WASHINGTON — A proposal barring women from combat support units won’t close any jobs or advancement opportunities that female servicemembers currently have, according to lawmakers supporting the new law.
At a news conference Tuesday, House Armed Services Committee Chairman Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., said the proposal — inserted last week into the committee’s 2006 defense budget proposal — simply codifies existing Pentagon policy barring women from combat-related posts.
An Army analysis provided to lawmakers last week stated the proposal could close at least 21,925 jobs to female soldiers. But Hunter said if the Army is complying with current Defense Department policy regarding women in combat roles — Army officials have said they are — then the changes should have no effect.
“It would be different if we were changing policy, but we’re simply holding the policy of the department,” he said.
Republicans at the news conference blasted critics for spreading “myths” that the new proposal would eliminate female troops’ opportunities. But Democrats, who voted against the proposal last week, said the measure clearly curtails the military’s options.
“By limiting women to only those jobs they perform today, it will be more difficult for commanders to adapt their forces to the changing needs of current operations around the world,” said Rep. Ike Skelton, D-Mo., ranking member of the committee.
“This language tells our commanders that Congress does not trust them to make their own decisions about battlefield needs.”
About 17,000 female soldiers are currently serving in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Army spokeswoman Lt. Col. Pamela Hart said the Army has not taken a position on the proposal, despite letters from Army Secretary Francis Harvey and Army Vice Chief of Staff Gen. Richard A. Cody to committee members asking them not to approve the amendment.
The identical letters, dated May 11, said the new law could create confusion over women’s roles in the war on terror, and urged lawmakers to wait until the Army finishes reviewing its policies regarding women in combat before approving any limits.
Hart said the Army is in full compliance with the current Defense Department rules banning women in combat.
“For practical purposes the effect of this language is to require that if the Army or Defense Department wants to change that policy, they must come to Congress,” Hunter said. “This is maintaining the status quo by assuring that any changes made concerning women in combat would be made by Congress and not unelected officials.”
A full House vote on the budget proposal is scheduled for Wednesday.
