro tempore of the 
Senate, a happy and prosperous Memorial Day, and I suggest the absence 
of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________