Don't Ask, Don't Tell

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, over the past few months, we have heard a variety of justifications for why now is not the time to repeal don't ask, don't tell.

Opponents of repeal have said that we should wait for our military leaders to call for change. Well, in the past year, the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff--the two highest-ranking military leaders in America--have told us now is the time for Congress to act.

We have been told that we should wait for the results of the Pentagon study on the effects of ending don't ask, don't tell and recommendations for implementing its repeal. We now have the results of that study. It concludes that the risks associated with overturning don't ask, don't tell are low, with thorough preparation. The repeal bill before us provides for just such preparation.

A survey included in the Pentagon study shows that a substantial majority of servicemembers--about 70 percent--predict little to no negative effects from allowing gay men and lesbians to openly in our military.

Rather than listen to our top military leaders and rank and file servicemembers, opponents of repeal now want to move the goal posts. After months of exhaustive study and debate, they now say they want a survey that asks different questions and to hear from different leaders.

They say the 103-question survey, 95 forums, and 140 focus groups included in the Pentagon study were not sufficient to gauge the affects of repeal.

Enough with the stalling and blocking.

The days of don't ask, don't tell are numbered. This discriminatory policy, which is harmful to our Nation's principles and or national defense, will end. The only question is whether Congress will act and give military leaders the time they seek to make an orderly transition, or continue to delay and risk that the federal courts will demand a more abrupt change.

Congress or the courts. That is the choice.

Secretary Gates warned us as much at the release of the Pentagon study. He said:

Now that we have completed this review, I strongly urge the Senate to pass this legislation and send it to the president for signature before the end of this year. I believe this is a matter of some urgency because, as we have seen in the past year, the federal courts are increasingly becoming involved in this issue.

He continued:

Just a few weeks ago, one lower court ruling forced the department into an abrupt series of changes that were no doubt confusing and distracting to men and women in the ranks. It is only a matter of time before the federal courts are drawn once more into the fray, with the very real possibility that this change would be imposed immediately by judicial fiat--by far the most disruptive and damaging scenario I can imagine, and one of the most hazardous to military morale, readiness and battlefield performance.

Just this week, another legal challenge was filed in federal court by three former servicemembers discharged under don't ask, don't tell.

Their stories illustrate once again the arbitrary and unjust the nature of the current policy, and the harm it causes.

The plaintiffs are Air Force veterans Michael Almy and Anthony Loverde, and Navy veteran Jason Knight. Let me tell you about these brave men.

MAJ Michael Almy is the son of a West Point graduate and served 13 years in the Air Force.

Major Almy deployed to the Middle East several times in the late 1990s, helping to enforce the no-fly zones in Iraq. He deployed again in 2002 and 2004 to support the invasion of Iraq and its aftermath.

Near the end of his 2004 deployment, Major Almy was named the Field Grade Officer of the Year. It was also during this deployment that a member of his unit found e-mails Major Almy sent to another man and the discharge process started.

Major Almy's superiors and subordinates provided glowing character references during the discharge.

This is what one subordinate said--Major Almy:

one of the most respected leaders in the squadron thanks to his no nonsense approach to mission accomplishment.

He added:

I can say without any reservation that Major Almy was the best supervisor I have ever had . . . It would be an absolute travesty to lose such an outstanding officer and superior leader.

Even while his discharge was pending, Major Almy's wing commander recommended his promotion to lieutenant colonel--ahead of his peers.

None of this was enough to save Major Almy's career. Despite his exemplary record, he was discharged for being gay.

The second plaintiff, SSG Anthony Loverde, is also a highly decorated veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom. He had the difficult and job of a C-130 loadmaster.

During his deployment in 2007, Loverde found that he could no longer pretend to be someone he was not. Upon returning home, he sent his supervisor an email saying he would like to continue to serve, but he could not do so if it also meant continuing to conceal his sexual orientation. That letter started his discharge.

One month after his discharge, Sergeant Loverde received the Air Medal for ``superior ability in the presence of perilous conditions.''

But that is not the end of Sergeant Loverde's story.

Shortly after his discharge, he went to work for a defense contractor and headed back to Iraq, this time as an openly gay man. As a defense contractor, he shared quarters with servicemembers--without incident.

In a letter last year to the Washington Post, Sergeant Loverde wrote:

At the same time I was being discharged, my younger brother, who served a 15-month tour in Iraq during 2004-05 with the Army infantry, was stop-lossed to be sent back for another tour of duty. He had a new wife and a young son; he had fulfilled his initial commitment and wanted to leave the Army to continue his career as a civilian. But our country's needs were too great--he was told he had to keep fighting.

Why, in such a time, would we discharge decorated servicemembers who want to serve our Nation?

The third member in this latest court challenge is PO2 Jason Knight.

Petty Officer Knight enlisted in the Navy in April 2001 and served 5 years. He spent the first 3 of those years as a member of the elite Navy Ceremonial Guard at Arlington National Cemetery. He participated in more than 1,500 military funerals.

In 2004, Petty Officer Knight realized he was gay. He ended his marriage and informed his commander.

He was discharged in April 2005, but because of an error in the paperwork, he remained eligible for recall.

Sure enough, Petty Officer Knight was recalled in 2006, and deployed to Kuwait. During that deployment, he served as an openly gay man and received high praise from those with whom he served.

In 2007, responding to a statement by GEN Peter Pace, then-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, that he viewed homosexuality as immoral, Jason Knight wrote a letter to the editor of Stars and Stripes.

In his letter, Petty Officer Knight wrote:

I spent four years in the Navy, buried fallen servicemembers as part of the Ceremonial Guard, served as a Hebrew Linguist in Navy Intelligence, and received awards for exemplary service. However, because I was gay, the Navy discharged me and recouped my $13,000 sign-on bonus. Nine months later, the Navy recalled me to active duty. Did I accept despite everything that happened? Of course I did, and I would do it again. Because I love the Navy and I love my country. And despite [General] Pace's opinion, my shipmates support me.

For writing those words, Jason Knight was discharged for a second time under don't ask, don't tell.

The men and women discharged under don't ask, don't tell are not asking to be treated as a special class. Just the opposite--they are asking to be treated like everyone else.

Some defenders of the status quo claim that things are working fine under don't ask, don't tell. How in the world can anyone say that after hearing these stories?

At a time when our Nation is fighting two wars, honorable men and women with proven records of outstanding service are being forced out of our military, they are having their careers destroyed, solely because they are gay. It is time for Congress to act and give our military leaders the time they need to bring this flawed policy to a responsible end.

We know that some branches and some members of our armed services are more skeptical than others of the ability of America's military to adapt to a repeal of don't ask, don't tell.

Lack of complete agreement is no reason to delay.

We have been here before. In 1948, when President Harry Truman signed Executive Order 9981 calling for an end to segregation in the armed forces, he also created a military advisory committee and charged them with examining military rules, procedures, and practices that interfered with equitable treatment of military personnel. It was called the President's Committee on Equality of Treatment and Opportunities in Armed Forces, but it became better known as the Fahy Committee, after its chairman.

In March of 1949, the three Service Secretaries testified before the Fahy Committee. The Secretaries of the Air Force and Navy testified in support of President Truman's executive order. But Secretary of the Army Kenneth Royall argued in favor of maintaining the status quo, saying that the Army was ``not an instrument of social evolution.''

As it turned out, Secretary Royall was wrong. The U.S. military--and the Army in particular--helped lead the way in creating the vibrant, integrated society we know today.

America has the best trained, most professional military in the history of the world. I am confident that our military can and will meet the challenges of ending discrimination based on sexual orientation, just as they helped lead the way in ending legalized racial discrimination in the past.

Former Senator Edward Brooke served in this body for 12 years in the 1960s and 1970s. He was the first African-American elected to the U.S. Senate since Reconstruction.

He remembers well the injustice of serving in a segregated Army. He recently wrote an impassioned plea for ending don't ask, don't tell. It appeared in the Boston Globe. I quoted from it when I spoke on this topic a few days ago. I want to do so again, because what he says bears repeating.

Senator Brooke wrote that don't ask, don't tell ``shows disrespect both for the individuals it targets and for the values our military was created to defend.''

He wrote:

Regardless of its target, prejudice is always the same. It finds novel expressions and capitalizes on new fears. But prejudice is never new and never right. One thing binds all prejudices together: irrational fear. Decades ago, black servicemembers were the objects of this fear. Many thought that integrating black and white soldiers would harm the military and society. Today, we see that segregation itself was the threat to our values.

He went on to say:

We know that laws that elevate one class of people over another run counter to America's ideals. Yet due to ``don't ask, don't tell,'' the very people who sacrifice the most to defend our values are subject to such a law. We owe them far more.

One month before President Truman's Executive Order, a Gallup poll showed that only one in four American adults supported ending racial segregation in our military.

Today, 75 percent of Americans say that gay men and lesbians should be allowed to serve openly.

A majority of our servicemembers and our top military leaders say it is time to end the discrimination against gay men and lesbians.

The time for change has come. The only question is whether we will act responsibly and give our military leaders the time they are seeking to make this transition. Or will we continue to delay and let the courts set the timetable?

America is ready to end don't ask, don't tell. Now it is our turn to take the next step forward and end a policy that offends our national principles and harms our national security.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the DREAM Act and in support of the repeal of don't ask, don't tell. I will focus my remarks on the DREAM Act, but I want to make it clear to my colleagues, you will not get many chances in the Senate in the course of your career to face clear votes on the issue of justice. This morning, you will have two--not one but two.

The question is whether the Senate will go on record as a Nation prepared to stop discrimination based on sexual orientation. It is a monumental question, a question of great moment, and a question we should face squarely.

There will be a vote, as well, on whether the Senate will stand by thousands of children in America who live in the shadows and dream of greatness. They are children who have been raised in this country. They stand in the classrooms and pledge allegiance to our flag. They sing our Star Spangled Banner, our national anthem. They believe in their heart of hearts this is home. This is the only country they have ever known. All they are asking for is a chance to serve this Nation. That is what the DREAM Act is all about.

Last night, Senator Bob Menendez, who has been my great ally on this, and I stayed late to speak on the Senate floor. I left and went upstairs, and there were many of these young people who were here in support of the DREAM Act, who came by my office and we spent a few minutes together. Some of them have ridden on buses for 28 hours from Austin, TX, to be here, to sit in this gallery, and to pray that 100 Senators will consider the issue of justice and stand up for them.

Some have come to the floor today and criticized this as a political stunt. I wish to tell my friends, I hope you understand my sincerity on this issue. I have been working on this issue for 10 years. These people have been waiting for more than 10 years. To say we are pushing and rushing a vote--for them, it can't come too soon because their lives hang in the balance.

I would just say this is not a procedural vote. It is not a political stunt. We are voting on a bill that has already passed the U.S. House of Representatives. If it passes on the floor of the Senate, it will become the law of the land with the President's signature.

I thank those who have brought us to this moment: the President, who was a cosponsor of the DREAM Act when he served in the Senate; Secretary of Interior Ken Salazar, who is on the floor today, as a former Member of the Senate. What a great ally you have been, Ken, throughout this entire debate; Secretary of Education Arne Duncan; Secretary of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano; and especially my friend, Senator Richard Lugar of Indiana. What an extraordinarily courageous man he has been to join me in cosponsoring this measure, which is controversial in some places.

What will this bill do? Let me make clear some of the things that have been said on the floor which are not accurate. First, when this bill is signed into law, the only people eligible to take advantage are those who have been in the United States for 5 years. Anybody who comes after 2005 cannot be eligible, and those who are eligible have 1 year to apply and to pay the $500 fee and then they have 5 years under the bill to do one of two things: to serve in our U.S. military and risk their lives for America or to finish at least 2 years of college.

What are the odds they are going to do those things? I will tell my colleagues. Today, about half the Hispanic youth in America don't finish high school. Only 1 out of 20 enters college in this status. So the odds are against them. But that isn't the end of it. There is a long list of things they must do in order to qualify for the DREAM Act, including background checks on their moral character and criminal records. If they have been convicted of a felony, they are ineligible; if they have been convicted of more than two misdemeanors, ineligible.

There have been things said on the floor by the Senator from Alabama and others that the Secretary of Homeland Security can waive this requirement. That is not true. It is not true.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a statement by the Department of Homeland Security which makes it eminently clear she has no power, no directive to have any power under the DREAM Act to waive any of these requirements which bar those with criminal records, who violate the law or have a history of terrorism or threat to national security.

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. Let me also say I join my colleague from Alabama in sadness over the loss of a life of a border guard. It is a terrible thing. These men and women are serving our country, and it is a tragedy. But can we blame these young people sitting in the galleries and across America for that, to question the border security? I am for border security.

In July, Senator Schumer came to the floor with Senator McCain and added $600 million more to border security without any objection from either side of the aisle. Oh, I suppose if we were playing this game of negotiating, we could have stood and said: No; no more money for border security until we get the DREAM Act. We didn't do it because we are as dedicated to border security as anyone, and we want to make sure people have the opportunity to vote for border security and to also vote for the DREAM Act.

Let me ask, at this point, how much time is remaining.

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. There is 5 minutes.

Mr. DURBIN. Five minutes. Thank you.

I wish to say a few things about the people who are involved in this. They are faceless and nameless until we bring them to the floor. This is Benita Veliz. Benita Veliz has an amazing story which I wish to share with my colleagues. Benita was brought to the United States by her parents in 1993, when she was 8 years old. She graduated valedictorian of her class, received a full scholarship to St. Mary's University in Texas, majoring in biology and sociology. Her honors thesis was on the DREAM Act. She sent me a copy of it.

What she has asked for, basically, she says in these words: I was called to a Cinco de Mayo community celebration and asked to sing the national anthems of the United States and Mexico. I couldn't do it. I only knew the words for the American national anthem. I am an American. I want to live my dream. Benita Veliz.

Meet this young man, another who would benefit from the DREAM Act. His name is Minchul Suk. This is an amazing story as well. Brought to the United States from South Korea at the age of 9, graduated from high school with a 4.2 GPA, graduated from UCLA with a degree in microbiology, immunology, and molecular genetics. With the help of the community, they raised enough money for him to finish dental school. He has taken his boards, but he cannot become a dentist in America because he is undocumented. Do we need more dentists in America? Yes, we do, and we need a man of his quality to serve our Nation.

I want you to meet this young man too. His name is David Cho. David is a man you might have seen on television. It is kind of an amazing story. David was brought to the United States at the age of 9, graduated with a 3.9 GPA in high school. He is now a senior at UCLA and the leader of the marching band. He wants to serve in the U.S. Air Force. I say to my friends who stand on the floor and protest their true belief that the military means so much to us as Americans, why would you deny these young people a chance to serve in the military? That is all I am asking.

The last story I wish to tell is about a young man from New York: Cesar Vargas. He has an amazing story. He was brought to this country at a very young age and when 9/11 occurred, he was so mad at those who attacked America he went down to the Marine Corps and said: I want to sign up, and they said: You can't; you are undocumented. So he continued on and is attending the New York University Law School now. He speaks five languages. He has had offers from the biggest law firms, for a lot of money. He turned them down. His dream, under the DREAM Act, is to enlist in the Marine Corps and serve in the Judge Advocate General Corps.

These are the faces of the DREAM Act, and the people who stand before us and try to characterize this as something else don't acknowledge the obvious. These are young men and women who can make America a better place.

I understand this is a difficult vote. It is a difficult vote for many. As a matter of fact, I am not asking for just a vote for the DREAM Act today. From some of my colleagues I am asking for much more. I am asking for what is, in effect, an act of political courage. Many of my colleagues have told me they are lying awake at night tossing and turning over this vote because you know how hard it is going to be politically; that some people will try to use it against you. But I would say, if you can summon the courage to vote for the DREAM Act today, you will join ranks with Senators before you who have come to the floor of this Senate and made history with their courage; who stood and said the cause of justice is worth the political risk. I am prepared to stand, they said, and vote for civil rights for African Americans, civil rights for women, civil rights for the disabled in America. I am prepared to go back home and face whatever comes.

Most of them have survived quite well because of their genuineness, their conviction and their strength and the fact that their courage is recognized and respected, even if someone disagrees with part of their vote. That is what we face today. We face the same challenge today. I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will summon the courage to vote for justice. We don't get many chances. When it comes to justice for these young people of the DREAM Act or justice for those of different sexual orientation to serve in the military, this is our moment in history to show our courage.

I yield the floor.

Source