[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 2]
[House]
[Pages 2810-2811]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                  MILITARY DISCRIMINATES AGAINST GAYS

  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to speak out of 
order.

[[Page 2811]]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from California?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, at a time of declining morale, when we are 
barely able to maintain a volunteer force, the sign on the Army 
recruiter's door might as well say: ``Openly gay Americans need not 
apply.''
  Here is the military, struggling to meet its recruitment goals and in 
some instances even lowering its standards as a result, but still they 
are turning away and actively weeding out an entire group of people for 
no other reason than raw prejudice. How dumb is that.
  But yesterday, the Supreme Court ruled that universities receiving 
Federal funding could not ban military recruiters from their campuses 
in protest over the military's discrimination against gay Americans. I 
am not going to relitigate that case here on the House floor, but I do 
think and I sincerely hope that this case can shine a national 
spotlight on the absolute folly of the ``don't ask, don't tell'' 
policy.
  Because of their sexual orientation and their unwillingness to 
conceal it, selfless patriotic Americans are forbidden from serving 
their country. They cannot serve even though their skills are 
desperately needed, even though there are available slots, even though 
they are volunteering for duty that most of their peers have opted 
against.
  How does the Army expect its people to be all they can be when it 
will not allow them to be who they are. What can be more un-American? 
Yet another example of a Nation preaching the rhetoric of freedom and 
self-determination around the world while undermining those very values 
here at home. It is a civil rights outrage to be sure.
  But on a purely practical note, it is just plain bad national 
security policy. Is this any way to defend a Nation, by purging the 
military of talented and dedicated soldiers because they are unashamed 
of their love for members of the same sex? It is arbitrary, irrational, 
and dangerous.
  A GAO report, released about a year ago, concluded that 10,000 
Americans have received military discharges under a policy of ``don't 
ask, don't tell'' at a cost to taxpayers of roughly $191 million.
  In recent years, since the launch of wars against Afghanistan and 
Iraq, the military has purged several Farsi and Arabic translation 
specialists because they were discovered to be gay. This shocking and 
incomprehensible personnel decision has prompted my friend and 
colleague, Barney Frank, to relabel the Pentagon policy: ``Don't ask, 
don't tell, don't translate.''
  How is that for a forward-looking national defense strategy? At just 
the moment when we need to understand Mideastern culture and win over 
hearts and minds of its people, the military dismisses the people who 
speak their language. The 9/11 Commission cited a shortage of Arabic 
speakers, and, thus, an inability to translate key intelligence as a 
handicap in our ability to predict the September 11 attacks.
  Mr. Speaker, I have been outspoken in my opposition of the Iraq war 
and my belief that now is the time to bring our troops home. But I am 
antiwar, not antisoldier, not antimilitary. I want us to have the 
strongest possible national defense, a goal that is in no way 
incompatible with rooting out intolerance and protecting equal rights.
  There is no trade-off, no balance of competing interests in this 
case. If ``don't ask, don't tell'' fails the social justice test and 
detracts from national security, what possible use could it have?
  I would have thought that a 3-year $250 billion war that is 
stretching the military to its breaking point would compel the Congress 
and the Pentagon to reexamine this block-headed policy. Mr. Speaker, I 
hope that we will.

                          ____________________