[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 2]
[Senate]
[Pages 1787-1789]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                             BANNING JROTC

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, on Tuesday, November 14, 2006, members of 
the San Francisco School Board voted 4 to 2 to eliminate over the 
course of 2 years the San Francisco School District's Junior Reserve 
Officers' Training Corps. We call this JROTC. This

[[Page 1788]]

was an arrogant, mean-spirited, absolutely foolish decision. The 
decision was a disservice to children of every socioeconomic and racial 
background, and it reveals a gangrenous, antimilitary bigotry that 
festers in some circles of the United States today. The vote deprives 
hundreds of children of a safe, extremely popular, and cost-effective 
program that provides structure and enjoyment to the lives of children 
through an emphasis on physical activity, responsibility, self-
discipline, and teamwork.
  The merits of the JROTC program alone compel a reversal of this 
decision, but it is more than that. It is only the latest antimilitary 
decision in the Bay City. The antimilitary counterrecruitment movement 
is undertaken by activists and groups who have moved beyond simple 
disagreement with foreign policies to the outright opposition to the 
military as an institution. They explicitly deprecate basic civic 
service and exhibit an utter lack of respect for the sacrifices of men 
and women which they have made in the defense of our country.
  Allow me to offer a statement of one such activist before moving on, 
to get the sense of the nature of the movement behind the JROTC 
decision. This is:

       When soldiers are really hurt because there are no new 
     recruits, then we are getting somewhere.

  According to the San Francisco Chronicle, when the school board 
announced its vote to eliminate the 90-year-old program in which 1,600 
children participated, the dozens of children and their families 
gathered at the board meeting were absolutely stunned. Many cadets 
burst into tears, their faces in their hands, in silent bewilderment. 
``It provides me a place to go,'' said a fourth-year cadet, Eric Chu, 
as he began to cry. At the same time, the board's decision was loudly 
cheered by JROTC opponents and counterrecruitment activists. Former 
teacher Nance Manchias summarized the reason behind their jubilation by 
declaring, ``We need to teach a curriculum of peace.''
  Arguments marshalled in support of this kind of antimilitary activity 
are not generally arguments of outright opposition to the military. 
Counterrecruitment activists you usually hear cloak their opposition to 
the military in discussions about discrimination, about the military's 
``don't ask, don't tell'' policy regarding homosexuals. But in this 
case these arguments do not apply--not to the JROTC. You don't believe 
me? The editorial board of the San Francisco Chronicle, which is not 
really a bastion of conservatism, explains. They say:

       The high-flown arguments fall apart when the drill-and-
     discipline JROTC basics are examined.

  The San Francisco Chronicle's board, writing in support of the JROTC 
program, continues by explaining the nature and specifics of the 
program:

       Sorry, adults, but kids love this program as if it's 
     family. There are 1,600 students enrolled in the classes, 
     which fulfill physical-ed requirements. Punctuality, team 
     work, camaraderie are the hallmarks. There, military drill 
     competitions are as popular as football games. There are no 
     weapons, just sticks and flags used in marching. Some ROTC 
     members go on to serve in the military, but the vast majority 
     don't, seeing classes as an enjoyable experience and a chance 
     to learn new things: map-reading, leadership skills and self-
     discipline that goes with military-style assignments and 
     crisp uniforms.

  I am quoting from the San Francisco Chronicle's editorial board.
  What were the reasons, then, for the elimination of this program? 
Were there safety concerns, a lack of interest in the program, 
budgetary issues, problems with poor management, or a troubling lack of 
diversity? In fact, none of these factors were at issue in the 
decision.
  The program was popular. More than 1,600 kids were active 
participants in the JROTC program. Finances were not a problem. The 
program enjoyed a modest $1 million budget from a school district 
budget of $365 million. That is $1 million out of $365 million, or a 
cost of just under three one-thousandths of the entire budget. Was the 
program poorly managed? The San Francisco Chronicle answers:

       No one has offered an alternative as coherent and well-run 
     as the JROTC.

  How about safety? Not a problem. There are no weapons involved. The 
programs are nonviolent; they are simply character-building exercises 
which emphasize leadership and self-discipline.
  And what about the big one, diversity? For this, I repeat the words 
of the Chronicle reporter, Jill Tucker, in a story she wrote about the 
JROTC cadets at Galileo High School:

       These students are 4-foot-10 to 6-foot-4, athletic and 
     disabled, college-bound and barely graduating, gay and 
     straight, white, black, and brown. Some leave for large homes 
     with ocean views. Others board buses for Bayview-Hunter's 
     Point.

  Many of the students were immigrants, and one is autistic.
  According to the San Francisco Chronicle:

       Opponents acknowledge the program is popular and helps some 
     students stay in school and out of trouble.

  So, again, why eliminate a school program in which students simply 
receive phys-ed and elective credits required for graduation? Sandra 
Schwartz of the American Friends Service Committee, an organization 
dedicated to active opposition to the JROTC program, explains:

       We don't want the military ruining our civilian 
     institutions. In a healthy democracy, you contain the 
     military. You must contain the military.

  So we have an answer to the question as to why this program was 
eliminated. It wasn't because of any practical consideration such as 
cost, interest, or safety, nor was it opposition to a specific policy 
of the Government. It was opposition to the military as an institution.
  But the JROTC decision in San Francisco should come as no surprise. 
It comes on the heels of two other antimilitary decisions in the Bay 
City which have taken place over the past year or so. Last year, San 
Francisco city supervisors refused to allow a ship to dock in the 
city's port. The ship was a historic World War II battleship, the USS 
Iowa. Just as in the JROTC decision, there were no practical 
considerations which necessitated refusal of the USS Iowa. Supervisor 
Chris Daly explained the reason for his vote:

       I am not proud of the history of the United States of 
     America since the 1940s.

  The decision was intended to be an insult to our Armed Forces.
  Also, last year, San Francisco passed measure 1, dubbed ``College, 
Not Combat,'' which was a symbolic measure to ban all military 
recruiters in the city's public schools. ``College, Not Combat'' was 
the first local success of the counterrecruitment movement. Examples of 
other counterrecruitment slogans include ``Don't die for recruiter's 
lies,'' and my personal favorite, ``An army of none.''
  This decision enjoyed the support of many extreme antiwar groups, 
including ANSWER, Not In Our Name, Ralph Nader's Green Party, American 
Friends Service Committee, Code Pink, Cindy Sheehan, and the 
International Socialist Organization.
  These decisions to denigrate the Armed Forces are the latest tactics 
of the antiwar counterrecruitment movement. But, again, make no mistake 
about the basis or the purpose of this movement. Ignore all the 
rhetoric about discrimination in the Armed Forces and ``don't ask, 
don't tell.'' Forget about arguments that this is simply opposition to 
the Iraq war, to George Bush, or to some other specific policy.
  The counterrecruitment movement opposes the military as an 
institution. Counterrecruitment activists and measure 1 supporter April 
Owens admit the purpose of her movement, and she is speaking in behalf 
of measure 1:

       When soldiers are really hurting because there are no new 
     recruits, then we are getting somewhere.

  Speaker Pelosi is on record as saying that she was not behind measure 
1 100 percent. I think the American people would be interested to know 
what percentage of her support the measure is enjoying. But at least 
some political leaders in San Francisco are speaking out about these 
topics and decisions and this type of attitude toward the American 
soldiers.

[[Page 1789]]

  Regarding the school board decision--and this took a lot of courage 
for him to do it, I might add--San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom said:

       This move sends the wrong message. It's important for the 
     city not to be identified with disrespecting the sacrifices 
     of men and women in uniform.

  Yes, it is--especially now. Do we really need to remind people that 
men and women are fighting and dying because they heeded the call of 
their country? Do we need to remind people that families are grieving?
  One wonders whether these activists understand that the only reason 
they have the freedoms to dedicate their time and energy to opposing 
the U.S. Armed Forces is because of the very existence of the U.S. 
Armed Forces. One wonders whether they have ever realized that the 
Armed Forces have dedicated far more of their time and efforts to 
establishing and ensuring the continuation of peace rather than 
launching wars. And when wars are fought, they are done so at the 
behest of democratically elected civilian leaders.
  If they have a problem with any specific policy, they should take it 
up with the civilians who made the policy, not the soldiers doing their 
duty and carrying out that policy in the service of their country.
  They certainly should not take their frustrations out on 
schoolchildren who enjoy a structured, character-building, afterschool 
program such as the JROTC program. But they believe the program exists 
to trick youngsters into joining the military. School board member Dan 
Kelly says the JROTC is ``basically a branding program, or a recruiting 
program for the military.'' Well, Mr. Kelly, if that is the case, that 
the JROTC is a recruiting vehicle, then the JROTC should enjoy the same 
protections military recruiters receive. This is what I am getting to 
now.
  San Francisco's measure 1, which tells all military recruiters to 
stay away from schools, was only symbolic for a reason. San Francisco 
banned military recruiters in their schools for over a decade, until 
the No Child Left Behind Act was passed into law in 2001. Under 
provisions of No Child Left Behind, schools can only prevent military 
recruitment if they are willing to forgo their Federal funding. 
Unfortunately, the JROTC is not currently included in the recruiting 
program under the act. However, as board member Dan Kelly admits, the 
JROTC program was banned simply because it was perceived as a 
recruiting program.
  Let's make that perception a reality. Let's amend the appropriate 
laws and give the JROTC the same protection that military recruiters 
enjoy. The program, as I have illustrated, is clearly a valued program 
in many communities. It deserves our support. The JROTC program in San 
Francisco, as well as those in communities all across the nation, 
deserve our support. Sadly, they need our protection, too.
  At this time I would like to announce that I will soon be introducing 
legislation to afford the same protection to the JROTC programs as the 
other military recruiters enjoy. I look forward to bipartisan support 
of that program.

                          ____________________