Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: TUESDAY, July 20, 1993 TAG: 9307200187
SECTION: NATIONAL/INTERNATIONAL PAGE: A-1 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: STEWART M. POWELL HEARST NEWSPAPERS
DATELINE: WASHINGTON LENGTH: Long
The president had barely finished outlining the new policy to U.S. military leaders before Congress began moving to challenge the commander-in-chief.
Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Sam Nunn, D-Ga., summoned Defense Secretary Les Aspin and the six-member Joint Chiefs of Staff before his panel today in the first of a series of congressional reassessments of Clinton's hard-won compromise.
The House Armed Services Committee planned a hearing for Wednesday.
At issue is whether Congress intervenes with legislation to modify or overturn Clinton's directive to let gays who keep their homosexuality secret serve legally in the military for the first time.
For the gay-rights community, the stakes are high.
Enacting Clinton's policy into law would not only provide the courts with a persuasive body of legislative history, it also would erect a virtually insurmountable political hurdle for gay activists by forcing them to win congressional majorities for any future easing of restrictions.
Clinton and his advisers portrayed the new policy as the best compromise they could achieve to fulfill a campaign promise without alienating the Joint Chiefs - and triggering congressional efforts to codify the zero-tolerance policy on gays that existed when Clinton took office.
"It is not a perfect solution," Clinton conceded. "It is not identical with some of my own goals. And it certainly will not please everyone, perhaps not anyone."
Clinton said: "It is an honorable compromise . . . in resolving an issue that has divided our military and our nation and diverted our attention from other matters for a long time."
But as Clinton himself suggested, his compromise left many unhappy. Conservative lawmakers vowed to intervene, while gay-rights activists grumbled that Clinton had broken his promise to lift the ban altogether.
Thomas E. Mann, a political scientist at the Brookings Institution, said the compromise "ends up being a loser" for the president.
Clinton's failure to fulfill his pledge to erase the ban completely "reinforced the view that he doesn't have principles and he doesn't stick to them," Mann said. "This is a lose-lose for him."
Tim McFeeley, who heads the Human Rights Campaign Fund, called Clinton's action a "shattering disappointment." McFeeley's organization and other gay-rights groups contributed up to $5 million to Clinton's presidential campaign.
"We elected a leader and got a barometer," McFeeley said.
Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., one of two openly gay members of Congress, said he was disappointed and that the plan "falls short of where I thought we would be. This does not meet the minimum."
It was not immediately clear whether Clinton's new policy could survive a stiff legislative challenge on Capitol Hill - and the president acknowledged the potential threat, saying lawmakers could "reverse those changes by law in ways that are difficult if not impossible to veto."
Nunn, in a statement, said his "initial reaction is positive." But the influential Georgia Democrat emphasized that he would "reserve my final judgment" until reviewing Clinton's plan and hearing testimony from Pentagon officials.
But Nunn did not back away from plans to draft legislation codifying restrictions on gays into law - a move likely to keep the public's attention riveted on the explosive issue for months to come.
Rep. Ike Skelton, D-Mo., chairman of the House Armed Services Committee's panel on personnel policies, hailed Clinton's blueprint for continuing an existing policy that "keeps military homosexuals in the closet." Like Nunn, Skelton is exploring legislation to codify restrictions on gay GIs.
Conservative opponents of Clinton's relaxation urged Congress to resist. Gary Bauer, a former Reagan administration official now heading the Family Research Council, said Nunn should "stand up" for GIs who oppose serving side-by-side with homosexuals.
And retired Marine Lt. Gen. Charles Cooper of the Defense Readiness Council praised Nunn for "stepping up to the plate" to codify restrictions on gay GIs.
But Mann, the Brookings scholar, said that both Nunn and the Joint Chiefs are "swimming against the current" on continuing restrictions on gays.
"The current is really being driven by the courts," Mann said. "Frankly, I think change is coming."
\ Congressional reaction\ What Western Virginia's legislators had to say about President Clinton's policy\ \ Sen. John Warner: Has opposed lifting the ban.
His spokeswoman said Monday that Warner will withhold comment until the Senate Armed Services Committee hears from the Joint Chiefs of Staff, probably this week .
Sen. Charles Robb: Has supported lifting the ban
"Progress in civil rights is seldom rapid or painless, yet the compromise does shift the focus from who an individual is to what the individual does and allows qualified individuals who are willing to fight and die for their country to serve without prejudice if they adhere to a strict code of conduct.
"With strong leadership and greater understaning more changes will come in time, but for now the active support of Gen. [Colin] Powell and each of the individual service chiefs is critical. . . . I hope Congress will resist any attempt to intervene legislatively."
Rep. Rick Boucher, 9th District: Likely will back what ever policy the Joint Chiefs of Staff supports.
"I think we have to trust the military on this question. I want to see what is the reaction of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on this proposal and the reaction of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to Senator [Sam] Nunn's proposal, which differs somewhat from the president's . . . . There's not any great urgency to this question. Most people here feel this is a debate we should not ne having anyway."
z Rep. L.F. Payne, 5th District: Wants to study the president's policy and
hear what the Joint Chiefs of Staff support.
A spokesman said Payne was traveling Monday and had not had time to read the full text of Clinton's message to Congress. Payne has said only that he wants to hear both the details of the president's policy and the reaction of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Rep. Robert Goodlatte, 6th District: Was traveling Monday and could not be reached for comment.
by CNB