[Page: S1262]

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I note my colleagues have come onto the floor since I started this presentation. So I will not suggest the absence of a quorum because I think other colleagues will seek the floor at this time.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.

The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

UNANIMOUS-CONSENT AGREEMENT

Further, notwithstanding this agreement, a relevant

amendment by Senator Brown subject to relevant second-degree amendments, a Pressler technical amendment, and a manager's amendment remain in order prior to third reading of S. 5; and further, that the three amendments listed--that is, an amendment by Senator Brown subject to relative second-degree amendments, a Pressler technical amendment, and a manager's amendment--be the only amendments in order pursuant to this agreement.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the unanimous-consent request propounded by the majority leader.

[Page: S1263]

Mr. MITCHELL addressed the Chair.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.

Mr. MITCHELL. That is correct, and it is my intention and understanding.

Just so Senators would be aware, what we are talking about here is that Senator Dole will offer an amendment that has already been at the desk. I will offer a second-degree amendment to it. We will have a period of debate of up to 4 hours. I hope we can conclude it in less than 4 hours, and I have already suggested to the Republican leader that we agree on both sides to reduce the time, and we will attempt to do that.

At the conclusion of the debate, Senator Dole will move to table my amendment, and there will be a rollcall vote on that. If the motion to table does not carry, then my amendment will be adopted by voice vote as an amendment to the original Dole amendment.

Subsequent to that, Senator Dole will reoffer the same amendment in the first degree. It will be identical. I will then move to table that amendment.

If my motion to table prevails, that ends the matter and we go to final passage. If my motion to table does not prevail, then Senator Dole's amendment No. 19 will be adopted by voice vote and then we will go to final passage.

I think I have stated our understanding correctly.

Mr. DOLE. The majority leader is correct. We will do our best on our side to reduce the debate, because of a number of conflicts that are going to be starting at about 6 or 6:30.

I thank the majority leader, and we are prepared to proceed.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the unanimous-consent request propounded by the majority leader, as amplified by the two leaders?

If not, that will be the order of the Senate.

Under the previous order, the Chair now recognizes the Republican leader for the purpose of offering an amendment.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time start running at 2:30.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, the time will be deemed to have begun running at 2:30.

Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, I do want to clarify to make absolutely certain that everyone understands, that the other amendments by Senator Brown, Senator Pressler, and the manager's amendment are debatable and we do not have time agreements on them. It is our hope that those can be completed promptly. But for Senators planning with respect to their schedule, under the agreement, those remain to be disposed of. We hope they will be done promptly, but we do not have time agreements on them yet.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the time will be deemed to have begun at 2:30 for the purpose of offering an amendment. The Republican leader is recognized.

AMENDMENT NO. 17

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.

The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Kansas [Mr. Dole], for himself, Mr. Thurmond, Mr. Coats, Mr. Gramm, Mr. Smith, Mr. Faircloth, Mr. Kempthorne, Mr. Warner, Mr. Lott, Mr. McCain, and Mr. Helms, proposes an amendment numbered 17.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection it is so ordered.

The amendment is as follows:

At the appropriate place, add the following:

SECTION 1. REVIEW OF DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE POLICY CONCERNING SERVICE OF HOMOSEXUALS IN THE ARMED FORCES.

A thorough review of all Executive orders, Department of Defense directives, and regulations of the military departments concerning the appointment, enlistment, and induction, and the retention, of homosexuals in the Armed Forces of the United States, shall be conducted by the Congress before July 15, 1993.

All Executive orders, Department of Defense directives, and regulations of the military departments concerning the appointment, enlistment, and induction, and the retention, of homosexuals in the Armed Forces of the United States, as in effect on January 1, 1993, shall remain in effect until the completion of this review with respect to the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps and unless changed by law.

Any proposed change in this policy shall be submitted by the President in the form of a bill and shall be introduced in each House of Congress by the majority leader in each House. The bill introduced in the Senate, placed on the calendar, be amendable with germane or relevant amendments, and shall be voted on no later than the close of business three days of session after its introduction.

The bill introduced in the House shall also be voted on no later than the close of business three days after its introduction. If both Houses agree to their separate bills, upon receipt of the House bill, if it is identical, the Senate shall be deemed to have passed the House bill in lieu of its own bill and the same shall be transmitted forthwith to the President.

Any conference report shall be nondebatable.

AMENDMENT NO. 18 TO AMENDMENT NO. 17

Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, I offer my amendment now at the desk as a second-degree amendment to the Dole amendment.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.

The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Maine [Mr. Mitchell] proposes an amendment numbered 18 to amendment No. 17.

Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection it is so ordered.

The amendment is as follows:

Strike all after section 1 and insert in lieu thereof the following:

It is the Sense of Congress that:

(a) The Secretary of Defense shall conduct a comprehensive review of current Departmental policy with respect to the service of homosexuals in the Armed Forces;

(b) Such review shall include the basis for the current policy of mandatory separation; the rights of all service men and women, and the effects of any change in such policy on morale, discipline, and military effectiveness;

(c) The Secretary shall report the results of such review and consultations and his recommendations to the President and to the Congress no later than July 15, 1993;

(d) The Senate Committee on Armed Services shall conduct--

(i) comprehensive hearings on the current military policy with respect to the service of homosexuals in the military services; and

(ii) shall conduct oversight hearings on the Secretary's recommendations as such are reported.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I will be making a statement later in the afternoon, maybe within an hour or so.

In the absence of Senator Thurmond, who is necessarily absent because of the death of his brother, I am going to designate the distinguished Senator from Indiana [Mr. Coats], to manage the bill on this side and also the time on this side.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Indiana as controlling time on that side of the aisle.

Who yields time?

Mr. COATS addressed the Chair.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Indiana [Mr. Coats].

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I yield myself 5 minutes.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized accordingly.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, it seems like we have traveled a long road. It has not been all that long, but it has been very intense. The debate has been intense, the negotiations have been intense.

I appreciate the majority leader and the minority leader's efforts in working out a situation here today whereby each side can present their argument and a vote can be held on the substance or the merits of the issue before us. On an issue of this controversy and one which has so ignited public opinion, I think it is important that the Senate have an opportunity to debate and vote on the merits of the issue.

We all know that there are a number of procedural ways in which a direct vote can be avoided in the Senate. Those of us who are in opposition to the President's stated change in policy relative to the service of homosexuals in the military believe very strongly that the U.S. Senate and the American people, through their elected representatives, have the opportunity to state their case as to why they do not believe this policy should change, why there should be, before any consideration of a policy change, consultation with the military, hearings before the U.S. Senate, ample opportunity for both sides to state their position on the issue and to explain why or why not the current policy is defective.

When distinguished military leaders, such as General Powell and General Schwarzkopf and many others, have so clearly indicated that this contemplated policy change is absolutely critical to our ability to field the kind of effective national security and military operation to secure the defense of the United States now and in the future, when it is absolutely essential that we examine it carefully before we move forward; we who support the current policy wanted to make sure we had ample opportunity to make our case.

We will have that opportunity. In the next 4 hours of debate, and in the two votes which will follow immediately after completion of that debate, Members of the Senate will have an opportunity to determine whether or not they support President Clinton's intention, as now implemented under agreement with the Joint Chiefs, to reverse decades of policy which, in effect, have excluded homosexuals from serving in the military or whether that policy is justified on the basis of 200 years of military experience and on the basis of those who have studied the issue thoroughly and on the basis of the testimony that has been received from those who are charged with implementing that policy.

Many of us here in this body have participated in the rebuilding of our military. We watched in the late sixties and seventies as a number of factors undermined the morale of our military, the esprit de corps, our fighting effectiveness. We watched as our Nation's military lost the respect of both friend and foe alike and we joined in an effort, beginning in 1980, to significantly rebuild our military. That effort came to fruition in the Persian Gulf and we saw the remarkable combination of quality people, quality training, and quality equipment brought together in a way that minimized loss of life to American men and women serving in the armed services as well as allied nations who joined us in that effort and remarkable success on the battlefield. This was no accident. This was the result of an extraordinary commitment, bipartisan I might say, commitment to rebuild our military, led by our President, supported by the Congress.

Mr. President, I ask to yield myself 5 more minutes of time.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for an additional 5 minutes.

[Page: S1264]

I think I could summarize the argument fairly quickly and then save time for my colleagues and hopefully myself to respond to other charges or questions as they arise during the course of this debate. I think I can summarize it best by stating just three essential points.

Many people who serve in the military today share a viewpoint that allowing homosexuals to serve in the military goes against their religious beliefs or moral convictions. Many of our young soldiers entering the military today are from families who hold very strong moral traditions, beliefs and convictions, and strong religious beliefs. Many military people have stated that a change in this policy will, over time, significantly affect our ability to retain many of the people whom we look to today for leadership in the military and will affect seriously our ability to recruit the needed people for the decade ahead to continue to supply the quality of people that we need in our military. Because, on the basis of their own personal religious convictions or their moral convictions, they see this change as creating an atmosphere in which they do not want their sons or daughters to serve, or which they themselves do not feel comfortable serving in.

Second, we fear that the change in policy will significantly reduce our ability to field an effective military force. Perhaps the most essential ingredient in an effective military force, as our military leaders tell us and as sergeants and captains and colonels and generals throughout the ages have said, is an intangible aspect that some define as morale, some define as esprit de corps, unit cohesiveness, discipline. General Powell has spoken to this. General Powell has indicated that change in this policy will undermine good order and discipline.

General Schwarzkopf said it will destroy the military. These are strong words. They need to be heeded. They need to be listened to. That intangible quality say, our field commanders, our sergeants, our platoon leaders, our battalion leaders--that quality is something that is fashioned in an extraordinary way through intense discipline, training, and it is derived on the basis of a unit cohesiveness that is critical to our effectiveness. It is important that we listen to our military leaders when they tell us that this change in policy will affect that is a very dramatic way.

Now, why? Why? Why does allowing homosexuals in the military affect that ability to field an efficient, effective military? Have not homosexuals served in the military, served as good patriots, served with courage, made

positive contributions? Absolutely, they have. But there is an essential element here present that is difficult to talk about, no one really wants to talk about, but it must be talked about for us to understand what is at stake. It is a three-letter word called sex.

For the same reason we do not put men and women together in the enforced intimate living situations that we find in our military which is different from every aspect of life--where people live together in barracks, sleep together in tents, shower together in makeshift showers in the desert sands of the Persian Gulf, dress and undress with each other--for the same reason we do not put men and women together in a situation like that because of the sexual attraction element which is one of the most basic of all human instincts and really does not need to be explained in a whole lot of detail--I think everyone understands that----

Mr. President, I yield myself 2 additional minutes.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for 2 additional minutes.

Mr. COATS. That is a tension-creating, conflict-creating, consequence-creating element that destroys morale, that undermines unit cohesiveness and effectiveness.

So we separate men and women. It is a problem but it is not an insurmountable problem.

When we are dealing with homosexuals who by definition have a sexual preference for someone of the same sex and put them in those same intimate enforced living conditions, we reach an insurmountable problem. It is a problem that unit and field commanders cannot overcome.

If the rationale is that we just simply have a behavioral code, then there is no justification or rationale to separate men and women. Because if the orders are simply everyone will be a professional, everyone must restrain their behavior or their conduct and it simply is bad conduct that results in disciplinary action, then there is no basis on which to say that men and women should not be put in the same situation.

The reality that we are facing is that the sexual instinct is inherent in all of us and we are simply tempting beyond individuals' ability to cope with situations--not all individuals but some individuals--when we set up a situation where that sexual attraction element is so present in those enforced 24-hour-day military-living situations.

For the reason, we need to closely examine the consequences of this, the implications of this, the way all of this will affect our military before we change the policy. Our objection is that President Clinton, instead of first getting the evidence and then making a determination about the policy, has insisted on a policy change. And the policy has now changed. And that is the issue before us. I hope we can develop that as we move along.

At this point I believe my time has expired.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?

[Page: S1265]

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Smith] is recognized for up to 10 minutes.

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, during the recent Presidential campaign, candidate Clinton repeatedly criticized the vigilance of President Bush in defense and foreign policy issues and promised that, if elected, he would focus like a laser beam on economic issues.

But, ironically, shortly after taking office, this beam is being focused by President Clinton at our Armed Forces and it is igniting a blaze of controversy and dissent throughout the Nation.

By acting to overturn the ban on homosexuals in the military, the President I believe has embarked on a very dangerous course, a course which jeopardizes the readiness and the morale of the U.S. military: the best military in the world.

From the outset, let me say I believe it is a grave mistake, both substantively and procedurally. From a procedural standpoint, the President is acting unilaterally, without proper consultation with Congress and against the strong objections of his military advisers, including the Joint Chiefs. In fact, it has been widely reported that President Clinton strategized with gay rights advocates before consulting his own Joint Chiefs as to how to approach this volatile issue.

I find it extremely troubling that someone with no military experience and a controversial record of opposition to past military campaigns can so casually dismiss the input of our Nation's most trusted and experienced military commanders.

The substance of the President's initiative is even more objectionable. The existing policy embodied in Department of Defense directives is based on the concept of military necessity. It states that homosexuality is incompatible with military service, and that the presence in the military environment of persons who engage in homosexual conduct or who, in their statements, demonstrate a propensity to engage in homosexual conduct seriously impairs the accomplishment of the military mission.

Military necessity is and should be the driving issue here and the Federal courts have traditionally accepted the argument that national security concerns demand wide latitude in military personnel policies.

Mr. President, in his attempt to overturn this policy, President Clinton is shifting the focus away from military necessity toward equal opportunity. However, this approach is inherently and fatally flawed. The U.S. military is not designed to be a mirror of society as a whole. It is a unique community of individuals who possess the mental and physical discipline required to excel in an extremely demanding environment, sometimes a life-threatening environment. Civilian standards of equal opportunity are simply not compatible with the military regime. Whether it be rules about weight or hair length, curbs on free speech, or off-duty behavior, the military discriminates in ways that would not be tolerated in civilian society, and it must. This long accepted practice is necessary and appropriate given the unique circumstances which accompany military service. Where the defense of our Nation is concerned, the rights of the individual should never take precedence over the mission and duty of the unit.

There are many compelling reasons to maintain the existing Defense Department policy. Unlike civilian society, military service entails forced association, often in very close, cramped quarters such as on ships, submarines, barracks, or in crude field conditions. Military personnel eat together, sleep together, shower together, and share the same latrines. Privacy and modesty are unaffordable luxuries. Opening the ranks to homosexuals would exacerbate this hardship and transgress upon the legitimate privacy rights of heterosexual soldiers who may find homosexuality offensive and corrupt.

One thing is for certain, by legitimizing homosexuality in the Armed Forces, the President is ensuring that homosexual behavior will, inevitably, become more brazen and prevalent. Promiscuity, already a major health problem in the homosexual community, will likely increase in on-base clubs, local nightclubs, and throughout forces deployed worldwide. While some may dismiss this threat as exaggerated, the reality is that such promiscuity could have a very direct impact on the incidence of sexually transmitted diseases within the Armed Forces.

According to the British Journal of Medicine, the probability of homosexuals contracting sexually transmitted diseases is 20 to 50 times greater than heterosexuals. Lifting the ban on homosexuals will almost certainly increase the incidence of these diseases, including HIV infections, which are the precursor to AIDS. And since soldiers must be available to provide life-saving transfusions in combat, the military's walking blood bank would be endangered.

Perhaps most importantly, the presence of openly gay personnel will undermine morale and unit cohesion. Although today's U.S. military is the best trained, best equipped fighting force in the world, morale is already suffering from massive, ongoing personnel reductions. In addition, the President intends to eliminate 200,000 more personnel in the coming years, which will necessitate widespread involuntary separations. Consequently, morale within the All-Volunteer Force is plummeting, Mr. President, as loyal soldiers with distinguished records of achievement are being forced out of service to meet arbitrary budget reductions. Now, those who survive the downsizing are confronted with what, for many, is the abhorrent prospect of serving in an environment where open homosexuality is tolerated and, indeed, legitimized.

What kind of message is the new Commander in Chief sending to our Armed Forces? While candidate Clinton vowed to be a different kind of Democrat, President Clinton is rapidly establishing himself as a traditional antidefenese liberal. His radical military agenda, featuring meat-ax budget cuts and legitimization of homosexuality, I believe is reckless. And although the Joint Chiefs, rank and file service personnel, and every major veterans organization oppose lifting the ban, the President is callously disregarding their input in favor of the special interests of one community.

Mr. President, simply put, this process is a sham. Although the President has decided to defer final action for 6 months, it is a foregone conclusion that he will, in fact, overturn the ban. He said it. Thus, the so-called comprehensive hearings on this issue which Senator Nunn will chair are nothing more than a formality that will have no impact on the outcome. The President has made up his mind and no sage wisdom or testimony to the contrary will be considered. I, for one, object to it. And judging by the abundance of phone calls, faxes, and letters raining in on Capitol Hill, the American people do, as well. From the State of New Hampshire alone, phone calls are running more than 5-to-1 in opposition to lifting the ban.

As public servants and American citizens, all of us hope that the President succeeds in improving America. But the portrait of the New Commander in Chief that emerges today is disturbing. Instead of

approaching this fundamental national security issue in a balanced, statesmanlike manner, the President is acting brashly to advance the radical agenda of one community. His decision to recklessly overturn 40 years of personnel policy is nothing short of arrogant. The consequences may be devastating, yet the President apparently is not giving it a second thought.

What should the American people infer from President Clinton's action? While candidate Clinton was quick to dismiss concerns over his antiwar activities and lack of military service as political hype, the fact remains that, in his first military initiative as Commander in Chief, President Clinton has declared war on his own Armed Forces. This ill-conceived, poorly timed battle hardly assuages concerns over the President's moral authority and leadership qualities. To the contrary, it can only rekindle and amplify lingering concerns from the campaign.

Mr. President, setting aside all of the media hype and competing special interest agendas, this issue boils down to one of military readiness. War is not a game. It is not about what is fashionable, it is not about what is politically correct. It is an ugly, brutal business in which success has no substitute.

Men and women die in war. Fathers and mothers and brothers and sisters and parents and families send these young men and women into combat and many times they die.

Those of us who have served in the military and gone to war know that unit cohesion, discipline, and morale are indispensable components of readiness. Anything that erodes these elements undermines the capability and effectiveness of the force.

If President Clinton would listen to those who are most qualified to comment on this issue, he would know that lifting the ban will open a Pandora's box of trouble. Take for instance, Gen. Norman Schwartzkopf, whose stewardship of Desert Storm earned him a distinguished place in military history. When questioned about lifting the ban, General Schwartzkopf replied that `allowing homosexuals into the military will destroy the military.' There is certainly no ambiguity there, and that same sentiment has been echoed throughout the country by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, active and retired military personnel, and a plethora of veterans organizations. It is a sad statement, indeed, that the Joint Chiefs had to specifically request a meeting with the new Commander in Chief in order to have any opportunity to convey the services viewpoint on the issue.

In closing, Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support the Dole amendment. Allowing homosexuals to serve in the military is prejudicial to good order and discipline, and will undermine morale and unit cohesion. Those who have served in the Armed Forces understand that, in the military regime, homosexuality is not just another lifestyle choice. It is an orientation that is simply incompatible with military service. The Armed Forces oppose lifting the ban. The American people oppose lifting the ban and if the President will not respect the will of the American public and heed their call, Congress must. I urge the adoption of the Dole amendment and yield back the remainder of my time.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kerry). Who yields time? The Senator from Georgia.

[Page: S1266]

I think everyone ought to be clear what this second-degree amendment does and what it does not do, and everyone ought to be clear about what President Clinton's directive that was announced last Friday does as opposed to his original plan for the Executive order.

Mr. President, the Mitchell amendment does not change the existing policy of the Defense Department excluding homosexuals from serving the Armed Forces. A vote for this amendment is not a vote to permit homosexuals to serve in the Armed Forces.

What the Mitchell amendment does is endorse the 6-month review period of this entire issue which was announced last Friday by President Clinton. What it does is say that neither the Congress nor the executive branch is going to take any final, determinative action on this issue at this time. Instead, both the Congress and the executive branch are going to spend the next 6 months carefully reviewing the basis for the current policy and the consequences of potential changes to that policy.

So my disagreement with my colleagues who have already spoken today and others who may speak on behalf of the Dole amendment is not a disagreement on substance. My strong feeling is we do not need any amendment at this time, and I will enumerate both why I am in favor of the second-degree amendment sponsored by the majority leader and why I do not support the Dole amendment.

Mr. President, the amendment sponsored by the majority leader directs the Secretary of Defense, in close consultation with the civilian and military leadership of the Department of Defense, to conduct a comprehensive review of the current Defense Department policy with respect to the service of homosexuals in the Armed Forces. The Secretary will report the results of his review and consultations to the President and to the Congress no later than July 15, 1993.

The majority leader's amendment also directs the Armed Services Committee to conduct comprehensive hearings on the issue of homosexuals in the Armed Forces, and on any recommendations in this area made by the Secretary of Defense.

If this amendment passes, Mr. President, the Senate will have 6 months to carefully review the Defense Department's policy on excluding homosexuals from the Armed Forces. Frankly, my hope is that once the Senate debates this issue and once we dispose of this issue this afternoon, we will be able to shift Congress' and the Nation's attention for the next several months to the truly important issues that face our country--the issue of economic growth, the issue of jobs, the issue of savings, the issue of deficit reduction, the issue of investment, the issue of health care, and the issue that we now have pending of family leave policy, so important to our children.

Mr. President, let me take a few minutes to discuss what I believe the compromise by President Clinton clearly set forth last week.

First, and most importantly, for the average officer or noncommissioned officer in the field who works directly with our troops, the compromise announced by President Clinton will not make a single change in the way that commander operates in the next 6 months. When there is an accusation or admission of homosexuality, a commander in the field will process the case in exactly the same manner that it was handled before last Friday's announcement.

Under the compromise, commanding officers will continue to process cases for discharge under the current laws and regulations relating to homosexuality. Cases involving homosexual conduct will be processed through actual separation and discharge, in accordance with current policy.

Cases involving only homosexual status--that is, those

cases not involving any homosexual acts or conduct, where someone simply indicates they are homosexual--will be processed through all the administrative proceedings: Notice of the allegation; a hearing before a board of officers; review by the separation authority; and approval by separation authority. If the separation action is approved, the person will be separated from active duty.

Let us be clear on this important point. No member of the Armed Forces in the next 6 months who is found to be a homosexual will be retained on active duty under the compromise directive just put into effect.

If the Attorney General suspends the discharge of a person that is engaged only in a status case, if that happens, then that person will be placed in the Standby Reserve--not in a Reserve unit, but in the Standby Reserve--without pay until such time as this policy is concluded one way or the other. Then that individual, if the policy is reversed later, then at that stage that person in the Standby Reserve will be able to apply to return to active duty.

The Standby Reserve includes individuals in a nonpay status who are not affiliated with any unit or position designated for mobilization in the Ready Reserve. Individuals in the Standby Reserve would have the option, upon request, to return to active duty if the policy is change. If the policy is not changed, these persons would be discharged.

In all cases involving homosexual conduct and status, the compromise makes it clear that commanding officers may direct changes in the assignment of personnel during the course of separation proceedings if they determine that such changes are in the best interests of the individual or the unit concerned.

The second major element of the compromise, Mr. President, is that the Defense Department will no longer ask incoming recruits about their sexual orientation. This is really the only significant change in policy that has taken place. However, the compromise places renewed and appropriate emphasis on informing all military members of the laws and regulations on sexual conduct which apply to them, not just on homosexual conduct but on important issues like sexual harassment. The briefings on military justice, which all recruits are required to receive when they join the military and periodically thereafter, will include a detailed explanation of the applicable laws and regulations governing sexual conduct by members of the Armed Forces.

Under the final component of the compromise, the Department of Justice will seek continuances in pending court cases involving former military members who have already been discharged on the basis of homosexuality and who are seeking reinstatement. The continuances will simply freeze those cases, which means they will not get back into the military, until the completion of the review directed by the President.

Mr. President, the Armed Services Committee's hearings on this issue will begin next month. As Members will recall from the debate on the defense authorization bill last year, our committee would have held these hearings even without the events of the last 2 weeks. Even if President Bush had been reelected, we would have held these hearings, because I made a firm commitment to Senator Metzenbaum on the floor of the Senate last year, when he had a proposal which would have lifted the ban on homosexuals in the military. I opposed that provision on the floor last year. But I did state to my colleague from Ohio that we would have hearings this year. And we will.

Mr. President, I hope that our hearings will be thorough, fair, and comprehensive. We will receive testimony from the senior civilian and military leadership of the Department of Defense. I also think we ought to hear directly from the people who will be most affected by any change in the current policy, that is, the men and women in our military uniforms who serve in the ranks of our services throughout this country and the world. We will make every effort to hear from those who support a change in the current policy, as well as those who favor retention of the current policy. We will not simply hear from the top ranking officials, but we will hear from those who will be most vividly affected. We will hear from our enlisted personnel, as well as our young officers.

Mr. President, I start--as I have said many times--from the premise that we should encourage every American to serve his or her country in some capacity. I am a strong supporter of national service. I applaud the patriotism of all persons, including homosexuals, who desire to serve our Nation in the military.

I have no doubt that homosexuals have served and are today serving in the Armed Forces with distinction. But most of them--and this is very important--are not today openly disclosing that sexual orientation.

I also believe, however, that we must give careful consideration to the advice of our military commanders on this subject. Gen. Colin Powell, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has stated that in view of the unique conditions of military service, active and open homosexuality by members of the armed services will have a very negative effect on the military morale and discipline.

I have said for many months now that I agree with General Powell's assessment. I also believe, however, that we have to listen to other points of view, and that is what we will be doing in the Armed Services Committee. I hope all of us on both sides of this issue will be willing to listen to both sides.

Mr. President, every man and woman in this country has a right to be respected. Our Constitution enshrines individual rights and liberties. Our Constitution also underscores the essential role of the U.S. Government in providing for our common defense. When the interests of some individuals bear upon the cohesion and effectiveness of an institution on which our national security depends, we must be very cautious and careful and prudent.

If there is one thing I have learned on military matters in 20 years in the Senate, it is that our Armed Forces will function extremely well if we respect and support their basic requirements for cohesion and effectiveness. Resolving this conflict between individual rights and the basic needs of our military is difficult, but our Nation has had an effective military because we have achieved an acceptable balance. This balance must be maintained.

All of us must recognize the military is not like every other walk of life. Most people--in fact, almost everyone in the military, at one time or another, is called to give up some of their constitutional rights that they would have if they were in society. They do not have full first amendment rights. Anyone who walks in as a private and tells a sergeant what he thinks, fully and completely, everything on his mind, will find out very quickly that the first amendment of the U.S. Constitution does not fully apply in the military.

Anyone who says to the sergeant or chief petty officer at night, when they come into the barracks and ask for an inspection, that they are exercising their rights under the fourth amendment of the Constitution against search and seizure will carefully and quickly be disabused of that full constitutional protection.

And everyone who has served in the military, or even observed, knows that the military gives up a tremendous right of privacy that all of us exercise on the outside. I think all of us have to understand that. And we have to maintain the balance between the constitutional requirements protecting individuals, and the constitutional requirement that we in the Congress maintain armies and navies and protect our national security.

I would like to make this clear: The Joint Chiefs, every member of the Joint Chiefs supports the statement that President Clinton made last Friday. That is the statement that would be overturned by the Dole amendment. But every single member of the Joint Chiefs--to the best of my knowledge, as reflected by General Powell's clear statement--supports the statement that President Clinton made last Friday, which was the compromise.

In General Powell's words, the Joint Chiefs `* * * believe that the 6-month period of time that we have been given to work this issue, to study it, to hear the views of all concerned, and to work with the Congress will give us the time to do this without the press of the current situation on us.'

Mr. President, this is a difficult and emotional issue. None of the debate on this issue should be taken as an excuse by anyone in our military services--or, indeed, anyone in our entire country--to engage in unacceptable behavior.

We have the most capable military in the world today because of the strong military leaders who instill good order and discipline throughout the ranks of our military services. Members of the Armed Forces know that violence against people in their own ranks or in the civilian community is incompatible with good order and discipline, and is completely incompatible with expectations of our military men and women.

Physical abuse of homosexuals by members of the Armed Forces cannot and should not be tolerated at any time, any place, by any commander. A strong signal must go out from every military commander from the very highest levels right down through the ranks making sure that every individual in our Armed Forces knows that we in this country condemn any instances of this kind of behavior.

Mr. President, in the coming months I hope that all of the interested parties will participate in a constructive and a deliberate discussion of all the questions raised by potential changes to the current Defense Department policy of excluding homosexuals from military service. I outlined a long series of questions in a speech on the Senate floor last week concerning the consequences of changing the policy in the way the President originally indicated he planned to make the changes.

In a few moments I will outline the questions that will come up if, indeed, we pass the Dole amendment. I have urged from the very beginning that the President basically be cautious in moving forward, and that he think carefully about these questions before he issues an Executive order.

I also urge my colleagues in the Senate to listen carefully to the remarks I will make in a few minutes outlining the questions which I do not believe have been thought about that would ensue if the Dole amendment passed and became law.

Mr. President, it is up to all of us on both sides of this issue to look before we leap and to make sure we are not guilty of the old saying, ready, fire, aim. We need to aim before we fire.

I believe that the amendment today that is being proposed--I will go over that in detail in a few minutes--if we pass it, we would be guilty of the old saying, ready, fire, aim. We would not know what we are doing. There are just about as many questions that come up that relate to this amendment as there are questions that would have come up if the Executive order had been issued as it was originally envisioned.

Mr. President, I retain the remainder of the time and yield the floor.

[Page: S1268]

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.

Mr. COHEN. I yield myself 5 minutes of Senator Coats' time.

Mr. President, first let me commend the chairman of the Armed Services Committee for his statement and for the work he has done. Were it not for Senator Nunn, were he not able to slow down or stop the train, I think we would be in a far more difficult position than we are today.

We were initially under the impression that President Clinton did not consult with Senator Nunn or anyone else in the Senate on this issue. However, Senator Nunn has had several meetings

with President Clinton regarding this matter but was simply not able to persuade him to defer any Executive action until hearings have been held. In fact, President Clinton has moved ahead despite Senator Nunn's recommendations.

I am not certain that every member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff agrees completely with the position articulated by the President last week. I have tried to contact at least one member, if not more, of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and they have been, in essence, muzzled. They are not in a position to speak about this issue to anyone. I am not prepared to say they fully support the position of the President, but, nonetheless, he is Commander in Chief. They will either salute him and proceed with his policy or consider resigning in opposition.

Mr. NUNN. Will the Senator yield for a brief observation? I do not mean to say the Joint Chiefs agree with the President's position, including his statement that he planned at some point to move forward with the Executive order. They disagree with that. They do not want the policy changes.

What I intended and hope I indicated was that what they agreed with was the carefully worded directive the President handed down for what would happen over the next 6 months.

Mr. COHEN. I thank the Senator for his clarification. I think we have to be very careful in how this vote is characterized. On one hand, some say that those who support Senator Dole's amendment are antigay. If you follow that argument, then you would also say that those who support Senator Nunn's or Senator Mitchell's position are completely for gays in the military. Neither conclusion is warranted. I think that we have to address this as a procedural matter. This is a debate over what is the proper procedure. The President's position has been, or at least perceived by many of us as, you go ahead and hold your hearings; I intend to move forward in July.

That to me, is not an acceptable position. Frankly, I think we ought to hold hearings first and then decide how to proceed.

President Clinton and I have one thing in common. Neither one of us has ever served in the armed services. For that reason, I think we have to proceed carefully. The President and Congress have an equal responsibility and an equal power in deciding this issue, and must proceed with caution.

The President and I have something else in common. We feel we must root out discrimination wherever we find it. We both know that our society has historically and, to a great degree, continues to discriminate based upon race, sex, age, and religion. We both believe discrimination based on these factors is intolerable and unconstitutional.

At issue here is whether it is permissible to discriminate based upon sexual orientation. This matter is unclear. As Senator Nunn has pointed out, homosexuals have served in the military for years. They are equally patriotic, equally courageous, and

equally capable to any heterosexual soldier. That is a given.

As we all know, there is no rational basis for discriminating based on race, sex, age, or religion. Is there a rational basis to exclude gays from the military?

I do not know the answer to this question. I have not served in the Navy or the Marine Corps. I do not know what the living conditions would dictate under those circumstances. I do not know if lifting the ban would have a negative impact upon morale, unit cohesion, and discipline. Maybe we can formulate policies to minimize, if not eliminate, anything that undermines these three very important factors.

During the next several months of hearings I will keep an open mind about whether we can change our policies to accommodate gays in the military without undermining morale, unit cohesion and discipline.

I hope that we will consider the entire spectrum of this issue. During the hearings, we expect to call the Joint Chiefs of Staff and General Powell, who stand in opposition to changing the ban. However, there are other individuals who favor lifting the ban. I hope that they will be included among the witnesses, as well as those who currently serve in the military and those who will serve in the future.

As I have indicated before, I intend to support Senator Dole but with the forewarning that I am completely open to lifting the ban. I am open to the idea if I can be persuaded that it can be done without compromising the readiness, effectiveness, efficiency and morale of the military.

I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Wyoming.

Mr. WALLOP. Mr. President, let me echo the comments of Senator Cohen, that the Senate, the Congress, and the country owes the distinguished chairman of the committee for giving us the time and ability to make judgments on this.

Mr. President, there is one thing that many who have not served in the military, and many who maybe even have served in the military, seem to drop in their consideration of this argument. This is not a gay bashing question. This is not a social issue. This is a military policy issue.

Mr. President, I say that among the most important considerations for most Americans in this is to understand that the military of the United States is America's last pure meritocracy. Therefore, it is not the same kind of issue as was--as many have stated--bringing blacks into coequal

service in the military.

This is quite different than that. That is unchangeable by the participants. All of us in this country--black, white, Hispanic, and Asian--took tremendous pride in the achievements of the military in the gulf. Since that time, we have commented to each other not how well blacks have performed or Asians, but how well our military performed.

Why do we say that? It is because those in the military are promoted, are maintained in military service on one basis, and one basis alone, and that is their merit, achievement as soldiers, sailors, airmen, male or female; they are kept in service and advanced and promoted solely on the basis of how well they perform. They do not have the office of economic opportunity. They do not have the Justice Department. They do not have anybody else overlooking who gets promoted, who is permitted to reenlist, who is not promoted or is passed over for promotion. It is a judgment, albeit from time to time probably unfair, but mostly not, because the demonstrated capability of the men and women of the armed services of the United States is based solely on their ability to perform jobs and duties for which they have been enlisted and enrolled.

Mr. President, if you take a behavioral issue and insert it into that equation, and if one is able to claim that one has not been promoted, or one has been passed over for promotion, or one has in fact not be permitted to reenlist, on the basis that one is gay, and we go to the courts and we determine in the courts that that may have been part of the judgment, and all of a sudden merit leaves the whole performance standard of the Armed Forces of the United States, instantaneously that happens. Commanders no longer dare make judgments as to who in their unit is most able and most worthy of promotion. Commanders will suddenly have to make a judgment based on other elements than performance.

Mr. President, this would be catastrophic for a nation downsizing its military forces, for a nation choosing to be capable, but smaller, and the farther we remove capability from the judgment of those who get to say who stays, who advances and who performs what job, the less capable, the less certain America becomes of the Armed Forces that serve it, protect it and project it.

Mr. President, that is fundamentally the issue. It is the issue of being able to promote solely on the basis of performance and not to be able to be challenged in court on the basis of other lifestyle projections.

Mr. President, I want to express my dismay and surprise at the confrontational and uninformed way in which President Clinton has chosen to deal with the issue of homosexuals in the military. This is a curious arena in which to make his first major national security decision; with pressing crises around the world and our forces deployed on missions in Iraq and Somalia, President Clinton has decided to ignore the advice of his uniformed military advisers and perform politically motivated social experiments with the American military. I find it hard to believe that a man with no military experience would so carelessly dismiss the 200 years of combined military experience possessed by the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

In addition to ignoring the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the President also has attempted to usurp Congress' role in regulating the Armed Forces. As article I, section 8 of the Constitution clearly states, the Congress shall have the power to, `make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces.' We should not relinquish that duty to a new imperial Presidency. This is not a simple housekeeping question. Lifting the ban on homosexuals would fundamentally alter military conduct and threaten discipline, morale, and effectiveness.

Congress must be involved in deciding the merits of such a dramatic change before it is implemented. Since the President has already taken preliminary action that amounts to a partial lifting of the ban, it is only appropriate for Congress to now consider this issue.

Under the banner of a compromise within his own party, the President, says he has delayed for 6 months making any changes; but this just isn't so, he has changed the rules, and has no intention of listening to the results of any hearings. If President Clinton assumes that he can simply suspend existing policy while Congress waits patiently he is seriously misguided.

I will support the Republican leader's amendment since, unlike the President's action, it does not prejudge the outcome of congressional hearings and it permits an unbiased 6-month review. I also support the Dole amendment since it requires that any changes to current policy be undertaken in as a change in law. This issue must ultimately be decided by a vote in Congress.

Mr. President, before we vote on this issue, let me express my own views. Homosexuals have the same rights as all citizens in this county, as is proper and just. That is not the issue.

The military is not just another American organization or place of employment. It is governed with a clear goal of providing a means of projecting and protecting American's interests. It is in the business of fighting and winning wars. Federal courts have rejected any constitutional right to serve in the Armed Forces or any right to a military career or to continued service. Service in the military is a privilege that can be ended at any time based on the changing needs of the military.

The core of the argument, supported by the supreme court, is that the military is a specialized form of society drawn from civilian society, and must be free to accomplish its mission. Mr. Aspin has no basis to suggest that the courts will somehow step in and make the change. The district court ruling in California is only a ploy; it will be overturned when it arrives at the Supreme Court as have previous cases for judicially changing military regulations. Supreme Court opinions in the area of military necessity versus individual rights have been clear and consistently in favor of military necessity as the overriding consideration. My colleague, Senator Nunn was right to recall the differences in military and civilian life in his recent statement, when he reminded us that requirements of discipline supersede the rights of free association and some of the rights included in the first amendment.

The High Court has repeatedly sustained the argument that the military must be free to accomplish its mission. Chief Justice Rehnquist's opinion in the Goldman case sums it up well:

[Page: S1269]

So, Mr. President, Mr. Aspin should know better than to assume that the courts will somehow lift the burden from the administration to make its case.

The key point here is that military necessity requires stricter standards of behavior and lifestyle. Military readiness is the correct reference in the present debate unless changed by Congress.

Those who favor lifting the ban on homosexuals in the military have sought to shift the frame of reference, from military necessity to equal opportunity. We should not confuse the two concepts or attempt to apply one in a context where it does not fully apply. To do so would undermine the military's long supported right, if not duty, to regulate its society to provide for combat effectiveness.

As Senator Coats recently pointed out in the New York Times:

Lifting the ban will inevitably mean privileged treatment. Will a base have to provide housing for homosexual couples as it does for families: Will same-sex `dependents' receive medical benefits? Will quotas be required in hiring and promotion?

It this sounds hysterical, consider this portion of a letter to the Superintendent of West Point by an ACT UP member who was a Clinton volunteer:

Lifting the ban is not enough. * * * We intend to sue in Federal Court as soon as the ban is lifted to insure compensatory representation in the service academies. In particular we intend to get a ruling mandating a set number of places for homosexuals in the Air Force Academy, the Naval Academy, and West Point.

Homosexuals argue that it's not a matter of integrating them into the military since they are already there. Much is made of the apparently distinguished service of selected individuals who came out of the closet. This misses the point: Sure, there are some gays who fit in, but the exception does not prove the rule. Once the sanctions are lifted, they will be free to conduct themselves as they see fit. Even if sodomy is still proscribed, obvious gay behavior will undermine privacy, morale, and discipline.

Nor is the fact that other countries allow homosexuals in the military reason for us to follow suit. In fact, those countries that permit homosexuals to serve in the military have serious problems. Most of them must severely discriminate against them to protect privacy, cohesiveness, and morale. Some do not allow gays to possess security clearances or become officers. Promotion opportunities are limited. Even extremely liberal countries like Holland face serious problems of morale.

Mr. President, the Congress has a duty to the people in the armed services to guarantee policies that protect them and acknowledge the unique nature of the society they voluntarily entered into in order to protect us. As Senators, we have a duty to listen to our constituents, and we have a duty to the Constitution to govern and regulate the Armed Forces.

The existing policy is comprehensive in its reasoning and stands on its own as a tried and tested guarantor of military effectiveness. This policy must be reaffirmed, in my view, in a statutory form, not to condemn anyone or to restrict anyone's rights, but rather to provide for the common defense.

Mr. President, we must be clear about one thing: Military service is a privilege not a right. Access to the military has never been fair. Because victories in combat are achieved by cohesive units, the Armed Forces routinely sacrifice individual interests to ensure unit cohesion. Military service is legally restricted or denied entirely to patriotic Americans who are too tall, too short, too fat, color blind, flat footed, and mentally or physically handicapped in any way. In the civilian world we aggressively seek to protect the civil rights of these groups, but in the military, they simply do not belong.

There are other restrictions; single parents, for example, are not allowed to enlist. This is no reflection on the inherent worth of these people as human beings; they are simply not suited for military service. Professional military judgment and experience indicate that mixing known homosexuals and heterosexuals degrades cohesion and combat effectiveness. It is not the individual qualities of the homosexual, but rather homosexuality itself, which is incompatible with military service.

Mr. President, the administration has tried to cloud the discussion by referring to this as a matter of status versus behavior; that somehow homosexuals can be integrated into service life as long as their behavior isn't against regulations. Mr. President, this explanation is foolish at best, and can be explained by the simple analogy of requiring military men and women to share the same showers and open barracks, yet promising to punish only those who trouble others or misbehave. Status versus behavior is high sounding foolishness, and intentionally confuses the discussion.

If the President feels he can just sign an order and end the problem, he is wrong. Military effectiveness rests on more than commands from above. Men and women risk their lives, but only because they trust their commanders and their comrades--and their commander in chief. Most Americans are uncomfortable with homosexuality in the military; in a September 4, 1992, USA Weekend survey, 67 percent of the respondents wanted the ban to continue. No change in Pentagon policy can change these feelings. A commanding officer who is known to be gay will encounter so much mistrust, if not hostility, that his ability to lead his unit will be severely compromised. All kinds of orders and punishments will not make men and women willingly put their lives in his hands.

And finally, there is the President's clarification on the issue. He now tells us that he doesn't see why homosexuals can't be allowed to serve, it's just that they can't behave badly or act contrary to the law.

I believe this administration has the burden of proof to convince this Nation that the actions they propose would not impair military effectiveness.

Since no one in the administration is willing to listen to any but themselves, Congress must act now to codify the current policy. Any meritorious changes to this standard can then be reviewed and debated in the normal manner of hearings and floor debates and votes on specific changes. In the meantime, we should assure our service personnel that there will be no suspension of the policy or other modification not based on a thorough review and fully debated approach.

[Page: S1270]

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Lautenberg). The Senator from Alaska is recognized.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I think the question of sanctioning the presence of homosexuals in the military is certainly one that this body recognizes is a difficult and very diverse issue. I think it is an issue that can only be fully addressed with the passage of time and careful deliberation by this body.

At the outset of a new administration, in a Nation beset with a variety of vexing problems, this is certainly not the issue that should have emerged at the top of our collective priority list. Yet, here we are, engaged in a debate today that most of the Members of this body did not seek.

Make no mistake about it, President Clinton, in choosing this issue as his first foray into the defense area, is the one responsible for filling our mailrooms, jamming our switchboards, and overburdening our fax machines with expressions of public opinion and outrage opinion.

I can understand how President Clinton, sensing his miscalculation, would prefer to place the issue on the back burner for 6 months. But the pot was already been brought to boil, so we are forced to deal with it and deal with it now.

In most instances, an individual's private behavior and his or her own private life should certainly not be a Government concern. But when a particular behavior has the ability to adversely affect good order and discipline in our armed services, it suddenly has an impact on one of the Government's principal obligations and constitutional duties, to provide for the common defense.

Mr. President, over the past several weeks, I have listened intently to a number of my constituents, many of whom have served, or are serving, in our Armed Forces. By an overwhelming margin, Alaskans oppose a policy of reversal.

Those who have personally led troops in combat are most adamant in their opposition to lifting the ban. They are alarmed that a President with no military experience has reaffirmed his desire to eventually reverse the current policy, notwithstanding the advice of the Joint Chiefs of Staff based on some 200 years of combined military service.

Mr. President, my position is clear. It is not an issue of rights. I am certainly not critical of those who choose a lifestyle. I think individuals have a right to choose their lifestyle. But serving in the military, Mr. President, is not a right, it is a privilege. Not everybody can serve in the military. One gives up certain rights in going into the military, and I think that is the basic difference, Mr. President. Military service is a privilege, not a right.

I have a great deal of confidence in my colleagues on the Armed Services Committee to examine matters. The hearings that they will be holding clearly will bring to light a vast variety of specifics with regard to this issue.

But as the ranking member on the Veterans' Affairs Committee, I have asked the chairman, Chairman Rockefeller, to convene a hearing on this issue as it impacts the Department of Veterans Affairs, and its ability to serve our Nation's veterans.

I think this is an area that has been overlooked, Mr. President. VA has an obligation to provide health care of our veterans, and this proposal would supply an additional burden.

Hearings before the Veterans' Affairs Committee would give the veterans of this Nation the opportunity to be heard, since this change could well affect them and the level of benefits that they might receive in the future.

For example, Newsweek reported that homosexual men account for over two-thirds of all reported AIDS cases. The AMA, American Medical Association, advises us that 50,000 Americans will die of AIDS this year. If homosexuals have a higher incidence of sexually transmitted disease than heterosexuals, what will be the effect on the VA medical centers as larger numbers of newly eligible homosexual veterans seek care in the VA Health Care System?

Mr. President, we simply do not know.

Under current conditions, VA projects that the costs of AIDS treatment will increase 20 percent per year. If the costs of VA AIDS treatment are further increased by the addition of a high risk population to the veteran population, the Congress will be faced with a choice of making substantial increased appropriations for veterans' health care, or requiring VA to absorb the costs.

Mr. President, there is only one way the VA could absorb the costs--by reducing treatment to other veterans or providing more dollars.

A decision to admit gays to the military will not be a free one. That decision will be paid for in increased funding for VA, or by the veterans VA must turn away in order to care for the new AIDS cases the decision will bring.

I submit that no matter which option we take, the cost will be high.

If additional funding for veterans' health care is available, there is no shortage of urgently needed and unmet needs within the VA Health Care System right now.

According to the CDC 60 percent of the AIDS cases in adult men reported in fiscal year 1992 were the result of men having sex with men. If gay men represent 10 percent to 15 percent of the male population and have 60 percent of the new cases reported, it is clear that the gay population still brings an increased risk of AIDS to the table.

In comparison, 48 percent of the AIDS cases treated by VA have been the result of homosexual contact. VA has treated over 12,000 veterans with AIDS, 6 percent of all AIDS treatment in this country. VA spent $233 million treating veterans with AIDS in 1990. By 1995, that amount is projected to increase to $581 million.

If gays are openly admitted to the uniformed services, we can expect the profile of transmission for AIDS cases in the veteran population to take on the same characteristics as transmission in the male population as a whole.

That is, the percentage of cases due to gay sex will likely increase over time from the 48 percent currently found in the veteran population to the 60 percent found in the general adult male population.

Mr. President, that is a 12-percent increase, and it is reasonable to expect that it would bring with it a 12-percent increase in cost.

If more funding is not available, I do not want to see VA health care professionals in the position of having to decide whether to turn away new AIDS patients or to turn away other veterans because the resources are not available to treat both.

There are other issues as well:

Mr. President, this body does not yet know precisely the effect of AIDS on veterans' insurance programs, but I am developing that information. I predict we will find that the impact is substantial, and that if gays are allowed to serve openly in our Armed Forces the impact will increase. The Senate, the President, and America's veterans should have hard data on this question before a decision on admitting gays to the military is made.

Would the VA become mired in controversy and litigation to determine if gay soldiers' partners are dependents or survivors for purposes of VA benefit programs?

Under the current policy, HIV infections contracted in the military are now considered service-connected disabilities for which compensation is paid. Gladly, there have been relatively few cases. What would be the effect of an open military admission policy for gays?

I would hope that the Veterans Affairs' Committee can hold open, frank hearings on these and other matters, and I trust that our committee chairman and my good friend, Jay Rockefeller, will agree with me and other Members that such hearings for veterans are important in the resolution of this matter of military policy.

Mr. President, it is noteworthy that the American Legion, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, and AMVETS--three of the Nation's largest and most influential veterans organizations--oppose a change in current military policy on homosexuals. Moreover, the Association of the U.S. Army, the Navy League, the Air Force Association, the National Guard Association, the Marine Corps League, the Reserve Officers Association, and the Retired Officers Association are united with veterans organizations on this matter.

Mr. President, it is a certainty that our military forces will be tasked to perform diverse missions in the future, ranging from peacekeeping and humanitarian relief to rapid deployment response and engagement. We cannot risk military capability for the sake of a well-intentioned but misguided notion of social engineering. In a similar vein, we should not take an action that undermines the range of veterans benefits that Congress has so carefully crafted through the years, intended to reward for faithful service those injured in harm's way, and to restore those who sacrificed life and limb for country.

I am pleased to be a cosponsor of the pending amendment with Senator Dole.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a list of organizations supporting the ban on homosexuals in the military be printed in the Record.

There being no objection, the list was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:

[Page: S1271]

Organizations Supporting the Ban on Homosexuals in the Military

Naval Reserve Association.

The Retired Officers Association.

Retired Enlisted Association.

Non Commissioned Officers Association.

Marine Corps League.

Association of the U.S. Army.

Marine Corps Reserve Officers Association.

Enlisted Association of the National Guard.

U.S. Army Warrant Officer Association.

Fleet Reserve Association.

Jewish War Veterans.

Air Force Association.

Military Chaplains Association.

National Association of Uniformed Services.

Veterans of Foreign Wars.

The Military Coalition.

Air Force Sergeants Association.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?

Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Nebraska.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska is recognized.

Mr. EXON. I thank the Chair, and I thank my friend and colleague, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee.

Mr. President, I am not going to take much of the Senate's time today on this matter. I would simply start out by referencing a statement that I made immediately following the very thoughtful, very detailed and reasoned statement made by the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Senator Nunn. I would reference anyone who is interested to the Record of January 27, starting on page S. 757, a statement that I made at that time.

I have had the privilege to serve my country in the armed services and I alluded to that service and some experience that I have had in this particular area. I would simply appeal to all involved to comment on whatever they think are the legitimate merits of the situation, but let us try and keep away from the emotionalism as much as we can.

I want to start out by saluting Senator Nunn, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, once again working in conjunction with the majority leader, for putting together what I think is a proposal that can go a long ways in solving the problem that exists. And I do not for a minute indicate that there is not a problem.

I would simply say, Mr. President, that since I have had the privilege of serving my country, that does not make me any more of an expert on this, I guess, than any other. So I simply say that I hope that all of us would think back to our experiences, the experience of others, the compassion that I think we have to look to for all involved in this controversy, but, above all else, let us do as we usually do to conduct he business of the U.S. Senate as best we can on factual debate and thought and reason together and not try to inflame people with comments and suggestions that would take this beyond what I think is the responsibility of the Senate, and that is to come and reason together to try and work out a compromise.

Mr. President, the prospect of lifting the ban on homosexuals in the military has set off a firestorm of controversy. We can all agree on that. Since President Clinton announced his intention to keep his commitment, the matter has consumed the media's attention and touched a nerve in the American public like few issues before it.

As a World War II veteran and a 14-year member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I hope I bring an informed perspective to this debate on the implications of a change. Still, I have approached the issue with compassion for all those affected, directly or indirectly, one way or the other, on the issue.

Over the last 2 weeks, I have listened closely to the arguments made by both proponents and opponents. I have listened to the concerns expressed by servicemen and women, officers and enlisted. I have taken into account the opinions of heterosexuals and homosexuals, veterans and civilians. I have discussed the pros and cons of the reform with the President himself and other Senators. Like my colleagues, my office has been deluged by hundreds of phone calls and letters from constituents. This outpouring of views from Nebraskans has been a valuable counsel to me as I have considered the advisability of making a change in this area.

Although I must say that, contrary to what some of my constituents have felt, I have never, ever advanced a proposal, nor have I seriously considered, to this moment, at least, and probably will not in the future, the permanent and total lifting of the ban. But there is a lot of reasonable ground in between, I suggest.

The agreement reached between the President and Members of this body, including Senator Nunn and Senator Mitchell, to postpone the final decision until hearings can be held on the implications and consequences of the change is a wise one. We need to be slow and deliberate about the President's wishes. This study time will provide us with a much-needed cooling off period to better address objectively the concerns raised to date. Similarly, a temporary moratorium on asking new recruits about their sexual orientation and halting final discharge action of those homosexuals currently in the military is in keeping with the President's belief that conduct, not status, should be the determining factor when it comes to military service to your country. I can support this interim policy because it does not limit the existing authority of a commander to reassign any individual service person, heterosexual or homosexual, from a unit who may be a disruptive force to the unit's morale or operation for any reason.

In retrospect, the President in my view should have acted with more deliberation and consultation with the men and women in the services and the Congress. There are many questions to get answered on this subject before a final decision on a change should be made. The first priority of the Armed Forces is the national security of the United States. The military is not designed and should not be used as a laboratory for volatile social change. Congress has a special obligation to those in uniform to fully examine the implications of change on personal privacy and unit cohesion. Our chief concern must always be what is best for the Armed Forces as a whole, not necessarily what is best for the individual. I believe the hearings scheduled next month in the Armed Services Committee will be helpful in sorting out these very complex and complicated matters.

Amid all the emotion that this debate has generated and all the sensationalistic speculation over what changes may mean to our Armed Forces, I worry that less and less attention is being paid to the fundamental pillar of service in the military: the conduct of the individual. Is the essential ingredient. I repeat: The conduct of the individual, regardless of their sexual persuasion. In my view it is premature to draw the conclusions the President has reached. Likewise, opponents of the President's wishes are in error when they elevate an individual's status above his or her conduct and ability to serve in our Armed Forces.

The facts of the matter are that somewhere between 100,000 and 300,000 people now serving in the military are homosexuals. I think we should recognize that whether you are a heterosexual or a homosexual, you do not fit a type that has been so prominently displayed and offered so very often for homosexuals.

For these reasons, I oppose the Dole amendment and support the second-degree amendment before the body. The Congress needs time to work with the President on this complex and emotional issue, and explore in depth the consequences of what we are about.

Codifying now the ban on homosexuals in the military prejudges this study period and, in my view, is inappropriate at this time. There is clearly a time to get things done. There is clearly a time for constructive evaluation.

This is clearly a time for constructive evaluation. This is clearly a time not to rush to emotional judgment. Let us proceed in an orderly fashion, with the Congress not further challenging the President at this juncture, nor the President further challenging the Congress.

Prudent hearings and reasoning together may produce a workable compromise.

I thank the chairman of the committee. I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

[Page: S1272]

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama is recognized for 3 minutes.

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I rise today to address the issue of the military's right to make homosexuality a disqualification to serve in the Armed Forces. I do not think that anyone questions the premise that the personnel in military services occupy a different status from the status accorded American nonmilitary citizens. The military is not a democratic institution. The military must operate from an authoritative basis, where discipline and command prevail over a large number of individual rights. Many constitutionally protected rights are not available to its members. It involves a quasi-caste system. An individual's right to freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of protest, and other fundamental rights are greatly curtailed because of the unique demands of national security.

There is a large body of law that has developed under the provisions of section 8 of article 1 of our Constitution. Because of this body of law, I would like to approach this issue through a discussion of relevant judicial decisions. In my review of the legal history, I am convinced that it confirms my position that the ban on homosexuals in the military should remain in place.

The courts have long recognized the uniqueness of the military. In the case of Parker v. Levy, 417 U.S. 733 (1974), the Supreme Court noted that it has long recognized that the military is, by necessity, a specialized society separate from civilian society. This difference has led the military to develop laws and traditions of its own during its long history. The Court points out that these differences between the military and civilian communities result from the fact that it is the primary business of armies and navies to fight or be ready to fight wars should the occasion arise.

Much of the debate on this issue lately has failed to take this distinction between the military sector and the civilian sector into account. Any thoughtful discourse on the matter must give this distinction the utmost consideration. Although the Parker decision was not one concerned with homosexuals in the military, it directly addressed the issue of the rights of the individual in the military, thereby establishing a framework the Court has subsequently used to examine a number of cases involving constitutional claims brought by service personnel.

In the 1981 case of Rostker v. Goldberg, 453 U.S. 57, the Supreme Court heard arguments from several males challenging, on fifth amendment grounds, the Military Selective Service Act that required registration for males but not females. The Court ruled that the provision did not violate the fifth amendment, and that Congress acted within its constitutional authority to raise and regulate armies and navies.

For our discussion here today, this opinion provides some helpful insight into Congress' role in this matter. Justice Rehnquist, in delivering the opinion of the Court, noted that a case of this nature was not merely a case involving the customary deference accorded congressional decisions, but rather this case arose in the context of Congress' authority over National defense and military affairs, and perhaps in no other area has the Court accorded Congress greater difference.

This deference to Congress was brought out again in the 1983 Supreme Court decision, Chappell v. Wallace, 462 U.S. 296. The Court confirmed its earlier position recognizing the unique disciplinary structure of the Military Establishment.

Writing for the Court, Chief Justice Burger noted that many of the Framers of the Constitution had recently experienced the rigors of military life and were well aware of the differences between it and civilian life. In drafting the Constitution they anticipated the issues raised in this case. Their response was an explicit grant of plenary authority to Congress to raise and support armies; to provide and maintain a Navy; and to make rules for the Government and regulation of the land and naval forces.

This framework has been followed in several circuits on matters more directly on point. In Rich v. Secretary of the Army, 735 F.2D 1220 (1984), the tenth circuit affirmed a district court decision which upheld an Army regulation that discharged petitioner for fraudulent enlistment when Army learned that in enlistment process, the soldier had falsely represented that he was not homosexual.

The court, in its opinion, clearly stated that they did not accept plaintiff's contention that the Army's policy of excluding homosexuals violated his rights under the equal protection component of the fifth amendment. The court noted that--

[Page: S1273]

The seventh circuit came to a similar conclusion in the case of Ben-Shalom v. Marsh, 881 F.2D 454 (1989). In that case, the court ruled that plaintiff's constitutional rights were not violated by the application of Army regulation making homosexuality or admitted homosexuality a nonwaivable disqualification to service in the military.

This case was directly on the issue of status. The court found that a rational basis standard of review was the correct test to be used in an equal protection analysis, and that the Army satisfied that standard without any difficulty.

Many point to the recent district court decision in California finding the Army's policy unconstitutional. This case, however, appears to be an aberration that will have difficulty on appeal. The judge in that case cites the ninth circuit case of Pruitt v. Cheney, 963 F.2D 1160, as authority for his decision. The Pruitt case, a case which concentrates on the issue of a summary judgment ruling, only restates the position of other circuits in pointing out that under an equal protection claim regarding a discharge based on status, the correct standard of review is a rational basis test.

The court, in the same opinion, went on to strongly acknowledge that military decisions by the Army are not lightly to be overruled by the judiciary.

Thus, contrary to years of legal precedent, the district judge in California found that the Army had no rational basis, in essence, no legitimate reason for the Army's policy. It is my estimation that the court of appeals will not so easily dismiss the Army's reasons for the regulation.

Mr. President, the military runs on a different system than the civilian sector. We, as a nation, entrust our security to the men and women who serve in our Armed Forces. In their service, they subordinate the rights of the individual in order to serve the whole. It is a system that has served this Nation well for many years.

My opposition to changing the military policy comes from a deference to the opinion of those who work so hard for the interests of our Nation's security. I believe a change in the policy regarding homosexuals in the military would be an error and go against the legal precedent as well as the carefully considered decisions of our military leaders.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?

Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Illinois.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois is recognized.

Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Mr. President, few matters are more vital to America's security than the readiness of the military forces who defend the values which we all cherish.

One of those values, Mr. President, is the protection of individual rights.

Yet even as our new President and Commander in Chief seeks to advance those rights by removing the unfair and outdated ban on gays and lesbians in the military, we hear disturbing voices across the land.

As we listen to those who tell us that gays and lesbians will destroy the military, the simple truth is that this debate is not about military capability at all. It is about irrational fears and prejudices. It is about civil rights and leadership in a democratic society.

The issue today, Mr. President, is simple: Do we move forward as a society, recognizing the talents and dignity of all of our citizens? Or do we allow our differences to pit one American against the other and take this country down a painful road we have traveled before?

The Pentagon tells us flatly that homosexuality is incompatible with military service. As a military leader, the Commandant of the Marine Corps, asked in defending the ban presently:

How would you react if your son called and informed you that his roommates for the next 2 years were two homosexuals * * *?

This is not the first time the military has had such concerns. I want to quote a 1942 Navy memorandum.

`Men on board ship live in particularly close association,' warned a 1942 Navy memorandum. `In their messes one man sits beside another; their hammocks or bunks are close together; in their common tasks they work side by side. * * *'

`How many white men would choose, of their own accord, that their close associates in sleeping quarters, at mess and in a gun's crew should be of another race?' the Navy's top admirals asked.

In 1948, speaking in favor of a measure to guarantee to any American the right to serve in a military unit comprised exclusively of members of his own race, one Member of this body said:

I know that perspectives are often blurred by the desire to capture the votes of a highly organized and vocal minority.

Some Senators of that era feared that allowing negroes and whites to serve together would have grave public health consequences. `The mandatory intermingling of the races' one said, would be `sure to increase the number of men who will be disabled through communicable diseases.'

And Senators in opposition to President Truman's directive insisted that they were in no way opposed to basic civil rights for all. They simply felt duty-bound, Mr. President, to defer to the Pentagon's expert judgment on the issue.

How many of those very same arguments have we heard repeated this year with regard to President Clinton's proposed directive to integrate gay and lesbians in the military?

While the discrimination faced by African-Americans often takes different forms from that faced by gay and lesbian Americans, this much we can say with absolute certainty: The military has no more of a rational basis for banning bays and lesbians in 1993 than it did for segregating African-Americans in 1943.

Old beliefs die hard, Mr. President. But when they stand in the way of equal opportunity for any American, die they must.

Gay and lesbian Americans love their country as much as any other Americans. And like any other Americans, they deserve the choice to be judged on their conduct, character, and capabilities--not persecuted because of their status alone.

Today, Mr. President, those who would keep gays and lesbians out of the military desperately cling to one last straw: the privacy argument.

It is unthinkable, they tell us, that straight men and women could properly function if occasionally forced to share a shower or a bunk with a gay or a lesbian. This last issue, they insist, goes to the very heart of an individual's most personal beliefs.

I can remember when it was just as unthinkable to ask a white American to drink from the same water fountain or swim in the same pool as a black American.

The issue is not privacy, the issue is the invasion of privacy or any other conduct on the part of any soldier or sailor, whether homosexual or heterosexual, that constitutes sexual harassment. If the U.S. military is truly concerned about the environment created by sexual harassment in the ranks, this Senator suggests that the Pentagon start by bringing to full justice those involved in the Tailhook affair and by implementing immediate measures to ensure that standards for sexual conduct and behavior are fairly applied without regard to gender.

But let us for a moment take the Joint Chiefs of Staff at their word--that the presence of openly gay and lesbian soldiers and sailors would destroy the morale and unit cohesion which allow the military to effectively carry out its mission.

We would expect, then, that in wartime--when unit cohesion can literally mean the difference between life and death--the military would be especially vigilant in ferreting out and discharging gay soldiers. But

in fact, Mr. President, the record clearly demonstrates that precisely the opposite is true. From World War II through Operation Desert Storm, whenever American Forces have gone into battle the Pentagon has always found a way to keep suspected or acknowledged homosexuals in uniform.

And when in harm's way, incidents like the one related in this week's Newsweek magazine represent the real story of gays in the military:

[Page: S1274]

During that night in the foxhole, the men huddled together in their suffocating chemical warfare suits. They could not see one another, but to reassure themselves that they were all still alive, each man kept one hand on the other. No one seemed to mind that one of those hands belonged to a homosexual, the soldier remembers--they all had more important things to think about.

Mr. President, we need to think about the important things. It is time for each and every American to ask himself or herself--is it fair to open the closet door in wartime and ask our gay and lesbian

sons and daughters to die in their country's uniform, yet in times of peace relentlessly hound them back into the closet and strip away the same uniform they once so bravely donned?

In 1948, the military leadership felt that black and white could not and would serve together. We now know, Mr. President, that since 1948 millions of white Americans have made such a choice. They have fought, eaten, and slept side by side with African-Americans with no impairment of military readiness whatsoever.

And from those experiences, Mr. President, they have forged an America that is stronger now than at any time in its history. Stronger now because its people are more unified and more respectful of their glorious diversity than ever before.

Despite my disagreement with the Joint Chiefs of Staff on this issue, I have confidence in our military leadership's ability to carry out the orders of their Commander in Chief.

I can even appreciate General Powell's dilemma when he said:

I've got to consider what you say to a youngster who might come and say, General, in the most private of my accommodations, I prefer to have heterosexuals around me than homosexuals.

This is what you say to that youngster, General Powell. Tell him that he's in our Armed Forces now. Tell him that he's a proud member of the greatest fighting forces in the world.

Remind him that his homosexual platoonmates

have also volunteered to give their lives for their country and the values we all hold dear. Remind him that they, like all members of our military, will be held to the strictest codes of conduct and behavior.

But most importantly, General Powell, tell him that the greatest danger he faces is not in his private accommodations. It is from the forces of hate and fear in this country that 40 years ago would have denied to you the opportunity to lead.

Tell him that if he can defeat the enemy within himself he will be ready to confront any enemy abroad. Wish him a long and distinguished career in the service, and tell him that by the end of his 40 years in uniform you hope he will have seen as many changes for the better in our military and the imperfect society it defends as you have in yours.

Mr. President, I stand in support of President Clinton on this issue, and I do not need 6 months or even 6 days to make up my mind. I want to end this baseless discrimination. I would like to see it end now. However, I am prepared to support the amendment that is before us.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Mississippi.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi is recognized.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I want to thank the distinguished Senator from Indiana for yielding me this time and also for the very fine and thoughtful statement he has made both today and in the past on this subject. He has done a good job, and we appreciate his leadership on this issue.

As we listen to this debate across America, one of the things that comes to my mind is who should we really be listening to? There are many elected officials and there are many military men and women who certainly are going to be very thoughtful in their remarks. But who should we listen more to than the most respected military leaders we have in America today? We have a national hero in Gen. Colin Powell, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. We have all admired him for the job he has done, for the things that he stands for, the job he has done in that position. Let us listen to just two of his quotes on the subject:

It's my judgment, the judgment of the Joint Chiefs, that homosexual behavior is inconsistent with maintaining good order and discipline.

With regard to the question of race, and certainly he feels especially sensitive to this question, he said in the text of a letter to Representative Pat Schroeder in 1992 this:

Skin color is a benign, nonbehavioral characteristic. Sexual orientation is perhaps the most profound of human behavioral characteristics. Comparison of the two is a convenient but invalid argument.

Gen. Carl Mundy, Commandant of the U.S. Marine Corps, said just in December 1992:

I do support the ban against homosexuals in the military. I believe that homosexual conduct, that the gay lifestyle embodies those things that are contrary to good order and discipline in the military.

That is what two of the most respected military men in the world today had to say on this issue.

Before I get into some more substance, I want to emphasize one point, and I am sure our distinguished leader, Bob Dole, will emphasize this later on. A lot of people are going to look at this debate and look at the procedure and they are going to say what is really going on? Let me make it clear. After 3 days of struggling, the Republicans have secured from the Democratic leader an opportunity to have a vote on this issue. But let us make clear what that vote is.

If you as a Senator think that homosexuals and lesbians

should receive special status in the military, then you need to vote to table the Dole amendment. If, on the other hand, you think that allowing homosexuals in the military will reduce military readiness and effectiveness, you should vote no on the motion to table the Dole amendment. Make no mistake about it, the vote on the question of whether or not to allow homosexuals in the military is a vote that you will cast on the Dole amendment. It will be on a motion to table, but clearly that is where the issue will be decided today. So that the people here in the Chamber and so that those listening and watching will understand, that is the vote, and it will occur today.

Another thing that I have some people say to me when they call is, you are right, have a vote on this issue, make a statement, take a stand but why are you doing it now? Let us not mistake it at all. The Senators did not ask for this, Democrat or Republican. We thought we would be focused on the economy, on economic growth, on the creation of jobs and on how to reduce the deficit and on welfare reform, all very needed, necessary, important things, and yet here we are today voting on the question of homosexuals in the military. Why? It is because the President decided for reasons I do not understand to move immediately on this issue, to take a peremptory action.

Thanks to the efforts of the Senator from Georgia, there were some modifications, but make no mistake about it, the President said, you can have your hearings, but we are going forward; this is a done deal, I am going to remove the ban on homosexuals in the military. He did not consult with his Joint Chiefs of Staff until after he made that decision. He did not really consult with the Armed Services Committee and many others who would like to be heard on this issue on both sides. No, he went forward and said I am going to do it. He modified it a little, but in the end he said, no, July 15, I have my mind made up. This issue is over.

Well, I have a surprise for him. The Congress is involved in this issue.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bradley). The Senator's 5 minutes have expired.

[Page: S1275]

Mr. COATS. I wonder if I could talk the Senator into 2.

Mr. LOTT. I will try 2 and, if I need another one, I will hit the Senator again.

Mr. COATS. All right.

Mr. LOTT. Section 1, article VIII of the Constitution says Congress has the responsibility and obligation to set laws and regulations governing the military. We should be heard on this issue, and we will be heard on this issue.

We are here today voting on this because the President insisted on going forward. This is the wrong thing to do. It is prejudicial; it is before consultation and before hearings. We should lock into place the ban on homosexuals in the military that existed January 1, 1993. Let us have hearings. Let us have discussions. Then let us make a decision, talking with the President, and let us have a vote on it if any modification is justified after July 15. But to make the decision and then have the hearings, the American people do not understand that. I do not understand that.

There are many questions unanswered. You have heard some of them today: Family housing. What do you do about gay partners in the military, health care, blood supply, public displays of emotion in uniform, changes that may be required or requested by homosexuals and lesbians in the Uniform Code of Military Justice, not to mention recruitment, retention, readiness, and all the other military questions that are involved.

We have not thought this through, I say to my colleagues. The President moved too quickly. Let us say, time out; keep in place the law that existed January 1; have the hearings; consider this matter; and then decide with a vote of the Congress on what the final verdicts will be. We have bigger, more important fish to fry. Let us have this vote. Let us lock in the ban now. Let us debate and then decide in July the final decision.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.

Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from California.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator from California is recognized.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Chair.

I rise in support of the Mitchell amendment. I agree with President Clinton's plan to end the policy that prohibits gay men and lesbians from serving in our country's armed services.

As the five Democratic women of this body said in a joint statement last week, `The United States military is filled with brave men and women who risk their lives to defend their country. Competence, courage, willingness to serve one's country--not sexual orientation--should be the criteria for those wishing to enlist.'

I note that at least one Federal judge agrees. Judge Terry J. Hatter, in the Central District of California, recently held, in the case of CPO Keith Meinhold, that:

Gays and lesbians have served, and continue to serve, the United States military with honor, pride, dignity, and loyalty.

He goes on to say in his opinion:

The Department of Defense's justifications for its policy banning gays and lesbians from military service are based on cultural myths and false stereotypes. These justifications are baseless and very similar to the reasons offered to keep the military racially segregated in the 1940's.

The simple question is: Should everyone have an opportunity to serve our country in the Armed Forces without fear of discrimination, without blind prejudice? I answer that question with a strong `yes.'

Incidents such as the Tailhook scandal illustrate an obvious need for strict enforcement of strong rules of conduct. Clearly, after Tailhook, a reexamination of conduct is in order. Strong rules should be in place and enforced across the board. Therefore, I support Senator Mitchell's amendment, which allows time to work on a code of conduct which can, hopefully, be applied to all.

In his decision, Judge Hatter also points out that `of all the countries in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, only the United States and Great Britain ban gays and lesbians from their Armed Forces. On October 27, 1992, Canada's military leaders rescinded Canada's policy of banning gays and lesbians from the Canadian forces.'

Heroism, I believe, is a trait that does not know race, color, creed, sex, or sexual orientation. Take, for example, an incident which occurred in San Francisco while I was mayor when a women named Sarah Jane Moore attempted to assassinate President Gerald Ford. She fired one shot, and a man stepped forward and saved the President's life before she could fire a second. That man was a gay man. That man was also a former marine.

It is time, Mr. President, to see that all who qualify can serve in our Armed Forces. Even before repeal of the ban, we know there are thousands of gay men and lesbians who wish nothing more than to serve their country and who are today in the military willing to give their lives.

I remain firm in the belief that America's military is a great fighting force and will be even greater in the days to come.

Thank you very much, Mr. President.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?

Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I will be glad to yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Ohio.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio is recognized.

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I rise in support of Senator Mitchell's amendment. We have heard a lot of talk on the floor about different aspects of this particular problem. I was asked a few days ago by another Senator--or it came out in one of our meetings--as to just why the military objects to what the President is proposing and what effect it would have. I responded with something I would like to repeat here today, that it is not just about civil rights.

Let me repeat, I back Senator Mitchell's proposal. I think we do have to study this. I think the time has come to study it. And what our investigation in these hearings will result in I, frankly, do not know.

But I think when we take the attitude that the military and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and all the service chiefs are just obstructionist in nature when they object to something like this, that is just not the case.

I used as an example some of my own experience of some 23 years in the Marine Corps. I do not want anybody to interpret that these hearings are going to be slanted in a certain way, or that I will come down a certain way. I am clearly looking for the truth as to what we can do with regard to this problem, and in the extensive hearings we plan to hold we should be able to bring the facts out and decide the direction we need to go.

But let me say this. In preparing people for combat military training prepares people to do some absolutely stupid things, things that just in the interest of self-preservation, nobody in their right mind would normally do. That is what combat is all about. We can talk all day about civil rights and about whether people are capable of doing this or capable of doing something else. Of course, from a civil rights standpoint, if that was all it was, there is not any question about how this would be decided. But is there a civil right for everybody to be in the military? Do we exclude people for certain reasons? Yes, we do. Whether we are in a time when we overcome some of that right now, I do not know. But military training basically teaches people to do things they would not otherwise be able to do just from their own instincts of self-preservation.

How do we make people do that? Well, we do it by a rather circuitous route. We send people to boot camp or recruit training, and what do you do? The first thing you do is you take every civilian vestige away from them, as much as you possibly can. You shave their heads and you take their civies and send them back home or burn them on the spot, and you put them through training where they are degraded as much as they possibly can be without just losing all sense of propriety, the drill sergeant yelling in their faces. Movies are not exaggerating the situation when they show things like that. What you try to do is take people down to a common denominator of that person's body, mind, and psyche and try to divest that person of all civilian retention of the idea of rights, and freedom of speech, and freedom of assembly.

Unheard of. You give up those rights in the interest of what? In the interest eventually, you hope, of winning battles. And what do you do then? Once you have that squad there--and you are with those few people, you start trying to rebuild these people. You remold them along certain lines. You remold them along the lines where hopefully, when they come out of recruit training, they have more loyalty to the people they are with in that squad than anything else, and it even transcends their fear of being hurt, their fear of being wounded, their fear of being killed.

I do not know how many of my colleagues have read the book by James Webb, who was Secretary of the Navy a few years ago, a very decorated combat veteran from Vietnam.

He wrote a book called `Fields of Fire.' I was quite taken with it. I sat down to read it several years ago. It is one book I did not put down. I read it straight through until about 4 or 5 in the morning. I think it is the only book that I read straight through in a long time.

His theme in that book was that when people go off to war, they go off, the flags fly, the bunting is out there, the people march, the bands play, they are off to preserve freedom for democracy--all these great thoughts, great things.

It is fine to be dedicated that way. Then you come home from war, and it is the same thing, flags, you hope the parades are there, people appreciate what you have done--`I fought for freedom, democracy,' all these sorts of things. But in combat--what did you do in combat?

Jim Webb's theme in that book is that when you are in combat in the infantry in that jungle situation your whole universe is brought down to not great theories of freedom, democracy, things like that. Does a person jump out of a foxhole and take some grenades over to the next foxhole when he is being shot at, think `I will preserve freedom forever?'

I'll tell you what he is interested in. He is interested in survival. He is interested in whether or not the other guys are going to cover him; whether somebody got shot; if he gets wounded, will they come and pull him out of there.

In other words, the whole universe of combat narrows down to a very, very few. You and a few. That is what military training trains people to do.

My first commanding officer in the Marine Corps when I got out of flight training as a brand new 2d Lieutenant in World War II days was Pete Haines. I joined the squadron which was about to get Corsairs and we were training in southern California. Pete, who later became one of my very best friends, was my CO at that time as a marine major.

We were joking in his office one day waiting for a meeting to start, joking a little about the people who were coming back from Guadalcanal--much in the news at that time, how they had done great things; some real heroic activities out there. I was sitting there waiting for the other people to arrive. I said, `what makes Marine training any better than any other?' I was sort of half joking about it. He got very serious. He pointed his finger and said, `Lieutenant, marine training makes a man more afraid of letting his buddies down than he is getting hurt himself.' I always remembered that.

I do not mean to restrict it to the Marine Corps here. All training in the military that puts people through recruit training, whether it is Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, tries to instill in people the kind of camaraderie where people are more afraid of letting their buddies down than they are of getting hurt themselves.

That is stupid by any normal civilian measurement; absolutely 100 percent stupid. Yet that is the very basis of military training.

I think that is why when the Joint Chiefs have some honest concerns, we should listen carefully. I do not know whether I will eventually vote with the Joint Chiefs at the end of all of this or not, or whether at the end of hearings where we really investigated all of this, that the Joint Chiefs may in fact be willing to say, well, OK, maybe times have changed. Maybe we have a new day now in the military; maybe we should consider some of these things that we could not consider back a decade or two decades or four decades ago.

Now, maybe, is a time when we can consider some of these things. We have to look into all aspects of this.

Is it something that I think we should just ignore and say do not worry about it, we will just do it, it is a civil right and that is that? No, because we still need a military, and a military bases its ability to perform on training, small unit training, whether in an infantry squad, or in a squadron with one pilot looking out for another, people diving back in to distract antiaircraft fire--stupid, crazy. I have seen people do that.

That is the kind of loyalty that you are trying to engender.

We have advanced a lot in this area in the last few years. I believe--over the last 15 or 20 years we see people openly gay or lesbian being accepted in jobs and positions. We are not thinking of firing them from those positions. There are people in some top civilian positions in the military who we do not question as to their loyalty, and they are admittedly gay. They do not get fired. We accept that now.

So maybe our attitudes are changing. That is what these hearings have to bring out.

Mr. President, I think I have made most of the points I want to make here. I do think that we have to consider the changing civilian attitude. There have been times in the past when the military was able to lead in some areas like this, and get an acceptance throughout the whole Nation.

But this is a different thing than, say, color of skin, as I see it. This deals with one of the most basic urges, one of the most basic drives that human beings have.

So I think it is good that we are going to have this series of hearings, where we can have people in to discuss this. Our NATO allies have already been mentioned. Many of them have different procedures on this, different restrictions for people who serve in the military with regard to being gays or lesbians.

I think we need to know other nations' experiences and perhaps then we can better judge on opening up our own situation in this country. A matter of concern is what happens on the bases? I do not want every base commander making his or her own decisions about how to deal with gay and lesbian situations on a base.

For example, some cities now have moved to recognize, in effect to legitimize, gay and lesbian marriages, male to male, female to female. What happens if on a base those people decide that they--since they see themselves as being legally married--claim spousal rights on the base? And do we have retirement benefits then to be passed on to other people? Do they get base housing then? If they have been on the base longer, do they go ahead of other people?

These are things that cannot be left up to base commanders. Policies have to be servicewide, Department of Defense-wide decisions that apply to everybody, as I see it. If we do not do that, we are going to wind up with 50 court cases in Federal courts all over the country.

These are the kinds of things that we need to look into. I think we need to go into this issue with an open mind. My mind in this area is not closed by any means. I want to get the full gamut of people that we can that have a view on this to testify before the committee. It should not be a 1-day or 2-day hearing. We have to take it on and do the best job we possibly can in this area, including seeing how it affects our NATO allies; talking to groups, and training people to see whether in this day and age we really feel we can have unit cohesion with declared gays in the military. Cohesion--that is the military word for this bonding of one combat warrior to another. Can that now apply just as well to a gay as it does to anybody else? Perhaps it can.

I know our time is short. I will not ask for additional time this afternoon, but I will have additional things to say on this as time goes on, and as we get to our hearings.

I thank the Chair.

[Page: S1277]

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, the Nation and the Congress of the United States owe a great debt of gratitude to the senior Senator from Georgia [Mr. Nunn].

The President of the United States almost as his first act as President, attempting to keep a campaign promise, unilaterally, without consultation with either the Congress or the armed services, attempted a profound change in the composition, the attitude, and the morale of the Armed Forces of the United States.

The Senator from Georgia stopped that runaway train and has gained for the Nation and for this body a period of almost 6 months in which to examine the profound potential consequences of that proposed action.

This Senator had the good fortune to be in the Senate anteroom when the Senator from Georgia came to report to several of his colleagues, with some elation, the results of his negotiation with the President.

Ironically, during the very time that the Senator from Georgia was reporting on that agreement, the President was announcing that, notwithstanding anything which might take place during the course of that 6-month study, his course of action was already determined. The President announced that it did not matter what people in the military said, what Members of Congress said, what general public opinion was; he was bound and determined to go forward.

It is for that reason, in spite of the very real success of the Senator from Georgia in keeping to a minimum immediate changes and causing the more profound ones not to take place for several months, it is for exactly that reason that it is important for the Senate of the United States to pass the Dole amendment.

The Dole amendment is in strict accordance with the Constitution of the United States, which states:

The Congress shall have power to make rules for the Government and regulation of the land and naval forces.

The Dole resolution, by codifying the rules with this respect as of January 1, 1993, takes that power now and retains that power in the hands of the Congress. But it gives the President the ability to propose any change he wishes after this period of hearings and requires that we vote both here and in the House of Representatives on those proposed changes--without filibusters, without extended additional hearings--very, very promptly to settle this question. It gives us the 6 months to have the national debate and the hearings on an issue of such importance.

Since the President regards these hearings as hollow, it seems to me imperative, even in seeking the goal that the Senator from Georgia himself seeks, that we pass this particular amendment. This is not an open and shut case or debate in the mind of this Senator.

There have been profound changes in attitudes and customs in the United States as a whole. It is certainly possible that some changes are in order, but they should be changes which are debated in the context of their impact on the Armed Forces of the United States. They should be decided with respect to whether or not he will retain an effective and efficient and a high-morale Military Establishment. It is an issue of which I think the views of all Americans are appropriate, and all Americans should be given a chance to express those views before the decision is made.

But for this Senator, at least, it is an issue to which he will listen with the greatest degree of respect and will grant the greatest weight to the views of the men and women who are in uniform serving in the armed services of the United States, whose lives will be most profoundly affected. This Senator will pay a great deal of attention to the views of General Powell, General Schwarzkopf, and others, including veterans of the United States. But it is the rank and file of the military who will have to live with this decision and whose own personal decisions will determine how effective our military is, and who should be granted the greatest weight in the course of this debate.

But their views can be granted weight, Mr. President, only if we do not make the decision before those views are heard. The President has said he has made his decision. We should, in the exercise of our constitutional responsibility, see to it that he cannot make that decision alone, and we can do that only by passing into law the amendment before us.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?

Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from California.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the Armed Services Committee for yielding to me.

I rise in support of Senator Mitchell's amendment. I feel I must comment on a statement that was made by the Republican Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Lott] when he said `the only reason this is before us is because President Clinton put it before us.' Well, the truth is that, today, we want to vote on the Family and Medical Leave Act, Mr. President, and this whole issue was raised today, even though there has been a compromise already reached on the subject by the President, the leaders of the Senate, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff. So I think anyone who says it is the President who brought this amendment before us today simply is misstating what I consider to be the facts here.

We are ready to pass the Family and Medical Leave Act, and we are ready to get on with the business that affects the American people, and I think the American people understand, even though they may not all agree with the President on this issue, that this debate should not be raised around the passage of this very important bill. But, in fact, it is here, and I am honored to be part of the debate.

I personally believe that the gay ban continues the policy of deceit. It forces honest men and women to lie about a very fundamental question. Question 27, which asks a potential recruit about his or her sexual orientation, confirms that the policy is a living lie, because thousands of men and women will not answer that honestly, because then they cannot serve their country. And they want to serve their country, Mr. President.

The San Francisco Chronicle, which endorsed George Bush for President, wrote on January 28 of this year:

For the past 50 years or so, gays have had to play an unreasonable and un-American charade. * * * Living with the truth is surely better for morale than fostering secrecy and prejudice.

Mr. President, I would like to share with you and my colleagues a little story. I was visited by a physician who is one of my constituent; a heterosexual, who served very proudly in World War II. And I asked him: `You are a brave man. You fought on the front lines against the Nazis. What is your view on this issue?'

And he said to me very clearly:

Senator, when I was on the front lines, fighting against the Nazis, I did not care if the guy next to me was straight, as long as he could shoot straight.

I think that is the issue that we should be concerned about. We need every qualified man and woman who wishes to serve us. We need them to serve us.

And behavior is the issue, Mr. President, not status. And where else can you control behavior better than in the military, where discipline is a way of life.

I think it is very important to point out that President Clinton has talked very clearly about the need for discipline and a code of conduct that applies across the board.

Mr. President, I think that we waste a lot of money on this issue, $27 million a year, rooting out homosexuals from the military. We need that money elsewhere, or we could save that money.

I also think it is interesting to point out that records show that, in wartime, the military seems less interested in expelling homosexuals. If you look at the numbers, very few are dismissed during wartime. What do we learn from that? When bullets are flying, the military becomes less discriminatory? Mr. President, that is a sad thought. So I think that we must base military service on performance and behavior, not on a person's sexual orientation.

My last point is this, Mr. President: The United States should no longer stand as one of the few allied countries that prohibits homosexuals from serving in their armed forces. We should look to countries like Israel, which allow homosexuals to serve their nation proudly in uniform. Would anyone in this Chamber question the effectiveness of the Israeli military, which faces a daily struggle to protect Israel's borders from attack? If Israel, which faces danger every minute can do it--we can do it.

I am struck by the comparison of some of the comments of my good friends and colleagues in this Chamber, to some of the comments made in 1948 when President Truman decided to end discrimination against African-Americans in the military.

On July 27, 1948, one Representative said:

[Page: S1278]

On the same day another Representative said:

It is a mistake to attempt to make of the Army, Navy, and the Air Force a means of providing social reforms. Such action cannot do other than injure the high standard of efficiency of this organization.

He added:

In these times of major crises throughout the world it is a mistake to try to provide social reforms for the armed services. The result may be to seriously cripple and impair the full value of these forces. The result may be to injure them at a time when the world looks to us for strength and courage.

They talked then about the chaos that would come about if African-Americans were allowed in the military. They talked about the military not being the place for social experimentation. And yet we know that was the right decision.

So Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity to participate in this debate. The debate is not over. We will have it again in July. I hope we can get on with it, get on with the problems facing our country.

I thank the Chair.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?

Mr. COATS. Mr. President I yield 8 minutes to the Senator from Texas.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.

Mr. GRAMM. I thank our dear colleague from Indiana for yielding, and I thank him for his leadership on this issue, which I think is vitally important.

I would just like for the record to show that the Israeli military is one of the most restrictive militaries on the planet in terms of the promotion and participation of avowed homosexuals.

Mr. President, what I want to talk about today is the choice that is before us. Let me begin by talking about what brought us here.

Our President, in the campaign, made a commitment to a special interest group, and that commitment had to do with changing the policy of the military with regard to avowed homosexuals. What the President has said in the first week of his administration is that his first defense priority is forcing the military, against its will, to admit avowed homosexuals.

I believe our first priority should be to the young men and women of the military services who have made us proud and who have kept us free. And that is what the two amendments before us are really all about.

In the case of the amendment offered by Senator Mitchell, what we have is a figleaf, and a figleaf that will not cover very much. It is a simple sense-of-the Senate resolution that done absolutely nothing about the policy that the President has put into effect, nor does it in any way restrict the policy that the President may put into effect in the future, nor does it in any way change anything in terms of the policy that we in Congress may carry out, no matter what happens on these votes.

So we have one resolution that is simply a figleaf for those who want to appear to be doing something but who really do not want to do anything.

On the other hand, we have a resolution that seeks to establish a process. It does not seek to judge the decision before the hearings have been held. The major reason we are here is that the President has said not only is he going to change the policy of the military with regard to induction--something he has already done against the expressed will of the Joint Chiefs and the entire commissioned and noncommissioned officer corps leadership of the military--but that we can have a debate, that we can hold hearings, but that no matter what that debate concludes, no matter what those hearings find, that he is going to change the policy.

In short, our President, has said:

Debate and hold hearings, but do not confuse me with the facts, because I have made a campaign commitment and I am going to fulfill it. I have promised a special interest group I will act without regard to the public interest.

What our amendment does is establish in law the policy that existed as of January 1. It then sets up a procedure where we have a real debate--not a phony debate, a real debate--where we have real hearings--not sham hearings--where we gather the facts, where we hear from all sides, and then we set up a procedure whereby the President will make a concrete proposal--not a campaign slogan, not a political statement, but a concrete proposal--as to how to put his policy into effect.

We will then have a debate about that policy. We will bring it to the floor of the Senate. We will have 3 days of

debate. It will be amendable. We will all have an opportunity to have our input, and then the President will get his vote. If he has the votes to change policy, he will prevail. If he does not have the votes to change policy, he will not prevail. But in my opinion, Mr. President, the public interest will be served.

What is our objective here? Well, it seems to me, the two amendments offer two objectives. The objective of the amendment offered by Senator Mitchell is to put the Congress in a position where we are saying: Do nothing; though we know the President has decided what he is going to do, though we know that our debate is phony, though we know the hearings are a sham, do nothing.

Our proposal is: Set out in law the procedure that the military supports. Have a real hearing, have a real debate, have the President submit not a simple statement of policy but a concrete proposal that deals with the very real problems of forcing the military to induce avowed homosexuals and address the impact it will have on morale, readiness, retention, recruitment--all the things we should be concerned about.

Do not allow a determined minority to prevent the President from having a vote. Set up a procedure where the President will get an opportunity to make the proposal and where Congress will have to vote yea or nay. It is a choice between a policy that takes Congress, and therefore the voice of the American people, out of the debate and a policy that puts Congress in the debate, that guarantees that we will look at the facts, that guarantees that we will have an informed decision, that guarantees that the President and the Congress will hammer out a policy.

Mr. President, that is what this issue is about. There is no doubt about the fact that the President has worked very hard to induce people to vote against this amendment. The basic promise has been that we will hold hearings. But anyone who has read the statements of the President has to be struck by the fact that the President has said, in the clearest possible terms, that his mind is made up and that his mind is not going to be changed.

Our amendment establishes a proceduer whereby we have an opportunity to look at the facts, hold a debate, and make an informed decision. I believe this is the enlightened path. I believe those who are concerned about the finest military the world has ever known, those who believe the burden of proof ought to be on those who would change a policy that is uniformly supported by the leadership in the military, will vote for this amendment.

Certainly, no one can vote against this amendment and say they were undecided on this issue. Everyone in the Senate believes any informed American knows that, unless we act now, no matter what happens in the hearings, no matter what happens in the debate, the President is going to force the military against their will to induct homosexuals.

At that point, if a sizable number of Members of the Senate or House decide to try to override it, we will be in a position where we have to pass a law which can then be vetoed.

So if we want a rational debate, the way to guarantee it is by adopting the Dole amendment which is before us.

I urge my colleagues to look at it and to vote for it.

I yield the floor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?

[Page: S1279]

I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Oklahoma.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I would like to thank and compliment my friend and colleague, Senator Coats from Indiana, for his leadership on this issue, as well as Senator Dole. And I will include Senator Nunn, for I think he has played an important role in stopping President Clinton from making a very significant mistake.

Quoting several military leaders, and quoting Admiral Stockdale, saying: Why am I here? What are we doing? I question why we are debating this particular provision at this time.

The only reason why we are debating this issue is because President Clinton has decided to move forward on it aggressively to fulfill a campaign promise to a special-interest group, without consulting the military and without consulting Congress. I think it is a serious mistake.

The President has overruled the Joint Chiefs who have over 200 years of combined experience. Yet, his first action as Commander in Chief is to totally disregard the statements that were made by the combined Joint Chiefs. I think that is a serious mistake.

I remember during the campaign that President Clinton was saying,

It's the economy, stupid. The economy is first. We are going to be first in line. We are going to have a laser beam on the issue. That is the issue. And then health care and welfare reform. Those are the real issues that affect America.

But now as President, the real issues he is pushing are parts of a very aggressive agenda to appease the special-interest groups that he made promises to; the special interests that contributed millions of campaign dollars--and I am sure lots of votes--to his election.

I am delighted--I complimented Senator Nunn and Senator Coats--I also want to compliment the American people, because they are the reason why this Executive order is not already totally complete. They are the reason why it slowed down. The American people have spoken against this change in policy, and they have spoken by the millions all across the country.

I can say in my office, we have had thousands of phone calls. Our office has not had phone calls like this--I am not sure in my 12-plus years in the Senate that we have had contacts by our constituents to the degree we have had just in the last week or so.

What about this mistaken policy's impact on the military? What does this do to unit cohesion? What does this do to morale?

Let us look at what some of the military leaders have to say. General Schwarzkopf; he was a hero 2 years ago. He led us to victory in the Persian Gulf war. Here is a quote that he made on September 25, 1992.

The experience in the Army has been * * * when you have an open, out of the closet, gay or gays within your organization, and that freely admit that, within your organization it tends to break down the cohesion. So it is not a question of a personal sexual expression, it is a question of cohesion within the organization and that is what makes organizations fight.

Gen. Colin Powell, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said:

It's just my judgment, the judgment of the Chiefs, that homosexual behavior is inconsistent with maintaining good order and discipline.

What do I mean by that? I mean that it's difficult in a military setting, where there is no privacy, where you don't get choice of association, where you don't get choice of where you live, to introduce a group of individuals who are proud, brave, loyal, good Americans but who favor a homosexual lifestyle and put them in with heterosexuals who would prefer not to have somebody of the same sex find them sexually attractive, put them in close proximity, ask them to share the most private of their facilities together--the bedroom, the barracks, the latrines, the showers. I think it would be prejudicial to good order and discipline to try to integrate that into the current military structure, and I think that's the significance.

That is the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. And I will add one or two others quickly. Gen. Carl E. Mundy, Commandant of the U.S. Marines says:

I do support the ban against homosexuals in the military * * * I believe that homosexual conduct, that the gay lifestyle, embodies those things that are contrary to good order and discipline in the military.

Finally, one last quote. This is by Adm. Frank Kelso, Chief of Naval Operations:

I believe the current Department of Defense policy on homosexuality is best for the readiness of our Armed Forces.

That was January 9, 1993.

So the Joint Chiefs have not agreed to the grand compromise. The Joint Chiefs have stated they believe we should maintain present policy.

We have two amendments that are before us. One is the sense-of-the-Senate resolution by Senator Mitchell that says we are going to study the issue. It does not say what else we are going to do. And it also changes the policy that we had January 1, because on January 1, we did ask a question that would prohibit gays from serving in the military. So we are already talking about a significant change in policy.

What about the Dole amendment? It is amendment; it is law. It says: Let us go

back to January 1. It is a time-out amendment. Let us not change our policy. Let us have at least 6 months. Let us have congressional hearings. Then if we decide after having the hearings we should make a change, then let us make the change and make the change and make it statutorily.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask my colleague if I may have an additional 2 minutes.

Mr. COATS. I will be happy to yield to the Senator from Oklahoma an additional 2 minutes.

Mr. NICKLES. I thank my friend, Mr. President.

After we have the hearings, then let us decide what changes should be made. As my colleagues have pointed out, we have constitutional responsibility to the Armed Forces. And so, in the Dole amendment, we provide that Congress will act. We put in expedited procedures. We will act hurriedly. We will take take the President's proposal, we will act on it within just a few days.

So the Dole provision says: Yes, Congress; you are going to be consulted. We are going to listen. We are not going to make changes until we hear all the facts, until we hear from all the interest groups on both sides of the issue. And then Congress will act.

Unfortunately, under the Mitchell compromise, President Clinton can make an Executive order. And, unfortunately, he has already stated that is exactly what he wanted to do.

A reporter asked President Clinton on January 29, 1993:

* * * July 15, this happens, period, regardless of what comes out of these hearings? Is that correct? The ban will be lifted?

President Clinton said:

That is my position. My position is I still embrace the principle, and I think it should be done. I do not expect to change my position, no.

President Clinton plans on letting the hearings go forward. Then he plans on completing his Executive order, really in total violation of the spirit of listening to Congress, listening to the military, and listening to others with the valued experience who say this might be a serious mistake; that it would seriously jeopardize the quality of our Armed Forces. I do not think we should make that mistake.

The only way we can stop that mistake is by agreeing to the Dole amendment. I urge my colleagues to vote for Senator Dole's amendment.

To reiterate, Mr. President, over the last week, my office has been flooded with hundreds of phone calls regarding the issue of homosexuals in the military. The majority of my fellow Oklahomans feel the way I do--that the ban on homosexuality in the military must stand.

I feel it is the obligation of the Senate to take a strong stand against President Clinton's unilateral action to repeal the ban on homosexuality in the military. Congress' role in regulating our Armed Forces is set forth in our Constitution. We cannot allow this President to ignore the Constitution and the will of the majority of the American people.

And let's make one thing clear. It is not the Senate who made this an issue. President Clinton chose to make this his issue. From the early days of his campaign, Bill Clinton pledged to repeal the ban on homosexuality in the military. And despite calls from a majority of the American people opposing the lifting of the ban, despite the Joint Chiefs of Staffs' warnings, President Clinton decided this issue should take precedence over the economy, health care, education, or the deficit. To him, keeping his promise to a special-interest group became a matter of principle.

Well, Mr. President, I say President Clinton has chosen the wrong issue. What he calls a compromise is a fraud. The President's announced changes are real and far-reaching. In fact, they predetermine the outcome by assuring that homosexuals will be allowed in the military. The President should have allowed for a 6-month time out with no change at all to the current policy that has worked so well for so long. This would have given Congress time to evaluate and analyze whether changes to the policy were prudent. The President refused to listen to us, just as he failed to listen to the majority of the American people. Which is why we must act now.

There are several reasons why I support the ban on homosexuality in the military. First, I believe that the mission of our military should be, first and foremost, to maintain an unparalleled fighting force. The armed services should not be used as an agent of social change. Second, serving in the military is not a civil right, it is an honor reserved for the select few who contribute to military cohesion and effectiveness. Third, repealing the ban could lead to the creation of a class and culture that would jeopardize the common values and goals so important to mutual trust and unity within a fighting force. For all of these reasons, I support the Dole amendment before the Senate.

I think former Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney stated it best when he said that:

[Page: S1280]

Those who support President Clinton say the military should live by the same rules as those set out for civil society. But history reveals than an effective military should be a culture largely unto itself. The military has its own standards of admission and conduct. The military also has its own legal and judicial system.

Some of these laws would be considered authoritarian and unconstitutional by civilian standards. The military's culture, seen as so strange by civilians in peacetime, provides the necessary foundation to enable our soldiers to fight and win in the chaos, fire, and blood of war. The mission of the military is to maximize efficiency and readiness. How could it be otherwise, because compromising military efficiency could result in the loss of our soldiers on the battlefield. We have to ask ourselves: Is such a risk worth the price?

Others who support President Clinton seem to think that military service is a civil right. They are wrong. There is no right to serve in the military--military service is a privilege for some. Not all people are lucky enough to serve in the military--some are too old, some have health problems, some are too short or have poor vision. Some have mental or physical disabilities.

Many of my fellow Oklahomans and I are not the only ones who believe that the current policy banning homosexuals from the military is reasonable. With their over 200 years of combined military experience, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, or JCS, also agree that the current ban should be maintained. It is disturbing that the President's first policy action as Commander in Chief is contrary to the counsel of his Joint Chiefs.

President Clinton has said on many occasions that status alone in the absence of some destructive behavior should not disqualify people from military service. The President maintains that sexual orientation and sexual behavior are separate issues. But let's examine this argument. Take, for example, the current situation regarding showering and living arrangements.

Female soldiers shower and largely live separately from men. But President Clinton argues that behavior is the only measure of untoward social conduct. By this logic a heterosexual soldier could argue that he should be allowed to shower with female soldiers while promising to keep his behavior in check.

The problem we face here is not the presence of homosexuals in the military. Many homosexuals who have served in the military have performed no

worse or no better than heterosexuals. The problem is that the creation of an open homosexual class and culture in the military would wreck the close knit military bonds, that is the foundation of military strength in which the taxpayers of this country invest over $280 billion of their hard-earned money every year.

President Clinton's proponents say that our effort to maintain the ban on open homosexuality is the same as attempts made 40 years ago to maintain the noxious policy of racial segregation. This comparison is invalid. Gen. Colin Powell, a soldier who likely saw the worst of our segregated military stated that `skin color is a benign, nonbehavioral characteristic. Sexual orientation is perhaps the most profound of human behavioral characteristics. Comparison of the two is a convenient but invalid argument.' While race is a question of the color of a person's skin, the different sexual identities of homosexual and heterosexuals enforce different lifestyles. Lifting the ban would create numerous practical and legal questions. Would homosexuals in the military be afforded spousal rights, such as housing, as a couple? What about military pensions and family health care.

What about the complications in combat resulting from avowed homosexuality? What about its affect on the emergency blood supply, and the apparent or perceived favoritism among homosexual partners in life or death situations on the battlefield?

Not only do the ranking military officers believe the ban must be maintained, so do a number of military personnel and retired military groups. Twenty-seven military and veterans service organizations support the ban on homosexuals in the military, included among these are: The Retired Officers Association; the Association of the U.S. Army; the Veterans of Foreign Wars; the Marine Corps Reserve Officers Association; the American Legion; the Fleet Reserve Association; and the Air Force Association.

It appears that President Clinton has turned a deaf ear not only to the top military brass but also to those who have served in the ranks.

Finally, some have claimed that it should be no surprise that President Clinton has decided to keep his campaign promise and overturn current policy. But I, for one, am indeed surprised, that President Clinton has failed to deliver on a number of campaign promises he made to the American people--ones that I think mean quite a lot to the majority of the population, including a middle-class tax break, providing an economic plan for putting people first, and cutting the deficit.

This mistaken change in military policy should not go forward. We, in the Congress, cannot jeopardize the quality of our armed services. Again, I urge my colleagues to vote for Senator Dole's amendment.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia is recognized.

Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I have already made a few comments today about why I favor the Mitchell amendment. I have also explained--I hope rather carefully--what the President's directive that he issued for the interim 6 months while a review is going on does and what it does not do. I will repeat only one important point before I talk about the Dole amendment.

For the next 6 months, every military commander in the field anywhere in this country or elsewhere in the world will proceed exactly as they did a week ago in terms of how they would process the discharge of anyone who is either accused of homosexual conduct or of homosexual status. The President's directive does not change that.

Anyone who stands up and says, `I am homosexual,' will be processed, just as they would have been before. They will no longer be on active duty. The only difference is that they will be separated from active duty and placed in the Standby Reserve if it is status only; if it is conduct, they will be discharged completely from all military status as previously existed.

Mr. President, I will oppose the amendment offered by the distinguished minority leader, Senator Dole. I do so even though there is much that has been said on the other side of the aisle that I agree with. And I certainly appreciate all the kind comments I have had from my colleagues about the efforts I made to really slow the President down and to warn him that there are serious questions here.

I also think that everyone in the Senate ought to realize there are serious questions regarding the Dole amendment. Even though many of these consequences are not intended, I think that the examples I am going to give demonstrate why we need to slow down; why we all need to say that this is a complicated matter; why we all need to say: Let us have some hearings. Let us have legislative counsel look carefully at whatever we decide is going to be the policy. Let us examine the Executive orders, rules, and regulations, and really know what we are doing before we act either legislatively here in the Congress or through Executive order by the President.

In my view, first of all, the minority leader's amendment is not necessary. Most important, though, I believe the amendment could have some serious and unfortunate consequences, most of which the sponsors of this amendment, in my opinion, do not intend.

There are just a few things I want to say about that. There are some serious questions we must ask, and some serious consequences which would occur if this amendment were to be adopted and if it were to become law. I hope everyone will pay heed to exactly what the amendment says. The amendment states:

[Page: S1281]

not or--and--
and unless changed by law.

As we have heard many times today, everything, in effect, that concerns homosexuals--appointment, enlistment, induction, and retention, everything relating to that--is frozen as of January 1, 1993. No changes unless done by law--unless done by an act of Congress.

That sounds easy and simple, Mr. President. But it has far-reaching consequences. Let us look at the precise meaning of the amendment.

First, the amendment concerns three classes of rules: The Executive orders issued by the President, the directives issued by the Department of Defense, and the regulations issued by the military departments. That is the way we proceed beyond the law: Executive orders by the President, directives by the Department of Defense, and regulations by the military departments.

Second, the amendment states that it applies to `all' such rules `concerning the appointment, enlistment, and induction, and the retention of homosexuals in the Armed Forces.' This means that any Executive order, DOD directive, or military department regulation which contains material concerning entry, retention, or separation of homosexuals is covered by the amendment and is frozen into law unless changed by law.

Third, the amendment does not say that it applies only to the specific portion of an Executive order, DOD directive, or military department regulation concerning homosexuals. It does not say that it covers only the chapters, sections, or paragraphs of an Executive order, DOD directive, or military department regulation dealing with homosexuality. The fact is that the amendment on its face, applies to all Executive orders, DOD directives, and military department regulations concerning appointment, enlistment, induction or retention in the Armed Forces if any material in the applicable rule--no matter how brief--deals with entry, retention, or separation of homosexuals.

Fourth, the amendment states that `all' of the Executive orders, DOD directives, and military department regulations covered by the amendment `shall remain in effect.' The amendment does not say `a part' or `a portion' of such rules shall remain in effect; it says `all' such rules `shall remain in effect.' This means that if there is any portion of an Executive order, DOD directive or military department regulation `concerning' homosexuality, then the entire Executive order, the entire DOD directive, or military department regulation will be frozen and can only be changed in the future by an act of Congress.

Mr. President, Members need to understand a key point here: There is no single Executive order, DOD directive, or military department regulation concerning homosexuality in the Armed Forces. It is not tied up in one little bundle. The Executive orders, DOD directives and military department regulations that deal with homosexuality do so only in

the context of much broader issues and there are many such issues. There are separate rules on recruiting; there are separate rules on retention; there are separate rules on military justice. Homosexuality is addressed in the context of each one of these broad personnel policy directives, not in a single directive. The amendment does not freeze only those portions of the Executive orders, DOD directives, and regulations that specifically address homosexuality. The amendment freezes the entire text of the Executive orders, DOD directives, and military department regulations in question.

When you freeze all of the rules concerning the appointment, enlistment and induction, and retention of military personnel, you freeze virtually all military personnel management policies from now on, unless changed by law. Under this amendment, every change in these policies from now on--no matter how minor--would have to be considered by Congress. If anyone thinks we have had gridlock around here in the recent past, wait and see what would happen if this amendment becomes law.

Let us look at some specific examples of what this amendment would do.

One of the Executive orders that would be frozen in place by this amendment is the Manual for Courts-Martial. The Manual for Courts-Martial was issued as one Executive Order, No. 12473, in 1984. This Executive order implements the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

The manual sets forth the rules that govern the power of our military commanders to discipline their troops. Every order issued by a commander; every barracks inspection; every fraud, every act of waste, every act of abuse, every nonjudicial punishment proceeding; every court-martial; and every appeal is governed by this manual.

As my colleagues can see, this is the manual. It weighs 7 pounds. It has hundreds of pages. It covers virtually everything that I have said plus hundreds of other items relating to sentencing, relating to commission of an offense, and relating to nonjudicial punishment procedure. It relates to every single thing that you can imagine in implementing the Uniform Code of Military Justice. It has hundreds of pages and detailed text covering every aspect of the court-martial process from investigations through appellate review.

Since the Manual of Court-Martial is an Executive order authorizing a dishonorable discharge for persons who commit homosexual acts, the freeze amendment, as I read it, means that any future changes in the manual would have to be authorized by a new statute. I do not think we want to take that step. For example, the freeze amendment would preclude the President from amending the manual to increase the disciplinary powers of commanders--such as the power to conduct searches, seizures, and inspections--even if our military commanders recommended those changes as necessary to ensure good order and discipline in the Armed Forces. No changes in the manual's rules could be made without a new statute.

I do not believe that is really what the authors of this amendment intend, but I think that is what this amendment does.

Mr. President, there are many other questions about the

effect of the amendment freezing all Executive orders, DOD directives and military department regulations on military personnel policy which I do not believe the sponsors of the amendment have fully considered.

The enlistment and appointment regulations set forth standards on critical factors such as education, mental ability, and physical condition for new recruits. If our military commanders determine that military effectiveness requires that any of these standards be raised or lowered, then DOD, as I read the amendment, would be prohibited from amending current rules to change those standards unless they are changed by law.

Separation regulations set forth the criteria for administrative discharges on subjects such as misconduct, drug-related offenses, and civilian convictions. If our military commanders believe that military readiness requires that any of these standards be raised, then DOD, as I read the amendment, would be prohibited from amending current rules to change these standards, unless it is changed by Congress.

What if, for instance, after review of the Tailhook report our Secretary of Defense, in terms of revising the sexual harassment rules and regulations in the Department of Defense, recommends that the President revise the Manual for Courts-Martial to establish sexual harassment as a specific offense and prescribe a penalty for that offense? What if they believe they need to revise DOD's retention and separation regulations to expressly address the problems of sexual harassment? Is this covered by the amendment? In my opinion, it would be.

Mr. President, it has just come to my attention, and I have not read every word of this, but the Navy, for instance, on January 6, 1993, less than a month ago, issued a Department of

Navy regulation entitled `Department of Navy Policy and Sexual Harassment.' It is dated January 6, 1993--after this freeze--which by statute under this amendment would be January 1.

These are some of the things that this Navy directive covers, which is stated on page 5: Actions, threats or attempts to influence another's career or job in exchange for sexual favors. I ask the authors of the amendment, what about sexual favors requested by a homosexual--would that be covered by the amendment and frozen out? As I read the amendment, there is serious question about whether this whole directive on sexual harassment, that is the Navy's response thus far to Tailhook, would be thrown in the trash can and put out of business by the amendment because it would be a change after the January 1, 1992, date in the amendment which freezes out all new rules. To be absolutely sure you would have to read this new rule and the old rule very carefully to determine the effect of the amendment. The Navy's January 6, 1993, rule also covers physical contact of a sexual nature which, if charged as a violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, could result in a punitive discharge. The way I read this, the Navy's January 6, 1993 directive would cover homosexual acts as well as heterosexual and, therefore, this directive could very well be out the window because it would be frozen out by the January 1, 1993 date in the amendment.

Mr. President, I know that is not what the authors intend, but what I am saying to everyone here is what I said to the President last week. Let us examine what we are doing and know what we are doing on this subject and then legislate rationally if we choose to legislate.

Mr. President, even if this amendment were viewed very narrowly, even if my interpretation in the reading of it is too broad--but I do not believe it is and I think most lawyers would agree with my interpretation--but even if we give it a narrow reading, even if every word had been put in this amendment that narrowed it down to absolutely nothing in an Executive order, or nothing in a directive or nothing in a policy except the very narrow term concerning homosexual conduct, we would still have some major problems with this amendment.

Let me just give a few examples in that regard.

This freeze amendment would preclude the President from changing the Manual for Courts Martial if military commanders, for instance, recommended that the President, the Commander in Chief, deal more severely with homosexual rape and homosexual acts involving service members and minors. After his military commanders reviewed this situation and decided the existing code is not strict enough, if they said, `Mr. President, we want to make it stricter,' then he would be precluded unless he came in and changed the law.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.

[Page: S1282]

Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, let me give another example. For example, the Manual for Courts-Martial currently authorizes a dishonorable discharge and 20 years confinement as the maximum punishment if a service member is guilty of forcible sodomy. Under the freeze amendment, the Dole amendment, even if our military commanders recommended to the President that a greater punishment is warranted for homosexual rape, he could not authorize any increase in the maximum punishment without a change in the law. I do not think that is really what we want to do here.

Another example: The Manual for Courts-Martial currently authorizes a dishonorable discharge and 20 years confinement if a service member is guilty of sodomy with a minor.

Under the freeze amendment, even if our military commanders recommended to the President that a greater punishment is warranted for service members who commit homosexual acts with minors, he could not do that because he would be frozen in with this amendment if it passed and became law. I do not think that the proponents of this freeze would want to limit the jail time of persons who take advantage of children if the Defense Department determines that a more serious punishment is warranted. I do not believe that is the intent, but that is what this amendment does.

The Manual for Courts-Martial currently provides that the 20-year maximum for sodomy with a minor applies only where the person is under 16 years of age. In other words, the sodomy provision of a 20-year punishment does not apply if it is committed with a 16-year-old. A 15-year-old, 14-year-old, 13-year-old, yes, but not a 16-year-old. If a service member is guilty of committing a homosexual act with a 16-year-old, then the 20-year maximum does not apply.

Under the freeze amendment, even if our military commanders recommended to the President that the 20-year maximum is warranted also for service members who commit sodomy with 16-year-old children, he could not authorize any increase. It would be subject to having to come back to Capitol Hill for a change in the law.

I really do not believe that is what is intended but that is what this amendment does. The freeze amendment also would preclude the executive branch from making any drafting changes that might be needed to improve the likelihood that the current rules on homosexuality in the military could survive legal challenges.

In this court case in California, if it on appeal looks to the DOD lawyers as if we have some problems with some of the existing rules and that they better change those Executive orders and rules and directives, if they decide they want to change those rules so we can survive a court case, this keeps them from doing so.

I can tell everybody here I have seen that happen time after time, where they have to change rules and regulations in order to be able to survive a court case. The Dole amendment, if we pass it, would block that out, making it much more likely that an appellate court would kick out the existing practice which I know the proponents of the Dole amendment would like to keep in the law.

Mr. President, I could go on and on, but I have used up an awful lot of time. Let me just close by saying that it is not an easy task to deal with this subject. That is what I have been saying to President Clinton. I have said slow down, Mr. President. Let us be prudent; let us be cautious. There are a lot of questions that I do not believe the executive branch has thought about.

Now I am saying to my colleagues in the Senate let us not legislate this. We do not know what we are doing here today in terms of the effect of this amendment. I do know that by reading the amendment there are an awful lot of unintended consequences. The very policy you are trying to protect with this amendment may very well be kicked out of court because the executive branch will not be able to make any changes even if those changes are needed to strengthen the directives.

Mr. President, I urge our colleagues to do the same thing I urged President Clinton to do last week, and that is before we fire, let us aim. Let us get ready, let us aim, and then decide what to do. Let us not jump the gun and legislate something we do not know much about and then cause the whole military department to be basically in gridlock in dealing not just with homosexual conduct but with thousands of other things that are in these executive orders and rules and regulations.

[Page: S1283]

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Breaux). The Senator from Georgia has 35 minutes remaining.

Mr. NUNN. I will be glad to yield.

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, with regard to the first paragraph of Senator Mitchell's second-degree amendment where it says, `review of current departmental policy,' would it be the opinion of the distinguished floor manager that the Uniform Code of Military Justice would also be included in that review? Because, after all, that is the law that the military lives under when they give up some of their civilian rights.

Mr. NUNN. That is certainly the way I would interpret it as chairman of the committee dealing with it. We would have to look at the law because the law is on the books; it cannot be changed and it is a very material part of it.

Mr. GLENN. It would be the Senator's opinion that a review of departmental policy should include the UCMJ?

Mr. NUNN. That is correct, because policy flows from the law and we have to consider the law if we are going to consider the policy.

Mr. GLENN. A second area. Where it says with respect to the service of homosexuals in the Armed Forces, would it also be the consideration of the floor manager that this would include the Coast Guard, because the Coast Guard is not part of the Department of Defense normally except in times of stress or times of war. That, of course, would come under the Department of Transportation, and they should certainly be considered in that. The Coast Guard is a combat unit when we are at war, as they were in the Persian Gulf in Desert Storm.

Mr. NUNN. I would agree completely with the Senator from Ohio. And he will be helping me chair these hearings as chairman of the manpower subcommittee. We certainly would consider the Coast Guard. They in wartime would be included in the Department of Defense and in peacetime they are included under the Transportation Department. That certainly will be considered.

As a matter of act, I served in the Coast Guard and the Coast Guard--a lot of people do not know--I am told, had the greatest number of casualties in World War II, more than any other branch of the service. They were very much part of our Armed Forces.

Mr. GLENN. I hope with the colloquy we have had here the Secretary of Defense will consult very carefully with the Secretary of Transportation and with Coast Guard officials to make sure we are including them in any consideration here also, and I thank the floor manager.

Several Senators addressed the Chair.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from Indiana controls 40 minutes 20 seconds.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I yield myself 1 minute and then I would like to yield some time to the Senator from Texas.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for 1 minute.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I understand that the Senator from Georgia shares concerns that we have on this side relative to the impact of this change in policy, and that it ought to be studied carefully before policy changes are made. He said let us do nothing hasty; before we fire, let us aim; let us get the answers to the questions that are not answered as of yet; let us make sure we know what the unintended consequences are.

That is exactly what we are trying to do with the Dole amendment. That is exactly what we are asking the President of the United States to do. We are saying to the President of the United States before he takes action, because this is complex, because this has potentially unintended consequences, because this goes to the effect of our military for the future, let us make sure we know all the answers, and let us get Congress involved and let us get the military involved. That is all we are asking the President to do. Hold back on making this policy change on allowing homosexuals in a 6-month period of time to enter the military without reservation before we know what the consequences of that are going to be.

The Senator from Georgia has raised a serious question relative to the impact of this on existing Executive orders or potential changes in Executive orders.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's 1 minute has expired.

Mr. COATS. I would like to yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Texas to respond.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for 3 minutes.

Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I have heard a lot of arguments on the floor before. This is a very interesting one. If we listened to our dear colleague from Georgia, he would say that if we adopt this amendment we are fixing the policy of the Defense Department and creating all of these unintended effects. In fact, let me quote from the President's defense policy regarding homosexuals in the military:

The current Defense Department personnel policies related to this issue will remain in effect at least through July 15, 1993.

Mr. President, we can always try to come up with ways to argue that problems exist, but I just ask my colleagues to read the amendment. The amendment addresses appointment, enlistment, induction, and retention of gays in the military.

Our dear colleague from Georgia talks about punishment. I see no punishment in appointment, enlistment, induction, and retention. The truth is that the entire fabric of the debate is prefaced on the fact that the President has made a change in policy concerning induction and has frozen that policy into effect until July 15. The real debate is, are we going to continue on a path where a decision is already made, where the debate is phony, where the hearings are a sham, or are we going to establish an orderly procedure to look at the facts and then have Congress participate in the decision?

That is what this amendment is about. That is what the issue is. I am confident that the American people are not going to be confused on that issue.

I yield the reminder of my time.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, could I get an assessment of what time is remaining?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana controls 36 minutes, 46 seconds; the Senator from Georgia, 32 minutes, 51 seconds.

Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, in response to my friend from Texas, the President can change the directive he issued last Friday at any time. He is not going to change it. But under the rules and regulations he is not freezing this in law. He will be able to make changes and make exceptions if it is warranted in all of these other areas.

The second thing I say to my friend from Texas, the retention section has the sanctions because that is where you have the dishonorable discharge. That is dealing with the retention section that is spelled out clearly in the amendment.

I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Minnesota.

[Page: S1284]

Let me just state at the outset that I intend to support the Mitchell amendment and oppose the Dole amendment. I would like to talk about what I think is at issue in the most fundamental sense. That has to do with whether or not gay and lesbian persons in the United States of America will be accorded equal protection against discrimination, discrimination based upon who they are.

Mr. President, I have talked to a lot of people in Minnesota, veterans organizations, military people, many of whom are very nervous about all this. We are going through changes in our country. Even if I disagree with them, I deeply respect what they are saying to me because I think they are saying it in very good faith and very good conscience. But I do object to an effort, I think unfortunately, by some to--I think--push the wrong buttons and to--I think--really represent a politics of hatred.

Sometimes we can be very generous with the suffering of other people. I have heard people say to me, `Why this issue? Let us get on with the economy, let us get on with health care.' Believe me, I know those issues are important. But on the other hand, if we were talking about someone's son or daughter or brother or sister or father or mother, they might feel differently about this.

I think the fundamental question, the subtext of such of this debate and discussion, is whether or not we are going to treat a group of citizens, based upon their sexual orientation, as if they are less than fully human. I want to make it clear as an American Jew that for all too many years Jewish people were treated as if they were less than fully human. I want to make it clear as someone who played a small part in the civil rights movement that for all too many years people of color were treated as if they were less than fully human.

But it is very difficult to quench the fires of human dignity. We will reach a day in our country, and maybe it is going to take an educational effort, but we will reach a day where we do afford equal and fair treatment to all citizens.

That is what this is all about. You know, Mr. President, we are playing with people's lives. It can be a very cruel thing.

Let me just talk about Pam Mindt, from Minnesota. Pam Mindt is a member of the National Guard, also served in the Reserve. Ten medals of honor she has received, written up in the advertisements for the Guard. But she felt not too long ago that she had to step forward and be honest and say she was a lesbian. She could not live with this schizoid existence about not being honest about who she was. As a result, she is faced

with the prospect of dismissal.

Mr. President, I want to say this to each and every Senator on the floor. This is my own view and we all have our own view.

I went to the service for Thurgood Marshall. I heard some very stirring words at that service. Those words said sometimes you have to take positions, and sometimes it is not easy, and sometimes it is very difficult, but leadership is not appealing to the fears of people, leadership is not dividing people, leadership is not using people for politics, leadership is not about polarization. Leadership is about calling on people to be their own best selves.

By supporting the Mitchell amendment and defeating the Dole amendment, we take but a small step in that direction. I do not think that is too much to ask of the U.S. Senators when it comes to a basic question of civil rights and human dignity for people in the United States of America--all people, I might add.

Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Rhode Island 5 minutes and 55 seconds.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, is it possible we could rotate from one side to the other? I would thank the distinguished managers if that were possible.

Mr. NUNN. We would be glad to do that. I say to the Senator from Virginia we have been doing that all afternoon. In fact, the Senator from Indiana asked me two or three times to go ahead and use 2 or 3 because nobody was on the floor.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Virginia 5 minutes.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia is recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank the managers. I thank my good friend and former boss, the Secretary of the Navy.

Mr. NUNN. Would the Senator from Virginia hold for just one moment? After the Senator from Virginia, I yield to the Senator from Rhode Island.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, in September, last fall, the distinguished Senator from Georgia and I in the capacity of managing the annual authorization bill of the Armed Forces, first addressed this issue on the floor of the Senate. At that time, I said--and it was concurred in by the distinguished chairman, Senator Nunn--that this issue is of great importance. It demands the full and careful attention of the Senate and of the House because the issue is very, very important today and will be a decade hence. Whatever decision is made by the Congress will shape the Armed

Forces of the United States for a decade hence, beginning from the first day of that decision by the Congress, if the Congress--and I hope it will not--changes the current law.

There may be some modifications. From the very beginning, in my first speech in September, I said the importance justifies our consideration, and there may be some modifications made. But we should go about it in a very slow and deliberate manner. It is for that reason that I support the amendment of the distinguished Republican leader.

ORDER OF PROCEDURE

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. WARNER. Senator Thurmond, were he here, would say: `Mr. President, many in the Congress are troubled with the manner in which the President has dealt with such an important issue which potentially impacts the effectiveness of our Armed Forces. I recognize and respect the role of the President as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces. I also recognize and respect the constitutional role of the Congress to make all laws necessary to raise and support armies and to provide for and maintain the navy. Accordingly, we have both a role, and we'--the Congress--`should both work together to develop a policy'--with our President--`which has as its goal the readiness and effectiveness of our fighting forces.' Underline `fighting forces.'

Senator Thurmond crossed the beaches of Normandy. More than any other Member of this body, with his long service here in the Senate, he has had a very, very strong and long identity with the men and women of the Armed Forces. Therefore, I believe his words, should be taken and considered very carefully by all.

I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of his remarks be placed in the Record.

There being no objection, the statement was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:

Statement by Senator Strom Thurmond--Reference Amendment to Maintain the Current Department of Defense Policy Regarding Gays in the Military

If consultation and cooperation are to be effective, they must take place prior to action, not subsequent to it. The President has already acted.

The amendment offered today will only return our Nation to the status quo so that--through hearing, study, and contemplation--the Senate, the President and the Nation can take informed action this summer.

To approve the amendment is to respect the role of the legislative branch as a partner in public policy. To reject the amendment is to reduce the hearings and debate of this body to a sham. We will talk, but the decision will already have been made.

The President's executive order has turned the policy process on its head. In my view, this amendment would only set it right again.

Mr. President, many in the Congress are troubled by the manner in which the President has dealt with such an important issue which potentially impacts the effectiveness of our Armed Forces. I recognize and respect the role of the President as Commander-in-Chief of our Armed Forces. I also recognize and respect the Constitutional role of the Congress to make all laws necessary to raise and support Armies and to provide for and maintain the Navy. Accordingly, we both have a role and we should both work together to develop a policy which has as its goal the readiness and effectiveness of our fighting forces.

Mr. President, this issue is not about the morality of one's lifestyle. This issue is not about civil rights. The issue before us is National Defense. This debate is about the unique aspects of the military environment and the effect changing that environment will have on victory or defeat. We are talking about the lives of our men and women in uniform. There is no greater responsibility on the President and the 535 members of the Congress than to promote the national defense and the well being of the young people who answer their nation's call. If change is to be made with regard to homosexuals in the military, then it should come about only after thoughtful consideration and consultation, and not simply on the basis of a campaign promise. Campaign promises are part of the process. However, there are times when you just have to step back and remember that the responsibility of leadership to this Nation and its 1.7 million servicemen and women supplant what may have occurred on the campaign trail.

Mr. President, I welcome and fully support Senator Nunn's call for hearings on this issue. We need to hear from the military leaders who have dedicated their lives to this country and possess a unique insight into the working of the military. We need to hear from the non-commissioned officers who are the backbone of our Armed Forces and to whom we look for unit cohesion and discipline. We need to hear from the new recruits whether a change in the current policy would have affected their decision to enlist. We also need to hear from those who support a change in the policy. I am willing to listen to all sides and keep an open mind. Perhaps there are some changes that can be made. However we do not know what those changes should be, because we have not had the opportunity to explore the issue. We are dealing with the policy that has been in effect for 50 years. 50 years, Mr. President. A policy that has been accepted by military and civilian leaders of both parties. Before we take the first step on this uncharted course, I submit that prudence dictates we go slowly or we will run the risk of destroying the finest military in the world.

Mr. President, we all know that many gay men and women have been in uniform and have served their Nation with distinction. I am confident that they would continue to do so with or without a change in policy. However, we need to look beyond the individual to the greater whole. Successful military leaders have always emphasized the importance of trust and cohesion as an element of readiness and combat effectiveness. Our military leaders and training instructors--both officers and enlisted--have worked long and hard to create tight bonds among those who must face tough combat situations and meld individuals into the tightly knit teams necessary to accomplish their mission. In view of the antipathy that often exists between heterosexuals and homosexuals in our culture, will the trust, cohension and spirit of teamwork that currently exists in the ranks suffer if open homosexuality is allowed? Will recruitment and retention suffer as a result of the change in policy? Will the prevalence of AIDS in the gay community create unforeseen risks on the battlefield? Will a medic refuse or hesitate to treat a wounded gay servicemember because of the fear of AIDS? Is privacy aboard a ship or submarine an issue? Should we provide military housing and benefits to a married gay couple? How does the unit commander deal with these issues? These are a few of the tough questions that need to be addressed. Frankly, Mr. President, I do not know the answers to these and other such questions. I do not believe the policy of the Department of Defense should be changed until the members of this body have had a chance to ask, and consider the answers to the many questions we face.

Let us remember that it is easy for politicians to proclaim policy from the comfort of their chambers. It is an entirely different matter for the young lieutenant who has to implement that policy from the spartan and dangerous environment of the battlefield or the close quarters of a nuclear submarine submerged for 90 days. These are the kinds of situations we have a responsibility to review prior to making any changes. Not to do so is a dereliction of our duty to the people who have to live by the rules we make.

Mr. President, in closing, I would like to remind President Clinton that he made another promise to the American people. He committed himself to working closely with the Congress--Democrats and Republicans alike. He wanted to end the divisiveness that he said hindered progress on many issues of importance to the American people. He called for cooperation and not confrontation. Mr. President, there was no initial consultation or cooperation with the Congress on this important issue. This is not a good way to start. If the President is serious about working together on the critical issues facing America--the economy, jobs, health-care reform and the deficit--then I urge him to maintain the present policy on this matter, get on with the hearings and then come together with the Congress and the military to fashion a policy that meets the goal of all Americans--a military force that is prepared to meet the challenges of the 21st century.

[Page: S1285]

It is not often that the Senator from Georgia and I are on different sides of an issue, but we are on this one. But I told him that it was imperative that a very careful study be undertaken respecting how other nations have dealt with this issue.

I have done my very best in the short period of time we have had to try and gain information about other nations policies and experience on this issue, and I will put in the Record a very brief summary of some dozen nations.

This is the best I could obtain, because not much information has been gained; although the Department of Defense has tried. This is not official. But it is the best we can learn. I have spoken with those members of the Department of Defense who have traveled to other nations, who have consulted with the military leaders of other nations with respect to the experience they have had on this issue. They are not forthcoming in terms of the information regarding their learning curve. There are nine nations that prohibit enlistment, and there are some 12 that do not ask questions. But the general theme that I have been able to determine thus far, is that of those nations that do not ask questions, they treat these individuals very differently from the other members of their Armed Forces. Many nations will not give them security clearances. Many nations will not put them in combat units.

I have recommended to the chairman that our committee delegate to several members the task of going abroad to try to learn for ourselves firsthand what the experience of other nations have been, so that when Senators wish to refer to the experience of other nations--and a Senator today has referred to the experience of another nation--we have some hard facts to help guide the ultimate decision of this body.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that two articles from the January 11, 1993, edition of Army Times, along with a summary of policies of NATO nations, be printed in the Record at this point.

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:

From the Army Times, Jan. 11, 1993

In Israel: The Hard Reality

Haifa, Israel: Yaron, a 30-year-old reserve lieutenant in the Israeli navy, stares thoughtfully at his coffee cup, considering the question.

English is his second language, so he must choose his words carefully. But the greater challenge is sorting out his feelings on the topic raised: his experience as a homosexual in the Israeli military.

Thirty to 60 days each year, Yaron, who would not reveal his last name, commands a Dvora class fast-attack boat, patrolling Israel's coastline with a crew of five active-duty sailors and four to five reservists. `Ten beautiful men,' is the way Yaron describes them.

The crew members train to keep their skills sharp and guard against terrorism from the Mediterranean Sea. But how does a homosexual like Yaron handle his duties? How does the crew react: How does the Israeli military accommodate gays in operational assignments?

The questions are keenly relevant given President-elect Clinton's vow to lift the ban on gays serving openly in the U.S. military. Those who support the change answer critics, in part, by pointing to countries like Israel, France and Germany and their perceived success in assimilating gays into the armed forces.

Israel often is cited not only because gays legally can serve openly here, but because the Israeli military is widely viewed as one of the best in the world. Its battle skills have been tested often.

So how do Israel and some of the major NATO countries manage this volatile issue?

A closer look reveals that supporters and opponents of the gay ban alike are clouding the debate with misleading statements. Citing laws and regulations alone is not enough to understand the situation. In many countries, there is a vast difference between what is written and what is day-to-day reality.

[Page: S1286]

THE ISRAELI MYTH

Reality is quite different. In theory, homosexuals serve here openly without fear of harassment or discrimination. In practice, people like Yaron face many of the same pressures as their counterparts in the United States. Consequently, they are afraid to reveal their sexual preference.

Those found to be gay, or who proclaim their homosexuality, must undergo psychological testing to remain in service. Their files are flagged. They usually are barred from positions requiring top security clearances. Known gays rarely are assigned to combat units and do not serve without stigma regardless of the position they hold. Homosexuality, while no longer legally banned in Israel, still is viewed as abnormal both in the military and Israeli society.

Yet, the Israeli military handles homosexuals delicately compared with the U.S. military, where gays face immediate discharge regardless of assignment, specialty or overall performance. Many here consider such a blanket ban unnecessarily harsh. Homosexuals in the Israeli military do not fear criminal investigation, court-martial or abrupt dismissal. And `gay bashing'--physical attacks against homosexuals--is seen here as a violent American phenomenon.

THE MASQUERADE

Hiding his homosexuality. Yaron says, he receives excellent fitness reports and considers himself an effective boat captain. Still, he's concerned about the `sexual tension' and how his homosexuality plays off the crew.

`[Navy officials] think if I'm gay that, in an emergency, some of my subordinates won't take my orders . . . that they will be insubordinate. I feel you must trust everyone. It doesn't depend on sexual orientation. I'm very efficient,' he says.

But, `you live with the crew 24 hours a day, sometimes away from the beach for a long time. And sailors, they talk all the time about sex.'

As a homosexual, he says, `it's very difficult to separate the sexual stress from the special relationship with crew. There are close quarters and sometimes even touching. Lots of times sailors go naked and that is a problem for me. They laugh a lot about opportunities for sex among the crew and, sometimes, for a gay, it's very hard. I can't say, `Stop laughing at homosexual relationships!'

His situation is different, he concedes, than it would be for a heterosexual officer. He's uncomfortable, for example, with some of the horseplay between crew members. He's bothered that the crew uses slang for homosexual to curse one another. He wonders if some sailors who joke about homosexual relations actually are interested in them. And he fears showing favoritism toward crewmen he finds physically attractive.

`I can't ignore if I like someone very much. If I'm very attracted or [have] a special relationship, I'll act different. . . . Sometimes they can be confused and don't know the meaning of this connection.'

But Yaron emphatically says he would never have sexual relations with a crewman.

`I separate [my] civilian life when I come into the Navy. I act like I'm straight. But sometimes that may cause some trouble because I'm only a human being. I can do my job very good although I feel sexual attraction too.'

Asked if all these feelings don't affect his ability to command, Yaron says they make it `very difficult to serve. But they have to give me the opportunity.'

Listening to this conversation is Tal Weisberg, a gay reservist in the Israel army and Yaron's friend.

`I switch off my sexuality [on active duty],' Weisberg says. `Not because I want to, but because I am afraid.'

Staying in the field for long periods is not much different than being at sea, says Weisberg, who serves in a front-line maintenance unit. When he feels attracted to another soldier, in a group shower for example, he has learned to check his feelings.

`It depends on the character of the person.' Yaron says. `If he has a weak character, it's a problem.'

WE DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM

`We don't have a problem,' one government official says, `and we don't want one.'

While some Clinton supporters see Israel as an archetype for integrating gays, the government here is uncomfortable in that role.

`It's true that the Israeli army does not discriminate against gays. But it has to be put into a proper context,' says Lt. Col. Moshe Fogel, spokesman for the Israeli Defense Force.

That context begins with Israeli society, where the emphasis is on family values and the government is a democratic theocracy. Judaism and religious leaders play a prominent role in setting the nation's agenda. There's no concept here, as in the United States, of separation of church and state.

`We struggle to strike a balance between a modern, pluralistic, secular society and, at the same time, a Jewish state,' says Uri Dromi, director of the government press office. Judaism considers homosexuality as `an aberration, something that should not be done and should not be endorsed or acknowledged or credited with the same status as straight people.'

Perhaps because these societal pressures are so strong, the Israeli military sees no need to paint homosexuality as a readiness issue. It already has the authority to restrict homosexual assignments and promotions.

A DIFFERENT CONTEXT

`If you don't let someone in the Army here, it is a very cruel thing to do,' says David Kreizelman, deputy director of the government press office. `Not only do people assume something's wrong with you . . . you're immediately bringing on yourself all kinds of problems.'

Military service is a springboard to a successful civilian career here. Military experience is among the first questions asked of job applicants. Those who have progressed steadily or have served in critical positions have an advantage over their peers, particularly for jobs in government or Israel's bustling defense industry. Conversely, young people with no military experience face limited job prospects.

Male draftees must serve three years on active duty. At age 21, a relatively small number enter the small Israeli professional military and the others transfer to the reserves. Reservists drill one to two months annually until age 51. Women must serve two years on active duty. Their reserve obligation ends at age 24.

QUALITY SENT TO COMBAT

Every Israeli soldier begins service as a draftee. There are no service academies or ROTC programs. Eighteen months into mandatory service, standouts can apply to attend a six-month officer course. If accepted, their active-duty obligation is extended another year.

Inductees never are asked if they are homosexual and it is rare that they would volunteer the information, officials say. For one thing, many gay men and women still are unsure of their sexual orientation at 18. Also, because Israel is a religious, family-oriented society, young people who reveal their homosexuality bring enormous pressure on themselves and their families.

`There is a tremendous difference between public acceptance of gays in the U.S. and in Israel,' says Reuven Gal, former chief psychologist for the Israeli Defense Force. `Where we stand today is still far, far behind where the U.S. stood even in the early '70s, not to mention where it stands now.'

PSYCHOLOGICAL TESTING

Dan Yakir, a lawyer with the Association for Civil Rights in Israel, says the official policy toward gays was set down in a 1983 military order that concludes homosexuality is not a mental disorder, but might pose a security risk.

The aim of the psychological exam is to determine if a soldier's homosexuality is an isolated phenomenon, or whether it's associated with deviant behavior. The test also attempts to measure the `mental strength of the soldier and the ability to cope with stress,' Yakir says.

After testing, most homosexuals are permitted to remain in service. But, says Gal, `there will be an indicator in his file that limits him from serving with specific units such as intelligence . . . or in small units where the closeness of living accommodations are so tight and limited it may create problems. They won't send him to a submarine, for example. Other than that, they won't discriminate.'

Gal, now director of the Israeli Institute of Military Studies, suggests that, structurally, the Israeli military might be better suited to accommodate gays than is the U.S. military. There is no evidence that homosexuals are less effective in combat than heterosexuals, he contends. Lawrence of Arabia, for example, was one of the most charismatic and dynamic military leaders to serve in the Middle East. The real issue, Gal says, is how openly homosexual members affect the group. In that regard, the Israeli military has an advantage over the U.S. military because it has a smaller and far more stable force.

`The very same group [of recruits] that came in together in August 1989 walks out together three years later,' Gal says. `The same four guys in a tank crew will serve together through several wars. They know each other to the guts.'

`Suppose you had an Israeli combat unit that has been together two or three years. If suddenly a guy comes out and discloses he is a homosexual, I don't think it would affect unit cohesion. He will be considered based on how good he is as a tanker or as an infantryman,' Gal says.

Even making these allowances, gays in the IDF are swimming against strong currents. In December, a gay magazine in Tel Aviv reported a story that reinforced what a stigma homosexuality carries in the top ranks of the Israel military. According to the report, several years ago a top Army officer tried to derail the appointment of Dan Shomron as army chief of staff by alleging that Shomron was a homosexual. Shomron denied the allegation and won the chief of staff position. But he also demanded a full government investigation to clear his name. Military officials confirmed the story, including that investigation found the allegation against Shomron to be groundless.

`The Israel image of a military man, especially a combat officer, is still very much a macho image,' says Gal.

[Page: S1287]

FIGHTING FOR CHANGE

In December 1991, the Knesset passed a law making it illegal to discriminate against homosexuals in the workplace. Although only elected to the Knesset this past summer, Yael Dayan, daughter of the late Israeli defense minister and soldier Moshe Dayan, already has gotten a subcommittee established to weed out discrimination based on sexual preference.

Despite their strong bias against homosexuality, many Israelis express surprise that the United States, with its reputation for protecting personal freedoms, would ban homosexuals outright from all military assignments.

`I know an officer who visited with Americans units,' one Israeli defense official says. `And what did he see? In Marine [Corps] combat units, he saw women getting the same training as men. He saw every type of ethnic background you could ever imagine, people from walks of life about as different as they could be.

`We see that and we say, `What problem could you have with homosexuals?'

From the Army Times, Jan. 11, 1993

NATO Acceptance of Gays Runs Full Spectrum

The United States' NATO allies certainly have opinions of their own on the issue of homosexuals in military service; these opinions are about as diverse as can be. If the U.S. Army changes its policies from preventing gays to fight to permitting them to do so, it will still remain well within the bounds of accepted allied practice, which ranges from that of the Dutch--where gays in the army are represented by a union--to that of the Greeks--who flatly ban gays from service.

Most U.S. officers who work closely with NATO allies here prefer to avoid confronting the disparate policies directly. Typical was the reaction of NATO military commander Gen. John Shalikashvili, who favors retaining the U.S. ban. Asked to comment recently on the lack of problems reported by the German military, he said, `It's an issue that each nation will have to deal with within its own context, so I would not want to make comparisons.'

But another senior American officer added an equally typical comment, `The Germans, the Dutch, the Belgians--they ain't been in a fight lately.'

Despite policies that generally are more liberal than the current U.S. ban, nations that allow homosexuals to serve openly have not resolved the problem of fully integrating them into their armies. For example, gays are allowed to serve in the German armed forces, or Bundeswehr. Nor does homosexuality exclude young men from the draft.

And the treatment of gays does not come close to the full equality that homosexuals in the United States are demanding. Gay German officers find paths to promotion blocked, and in some cases have been blocked from access to classified material, according to officials interviewed there. Gay conscripts often find life in the Bundeswehr unpleasant.

Still, German officers said, the sky has not fallen. Problems feared by U.S. commanders have not materialized, and the question rarely has been a major issue in the military of one of the United States' key NATO allies.

From a practical standpoint, the Bundeswehr's prohibition on gays ended in 1969, when West Germany removed homosexuality from its list of criminal offenses. While some military regulations against homosexuality survived for years, in practice, gays have been left undisturbed except in rare cases where they make advances toward subordinates.

TREATED THE SAME WAY?

But the Bundeswehr withholds promotions from gay officers on the grounds that they cannot command adequate respect from soldiers, according to Volker Beck, a spokesman for the German Gay League, who added court challenges to the practice have not been successful to date.

Military officials acknowledged that an officer's career can be damaged by open homosexuality.

`It might be affected where they are behaving in a way it becomes obvious,' Reichenmiller said. `The respect a military superior needs to lead soldiers might keep him from further promotion, but he wouldn't be degraded.'

`What happens practically is that when someone is open about their homosexuality they won't be promoted,' Beck said.

Anti-gay violence, lowered readiness, and discipline problems have not been the result in Germany, officials said. `We haven't noticed any problems like that,' said Friedrichs, a 30-year veteran. `There were no problems that caused the military leadership any headaches.'

`I really have never heard of such a case in my 29 years of military service,' said an army pilot, who added he would prefer not to have gays in his unit.

`Morale might be touched a little, but not readiness. I can't imagine that,' he said.

OUT OF THE CLOSET, OUT OF THE ARMY

And although policies on homosexuals in the military are being challenged and changed in other countries, Britons interviewed in Washington and London said there is little if any sentiment for change in Great Britain.

The question of permitting gays to serve in the British military simply is not a matter of debate, they said. And the fact that Canada and Australia recently lifted bans on letting homosexuals serve, and the possibility that the United States may follow suit, has not prompted the British to question their own policy, they added.

`We think we've got it right,' Pengelly said.

The only recent military action on the homosexual front in Britain came this past June, when the British military adopted the policy that homosexual acts that are not against civil law no longer will be against military law. The change means, in Pengelly's words, `They used to be kicked out and prosecuted. Now they are just kicked out.'

Actually, the practice of prosecuting gays simply for being gay was abandoned unofficially years ago, said Andre Silverman, a spokesman for the British Defense Ministry. Most homosexual activity among consenting adults was decriminalized in Britain in 1967, he said.

But beyond making current practice into official policy, there has been no move by the British military to embrace homosexuals.

Britain's military leadership contends, much like its U.S. counterpart, that allowing homosexuals to serve would hurt the military.

John Keegan, military editor of The Daily Telegraph in London, recently wrote that in the wake of Australia's decision to lift its gay ban, `The moment for experimentation with homosexual military rights is not yet with us, and probably never will be.'

According to Keegan, in British army regiments, men serve together for an entire career and homosexuality in such a regiment would be devastating to unit cohesion.

[Page: S1288]

NORWAY: `NOT AN ISSUE'

In a country where women and men serve side by side aboard submarines or roll around naked in the snow to get clean during wintertime military exercises, Norwegians are matter-of-fact about their integrated defense force. That includes the presence of gays and lesbians, who have been allowed to serve openly in the armed forces for the past 14 years.

`Basically, the difference between the United States and Norway is that in Norway, it's not an issue,' said Air Force Lt. Col. Ragnar Haugholt, the assistant Army, Navy and Air Force attache for the Norwegian Embassy here. `A lot of what is going on in the United States is based on believing not knowing.'

But despite the absence of debate on homosexuals serving in the Norwegian military, the status of homosexual partnerships is currently in flux. A proposal by the ruling minority Labor Party government to allow gay and lesbian couples to marry is expected to pass before spring, officials said. That would make Norway the second country in the world to officially recognize homosexual unions.

With its passage, Norwegian gays on active duty will be able get living allowances and other benefits for their partners, officials said. Military housing allowances for married couples run about $500 to $600 a month, said Navy Capt. Thor Hallin, naval attache at the Norwegian Embassy here.

There is some concern over the homosexual union proposal, however.

Arne Dahl, the armed forces judge advocate general, said the new law singles out homosexuals and could fuel resentment among Norwegians who may see it as unfairly advantageous treatment.

By contrast, there was little debate over ending the ban in 1979 on homosexuals serving openly in the Norwegian military, said Gro Lindstad, who chairs the National Organization of Lesbian and Gay Liberation in Norway.

FRANCE: A DRAFT DODGE

`There is no official discrimination against gay men and women as long as they obey the rules of the French armed forces,' said Capt. Phillipe Hunter, a spokesman for the minister of defense. `For example, it is not possible to punish somebody because of his sexual life. But if this person makes some sexual harassment upon other members of his unit, he will be in trouble.'

Other government sources said the more common practice for French homosexuals is to avoid the 10-month mandatory service required of draft-age youths by claiming their lifestyle is incompatible with service.

`If a young man claims to be a gay in hope of not being drafted, it won't work,' Hunter said. `But if his sexual life causes him psychological troubles, he won't be drafted.'

Other French officials said homosexuals routinely dodge service that way. `Of people eligible for duty under the conscription law, only about three-quarters of those are medically exempted. And a well-known way of being exempted is declaring you are a homosexual,' one official said. `It will not appear on paper that you were exempted for that reason. . . . Everybody is happy.'

NATO policies on gays in uniform

Britain: Homosexuals are officially barred from service, but unofficially the British Defense Ministry says the practice of prosecuting gays simply for being gay is rare. Homosexual acts among consenting adults has been decriminalized in military as well as civilian law as long as it is off-duty.

Canada: Was ordered by the Federal Court of Canada to drop its ban on gays in the Canadian Forces in October 1992. Canadian service members were not required to certify they were heterosexual when they enlisted, but openly gay persons were often discharged or had their transfer or promotion opportunities limited. The files of service members who were either discharged or denied promotion because of their sexual orientation are being reviewed for reconsideration by military authorities.

Denmark: No law or policy. Neither conscripts nor volunteers are asked about sexual orientation. Treated as a personal, private matter.

France: No legislation or written codes. Gays are allowed to serve in the French military as long as they do not harass other members of their units. But gays and lesbians can avoid being drafted by claiming their homosexuality is incompatible with service life.

Germany: Homosexuality cannot be used as a reason not be drafted, although potential gay conscripts who claim service would be psychologically injurious are evaluated and frequently given alternative mandatory service. Career members of the military who are openly gay do face discrimination, frequently finding promotions blocked and access to top-level classified information denied.

Greece: Homosexuals are banned from military service.

Italy: Homosexuals are deemed unsuitable for military service. During medical examinations, homosexual conscripts will be declared ineligible if found to have behavioral `anomalies' caused by sexual deviations.

Luxenbourg: Homosexuals are not precluded from service. Military service is voluntary and enlistees are not asked about sexual orientation. Improper conduct--whether homosexual or heterosexual--is punishable by discharge or court martial.

Netherlands: Basic law prohibits all discrimination, for any reason. A union represents homosexuals in the military. Unwanted advances are treated as improper behavior. Courses in human relations are conducted for commanders and include homosexual issues. Legislation is pending for homosexual survivor benefits.

Norway: Not considered a relevant issue and no one entering the service is asked about their sexual orientation. Unwanted advances by either homosexual or heterosexual service members are treated as improper behavior contrary to good order and discipline.

Portugal: Not seen as a relevant issue. Homosexuals may serve in the armed forces, although conduct may be punishable.

Spain: There are no codes regulating homosexuals in the military. Like religion, sexual orientation is considered a person's own choice.

Turkey: Homosexuals are not permitted to serve openly in the armed services, although they are not asked about their sexual orientation upon entering the service.

Source: Military and embassy officials of each country.

HOMOSEXUAL POLICY MATRIX

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                  Prohibits enlistment Does not ask questions Discharged if found in the service Does not discharge but discriminates Permits homosexuals to serve

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Belgium                                                     X                                                                       X

Canada                                                      X                                                                                                    X

Denmark                                                     X                                                                                                    X

France                                                      X                                                                                                 X 1

Germany                                                     X                                                                    X 1

Greece                            X 2                                                          X

Italy                                X                                                         X

Luxembourg                                                  X                                                                                                    X

Netherlands                                                 X                                                                                                    X

Norway                                                      X                                                                                                    X

Portugal                             X                                                         X

Spain                                                       X                                                                                                    X

Turkey                               X                                                         X

United Kingdom                       X                                                         X

Australia                                                   X                                                                                                    X

Egypt                                X

Israel                                                      X                                                                       X

Japan                                                       X                                                                                                    X

New Zealand                          X                                                         X

Republic of Korea                    X                                                         X

Saudi Arabia                         X

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BELGIUM

Homosexuality is not a reason for exclusion from the draft unless a significant `psychopathology,' determined by a clinical evaluation, exists.

In a serving homosexual is exposed publicly, the member is referred to the medical community to determine if the member should be continued on active duty.

Serving homosexuals may have limited access to confidential documents and excluded from certain tasks and units.

Open homosexual behavior among members of the Armed Forces will not be tolerated and will lead to neuropsychiatric evaluation.

CANADA

Armed Forces was one of the last institutions to maintain a discriminatory practice regarding homosexuals serving in the military.

Government ended the military's policy condoning homosexuals in October 1992.

Previous to policy change, questions were not asked to determine homosexual orientation but when discovered, homosexuals were discharged.

Armed forces have developed an instruction outlining inappropriate sexual behavior prohibited under civil law; not based on specific gender or orientation.

DENMARK

No questions are asked concerning sexual orientation.

Sexual preference is treated as a private, personal matter and is not considered a matter relevant to military service.

FRANCE

No questions asked.

Sexuality is considered a private matter; it is considered rare in French society for homosexuals to declare their status.

Homosexuals may be medically exempted from conscription if they believe that their sexual proclivity causes psychological problems.

Commanders can separate a serving homosexual if the behavior is incompatible with military life.

An avowed homosexual may be allowed to serve if he or she is not causing problems.

May be a problem if an avowed homosexual is serving in a job linked with national security.

[Page: S1289]

GERMANY

No written policy regarding homosexuals serving in the Armed Forces.

No questions asked as part of the conscription or enlistment process; however if a doctor discovers homosexual orientation during the medical exam, the inductee will be eliminated from entry if declared psychologically unfit.

Potential homosexual draftee may be exempted from military service if he states that he cannot control his sexual urges.

Discrimination against serving homosexuals exists.

Practicing homosexuals: Not electable to officer or petty officer ranks on the grounds that homosexuals cannot command adequate respect from soldiers; denied security clearances; and can be removed from the Service, subject to a court decision, if behavior disturbs the military.

Non-practicing homosexuals are not discharged, but are watched and their career advancement is blocked.

GREECE

Homosexual conscripts who want to serve may do so if they do not `misbehave' but are denied certain duties such as service aboard a warship.

Serving homosexuals who display inappropriate behaviors are discharged.

Homosexual conscripts or enlistees who display `strong homosexual tendencies' during the entry process are not allowed to serve.

ITALY

Homosexuality is considered incompatible with military service.

The question of orientation is asked during the induction process.

Homosexual conscripts are medically evaluated and, if found psychologically `normal' they are declared eligible but not desirable, put on a special profile and sent home.

Serving homosexuals, once discovered, are discharged under an administrative procedure.

LUXEMBOURG

Sexual orientation is not questioned during the entry process.

Sexual orientation is considered a private, personal matter; serving homosexuals are advised to keep it a private concern.

Inappropriate sexual behavior, homosexual or heterosexual, is punishable by discharge or court martial.

THE NETHERLANDS

Homosexuals in the military are represented by a union.

Human relations training for military commanders includes homosexual issues.

Unwanted advances, of any kind, are treated as improper behavior.

Per a 1990 study by the Netherlands Navy, intolerance toward homosexuals still exists in the Armed Forces.

Homosexual lifestyle is not accepted by many heterosexual military members.

Baiting, fear, and `unprovable forms of discrimination' still exist.

Many homosexual military members still stay `in the closet.'

NORWAY

Conscripts are not asked about their sexual orientation.

Homosexuality is not a reason for discharge.

Persons displaying unwanted aggressive behavior are transferred to another unit or Service.

Unwanted behaviors are treated as improper behavior which is contrary to good order and discipline, but homosexuality is not the main issue.

PORTUGAL

Homosexual enlistees and/or conscripts are not accepted into active duty.

If discovered, serving homosexuals are discharged.

SPAIN

No questions are asked concerning sexual orientation.

Homosexual orientation is no longer a reason for discharge.

Homosexuals discovered engaging in behaviors considered inappropriate are adjudged as would be any offender of the military's Uniform Code of Military Justice.

TURKEY

Homosexual conscripts or volunteers are not allowed to serve.

If discovered, serving homosexuals are discharged and, dependent upon the circumstances, may be charged with the military justice article addressing `disgrace.'

UNITED KINGDOM

Avowed homosexuals are not enlisted.

If discovered, serving homosexuals are discharged:

Homosexuals who engaged in activity with a member of the same rank over 21 are involuntarily administratively discharged.

Homosexuals who engaged in activity with someone under 21 or of a different rank are court martialed, then discharged.

AUSTRALIA

Service Personnel are required to refrain from conduct damaging to group morale or professional capability and cohesion.

Unacceptable, rather than unlawful, sexual behavior may be grounds for administrative separation.

ADF has developed an instruction to state ADF policy regarding unacceptable behavior by ADF members and the service action which may be taken as a result.

ISRAEL

No questions are asked regarding sexual orientation.

Admitted homosexuals can enter the military, but are not accepted for entry into highly classified units.

Although officially accepted, many homosexuals stay `in the closet' due to fears of stunted career growth and social stigma.

JAPAN

Few, if any cases, have been found.

If a homosexual was discovered in the service, he would be disciplined but not discharged.

Homosexuality is contrary to the ethics and mores of the Japanese society.

NEW ZEALAND

If discovered, practicing homosexuals, or those charged with indecent acts, are discharged.

Current policy is under review.

REPUBLIC OF KOREA

Homosexuals are not allowed to enter the military.

Self-proclaimed homosexuals serving in the military are psychologically evaluated and discharged.

Homosexual activity is against the penal code, military members are discharged if found guilty of homosexual acts.

SAUDI ARABIA

Existence of homosexuality is not acknowledged since it is contrary to the prevailing religion.

No regulation or policy regarding homosexuality exists for the military since this would acknowledge its existence.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the unanimous-consent agreement, the Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. Chafee] is recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, as the Senate debates the matter of whether homosexuals should be admitted into the Armed Forces of the United States, I would like to offer a few thoughts, if I might. I approached this debate with the experience of having served 2 1/2 years on active duty as a marine and then 3 1/2 years on active duty as a marine officer, where I had the privilege of commanding a rifle company, and 3 1/2 years as Secretary of the Navy.

Just as I do not think one needs to have experienced poverty in order to discuss poverty, I do not believe that one has to have served in the military in order to discuss this subject before us. Nonetheless, I do find that my experiences are helpful to my thinking on whether homosexuals should serve in the military.

Mr. President, as a nation, we have accepted the goal of making our armed services reflective of American society. All who are able-bodied and qualified, men and women, people of all races and creeds, may serve. And having served, there are certain benefits that come with that, which they are entitled to. For example, as we all know, having served in the military, one is entitled to additional points on a civil service exam, or is able to receive a VA pension.

It is not totally accurate, as sometimes is suggested, that our sole goal should be a more efficient military. For example, the integration of women into the Armed Forces has required adjustments to be made, adjustments which have taken time, attention, and money. It would have been more efficient, Mr. President, and less expensive for the military not to make the effort to be more inclusive. But the country made the decision that women should be given the opportunity to serve, and that, I believe, is a correct decision. Gender is no longer an issue, but talent, skill, brain power, fitness, and dedication are the criteria.

Now we are confronted with the question of whether homosexuals should continue to be excluded from military service because of their sexual preference. No, we are not talking about behavior, but we are talking about sexual preference. It turns out that we were excluding a substantial percentage of our population, perhaps 8 percent, perhaps 10 percent, who knows.

I am one who strongly believes that any problems attendant to allowing homosexuals to serve in the military can be minimized. I am certain there would be no noticeable deterioration in the quality or readiness level of the Armed Forces of the United States. In fact, as we all know, there are already many homosexuals who have been private about their sexual orientation, who now serve in the military, and have compiled records of valor. I have seen that myself in my experience. Now those homosexuals serving in the military service should be allowed to come out in the open and, as citizens of this country, be given the opportunity and the privilege to serve their country.

What should be the standard of conduct? It should be the same as for all other men and women in the military. There should be nothing offensive in their conduct. For example, we cannot tolerate the retention of men who harass or molest their female peers. Likewise, the military will not be able to tolerate homosexuals whose behavior intimidates or harasses others. Any kind of untoward sexual behavior, no matter from whom it comes, must not be permitted.

It seems to me, Mr. President, much distortion about homosexuals in the military has crept into this discussion. Some suggestions have railed about and really have reached the preposterous level. I will give you a couple of examples. The idea that there is suddenly going to be a stampede of gays to enter the military force is ludicrous. So is the implication that the military will find itself battling an epidemic of AIDS, a disease that also hits, as we know, heterosexuals. That assertion makes no sense.

Should there be a careful process of admitting gays and lesbians into the armed services? Of course, there should be. Congressional hearings should go forward as planned, but the purpose of the hearings should not be to determine whether homosexuals should be allowed to enter the military but, instead, how we can go about integrating them in the smoothest way.

Can such integration take place overnight? Of course, it can. But it will have to take place gradually. There will have to be a vigorous effect to sensitize soldiers, sailors, officers, enlisted men, about the kind of behavior that will be expected.

To my mind, this effort is not unlike the aftermath of the Tailhook scandal, whereas, as many will recall, the entire Navy stood down for a day--the entire Navy--so that it could be made clear to all in the military, to all in the Navy, every man, that they cannot harass their female counterparts.

Without question, Mr. President, removing the ban on gays in the military is going to require the support of senior officers. If they are unsupportive of the new policy, then get out. It seems to me we have to all remember we have only one Commander in Chief. My experience has been, however, that when a discussion has taken place on a matter of import in the Navy, and a decision has been reached, that those in command follow the decision. They may not be wildly enthusiastic about it, but they carry it out--in exemplary fashion.

Mr. President, I have great faith in the military leadership of our country, that they will accept the directives of this President with grace.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.

[Page: S1290]

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for 10 minutes.

Mr. HELMS. I thank the distinguished Senator and I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, let us get right to the point--no more mumbo jumbo, no parliamentary slight-of-hand. The only amendment before the Senate today that will prevent homosexuals overt entry into the Armed Forces of the United States is the Dole amendment. Any other suggestion is inaccurate.

So, the choice is clear: By supporting the Dole amendment you will be standing with the Joint Chiefs of Staff, with every major veterans' organization, and with literally millions of Americans who understand that anything short of the current ban is a threat to national defense and a surrender to a repugnant and arrogant political movement.

On the other hand, by supporting only the Mitchell amendment, while opposing the Dole amendment, you will be engaging in eyewash by supporting what is called a `nothing amendment' around this place. You will be standing with those who are ready to sacrifice the morale and effectiveness of the world's finest military in the name of a crash campaign and special interest politics.

Do not be misled by all of the talk about waiting around for this hearing or that study. The President of the United States has made clear that he is bound and determined to allow the followers of ACT-UP and Queer Nation to invade the U.S. military. He has said that no matter what this Senate does, no matter what these hearings conclude, he will lift the ban.

Mr. President, as I said in my Tuesday remarks in the Senate, President Clinton is on record, in writing, as `loathing the military.' The reasons for his refusal to serve his country in uniform are well known. He has never been through basic training and his only experience with soldiers and sailors is watching them march down the street in a parade.

His determination to invite homosexuals into the armed services can certainly be taken by America's soldiers, sailors, and airman as proof positive that the President is at best insensitive and at worst contemptuous of the military way of life.

President Clinton and his advisers--many of whom have never gone near the uniform and are proud of that fact--have ignored the warnings of General Powell and his service chiefs. Thousands of Americans saw the widely circulated January 18 memo from the new Secretary of Defense to the President. It called for the advice and help of homosexual activists and politicians and disparaged the views of our Nation's highest military leaders. Obviously, the many years of combined combat experience of the Joint Chiefs count for nothing in the face of the radical minority of homosexuals and their allies in the White House.

What is underway here is the governmental stamp of approval on the homosexual lifestyle and that means making sexual orientation a protected class, sanctioning quotas in hiring and promotion, benefits for same-sex spouses and on down the line. Transforming the U.S. military into the radical's social laboratory is the most important first step in the transformation of all of American society.

In conclusion, let me repeat: The choice is clear. By supporting the amendment of the distinguished Senator from Kansas, the Republican leader, Mr. Dole, you will be standing with the Joint Chiefs of Staff, you will be standing with every major veterans' organization, you will be standing with millions of Americans who have made clear that they understand that any thing short of the current ban is a threat to national defense and surrender to repugnant and arrogant political forces in our land.

Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time, and ask unanimous consent that a series of newspaper articles be placed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks

I yield the floor.

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:

[Page: S1291]

From the Washington Times, Feb. 2, 1993

Blooming of the Flower Children

Wellington said of Napoleon that his presence on the battlefield was worth 40,000 men. And of Waterloo, where he faced a sick Napoleon with an army half his own, he remembered grimly: `It was the most desperate business I ever was in. A damn close-run thing.'

The age of warfare and battlefields is over, some say, ignoring Serbs, Croats, Bosnians, Azeris, Georginas, Kurds, Iraqis, Somalis, Cambodians, Angolans * * *. But one can't help but wonder how many men our own commander in chief would be worth on the battlefield. And the grim suspicion comes back: zero. And he might even be worth 40,000 men to the enemy.

Thucydides wrote: `Fix your eyes on the greatness of Athens, and remember that this greatness was won by men of courage, who did not stand idly by when the enemy attacked.' And the answer to what men would most want to be has for hundreds and hundreds of years been: brave. Civilizations have come and gone--with widespread worldly desires to be rich, handsome, intelligent, witty, sometimes kind--but in most men's heart of hearts the answer is still: brave.

President Clinton is not a `baby boomer' president (a term rapidly approaching worthlessness), he's our first flower-child president. In his formative years, the `flower power' mind-set at elite universities was at its most pervasive. And this country's flower children, although given to egregious imitations of courage under embarrassingly safe conditions, have never entirely gotten over the virulent antipathy they felt for the men--working class and their educational inferiors--who fought for their country in Vietnam.

These flower children had the most immaculately idealistic reasons for opposing the war. In their mind they were humanitarians, agrarian Socialists, even Mahatma Gandhi. But the suspicion of cowardice lingers, gnawing at them, too. Others fought for their country. They, children of privilege, took educational deferments or fled. And many display to this day an invidious attitude toward the military, which they consider, at best, an alien culture.

During the Gulf war, one had only to hear the press-conference `questions' in plummy Ivy League accents expressing horror that we were bombing a retreating enemy (didn't we bomb retreating Germans in Normandy?), or that our ordnance was only 25 percent accurate (to hit a single target in World War II we had to drop 6,000 bombs).

I submit that President Clinton, who equivocated shamelessly at the outset of the Gulf war and gave it his wholehearted support only after we'd won, remains a typical flower child, and that in a remote corner of his heart, out of envy mixed with self-justification, he seeks to demean his own military.

In my London days I knew a distinguished English homosexual actor who, drafted into the Royal Air Force at the hour of greatest peril in World War II, burst into tears at the induction center. When he'd not stopped sobbing a week later, the RAF discharged him as plainly unfit to fly out on the great bombing runs over Germany. An intelligent, fairminded person in other respects, this man could never stop himself from denigrating the course, uneducated Britons whose grim determination to fight for their country had saved him from a Nazi concentration camp. My point being not his homosexuality but his strange ingratitude.

Bill Clinton, I suspect, is such a man. Would he have burst into tears at boot camp if the military had grabbed him during the Vietnam War? I have no idea. But I accuse him, after what is already a record number of broken electoral promises, of sticking to his position on homosexuals in the military out of a probably unconscious urge to demean men in a far rougher profession that his, and who've shown the physical courage he has never shown.

If there's anything to opinion polls, they show Bill Clinton's lifting of the ban on homosexuals supported by many women (not exactly the warrior class), opposed overwhelmingly by men (particularly those who've served), and opposed quite fiercely by the military itself. The armed forces, for those like Bill Clinton who see them only at parades, are not a democracy. Military men are not just another fraction of American society. When the nation is in danger, their mission, at risk of their lives, is to kill and destroy. They are not like other people.

Bill Clinton has never heard a shot fired in anger. He's never spent a day in uniform, never been through basic training or boot camp. These experiences are quite unlike the cheap bonhommie of an MTV party to the music of flower-child Bob Dylan's `The Times They Are A-Changing'.' They might horrify him. Bill Clinton claimed in New Hampshire that he could `take a punch.' But, given his flower-child predilections, it was an odd metaphor. Can Bob Dylan take a punch? Would Saddam Hussein be frightened if we told him we were sending Bob Dylan after him?

Winning a Rhodes Scholarship was very important to Bill Clinton's political career. In stipulating the qualifications for Rhodes Scholars, Cecil Rhodes cited, immediately after scholastic achievement, `manly outdoor sports.' But Bill Clinton, who jogs like an old lady, has never played manly sports.

And those who find it unthinkable that a president demoralize his own military might contemplate the likely behavior as commander in chief of Bill Clinton's soulmate Barbara Streisand (who nourishes senatorial ambitions). Forget Hilary. Think kiss-kiss Hollywood. Think Barbara Streisand.

From the Washington Post, June 28, 1992

The Case For a Military Gay Ban

Rep. Pat Schroeder of Colorado wanted to give women `equality and opportunity' by making them rucksack-toting grunts. Now she aims at putting homosexuals in the foxholes to `end the final bastion of discrimination.'

I cannot think of a better way to destroy fighting spirit and gut U.S. combat effectiveness. My credentials for saying this are over four decades' experience as a soldier or military reporter.

Despite the ban on service by homosexuals, gays have long served in the armed forces, some with distinction. Many perhaps felt no sexual inclination toward their heterosexual fellow soldiers. If they did, they had their buddies' attitudes and the Uniform Code of Military Justice hanging over their heads. Still, I have seen countless examples of inappropriate and morale-busting behavior.

In Italy, for example, in the postwar occupation, a gay soldier could not keep his hands off other soldiers in my squad. He disrupted discipline, mangled trust among squad members and zeroed out morale. In the same unit, the personnel major was gay. He had affairs with ambitious teenage soldiers in exchange for kicking up their test scores. This corrupted the command's promotion system and led to the commissioning of William Calley-like lieutenants not fit to lead combat soldiers.

During my second tour in the Korean War, a gay commanding officer gave combat awards to his lovers who had never been on the line. IN Vietnam, a young captain in my unit was asked by the commander to go to bed with him. This almost destroyed the esprit of a fine parachute unit.

These are not isolated incidents: During my Army career I saw countless officers and NCOs who couldn't stop themselves from hitting on soldiers. The absoluteness of their authority, the lack of privacy, enforced intimacy and a 24-hour duty day made sexual urges difficult to control. The objects of their affection were impressionable lads who, searching for a caring role model, sometimes ended up in a gay relationship they might not have sought.

A majority of American citizens, according to polls, support Schroeder's bill. Many people look at the armed forces as they do the post office, the Bank of America or General Motors--an 8-to-5 institution where discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is against basic freedom, human rights and the American way of life. If these polls are true, a lot of people don't understand what war is about.

Sure, banning gays from defending their country is discriminatory. But discriminations are necessary when a larger public purpose is being served. Civilian standards of fairness and equality don't apply down where the body bags are filled.

On the battlefield, what allows men to survive is combat units made up of discipline team players, who are realistically trained and led by caring skippers who set the example and know their trade. When all of these factors are in synch, a unit has the right stuff. It becomes tight, a family, and clicks like a professional football team. Spirited men who place their lives in their buddies' hands are the most essential element in warfare. The members of such combat teams trust one another totally.

One doesn't need to be a field marshal to understand that sex between service members undermines those critical factors that produce discipline, military orders, spirit and combat effectiveness. Mix boys and girls, gays and straights in close quarters such as the barracks or the battlefield, and both sexual contact and the consequent breakdown of morale are inevitable.

Many bright people are pushing for the ban to be lifted. I suspect that few if any have been down in the trenches, but I have no doubt their psychological political clout will have considerable influence even if they don't have a clue what combat is about.

Unfortunately, most of the top brass won't sound off. They duck and weave and offer hollow and spurious Pentagonese double-talk reasons for continuing the ban--reasons that only fuel the pro-gay argument. But they have told me in the `G' ring of the Pentagon that they're against it, but sounding off would be the kiss of death, like opposing women in combat--a career killer, you know.

I hope that our lawmakers will visit Quantico and Fort Benning before they vote, and ask Marine gunnery sergeants and Army platoon sergeants what a few gays would do to the fighting spirit of units. These pros told me: Gays are not wanted by straight men or women in the showers, toilets, foxholes or fighting units. They say that in combat young men face death constantly, and what allows them to make it through the hell of it all is a feeling of toughness, invincibility and total trust in their buddies.

My experience with warriors in over eight years of roaming the killing fields in seven wars confirms what these old salts are saying.

A serving lieutenant general recently wrote to me, `Ask Pat Schroeder if she'd like her kids under a gay first sergeant who might use his rank and authority to demand sexual favors from his subordinate 18-year-old kids. We just had that occur in my command.'

No doubt advocates of gays in combat units will argue that they don't approve of demanding sexual favors and that the first sergeant deserved what he got--a court-martial. The problem is, all the court-martials and regulations in the world can't prevent the kind of morale problems that a change in the law is bound to create. Sure, the first sergeant is serving hard time at Fort Leavenworth, but Pat Schroeder and the two dozen lawmakers who support her bill must also ask themselves what happened to the morale and fighting spirit of his unit.

[Page: S1292]

From the Wall Street Journal, Nov. 16, 1992

Sex and Sailors

The President-elect, of course, has already announced his intention of overturning the traditional military ban on homosexuals, and a court has already reinstated a gay sailor. We don't get very excited about this issue; since the services include gays and always have, there are humanitarian reasons for overturning the ban. Given today's climate repeal might conceivably tend to protected gays from normal discipline, but we trust the services could avoid that. Many senior officers are hotly opposed, though, and it would have been a good idea for the commander in chief to consult with them before announcing the change, rather than after.

It's evident that the armed forces have problems with heterosexual issues as well, as the Tailhook incident shows. And a survey sponsored by the presidential commission found that two-thirds of the troops who served in co-ed units say men and women were sexually intimate. It's hard to know what to make of this. Human nature being what it is, men and women who think they may die tomorrow are going to be vulnerable. The commission wisely steered clear of this tricky subject, but the services clearly have some thinking to do.

The Gulf War, in which 35,000 women served, has naturally weighed heavily on the commission's investigations over the past eight months. It was during a commission hearing in the spring that Major Rhonda Cornum, a flight surgeon and one of the two American female POWS, testified that she was sexually assaulted by an Iraqi during her captivity. The Army has said that the other woman POW was also sexually assaulted.

As the commission deliberations make clear, the question of women in combat is far more than a simple issue of women's rights. In terms of ability, women could easily perform many of the combat jobs in a modern military, which can require more mental acuity than physical strength. Instead, it is a complex question that involves children, unit readiness and military and national morale.

For the most part, the commission makes a sensible case for the status quo. It recommends that women continue to be barred from both ground fighting and combat air missions, but says that they should be allowed to serve on some warships, which would be a first for the Navy. It urges that women not be eligible for the draft.

The commission also takes on the difficult issue of military children, and again its findings are infused with common sense. It recommends that single parents of preschoolers not be allowed to deploy with units going into action or exercises, and urges a policy requiring single parents of children under the age of two to accept assignment to non-deployable positions. It recommends that spouses of military parents not be allowed to enlist. The recommendations apply to men as well as women, though most single parents are of course mothers.

While polls consistently show that Americans are reluctant to put women in combat, many Democratic leaders favor it. Vice President-elect Al Gore wants an increased role for women in the military. Colorado Rep. Patricia Schroeder, who has led the fight for women in combat, has derided the presidential panel as a `political circus.' Mr. Clinton has yet to articulate a position on women in combat. He would be wise to heed the recommendations of this commission.

From Forbes magazine

Homosexuals in the Military

Controversies over official policies toward homosexuals in the military are not only serious in themselves, but are also painfully revealing as to the kind of thinking--or lack of thinking--by advocates of accepting gays into the armed forces.

Many arguments run along the line that all that legitimately matters is the individual's own job performance. It is one of the signs of the utter unreality of our times that adult human beings could seriously apply this atomistic view of the world to an organization which is the very antithesis of individualism, and in which the stakes are life and death.

Military success or failure--which is to say, the fate of nations--does not depend on individual performance but on group coordination and group morale. Whatever policies emerge in the military must recognize that central fact if they are to deal responsibly with the lives of young people who are put in harm's way for the sake of their country.

It is hard to imagine how anyone who has ever lived in a military barracks can seriously suggest that open homosexuality there will do anything positive for group morale.

No doubt there have been homosexuals in the military before, as there have been homosexuals in many other walks of life. But no one is concerned about what people do privately. It is official acceptance of homosexuality that would make it an intrusion into the lives of other people, as part of everyday barracks life.

Privacy is not to be found in military barracks. Nor are military relations egalitarian relations. Given the rigid hierarchy and the degree of subordination inherent in military life, any form of sexual activity between military personnel is fraught with explosive dangers, even in peacetime.

In combat, when members of a platoon under fire have to depend on each other for survival, what does it do to that unit's cohesion when soldiers know that some of their comrades are lovers, who are likely to look out for each other, rather than the platoon?

Does anyone doubt for a moment that official acceptance of homosexuality will be only a prelude to demands that homosexuals not be `discriminated' against--which is to say, that any adverse decision regarding an individual who happens to be homosexual will be a potential lawsuit?

And does anyone expect either military discipline or morale to be unaffected by all that? Without discipline and morale, what is a military unit but a disaffected mob?

We need not limit ourselves to speculation. As homosexuality has become increasingly accepted on many of our leading college campuses, gays have become another privileged class.

Students have been punished merely for daring to criticize the homosexual lifestyle. On some college campuses, men's toilets have become rendezvous centers for homosexual activity to such an extent that gay activists have published annually updated guides to the best places for such encounters.

Toilets in libraries at Georgetown University, Howard University and the University of Maryland, for example, have made that list. Holes have been drilled in the toilet stalls to facilitate anonymous homosexual activity from Dartmouth to Georgetown to the University of Florida and the University of California at San Diego.

Concentrations of young males in institutions that accept homosexuality have proven to be magnets for gays. Toilets at the University of Florida have attracted gay men from as far as 40 miles away. Are we now to turn the military into another concentration of young males in an institution that accepts homosexuality?

When you can't even go to the toilet without being a witness to or a target of homosexual activity, we are no longer talking about how someone does his individual job. Can anyone imagine how soldiers, Marines or paratroopers are going to react to such situations?

The last refuge of the advocates of admitting gays into the military is to analogize the military's resistance to their past resistance to the racial desegregation of the armed forces. But such analogics are strained, and they certainly do not prove that military leaders are always wrong and politicians are always right.

Are we prepared to bet young people's lives, or the effectiveness of our armed forces, on the presumption that Pat Schroeder knows better than Colin Powell?

No small part of the social problems of this country today derive from three decades of blithe disregard of factors which transcend the individual. Social norms have been waved aside as mere superstitions and public decency has become something regarded as quaint, if not oppressive.

After a chilling string of failures of the 1960s social philosophy in civilian life--deteriorating education, soaring crime rates, disintegrating families, growing drug addiction--zealots are now ready to apply it to the military.

From the Washington Post, Jan. 31, 1993

Soldiering: It's a Job, Not an Adventure in Social Change

Once thought of as the institution through which citizens--at least male citizens--discharged their basic civic obligation, the military is now coming to be seen as a vast and potent laboratory for social experimentation, in which charged debates over gender roles, homosexuality and national service can not only be addressed but possibly resolved. This lack of clarity about the military's primary function is potentially harmful to the long-term security interests of the nation.

The military's potential role as a vanguard of social progress was established by its successful integration of the armed forces in the years since World War II. Thanks to decisions made by the military leadership in the `time of troubles'--the Vietnam era and the early years of the all-volunteer force--the Army is now rivaled by few civilian institutions in terms of black achievement. The army is still no racial utopia; beneath the cross-race bantering, an edge of tension often lurks. But under the grueling conditions of the Gulf War not one racial incident was brought to the attention of the military police. Certainly the racial climate is more positive than that found on most college campuses today.

It is important to remember, however, that the driving force behind integration of the armed forces was not social improvement or racial benevolence but necessity (notably manpower shortages in World War II and the Korean War) and the belated recognition of the military superiority of an integrated force. Put another way, it was the imperative of military effectiveness that led to equal opportunity, not the imperative of equal opportunity that led to greater military effectiveness.

The issue of women in the military--and particularly in fighting roles--is a more complicated one. Following World War II--in which some 350,000 women performed duties ranging from shuttling aircraft across the Atlantic to breaking enemy secret codes--a 2 percent ceiling on the number of women was set, and most served in administrative, clerical and health-care jobs. This situation remained basically unchanged until the advent of the all-volunteer force in 1973. Finding it difficult to recruit more than a few good men, the military allowed good women to fill the ranks. Today, women make up about 12 percent of the total armed forces and hold virtually all assignments except direct combat roles.

The combat exclusion rule, already opposed by feminist leaders and many women officers, came under renewed attack in the wake of the Gulf War. The performance of the 35,000 women who served in that conflict received high praise from both the media and Pentagon officials. But surveys of soldiers who served in the gulf yield a murkier picture. Forty-five percent of those who were in mixed-gender units reported that `sexual activity had a negative impact' on unit morale. Over half rated women's performance as fair or poor, while only 3 percent gave such ratings to men. Nevertheless, Congress lifted the ban on women in combat planes, though service regulations effectively maintained the ban.

The usual response to a thorny social impasse is a presidential commission, and, true to form, one was established late in 1991. The 15-member panel (on which I served) took up three areas of consideration. The first was primarily factual. What, for example, were women's physical capabilities, and what would be the cost of modifying equipment or quarters to accommodate a woman's size or need for privacy?

A trickier area concerned questions of how mixed-gender groups would perform in combat. Here definitive answers are harder to come by, because apart from the defense of the homeland, no military force has ever used women in combat roles. Just as difficult to determine were matters related to the last area of concern: culture and values.

In addition to hearing opposing arguments, the commission sponsored a poll to determine whether the American public was willing to accept women in combat roles. Three findings deserve mention. First, the public was split pretty much down the middle on the question of whether the combat-exclusion rule should be lifted. A large majority favored giving women the option to volunteer for combat arms, as long as no woman was ever compelled to assume a combat role. Second, most people believed women already served in combat roles. Third, most respondents were more concerned with family status than with gender limitations. Three-quarters opposed mothers serving in combat; 43 percent felt the same way about fathers doing so.

By contrast with the general public, army women are much more wary about women in combat roles. One 1992 survey found that only 4 percent of enlisted women and 11 percent of female officers said they would volunteer for combat. But like the larger population, most military women favored a voluntary option.

The same survey disclosed that almost all army women--by a margin of 15-to-1--opposed the adoption of uniform physical standards for men and women. Ironically, both feminist and conservatives supported such standards, the former on egalitarian grounds, the latter because they believed uniform standards would reduce the number of women in the military across the board. Focusing on the strength definition of capability, both groups scanted the social and psychological problems that would likely arise with men and women fighting together in life-or-death situations.

Less dogmatic opponents of the combat exclusion rule favor trial programs. Yet even the most carefully prepared trials would not address the biggest question: Should every woman soldier be made to take on the same combat liability that every male soldier does?

True equality should mean that both genders incur the same liability. To allow only women the option of entering or avoiding combat would not only cause resentment among men, it would be hard to defend in a court of law. To allow both sexes to choose whether or not to go into combat would be the end of an effective military.

By a one-vote margin last November, the presidential commission arrived at a surprisingly conservative recommendation: While approving of women's service on most warships (except submarines and amphibious vessels), it advised keeping women out of combat planes and ground combat units. President Clinton has said that he will take the recommendation under consideration, but debate will surely continue.

The vexed issue of homosexuals in the armed forces draws the postmodern military into another heated social controversy. And some of the solutions proposed would present just as great a problem to the military's combat effectiveness as do those proposed in the gender arena.

Up to World War II, the military treated homosexuality as a criminal act, punishable by imprisonment. During the war, service leaders came to adopt a psychiatric explanation of homosexuality: Discovered gays were either `treated' in hospitals or given discharges `without honor.' From the 1950s through the 1970s, gays--defined almost always as people who had engaged in homosexual activity--were discharged under less than honorable circumstances. In 1982, in an effort to bring about a more uniform policy, the Department of Defense issued new guidelines that stipulated that service members who declared they were gay would receive an honorable discharge if their records were otherwise unsullied. Those caught in a compromising situation might still receive a less than honorable discharge.

Public opinion polls show that the number of Americans favoring the admission of gays into the armed forces has been creeping upward. A Washington Post poll last week showed the public evenly split on the question but 64 percent of veterans opposed to lifting the ban. A December 1992 poll that I conducted found 78 percent of currently serving soldiers opposed with an astounding 90 percent saying they would be `uncomfortable' sharing a room with a homosexual.

Support for repeal of the ban is strongest among women and whites, and weakest among males and minorities. Without a question, the growing support for ending the ban reflects a generally more tolerant attitude among the general public, but it may also be a sign of how distant most of the citizenry has become from the realities of military service.

Certainly, some of the reasons for excluding gays do not stand up to scrutiny. No evidence exists that homosexuals, under present rules, have been greater security risks than anyone else. If there were no ban, the argument that a gay service member could be blackmailed by threat of exposure would evaporate. Furthermore, no one can prove that homosexuals are any less effective than heterosexual as soldiers, sailors, airmen or marines.

What is at issue today, however, is whether or not declared gays should be allowed to serve in the military. This is different from the question of tolerating the service of discreet homosexuals in uniform (though with some 1,000 gays being discharged each year, it is clear that not all are discreet). To condone discreet homosexuality in the services while opposing the official acceptance of declared homosexuals is to set oneself up for the charge of hypocrisy. And it probably does no good to say that a little hypocrisy may be the only thing that allows imperfect institutions to function in an imperfect world.

Whatever is done, policymakers should think twice before invoking a misleading analogy between the dynamics of racial integration and the proposed acceptance of overt homosexuality. Racial integration increased military efficiency; the acceptance of declared homosexuals will likely have the opposite effect, at least for a time.

At the very least, the lifting of the ban will create a controversy over the issue of privacy, which in turn could make recruitment (particularly among minorities) even more difficult than it is today. Just as most men and women dislike being stripped of all privacy before the opposite sex, so most heterosexual men and women dislike being exposed to homosexuals of their own sex. The solution of creating separate living quarters would be not only impractical but an invitation to derision, abuse and deep division within the ranks.

There is also the problem of morale and group cohesion. Foes of the ban point to the acceptance of homosexuals in the armed forces of such countries as the Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark and Israel. In the Netherlands, an alleged 10 percent of the military is gay (though nine out of 10, studies say, remain undeclared) and a four-day seminar stressing sensitivity toward minorities, including gays, is mandatory in all Dutch services. Harmony is said to reign throughout the tolerant ranks of the Dutch army.

Those who object to the validity of national comparisons charge that the Dutch and Scandinavian cultures are far more tolerant than is mainstream American culture. Furthermore, they say, neither the Dutch nor Scandinavian armies have been in the thick of combat in recent decades.

These objections are partially validated by the example Israel's military, which inducts declared homosexuals. While it is true that gays in Israel are expected to fulfill their military obligation, it is also true that they receive de facto special treatment. For example, gays are excluded from elite combat units, and most sleep at their own homes rather than in barracks.

Despite widespread resistance within the U.S. military, Clinton has committed himself to rescind the gay ban. One can of course argue that the United States now as such a decisive strategic advantage over any potential enemy that it can well afford to advance the cause of equal opportunity at possible cost to military effectiveness. Still, such a risk must be acknowledged. We must decide, for example, whether we will be willing to restore compulsory national service if dropping the gay ban makes recruitment even more difficult than it now is. (Most nations without such a ban do have obligatory national service, the military being an option in many cases.) Unless such realities are faced, we can only hope that our postmodern military never has to face the uncivil reality of war.

[Page: S1294]

From the Washington Times, Jan. 1, 1993

New Military Way of Life and Strife

MATTERS OF LAW

President Clinton initially seemed to think that lifting the ban on gays in the military would be a strictly presidential matter, achieved through an executive order premised on his constitutional authority as commander in chief. Then his White House discovered that another branch of government, Congress, also has constitutional authority--that of making (as Article I provides) `rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces.' Thus did Mr. Clinton come to learn that whatever he does on the issue Congress may alter, even totally undo, assuming strength to override a veto.

The prospect of such an early, major political defeat in part explains the president's decision to postpone for six months an executive order. That decision shifts the balance of power on the issue to Congress, and in particular to Sen. Sam Nunn, Georgia Democrat, who had opposed lifting the ban on gays in the military but now is open to at least some change, and who plans to commence hearings on the matter next month. As Mr. Nunn goes, so goes the Senate and probably the Congress: If Mr. Clinton and Mr. Nunn can agree on a new policy, Republicans in Congress who prefer the old one will have a much diminished chance of legislative success.

In the context of gays in the military the White House's ongoing seminar in separation of powers now must include, thanks to last Thursday's decision by U.S. District Judge Terry Hatter, reference to the third branch of government. It is Judge Hatter who intruded into the debate by striking down the ban on gays in the military and ordering the reinstatement of a Navy petty officer discharged after disclosing his homosexuality on national television.

If the Navy does as the armed forces have in previous cases, it will now ask the Justice Department to appeal Judge Hatter's opinion. But the president is no longer George Bush but Mr. Clinton; he could tell the Navy not to appeal. Consistent with his statements Friday on how he intends to proceed on changing the inherited policy, Mr. Clinton might want to do just that. Still, he cannot be entirely happy with the decision rendered in the Central District of California.

In his remarks Friday, Mr. Clinton said he had not read Judge Hatter's decision. He should. Judge Hatter was a Jimmy Carter appointee, and his opinion fairly invites the new president to reflect on the kind of judges he cannot possibly want to appoint. The opinion distinguishes between homosexual `status' and `conduct'--a distinction Mr. Clinton of course endorses. But consider what else the opinion does.

In holding that the Defense Department's policy banning gays and lesbians, when based `merely on status and conduct' violates the Constitution's guarantee of equal protection, Judge Hatter asked whether the policy is `rationally related to [the military's] permissible goals.' In several too brief paragraphs, he concluded it was not. Declaring no `factual basis' for the Pentagon policy, the judge was unwilling to defer--as courts historically have--to military judgment, based on decades of experience, on the advisability of having gays in the armed forces.

Whatever one thinks policy in this area should be, Judge Hatter's decision is a regrettable piece of judicial activism. The decision usurps Mr. Clinton's authority as commander in chief and the military's subordinate power to determine rules necessary for good order and discipline. By implication, the decision also denies the Article I authority of Congress to determine rules for governing the armed forces.

In sum, the problem with the opinion is that it seeks to declare the nation's policy on gays in the military. `Gays and lesbians,' as Judge Hatter put it, `should not be banned from serving our country in the absence of conduct which interferes with the military mission.' `Hopefully,' he added, as though he held both the executive and legislative powers, `our military leaders will come to realize the `[w]e are not an assimilative, homogeneous society, but a facilitative, pluralistic one, in which we must be willing to abide someone else's unfamiliar or even repellent practice because the same tolerant impulse protects our own idiosyncrasies.' This language, which settles one of today's `culture wars' in a most debatable way, comes from a dissenting opinion in a 1989 case by Justice William Brennan.

Mr. Clinton seems close to grasping that the federal courts should not be making policy in this area. On Friday he said, correctly enough, that there is a `not insignificant chance' the courts might impose the kind of policy Judge Hatter has articulated, and that the courts might do so before `a whole range of practical issues' have been adequately dealt with. Those practical issues, apparently, are the ones Mr. Clinton now wants addressed, with Mr. Nunn's help.

Policy on gays in the military is properly the province of the elective branches. Mr. Clinton's education in separation of powers will be complete when he takes issue, rhetorically if not in litigation, with the activism of such opinions as those of Judge Hatter.

From the Washington Times, Jan. 1, 1993

New Military Way of Life and Strife

CIVILIAN ANXIETIES

Maria, a beautician who was born in Bolivia (she's an American now), worries about lifting the ban on homosexuality in the military.

`I wouldn't want my son to enter the service under those conditions,' she says with an appeal to euphemism. Maria voted for Bill Clinton. She didn't focus on that issue back then. Not many people did.

Sarah, a sophisticated widow in her 80s, also voted for Bill Clinton. `Why is it that every time I turn on the television, the commentators are talking about sodomy?' she asks. `Must we now be bombarded with all these intimate sexual references all over the news? I thought that was restricted to soaps and sitcoms.'

Maria and Sarah are neither homophobes nor bigots. They're not particularly religious or even Republicans. They can't be fairly accused of gay bashing or political expediency. They just don't want to know about the private sex lives of homosexuals or heterosexuals. They're offended by the vulgarity of this public discussion.

Maria, who assumes her son, now 8, would answer proudly if his country calls, believes that open admission of homosexuality in the armed forces undercuts the pride of military service and will hurt recruitment. Sarah thinks everyone got along all right when everyone was less interested in the private sexual habits of men and women everywhere (or at least restrained their curiosity.)

Rep. Barney Frank, one of two Democratic congressmen who openly declares his homosexuality, declares it often on television to answer questions by other women (and men) like Maria and Sarah. He insists the discussion is not about walking in Gay Pride parades, or men dancing together at the Officers Club or the Enlisted Men's Club.

But isn't it? If the issue is civil rights and discrimination, then shouldn't homosexual men and women expect the same rights and perks as heterosexuals? Defenders of homosexuals in the military readily invoke comparisons to the integration of blacks in the military. Can anyone imagine Harry Truman saying blacks could serve side by side with whites, but they couldn't march together or dance together?

The homosexual analogy to blacks, of course, is false, as Gen. Colin Powell, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, frequently points out. The issue is one of behavior, not skin color--military readiness, not prejudice. Readiness includes issues of morale, discipline, recruitment, personal privacy, concerns of deeply religious servicemen and not least the increased risk of AIDS. If randiness is not part of homosexual notions of readiness, why the eagerness to flaunt sexual preference?

Sen. Sam Nunn insists the rights of those in the armed services who find overt homosexuality offensive are being ignored, and he's right. Will `straights' require therapy to cure them of their religious faith and teachings?

The debate about homosexuality in the military, like so many other debates in the United States today, is conducted in two voices. One is the voice of the Politically Correct, which believes that tolerance must be replaced with celebration, that not only should homosexuals be free to practice what they wish, but the rest of us should accord homosexuality the respectability of heterosexuality, including rights (and rites) of marriage. The other is the voice of the ages that commands us not to throw away common sense in the pursuit of decency and tolerance.

`Though men be much governed by interest, yet even interest itself and all human affairs are entirely governed by opinion,' wrote Scottish philosopher David Hume.

Such opinion will be heard in the hearings Sen. Nunn will conduct. That opinion might surprise the president. He could even change his mind. He changed it on Zoe Baird, on Haiti and on a tax cut for the middle-class. But I doubt it, and that's too bad for all of us.

From the Washington Times, Jan. 1, 1993

New Military Way of Life and Strife

CULTURAL BASICS

Suddenly Slick Willie has become Thick Willie. Supposedly a smart politician, he has begun his presidency by picking a fight he can't win over a red-hot cultural issue.

His stand on gays in the military has embarrassed his own allies in Congress. The Democrats know they can sneak almost anything through, as long as Rush Limbaugh doesn't find out about it. This was definitely an item that called for furtive midterm treatment. But the commander in chief decided to tell it to the Marines.

Liberals--those broad-minded people who define a bigot as anyone who disagrees with them--have decided that homosexuals are to be officially defined as a victimized group. It's now nearly taboo to suggest in public that there is anything wrong with homosexuality, when everyone knows otherwise, as the popular reaction shows. The media's hypocrisy about sex would amaze the Victorians.

Like impotence and many other disorders, homosexuality is a disability for marital life. No decent person would torment anyone for it, but no sane person would think it's normal. Despite all we hear of gay `pride,' nobody wishes the condition on those they love. It's bizarre to imagine even the most liberal expectant parents hoping their child will be homosexual. People never say: `Susan and I don't care whether it's a boy or a girl, as long as it's gay or lesbian.'

Yet the liberal chorus insists that Mr. Clinton's action is the equivalent of Harry Truman's decision to integrate the armed forces. This strained analogy is a clue to what's really going on. Today's liberals want to re-enact the civil rights struggle, and they are using the gay rights movement as an opportunity to strike virtuous poses. See how tolerant we are! See how nobly we stand in contrast to our benighted opponents!

Liberals fear nothing more than being on the Wrong Side of History. They presume, of course, that History will ultimately be written by moralizing liberals like the people who write editorials in the New York Times. It never occurs to them that their moral fads may blow over in a few years, as nature inexorably reasserts herself, and that their views won't necessarily constitute the perspective by which future historians judge us. Let's not dismiss the possibility that future historians, surveying our age, will die laughing.

Gays and feminists, cognate political activists, hold pretty much the same ideology--one that belittles the centrality of the family. Those who don't share that ideology can see what the decline of the family has brought us: a social dissolution whose most volatile element is fatherless boys.

Yet liberals, of whom gays and feminists are merely two denominations, insist on asserting the same old precedents, which have lost their relevance and now can only mislead. And instead of offering evidence for their views--of which there is precious little--they condemn anyone who is reactionary enough to disagree with them.

The result is a severe reactionary shortage. Progressives have a terrible record of predicting the future: Remember the Soviet experiment and the great Society? But the reactionaries who saw only a dark future, though they had more sense, fell short. They had no idea how bad things were going to be.

Just as no monarchist or capitalist predicted that communism would kill tens of millions of people, no Goldwater Republican or Bircher foresaw the rates of crime, disease and abortion that now degrade and depopulate American society. And who, back in sunny 1964, prognosticated AIDS? Never mind what History will say. We can't even draw the right lessons from our own experience.

No, our gloomiest conservatives turned out to be utopian optimists. This is History speaking, folks. Absolutely nobody a generation ago had any inkling of what was to issue from social reform and experimentation and welfare and liberation--all those hot tickets of the '60s.

Throughout this progressive century, only the pessimists have been prophetic. But not prophetic enough. If any segment of our society deserves to be nurtured and cherished and encouraged (I won't say subsidized), it's the doomsayers. The more hysterical they sound, the more respectfully we should listen to them. That's what recent history teaches.

[Page: S1295]

From the Washington Times, Nov. 16, 1992

Picking Up the Promissory Invoices

The military--whose call Bill Clinton conspicuously spurned in the 1960s--can't be greatly surprised when the commander in chief-elect discloses plans to incorporate homosexuals into its ranks.

The election is over, the inauguration impends. The time for presenting bills has come. Here's the homosexual-rights lobby's invoice.

Top military officers, starting with Gen. Colin Powell, don't want the homosexual ban lifted, for reasons of order and discipline, but that's not the point where Mr. Clinton is concerned. The point is accommodating a numerous, active, well-heeled and ever-more-clamorous element of the Democratic constituency.

The Clinton victory on Nov. 3 comes near to guaranteeing homosexuals that social and political legitimacy toward which they have aspired. The military ban will go--though only after consultation with military officials, Mr. Clinton promises. The administration will have an AIDS advocate of some sort. (No cancer or heart advocates, last time I checked.) At a minimum, no one in the Clinton administration is going to hurt homosexuals' feelings deliberately.

The U.S. military becomes an unwilling pawn in this power game. The imperatives of order and discipline, cited by the likes of Gen. Powell, don't seem so imperative, weighed against the need to deliver on promises to constituents.

True, homosexuality in military ranks isn't exactly an innovation or, in every circumstance, a hindrance to success. I believe it was Lord Nelson who said the Royal Navy was sustained by rum, sodomy and the lash.

Well, at least they called it sodomy. No one back then pretended that homosexuality was just a life-style choice: no better, no worse than any other; as morally neutral as a birthmark.

The homosexual-rights lobby today takes a very different view of things. It demand validation. This means all doors must swing wide open, so that members of the lobby may enter at will. A ban on homosexual soldiering is, to the lobby, mere job discrimination. Away with it!

Bill Clinton finds such a demand easy to comply with, in part because he never wore a uniform. He doesn't know the military. What is often referred to as the military's non-homosexual `tradition'--as if it had no more moral standing than a school fight song or squash casserole at Thanksgiving--makes sense in terms of instilling unit cohesiveness. Unwanted sexual attentions from a barrack mate or mates don't build the kind of community spirit on which military effectiveness depends. `It is difficult,' says Gen. Powell, `in a military setting where there is no privacy, where you don't get choice of association, where you don't get choice of where you live, to introduce a group of individuals who are proud, brave, loyal, good Americans but who favor a homosexual lifestyle.' Don't forget that the service is an authority structure. The possibilities for abusing authority in quest of sexual dominance are endless.

Odd and disturbing things go on in late 20th century America. We the people put our various institutions at the service of subgroups with gnawing anxieties--racial, sexual, whatever kind. The functioning of the institution--even one so essential as the military--becomes secondary to the massaging of those anxieties. This is as true of the outcry to open up military combat roles to women as it is true of the agitation to allow uniformed homosexuals.

Of course the line one hears is that actually we're making the institution better than ever, by bringing in people/viewpoints hitherto shut out. Pluralism becomes the acid test.

Actually, it's the only test one hears about anymore. Tests of worth and efficiency, right and wrong, truth and falsehood, don't matter. It's nothing but look-how-inclusive-we're-becoming. Look how many `outcasts' we're rescuing. America as one giant therapeutic enterprise, designed not to maximize liberty and virtue but to make people Feel Good About Themselves--isn't that increasingly our national vision? If you call it `vision.'

Washington, DC,
May 8, 1992.

Hon. Patricia Schroeder,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Pat: Thank you for your recent letter concerning the position I took before Congress in February concerning homosexuals serving in the Armed Forces. I have given a great deal of thought to my position and continue to hold the view that the presence of homosexuals in the military is prejudicial to good order and discipline.

This is the policy of the Department of Defense and is supported by all of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. It is also a view held by experts who have studied the sociology of the military for many years. I am including a recent article by Charles Moskos on the subject.

I am well aware of the attempts to draw parallels between this position and positions used years ago to deny opportunities to African-Americans. I know you are a history major, but I can assure you I need no reminders concerning the history of African-Americans in the defense of their Nation and the tribulations they faced. I am a part of that history.

Skin color is a benign, non-behavioral characteristic. Sexual orientation is perhaps the most profound of human behavioral characteristics. Comparison of the two is a convenient but invalid argument. I believe the privacy rights of all Americans in uniform have to be considered, especially since those rights are often infringed upon by the conditions of military service.

As Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, as well as an African-American fully conversant with history, I believe the policy we have adopted is consistent with the necessary standards of good order and discipline required in the Armed Forces.

Sincerely,
COLIN L. POWELL,

Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator yields the floor.

Who yields time?

The Senator from Indiana controls 25 minutes.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Arizona.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my full text of my statement and accompanying materials be entered into the Record.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[Page: S1296]

THE ALL-VOLUNTEER MILITARY

Our men and women in uniform have little choice about their jobs, they must live where they are assigned, and they must give up their privacy--often without warning and for months at a time. Deployments in areas like Panama, Somalia, and the Persian Gulf involve living in close proximity, with little personal space, and with no choice of associates. The ship, the battalion, and the squadron become the center of every moment of military life. Survival is often based on the cohesion of small groups of men and women who literally must live in each other's shoes.

The issue of allowing open gay life styles in the military is completely different from the kind of changes taking place in civil life. The whole structure of military life involves wide ranging sacrifices of individual perogatives. Any changes to that structure can rapidly erode morale, efficiency, and unit cohesion--the three critical factors that determine survival and victory.

America's uniformed military leaders are not being reactionary by objecting to the open admission of gays into the military before our society has fully resolved questions about their involvement in many other walks of life where a gay life style may be perceived as more than a matter of personal choice.

A broadly respected national figure like Gen. Colin Powell, who exemplifies the progress we are making in civil rights, is not reacting out of prejudice, but out of concern for the practical implications which the open admission of homosexuals poses for his profession. He is charged with considering the impact of such policies on the safety of our nation.

This is not a civil rights issue. No one supports prejudice and discrimination. The issue is what policy best promotes the effectiveness and strength of our military. Comparison to racial discrimination is misplaced and inappropriate. Homosexuality is a behavioral trait, unlike skin color. Gen. Colin Powell has eloquently stated:

I have given a great deal of thought to my position and continue to hold the view that the presence of homosexuals in the military is prejudicial to good order and discipline. I am well aware of the atempts to draw parallels between this position and positions used years ago to deny opportunities to African-Americans . . . skin color is a benign, non-behavioral characteristic. Sexual orientation is perhaps the most profound of human behavioral characteristics. Comparison of the two is a convenient but invalid argument.

I believe the privacy of all Americans in uniform has to be considered, especially since those rights are often infringed upon by the conditions of military service. As Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, as well as an African-American fully conversant with history, I believe the policy we have adopted is consistent with the necessary standards of good order and discipline required in the Armed Forces.

I think it is also important to point out other statements by senior uniformed leaders who are well-known, well respected, and modern-day heroes because of their great service to our country.

Gen. H. Norman Schwarzkopf has stated: `once a homosexual comes out of the closet and publicly avows their homosexuality, all unit cohesiveness is lost.'

Gen. Al Gray has said: `the presence of homosexuals would adversely affect our ability to maintain good order, discipline, and morale; foster mutual trust and confidence; and ensure the integrity of the system of rank and command. We cannot afford homosexual suspicions, which would threaten our mission by degrading unit cohesion, morale, and esprit de corps.'

We need to preserve the trust that is the core of military life. We cannot do this by telling over 1 million people who have already sacrificed many of their rights on our behalf that in addition to their loss of privacy and choice they must now accommodate in close quarters a life style they rejected when they enlisted and continue to reject in every opinion poll taken on the subject.

Last week, Adm. George Kinnear and Vice Adm. Tom Kilcline from the Retired Officers Association briefed me on a Gallup poll that they had commissioned to determine the attitudes and opinions among active and retired military members with regard to the issue of allowing homosexuals in the military. I found the information interesting and in stark contrast to some of the other polls I have noticed in the press.

For instance, 83 percent were strongly opposed to lifting the ban on homosexuals in military. Eighty-five percent of those respondents who had recommended the military as a career to either a family member or friend were particularly oposed to allowing homosexuals in the military and would tell the person who they had given the advice to, to reconsider. Also, 77 percent of the respondents who opposed allowing homosexuals in the military cited a disruptive negative effect on morale, on discipline, combat readiness, and lack of acceptance as reasons for their opposition.

The day may come when society as a whole accepts gay life styles as a fully integrated part of our national life. At that point, military life may change as well. Until that day arrives, the U.S. military should not be used for legal tests and social experiments that threaten its ability to preserve our national security.

In preparation for 6 months of study that this body will engage in, I asked the Congressional Research Service to put together a series of studies on the issue of homosexuals in the military.

The first is a study by the American Law Division of the Congressional Research Service summarizing the legal challenges to the Department of Defense policy regarding homosexuals in the military.

The second is a collection of major articles, opinions, and speeches regarding homosexuals in the military.

The third is a socioeconomic study.

The fourth is a background study on homosexuals in other areas of Federal service.

Mr. David Burelli of the Congressional Research Service has done a fine job in bringing the results of this research together. His report is a must read for anyone interested in an objective examination of the issue of gays in the military. I urge my colleagues to review it in its entirety.

In addition to this extensive research I have requested letters from Veterans organizations, letters from the veterans of my State, relevant statements by public officials, and a Gallup poll of the members of the Retired Officers Association.

I ask unanimous consent that all of these documents be included in the Record at this point.

Congressional Research Service,
Washington, DC, December 21, 1992.

American Law Division Memorandum

The military policy of excluding homosexuals had been judicially challenged, largely without success, on a variety of legal and constitutional grounds. Most of the early cases involved personnel suspected of homosexual conduct who argued that the policy violated the constitutional right of privacy; 2 that it was prohibited by the Equal Protection Clause because only homosexual sodomy was persecuted while similar heterosexual conduct was not; 3 or that the procedure applied by the service to effect discharge did not conform to procedural due process requirements. 4 Later cases also raised First Amendment free speech claims when brought by admitted homosexuals who had been discharged not for alleged sexual conduct but rather because of their `status' as revealed by voluntary statements to colleagues, or in the press and other public fora. 5

Due process challenges predicted on the right of privacy have been uniformly rejected by the courts in these cases, particularly after the U.S. Supreme Court in Bowers v. Harwick 6 sustained a Georgia statute criminalizing sodomy as applied to consenting adults in the privacy of the home of one of them. The Court there expressed the view that homosexual sodomy was neither a fundamental liberty `implicit in the concept of ordered liberty' nor is it `deeply rooted in the Nation's history and tradition.' 7 On parallel reasoning, the courts generally have refused to apply heightened scrutiny to the equal protection claims of discharged homosexuals according to the constitutional standards traditionally applied in cases of governmental discrimination based on race, ethnicity or other `suspect' classifications. 8 First Amendment challenges to the military policy have fared little better. Thus, open acknowledgment by a service person of his/her homosexual orientation, whether in the media or otherwise, has not generally been accorded First Amendment protection since it does not implicate the exchange of information and ideas on homosexuality as a matter of `public concern.' 9 An important element in each of these decisions was the history of judicial deference to military judgments that is now firmly entrenched in our legal tradition. 10

Accordingly, to date, successful judicial challenges to the military's exclusionary policy regarding homosexuals have been few in number and of relatively narrow legal significance. For example, Matlovich v. Secretary of the Air Force, 11 involved an admitted homosexual with an `outstanding' 12-year record of military service who had not been charged with any homosexual activity on base or with other servicemen. Neither the court of appeals nor the federal district court on remand ever decided the main constitutional challenge asserted by the petitioner based on the right to privacy. Instead, the Air Force policy, which at that time permitted retention of homosexual personnel in `unusual circumstances,' was held procedurally defective for its lack of fair and objective standards governing discharge. In other words, the petitioner was entitled to an explanation of why the exception did not apply to him. Subsequent to this decision, and a similar one concerning Navy regulations, 12 the Department of Defense issued revised regulations clarifying the exceptions to the policy of mandatory discharge of homosexual servicemembers which effectively preempted any defense based on quality of performance in future cases.

In a more recent and highly publicized decision, Watkins v. United States Army, 13 the Ninth Circuit en banc vacated a panel's constitutional condemnation of the DOD policy as violative of the Fifth Amendment right to equal protection and instead ordered reinstatement of a homosexual 16-year veteran on equitable estoppel grounds. The earlier panel ruling had determined that lesbian and homosexual persons constitute a `suspect class' and employed heightened equal protection scrutiny to invalidate the Army policy. On rehearing, however, the full court held that the Army could not refuse reenlistment to a highly rated serviceman who had openly acknowledged his homosexuality at the time of initial enlistment and who had consistently been reenlisted despite the Army's awareness of his sexual orientation. Because it disposed of the case of equitable estoppel grounds, based on the specific factual circumstances before it, the en banc court avoided making any determination of the constitutional issues raised. Consequently, the decision is likely to have minimal impact upon current military policy.

Judicial analysis of federal equal protection claims fall into three basic modes. First is the traditional `rational basis' standard that will uphold most
legislative or executive action that classifies individuals as long as the classification is reasonable and rationally related to a legitimate governmental objective. Certain classifications are deemed `suspect' or `quasi-suspect,' however, and governmental actions based on such classifications will be subjected to rigorous or `searching' judicial scrutiny. 14 Governmental actions that burden members of a suspect or quasi-suspect class call for a higher level of justification both in terms of the weight of the government's interest 15 and the degree of relationship to the interest served. 16 The federal courts of appeals to date have generally refused to apply the so-called `strict scrutiny' test, or other heightened equal protection standard of judicial review, to the military policy regarding homosexuals.

Applying the more lenient equal protection standard, the courts have usually had little difficulty accepting as `rational' the military's justifications for its homosexual policy. 17 In Beller v. Middendorf, 18 the Ninth Circuit accepted all of the military's justifications and upheld the Navy policy as applied to the discharge of three enlisted personnel who had engaged in homosexual acts. Judge (now Justice) Kennedy wrote that:

The Navy can act to protect the fabric of military life, to preserve the integrity of the recruiting process, to maintain the discipline of personnel in active service, and to insure the acceptance of men and women in the military, who are sometimes stationed in foreign countries with cultures different from our own.

Furthermore, although he felt the policy was `perhaps broader than necessary to accomplish some of its goals,' Judge Kennedy concluded that it `represents a reasonable effort to accommodate the needs of the Government with the interests of the individual.' 19 In Dronenburg v. Zech 20 Judge Bork wrote for the D.C. Circuit in another case involving homosexual conduct that `[t]he effects of homosexual conduct within a naval or military unit are almost certain to be harmful to morale and discipline.' Finally, in Ben-Shalom v. Marsh, 21 a status (not conduct) case, the Seventh Circuit ruled that military discharge due to a declaration of lesbianism did not violate the First Amendment, and that the Army regulation barring homosexuals passed rational basis equal protection review.

A recent judicial development that may forecast invigorated scrutiny into the military's justifications for excluding homosexuals is the Ninth Circuit decision in Pruitt v. Cheney. 22 Pruitt was an officer in the U.S. Army Reserve with an `outstanding' record in both active and reserve duty. Although it had no evidence of homosexual acts on her part, the Army moved to revoke Pruitt's security clearance and discharge her after she revealed, in a Los Angeles Times interview, that she was a lesbian and had twice participated in ceremonies of marriage to other women. Pruitt thereafter challenged the Army's actions, which were based solely on her own admissions of homosexuality, as a violation of free speech rights. This First Amendment claim was rejected by both the district and appellate court on the rationale that Pruitt's admission of her homosexual status was not protected speech. 23 The appeals court did hold, however, that the Army had not demonstrated the rational basis for its regulation and that Pruitt had the right to a hearing on the equal protection claim. Moreover, the decision departs from Beller and related precedent by relying on two Supreme Court rulings which stand for the principle that governmental denial of equal protection is never justified by the antipathy of others towards the group adversely affected.

In the more recent of these, City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc., 24 the Court invalidated under rational basis equal protection analysis the refusal of a city to permit construction of a group home for the mentally retarded. Although neither a suspect nor quasi-suspect class was involved, the city's justifications for denying a permit were rejected. The desire to avoid negative reactions of neighbors was found to be an unacceptable basis for discriminatory treatment, 25 and even the legitimate goal of relieving congestion could not be achieved by prohibiting only certain types of group homes while allowing others. Palmore v. Sidoti 26 was an earlier case which struck down a denial of child custody based upon social disapproval of the interracial marriage of the mother. The Supreme Court declared that `[t]he Constitution cannot control such prejudices but neither can it tolerate them. Private biases may be outside the reach of the law, but the law cannot, directly or indirectly, give them effect.' 27

The Court's refusal in these cases to accept asserted governmental goals as legitimate, and its more than perfunctory scrutiny of the means by which the governmental body pursued its legitimate goals, may have important implications for future judicial review of military policies regarding homosexuals. At the very least, if applied in this context, it could mean that the military faces a weightier burden than heretofore in terms of justifying its policies as rational and reasonable based on factual evidence presented to the court. In this regard, the courts may be less willing to accept as rational the offer of any proof which reflects popular antipathy toward or stereotypical views concerning homosexuality.

[Page: S1297]

FOOTNOTES

2 E.g., Matlovich v. Secretary of the Air Force, 591 F.2d 852 (D.C. Cir. 1978); Dronenburg v. Zech, 741 F.2d 1388 (D.C. Cir. 1984) and Beller v. Middendorf, 632 F.2d 788 (9th Cir. 1980), cert. denied sub nom. Miller v. Weinberger, 454 U.S. 855 (1981).

3 E.g., Hatheway v. Secretary of the Army, 641 F.2d 1376 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 864 (1981).

4 See, e.g., Matlovich (supra) n. 2.

5 E.g., Ben-Shalom v. Marsh, 881 F.2d 454 (7th Cir. 1989). cert. denied sub nom. BenShalom v. Stone, 494 U.S. 1004 (1990); Pruitt v. Cheney, 963 F.2d 1160 (9th Cir. 1991), cert denied 61 U.S.L.W. 3413 (S.Ct 12-8-92).

6 478 U.S. 186 (1986).

7 Id., at 191-92.

8 See, e.g., Woodward v. United States, 871 F.2d 1068, 1075-76 (Fed. Cir. 1989), cert denied, 494 U.S. 1003 (1990) where the appeals court noted that Hardwick permitted the criminalization of `the most common sexual practices of homosexuals.' Because `there can hardly be more palpable discrimination against a class than making the conduct that defines the class criminal,' the Woodward court reasoned that, under Hardwick, the military's discrimination against homosexuals is constitutional.

9 In Ben-Shalom v. Marsh, 881 F.2d 454, 462 (7th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 494 U.S. 1004 (1990), the federal appellate tribunal stated the proposition:

[Appellant] is free under the regulation to say anything she pleases about homosexuality and about the Army's policy toward homosexuality. She is free to advocate that the Army change its stance; she is free to know and talk to homosexuals if she wishes. What [appellant] cannot do, and remain in the Army, is to declare herself to be a homosexual. Although that is, in some sense, speech it is also an act of identification. And it is the identity that makes her ineligible for military service, not the speaking of it aloud. (emphasis in original).

See also Johnson v. Orr, 617 F.Supp. 170 (E.D.Cal. 1985) (finding for the military), aff'd mem., 787 F.2d 597 (1986); Pruitt v. Cheney, (supra) n. 5. (same).

10 See, e.g., Ben-Shalom v. Marsh, 881 F.2d 454, 461 (7th Cir. 1989)(`The Commander-in-Chief, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of the Army, and the generals have made the determination about homosexuality, at least for the present, and we, as judges, should not undertake to second-guess those with direct responsibility for our armed forces. If a change of Army policy is to be made, we should leave it to those more familiar with military matters than are judges not selected on the basis of military knowledge.'); Goldman v. Weinberger, 475 U.S. 503, 507-510 (1986)(Court deferred to the `professional judgment of military authorities' that Jewish officer's wearing of yarmulke justified a court martial for noncompliance with dress code); Rostker v. Goldberg, 453 U.S. 57, 70-71 (1981)(`[J}udicial deference to such congressional exercise of authority is at its apogee when legislative action under the congressional authority to raise and support armies and make rules and regulation for their governance is challenged.'). Also, Gilligan v. Morgan, 413 U.S. 1, 10 (1973); Orloff v. Willoughby, 345 U.S. 83, 93-94 (1953).

11 Supra n. 2.

12 Berg v. Claytor, 436 F. Supp. 76 (D.D.C. 1977), vacated and remanded, 591 F.2d 849 (D.C.Cir. 1978).

13 875 F.2d 699 (9th Cir. 1989), aff'g en banc on other grounds, 847 F.2d 1328 (9th Cir. 1988), cert. denied 111 S. Ct. 384 (1990).

14 The Supreme Court has found that classifications based on race, national origin, and in some cases, alienage constitute suspect classifications. See Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc., 473 U.S. 432, 439-42 (1985). In addition, classifications based on gender, e.g. Craig v. Boren, 429 U.S. 190 (1976), and illegitimacy, Trimble v. Gordon, 430 U.S. 762 (1977), are considered `quasi-suspect' and trigger a form of `intermediate scrutiny' that is more rigorous than basic rational relationship review. In addition to subjecting suspect or quasi-suspect classification to strict scrutiny, courts will apply strict scrutiny to classifications that burden `fundamental interests.'

15 These classifications must be supported by more than merely a `legitimate' interest: governmental actions that burden a quasi-suspect classification must be based on an `important' interest, Craig v. Boren, supra n. 13, while actions that burden a suspect classification must serve a `compelling' governmental goal. Cleburne, supra n. 14.

16 The connection between the discriminatory action and the governmental goal must be more than merely `rational': for quasi-suspect classifications the relationship must be `substantial,' Craig v. Boren, supra n. 13, and for suspect classifications the discriminatory action must be `precisely tailored' to the governmental interest at issue. Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 217 (1981).

17 As it appears from the decided cases, the justifications asserted by the government are several. First, it is argued that the presence of homosexual personnel arouses `tensions and hostilities' and inspires a lack of confidence and respect for homosexual officers. The military has also contended that homosexuals would be unable to effectively perform their duties as a consequence of their emotional involvement with other homosexuals and fear of disclosure. Other factors relate to anticipated disruption of the command structure that could result from homosexual relationships with subordinates, the possibility that heterosexuals would be discouraged from enlisting, and the threat of adverse foreign reaction to homosexual military personnel stationed abroad. Finally, one court has opined that `toleration of homosexual conduct, as expressed in a less broad prohibition, might be understood as tacit approval.' See, e.g., Beller v. Middendorf, 632 F.2d 788, 811 (9th Cir. 1980); Dronenberg v. Zech, 741 F.2d 1388 (D.C.Cir. 1984).

Most recently, the federal district court in Steffan v. Cheney, 780 F. Supp. 1 (D.D.C. 1991), upheld the forced resignation of a Naval Academy midshipman who though not charged with homosexual behavior had admitted his homosexual orientation just weeks before graduation. Judge Oliver Gasch ruled that the regulations were rationally related to the military interest in protecting soldiers and sailors from AIDS.

Since Congress is empowered to raise and support armies, it may do whatever is necessary to protect the health and welfare of those armies. . . . The power to protect the armed forces from venereal disease is ample to sustain the power to protect them from what is now known to be a fatal and incurable virus.

18 Supra n. 17.

19 Id. at 812.

20 Supra n. 17 at 1398.

21 Supra n. 5.

22 963 F.2d 1160 (9th Cir. 1992), cert. denied 61 U.S.L.W. 3413 (S. Ct. 12-8-92).

23 The gist of the Ninth Circuit reasoning is revealed in the following passage:

The Army did not discharge Pruitt because she spoke candidly about her sexuality to a newspaper. Nor did it discharge her for publicly expressing her views on a timely and controversial subject, or for demonstrating compassion for and association with homosexuals. The Army discharged Pruitt because she admitted to being homosexual, . . . Pruitt's admission, like most admissions, was made in speech, but that does not mean that the first amendment precludes the use of the admission as evidence of the fact admitted. . . . The question is not whether the Army is free to discharge her for her speech, because it did not do so. The question is whether the Army is entitled to discharge her for her homosexuality--an issue not encompassed by Pruitt's first amendment claim. 963 F.2d at 1163-64.

24 473 U.S. 432 (1985).

25 The Court ruled in this regard that `mere negative attitudes, or fear, unsubstantiated by factors which are properly cognizable in a zoning proceeding, are not permissible bases for treating a home for the mentally retarded differently from apartment houses, multiple dwellings, and the like.' 473 U.S. at 450.

26 466 U.S. 429 (1984).

27 Id. at 448. See also United States Dep't of Agriculture v. Moreno, 413 U.S. 528 (1973) (invalidating under the rational basis test a provision of the Food Stamp Act that excluded households containing unrelated individuals because motivated by congressional dislike for `hippies').

VETERANS OF FOREIGN WARS

of the United States,
Washington, DC, January 26, 1993.

Hon. Sam Nunn,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.

[Page: S1298]

We believe the President's stated intention to lift the existing ban on homosexuals was made without due consideration for its impact on the Armed Forces and without proper consultation with military and Congressional leaders.

We support the current ban and we support your courageous decision to convene Senate hearings on this issue. The hearings will give the Service Chiefs and others the opportunity to describe the impact of the proposed policy change and to openly discuss their concerns before the Congress and the American people. Moreover, your decision will remind all that the Congress shares in the authority and formulation for such a major policy change affecting our Armed Forces.

Senator Nunn, you have our strong support on this issue and all your efforts directed toward maintaining a strong national defense.

Sincerely,

John M. Carney
Commander-in-Chief.

VFW Remains Opposed to Lifting Military Ban on Homosexuals

`The VFW, an organization of 2.2 million wartime veterans, opposes lifting the current Defense Department ban on homosexuals serving in the Armed Forces. Last August, delegates assembled at our National Convention reexamined this issue and again concluded that homosexuality is incompatible with military service.

`This issue is a very serious matter. Our military leaders are gravely concerned about the impact such a change would have on our Armed Forces at this critical time. It is our hope that President Clinton will listen to the wise counsel of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Colin Powell and other military leaders on this issue. If he does so we believe he will conclude, as we have, that the ban should remain in place.'

Resolution No. 416 as Amended

Whereas, the policy of the Department of Defense states that homosexuality is incompatible with military service and that the presence of homosexuals in such an environment seriously impairs the accomplishment of the military mission; and

Whereas, the Uniformed Code of Military Justice, Article 125, 10 USC, Section 925 (1976), specifies that sodomy is a crime in the military and the exclusion of homosexuals is a practical means of preventing violations of this Code; and

Whereas, this policy has been subjected to judicial challenge in numerous federal lawsuits with the goal of permitting homosexuals into the Armed Forces; now, therefore

Be it resolved, by the 93rd National Convention of the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States, that we express our deep concern over the impact this change of policy would have on our Armed Forces; and

Be it further resolved, that we unequivocally oppose the efforts of homosexual organizations to force the military services to accept or retain homosexuals and urge the Departments of Defense and Justice to take this matter before the Supreme Court to seek final judicial reaffirmation of the homosexual exclusion policy; and

Be it further resolved, that the aforementioned Codes should be rewritten in an effort to dismiss any possible question of the denial of civil rights based on moral, religious or ethical behavior, as it is not the intent to inflict that upon said persons, rather a just concern for the solid stability of our Armed Forces and its operation.

The American Legion,
Washington, DC, January 29, 1993.

Dear Senator: The American Legion remains steadfast in its opposition to lifting the ban on homosexuals in the military. Now is not the time for procrastination. The choice is clear. The decision should be made `to stay the course'. This is not a matter of patriotism, loyalty or one's ability to do a job. This is a matter of choosing a lifestyle that is disruptive in a military environment. As wartime veterans, our members understand the necessity for cohesiveness and conformity, leaving no room for alternative behavior.

If the Administration insists on a change, then the decision should be made by means of the legislative process. Enclosed is a copy of The American Legion's most recent press release on this issue.

Sincerely,

Roger A. Munson,
National Commander.

The Military Coalition,
Alexandria, VA, December 22, 1992.

Hon. John McCain,
Senate Committee on Armed Services, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.

Dear Senator McCain: The Military Coalition, comprised of nationally prominent military and veterans associations, representing 3.5 million members--active, reserve, retired and veterans--of the seven uniformed services, wishes to inform you that on December 8, 1992 we sent the enclosed letter to President-Elect Clinton concerning the issue of allowing acknowledged homosexuals to serve in our nation's armed forces.

For the reasons expressed in the letter, this issue is of grave concern to us. As we suggested to President-Elect Clinton, such a departure from a long-standing policy banning service by avowed homosexuals should not be made without a careful, extensive and considered examination by the appropriate committees of Congress following a course of hearings. We further recommended that only then, after their recommendations are presented, should a final decision be made.

We urge you to support this recommendation to hold hearings and then make appropriate recommendations to the President. We further request that during your deliberations you solicit testimony from the service Chief's as well as from the Military Coalition, and other appropriate groups.

Sincerely,

PAUL W. ARCARI,

Colonel, USAF Retired, The Retired Officers Association, Co-Chairman.

[Page: S1299]

Sgt. Maj. USMC Retired, Non Commissioned Officers Association, Co-Chairman.

The Military Coalition,
Alexandria, VA, December 8, 1992.

President-Elect Bill Clinton,

Governor's Mansion, Little Rock, AR.

Dear President-Elect Clinton: The Military Coalition, a consortium of military and veterans' associations is deeply concerned over the probability of your fulfilling the promise to allow acknowledged homosexuals to serve in the Armed Forces of the United States. The Coalition, representing 3.5 million members of the military community, opposes such a demoralizing move on the part of the Commander-in-Chief of the nation's uniformed services.

Service in the armed forces is a unique calling. Military men and women must be prepared to live anywhere, fight anywhere, and maintain high morale and combat efficiency under frequently adverse and difficult conditions. They are asked to undergo frequent exposure to risk, long hours, periodic relocations and family separations. Additionally, they willingly accept some abridgment of their freedom of speech, their right to privacy, and control over their living and working conditions. These are all part of the very personal price our military personnel pay on a daily basis.

Your pledge, if fulfilled, would strike at the very things which compromise the core of combat efficiency--high morale and discipline. What little privacy now exists for most personnel would be further jeopardized. The result can only be a diminution of their ability to carry out their mission--the defense of our nation.

The Coalition respectfully urges you to accept the sage advice of your military service chiefs and retain the current ban on military service by acknowledged homosexuals. Our top military leaders collectively possess years of experience in handling morale and disciplinary problems. Their knowledge and opinions on what is best for our nation's uniformed services require your careful consideration.

The Coalition, furthermore, strongly suggests that Congress be requested to conduct extensive hearings on this issue and then provide its counsel on a matter with potentially long-term detrimental effects on the All-Volunteer Force. It has taken this action a good many years to develop a well educated quality force of dedicated men and women that comprise the best military organization in the world. Let us keep it the best.
The Military Coalition.

The Retired Officers Association,
Alexandria, VA, December 15, 1992.

Hon. John McCain,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.

Dear Senator McCain: The Retired Officers Association, representing 322,000 commissioned and warrant officers (over two-thirds of the nation's retired military officer community) recently sent a letter to President-Elect Clinton expressing our concern over the issue of military service by avowed homosexuals.

This letter is based on the sentiments of our membership as compiled by the Gallup Organization at the behest of the TROA Board of Directors. The survey results reveal that over 83% of our membership oppose Mr. Clinton's campaign promise to allow avowed homosexuals to serve in the military.

I have taken the liberty of enclosing a copy of the editorial page from our January 1993 edition of The Retired Officer Magazine as well as a copy of the results of the Gallup survey we commissioned. The editorial contains a letter jointly written by TROA's Chairman of the Board, G. E. R. Kinnear, Admiral, USN-Ret. and me, the original of which was sent to President-Elect Clinton.

As we did with the President-Elect, we urge you to seriously consider the impact of Mr. Clinton's promise and the effect it can and will have on our nation's military forces. Additionally, we urge you and your colleagues to hold hearings on this issue; to hear arguments from all sides and then make an informed decision. Our nation's military forces who have long and faithfully served the defense needs of our great nation should expect no less from its elected representatives.

Sincerely,

T.J. Kilcline,
President.

The Retired Officers Association,
Alexandria, VA, December 11, 1992.

President-elect Bill Clinton,
The Governor's Mansion, Little Rock, AR.

Dear Mr. Clinton: On behalf of The Retired Officers Association (TROA), we want to congratulate you on your election as president of the United States.

TROA is an organization of 322,000 members who have served as commissioned or warrant officers and 60,000 surviving spouses. We look forward to working with you in maintaining the United States combat-ready armed forces capable of defeating all foreign threats to our national interests and security.

It is from this perspective that we express our profound concern about your reported interest in repealing the current Department of Defense policy on homosexuals in the armed forces. Military service is unique and vastly different in both working and living conditions from private and public sector occupations where employees are free to come and go as they please. The military institution, with its sea duty, field deployments and combat operations, necessarily infringes upon personal privacy and forces intimate living conditions unlike those experienced in any other community or profession. Our years of military leadership experience confirm that when avowed homosexuals are thrust into this environment, the impact undermines morale and discipline to the detriment of the essential mission. This is an even more significant factor at a time when we are undergoing a massive drawdown of the fighting force. The result of this kind of social engineering within our all-important defense community can be nothing but disastrous.

Further, the military institution must act in loco parentis for the young men and women entrusted to its care. Service recruiting efforts to maintain the required vitality and quality of the force can only suffer. Many parents will discourage their sons and daughters from joining an armed service forced to accommodate to the gay lifestyle.

We strongly recommend that you heed the advice of your senior military advisors to retain the long-standing and logically-conceived policy to ban homosexuals from the military and not make a precipitous decision that would seriously impair national security.

G.E.R. KINNEAR II,

Admiral, USN (Ret.),
Chairman of the Board.

T.J. KILCLINE,

Vice Admiral, USN (Ret.),
President.

NON COMMISSIONED OFFICERS ASSOCIATION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Alexandria, VA, August 21, 1992.

Hon. John McCain,
U.S. Senator, Subcommittee on Manpower and Personnel, Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. McCain: Over the years, the Non Commissioned Officers Association of the United States of America (NCOA) has opposed every legislative attempt to change the policy of denying service in the U.S. Armed Forces to homosexuals and bisexuals. The association has and will continue to be strong in its support of the Department of Defense (DoD) position in the matter. If DoD should, by chance, succumb to public pressure on the issue, NCOA will not alter its position.

In an effort to demonstrate the association's resolve on the homosexuality issue, a copy of a Resolution has been enclosed for your information. This Resolution was approved by NCOA members during the Business Meeting held in conjunction with the association's 31st Annual Convention in Reno, Nevada, in July 1992.

Should public hearings be held on any legislation intended to open the ranks of the military services to homosexuals, NCOA would welcome the opportunity to offer a representative to express opposing views to such legislation. In this regard, invitation may be sent to me at the above address.

NCOA firmly believes that this is a social issue and not one of discrimination as some would lead us to believe.

Sincerely,
MICHAEL F. OUELLETTE,

Sgt. Maj., US Army, (Ret),
Deputy Director of Legislative Affairs.

Homosexuals in the Armed Forces

Whereas, there is currently an organized effort with segments of the public and in the Congress of the United States to have the Armed Forces to amend its policy and authorize the enlistment and retention of homosexuals;

Whereas, the enlistment and retention of homosexuals, is not in the best interest of preserving high morale and good discipline in the Armed Forces of the United States, and is incompatible with maintaining good order among uniformed members of the military services,

Whereas, homosexual conduct is an offense under the Uniform Code of Military Justice;

Therefore, be it

Resolved, That the membership of the Non Commissioned Officers Association of the United States of America, hereby declares its unanimous support for the current Department of Defense policy, DOD DIRECTIVE 1332.14 January 1982, which reads in part:

`Homosexuality is incompatible with Military Service. The presence in the military environment of persons who engage in homosexual conduct or who, by their statements, demonstrate a propensity to engage in homosexual conduct, seriously impairs the accomplishment of the military mission. The presence of such members adversely affects the ability of the military services to maintain discipline, good order and morale; to foster mutual trust and confidence among service members; to ensure the integrity of the system of rank and command; to facilitate assignment and worldwide deployment of service members who frequently must live and work under close conditions affording minimal privacy to recruit and retain members of the Military Services; to maintain public acceptability of military service; and to prevent breaches of security.'

Be it further

Resolved, the Association shall actively oppose legislation or regulation directing the recruitment or retention of homosexuals in the Armed Forces.

[Page: S1300]

The Retired Enlisted Association,

Hon. John McCain,
Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on Manpower and Personnel, Senate Committee on Armed Services, Washington, DC.

Dear Senator McCain: On behalf of the more than 58,000 members of The Retired Enlisted Association (TREA), I am writing to express our strong opposition to S. Res. 236, a Resolution `expressing the sense of the Senate that the President rescind DOD Directive 1332.14, section H.1, which bans gay, lesbian, and bisexual Americans from serving in the Armed Forces of the United States.'

It is obvious the sponsors have never lived for years aboard a man-o-war, as so many enlisted Navy personnel do, for example.

Proponents of S. Res. 236 site the costs to DOD when involuntarily separating homosexuals from the Armed Forces. What all neglect to mention is that homosexuals enlisting or receiving a commission have misrepresented themselves and entered into a fraudulent enlistment.

Overlooked, is the potential impact on recruiting. Each year the services recruit tens of thousands of high school seniors into the Delayed Entry Program (DEP). The DEP program allows the service to guarantee a specific school months ahead of graduation from high school. Many of these same high school seniors are 17 years old and thereby require parental consent. This makes one wonder, how many heterosexual parents are going to consent or encourage their young sons and daughters to join the service should S. Res. 236 become law.

We respectfully urge you to offer your strongest opposition to S. Res. 236.

Very respectfully,
JOHN M. ADAMS,

MCPO, USN (Ret.),
Director of Government Affairs.

P. Resolution No. 93-7

UNIFORMED SERVICES POLICY REGARDING HOMOSEXUALS

Whereas, the Uniform Code of Military Justice, an Act of Congress, prohibits sodomy and other deviant behavior on the part of service personnel; and

Whereas, the special conditions and operational demands related to military service, especially in wartime, are unique to serving in the military and must not be confused with conditions prevailing in society as a whole; and

Whereas, heterosexual personnel experience significant stress when forced to associate with overt homosexuals in close quarters, lacking privacy and during life and death situations; and

Whereas, forcing heterosexual military personnel to serve with overt homosexuals threatens morale, discipline, and esprit de corps, that which is at the core of combat effectiveness; and

Whereas, service in the armed forces is not a right but a unique calling, entered into by those who meet stringent physical and mental requirements; and

Whereas, discrimination related to behavior and lifestyle must not be confused or equated with that based on gender, race or religion; Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the Reserve Officers Association of the United States, chartered by Congress, urge the Congress and the uniformed services to sustain policies excluding homosexuals from the uniformed services.

This supersedes Resolution No. 91-57.

Note: This is not an official ROA resolution until adopted by the National Council/Convention.

American Security Council,
Washington, DC, January 29, 1993.

Hon. John McCain,
Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC

Dear Senator McCain: We are writing to strongly urge you to vote in favor of the amendment that will be offered by Senators Bob Dole, Strom Thurmond, and Dan Coats in support of the current ban on homosexuals in the armed forces. We have been in contact with ASC members and supporters throughout the nation, and we can tell you they are vigorously opposed to President Clinton's decision.

For 37 years the American Security Council and its members have worked to safeguard U.S. national security interests while promoting a world of free nations at peace. Today, we are focusing our efforts on developing a bipartisan strategy for the 21st Century--a strategy for `winning the peace' in a post-Cold War world. We believe a key element to our success in the Cold War, and a critical element in maintaining peace in the future, is the readiness, morale, and professionalism of our armed forces.

Because of this, we were very dismayed by President Clinton's decision to issue an Executive Order repealing the current ban on homosexuals in the armed forces. We strongly urge you to weigh carefully the concerns and difficulties which have already been expressed to you by the entire national security community. These are thoughtful men and women whose professional lives have been devoted to improving the quality of our fighting forces. They are open-minded and compassionate, and they have the best interests of the country and military at heart.

As you may know, the American Legion, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Association of the U.S. Army, the Navy League, the Air Force Association, the National Guard Association, the Marine Corps League, the Reserve Officers Association and the Retired Officers Association have all joined ASC in going on record in support of the ban. Letters, statements and resolutions from all of these groups have already been sent to your office.

Our nation's veterans groups urged President Clinton not to issue this Executive Order before the men and women most affected by this proposal had an opportunity to be heard and their concerns addressed. This is a major policy change with far-reaching implications, and we regret that the President acted so suddenly.

Military service is unique and vastly different in both working and living conditions from private and public sector occupations where employees are free to come and go as they please. The military institution, with its mandatory sea duty, field deployments and combat operations, necessarily infringes upon personal privacy and forces intimate living conditions unlike those experienced in any other community or profession.

Years of military experience suggest that when homosexuals are thrust into this environment, the impact undermines morale and discipline to the detriment of the essential mission. This is an even more significant factor at a time when we are undergoing a massive drawdown of the fighting force. The result of this kind of social engineering within our all-important defense community can be nothing but disastrous.

Further, the military institution must act in loco parentis for the young men and women entrusted to its care. Recruiting efforts can only suffer, risking the vitality and quality of the forces. Many parents will discourage their sons and daughters from joining an armed service forced to accommodate gay lifestyles.

The basic issue addressed by the Dole/Thurmond/Coats amendment is national security, not the alleged `rights' of any group of citizens. We strongly recommend that you respect the advice of our senior military officers and all of the nation's veterans groups. We hope you will not vote for a policy that would put our national security at risk.
ROBERT H. SPIRO, JR., PH.D.,

Vice President, Former Under Secretary of the Army, Carter Administration,

JOHN M. FISHER,

Chairman and Chief Executive Officer.

Navy League of the United States--Board of Directors' Meeting

MINUTES

The following National Directors were present:

NEW ENGLAND REGION

EMPIRE REGION

LIBERTY REGION

MID-ATLANTIC REGION

SOUTH ATLANTIC COAST REGION

FLORIDA REGION

[Page: S1301]

SOUTHERN REGION

SOUTHWEST REGION

GREAT LAKES REGION

UPPER MIDWEST REGION

CENTRAL MIDWEST REGION

ROCKY MOUNTAIN REGION

CARIBBEAN REGION

PACIFIC SOUTHWEST REGION

PACIFIC CENTRAL REGION

NORTHWEST REGION

PACIFIC AREA REGION

EUROPEAN AREA REGION

The President stated that a quorum was present.

`Now therefore be it resolved, by the National Directors of the Navy League of the United States at their meeting on November 16, 1992, that the Navy League of the United States supports the statement of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff who said `The Joint Chiefs of Staff and the senior commanders continue to believe strongly that the presence of homosexuals within the armed forces would be prejudicial to good order and discipline.'

LINDA TRUMP,

Director, Executive Services.

WILLIAM G. SIZEMORE,

Corporate Secretary.

Alexandria, VA,
November 24, 1992.

President-elect Bill Clinton,
Governors' Mansion, Little Rock, AR.

Dear President-elect Clinton: I am writing you to express my deep concern over your pledge to lift the current order which bans homosexuals from serving in the military.

I am a 1974 graduate of the U.S. Military Academy at West Point. I served for 5 years in the Army in various assignments as a combat arms officer. These assignments included Korea and the 3rd U.S. Infantry, otherwise known as the Old Guard of the Army. I currently reside in the Northern Virginia area and work as a consultant within the information technology field.

My concern over your pledge goes to the very core of the future readiness of our nation's defense as well as to the moral climate within our nation. I can best reflect my concerns by raising other questions which you as the Commanded-in-Chief and other military commanders will be faced with:

1. Recognizing that the sexual drive within us is one of the strongest (if not the strongest), how will soldiers feel when they are faced with the prospect of sharing the most intimate of environments with people who potentially could find them sexually attractive?

2. Given these attractions, how will units function properly when such attractions lead to unwanted sexual overtures by one soldier towards another, thus breaking down the trust that is so critical for a unit to function during combat?

3. How will the military address the likely prospect of homosexuals seeking such privileges as dependent medical and dental care for their partners in much the same way as cities such as San Francisco have mandated within `domestic partner' programs?

4. Once homosexuals are given the privilege to serve within our nation's military, how will the military respond to the requests of bisexuals to be given the same privilege?

5. How will the service academies handle openly homosexual students?

This list goes on and on. I know I speak for many when I say that lifting the current ban will be tantamount to destroying the cohesiveness that is vital for our nation's defense personnel.

I would like to add one more point: As a black American, I find it extremely offensive and disparaging for anyone to compare the lifting of this ban to that of the racial integration of the services which began in the late 40's. It indeed tarnishes the valor and memory of all those brave soldiers who served under conditions that I never had to experience in order to pave the way for me to attend one of the most prestigious schools in America.

I strongly urge you to re-consider this pledge for the good of our military, its readiness, and for the good of our nation.

Sincerely,
------ ------.

Brandywine, MD,
January 12, 1993.

Hon. John McCain,
Washington, DC.

Dear Senator McCain: I am an Army Captain, and I want to encourage you to do everything possible to stop President-Elect Clinton's proposal to lift the ban on homosexuals in the military. I believe this action would have a dramatically negative effect on military morale, discipline and readiness as well as undermining public confidence in our armed forces.

Everyone has rights, but not everyone has the right to serve in the military. The military discriminates against the handicapped, drug users, and criminals, with good reason. Imagine the consequences of nearsighted pilots, chemically dependent tank drivers or soldiers who are forced to depend on the actions of a known criminal. They do not belong in the military and neither do homosexuals.

In ten years I have seen hundreds of training hours lost to sexual discrimination cases. If the ban on homosexuals is lifted the number will increase ten fold. Every time a homosexual soldier receives even a slightly negative report he will be able to claim sexual preference discrimination. This will only further detract from training and add to an already burdensome amount of paperwork.

Heterosexual male soldiers will not follow homosexual leaders. I base this claim, not just on hypothesis but examples in units in which I have served. Soldiers, especially those in combat arms, will not tolerate known homosexuals in their unit. It is detrimental to morale and order to have soldiers worry about their bunkmates' sexual preferences. The result of such situations is usually violence. Comrades of mine in the Navy are particularly worried about their rights as heterosexuals, when they are forced to share crowded ship-board quarters with known homosexuals.

The military is aware that there are homosexuals presently serving and this has already created unit disruptions. My wife served for four years in the Marines and was approached by lesbians several times. One even threatened to kill herself if my wife did not give in to her advances. That did not improve the morale of her unit. The trust that creates cohesion and fighting spirit is lost. How much more common will this scene become when homosexuality is condoned?

I believe the military is supposed to represent the finest ideals of American society not the opinions of a deviant minority. Basic biology demonstrates that homosexuality is unnatural. If the military is not allowed to discriminate against `sexual preference,' will homosexuality be the limit or will other sexual preferences like bestiality and pedophilia be accepted as well? Will they soon be considered normal behavior too? Will the military soon be unable to discriminate against anyone? Like dozens of other officers I have spoken with, I will seriously consider resigning if this new measure is put into effect.

I adamantly urge you to do everything you can to stop this proposed measure. If you do not believe me, believe General Powell, this is not a good idea.

Sincerely,

S.A. Underwood,
Captain, U.S. Army.

Phoenix, AZ,
January 25, 1993.

Mr. Les Aspin,
Secretary, DOD, The Pentagon, Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Secretary: I write with the strongest of objection to the fact the President wishes to change the Military's rules re gay individuals.

I served as an enlisted man with world War II and Korean service. I have watched the great improvement in our services the past decade.

It is simply wrong to create special rules or circumstances for the gay. These people choose their life style. Will we see special Army units exclusively of gays or perhaps an air force wing manned by gays? How do you expect our military leaders to develop pride, morale and teamwork with their officers and men with special rules and or treatment?

Homosexuality is immoral. It contributes to the present problem of AIDS in our country. As a person I would not want to serve in a military that has special rules for gays. I would not want my children to serve either. Aboard ship the quarters are close. In training, work and combat our men and women must depend on one another to perform duties. I would not want to rely on an individual or group that I knew to be gay.

It is just as shameful that apparent political expediency results in such requests. I am saddened to think our nation must stoop to such low depths. Please remember our military is vital and should be treated honorably, not shabbily. Also, I remind you New York, San Francisco and the Washington beltway are just part, not all of America.

Cordially yours,
Richard Wagner.

[Page: S1302]

From the Wall Street Journal, Dec. 2, 1992

Gays in the Military? A Cautionary Tale

Bill Clinton's desire to lift the ban on homosexuals in the military brings to mind a troubling incident from my own military experience more than a generation ago.

When I turned 18 late in 1945 I discovered that I had missed the war but not the draft. After five weeks of boot camp, I was shipped to San Francisco's Treasure Island, the Navy base where new recruits waited to receive their orders.

It was dark and raw as only San Francisco can be in January when five of us mustered on a pier to await a ship's boat from the USS Warrick. The new recruits were told the Warrick was an Attack Cargo Auxiliary, which sounded promising. We soon discovered this was a fancy name for a cargo carrier. Even so, we were excited at the prospect of shipping out. Lugging our bags, we arrived on board late at night. We unhooked our berths from their vertical positions and settled down to sleep.

The awakening was sudden, panic-filled. A hand was caressing my leg, running up the inside of my thigh. A dim figure ducked away as I lashed out, kicking, swinging a fist and striking air. There was no more sleep that night.

Our voyage began the next day, our destination Honolulu. But the excitement was gone, at least for me. At the end of a long day riding the sea's rolling swells, I took a 12-inch box end wrench from the engine room and retreated to my berth. Hanging on to the wrench under my pillow, I slept.

My sense of unease did not go away even when the seasickness passed. On the fourth day at sea I visited the ship's post office. The second-class petty officer manning the tiny cubicle greeted me warmly. Grinning broadly, he stepped back from the counter, dropped his dungarees, fondled himself and made an obscene invitation. I walked away.

Whom do you tell? I chose a third-class petty officer on my watch. He laughed at what I told him. `You're on a French cruiser, kid.' He told me to watch out.

It was in the open now, a subject for discussion among the new recruits. Each of us had been accosted, patted, propositioned. Though we were in different divisions, we flocked together for meals, averting our eyes when one of `them' leered in our direction.

There were five such aggressive homosexuals that we knew of on board this ship with almost 250 men. They were all petty officers. Their actions were enough to poison the atmosphere on the Warrick. Meals, showers, attendance at the movies, decisions about where you went on the ship alone--all became part of a worried calculation of risk.

After two weeks at sea, I received the whispered news that the smallest and most vulnerable of our `team' had been sodomized in the paint locker. When I looked at the bearer of this news, I saw that there were tears in his eyes. `Why are they doing this to us?' he asked.

It was a good question. The comments of some petty officers suggested that the rapid discharge of so many veterans at the end of the war had brought with it a slackening of discipline. On board the Warrick this disciplinary neglect had loosened the restraints on homosexual behavior--the threat of discharge was the surest of these--and created an atmosphere where exhibitionism and lewd action were commonplace.

All homosexuals aren't rapists. But in this closed male society, with its enforced communal living, unchecked homosexual appetites wrought havoc. The atmosphere on the USS Warrick in January of 1946 does have a present-day parallel--the atmosphere of fear that rules in today's prisons.

Is there a lesson here for Mr. Clinton? I think so. The U.S. Navy certainly won't turn into a collection of horror ships like the Warrck if he succeeds in ending the ban on homosexuals in the military. But my experience does suggest that military officials are right to worry that `good order and discipline of the services will be impaired' if the ban is lifted.

A postscript: When the Warrick reached Pearl Harbor in that long-ago winter, a new executive officer reported aboard. On the sixth day in port the PA system blared a summons `for all those personnel being transferred to assemble at the quarterdeck.'

I joined the rush topside to see who was going ashore. The ship's rail was lined with crewmen cheering as five petty officers debarked into a P-boat.

I went below decks and ran back up. When the P-boat cleared the side, I dropped my box-end wrench in to the blue waters of Pearl Harbor.

Tucson, AZ,
January 22, 1993.

Hon. John McCain,
U.S. Senator, Tucson, AZ.

Dear Senator McCain: I am writing this letter to urge you to oppose the proposed action of President Clinton that would allow known homosexuals to remain in or be allowed to join the United States Military.

I am a military wife. My husband has proudly served this nation for 21 years. I am a registered voter in the state of Arizona, and we are stationed at Davis-Monthan AFB. However, my husband has recently been sent to Saudi Arabia.

Through the Uniformed Code of Military Justice [UCMJ], active duty personnel may not strike, organize protests, or any other such activity that is the normal right of the American population. This is the very code of laws enacted by Congress that an Executive Order allowing homosexuals in the military would violate. We have only our representatives in Congress to help us fight our political battles.

Although we feel that there should be supportive government programs to help rehabilitate the people who suffer from this very sad physiological psychological illness, remaining in the military should not be allowed. If we had effective rehabilitating programs, these patients could then take their rightful place in any society.

We have programs to rehabilitate substance abusers and child abusers, in the hope that these programs would allow people to be rehabilitated and stop the cycle of these problems. So to with the homosexual. If we can control this illness and break the cycle, we will then be able to get an upper hand on other illnesses, such as AIDS.

By the very nature of the military lifestyle (i.e. barracks living, combat living arrangements, etc.), this is not an environment that would benefit the homosexual.

Senator McCain, I urge you to help fight this proposed violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice that our military personnel must be ruled by. Please seek alternative measures to help the victims of this illness.

Sincerely,
Carla S. Dupuy.

January 29, 1993.

Hon. John McCain,
Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.

Dear Senator McCain: As a World War II veteran, decorated for valor, authorized to wear the Purple Heart with a cluster, a former rated military paratrooper and pilot, who has served in virtually all enlisted and officer grades from Private to Lieutenant Colonel, I urge you and your colleagues in the Senate not to allow a naive, draft-dodger President to over rule the wisdom of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the United States on the matter of `gays.'

My personal philosophy allows me to believe that any relationship between two consenting adults is acceptable. However, this liberal philosophy does not allow me to accept the arbitrary imposition of `gays' on the finest military establishment in the world, against the advice of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, by a President whose qualifications to make such a decision are totally absent in the face of his experience.

It is not the rights of `gays' that are at issue, but the rights of `non-gays.' Moreover, beyond the issue of `gays' entitlements to serve are a myriad of other related and associated issues which ought to be fully examined prior to the proposed decision of an inexperienced President.

Therefore, I urge that you and your colleagues in the Senate move to prevent the President from making a premature judgement, one that could have a significant impact on the morale and attitude of the national military establishment, without a comprehensive examination of the matter and the full support of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Respectfully yours,
Stanley C. Waldner,

Paradise Valley, AZ,
January 19, 1993.

President William J. Clinton,
The White House, Washington, DC.

Dear President Clinton: On the eve of your inauguration I am saddened by the thought that I may no longer be able to encourage my grandchildren to follow in my footsteps by seeking appointments as cadets at the country's military academies. That change in my position will certainly occur if homosexuals are knowingly allowed in the military.

Having served this country in ranks from private to colonel of infantry and commanded all units from squad through brigade, I have a pragmatic understanding of the trauma which can be inflicted upon young men who are naive and/or physically, mentally, or morally weaker than others. I offer three examples of which I have personal knowledge.

While attending officers candidate school at Fort Benning in 1946-1947 I was in a company in which more than twenty young men (mostly 18 to 20 years old) were first invited singly and in pairs to parties in the local community. After they consumed copious amounts of alcohol they were inducted into homosexual activities. The civilian homosexual organizers of the party photographed them, then threatened the photos would be sent to the soldiers' commanding officer if they did not bring more of their unsuspecting barrack mates to the next round of parties. Fortunately, one young man did not comply. Instead he informed his commander and the Georgia Bureau of Investigation. The lives of the more than twenty men who were discharged from OCS were undoubtedly negatively affected. Whether any went on to practice homosexuality and lure more young men into that practice, I do not know. However, it is fair to say that all those young men were negatively impacted by the events described. I believe that many suffered from changes in self-image and loss of self-esteem. If you want to verify that story, check the Infantry School's archives for OCS Class 536, graduated March 28, 1946.

A second threat to young military men is persuasion or coercion by a homosexual officer into accepting his sexual advances. I personally saw that type of mistreatment in my first troop assignment out of West Point. My company commander always had two or three specially selected recruits as his messengers or aides. When the unit went to the field for training, he and his young group would stay in barracks. When unable to avoid field duty, he had a large tent set up where he and his `aides' stayed. At the time I was too naive to realize what was happening. It was only after leaving that assignment that I read the commander had been discharged as a homosexual. I suppose one of his aides objected to the inappropriate personal attention. Or perhaps one of them reported him in a rage of jealous spite. Whatever the reason, hundreds of young recruits passed through that unit for training every eight weeks, so the homosexual company commander had a wide selection
of young men to prey upon while neglecting his duties to the rest of his men and to his country. Command authority over others is very persuasive and can be intimidating. To misuse it is a grave disservice to all involved.

A third and different kind of episode occurred much later in my career. This was a typical case of the barracks bully. It seems that when men are placed in close quarters, as they are in a 40 to 60 man barrack, there is often a struggle to determine who is strongest, toughest and meanest. When that has been determined, that barracks bully often dominates all others in every way. He selects a few other toughs and rules the barrack when the non-commissioned officers are not there. So it was when I commanded a battalion at Fort Lewis. It was reported to me that such a bully and his henchmen were pulling young soldiers out of bed at night, taking them to the latrine and forcing them into sodomy and oral sex acts. When told of this, I immediately had the bully arrested. Subsequently it was learned he had murdered his brother and so was returned to his home town for prosecution. Although the bully was gone, he had left some shattered, shamed and forever changed young men in his wake.

I know these examples are unsavory and perhaps gross; but they are real stories of the kind of things that happen when people with unnatural and unfettered sex drives are placed in a position to be able to influence, coerce and bully young, immature and often innocent men. I believe strongly that we are obligated to protect our young servicemen from unwanted attentions similar to those described above. Placing them under command of homosexuals, or in barracks, foxholes, ship berths, or other close quarters with other men who seek sexual pleasure with other men is to purposely expose them to sexual advances which negatively and severely impact their lives, and those of their loved ones, forever. We certainly would not allow men who are naturally sexually attracted to females to live in open barracks with them.

On the battlefield soldiers often mix their blood as they tend their fallen comrades, or are tended by them. How will their exposure to long-term death from AIDS be rationalized if homosexuals are allowed to serve? Since it is well known that male homosexuals are the largest population of AIDS carriers in the country, it would seem extremely injudicious, if not reckless, to expose servicemen to their blood. The battlefield is not a neat place where gloves and masks can be worn.

If homosexuals are accepted in the armed services and their lifestyle accepted as an `alternative', how does a commander prevent open sexual coercion by subordinate commanders of their subordinates? How do commanders control open homosexual acts in barracks, since they would then be accepted as an `alternate lifestyle'? How do commanders get rid of barracks bullies who force themselves on others and then coerce them into silence?

The young servicemen who are affected by your decision may one day fight, be maimed, and die as a result of world events and your decisions. If they are expected to make those sacrifices, let them understand you respect them and their right to security in what little private life they have, that they need not fear sexual harassment by their officers, nor fear undue exposure to AIDS in peacetime, or on the battlefield.

It has been a great privilege for me to serve with and fight alongside our magnificent American infantrymen. They are tough, dedicated and skilled soldiers, on whom we place onerous burdens of killing and being there when their friends fall in combat. They will carry those burdens born of battle with them for the rest of their lives. The scars can never heal. I implore you not to add further burdens and scars on their psyches by exposing them to homosexuality as an acceptable lifestyle in our armed services.

Sincerely,

Robert L. Sears,

Colonel, Infantry, U.S. Army, retired, U.S. Military Academy, class of 1952.

[Page: S1303]

I, and others who proudly served are saddened and dismayed by your decision.

January 29, 1993.
From: Dennis Roos, Hewitt, NJ.
To: Senator John McCain, Washington, DC.

Dear Sir: I am a proud veteran of the US Army. I had the distinct privilege to serve while President Reagan was the Commander in Chief. I come from a family that believes very strongly in the American ideals of God, country & family. That the American dream is alive for all who will work for it, it was not something for the government to hand out to everyone.

My father instilled all this into us as well as the ideals of the Republican Party. Having served in the military, as you have, I am offering you my support in your fight against lifting the ban on homosexuals in the armed forces. I firmly believe what Mr. Clinton wants to do with this ban will have the most adverse affect on the moral, discipline, & cohesivness of our armed forces.

I do not believe that the homosexuals constitutional rights are being infringed upon. If a person was joining the military and is either over weight, or a single parent, or does not have a highschool diploma, these are grounds for not being admitted to the military. Are their rights not being infringed upon also? Of course not. It is being done for the betterment of the armed forces.

I only hope your leadership, as well as the leadership of the other Republican Senators and Congressman will be enough to stem this social experimentation madness with the military. I wish that I had a Congressional Representative of your caliber instead of the Liberal Democrats that do represent the State of New Jersey. God help this country if Mr. Clinton and the other liberals that did not have the guts to serve his country when they were called upon, but now think they understand have the military should be run, get their why. If their is anyway that I may be of service to you to help thwart the democrats shenanigans on lifting the homosexual ban in the military, I would only be to happy to assist you. Good luck and Godspeed to you.

A great admirer of yours.

Sincerely,
Dennis Roos.

Tucson, AZ,
January 26, 1993.

Hon. John McCain,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC

Dear Senator McCain: If you think well of the enclosed letter, would you be kind enough please to enter same in the Congressional Record in order that it might be seen by every member of the U.S. Congress?

Thank you ever so much.

Respectfully,
J.B. Chickering.

Tucson AZ,
January 26, 1993.

Hon. William Jefferson Clinton,
President of the United States, The White House, Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. President: Please allow me to add my voice to the legions beseeching you to reconsider your plan to admit homosexual people into the Armed Forces of our blessed nation.

On January 25, 1993, your distinguished Communications Director Mr. George Stephaopoulos referred to your plan as `progress in civil rights, in ending discrimination.' Civil rights are vital, to be sure. However, Mr. Stephanopoulos' expression misses the mark in two vital respects: (1) there is crucial distinction between civilian life and military life, which will be ignored, through ignorance or otherwise, to our national peril; and (2) U.S. Constitutional law does not prohibit `discrimination' but prohibits `unreasonable discrimination.' Indeed, reasonable discrimination abounds, lest anyone could practice medicine or play pro football or drive a car, etc. etc. The issue at hand is not whether it would be discriminatory to bar `gays' from the Armed Forces, but whether it would be `reasonably' or `unreasonably' discriminatory to do so. And intelligent resolution of the issue is manifest in the lessons of history, religion, experience and morality.

The secular lessons of history record that each and every nation or civilization which has ascended to world leadership throughout all time has ultimately declined and fallen therefrom via moral devaluation. The British historian Arnold Joseph Toynbee, in referring to this phenomenon as `psychological indolence,' aligned his thesis with the decay theory of the German Philosopher of history Oswald Spengler, author of `The Decline Of The West.' Like Spengler, Toynbee saw the development of historical happenings in terms of civilizations rather than nations per se; but unlike Spengler, Toynbee did not see such civilizations as organically doomed, but with destinies dependent upon their reactions to certain challenges, i.e. their ability, or their inability, to strike a healthy balance between the extremes of excess; (Nazism is an apt illustration of one such extreme; Sodom and Gomorrah's exaggerated emphasis upon `rights,' to the exclusion of responsibilities, illustrates another).

What do religion and its moral correlatives teach? Without belaboring the entire Old and New Testaments, as I believe that you stand four-square with our Judeo-Christian heritage and ethic, may I simply cite one passage from each:

`* * * if a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination* * *' (Leviticus 20:13)

`And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the women, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly * * * they which commit such things are worthy of death.' (Romans 1:27-32)

Nor do I find a single passage of Scripture contrariwise.

What about the lessons of experience? To those of us who have experienced
the military, those who fought in the trenches via five-decker bunks sardined within the holds deep in the bowels of a troopship in submarine-infested waters, those who huddled together in the mud dodging bullets, bombs and mortar fire, those who barracked in miserably close quarters at sea or on makeshift airstrips, and indeed those who kept the faith at home even as they coveted the opportunity to fight abroad for Old Glory, to all of these and many more, it is inconceivable that any experienced and knowledgeable military commander would break faith with his charges and countenance such perversion as your plan envisions vis-a-vis the unique military force structure requirements, demands and mission.

It appears that the Hon. Secretary of Defense Les Aspin has followed your lead, but question marks appear even here as each time Mr. Aspin presented himself on television and refers to nuclear weapons, he cites same as `new-kew-ler' (phonetic) weapons instead of `new-klee-er' weapons.

Just so, some television `anchors' and reporters are wont to opine that there are `tens of thousands of gays already in the military.' None of these reporters, however, has ever presented even unsupported evidence to reinforce their allegations, let alone credible evidence documenting same. I can only say that in my decades of military service (prior to my years in academia, in the practice of law, and as an Administrative Law Judge), I never once encountered a single one of these `tens of thousands of gays,' nor, to my knowledge, did any of my many military friends, classmates and colleagues.

I respect the fact that you have made a pledge, but surely you will agree that upholding a pledge simply for the pledge's sake, and without a cogent underpinning rationale therefor, is risky at best. Nor is there any germane rationale to support the subversion of military imperatives for the sake of someone's demented social agenda, particularly one supported by far less than a majority of the American electorate. Moreover, what more disastrous and grotesque signal could be sent to our American youngsters, the very fabric of America's future. Have we not even yet reached the bottom of the barrel in our callous and negligent treatment of and regard for our young people? (Cf. William J. Bennett's `The De-Valuing Of America--The Fight For Our Culture And Our Children,' Summit Books, Simon and Schuster Bldg., Rockefeller Center, NYC, 1992)

I pray that you might reconsider your above-identified plan, just as you have had the wisdom to reconsider other campaign plans and appointments, in the light of seasoned reflection and competent counsel by those who have `been there' in the military leadership that has served America so well and throughout her history; that you might heed America's history under the tested and proven leadership of Washington, Lincoln, Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, and Bush; at Valley Forge, Gettysburg, on the beaches of Normandy and Iwo Jima, at Coral Sea and Inchon, in Indochina and the Persian Gulf; and that you will answer the call of the majority of Americans, who would appeal to reason and would have you do so, and to reasonable discrimination, at this turning point, up or down, in American history. Where and when otherwise are we to ever to draw the line in our ongoing abdication of our better natures?

Respectfully,
J.B. Chickering.

Tucson, AZ,
January 22, 1993.

Hon. John S. McCain,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.

[Page: S1304]

Sincerely,
Billy Towles.