[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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.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.
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.
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.
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]
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 c