[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 85 (Tuesday, June 8, 2010)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1023-E1025]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                         HON. GARY L. ACKERMAN

                              of new york

                    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:

  Mr. ACKERMAN. Madam Chair, several months ago I received a letter 
from a solider who lives in New York. The letter was very similar to 
those that many members of Congress receive from brave servicemen and 
women who reside in their districts. The letter spoke of multiple tours 
through Iraq and Afghanistan, of volunteering for more service even 
after completing enough tours to retire, and of the pride of a soldier 
who loves his country and is willing to sacrifice so much to defend it.
  But this letter was not quite the same as those that many of us here 
in the Capitol receive from time to time. You see, despite serving his 
country for more than 20 years, despite volunteering to serve in a 
combat zone to defend America's principles of freedom from tyranny and 
from persecution, and despite receiving two bronze stars for 
meritorious service to his country, the gay soldier who wrote this 
letter is required by United States law to lie about who he is or face 
being discharged from the military.
  For 16 years, ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' has placed an unthinkable and 
immoral burden on gay and lesbian servicemen and women, who, under 
United States law and unlike their heterosexual counterparts, must hide 
their sexual orientation and their partners from the military. Their 
partners are not eligible for the military spousal benefits to which 
the partners of heterosexual servicemen and women are entitled, 
including health care and better housing. Madame Speaker, ``Don't Ask, 
Don't Tell'' is, by definition, a discriminatory policy.
  In the course of tonight's debate, several members have characterized 
the House of Representatives' impending vote to repeal ``Don't Ask, 
Don't Tell'' as a step forward for morality and equality. And it is. 
But, before we collectively pat ourselves on the back for a job well 
done, I would remind my colleagues that tonight's step forward is only 
a result of the giant leap backwards we took when we instituted the 
policy in the first place. Years from now, when our children read about 
``Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' in their history books, what will they think 
of a government that so shamefully turned its back on gay servicemen 
and women in the interest of a political compromise?
  Madam Chair, politics is a business of grays. Seldom do we have the 
opportunity to vote on legislation that is black or white, moral or 
immoral, right or wrong. Tonight is the rare exception.
  For the thousands of gay servicemen and women who so bravely serve 
our country everyday but who live in constant fear of being discovered 
for who they are, for the principles of freedom and equality upon which 
the United States of America was founded, and in the interest of 
righting a wrong that has persisted for far too long, I rise in support 
of the amendment before us and for the patriotic soldier whose letter I 
enclose for the record; a letter in which he implores me: ``If and when 
this issue ever comes up for debate, and even for a vote in Congress, I 
respectfully ask you to remember all the gay military personnel who are 
right now risking our lives to defend the U.S. and its values.''
  Madam Chair, that moment has come.

     Hon. Gary Ackerman,
     Member of the House of Representatives, Rayburn House Office 
         Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Ackerman: I am a captain in the United 
     States Army Reserve, and am presently deployed to 
     Afghanistan. I am writing to you with regard to the 
     military's so-called ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' (DADT) policy. 
     As you may know, there is currently a strong push in Congress 
     to overturn DADT--under which otherwise qualified gay men and 
     women are still being involuntarily dismissed from service--
     and replace it with a policy of nondiscrimination on the 
     basis of sexual orientation. I strongly support this proposed 
     policy change. I would like to explain the basis for my 
     judgment.
       I am a veteran of both the U. S. Navy Reserve and the U. S. 
     Army Reserve. In the latter I have served as both a sergeant 
     and as a commissioned officer. Since the terrorist attacks of 
     September 11, 2001 I have completed tours of duty in 
     Afghanistan, Iraq, and Kuwait. I was informed that I had 
     completed twenty good years of Reserve military service, and 
     had thus earned the right to retire. But I did not want to 
     retire with my country still at war. So I volunteered for 
     another combat zone deployment, and am serving once again in 
     Afghanistan. I have been at my current duty station------. I 
     recite this brief resume to let you know that I am no mere 
     observer of the military, but rather someone who has 
     dedicated much of my life to our national defense.

[[Page E1024]]

       Congressman Ackerman, I am also one of the many gay 
     military personnel who have served our country faithfully in 
     these times of terrorism and war. I want to give you my 
     personal perspective on why DADT is so wrong. First of all, 
     it is widely recognized that a married service member's 
     relationship with his or her spouse has a profound impact on 
     that service member's fitness for duty. Thus, straight 
     married service members are free, within the limits of 
     resource availability and operational constraints, to 
     maintain communications with their spouses. In fact, such 
     communication is actively encouraged. Regular phone calls, e-
     mail, and postal letters really help both the service member 
     and spouse get through the strain of combat zone deployments 
     in particular.
       Many gay service members have committed partners who, every 
     day, face the same stress and make the same sacrifices as do 
     their straight counterparts. But because of DADT, gay service 
     members and their partners have to constantly worry that an 
     overheard telephone call, an intercepted e-mail message, or 
     other type of compromised communication could lead to a 
     degrading, career-destroying investigation. It is wrong, I 
     believe, to place such additional burdens on the back of 
     American patriots.
       I write of these matters from personal experience. When the 
     9/11 terrorist attacks occurred I was in a serious long-term 
     relationship. But the extensive post-9/11 active duty I 
     performed put a serious strain on this relationship. The 
     relationship finally fell completely apart during my first 
     Afghanistan deployment in------.
       As you may know, the military has seen a troubling increase 
     in the service member suicide rate since 9/11. Furthermore, 
     the loss of a serious relationship is one of the critical 
     risk factors that may contribute to such suicides. I 
     experienced this particular risk factor and my situation was 
     compounded by its occurrence in a war zone. Six years later, 
     I can still vividly remember cradling my government-issue 
     pistol in my hands and fighting the urge to blow my own 
     brains out.
       I made it through that crisis. I completed my mission in 
     Afghanistan successfully, and in fact was decorated with a 
     Bronze Star Medal at the conclusion of that tour. I went on 
     to earn a second Bronze Star Medal in Iraq two years later, 
     and was promoted to------ shortly after that.
       What made that crisis particularly difficult was the 
     isolation imposed on me as a result of DADT. A straight 
     Soldier in a comparable crisis could turn to his commander, 
     his first sergeant, or a ``battle buddy'' for help and 
     advice. But such avenues are legally closed to gay troops. If 
     I, for example, had shared the details of my situation with 
     my commander--a decent and honorable man--he would have been 
     legally obligated to have initiated an investigation that 
     would have heaped even more stress upon me, disrupted my 
     unit's mission, and ultimately destroyed my career.
       I know that many would say that a gay service member in 
     such a situation could go to a chaplain in confidentiality. I 
     have great respect for our military chaplains and for all the 
     good work that they do. But I also believe that no service 
     member should feel forced to see a chaplain as his or her 
     only option. Every service member should have the right to 
     speak freely with a commander, a trusted noncommissioned 
     officer, or a battle buddy. I assert this not only as an 
     individual Soldier, but also as an officer with extensive 
     experience as a platoon leader and company commander. When I 
     have been in these command positions, I have had Soldiers 
     share with me some very personal information about their 
     families and home lives. I was glad that these Soldiers 
     trusted me, and this bond of trust and openness enabled me to 
     give each individual the counsel or moral support that was 
     needed. But what about gay troops? They are legally deprived 
     of such a relationship with a commander, a senior 
     noncommissioned officer, or a battle buddy. This is wrong. 
     These gay troops--especially those experiencing the stress of 
     combat zone duty--deserve access to such relationships. The 
     DADT policy shackles the hands of leaders like myself and 
     prevents us from properly supporting all our troops. This 
     policy puts service members and their loved ones at risk. 
     DADT is a shameful blot on our national honor.
       I know that many are wary of a repeal of DADT. Perhaps 
     some--particularly those who oppose homosexual conduct on 
     religious grounds--see such a policy change as the equivalent 
     of governmental approval of homosexual conduct. But this is 
     not so. Let me strike an analogy. Many religious individuals 
     are opposed, on biblical grounds, to divorce and remarriage. 
     But persons who have divorced and remarried are plentiful in 
     the armed services, and many serve alongside very 
     conservative religious persons every day. Respecting 
     divorced-and-remarried persons as military professionals does 
     not mean one agrees with their personal life choices, or that 
     the government is advocating such choices. To me, the main 
     issue is that we respect personnel who serve their country 
     honorably and who act with responsibility and integrity in 
     their personal lives. For example, in the military we will 
     punish a ``deadbeat dad'' who neglects to pay his child 
     support, but we support and respect the divorced father who 
     stays committed to his parental responsibilities. I believe 
     that we need to take a comparable stance towards gay service 
     members.
       There are also some who claim that repealing DADT will 
     negatively impact morale and discipline in our armed 
     services. But I have never seen a single shred of empirical 
     evidence to support such assertions. In fact, the available 
     evidence suggests that treating gay and straight troops 
     equally has no negative impact on military forces. Consider 
     the fact that many of our key allies in current combat and 
     security operations--nations such as the United Kingdom, 
     Canada, and Australia--do not discriminate on the basis of 
     sexual orientation in their armed services. These fighting 
     forces continue to perform admirably. Furthermore, troops 
     from these and other nondiscriminatory nations live and serve 
     side by side every day with U.S. troops in war zones. On this 
     current tour, for example, I personally have shared living 
     and bathing facilities with uniformed personnel from 
     Australia, Canada, Denmark, Spain, and the United Kingdom--
     never have I seen a U.S. serviceman run shrieking from the 
     showers because he feared that he might encounter an openly 
     gay individual from one of these allied nations. Last year I 
     met an openly gay chief petty officer from the Australian 
     navy. He had served as part of a U.S.-led multinational team 
     in Iraq. He told me that not only was his presence no problem 
     for the Americans, but they decorated him with a U.S. medal 
     at the end of his tour! Surely if Americans can accept a gay 
     Australian, they can also accept gay fellow Americans. People 
     who claim that the U.S. military cannot manage a policy of 
     sexual orientation nondiscrimination are not only ignoring 
     the realities of current operations, but they are also 
     essentially saying that American service personnel are less 
     professional than those of the U.K., Canada, and other 
     nondiscriminatory nations--I consider such an assertion to be 
     a highly offensive insult.
       Of course, my argument ultimately leads to a logical--and 
     fair--question: How do we manage this change in policy? The 
     answer is simple. Hold gay service members to exactly the 
     same standards we hold straight service members. If gay 
     individuals were to commit acts of sexual harassment, or 
     engage in any other type of activity that goes contrary to 
     military order, we would discipline them appropriately--and 
     separate them from the service if necessary. This happens to 
     straight service members when necessary; I myself once had to 
     discipline a straight male noncommissioned officer for his 
     inappropriate behavior towards a junior female Soldier. This 
     NCO accepted my counsel, corrected his behavior, and 
     completed his tour of duty successfully. On the other 
     hand, those gay individuals who conduct themselves with 
     honor and dignity, and who demonstrate respect for their 
     fellow service members, would continue to do their jobs. 
     This is exactly the policy that coalition militaries, many 
     U. S. police departments, and dozens of civilian 
     corporations have been following successfully for years. 
     Are we really to believe that this course of action is 
     beyond the capability of the U.S. military?
       In fact, I believe that the demise of DADT will happen as 
     smoothly and quietly as did similar policy changes in the 
     militaries of allied nations. Gay troops who have been 
     behaving in a professional manner prior to the demise of DADT 
     are not suddenly going to begin engaging in outrageous or 
     disruptive behavior. Today's gay troops, despite the burdens 
     of DADT, are putting their lives on the line every day to 
     defend this country; many of us have been tested in Iraq, 
     Afghanistan, Somalia, and other challenging locations. If the 
     military gets rid of DADT, we will continue to do our jobs 
     and take care of our battle buddies; we and our commanders 
     will simply have a terrible burden lifted from our shoulders.
       Congressman, after more than two decades of military 
     service--at sea and on land, from the Cold War era to the 
     Global War on Terror, in joint service and multinational 
     environments--I think I know the women and men of our armed 
     forces pretty well. I can tell you that every day U. S. 
     service members overcome barriers of difference--difference 
     in race, ethnic heritage, religion, regional origin, gender, 
     socioeconomic class, and other areas. Sexual orientation is 
     just another element in this complex equation. We are able to 
     overcome all these types of difference and form cohesive 
     teams by focusing on the basics: mutual respect, a solid work 
     ethic, personal integrity, and commitment to our common 
     missions. We are also able to recognize that a person whose 
     difference may initially unsettle us may also possess a 
     critical skill, a body of knowledge, or a depth of experience 
     that we need to accomplish these common missions. Can we 
     afford to lose a fluent Arabic linguist because she is a 
     lesbian? Can we afford to discard a combat seasoned 
     infantryman because he is gay?
       I have enclosed with this letter some documentation from my 
     combat zone service. My contributions have been modest 
     compared to the heroism shown by many of my sisters and 
     brothers in arms. Still, I am proud of what I have achieved. 
     I leave it to you to look at my record and determine whether 
     or not the military would be better off if I--and, for that 
     matter, thousands of people like me--were to be involuntarily 
     dismissed from duty.
       I am an ordinary guy who grew up in New York. My dad is a 
     retired New York City cop who was deeply impacted by the 9/11 
     terrorist attacks. Like any other deployed Soldier, I call my 
     folks at least once a week, and they worry about me just like 
     the parents of any Soldier. I don't want to turn the military 
     into some sort of gay utopia. I just

[[Page E1025]]

     want gay Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines, and Coast 
     Guardsmen--together with our loved ones--to have the sort of 
     peace of mind that our straight sisters and brothers take for 
     granted.
       Congressman Ackerman, I read on your Web site about how you 
     stood up for Soldiers who were not getting their combat zone 
     tax exemption in Iraq. So I know you are a leader who 
     believes in taking care of the troops. Sir, I believe that 
     now is the time to give troops like me relief from the 
     injustice of ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell.'' If and when this 
     issue comes up for debate, and even for a vote, in Congress, 
     I respectfully ask you to remember all the gay military 
     personnel who are right now risking our lives to defend the 
     United States and its values. If you have any questions or 
     comments about anything I have written, you may contact me 
     via e-mail. And please feel free to share this letter and its 
     enclosures, including my contact information, with any 
     individuals or organizations whom you deem appropriate.
           Sincerely, ------.

                          ____________________