[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 108 (Thursday, September 14, 2000)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1488-E1489]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  CONCERNING THE BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                     HON. MARSHALL ``MARK'' SANFORD

                           of south carolina

                    in the house of representatives

                      Tuesday, September 12, 2000

  Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, I voted against H.R. 4892, the 
bill to repeal the Boy Scouts of America Charter. I have a personal 
stake in this debate. As a boy, I benefited from everything the Scouts 
had to offer. While I worked my way towards earning the rank of Eagle, 
I learned the lessons of leadership, trustworthiness, loyalty, and 
more. Additionally, the memories I have, of sharing my interest in the 
outdoors with other boys my age will be with me for the rest of my 
life.

[[Page E1489]]

  I opposed this bill for two reasons. Number one, I do not believe it 
is right to single out an individual group in legislative remedies. If 
change in any area of law occurs it should apply to all affected, not 
as, in this case, with only the Boy Scouts. It does not make sense to 
repeal the Scouts' charter and leave in place charters for groups such 
as the Society of American Florists and Ornamental Horticulturists, 
National Ski Patrol System, Aviation Hall of Fame, or any of the 
roughly 90 other groups who hold charters.
  If Ms. Woolsey's bill repealed all federal charters, it might 
represent a legitimate debate, unfortunately, this bill has a more 
narrow scope. According to a report published by the Library of 
Congress, the chartering by Congress, of organizations is essentially a 
20th century practice and does not assign the group any governmental 
attributes. The report continues by stating, that the attraction of 
charter status for national organizations is that it tends to provide 
an ``official'' imprimatur to their activities. With these facts in 
mind, in 1989, the House Judiciary Committee decided to impose a 
moratorium on granting new charters.
  However, the bill does not address this point, instead it focuses 
solely on the Boy Scouts. The intend of the bill is to pressure the Boy 
Scouts to change their practices, which brings me to my second point.
  The First Amendment provides all American's the right of association. 
Whether a group preaches race-based hatred or the teachings of 
Christianity, their right to gather together has continually been 
protected by our nation's courts. In fact the courts have already ruled 
on the practices of the Boy Scouts. State courts in California, 
Connecticut, Oregon, Kansas, and the U.5. Court of Appeals for the 
Seventh Circuit have ruled in the Boy Scouts favor.
  On June 28, 2000, the Supreme Court affirmed the Constitutionally 
protected right of the Boy Scouts to set its own standards for 
membership and leadership. In his ruling Chief Justice Rehnquist 
stated, though alternative lifestyles are becoming more socially 
acceptable, ``this is scarcely an argument for denying First Amendment 
protection to those who refuse to accept these views,'' he continued. 
``The First Amendment protects expression, be it of the popular variety 
or not.'' This decision, once again, reaffirms the Boy Scout's First 
Amendment rights.
  This bill attempts to circumvent the courts ruling by forcing the Boy 
Scouts to change their practices or else lose their charter. Upon 
reflection, I have come to agree with Chief Justice Rehnquist and the 
Supreme Court's, ruling, it should not be the federal government's role 
to alter the Boy Scout's values. More significantly, the, Boy Scout 
case is ultimately about something much bigger than scouting, it was a 
decision of whether or not our Constitutional right of association 
should remain intact. Passing this bill would have had just the 
opposite effect and for this reason, I voted against the bill.

                          ____________________