[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 12]
[House]
[Pages 17737-17744]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                          SCOUTING FOR ALL ACT

  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill (H.R. 4892) to repeal the Federal charter of the Boy Scouts of 
America.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 4892

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Scouting for All Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       The Congress finds the following:
       (1) Federal charters are prestigious distinctions awarded 
     to organizations with a patriotic, charitable, or educational 
     purpose.
       (2) Although intended as an honorific title, a Federal 
     charter implies Government support for such organizations.
       (3) In 1916, the Federal Government granted a Federal 
     charter to the Boy Scouts of America.
       (4) Although the Boy Scouts of America promotes the social 
     and civic development of young boys through mentoring, it 
     also sets an example of intolerance through its 
     discriminatory policy regarding sexual orientation.
       (5) Federal support for the Boy Scouts of America 
     indirectly supports the organization's policy to exclude 
     homosexuals.
       (6) A policy of excluding homosexuals is contradictory to 
     the Federal Government's support for diversity and tolerance 
     and should not be condoned as patriotic, charitable, or 
     educational.

     SEC. 3. REPEAL OF FEDERAL CHARTER OF BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA.

       (a) Repeal.--Chapter 309 of title 36, United States Code, 
     which grants a Federal charter to the Boy Scouts of America, 
     is repealed.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The analysis at the beginning of 
     subtitle II of title 36, United States Code, is amended by 
     striking the item relating to chapter 309.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) 
each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson).


                             General Leave

  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their 
remarks on H.R. 4892.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Arkansas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, while I do not support this bill, I do believe it is 
appropriate that it be brought up for consideration at this time. I 
rise in opposition to H.R. 4892.
  This legislation that has been offered by the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Woolsey) is a bill to revoke the 80-year-old Federal 
charter of the Boy Scouts of America.
  Tonight, scouts and scout leaders all across this great country are 
watching these proceedings. They are watching with amazement that the 
Congress of the United States is debating a bill to revoke their 
charter.
  Now, why is this bill being offered? Why should it be considered to 
revoke the charter of the Boy Scouts? It is hard to figure.
  First of all, there are no appropriated Federal funds that are used 
to support the Boy Scouts of America. It is simply a Federal charter 
that is granted to other patriotic-type organizations that allow them 
to protect the emblems and symbols that they have.
  The Boy Scouts have worked for over 80 years with the youth of our 
Nation, building leadership and molding character. The charter of the 
Boy Scouts, granted by this Congress, states that they will promote 
patriotism, courage, self-reliance, and kindred virtues, virtues that 
we desperately need in this country.
  Millions of scouts are trained under the leadership of this great 
organization. They provide over 3 million boys and young adults the 
opportunity to participate in educational programs. In 1998, the Boy 
Scouts contributed over 52 million community service hours to our 
Nation and is committed to providing an additional 1 million service 
hours to preserving the environment at our national parks.
  Another reason that this bill is ill-advised is that the Supreme 
Court of the United States affirmed the first amendment freedom of the 
Boy Scouts to exclude scout masters who do not support the values of 
the Boy Scouts of America. We should adhere to the opinion of the 
United States Supreme Court.
  Finally, the Attorney General of this country has given an opinion 
that the use by Federal lands of the Boy Scouts does not convene even 
in any executive order of this administration.
  Mr. Speaker, the Boy Scouts of America today are under attack by this 
legislation and by others in America. I believe an organization that 
supports our values and our freedoms and builds leadership among young 
people should be supported and we should defend the Boy Scouts of 
America.
  This legislation that is being offered is punitive in nature to 
revoke their charter, it is ill-advised, and should be defeated.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

[[Page 17738]]

  Mr. Speaker, I rise today under some very confusing circumstances. I 
would like to refer to the manager of the bill, the gentleman from 
Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson). I thought I heard him say that he was moving 
to suspend the rules and pass a bill that he is now saying that he is 
opposed to.
  I thought he was the one that caused this bill to be brought to the 
floor and that it was him that is urging its passage.
  Did I hear him correctly?
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CONYERS. I yield to the gentleman from Arkansas.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, this legislation being offered by Members on their side 
is being brought under the Suspension Calendar, and in order to debate 
it and provide the sponsors of the legislation an opportunity to 
explain their reasons why the Boy Scouts charter should be revoked, is 
being brought up. And so I procedurally asked that the rules be 
suspended for its consideration.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I see. I thank the 
gentleman for that information.
  Now, we are both on the Committee on the Judiciary. Did this bill go 
through the committee?
  I continue to yield to the ranking member on the Republican side.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  The legislation has not been reported by the Committee on the 
Judiciary.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank you.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask the gentleman, have there been any hearings in the 
Committee on the Judiciary?
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, as the ranking member, I think the 
gentleman is fully aware that we have not conducted any hearings on 
this legislation.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman again for his 
comments. And so you are against this bill, have not had any hearings, 
there have been no votes in committee, and you are urging that we rush 
it through this process when it has never been through the committee.
  If that is the case, sir, then I would ask unanimous consent to have 
this suspension bill removed from the calendar.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. 
Hutchinson) yield for that request?
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, I certainly object to the request. I 
would ask the gentleman to yield for a response.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman objects. The unanimous consent 
is not ordered.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman be willing to have 
hearings on the bill before the measure is passed which he is 
apparently very sincerely opposed to?
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would continue to 
yield, I think the reason, and this is somewhat of an unusual 
circumstance, well, actually it is not unusual that it is being brought 
up on suspension. We do that all the time to bring up a bill on 
suspension without going through the committee. The gentleman well 
knows that. But I believe in this circumstance, when the administration 
has suggested that the Boy Scouts of America should not use Federal 
land under current executive order that they need a statement that 
their charter is in good standing. And I think that legislation revokes 
the charter.
  We are saying, hopefully, by defeating that, that we stand with the 
Boy Scouts of America and we believe that their charter should not be 
revoked and that would put an end to the matter, I would hope.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. He is not confusing 
me more, but we have increasing numbers of ambiguity.
  Let me turn, then, to the offer of this proposal, the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Woolsey). And if I could ask her, and we have not 
talked about this, has she requested that this bill be placed on the 
floor for disposition?
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, no, I have not made that request at this 
time. I was hoping for hearings and a markup and to bring this issue 
that is important to full light to this Congress with a full debate.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her comments.
  I ask the gentlewoman, has she had any response from the Committee on 
the Judiciary about the disposition of the matter? She wanted hearings. 
She did not request that we come to the floor today.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I did not. As a matter of fact, I was 
surprised. We heard about this suspension at 6 o'clock last night D.C. 
time when I was in California. And the idea that we would bring a 
controversial, important issue like this onto the Suspension Calendar 
was a total surprise to me, because I think of suspensions as 
noncontroversial issues, such as naming a post office.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the gentlewoman, the author 
of the amendment, would she find that hearings and markups in the 
regular process would be helpful in developing an understanding around 
her motive and purpose for introducing this bill?
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, absolutely. A hearing was necessary. A 
markup is necessary to bring an issue of this importance to our Nation 
in the dark of night instead of in the light of day is a mistake.
  To suggest that it is noncontroversial and could pass with a two-
thirds vote is very short-sighted.
  Mr. CONYERS. Well, that is the understanding I have heard from my 
good friend, the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson), is that he 
considers this apparently a noncontroversial bill to which he is 
opposed to which hearings have never been heard.
  Well, now, if there has ever been a parallel like this ever in the 
history of this Congress, it has not been since I have been here.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the great gentleman 
from Indiana (Mr. Buyer).
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I think what is obvious, if they know they are going to 
lose on the substance of a bill, then they argue process. If they are 
ashamed of having authored a particular bill, then do not submit it.
  I have authored legislation. I would be eager as soon as I drop it 
for it to come to vote. I would be eager for that. I would be proud of 
the legislation that I actually drafted.
  I rise in opposition to this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 4892, the 
Scouting for All Act. On June 28, the Supreme Court ruled in Dale vs. 
Boy Scouts of America, that private organizations have the right to set 
their own standards for membership and leadership. This allows the 
Scouts to continue developing young men of strong moral character 
without imposing standards on them that they find incompatible with 
their beliefs.
  In response to the Supreme Court ruling, the Boy Scouts have faced an 
onslaught of criticism, intimidation and extortion from those who seek 
to inflict their beliefs on an organization that promotes moral 
character and personal responsibility.
  Protests were organized in twenty-one states including my district in 
Indiana, urging businesses to revoke their sponsorship of the Scouts. 
Last month, the Interior Department attempted to bully and harass the 
Boy Scouts over access to public lands. In Los Angeles, some delegates 
to the Democratic national convention booed a group of Scouts as they 
stood on the stage of the Staples Center.
  Now, in an attempt to punish the Boy Scouts for refusing to toe the 
line, proponents of H.R. 4892 seek to revoke the Boy Scouts' federal 
charter, originally granted by Congress in 1916.
  This bill claims to be acting in the name of tolerance and inclusion. 
In reality, it is this bill, not the Boy Scouts, that promotes 
intolerance. The Boy Scouts respect others' rights to hold differing 
opinions than its own. All the Scouts ask is that others respect its 
beliefs. The sponsors of this bill believe just the opposite.

[[Page 17739]]



                              {time}  2015

  They believe if one does not subscribe to their view of the world 
then they must be humiliated, silenced, and reformed in the name of 
tolerance. They are in error, and I suppose now today ashamed of the 
bill that they have dropped. Tolerance does not require a moral 
equivalency. One can be tolerant of one's beliefs of others while being 
intolerant of their behavior and actions.
  Today, millions of boys from every ethnic, religious, and economic 
background, including those with disabilities and special needs, 
participate in Scouting programs across America. The Boy Scouts are a 
model for inclusiveness. Our youth today face a daily onslaught from 
some parts of our culture that promote self-gratification and 
alternative lifestyles. As one of the few counters to this, the Boy 
Scouts keep such, I guess, out-of-fashion values as duty to God and 
country, honor, respect, self-sacrifice, and community service.
  I believe we should commend, not punish, an organization that 
attempts to foster a sense of personal responsibility and strong 
character in our boys and young men. I urge all of my colleagues, 50 
percent of whom were Boy Scouts, to side with the vast majority of 
Americans and vote no against this ill-advised bill.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, as the Republican co-chairman of the 
Congressional Scouting Caucus, as a proud Eagle Scout and as a 
supporter, an unapologetic supporter of Scouting in America, I stand 
here tonight to commend the Boy Scouts of America for what they have 
done over these last 90 years in strengthening the American character, 
developing good citizenship, and enhancing both the mental and physical 
fitness among America's youth.
  Instead of attacking the Boy Scouts, we should be celebrating the 
fact that the Supreme Court has upheld the sanctity of our First 
Amendment; and we should applaud the Scouts for standing strong under 
pressure to compromise their own principles. H.R. 4892 proposes to 
revoke the Federal charter of the Boy Scouts of America because they 
have maintained a moral standard, rejected by America's liberal left. 
But the Scouts, like everyone else, have rights to set their own 
standards, and not to be targeted for doing so. That is what freedom of 
association is all about. That is what the Supreme Court confirmed in 
its decision.
  In recent months, we have witnessed the despicable booing of Boy 
Scouts by Democrat delegates during their convention; a 55,000 
signature petition delivered to the Boy Scouts headquarters demanding 
that they scrap requirements for Scout masters, and in my own county in 
Orange County, California, where the ACLU and others have tried to 
force the Scouts to take God out of their Scout oath; and we have also 
witnessed a malicious and reprehensible effort by the part of some 
corporations and even the United Way in some areas to choke off funding 
for the Scouts in an attempt to force them into submission.
  Everyone is free to choose their own life-style and I would stand up 
for anyone's right to have their own privacy and their own life-style, 
as the Scouts stand up for that; but the Scouts, too, have their rights 
and we should be applauding them for standing up for their own 
principles and their own beliefs rather than trying to attack them now 
and to destroy the freedom of association guaranteed by our 
Constitution.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a Republican theme tonight, how dare we bring up 
this bill that they bring up. The gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. 
Hutchinson) has said that the bill has not been through committee, no 
hearings. The author of the bill was notified in California that it was 
coming up, and now everybody is saying that this is a bill that they 
object to for many reasons. Is this some kind of a cynical political 
stunt that we are playing here tonight? Nobody wants the bill, but the 
Republicans sponsor it on a suspension on which they say there is 
supposed to be very little dissension about the bill. So I am in some 
confusion of what we are trying to do.
  I plan to vote present on this measure.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Barr), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman 
from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, one of the sorriest and most shameful exhibitions of a 
cynical political move, to use the word of the gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Conyers), that our Nation has ever witnessed was a couple of weeks 
ago at the Democrat National Convention when a member of a Boy Scout 
troop, at the invitation of the Democrat National Convention, appeared 
before that body to lead that body in the pledge of allegiance, and for 
that show of patriotism that Scout was booed and hissed at by the party 
that sits on the other side in support of this resolution.
  Not being content with booing and hissing a Boy Scout, they have now 
moved the forum for their denigration and assault on the Boy Scouts of 
America to this Chamber. They truly ought to be ashamed.
  What is it, I ask my colleagues on the other side, that they find so 
reprehensible in the Scout oath, which includes words that Scouts are 
physically strong? Do they object to that? That Scouts shall be 
mentally awake, do they object to that? That Scouts may be morally 
straight, apparently there is the rub, that is what they find so 
reprehensible about Scouts that they would boo a Scout and hiss at a 
Scout for standing up and leading our Nation and their party in the 
pledge of allegiance, and why they now come before this body, before 
this flag, before this speaker, before the American people, and tell us 
that the Boy Scouts for being morally straight are so reprehensible in 
their eyes that they ought not to even have the historical charter 
granted by this body.
  Have they no shame, Mr. Speaker? Have they no shame? And now we have 
the gentleman on the other side saying he does not even have the 
courage to stand up and vote for the resolution that they support. This 
resolution ought to be soundly defeated.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today because I support H.R. 4892, 
the Scouting for All Act, an act to repeal the Boy Scouts of America's 
congressional charter. I urge all of my colleagues to join me in 
sending a clear message that the civil rights movement is alive and 
well in the United States of America, and that this Congress does not 
support discrimination in any form.
  Contrary to what some of my colleagues on the other side are alluding 
to, we are not saying that the Boy Scouts are bad. We are saying that 
intolerance is bad. I was a Girl Scout. One of my sons was a Boy Scout. 
I know the value of Scouting, and that is why I believe that Scouting 
should be available to all boys, not just some boys.
  I am not standing here today to override the Supreme Court. The 
unchangeable fact is that towards the end of June the Supreme Court 
upheld the Boy Scouts' discriminatory policy. So I stand here not to 
ask if the Boy Scouts have a right to a discriminatory policy but to 
ask if their discriminatory policy is right.
  In 1939, Marian Anderson, an African American opera singer, was 
invited to perform at Constitutional Hall, then operated by the 
Daughters of the American Revolution, another chartered organization.
  The DAR said that Marian Anderson could not perform at Constitution 
Hall because she was black. As a result, then First Lady Eleanor 
Roosevelt resigned her DAR membership and coordinated a concert for 
Marian Anderson at the Lincoln Memorial. 75,000 people attended and 
ultimately the DAR changed its policy of discrimination.

[[Page 17740]]

  Simply because an esteemed organization holds a belief does not make 
that belief right. It was wrong for the Daughters of the American 
Revolution to discriminate against African Americans then and it is 
wrong for the Boy Scouts of America to discriminate against gays today.
  My colleagues on the other side of the aisle suggest that they speak 
for the average American; that the vast majority of Americans support 
intolerance. They are wrong.
  This poster alone will show the headlines from the newspapers across 
this Nation that are reporting the reaction to the Boy Scouts' position 
of intolerance. It is clear that opposition to the Boy Scouts' 
intolerant policy is not a fringe movement. It is part of the 
mainstream belief that intolerance in any form is un-American. From 
Fall River, Massachusetts, to Broward County, Florida, from Chicago to 
San Francisco, American cities, American private corporations, 
nonprofit organizations, schools, churches, families are saying no to 
intolerance.
  In the city of Chicago, the Boy Scouts can no longer use city parks, 
schools or public sites because their policy, the Boy Scout policy of 
intolerance, conflicts with the city's existing nondiscrimination 
policy.
  In Fall River, Massachusetts, the local United Way voted 
overwhelmingly to withdraw support from the Boy Scouts.
  Private companies are also finding that the Boy Scouts' intolerance 
is unacceptable. Among other corporations, Textron, Inc., Knight Ridder 
and others have pulled their support from the Scouts. Because when 
people stand up and say intolerance is wrong, they do make a 
difference. One of those people is Steven Cozza, a teenager from 
Petaluma, California, where I live.
  Steven, as a 12-year-old Boy Scout, working to earn his Eagle Scout 
badge, became aware of the intolerance policies against gays in 
Scouting. And as a Scout, he decided, he was 12 years old, he decided 
to do something about it. That was 3\1/2\ years ago. Since then, Steven 
and his dad, Scott Cozza, neither one of them is gay, they have nothing 
to gain except they know that intolerance is wrong, they started an 
organization called Scouting for All. Scouting for All is a campaign, a 
national campaign, encouraging the Boy Scouts to change their policy.
  To date, they have gotten more than 53,000 signatures to support 
change of the policy. Steven Cozza supports abolition of the Scouts' 
prohibition on gays. He knows that it is wrong. It is wrong to exclude 
some boys based on sexual orientation, and it is wrong to teach other 
boys by example to be intolerant. Perhaps some of my colleagues believe 
that intolerance is okay. I do not, and neither do millions of people 
across the Nation who live in the cities that have stood against 
intolerance, or worked for the companies that have withdrawn their 
support or made contributions to the organizations that no longer 
support Scouting.
  My colleagues would do well to get outside the Chambers and talk with 
parents in Montclair, New Jersey, who are circulating a petition 
opposing the Boy Scouts' policy. They should also talk with the elected 
officials of San Jose, California, who say that Boy Scout intolerance 
is incompatible with their city laws.

                              {time}  2030

  Repealing the Boy Scouts Federal charter is a sensible and reasonable 
way for this Congress to take a stand against intolerance and not have 
it look as if our Nation supported intolerance. A charter is an 
honorary title that Congress awards to organizations that serve a 
charitable, patriotic, and educational purpose. But to me, there is 
nothing charitable, there is nothing patriotic; and it certainly is not 
a value we want our children to learn.
  Mr. Speaker, revoking the charter does not cut off Federal funding 
for the Boy Scouts. It does not change their tax status. Revoking the 
charter sends a clear message that Congress does not support 
intolerance.
  Mr. Speaker, I call on my colleagues to join me in support of H.R. 
4892. Together we can show the American people that like them, this 
Congress does not accept intolerance. As a representative of the 
people, let us make their message of support for tolerance heard 
throughout this House.
  We are not saying that Boy Scouts are bad; we are saying that 
intolerance is bad.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) 
for her sincere comments, and I appreciate the fact that the 
gentlewoman is standing strong in support of her bill that would revoke 
the charter of the Boy Scouts of America; and she indicates that she is 
not saying that the Boy Scouts are bad; but, Mr. Speaker, I believe 
that all of America is seeing an attack on the Boy Scouts, and I think 
that our efforts today in Congress is simply to defend them.
  The question is about tolerance. The Attorney General of the United 
States issued a statement in response to requests for an opinion that 
said that the Boy Scout jamborees are not federally conducted education 
or training programs. In other words, this is a private association. 
The Supreme Court has said they have a right to associate and to 
conduct themselves freely; that is what this country is about. They 
have African American Scouts, Asian American Scouts; and so they have a 
broad range, but they have some beliefs that they stand for and do not 
want to be compromised. I believe that is consistent with freedom.
  The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) referred to Boy 
Scouting for all. They have the freedom of association, but so does the 
Boy Scouts of America.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina 
(Mr. Ballenger).
  Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, I speak as one of the proud 50 percent of 
this body that was a member of the Boy Scouts.
  Mr. Speaker, the Boy Scouts are a private organization with a long-
standing reputation protected by the first amendment. Now, despite the 
Supreme Court endorsement of its mission, we are engaged in a 
politically motivated attempt to attack a great organization. The Boy 
Scouts bylaws state that one of the purposes of the organization is to 
teach morals to young men and boys and to help develop a strong group 
of core values.
  For years, this has been a great success. Now it seems that some in 
Congress want to legislate what these core values should be. Obviously, 
core values taught in Scouting today were seen to be fit when Boy 
Scouts were granted their first Federal charter and have remained the 
same unchanged since then. So why is this an attack?
  The Boy Scouts engage in hundreds of projects of good works across 
the country, and I think we should leave the seal of approval on this 
organization as American as apple pie and baseball; and I recommend a 
vote against this bill.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Woolsey).
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to the comments of 
the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson) that we are attacking the 
Boy Scouts. Indeed, the Boy Scouts do good work.
  My point and our point is that all boys should be involved in 
Scouting, not just some boys; and it is perfectly all right as a 
private organization to do as you choose. It is not all right for the 
Federal Government to support intolerance.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Utah (Mr. Cannon), who is a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this dangerous 
bill that attacks a treasured American institution, the Boy Scouts of 
America.
  A small group of extremists on the minority side is attempting to 
revoke the charter of an organization that has done much good. The 
attack today is because this private organization, the Boy Scouts, 
demands traditional moral rectitude from its members.
  This attack on the Boy Scouts alone would be repugnant to most 
Americans. But today's attack goes beyond

[[Page 17741]]

just the Boy Scouts. It is an attack upon the fundamental values of 
America.
  Our debate on this bill is just one skirmish of a much larger 
cultural war for our Nation's heart and soul. The gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Woolsey) has laid out the legal and governmental 
opposition to the Boy Scouts.
  This war is a big deal, and it will affect us all. Mr. Speaker, 
perhaps no civic organization has done as much as the Boy Scouts to 
instill the core American values of faith, loyalty, duty, honor, 
patriotism, community service, and individual responsibility in the 
young men of this Nation.
  We will prevail today in defeating this attack on the Scouts, but 
only because the spotlight of American's attention has been focused on 
our opponents. Some on this side disavowed this bill they once co-
sponsored because the glare of attention has exposed the extremism of 
their views.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues and fellow citizens to oppose this 
bill.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, because we have 4 minutes left and my dear 
friend, the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson) has 8 minutes 
left, I would ask him to go forward if he would.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts).
  Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4892. The other 
side acted as if voting on bills on suspension is unusual. This week 
the notice says we are voting on 27 bills on suspension. We just 
finished voting on 5 of them.
  After booing the Boy Scouts at their national convention, after the 
Clinton-Gore administration contemplated barring them from national 
park programs, now the Democrats have introduced legislation to revoke 
the Boy Scouts charter.
  In 1916, the U.S. Congress gave the Boy Scouts of American a national 
charter because we believed in what they were doing. We believed in the 
values that the Scouts stood for: the Boy Scout oath is an oath every 
Member of this body would do well to be familiar with. Evidently, the 
Democrats no longer believe in the values embodied in this oath. 
Evidently, they believe the Boy Scouts are dangerous. The Democrats 
believe times have changed, that the old rules of right and wrong no 
longer apply.
  Evidently, the American people are wrong, but the Boy Scouts is not a 
hate organization. They are the premier youth organization of America, 
training young people in character, volunteerism and patriotism, self-
reliance to believe in God and country.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge that we defeat this outrageous bill.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett).
  Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to 
this bill.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger).
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this 
legislation.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goode).
  Mr. GOODE. Mr. Speaker, this bill would wreck 90 years of patronage 
of the Boy Scouts of America. I urge opposition.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey).
  Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this bill, 
which is an insult to the millions of Americans who devote so much time 
and energy to the Boy Scouts of America.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Riley).
  Mr. RILEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this 
Democratic bill, which defies everything that is American.
  I believe that this bill--this whole unbelievable argument--does 
nothing more than punish and browbeat one of the most respected 
organizations for young men in America today.
  The name itself has become synonymous with being a good person in 
everyday conversation we even call trustworthy, noble hardworking 
people: ``Boy Scouts.''
  Mr. Speaker, this bill is simply wrong.
  Our government shouldn't fear the Boy Scouts.
  The Boy Scouts shouldn't have to fear our government.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson).
  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to 
this Democrat proposition, and I wonder why we are even doing it when 
America is such a great Nation.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan).
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak out in opposition 
to this Democratic initiative to ban the Boy Scouts from enjoying the 
rights that they have enjoyed since their existence.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter).
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker,
  I rise in opposition to this initiative to revoke the Federal Charter 
of the Boy Scouts of America.
  Mr. Speaker, as a former Boy Scout who only attained the rank of 
second class, I nonetheless recognized early on the great contribution 
that this nation receives from the Boy Scouts.
  We are a nation of great industrial production. No other nation 
manufactures the wide array of products that stream from our assembly 
lines.
  But the greatest American product is character. It is the character 
of strength, compassion, integrity and courage that makes the last 100 
years ``the American century.''
  The Boy Scouts of America have been a primary factory of American 
character. Their ideals and values strengthen us. They also offer 
wholesome association for the boys of America, many from broken 
families.
  In this world that has become increasingly dangerous for youngsters, 
the Boy Scouts is a safe haven for those who want their children to 
grow in an environment of traditional American values that has 
illuminated the world in the 20th century.
  Support the Boy Scouts.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Ryun).
  Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this, 
and I am wondering why we are even dealing with this. I know the 
wonderful values that the Boy Scouts represent.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Jones).
  Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I stand in strong 
opposition to H.R. 4892, and I wonder so many times the American people 
are wondering why America's in such moral decay, and then I look at 
this legislation, and then I ask myself how in the world can we in 
Congress even be debating such an outrageous bill such as H.R. 4892, 
because, Mr. Speaker, in the Scout oath the word ``morally straight,'' 
what does morally straight mean to the other side that is supporting 
this legislation?
  I realize the President of the United States does not understand what 
morally straight means, but there are many people throughout the 
district that I represent and throughout this country that understand 
that we need to be morally straight. We need to look to God, we need to 
look to the Ten Commandments. That is what the Boy Scouts help the 
youth of America do.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. 
Hutchinson) for giving me this opportunity, and I want to say to the 
Democrats who booed the Scouts at the Democratic convention, you should 
be ashamed of yourselves. There should have been one leader at the 
Democratic convention to stand up to chastise those who booed the Boy 
Scouts. God bless America. God bless the Boy Scouts.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Hayes).

[[Page 17742]]


  Mr. HAYES. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the legislation of 
the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) to revoke this charter. 
This type of Federal charter is issued to organizations with patriotic, 
charitable, and educational purposes.
  There is no organization in this country that lives up to these 
principles more than the Boy Scouts. The motto of the Boy Scouts is 
``God, Country, Honor, Helping Others.''
  Boy Scouts confirm that character counts. These are values that are 
learned by young men and carried with them throughout their lives. Mr. 
Speaker, let us tell it like it really is. This ridiculous legislation 
is meant to shame an organization just because it does not conform to 
the extreme left wing's view of the world.
  Over 3 million young men in the Boy Scouts nationwide are being 
taught values, values such as duty to God and country, honor, respect, 
honesty, community service. By revoking the charter of the Boy Scouts 
of America, the supporters of this legislation are saying that those 
values do not matter. They are saying that what is important is forcing 
the Boy Scouts to adopt their agenda, which is clearly wrong, 
counterproductive to community values and destructive to traditional 
families.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my fellow Members to vote against this scurrilous 
attack on American values.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Hayworth).
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, as an Eagle Scout, I rise in strong 
opposition to the so-called Scouting for All Act, because, Mr. Speaker, 
the so-called Scouting for All Act means constitutional rights for 
none. It is as if we tear freedom of association out of the document.
  Another federally chartered organization, the Jewish War Veterans. We 
do not see the southern Baptists or the Buddhists demanding membership 
in the Jewish War Veterans. Jewish War Veterans as a federally 
chartered organization have the right of freedom of association based 
on their spiritual beliefs.
  My suggestions to those who place such an emphasis on sexual identity 
is to have another freely formed association, the sexual identity 
seekers of America. If that predicates one's world views, that is the 
choice. The profound intolerance of those who claim to preach tolerance 
is incredible. Those who would boo the scouts, and the Vice President 
of the United States, the standard-bearer of his party not standing 
foursquare for this federally chartered organization. Shame on those 
who bring shame to this Nation by trying to profoundly alter the 
Scouts.

                              {time}  2045

  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds and caution the 
gentleman, my friend previously in the well. I thought I saw him 
ripping the Constitution. If that is the case, I would urge that he not 
do that publicly.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi 
(Mr. Taylor).
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I also want to rise in opposition to this effort by the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey). She is a Member of Congress, 
elected by the people of her Congressional District, and has every 
right, as has every Member, to introduce any piece of legislation that 
she wants. She has every right to demand a vote on it.
  My colleagues have every right to speak. I think it is a bit unfair 
to say ``every Democrat.'' I was not watching the convention, I was not 
there at the convention, I do not know what might or might not have 
happened. So the characterization of all Democrats as being against the 
Boy Scouts I do not think would hold water and is a cheap shot.
  I will make this observation: I do not know how many cosponsors the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) has on her bill. I do know my 
friend and colleague, the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Shows), has 
over 300 cosponsors, Republicans and Democrats, trying to restore the 
promise of health care for our Nation's military retirees. That bill 
has never had a hearing, it has never had an opportunity for one vote.
  If you are going to find the time as the majority to bring a bill to 
the floor that will probably get less than 10 votes tomorrow, that is 
fine. It is great that you are giving every Member that opportunity. I 
would ask for that same opportunity for the 300 of us, and I bet you a 
bunch of people on this floor are cosponsors of the Shows bill, to 
demand the same opportunity and privileges as Members of the House if 
over 300 of us have sponsored that bill. If over 300 of us think 
restoring the promise of health care for our Nation's military 
retirees, regardless of the cost, is a priority, then over 300 of us 
ought to have a chance to vote on it.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Shadegg).
  Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the Woolsey legislation. 
Let me first begin by simply addressing the former speaker's remarks. 
Let me make it clear that I have fought for health care reform on this 
floor vigorously and continue to fight for it. I have a bill with many 
cosponsors that I cannot get brought to the floor. It is a difficult 
process, but I would suggest that it is a fair process.
  Let me talk about the Boy Scouts. I grew up in the Boy Scouts. I was 
an active Boy Scout and formed an Explorer post.
  That organization does more to instill the proper values in young men 
than any organization I know of in this Nation, and what is at issue 
here is not sexual orientation. What is at issue here is the First 
Amendment to the United States Constitution, and, thankfully, the 
United States Supreme Court made it clear what that amendment says. 
What that amendment says is private organizations, even with those with 
a charter, and there are others with similar charters, they have the 
right to define and the right to decide who should associate with those 
organizations.
  Now, here, because of that Supreme Court decision defending the First 
Amendment, we see legislation attacking the Boy Scouts. I think it is a 
tragedy that this issue should have come up. I think it is a tragedy 
that some want to destroy the Boy Scouts of America and want to go 
after them and assert upon them and enforce upon them their 
``politically correct'' views.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against this legislation 
and defend the Boy Scouts of America.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, the Scoutmaster's Handbook emphasizes these points about 
being morally straight, and I quote from the United States Supreme 
Court decision. ``In any consideration of moral fitness, a key word has 
to be courage, a boy's courage to do what his head and his heart tell 
him is right, and the courage to refuse to do what his heart and his 
head say is wrong. Moral fitness, like emotional fitness, will clearly 
present opportunities for wise guidance by an alert scoutmaster.''
  Then the court goes on to say, ``It is plain as the light of day that 
neither one of these principles, morally straight and clean, quote-
unquote, says the slightest thing about homosexuality. Indeed, neither 
term in the Boy Scouts' law and oath expresses any position whatsoever 
on sexual matters.''
  So the process we have been in today, the most unusual one that I can 
remember being party to on the floor, we have had a bill brought before 
us that was not considered by the Committee on the Judiciary or the 
Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims and the sponsor of the bill did 
not request the bill be placed on the floor. So we can assume only that 
it has been placed on the floor as a political stunt. I, for one, will 
not be a part of this cynical game.
  Republicans, most of them have no intention of voting for this bill. 
They have no intention of getting it through the Senate. They have no 
intention of doing anything to come to the aid of children who are 
discriminated against because of their sexual orientation.

[[Page 17743]]

  They, the leadership, have bottled up hate crimes legislation because 
they do not care enough about the lives of children who are victimized 
or killed because of their sexual orientation. They will not stand up 
to gay bashing. They want to do nothing except play these kinds of 
games, which, to me, does a great disrespect to our legislative 
process.
  I do not believe that revoking the Federal charter of the Boy Scouts 
is the proper remedy at this time. Revoking the Federal charter would 
not have any effect on the Boy Scouts.
  I urge that those who support me vote present on this matter.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden).
  Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I stand as an Eagle Scout in 
opposition to this measure.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Isakson). The gentleman from Arkansas 
(Mr. Hutchinson) has 3 minutes remaining and has the right to close. 
All time has expired for the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to express my compliments to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Conyers) for the way he has conducted this debate and the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) as well. We in this body are 
intense, we have strong beliefs about things, but we need to be 
collegiate in these debates. I want to congratulate Members for the way 
this debate was conducted.
  There was a concern raised about we are saying this is a Democratic 
bill. I will acknowledge there are Democrats that oppose this bill as 
well that will not be voting for this. This is a bill being offered 
certainly by your side of the aisle, and there has been expressed a 
great deal of concern by this administration, so I think that was the 
underlying reason for that reference. But certainly there will be 
Members from your side that oppose it.
  I want Members to know that we all want to be tolerant. I believe we 
should practice tolerance in our lives. But, at the same time you have 
to balance that desire for tolerance with an understanding about 
freedom. Here in this case we have the Boy Scouts of America, that have 
served this Nation under a Federal charter for more than 80 years. I 
believe they have done extraordinary work.
  The issue is raised about, well, there are other bills that could be 
considered. Maybe we would be better off bringing the bills that are 
offered to this floor, and this bill was offered and ``Dear 
Colleagues'' letters were sent out asking support for this bill. I 
think it was something that people in America were concerned about.
  I have gotten letters and calls into my office about what they are 
doing, the attacks on the Boy Scouts of America. I think America said, 
what is the Congress going to do? So we stand here and say we are going 
to defeat this bill.
  I think that is a reasonable statement, a reasonable position, for 
this Congress to take. Yes, we are tolerant; but, yes, we also 
recognize the importance of freedom. I believe that is what the Supreme 
Court of the United States said whenever they affirmed in a 5-4 
decision the actions of the Boy Scouts of America.
  I believe that is what the Attorney General of the United States was 
saying when she rejected the request to kick the Boy Scouts of America 
off of the Federal land. She says it is not a Federal activity, so if 
it is not a Federal activity, they have a right to make decisions that 
govern themselves. That is the freedom in America, that is the right to 
association in America. And, yes, the Boy Scouts of America do good 
work. I believe they are under attack, and I believe it is right for 
this Congress to stand here today and say we are going to vote down 
this and make sure it is clear to everyone in America that the Federal 
charter is right, it should stay there, it should be sustained, it 
should not be revoked.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to defeat this bill.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, first let me say that the Boy 
Scouts of America has made a valuable contribution to our society. The 
Boy Scouts of America have taught America's young men the values and 
ideals of responsibility, leadership, accountability, and civic duty. 
They are known for instilling high moral values in our young men, and 
for being inclusive. This is why many of us were shocked when the Boy 
Scouts refused to be inclusive of those with a different sexual 
orientation.
  I believe that the Boy Scouts discriminatory policy against 
homosexuals falls far short of the ideals it has taught generations of 
young men. James Dale, an Eagle Scout, was kicked out of the Boy Scouts 
because he attended a seminar on the needs of gays and lesbian youth. 
He had attained the highest honor in scouting. But they kicked him out 
anyway. That was wrong. James Dale, and so many others are innocent 
young men who should not be punished due to their sexual orientation or 
because they are different.
  Recently, the Supreme Court held that the Boy Scouts are a private 
organization and, therefore, have a right to free association that 
allows them to discriminate against whomever they choose. But just 
because it is allowed, does not make it right.
  Nevertheless, I must oppose this bill for two reasons:
  First, I must object to the process under which we are considering 
this bill. This bill was not considered by the Judiciary Committee or 
the Immigration and Claims Subcommittee. The procedure in this case was 
circumvented.
  If this Congress is serious about dealing with confronting 
intolerance, then why has Hate Crimes legislation been bottled up in 
the House?
  Second, I do not believe that revoking the federal charter of the Boy 
Scouts is the proper remedy at this time. A Federal Charter is 
conferred upon an organization to give them a imprimatur designation to 
say that your organization is one that has a patriotic mission and 
significantly contributes to the benefit of our nation, and our 
society. Revoking the federal charter would not have any effect on the 
Boy Scouts and would not help to heal the wounds of intolerance in this 
country. Although the revocation of a Federal Charter is merely a 
symbolic gesture, this certainly sets a dangerous precedent where the 
Congress could be in the business of revolving Federal Charters to 
other organizations just because we disagree with their beliefs. I 
certainly think this type of action should only be done if there is a 
full hearing.
  The Congress should stand for the right of all Americans to live free 
from fear of harassment or violence based upon hatred of who they are. 
We should pass hate crimes legislation immediately.
  Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the 
proposed repeal of the federal charter of the Boy Scouts of America. 
Since its founding in 1910, the Boy Scouts of America has promoted 
educational programs for young men that build character, patriotism, 
and to develop personal fitness. Ninety million young men from every 
ethnic, religious, and economic background in suburbs, farms, and 
cities have participated in this institution, and abided by the Scout 
Oath and Law by staying ``physically strong, mentally awake, and 
morally straight.''
  Many now wish to infringe upon this private, charitable organization, 
and force upon it views that run directly contrary to the traditional 
values of the Boy Scouts of America. As a private organization, the Boy 
Scouts dismissed adoption of such views, stating that they have a 
constitutional right ``to create and interpret its own moral code.'' I 
agree with the organization's stance, and on June 28th, of this year, 
so did the Supreme Court, when they ruled ``the First Amendment 
protects the Boy Scouts' method of expression.''
  In response to this decision, many feel the Boy Scouts must now be 
punished for observing their First Amendment rights of free association 
and free speech; a repeal of their federal charter is one such 
punishment.
  In recent years, we have seen that many American youth live in an 
unhappy world--violent video games have become the new outdoors; drugs, 
the new game on the playgrounds; and guns, the new books brought to 
class. Throughout this corruption of America's children, however, the 
Boy Scouts of America has stood steadfast--providing our youth with a 
foundation of character, and a sense of value for citizenship and 
morality through the continuance of the Scout Oath and Law.
  In a time where our nation's youth is subjected to moral and 
character dissolution, and we on Capitol Hill search for solutions, I 
cannot fathom the reasoning behind why we would want to take away the 
imprimatur of

[[Page 17744]]

support that a federal charter affords to an institution that provides 
our youth positive guidance in a misguided world.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, the Republican leadership of the 106th 
Congress has brought some asinine proposals to the floor. A trillion-
dollar tax cut for the wealthiest Americans, a prescription drug 
proposal that subsidizes HMOs, not seniors, and a ``managed care'' bill 
that protects the insurance industry rather than patients.
  However, today marks a new low-point, even for this Congress. Mr. 
Speaker, today we have a bill on the floor which would revoke the 
Federal Charter from the Boy Scouts of America.
  Let me repeat myself. Today the Congress will vote to revoke the Boy 
Scouts of America's Federal Charter.
  Mr. Speaker this is an outrage and it must be stopped.
  The Boy Scouts are an American institution and one of America's most 
patriotic organizations, dedicated to serving God and country. Scouts 
are a shining example to the world of what is good about America.
  In 1916, the United States Congress granted the Boy Scouts a Federal 
Charter, because it recognized the valuable contributions that Scouts 
make to America. The Scouts are one of the most important civic 
institutions we have in this great nation, devoted solely to building 
character in boys and young men.
  The Scouts have led drives to increase blood, organ and tissue 
donation.
  They have pioneered youth anti-drug efforts.
  Scouts have fought against hunger, child abuse and illiteracy.
  Scouts were there for America. Yet now, the sponsors of this 
legislation would turn their back on the Scouts. Mr. Speaker, that is 
wrong.
  I am proud of my association with the Boy Scouts. The Scout Troops in 
Michigan's 16th District have a long and distinguished tradition of 
community service, from Dearborn to the fine young men in Monroe. I 
have joined with Scouts on many occasions during my service in Congress 
in community efforts, from river clean-ups to assistance for the needy 
and less fortunate. They represent the best of what America is and 
strives to be.
  This effort, to revoke their Federal Charger is an insult to the 
Scouts. It is no small wonder that the public's confidence in this body 
plummets each year thanks to ridiculous, unnecessary and foolish 
legislative endeavors such as this, which helps no one and angers many.
  The Boy Scouts develop and cultivate the best characteristics of 
American citizenship: self-reliance, leadership, and patriotism; love 
of the outdoors, pride in America, conservation and individualism; 
Americanism, dedication to the Constitution and to the Declaration of 
Independence.
  These are good, meritorious ideals.
  For the benefit of my colleagues supporting this legislation, let me 
recite the Scout Law, the principles upon which Boy Scouting is based: 
trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, 
cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean and reverent.
  These are the values that this Congress should be supporting, not 
discouraging.
  Vote no on this preposterous idea.
  Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of 
H.R. 4892, the Scouting for All Act and I commend my colleague, 
Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey, for authoring this bill and taking a strong 
stand against intolerance.
  The Boy Scouts of America have a long history of promoting social and 
civic responsibility among our nation's youth and I commend them for 
this. However, I am extremely disappointed in their decision to exclude 
potential members solely on the basis of their sexual orientation.
  I support the right of private groups to determine their membership. 
However, since Congress would neither endorse nor charter any group 
that discriminates against Latinos, African Americans, women or people 
with physical challenges, just to name a few, Congress cannot in good 
conscience continue to tacitly endorse the Scouts' discriminatory 
policy. We believe discrimination against any of these groups is wrong 
and most of us here would stand up and demand that discriminatory 
policies be ended. The Boy Scouts must be held to the same standard and 
therefore Congress has the moral responsibility to revoke the group's 
Congressional charter.
  We must remember, that discrimination is always wrong, whatever form 
it takes. Whether it's the policies of the Boy Scouts, a corporate 
employer or a social club, Congress must not condone discrimination. We 
must lead by example and we must send the message that Congress will 
not tolerate nor endorse such policies targeted at any group.
  I support this bill, and I urge each of my colleagues to do the same. 
Congress must not lend its seal of approval to any organization which 
discriminates.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill and to 
voice the strongest possible support for the Boy Scouts of America.
  The Boy Scouts have always emphasized God and Family and Country.
  We need more organizations like the Boy Scouts, and we should be 
doing everything we can to support and encourage them.
  I was a Criminal Court Judge for 7\1/2\ years before coming to 
Congress.
  I was told on my first day as a Judge that 98 percent of the 
defendants in felony cases came from broken homes.
  I read thousands of reports going into the backgrounds of the people 
before me. I read over and over things like: ``Defendant's father left 
home when Defendant was two and never returned.'' ``Defendant's father 
left home to get pack of cigarettes and never came back.''
  Several years later I read in the Washington paper that two leading 
criminologists had studied 11,000 felony cases from around the country.
  They said the biggest single factor in serious felony crimes was 
father absent households.
  Everything else, like drugs and alcohol, was secondary to the absent 
father problem.
  So many young boys are growing up today without good male role 
models.
  We need the Boy Scouts today more than ever before.
  This is a time when we should be doing more for the Boy Scouts, not 
trying to harass and intimidate them.
  We definitely should not be taking the intolerant, bigoted, 
``politically-correct'' position of this legislation.
  If this is still a free country, then the Boy Scouts should be free 
to operate as it has without being discriminated against as this 
legislation would do.
  I urge all my colleagues to oppose this bill and support the Boy 
Scouts.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, today, we find ourselves debating an 
intolerance-laden bill advanced by those who will claim to be the 
``tolerant'' ones. What the bill's proponents are really saying is that 
they are intolerant of an individual's freedom to associate with those 
whom they, as individuals, see fit. Two vital issues are raised by this 
bill's ascendancy to the House floor. The first is that of our 
constitutional right to freedom of association. The second being the 
notion of ``federal charters.''
  On June 28, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Boy Scouts of 
America was within its rights when the private organization expelled an 
adult scout leader because he was gay. In its five-to-four opinion, the 
court found that requiring the Boy Scouts to admit homosexuals violated 
the group's free association rights.
  Nevertheless, this Congress has decided to bring to the floor a bill 
attempting to penalize this private group of citizens for exercising 
their first amendment ``freedom of association'' rights. This is very 
close to denying the very right itself. To the extent the Boy Scouts 
should be penalized for their exercise of free association (or 
exclusion in this case), that penalty should only manifest itself 
through other private citizens exercising their freedom not to 
associate with individuals or groups whose associations (or lack 
therof) they find offensive.
  As to the ``federal charter'', where do we find authority for the 
federal government to charter organizations it deems ``honorable''? To 
the extent the ``charter'' is an honorary title awarded by Congress to 
organizations which is then ultimately used to threaten exercise of the 
right to freedom of association, I suggest we repeal not only the Boy 
Scout's charter but all federal charters such that they won't be used 
as tools of federal meddling.
  While I hesitate to further propagate this system of federal charters 
by which the federal government manipulates private groups, I despise 
more so this congressional attempt to penalize the Boy Scouts for 
merely exercising their constitutional rights--or as syndicated 
columnist Charley Reese recently put it in the Orlando Sentinel:

       I think that it's time for all patriotic organizations that 
     have these federal charters to surrender those documents. It 
     is impossible for a dishonorable organization to honor 
     anyone. And these charters are, practically speaking, 
     worthless. If the federal government believes that mindless 
     non-discrimination trumps morality, then it's time to 
     disassociate from such bad company.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson) that the House suspend the 
rules and pass the bill, H.R. 4892.
  The question was taken.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.


  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the 
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be 
postponed.

                          ____________________