[Page: H7065]

[TIME: 1311]

IN THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE

The Clerk read the title of the bill.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Monday, September 13, 1993, amendment No. 6 printed in House Report 103-236 had been disposed of.

Pursuant to House Resolution 254, no further amendment to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute is in order except the amendments printed in House Report 103-252 and amendments en bloc described in section 3 of House Resolution 254. Pro forma amendments for purpose of debate may be offered only by the chairman or ranking minority member of the Committee on Armed Services.

Except as specified in sections 2 through 4 of House Resolution 254, each amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for 10 minutes, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent of the amendment, shall not be subject to amendment except as specified in House Report 103-252 and shall not be subject to a demand for a division of the question.

It shall be in order at any time to consider the amendments printed in part 1 of House Report 102-252 in the order printed. Such consideration shall begin with an additional period of general debate, which shall be confined to section 575 of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute and the amendments printed in part 1 of House Report 103-252.

Debate time shall not exceed 1 hour, equally divided and controlled among the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Armed Services and the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Skelton].

If more than one of the amendments printed in part 1 of House Report 103-252 is adopted, only the last to be adopted shall be considered as finally adopted and reported to the House.

It shall be in order at any time for the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services, or his designee, to offer amendments en bloc consisting of amendments printed in House Reports 252 or 236 or germane modifications thereof. Amendments en bloc shall be considered as read, except that the modifications shall be reported.

Amendments en bloc shall be debatable for 290 minutes, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Armed Services, shall not be subject to amendment and shall not be subject to a demand for a division of the question.

For the purpose of inclusion in amendments en bloc, an amendment printed in the form of a motion to strike may be modified to the form of a germane perfecting amendment to the text originally proposed to be stricken.

The original proponent of an amendment included in amendments en bloc may insert a statement in the Congressional Record immediately before disposition of the amendments en bloc.

The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may postpone until a time during further consideration in the Committee of the Whole a request for a recorded vote on any amendment made in order by House Resolution 254.

The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may reduce to not less than 5 minutes the time for voting by electronic device on any postponed question that immediately follows another vote by electronic device without intervening business, provided that the time for voting by electronic device on the first in any series of questions shall not be less than 15 minutes.

The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may recognize for the consideration of an amendment printed in the report out of the order printed, but not sooner than 1 hour after the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services announces from the floor a request to that effect.

The Chair will announce the number of the amendment made in order by the rule and the name of its sponsor in order to give notice to the Committee of the Whole as to the order of Recognition.

Pursuant to House Resolution 254, it is now in order to debate the subject matter of section 575.

The gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums] will be recognized for 20 minutes, the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spence] will be recognized for 20 minutes, and the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Skelton] will be recognized for 20 minutes.

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums].

[Page: H7066]

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from Massachusetts will control the remainder of the time of the gentleman from California.

There was no objection.

Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, we arrive at this debate today on the status of gay men and lesbians in the military services after much discussion and controversy. While the rule governing today's debate presents a narrow range of choices, I want to reiterate my unequivocal belief that we should permanently and completely lift any restrictions to military service based on sexual orientation. Specifically, I believe we should allow gay men and lesbians to serve in the military--as they have for decades--and to allow them to do so honestly and openly, the only position truly consistent with the military's excellent code of honor.

Mr. Chairman, I believe it is possible to undertake such a commitment to equality and human dignity, while at the same time protecting legitimate privacy interests of our uniformed personnel, and while preserving good order and discipline within the ranks.

While the military cannot be asked to lead the way in every effort to improve our society, it has made significant contributions to such efforts in the past: Including efforts to integrate our society, to provide expanded opportunities to persons with disabilities, and to provide new employment vistas for women. It seems to me that the military could also aid in our society's effort to end the violence and bigotry against gay men and lesbians.

Everyone acknowledges that gay men and lesbians serve in the military, some with the knowledge of their peers, many with great distinction. This does not in my humble opinion, destroy unit cohesion. Time permitting, I would like to explode that cruel myth. Examples from other nations show that it would not do so if we were to embrace this policy.

I wish we were addressing, Mr. Chairman, this fundamental issue today. I offered an amendment in committee that would have lifted the ban; it is what I believe we should do and should do now. I was prepared to seek a rule allowing me to offer such an amendment again today. However, leaders of organizations keenly interested in this issue have chosen, for reasons of their own, to make today's fight one that focuses on whether the Congress should codify its views or leave it to the President to act in this matter. I defer to their judgment.

Mr. Chairman, because today we face only the choices before us on the floor, I rise to urge my colleagues to accept the Meehan proposal. By not codifying our actions today, we would allow the President the flexibility to work with the Joint Chiefs and the service leadership over the coming months and years to find a more comprehensive and equitable solution to expand opportunities for all.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, let me reiterate my view that we should choose the goal that will best move toward achieving equal opportunity for all our citizens. All my experiences--as a marine, as a psychiatric social worker, and as a Member of this august body for nearly 3 years, and a Member of its Committee on Armed Services--lead me to believe that we could do so, and do so successfully. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to support the Meehan proposal.

Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Mr. SPENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

[TIME: 1320]

I support the Hunter and Skelton amendments and strongly oppose the Meehan amendment.

I oppose Mr. Meehan's amendment which would strike the existing bipartisan committee language, in turn guaranteeing that Congress will revisit this highly disruptive, controversial issue year after year after year.

Mr. Chairman, H.R. 2401 codifies a policy regarding homosexuals in the military which protects and preserves military readiness. I strongly support that policy for many reasons, but principally because it reflects:

The overwhelming judgment of the professional military from the ranks of the most junior enlisted personnel up through general officers;

The weight of evidence gathered by the Armed Services Committee after aggressively analyzing and debating, in an open and comprehensive manner, the wide range of views expressed by all concerned with this issue;

American public opinion, and certainly the views of the vast majority of my constituents;

A proper exercise of Congress exclusive constitutional authority to prescribe policies regulating the Armed Forces, and

My own personal, moral and religious beliefs that the homosexual lifestyle is unnatural and immoral, as well as being illegal in some States, and should not be legitimized by a cloak of acceptability in our society.

In other forums I have already addressed the moral issues that this issue has forced my colleagues and me to confront. So, I will not elaborate today. Let me just say, however, that any advocacy of a broader societal acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle is contrary to my fundamental beliefs. A lifetime of experience has only reinforced my position on this issue. Nothing in all the testimony that I have heard in the past year has convinced me that my moral values need to be changed.

However, the evidence that was presented to both the full committee and Mr. Skelton's subcommittee did convince me that:

The ban on homosexuals serving in the military is not a question of civil rights, equal rights, or gay rights. The courts have consistently upheld the military's right to discriminate based on the unique nature of what the military is and what the military does.

Homosexuality is incompatible with military service. Lifting the ban would have a negative impact on readiness, discipline, and morale.

Despite the testimony of homosexuals who had served in the military that they wanted nothing more than to serve with honor, political activism to promote the gay agenda subsequent to lifting the ban promised

to turn the military into a legal, social and cultural battleground for years to come unless Congress acted to legally protect the military by codifying a policy governing homosexual service.

Today, Mr. Meehan and his supporters will present a number of arguments against codifying the Clinton-endorsed Nunn compromise. Many supporters of the Meehan amendment will argue that we ought not to interfere with the executive branch's discretion in this matter. As you evaluate such arguments, consider that:

It was the President's own response to the political activism of the homosexual community that helped to precipitate this highly contentious and disruptive debate that occupied too much time already this last 8 months.

Just prior to marking up this bill, the committee held several days of hearings on the policy proposed by the President and the Secretary of Defense and found it deficient in several key areas. Consistent with the Senate language, H.R. 2401 simply corrects those deficiencies.

As indicated in the President's own August 4 statement of administration policy, the President supports H.R. 2401 as reported by the Committee on Armed Services because and I quote, `the bill would support many of the administration's key defense programs, including the administration's policy regarding homosexuals in the military.' And I repeat, in the words of our President `including the administration's policy regarding homosexuals in the military.'

Finally, I need not remind my colleagues that under article 1, section 8 of the Constitution, only Congress has the mandate to regulate the personnel of the Armed Forces.

For these reasons, I urge you to protect military readiness and vote `no' on the Meehan amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

[Page: H7067]

Mr. Chairman, regarding the issue of homosexuals in the military, I stand shoulder to shoulder with the men and women who serve in our Armed Forces. I stand with General Powell and the other Joint Chiefs of Staff. I stand with the senior noncommissioned officers from each of the services. Each has said that the Nunn/Skelton language can work! Each strongly endorsed what we have done in this bill. If my colleagues care about the people in the military, they will support the Skelton amendment which is the Nunn/Skelton language.

I rise today to say clearly that enough is enough. The issue of homosexuals in the military has been far too divisive, has consumed far too much of the Nation's energy, and has robbed this body of far too much of our legislative agenda. We must put this issue behind us, we must do so immediately. It is my hope that we will do so today.

I am happy to announce that a solution to the problem is available. There is a provision in the bill that codifies a workable policy, and my amendment codifies a workable policy, but does so in a manner that protects the combat capability of the Armed Forces.

Mr. Chairman, it is supported by the President, the Secretary of Defense, and General Powell and the other Joint Chiefs of Staff. Perhaps most importantly, the language in this provision is identical to that adopted by the Committee on Armed Services of the other body by a vote of 17 to 5 with all the committee Republicans voting to adopt. Your vote to turn back amendments to the language that currently resides in the bill will keep it identical to the language in the other body and will put the issue to rest in conference; it will not be a conference item. Rather, it will be a law that the Attorney General, the General Counsel of the Department of Defense, and a panel of constitutional lawyers agree can withstand the challenges in the courts. In short, it is a solution that will stand the test of time. A solution that cannot be altered without coming to the elected representatives of the American people, to us, Members of Congress of the United States.

What does this provision do in the Skelton amendment?

The provision would set out the fundamental difference between military and civilian life and makes clear the importance of preserving high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability. It does this with 15 congressional findings that reflect the results of our hearings here in the Armed Services Committee as well as in the other body.

The provision would require the Department of Defense to issue regulations within 90 days which direct separation if the member has:

Engaged in, attempted to engage in, or solicited another to engage in a homosexual act.

States that he or she is a homosexual or bisexual, or words to that effect.

Married or attempted to marry a person known to be of the same biological sex.

The provision would require the Secretary of Defense to establish enlistment and appointment policies that are consistent with the policy and to conduct briefings upon entry, and periodically thereafter upon reenlistment, that address sexual conduct of members of the Armed Forces, to include the policies prescribed in especially in this bill.

The provision would include the sense of Congress that the Secretary of Defense should reinstate the procedure for asking applicants for enlistment and candidates for appointment about their sexual orientation, if at some time in the future the Secretary of Defense considers it necessary.

[TIME: 1330]

As I have stated before, I have long been committed to codifying the solution to the debate.

By codifying, we mean putting it into the law, the statute books of this country.

In my view, codification is an essential step if we hope to put this divisive issue behind us. If we decline to codify the policy, we will substantially erode the ability of the Department of Justice to defend the policy against challenge in the courts and we will have effectively invited litigation from people who perceive that the policy lacks the committed support of the Congress.

Mr. Chairman, I have elected to support the men and women of the Armed Forces on this issue, and I believe the language in the bill does exactly that. The polls I have seen would indicate that servicemembers are overwhelmingly in favor of continuing the ban on homosexuals conduct in the military. Two different surveys indicated that over 75 percent of the men and women in the military believe the ban that existed prior to January 1993 should be continued. In one of those surveys, a remarkable 45 percent indicated that they would leave the military if the ban was lifted. Such a hemorrhage of trained and educated talent is simply a risk to our defense capability that I am unwilling to assume. In addition to the views of the troops, there are two other surveys that reveal that retired flag officers oppose the service of homosexuals at an alarming 90 percent plus rate.

I recently received a letter from retired Gen. Maxwell R. Thurman, a figure well known to this body as an extraordinary leader and the general who led our forces to victory in Panama. He is a man I greatly respect. His view echoes the testimony of the Joint Chiefs and other distinguished retired officers to include Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf and Lt. Gen. Calvin Waller. General Thurman says:

My own view is that overt homosexuality in the Armed Forces, if permitted, will be devastating to unit morale, cohesion and, ultimately, unit effectiveness in combat.

Those are the words of General Thurman.

I, like these other highly respected leaders, am very cautious about any change that potentially threatens the morale and cohesion of our fighting force. We must not risk fundamentally undermining the best military force in our Nation's history. Second place does not count on the battlefield.

For me personally, the President's initiative has been a disturbing issue. My family background is deeply rooted in traditional religious values, and many of my constituents have sent a clear signal that they believe the service of open homosexuals is wrong. Accordingly, we must not forget that this policy focuses on the issues of greatest concern to service members and carries forward key elements of the former policy that protects those interests.

I feel we have achieved our objective of a policy that protects the combat capability of our military forces and the welfare of our men and women in uniform, while allowing the services to stop asking the question of recruits and to exercise greater control in curbing wasteful inquisition.

Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge that this body vote against the two other amendments and vote for this Skelton amendment.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Obey). The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Meehan].

[Page: H7068]

Mr. Chairman, after months of heated debate, we are finally going to have this issue boiled down to three choices. Let me take a moment to try to explain the implications of each choice.

If you vote for my amendment, you are voting for the compromise produced by Les Aspin and the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The amendment leaves this issue to the executive branch, and that is all it does. Unlike the committee language offered by Mr. Skelton, my amendment does not dictate the military's personnel policy.

The Secretary of Defense will continue to have the authority to implement his directive. That is the same way this issue was handled under George Bush, Ronald Reagan, and every other President since the founding of the Republic, and I do not think the Congress should begin intervening in these matters now.

To attempt to write a law that codifies this compromise is absurd. How in the world are we going to codify something like defining when military personnel show `the propensity to commit a homosexual act.'

The Congress should not be attempting to codify this at all.

If you vote for the Hunter amendment, you are voting to add insult to injury. The committee language is already stacked against civil rights, and by requiring the armed services to ask the question, the Hunter amendment just rubs it in.

The Skelton amendment offers a tiny fig-leaf of `don't ask' in a policy that amounts to a ban-plus. Is that my assessment? No. Those are the words of my friend from Orange County, Mr. Dornan, in Committee. If you vote for the Skelton amendment, you are writing discrimination into law.

We have never attempted to codify this issue before. I would submit that if we codify it now, each and every year we will be back here debating this issue to change the amendment, to change it again if society changes.

Let us leave it to the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the President as Commander in Chief.

My amendment offers the only graceful exit from an extremely contentious debate. It does not lift the ban at all. In fact, if makes no judgment about the wisdom of any policy on gays in the military except to say that no policy on gays in the military should be written into law.

Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Bartlett].

Mr. BARTLETT. Mr. Chairman, I read from the Constitution of the United States:

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

To determine whether or not gays and lesbians serve in the military is clearly the prerogative of the Congress, because there is no way to argue that this is not a rule or a regulation.

The Meehan amendment would give the authority to the President to determine this issue.

This is not the will of the American people and it is not the will of this Congress.

Mr. Chairman, I urge defeat of the Meehan amendment.

Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter].

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.

Mr. Chairman, every month a phenomenon occurs in this country, and that is that thousands of American families send their children to serve in the Armed Forces of the United States. They do that knowing that it may be very difficult, it may be very dangerous, and at the least is most inconvenient compared with domestic life.

I think those families do that because they believe in duty, honor, and country, and they believe that the armed services of the United States uphold a moral code that is derived from basic values that this country has had since its beginning that they believe in.

You know, it is interesting, the other night when General Schwarzkopf was questioned on a national television show, that every caller that called in started out or prefaced his remarks with, `It's an honor to talk to you, General Schwarzkopf.'

[TIME: 1340]

I want to remind my colleagues that this moral code has persisted since 1778, when Gen. George Washington ordered, after homosexual activity by one of his officers, that that officer be drummed out of the Army the next day by all the fifers and drummers in the U.S. Army with abhorrence and detestation. I guess we could not expect General Washington to be at the gay parade. The point is that that policy has persisted from General Washington through General Schwarzkopf.

Now the amendment that I am going to offer, Mr. Chairman, says, `Let's ask the question.' The Reagan administration instituted the question, not because of some vague philosophical notion, but because in 1981 homosexual activities that were bad for the young men and women serving in the military, 84 percent of whom were unconsenting victims, was on the dramatic rise. It is going up at the rate of about 10 percent a year. It had gone up from about 1,000 a year to about 2,000 a year in 1981. When the Reagan administration instituted the question where they asked this question up front, as unpleasant as it was, homosexual acts against young people in uniform went down dramatically, went down from about 2,000 a year to about 900 a year.

So, Mr. Chairman, I do not ask my colleagues to vote for the Hunter amendment because of the moral concern, unit cohesion and all the other things that have come about in hearing, but it is because of the duty of trust we owe to our constituents to protect their children in uniform.

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my good friend and colleague, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Hastings].

Mr. HASTINGS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

(Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to proclaim my support for the amendment offered by Mr. Meehan.

Historically, the U.S. Armed Forces have been a symbol of excellence throughout the world. It is imperative that our military maintains that trademark, and I would never advocate a policy which would affect the superiority of our forces or the safety of our personnel.

However, sexual orientation should not be a factor in determining whether or not one should be able to serve his or her country. Professional relationships should be asexual in the office, in the classroom, and in the Armed Forces. A person's sexual orientation is a private matter and should be treated as such. Personal, professional, and sexual conduct rather than sexual preference must be the foundation of any policy.

The current ban on gays and lesbians from the military is parallel to the racial bigotry that African-Americans faced in the 1940's and 1950's. In the 1940's, two army studies showed more than 80 percent of white soldiers opposed racial integration. Now, the military argues that 74 percent of the enlisted personnel oppose lifting the ban. We must learn from the mistakes and blind judgments of the past. We cannot repeat them. We, in the Congress, cannot go into the business of writing discrimination into the law.

Just as during the civil rights movement I could not accept an offering of liberty to one group and the denial of liberty to another, I cannot accept it now. Our Nation is one of vitality, diversity, and equality. Our Armed Forces must not be too timid to reflect these strengths.

[Page: H7069]

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak for the amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Meehan] and against the amendments offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter] and the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Skelton].

The gentleman from Missouri has indicated that his amendment would take us back to the situation that existed with respect to gay men and lesbians in the military last year. Indeed it would. It does not simply codify the President's policy. The Meehan amendment would leave undisturbed the so-called don't-ask, don't-tell policy adopted by the President, which, although it retained the unacceptable presumption that homosexuality makes one unfit for military service, at least did take some steps to lessen the degree to which lesbians and gay men in the military are subject to harassment by military authorities. The willful indifference to evidence displayed by those determined to see that homophobia continues to be enshrined in our military policy is striking. They ignore not only the evidence of outstanding military service by lesbians and gay men, but also the clear evidence that other nations' armed forces have adopted nondiscrimination policies without any adverse consequences whatsoever for morale and unit cohesion. The arguments for the Skelton and Hunter amendments are the same arguments used to justify racial segregation of the armed services, and they are just as wrong and deeply prejudiced now.

Mr. Chairman, for my part I will not vote for a Defense authorization bill that includes the Hunter or Skelton language any more than I would vote for a Defense authorization bill that proposed to move to restore racial segregation of the Armed Forces.

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank].

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I hope that the amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Meehan] is adopted.

What we are talking about here is the extent to which we believe that the people of this country are prejudiced against gay men and lesbians, and they understand the perception that the mere presence of a gay man or a lesbian in the midst of a predominantly straight group would be disorienting. I think that is wrong. I think the American people have, in fact, a greater capacity to deal with differences than people here give them credit for.

No one is talking about untoward behavior. No one is talking about anyone who makes undue advances. That is a problem across the lines of sexual orientation, and in fact we all want the military to be much together in protecting people against unwanted sexual advances than they have been.

What we are talking about is the argument that the mere presence of an entirely well-behaved, wholly decent young man or woman who happens to be gay or lesbian would somehow, by that very fact, regardless of any misbehavior, cause problems, and I understand why people think that. But I must tell my colleagues that the experience that I have had as a gay man who acknowledged some years ago, with great reluctance, but finally, the fact that I am gay, the experience that the overwhelming majority of gay men and lesbians have had is that those in the straight majority, to whom we have been honest, have, in fact, accepted that difference without the kind of panic reaction that I think is being unfairly attributed to others.

The question is whether people who are entirely well-behaved, and no one here argues for the right to misbehave, but whether people who are entirely well-behaved will, by being honest about themselves, cause a problem. That has not been the case in police departments, in private corporations, in State that have passed these laws. Time and again we have had the predictions that there would be serious negativism. It has not happened, and it will not happen here.

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Kyl].

Mr. KYL. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for yielding this time to me and would begin by acknowledging what was earlier acknowledged; and that is, through his leadership, I think we were able to take a very difficult issue, get it resolved with a minimum of difficulty by the members of the subcommittee, and later the full committee; and I again applaud him for his efforts and commend him for the bipartisan manner in which he approaches the leadership of our subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, I strongly support the policy adopted by the Committee on Armed Services and contained in the committee bill, and I oppose amendments to the bill.

First, let me note that the policy adopted by the House Committee on Armed Services is the product of an extensive, full, and open debate which focussed on military readiness issues. That was our charge. We sought, and we received, full input from all sides of the issue, from pro-ban, anti-ban, military, civilian, academic, police, fire, religious, officers, NCO's, legal people, the full range of opinions, and our subcommittee began to formalize a position when Senator Nunn announced his proposal in the Senate. It coincided with our views. We adopted it with consistent, but different, report language. Our committee policy on homosexuals has the support of the President, of the Secretary of Defense, of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and of the service chiefs.

The full committee rejected previous efforts to modify bill provisions. Specifically two amendments were offered, one by Chairman Dellums, an amendment to lift the military ban, which was rejected on a 43 to 12 vote, and one by the gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter] which was rejected on a vote of 38 to 18.

[TIME: 1350]

Mr. Chairman, I would like to quote from the bill itself on page 203, a section under the title `Required Briefings,' which reads as follows:

. . . The briefings that members of the armed forces receive upon entry into the armed forces and periodically thereafter under section 937 of this title (article 137 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice) shall include a detailed explanation of the applicable laws and regulations governing sexual conduct by members of the armed forces, including the policies prescribed under subsection (b).

Mr. Chairman, it is clear that the people who are recruited will be required to be informed fully of the law's provisions, including the fact that if they are homosexual, they cannot serve.

Regarding the Meehan amendment, our colleague makes the point that never before have we codified this principle and asks, why do it now?

The answer, of course, Mr. Chairman, is because up to now no President has sought to change the policy. But when President Clinton decided to change the previous policy, contrary to the views of the Joint Chiefs and the majority of the Members of Congress and of the American people, it was believed necessary to codify this so that we could resolve the issue without having to have it come up time and time again.

Congress is exercising its constitutional authority to regulate personnel policies for the military. That is critically clear. The Meehan amendment would have Congress abrogate that responsibility and leave Congress open to reexamining this issue year after year until this body would have to take action in any event.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, we will hear discussion regarding the Rand study for the Department of Defense, and I want to just reiterate a couple of points that Senator Nunn made in Senate debate regarding this Rand report.

Mr. Chairman, that report did not examine the issue of whether the ban should be lifted; rather, it sought data on how to implement a new policy. In that context, I think its value is somewhat limited in the debate before us, but it will be cited.

Mr. Chairman, the Rand study did not examine whether the existing DOD policy served the national security interests or whether the President's proposed policy served the national interests.

Finally, I would note that it did examine the experience of foreign military, police, and fire departments, as did the Committee on Armed Services. But, unlike the House Committee on Armed Services, while acknowledging many dissimilarities between these organizations and the U.S. military, the Rand report drew very heavily upon these organizations, and we did not think that was appropriate.

So, Mr. Chairman, the policy regarding homosexuals in the military has been exhaustively examined by the committee. The committee bill protects military readiness. It is time, I think, to finally resolve the issue, so we can move on to a whole range of fundamental national security issues that face this Nation.

Mr. Chairman, adopting the committee bill without amendment will be consistent with the Senate position. It will resolve the issue. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to adopt the committee position without amendment.

[Page: H7070]

Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Chairman, I will have an opportunity to speak again on this subject. But let me rush my words just a bit, because I have an awful lot I want to cover and not much time to do it in.

We have had a long string of people, with no military experience whatsoever, but experience in some other areas comment on this issue today. To have this House lectured about well-behaved homosexuals by some Members with, shall we say, behavioral problems of their own is too much. In the 17 years that I have been on this Hill I have only known, in either Chamber, two openly homosexual Members.

One of them was chastised for pedophilia, seducing a page; and the other one was forced to reveal details of his private life by a loathsome male homosexual, with whom the Member claimed, he was in love with for a time.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would state that the rules clearly prohibit such references to disciplinary procedures involving sitting Members.

Mr. DORNAN. Really Mr. Chairman? I forgot that. The jury will disregard my remarks, but I know they cannot forget them.

Now, here is a current article in Air Force magazine, written by their congressional editor, Brian Green. He correctly states there is a lot of confusion. He says contributing to the confusion is the prohomosexual spin that Clinton put on his remarks at Fort McNair. Clinton said he was deeply impressed by the devotion to duty and country exhibited by homosexuals who have served with distinction.

We keep hearing that, but there is the evidence of all this distinction?

Then Clinton said there is no study showing homosexuals to be less capable or more prone to misconduct than heterosexual soldiers. He thanked all those, including all the gay activist groups, who lobbied for change. Mr. Green gave an incomplete

description of a main provision of the policy, saying,

An open statement by a service member that he or she is a homosexual will create a rebuttable presumption that he or she intends to engage in prohibited conduct, but the service member will be given an opportunity to refute that presumption.

The subtitle of Mr. Green's article is,

A declaration of homosexuality can be refuted, but the standard of proof is difficult. No one has ever met it. In all the history of our military, nobody has ever been able to back up from this.

In my military experience, I served on active duty at 10 bases across the country. On eight of those bases there were instances of homosexual activity, each with dishonorable conduct and dishonorable discharges.

Read the case law on this, which we never discuss. Read the case law. There are no witch hunts. The people are put out for dishonorable conduct.

Mr. Chairman, to be continued.

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to say I am very proud to serve with my colleagues from Massachusetts on the committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 1/2 minutes to my friend, the gentlewoman from Maryland [Mrs. Morella].

(Mrs. MORELLA asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Meehan amendment and in opposition to the Hunter amendment.

No person who meets the Armed Forces physical and intellectual standards should be denied the opportunity to serve our country based solely upon sexual orientation. The recently released Rand report makes clear that gays and lesbians are entirely capable of honorably serving their country without any disruption of military effectiveness or unit cohesion. The Rand report flatly contradicts the bill's report language stating that `homosexuality is incompatible with military service.'

The Hunter amendment reinstating the policy of asking recruits about their sexual orientation would strike the only aspect of the new policy announced by the President incorporated in this bill. It was rejected by the committee by a vote of 38 to 18. I hope that my Republican colleagues will take note that 11 committee members of our party, half of the Republicans on the committee, voted against the Hunter amendment. A Wall Street Journal/NBC news poll in June found 78 percent opposed to asking recruits about their sexual orientation.

While preferable to the Hunter amendment, the committee language would still undo the policy announced by the President, with the support of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, in July. There is no strict provision codifying don't-ask; rather, the bill allows for possible reinstatement of the policy of asking recruits about orientation. Nor does the bill pay heed to the President's pledge that existing regulations regarding both homosexual and heterosexual conduct will be evenly enforced and applied.

The Meehan amendment would leave the President's directive intact. Rather than allowing for congressional micromanagement of personnel policies, the members of our Armed Forces will be best served by leaving the issue of gays in the military to the President and the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

I urge Members to reject the Hunter amendment and to support the Meehan amendment.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Chair would advise Members that the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Skelton] has 6 minutes remaining and has the right to close, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Meehan] has 7 1/2 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spence] has 8 minutes remaining.

Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Sam Johnson].

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I think we have to talk more about the Hunter amendment, which seeks to reinstate the ban on homosexuals.

Mr. Chairman, it has been stated earlier that we do not do what other nations do. I would respectfully say, other nations do not win wars. Other nations are not the leader of the world, or so-called leader of the world. It is a position that I think we have to protect, at least I hope we do.

Mr. Chairman, I think it is important to make this matter very clear. When I was a commander in the Air Force, I spent more time than I needed to dealing with these sorts of issues. And I have to tell you, it was a waste of time. What happened in the end was those people were drummed out of the service and got out with a bad name.

Well, all the gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter] is trying to do is say let us ask first. Let us let them off without having to go through the harangue of being drummed out of the service.

Furthermore, we have got a lot of innocent kids in the service nowadays, guys that do not understand the world. Really. Until they are out in the military and taken all across the world to the many countries that we try to defend, then, and only then, do they come in contact with society for real.

[TIME: 1400]

[Page: H7071]

(Mrs. UNSOELD asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mrs. UNSOELD. Mr. Chairman, since there is not before us an amendment to lift the ban, which the former chairman of the Senate Committee on Armed Services, Barry Goldwater, termed `un-American discrimination,' I rise in support of the Meehan-Fazio amendment to the DOD authorization.

• The issue of whether or not to lift the ban on homosexuals serving in our Nation's Armed Forces has proven to be one of the most contentious we have faced this year--in a year chock full of hot-button issues.

• I oppose the ban. I see absolutely no justification for a ban which denies patriotic homosexual men and women the right to openly serve this country because of some misplaced belief that homosexual soldiers are somehow less capable of controlling their sexuality and performing as good soldiers than their heterosexual colleagues. The stellar military careers of thousands of homosexual troops throughout our Nation's history demonstrate the fallacy of that argument. Former Senator and Senate Armed Service Committee Chairman Barry Goldwater was right when he termed the ban `un-American discrimination.'

• I am deeply sorry that the ban has been largely retained in the compromise don't-ask, don't-tell policy. This only slightly altered policy continues to view homosexuality as incompatible with military service. However, the compromise adopted by the Joint Chief of Staff does make some incremental changes that do move in the right direction. Unfortunately, the Nunn/Skelton language would reverse some of these modest steps and codify that retreat into statute.

• The Nunn/Skelton language makes no mention of President Clinton's directive that commanders and agencies should not begin investigation solely to determine an individual's sexual orientation. Are we to return to the witch hunts of the very recent past?

• The Nunn/Skelton language fails to require an even-handed enforcement of the Code of Military Justice, as ordered in the President's directive. Are we to return to a policy that says the CMJ is to be enforced against one class of soldiers, but not against another?

• Finally, while the President's directive orders an end to asking the question about a recruit's sexuality, the Nunn/Skelton language would permit its reinstitution at some future time.

• I ask my colleagues to adopt the Meehan/Fazio amendment, which would simply leave these questions to the President. His compromise don't-ask, don't-tell policy is acceptable to the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Let us not retreat from the few modest steps we have taken to protect a group of our citizens who are merely seeking the very same opportunity to serve their Nation and be judged on their dedication to their country, their ability, and their performance--just as any other soldier.

(Mr. GUNDERSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GUNDERSON. Mr. Chairman, the debate over allowing gay people in the military raises many difficult issues. Some are legitimate to the debate. Others are not. Some are the result of our Nation's ignorance regarding homosexuality. Others, unfortunately, are the result of blatant homophobia. Today, I ask you to walk with me to clarify the thicket by examining what our history, our institutions, our heritage, and finally our own consciences can teach us. I believe this exercise can infuse some perspective and reason to our efforts to grapple with this emotional and complex situation.

Morality is one of the most intense and most difficult issues. This is because it pits one value system against another in claiming ownership of a single truth for everyone that does not in fact exist. Nonetheless, we are a nation founded on Judeo-Christian principles, and many, many sincere constituents have written to me and my colleagues asking us, in reference to those principles, not to legalize a lifestyle condemned by the Bible. Their concerns raise thorny issues for which there are no clear answers. But because they are raised and are deeply felt, they deserve a response.

The implicit questions are whether, indeed, the Bible literally condemns homosexuality and, if it does, whether that condemnation is applicable to our society in 1993.

The Bible is a living document. It has attributes that are constant and attributes that evolve with time and necessarily also with societal change. What is constant in that document are the fundamental values of love and tolerance it teaches, such as the command of Jesus to do justice, and love thy neighbor.

What evolves, on the other hand, are the social laws and mores, from generation to generation. The ways in which the Bible guides us thus must also adjust; it must accommodate the changes and growth within our society. Certainly none of us would seek, in 1993, to implement all the laws of Biblical times. After all, it is the same book and the same chapter of Leviticus, in the Old Testament, so often quoted on this issue of homosexuality that also prohibits divorce, men shaving, clothing made of more than one fiber, or women wearing slacks. What then of these Biblical mandates?

Even for those who would insist still on drawing and then transposing to law a more literal interpretation, does the Bible actually literally condemn homosexuality? John Boswell, in his book, `Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality,' points out that a precise review of Biblical translation discovers there actually is no such word as homosexual in either the Hebrew or Greek languages. The closest correct translation is boy prostitute. Thus, what they actually condemn is the fulfillment of uncontrolled sexual desires through the use of young boys--certainly a perversion in our own time and culture as well. As to homosexual orientation or relations per se, however, Biblical scholars also argue that homosexual relations were very common in Greek and Roman times. Biblical writings thus do not literally, clearly endorse or condemn such orientation or relations per se. Simply, the Bible, written at a particular time and reflecting a specific culture, provides no specific judgment one way or the other on this issue, then or now.

Finally, any attempts to draw literal or even general judgments about homosexuality from the Bible and apply them to our national laws are violating a fundamental fact of our national life. This Government is not and should not be the church. It thus cannot reflect--and certainly it cannot legislate--one version of morality associated with church or any similar institution over any other.

The recent Supreme Court opinion of Justice Souter on the school prayer issue speaks to the clear separation of church and state in this country. Souter scrutinized the debate among our Founding Fathers to clarify their intentions regarding the separation of church and state. Not only was there not to be a preference for the particular precepts and values of any one church, but also the Constitution guaranteed the total freedom of religion, and the separation of church and state. Therefore, even if the church were clear on this issue--which it is not--our Government cannot base its laws simply upon Biblical, or any other, scripture, or upon implications that one sect or another might draw from it.

The Bible's basic message of love and tolerance do give us enduring guidance for our personal relations with other human beings. And we are all entitled to hold and live our individual lives by those or any other precepts we draw from Scriptures. But the religious arguments about homosexuality echo the evolving scientific debate regarding the genetic origins of homosexuality: Both strive for an easy answer, but neither can provide it. The effort to interpret Biblical phraseology in a way that supports

one specific judgment as a basis for lawmaking is no more than a fig leaf for moralism; it is an exercise in holding a mirror to personal precepts, rationalizing them with a Biblical charter that does not in fact exist, and then attempting to impose those on society at large. This is unconstitutional; it is wrong; and it is an inappropriate construct for this debate.

A second framework for this debate is the historical commitment of our national institutions to equality and justice for all--a commitment that inherently recognizes the rich diversity of our society. This framework is the proper contest for our discussion. Throughout history, our military has always struggled between the history of heroic contributions by gay and lesbian soldiers and the premise that homosexuality could not be allowed in the military setting. The results have been a policy applied inconsistently and capriciously.

For example, when in need of manpower during the Vietnam war, the military consistently accepted recruits and draftees despite their acknowledgment during questioning of their homosexuality. Unfortunately, after the war was over, many of its heroes were then kicked out of the military, denied the benefits of their service because of their sexual orientation--despite official knowledge of this from the beginning.

Further capricious has been the military's use of a lesbian charge as a vehicle against the advancement of women in the military. On a per capita basis, women in the military were four times more likely to face a charge of homosexuality than a man. In case after case, women have been forced to bring their fiances before a military tribunal to describe in detail their sexual activities as a way of defending against such charges. And even in cases where innocence was proven, the potential for military advancement was eliminated.

In fact, this situation strongly parallels the struggles and debates regarding blacks or women in the military, and it is worth a brief diversion to recall those struggles in terms of how they apply to the compromise we are reviewing today.

Here I appeal especially to my Republican colleagues to consider the foundation and history of our party. No one is a better expert on the issue of equal opportunity than Abraham Lincoln.

While never writing directly on the issue of homosexuality, how many writings make clear his convictions. Lincoln wrote in 1854, most foreign governments had been based `on the denial of equal rights of men.' Ours, on the other hand, began `by affirming those rights by giving all a chance.'

When the Union Army attempted to dismiss from its ranks soldiers of the Jewish faith, Lincoln personally revoked the order and demanded the reinstatement. But his most telling commitment to equal opportunity for all comes in his response to friends who sought to enlist him in the anti-Catholic Know-Nothing Party. Lincoln said:

[Page: H7072]

From Randy Shilts' exhaustive study, `Conduct Unbecoming,' we read:

When pressed about why black soldiers were not allowed into combat, for example, Secretary of War Henry Stimson told congressmen that military studies had found that `many of the Negro units have been unable to master efficiently the techniques of modern weapons.' Perhaps no soldier was as outspoken about segregation as Major General Thomas Holcomb, commandant of the Marine Corps, who maintained it would be `absolutely tragic' if blacks were integrated into the services. `If it were a question of having a Marine Corps of 5,000 whites or 250,000 Negroes, I would rather have the whites,' he said.

The brass of every service adamantly insisted that military efficiency, good order, and morale demanded segregation. The Army Air Force's exclusion of black pilots, for example, resulted from the fact that pilots were officers, and integrated squadrons would mean that black officers might be giving orders to white enlisted men, a situation that, it was presumed, most white soldiers would find intolerable. It was believed that not only would white soldiers refuse orders from black soldiers, but that no white GI would want to be in the same foxhole as a black man. To buttress their arguments, the Army conducted surveys that showed 88 percent of whites favored segregated armed forces, as did 38 percent of blacks.

The Navy convinced President Franklin Roosevelt, a former assistant Secretary of the Navy, that it must be segregated because Navy personnel had to live and work under close conditions affording minimal privacy. As Roosevelt wrote Secretary of War Stimson, `If the Navy living conditions on
board ship were similar to the Army living conditions on land, the problem would be easier but the circumstances * * * being such as they are, I feel that it is best to continue the present system at this time.'

Finally, in a speech before the Conference of Negro Editors and Publishers, Colonel Eugene Householder of the Adjutant General's Office explained, `The Army is not a sociological laboratory; to be effective, it must be organized and trained according to principles which will ensure success. Experiments to meet the wishes and demands of the champions of every race and creed for the solution of their problems are a danger to the efficiency, discipline, and morale and would result in ultimate defeat.'

It is especially ironic to note that the end to segregation had little to do with the military. It had everything to do with politics. And it was the Republican Party, with pressure from its candidate for President, Tom Dewey, that forced the Roosevelt administration to take the steps necessary to order complete integration.

Although unfortunately racial discrimination is not yet completely behind us, Black Americans' struggles for equal opportunity during the past four decades at least has progressed to the point where society at large recognizes the injustices that have prevailed. We have evolved to the point where at least the blatant prejudice behind the Army's surveys about Black integration, the stereotypes obvious in Major General Holcomb's assessment, or the dire predictions of Colonel Householder would be seen differently than at the time they were uttered. They now generally would be viewed as an anachronism to a different time, and an embarrassment for an otherwise and justifiably proud institution. The error and societal costs of those policies require no further explanation and are now plain to us all.

American military history is also filled with examples of gay soldiers providing exemplary service. Randy Shilts' `Conduct Unbecoming' provides many historical examples beginning with Baron Von Steuben, one of Europe's leading military strategists enlisted by Benjamin Franklin and George Washington to upgrade the quality of troops and their military strategy.

Yet for gay citizens, who now are at an earlier stage in a similar struggle, the words used by the Army to describe the likely dire effects of their integration frequently are the very same rationalizations as those used earlier to discourage integrating blacks and women. The difference now is this:

Society at large is only beginning to recognize the blatant prejudice against gay people that lies behind such scientific proof of preordained failure. The destructiveness to society of how such proof is applied is not yet so self-evident. It will become so in time, if we do not act to forestall it.

The costs of discriminating against gay soldiers already have had an added dimension that goes beyond the personal trauma that blacks and victims of racial or religious prejudice have had to face. This is the witchhunt. Military investigation units, armed with often spurious rumor or malicious intent, continue to pursue investigations to determine sexual orientation without any evidence whatsoever of public misconduct.

Recently, a young man from rural Pennsylvania was referred to me by friends. He had quickly moved up the ranks to become a senior deputy missile combat crew commander for ICBM missiles. He had a top security clearance--granted to him at considerable cost to the Government--and had received an outstanding performer rating. The Navy had discovered that he had electronically communicated with an Air Force officer who was being investigated for child pornography. Having nothing to hide, he readily allowed the investigators full access to his unaccompanied officer quarters. For 7 hours six agents searched his home. They found nothing relating to the other officer's child pornography activity.

However, 2 weeks later they returned to charge him with being homosexual. In their first search, though totally unrelated to the basis of the search, they had discovered personal correspondence and magazines indicating he was gay. Thus, unrelated to the original complaint, with no filed charges against him, with no evidence of public homosexual activity, a young man's brilliant career was destroyed.

And while the military claims all discharges resulting from witchhunts are honorable today, that is simply not the case. On the discharge papers, on line 28 explaining the reason for separation, it states: `Involuntary discharge--misconduct, moral or professional dereliction: Homosexual acts.' This is not an honorable discharge; it is framed in terms, as a matter of official record, as a stigma for life.

The invasion of privacy and personal trauma for individual soldiers is not the only cost of these witchhunts. The General Accounting Office study indicated the cost to the Government for replacing a soldier, discharged for the sole crime of his sexual orientation, was $28,000 for enlistees, and $120,000 for an

officer. These, after all, are often highly trained and educated military members, often with records of exemplary military service. The accomplishments of these members simply evaporate in the face of a single question pertaining to their private life that is unrelated to their potential--whether or not they are gay. So not only are citizens who yearn to pay back society for the fruits of freedom they enjoy cruelly denied their full rights of citizenship to serve in the military, but also the military and society--both of which have paid a lot of money for their training and education--are denied the continuing contribution of those members. Truly, the history of such incidents remains an insult to the military and to our Nation. The means by which some elements of the military have disregarded any rule of law in the pursuit of private sexual orientation has no justification, and must not continue. We cannot put a price on traumas imposed on gay soldiers and their loved ones for careers spuriously truncated. By the best estimate for the taxpayer costs of these military witchhunts is $28 million per year.

Our choice today is this: Do we accept the don't-ask, don't-tell compromise as announced by the President, endorsed by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and written by Senator Nunn; or do we reject that to enact into statute a total Federal ban on any service by homosexuals at any time, under any circumstances? In a country premised on equal opportunity and justice, this is not much of a choice, but it is all that is before us.

Former Senator Barry Goldwater, the icon of the conservative movement put it best when he wrote:

[Page: H7073]

I agree with the Senator.

No--this is not a perfect compromise. I regret the narrow definitions allowed in the legislation defining the difference between status and conduct. If I read the language correctly, a soldier who has an impeccable record, has followed all military

codes, but informs his/her family that he/she is a homosexual, risks separation from the military purely on these grounds. In practice we are telling gay people who want to serve their country that they can only do so by denying who and what they are not only publicly and professionally, but also personally and privately. We are telling them that their military careers require them to be celibate even in their homes and to pretend they are something they are not even among close friends and family. In effect, we are telling them they must continue to lie or risk losing their careers.

I also recognize that discretion will allow future Secretaries of Defense to reinstate the question. However, I have no doubt that history will so clearly show the wisdom of not asking such a question, that even the most conservative among us would not perpetuate this nightmare of intimidation, inquisition, and false security.

These reservations notwithstanding, the progress that this compromise represents on several important fronts leads me to rise in its support. For the choice is not between this and something better, but rather between this and the more insidious choice of not addressing the issue at all, and allowing the current and blatantly discriminatory ban to remain in place. We thus must evaluate this choice not for where it leads us to, which runs short of fully ending discrimination against gay people in the military, but rather for the distance it covers from where we have been, which has been a society insulated from the traumas and costs it has been imposing on itself. We therefore must grasp and invigorate this first, small step for the following reasons.

Under this policy, first, we make clear the Secretary does not have to ask the question of one's orientation at time of induction. To those who continue to advocate asking such a question, may I suggest that in doing so, you simply misunderstand sexual orientation. Most young people do not know, and if they do know they certainly do not accept, the reality of a homosexual orientation until at least their mid-twenties. Some fight what they are longer, arriving at full realization and acceptance even later in life, if ever. As evidenced by the number of even just the admitted gay people who have been serving in the military, asking this question did nothing to keep homosexuals from the military. Under the current policy, when self-discovery occurs for many of these members, it brings the traumatic dilemma of whether or how to continue their successful military career and to proudly serve their country, against the new knowledge that their very existence per se is a

violation. They now must live each day with the terrifying risk of a humiliating public exposure of that violation--of what is and should remain a private matter unrelated to their right to serve. Such psychological torture benefits no one in return for the damage it causes. On that issue, the compromise therefore steps, albeit gently, in the right direction.

Second, this policy moves toward defining conduct, not status, as the basis for separation from the military.

Four years ago, the issue of discrimination based upon one's sexual status or orientation centered upon controversies with ROTC programs on our college campuses. I restate what I did then: Conduct should be the standard in the military. Both professional and personal conduct on base should be regulated fairly and equitably regardless of sexual orientation.

To those who think this policy goes too far, recall that the Catholic Church, and most main line protestant churches, do not deny entrance into the ministry simply because of sexual orientation. Bishop Herbert Chilstrom of the Evangelical Lutheran Church and the bishop of my personal church, said, `We do not ban gay and lesbian persons from becoming pastors in our church. We judge them by their behavior rather than the basis of sexual orientation.' So this compromise does not ask the military to become a laboratory for social experimentation as some have claimed. Instead it is asking the military to merely reflect the same tenets of equal opportunity guaranteed not only in the constitution as noted earlier, but also codified and exemplified in some of our most conservative social institutions, our churches.

Third, this policy represents in practice if not in language progress on the key issue of witchhunts used to harass and remove people from the military. While committee language rejects the concept of quotas to determine equal enforcement between heterosexual and homosexual violations of the military code, it is clear fair and impartial investigations are intended regardless of whether a homosexual or a heterosexual is involved. Perhaps most encouraging here, Attorney General Reno has made it clear her department will not be a party to using limited and valuable resources to pursue discriminatory policies.

I recognize that progress on human rights for all people in our Nation has occurred slowly, one step at a time. This particular compromise in effect probably will toss many aspects of the issue back to the courts. That done, it is only a matter of time before our courts will establish once and for all that

just as a person cannot be denied the chance to serve because of their race or religion, neither can a person be separated from the military solely on the basis of their sexual status or orientation. That eventual result is an inevitable one given the tenets of fairness that underlie our democracy. I believe that what also makes that result inevitable is the ardent belief of Americans in those tenets, and the fundamental, overriding desire of Americans to get along, to work out our differences, to respect our diversity, and to go forward as a nation with equality and justice for all. This compromise is one small step in the direction of that inevitable, correct result.

Many who have spoken on this issue have recalled their service experience. I deeply respect them for it. What few have acknowledged, however, is that they almost inevitably did serve with colleagues who were gay. Why didn't it pose a big problem for them then? Perhaps bearing in mind commonly held stereotypes of gay people, they probably just did not know they stood and perhaps fought beside gay colleagues who chose to keep their private lives to themselves. Thus they had no basis upon which to judge what it might be like to serve with gay soldiers.

Here I must note parenthetically but with some concern comments made during Col. Fred Peck's heartfelt testimony about the gay ban a few weeks ago, wherein he notes his concerns about his gay son's joining the Marines. Colonel Peck, who clearly, deeply loved and respected his son, worried that if his son did join the Marines and his orientation came to light, he stood to be harassed, beaten, or worse, by his colleagues. For an institution that so prides itself on leadership, good order, and discipline, I was shocked and dismayed at what he said. His comments suggested that such order, impeccable and essential to effective military operations, stands to disintegrate in the face of a factor that has no relevance to performance, team spirit, or esprit de corps. The implied disintegration of training and order in the face of what can only be raw prejudice underlines a potentially serious problem of military leadership rather than any shortcoming of a gay soldier or the community from which he comes.

I have not been a member of the military, and I cannot speak directly from that experience. But I have experienced what it feels like to have my life--who I am, what I am, and what I have accomplished--reduced to and judged by a single, irrelevant factor.

As some of you recall, 2 years ago I was the target of an attempted outing. People who had never talked to me before, who did not know me personally, attacked me. The weeks that followed were hell for me, those close to me, and my staff. Talking about, explaining, or defending one's personal and private life under a public microscope is a violation of our guaranteed right to privacy. It is intrusive and painful, especially when the weapons hurled are bullets of ignornance and prejudice encased in stereotypical labels. Labels, after all, are a handy way to tap our worst fears and gain energy out of the fog of emotionalism so stirred. Against charges so configured, there can be no rational defense. And not the least of that incident for me was that an 11-year congressional record, and almost 20 years in public office, stood to be blown apart. My accomplishments stood to become totally irrelevant next to the single question of whether or not I was gay.

I ask you how many people, how many brilliant military careers, how much taxpayer investment will we waste before learning from the struggles of blacks, Jews, and other minorities the value of integrating the gifts of our diversity into our national life? How much longer will we instead allow our biases, prejudices, and discriminatory policies to bleed our national energy?

To ignore history dooms us to repeat its cruel mistakes and tragic costs. Indeed a powerful new museum now stands on the mall as a monument to just how offensive and destructive prejudices against minorities can become. In the microcosm of their twisted society, Nazis were not performing atrocities against Jews, gypsies, blacks, homosexuals, and other nonsuper race minorities. Rather they dutifully were performing actions mandated by official directives. The horrifying results of their actions recall the powerful extremes to which emotional prejudice can transport an entire society and rule its actions if left unchecked. The very existence of the Holocaust museum declares `never again.' It declares further, `and certainly never here in the US.' We, after all, are unique in how we strive to celebrate our diverse citizenship and how we codify equal treatment for that diversity. The museum declares the latter with particular poignancy, standing as it does just a few blocks away from where we now stand to debate an issue in which baltant prejudice against a minoirity still threatens to rule our actions. Let us stand together to check that raw impulse, that concession to ignorance and emotionalism.

Were this debate occuring under President Reagan or Bush I suspect every Republican would stand and say, `let the Commander in Chief work this out with the Joint Chiefs of Staff.' That my friends, is what the Meehan amendment is all about. It is the Clinton-Powell compromise--nothing more, nothing less.

It is as conservative as you can get:

It gives the authority to the Commander in Chief and Pentagon to do what they think best.

It endorses the concept of less government in the personal lives of our citizens.

It eliminates the wasteful spending of $28 million a year on witchhunts of our soldiers.

It is the strict interpretation of our Constitution.

Today, I ask my colleagues to dig deep inside your conscience. Leadership demands that we do what is right, not what is politically easy.

My pastor put this all in proper perspective when he said recently, `On the question of sexual orientation, the Bible is clear on one thing; Do justice, and love thy neighbor.'

Today, I ask just that. Do justice.

I submit that it is time to recognize our current bloodletting for what it truly is. Let us stop repeating the cruel, destructive mistakes of history but instead use their lessons as a springboard for showcasing our better instincts. Let us apply the tolerance and rules of fairness that previous minorities' struggles have shown to be the only enduring, effective treatment of our society from the malignancies of prejudice. The coalition of our traditions, our laws, our institutions, and our inbred sense of fairness leave no doubt about what we must do here. We must not only learn from history, but we must teach by example those who will follow. So we must now take the first step that this compromise offers for gay participation in military service, and build on it inch by inch toward a new level of fairness and equality of opportunity. Let us in taking this step respect our differences, broaden our awareness about the diversity that comprises our national fabric awareness about the diversity that comprises our national fabric and, in so doing, enrich our lives individually and collectively.

[Page: H7074]

Mr. Chairman, I neglected, a minute or so ago, to mention that the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Sam Johnson], who spoke to this body from that podium, knows something about the military because he served as a fighter pilot in the Air Force during Vietnam.

He was shot down, and was a POW for over 6 years.

He knows of the conflicts which arise among people living and serving in close quarters and how it can affect the readiness of our military.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Buyer].

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Hunter amendment.

I also would like to compliment the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Skelton] for his fine work.

Many of us on the committee and full committee have truly exhausted many hours working on this issue. There is not anybody who supports more open debate than myself. And while I say, why are we doing it on the House floor, I think it ought to be proper and we will continue it through the duration of the issue.

But I also, as well as many others in this body, worked hard to codify the ban on homosexuals in the military. While some of us wish we had some stronger language, we eventually came to accept the Nunn-Skelton compromise. However, some of us still have concerns about one omission in the bill.

I am referring to the section that states that there will be a `suspension of questioning concerning homosexuality as part of the processing of individuals into the Armed Forces.'

Under the pre-January 1993 policy, self-identification as a homosexual or bisexual, a history of homosexual activity, and an intent to engage in conduct were considered relevant indicators of the propensity for prohibited activity. The history of past homosexual conduct is now held to be irrelevant by not asking the question.

This policy is in direct contradiction of the personal views of some of the top officers and enlisted leaders of this country.

In testimony before the subcommittee, the Commandant of the Marine Corps and all four of service senior staff NCO's stated that in their personal opinion, they would prefer to continue to ask the question about homosexuality during the accession process.

The reason is clear. It clearly signals that the military is serious about the idea that homosexuality is incompatible with service life. With the question, the Government's policy is consistent that there is no effort to screen out those who exhibit suspect behavior

prior to enlistment and a clear policy of immediate discharge if this behavior or orientation is discovered after enlistment. Without the question, the message seems to be `You can come on in, just don't get caught.'

[Page: H7075]

(Mr. MONTGOMERY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MONTGOMERY. Mr. Chairman, under the king of the hill rule, I will support the Skelton amendment, which is already in the committee bill, and I will oppose the other two amendments.

The Skelton amendment is the same language that is in the Senate bill and is known as the Nunn amendment. The provision in our bill is in effect now in the military services. Mr. Chairman, I am told it is working well.

Six months ago, the Chiefs of the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines implemented this policy on homosexuals with the support of Secretary Aspin and also General Powell. Actually, the Nunn-Skelton proposal is tougher on homosexuals once they get into the military than the Hunter amendment.

The amendment I support spells out what homosexuals can and cannot do in the service. Also, our amendment makes it easier on a commander. It tells that commander what he can or cannot do or what she can or cannot do in that different unit.

Under the Hunter amendment, it requires a person to state his or her sexual preference. Now, we know that in the past that these young recruits have not told the truth in filling out the forms. So why make them lie?

In the Skelton amendment, it is optional, if the Secretary of Defense wants to go back and ask new recruits their sexual preference.

[TIME: 1410]

I urge my colleagues to support the so-called Nunn-Skelton amendment and oppose the so-called Meehan and Hunter amendments.

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to my friend and colleague, the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Eshoo].

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the so-called Meehan amendment to strike the Defense authorization bill's provision regarding gay and lesbian Americans in the military, and in opposition to the Hunter amendment. By striking the language in the bill presented to the House today, we are accomplishing the bare minimum of what this Congress can do to protect the thousands of men and women in our Nation's Armed Forces. We should not codify discrimination.

On July 16 of this year, I sent a letter to the President asking him to end the ban on gays and lesbians in the military. I asked him to be steadfast and courageous in the pursuit to end discrimination and committed myself to help him face the political risk and social prejudice that surround this issue. I now ask the House to do the same.

I urge all Members to reach deep into their conscience and ask themselves what the right thing is to do today. Are we going to permit the codification of discriminatory language in this body, or are we going to leave decisions about the Armed Forces to this country's Commander and Chief?

On issues of civil rights, our Nation's history reflects that the long march for justice is one step at a time. The champions and the leaders are those who recognize that on some issues one simply must do what is right and lead our people to the truth. This is one of those times.

I urge my colleagues to vote `yes' on the Meehan amendment. History will thank them.

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I would ask how much time I have remaining.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Chair would advise the gentleman from Massachusetts that he has 3 3/4 minutes remaining.

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to my friend, the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi].

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts, [Mr. Meehan] and a bipartisan group of our colleagues which would strike the bill's provision regarding lesbians and gay men in the military, because clearly, this issue is best left to our President and the Department of Defense.

As Barry Goldwater recently stated:

When the facts lead to one conclusion, I say it is time to act, not to hide. The country and the military know that eventually the ban will be lifted. The only remaining questions are how much muck will we be dragged through and how many brave Americans * * * will have their lives and careers destroyed in a senseless attempt to stall the inevitable.

Now, only the House can stop the attempt to codify officially sanctioned bias and injustice. I urge my colleagues to support the Meehan amendment and reject the Hunter amendment.

Congress would best serve our national interest by finding the courage to rally the troops in support of ending this un-American discrimination.

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to my friend, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Gutierrez].

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, the debate on gays and lesbians serving in the military is certainly a debate about choosing unity over division, tolerance over hatred, fairness over exclusion.

But it is something more than that. It is a debate about patriotism. We talk a lot about patriotism and country and serving our Nation here on this floor.

I believe we all at times feel a bit disappointed that we do not see more patriotism in our Nation, that we do not see more people with a desire to serve their country.

But apparently some of my colleagues disagree. Patriotism--the desire to serve your country--the hope that you can contribute to making our Nation a better, safer place to live--are only desirable, admirable qualities if Members of this Congress approve of what you do in your bedroom with your body, in your private life.

You see, if we disagree with how you behave in your private life, well then, your patriotism is something to be ashamed of, something to hide from.

Well, I believe this Congress has a lot to be ashamed of here today if we say to Americans who want nothing more than to serve their country that we do not really want them and we do not really need them.

Let us be reasonable today. Let us be fair today. Let us put an end to the hatred that is filling this room today. Let us say to every American--to every American--that we admire and respect and honor--that we need--your patriotism.

I urge my colleagues to vote for fairness, to vote for tolerance, to vote for patriotism, and pass the Meehan amendment.

Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my colleague, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Stearns].

(Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the so-called Hunter amendment to the 1993 Department of Defense Authorization Act to require the armed services to continue to ask recruits whether or not they are homosexuals.

The crux of this debate was whether homosexuality is compatible with military service. To the satisfaction of Congress, the Secretary of Defense, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, it was determined that the current policy is correct and homosexuality is incompatible with unit cohesion.

I have one concern about the details of the compromise proposal that has been reached, however. The don't ask component of this policy would formally condone a degree of deception for both military recruits and the services themselves.

The policies of this Nation should not condone or encourage deception. It is a disservice for all parties to allow a recruit into the Armed Forces who is an active homosexual while the Code of Conduct forbids homosexual activities.

We should not give a young recruit who is a homosexual a wink and a nod to enter the military when we know that he will be discharged if he or she engages in these acts. That is not fair to those individuals and it is not fair to the taxpayers of this Nation who would train and equip our Armed Forces.

But, most of all, it moves Congress one more step away from a recognition that what we do here is the law of the land. The compromise policy blurs the line between laws and lawbreaking, rules and rule breaking. And that is a message that is much larger than this debate and much more important than this policy.

I believe that as long as we maintain the exclusion on homosexuals in the military we should ask recruits if they are active homosexuals. This is a more fair and more honest approach for all involved and one that preserves the integrity of our Armed Forces and our laws. Vote yes on the so-called Hunter amendment.

[Page: H7076]

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, as a member of the committee, I came in with an open mind. I originally supported the President's policy and believed in a ban against any discrimination against any segment of our society.

However, as the tens of hours of testimony was taken by this committee, in listening to what the military had to say and what those who had served in the military, some that were gays, some that were lesbians, and some, of course, heterosexuals who had served with those types of individuals, we listened to that testimony hour after hour after hour. We listened to the Joint Chiefs, we listened to the senior enlisted men of our country.

At that time I came to the conclusion, at the end, that the policy as advocated by Senator Nunn and the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Skelton] was the only possible policy that will work for the military in this time and day. It is a compromise, we believe, that has been carefully worked out over the whole year. It is one that can work.

I ask everybody to turn down the so-called Hunter amendment, to accept the language of the committee, so we can move forward on other important matters that face our country.

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, I really hope we can put this type of energy and this type of inquiry into the whole Tailhook scandal, because we really need to talk about sexual behavior, and it is in the Tailhook report.

Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Barton].

(Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, back in January President Clinton announced his intention to repeal the ban against homosexuals serving in the military. The next day I held a press conference and announced my intention to introduce legislation to codify the ban as it existed under the previous administration.

Subsequently, myself and the gentlemen from California, Mr. Hunter and Mr. Dornan, and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Johnson] introduced such legislation. That legislation currently has over 100 cosponsors.

Later today we will vote on three amendments, dealing with homosexuality in the military. Of these, only one amendment maintains the total ban, and that is the Hunter amendment. If Members have told their constituency that they support the

ban on homosexuals serving openly in the military, the only vote they can make is to vote yes on Hunter.

If Members have sent out letters to their veterans' group, to their church groups, to their retired military groups, and said, `I am for the ban on homosexuals serving in the military,' they must vote yes on Hunter.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Meehan] has 2 minutes and 20 seconds remaining.

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield my 2 minutes and 20 seconds remaining to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Studds].

(Mr. STUDDS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Chairman, I would like, in the spirit of the words of the gentleman from Wisconsin who spoke a few moments ago, to try to put this in a slightly broader perspective. Why do we have an armed forces? It is not, surely, simply to defend the piece of geography known as the United States of America. It is to defend and preserve and protect a document known as the Constitution, which enshrines the rights and liberties of all of our people.

History teaches us that the promises of that Constitution have taken a very long time to fulfill. It was written 206 years ago by white men, many of whom owned slaves. President Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation 130 years ago. President Truman signed the Executive order ending racial discrimination in the Armed Forces 45 years ago. President Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 29 years ago. And less than 1 year ago, this country elected the first President of the United States committed to helping us write the last chapter in the long history of civil rights, which is the history of this country.

[TIME: 1420]

But we are holding this debate, and we have never done that before. And this country is debating this, and we have never done that before. And the President has asked us to act, and no President has ever done that before.

We will not win this battle here today. The fundamental question is not even before us today. But these struggles are never won quickly or easily. And the ultimate outcome is in no doubt whatsoever.

This country, in the words of Martin Luther King, will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed, and we will write a happy ending to this, the last chapter in the long history of civil rights, which in some very fundamental ways is the history of this country.

• Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by my friend, Mr. Meehan of Massachusetts. I join him and many of our colleagues in a final plea to this House not to enact into law a policy of State-sanctioned inequality. If, as appears likely, the Members of this House enact the language contained in section 575 of the committee report, they will be committing themselves to a policy of overt discrimination supported by nothing more than naked prejudice.

• Whatever action we take on the bill before us, the ban on lesbians and gay men in the military will remain. The DOD directive issued in July at the President's behest was far from the result for which I had hoped and worked for so many years. Under the directive, lesbians and gay men will continue to be subject to investigation and separation from the military merely for speaking privately about their sexual orientation or engaging in private consensual relationships. This perpetuates a situation in which gay men and lesbians are denied the security, dignity, and openness in their private lives which their comrades in arms take for granted.

• Nevertheless, I believe that the policy announced in the directive, if left in the hands of the President and the Joint Chiefs, would make life slightly more tolerable for those who are prepared to abide by the rules of silence and social isolation that the policy lays down. It would delete the current presumption that homosexuality per se is incompatible with military service; it would eliminate the practice of asking recruits their sexual orientation; and it would guarantee fair and uniform enforcement of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. It is a disappointingly small step, but it is a beginning.

• The language presented by the committee not only eliminates most of these modest improvements, but attempts through codification to ensure that any hope for further progress is stillborn. It seeks to micromanage a personnel policy best left to those with the expertise to apply it humanely and flexibly. For all these reasons, the Meehan amendment offers the better approach.

• The committee's conclusions fly in the face of a mountain of objective evidence--much of it assembled at the behest of the military itself--that stands uncontradicted on the record.

• On January 29, 1993, President Clinton directed the Secretary of Defense to draft an executive order ending discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in the armed forces. On April 1, the Secretary commissioned the Rand National Defense Research Institute to prepare a $1.3 million analysis that would assist in the formulation of the new policy. The Rand report, `Sexual Orientation and U.S. Military Personnel Policy: Options and Assessments,' is a thorough, objective, 518-page study that concluded that sexual orientation, as such, is not germane to military service. Moreover, Rand determined that a standard based on conduct rather than status could be implemented with minimal disruption to military life and without extensive revision to military rules, provided that the policy change were communicated clearly and consistently from the top and reinforced throughout the chain of command. In other words, the answer is leadership. And sadly, leadership remains in short supply.

• The Rand report represents the fifth instance in the last several years that an independent agency has called into question the rationality of our country's military ban. In fact, every study undertaken at the direction of Congress or the Pentagon has come to similar conclusions.

• On June 25 of this year, the General Accounting Office released a report requested by Senator Warner which confirmed once again what every previous Government-commissioned study has shown--that the presence of lesbians and gay men does not disrupt discipline or morale in a military setting. The report, `Homosexuals in the Military: Policies and Practices of Foreign Countries,' GAO/NSIAD-93-215, June 1993, focused on the experience of four countries, three of which have dropped all restrictions based on sexual orientation. According to the report, military officers in Canada, Israel, and Sweden confirm that `the inclusion of homosexuals in the military is not a problem and has not adversely affected unit readiness, effectiveness, cohesion, or morale.' Even in Germany, where homosexuals serve but still face some restrictions, officials consider homosexuality a nonissue.

• One year earlier, in a report which I had requested together with my friend Mr. Conyers and out late colleague, Ted Weiss, the GAO concluded that the Government wastes $27 million each year simply to recruit and train replacements for gay men and lesbians who are discharged from military service. That report, `Defense Force Management: DOD's Policy on Homosexuality,' GAO/NSIAD-92-98/98S, June 1992, examined the practices of analogous paramilitary institutions such as police and fire departments, and found no evidence that the inclusion of homosexuals disrupted the ability of these institutions to perform their mission.

• In 1988 and 1991, a pair of studies by the Defense Personnel Security Research and Education Center [PERSEREC] concluded that sexual orientation is irrelevant to an individual's suitability for military service. Theodore R. Sarbin and Kenneth E. Karols, `Nonconforming Sexual Orientations and Military Suitability,' Defense Personnel Security Research and Education Center, PERS-TR-89-002, Dec. 1988; Theodore R. Sarbin,

• `Homosexuality and Personnel Security,' Defense Research and Education Center, October 1991. Indeed, the 1988 report stated that sexual orientation is as unrelated to job performance as left- or right-handedness.

• Taken together, these reports tell a consistent story--there simply is no evidence that the performance of the military mission is improved by discharging individuals with distinguished records of service to their country solely on this basis of a personal characteristic they are powerless to control.

• Yet the findings presented in the reports were ignored by the Defense Department and, in some instances, suppressed. The handling of the PERSEREC reports is instructive. Only after the reports were released by my office did DOD even acknowledge their existence. Rather than questioning the conclusions of the reports, the Department tried to dismiss them on the ground that the researchers had addressed a question they had not been asked.

• Nor did these reports--the only independent, objective studies on record--have any effect on the subcommittee's deliberations. The authors were never invited to testify at the hearings, nor were the studies cited in the committee report. The sole references to any of them appear in the additional views of committee members who disagree with the committee's conclusions.

• By their own admission, the proponents of the committee report base their conclusions on a single unproven assertion: that the mere presence of lesbians and gay men in the military setting will provoke such hostility against them as to destroy unit cohesion and morale. The evidence provided for this assertion by committee witnesses was purely speculative and anecdotal. It was flatly contradicted by military witnesses who testified that any disciplinary problems that might occur over the short term could be fully addressed through the system of command. The committee has offered no reasoned explanation for its decision to accept one set of testimony while disregarding the other.

• What is most troubling about the committee's rationale is that it is an accommodation to prejudice. It is precisely this readiness to defer to the prejudices of the majority that makes this a civil rights issue. Much has been said by those seeking to perpetuate the ban about the differences between the discrimination endured by gays in the military and the discrimination suffered by racial and ethnic minorities. Yet it was Coretta Scott King who equated the accommodation of homophobia in the military to the accommodation of customer preferences by businesses seeking to justify their refusal to hire African-American employees.

• When President Truman ordered the desegregation of the Armed Forces, there were Members of Congress who made the very arguments heard in this Chamber during the last several months--that white troops would not accept intimate contact

• with black troops and would refuse to take orders from them; that integration would undermine cohesion and increase the prevalence of violence, sexual misconduct, and disease; that recruitment and retention would be adversely affected. Then, as now, there were military leaders like Gen. Omar Bradley, who argued that the Armed Forces are not the place for social experimentation.

• Yet