[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 5]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 7149-7150]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




        SENATOR SIMPSON'S WISDOM REBUTS GENERAL PACE'S PREJUDICE

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. BARNEY FRANK

                            of massachusetts

                    in the house of representatives

                       Wednesday, March 21, 2007

  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so based on outdated prejudices against them.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.

[[Page 7150]]



                          ____________________