[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 123 (Tuesday, September 21, 1999)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1907]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 UNFETTERED LEGISLATIVE DEBATE MUST TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER A WITCH HUNT 
    FOR GAYS IN THE MILITARY--LETTER TO THE PRESIDENT INITIATED BY 
               CONGRESSMAN BARNEY FRANK AND TOM CAMPBELL

                                 ______
                                 

                            HON. TOM LANTOS

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                      Tuesday, September 21, 1999

  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my strongest support 
for the efforts of our distinguished colleagues and my friends, the 
gentleman from Massachusetts, Congressman Barney Frank, and the 
gentleman from California, Congressman Tom Campbell, for their 
principled commitment to the sanctity of unfettered legislative debate. 
These two colleagues--one a Democrat and the other a Republican--acted 
quickly and responsibly by sending a letter to the President in the 
matter of Arizona State Representative Stephen May, who is facing 
possible discharge from the Army Reserves because he discussed his 
sexual orientation within a relevant context during an official debate 
in the Arizona House of Representatives.
  Like my colleagues, I find it absolutely intolerable that a duly 
elected States legislator should be punished by the military for 
appropriate comments which he made during the course of an official 
debate in the Arizona State Legislature. Taking action against a State 
representative for what he said in debate as elected legislator is a 
violation of the spirit of the ``speech and debate clause'' of the 
United States Constitution. The overwhelming majority of my colleagues, 
on both sides of the aisle, have strongly defended the democratic 
privilege of American legislators to speak freely, without having to 
fear that they will be prosecuted for comments they choose to make 
during official, public debate.
  Mr. Speaker, Congressman Frank and Congressman Campbell  have written 
an eloquent defense of the principle of legislative debate to the 
President of the United States. I thank them both for their leadership 
on this issue, and I ask that the full text of their excellent letter 
by placed in the Record. Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to 
join in signing this excellent letter to the President.

                                     House of Representatives,

                                                    Washington, DC
     Hon. William J. Clinton,
     President, The White House
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. President: We are writing to urge you to honor the 
     tradition of full and unfettered legislative debate in 
     America by instructing the Defense Department to drop charges 
     against State Representative Stephen May of Arizona.
       As you know, Representative May now faces potential 
     discharge from the military because in his capacity as a 
     member of the Arizona Legislature, during formal debate on 
     legislative matters, he alluded to his sexual orientation in 
     a context in which such an allusion was fully relevant.
       The signers of this letter have varying views on the merits 
     of the ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' policy regarding the 
     military. But we do not write this letter as a commentary on 
     that policy. Rather, we are writing because we as elected 
     representatives believe strongly in that principle embodied 
     in the ``speech and debate clause'' of the American 
     Constitution which seeks to extend full protection to members 
     of legislative bodies from any sanction for comments they 
     legitimately make in the course of legislative debate.
       We recognize, of course, that the speech and debate clause 
     does not technically apply to members of State Legislatures. 
     If it did, presumably this letter would be unnecessary. But 
     we do believe in the policy embodied in that clause--namely 
     that only when elected legislators are confident of their 
     ability to speak out freely without any fear of external 
     sanction from outside the legislative body can the process of 
     representative government flourish.
       As a student of Constitutional history, you know that this 
     clause made its way into the United States Constitution in 
     reaction to the harassment of members of the British 
     Parliament that occurred in the 16th, 17th and 18th 
     centuries. There was then a tradition of members of the House 
     of Commons in particular suffering penalties for speaking 
     freely in the course of legislative debate. Thus, the speech 
     and debate clause as it is known says ``and for any speech or 
     debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any 
     other place.''
       The purpose of this is so that members of legislative 
     bodies in fulfillment of their duty fully to represent their 
     constituents need not fear that members of the Executive, or 
     Judicial branches will penalize them for comments of which 
     they disapprove. What is being proposed regarding 
     Representative May is for the federal Executive Branch to 
     punish an elected member of the Arizona State Legislature 
     because of comments he chose to make that were fully relevant 
     to a public policy debate in the legislature to which he was 
     duly elected. We find it difficult to believe that you, as 
     a believer in the importance of full legislative debate, 
     would permit the Executive Branch over which you preside 
     to punish an elected legislator for remarks made in the 
     course of legislative debate.
       As we noted earlier, we realize that the Constitutional 
     clause protecting Members of Congress does not apply to State 
     Legislators. But obviously the justification for that 
     clause--preserving full freedom of debate--applies very 
     strongly. Indeed, we believe there is an added policy reason 
     why you should not allow your Executive Branch to penalize 
     Representative May for comments made in the course of 
     legislative debate. That is the respect that the federal 
     government ought to show for the democratic process within 
     the states. The speech and debate clause says that no Members 
     of Congress shall be made to answer ``in any other place''. 
     Surely that applies with strong logical force to a situation 
     in which the federal Executive Branch would reach down and 
     take punitive action against an elected member of the Arizona 
     Legislature. Certainly the Arizona Legislature ought to be 
     considered by the federal Executive Branch competent to run 
     its own affairs, and we believe that you will be setting a 
     terrible precedent if you allow the military to go forward 
     with its proposed against Representative May.
       While some have suggested that no Members of Congress, for 
     example, should serve in the Reserves, that has not been our 
     policy. The military clearly has strong views about many 
     issues. And the general rule is that members of military are 
     not to take issue with official policy. Are federal and state 
     legislators who serve in the Reserves now to begin to censor 
     their comments in relevant legislative debates lest they face 
     sanctions imposed by the federal Executive Branch?
       As you know, Members of Congress have long treated the 
     ``speech and debate clause'' as a matter of high 
     Congressional privilege, embodying a principle essential to 
     the functioning of our democracy. Our history is replete with 
     examples of the overwhelming majority of both Houses of 
     Congress, including the bi-partisan Congressional leadership 
     of both Houses, coming to the defense of legislators who are 
     faced with potential sanction for remarks which they made in 
     debate, even in cases where the overwhelming majority of 
     legislators strongly disagreed with the remarks in question. 
     If Representative May is to be subjected to the severe 
     sanction of expulsion from the military, where he has served 
     with such distinction and without any negative marks on his 
     record, the principle that legislators must be free from 
     having to answer in any other place for comments they choose 
     to make in public debate will have been more seriously eroded 
     than in any other single instance that we can recall in 
     recent times.
       We prepared to debate the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy 
     among ourselves in our contexts. But here, we ask you to show 
     the respect for unfettered legislative debate that has long 
     been a hallmark of American democratic practice and drop any 
     effort to punish a duly elected member of a state legislature 
     for comments made during the course of debate.

     

                          ____________________