[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 79 (Tuesday, June 21, 1994)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: June 21, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                   AMERICANS ARE LESS FREE THAN MANY

                                 ______


                            HON. DON EDWARDS

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                         Tuesday, June 21, 1994

  Mr. EDWARDS of California. Mr. Speaker, looking back through the 
history of our Nation, it is clear that Americans have steadfastly 
fought for liberty. But, as Anthony Lewis points out in last Friday's 
New York Times, there remain examples of how Americans are still less 
free than many.
  I commend to you Mr. Lewis' comments.

                [From the New York Times, June 17, 1994]

                         Who's in Charge Here?

                           (By Anthony Lewis)

       Boston.--If there was one thing we expected from Bill 
     Clinton's Presidency, it was a common-sense respect for civil 
     liberties. No longer, we thought, would Government lawyers 
     automatically try to assert their power over individuals when 
     there was no real Government interest at stake.
       That expectation has been dashed. Or so we have to conclude 
     from two current cases of Government overreaching: outrageous 
     cases.
       Col. Margarethe Cammermeyer, a decorated veteran of the 
     Vietnam War, was dismissed from the service two years ago. 
     She wept on that day. So did her commanding officer, Maj. 
     Gen. Gregory P. Barlow.
       Colonel Cammermeyer was discharged because, in 1989, she 
     was being considered for the Army War College and an 
     interviewer asked her about her sexual orientation. She 
     answered that she was gay.
       Two weeks ago in Seattle, Federal District Judge Thomas S. 
     Zilly held Colonel Cammermeyer's discharge unconstitutional. 
     He ordered her restored to her job as chief nurse of the 
     Washington State National Guard.
       This week the Justice Department asked Judge Zilly to stay 
     his order--hold it up--while a Government appeal from his 
     decision was taken. In support of its motion, the department 
     advanced a parade of horribles.
       Restoring Colonel Cammermeyer to her position, a brief 
     said, ``is likely to have adverse effects on the ability of 
     the military to maintain morale, efficiency and mission 
     focus.'' It would ``have adverse effects'' on ``unit cohesion 
     and readiness.''
       Moreover, the department warned, Judge Zilly's order 
     forbade the military to punish Colonel Cammermeyer for 
     stating ``her homosexual orientation.'' That meant she could 
     disregard military policy, the brief said, which ``will 
     undermine respect for military authority throughout the armed 
     forces.''
       To the brief was appended an equally amazing affidavit by 
     Edwin Dorn, Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and 
     Readiness. He said that Colonel Cammermeyer's ``open 
     disobedience of the policy on homosexual conduct'' might 
     encourage members of the armed forces to violate any policy 
     ``they do not believe should apply to them.''
       The argument comes to this: A woman who never did or said 
     anything against policy, except answer an official question 
     truthfully, will destroy the armed forces if she is 
     reinstated while the Court of Appeals considers the case. She 
     actually served for three years after the 1989 interview 
     while her superiors tried to stop her discharge, and the 
     military suffered no harm then.
       Attorney General Janet Reno has spoken of her admiration 
     for Attorney General Robert Kennedy. I knew Robert Kennedy, 
     and I know what he would have done if he had seen such a 
     document in draft. To put it politely, the motion would not 
     have been filed.
       Ten years ago, by a vote of 5 to 4, the Supreme Court 
     upheld a Reagan Administration order designed to keep 
     Americans from going to Cuba. The order was a Treasury 
     regulation forbidding Americans to spend money on travel to 
     Cuba.
       The decision was criticized as an example of the Court's 
     growing tendency to exalt Presidential power. It did so by a 
     strained interpretation of Congressional statutes.
       Since then Congress has in various ways promoted the 
     freedom to travel. Just last month it passed a joint 
     resolution expressing the sense of Congress that ``the 
     President should not restrict travel or exchanges for 
     informational, educational, religious, cultural or 
     humanitarian purposes . . . between the United States and any 
     other country.''
       A group of 200 Americans is planning to go to Cuba next 
     Thursday for a week's visit. The trip has been planned by an 
     organization called the Freedom to Travel Campaign.
       But this week the Treasury Department blocked the group's 
     $43,000 bank account. An official sent a letter to the bank 
     warning it against grave violations: a letter from the same 
     Government that says it is trying to advance democracy and 
     human rights in the world.
       Is our faith in our system really so fragile that we fear 
     our citizens visiting Cuba? Or perhaps the question is: Do 
     the people at the top of our Government know the folly that 
     is being committed in their name?

                          ____________________