[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 137 (Tuesday, September 27, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: September 27, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                   ONE HONOR STANDARD, ONE HONOR CODE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
February 11, 1994, and June 10, 1994, the gentleman from Guam [Mr. 
Underwood] is recognized during morning business for 5 minutes.
  Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I am concerned, as are many Americans, 
about the recent negative publicity surrounding the cheating scandal at 
the U.S. Naval Academy at Annapolis involving the electrical 
engineering 311 examination, and the handling of the investigation.
  I am also concerned about recent media reports of an honor incident 
that occurred last spring at a restaurant in Annapolis, dubbed the 
``dine and dash incident,'' where three midshipmen deliberately 
attempted to leave the restaurant without paying for their meals.
  On the heels of these media reports is the disappointing news that 
yet another group of midshipmen were implicated in an incident 
involving vandalism of automobiles at a festival in Maryland 2 weeks 
ago.
  While I believe that the vast majority of Navy midshipmen, Air Force 
cadets, and Army cadets are honorable men and women, who have the 
highest sense of personal integrity and honor demanded of them by our 
Nation, I believe that a review of the honor system by an outside 
commission is warranted.
  The news reports serve to highlight an issue that I have addressed 
through legislation that I have introduced, H.R. 5047, the Military 
Service Academy Honor Code Act.
  While we have an expectation of a high sense of honor and ethics of 
our military officer candidates, the honor codes in use at each service 
academy differ slightly in wording. If the honor codes are different, 
are the standards different?
  Most Americans would agree that the honor and ethics standards for 
our officer candidates should be uniform, even if the codes themselves 
are not identical. But without identical codes, does enforcement 
differ?
  The recent honor violations at the Naval Academy point out how the 
wording of the honor codes might contribute to different standards of 
enforcement. While the honor code in use at the Air Force Academy and 
at West Point have explicit clauses prohibiting the cadets' toleration 
of honor violations, the toleration clause in the Naval Academy's honor 
concept is an implied clause.
  A recent ``60 Minutes'' report on the cheating scandal at Annapolis 
included accounts of midshipmen refusing to identify other midshipmen 
who may have used the compromised electrical engineering test as a 
study guide. One has to wonder if this is a situation where midshipmen 
are engaging in toleration violations by the standards of the Air Force 
and West Point honor codes.
  A more troubling example is the situation in the ``dine and dash'' 
incident reported in the Washington Post. Three midshipmen discussed a 
plan to leave without paying for their meals. One of the three left the 
restaurant early to wait in the car--the other two then took off but 
were caught by an off-duty policeman. Only two of the midshipmen were 
expelled. The third person, who waited in the car, was exonerated 
because he assumed the other two were only kidding. While his actions 
leave much to be desired, again one has to wonder if all three 
midshipmen would have been expelled under the explicit toleration 
clauses of the Air Force or West Point honor codes.
  My legislation would require the Secretary of Defense to appoint a 
commission comprised of active duty officers, graduates of the military 
service academies no longer in the active or reserve duty in the Armed 
Forces, and educators from institutions of higher education to 
recommend whether there should be a standardized honor code for all 
three military service academies. It may be that such a standardized 
code would be useful, or it may be that the individual approaches used 
by each service academy should be continued.
  Additionally, my bill would have this commission recommend whether 
such a standardized honor code should also be applied to officer 
candidates enrolled in the Reserve Officer Training Corps [ROTC] 
programs and on the Officer Candidate School [OCS] programs. If honor 
is expected of our cadets and midshipmen, why not expect the same of 
all officer candidates? I recognize that the enforcement and 
administration mechanisms for the ROTC and OCS programs would differ 
significantly from the mechanisms in use at the military service 
academies, but the bottom line would be the teaching of a common 
standard of honor.
  If in fact the commission recommends against a standardized honor 
code, the military service academies would be able to continue their 
individual approaches to an honor curriculum confident in the 
vindication from an impartial outside commission not beholden to a 
particular academy or service.
  Or, on the other hand, if the commission recommends that there is 
merit in a standardized honor code, it would still be left to the 
discretion of the Secretary of Defense to implement this finding in a 
way that would ensure a positive change at the service academies.
  The American people must be satisfied that the standards for our 
future officers are the same, that no service academy has set the bar 
too high or too low.
  I have also considered that much can be gained by a standard honor 
code--a joint honor and ethics curriculum is a natural by product.
  While there is a good case that can be made for the individual 
approaches to the honor standard that the service academies have 
adopted, it is worth noting that the Uniform Code of Military Justice, 
which is the conduct standard for all officers after they are 
commissioned, is the same for all branches of the military. It is also 
significant that the Code of Conduct, which sets the standard for 
American prisoners of war, is also a standardized code.
  Our nation has been well served by the graduates of the military 
service academies, and these institutions have performed their missions 
admirably over the years in producing the highest caliber of officers 
for our Armed Forces. I believe that the honor standard can be 
strengthened by a standardized code for all service academies, that is 
also applied to all officer commissioning programs. I therefore urge my 
colleagues to cosponsor H.R. 5047, the Military Service Academy Honor 
Code Act.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. UNDERWOOD. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Speaker, might I inquire how much time does the 
gentleman have remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has 30 seconds remaining.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Speaker, I would ask to use that 30 seconds and to 
proceed for 1 minute, to revise and extend my remarks and therefore 
have 1 minute and 30 seconds.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has yielded.


                     there the republicans go again

  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Speaker, there they go again. Just as the Federal 
Government starts on the tough path of a deficit reduction diet that is 
working, the GOP promises a banana split sundae with tax breaks and 
spending increases. It does not add up. This is simply a recipe for a 
fat deficit--Republican political business as usual.
  Today our opponents stood in line to sign a GOP contract, a cooked up 
old GOP recipe from the bowels of Washington, DC. This contract was not 
from Minnesota or any other State--it was from the political Newt 
Gingrich kitchen. This is representative government backward from the 
Washington DC, politicians down. Trickle down--not from the people back 
home. The Republicans come to Washington, DC, to march in lock step to 
the orders from Gingrich, his political operatives, and the rest of the 
Republican leadership. Marching orders that are by the rich and for the 
rich.
  Worse still the Republicans today are trying to make a virtue of 
obstructionism. It would be a bad joke if the belly ache were not so 
painful. This is an offense to the American people and to the role of 
the Federal Government. The Republican leadership contract will spend 
hundreds of billions of dollars to pay for their additional spending 
and tax cuts for well-off Americans. This would lead to dramatic cuts 
to Medicare and Social Security. A few dollars of tax breaks and 
instant gratification for the well off surely will not make up for 
under cutting Medicare and Social Security.
  Twelve years of GOP mismanagement was enough. Please no more trickle 
down. No returning to the thrilling days of yesterday in which supply 
side economics added three trillion plus to the Federal deficit. Now 
its time to face the battle, not retreat from the tough choices with 
GOP political rhetoric. The Republicans remember nothing and they have 
learned nothing. They continue to ply this recipe which give new life 
to the snake oil salesman of yesterday.
  To quote the Wall Street Journal:

       * * * despite high-blown rhetoric, the Republicans are 
     offering more of the same--tax cuts for the affluent, budget 
     promises that don't add up, and political reforms they don't 
     mean * * *

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 1 
minute.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time has been allocated for morning hour 
business.
  There being no further time for morning business, pursuant to clause 
12, rule I, the Chair declares the House in recess until 12 noon.
  Accordingly (at 11 o'clock and 40 minutes a.m.) the House stood in 
recess until 12 noon.

                          ____________________