June 25, 2009 – Congressman Trent Franks (AZ-02) today made the following remarks on the House Floor regarding an amendment to the National Defense Authorization bill:

Mr. / Ms. Speaker:
    
The Hastings Amendment to the National Defense Authorization bill (which now is being considered en bloc) prohibits the recruitment, enlistment, or retention of persons with known affiliations to "groups determined by the Attorney General to be of a violent, extremist nature."

Members on both sides of the aisle support the purpose of this amendment because we recognize that there are legitimate concerns about the enlistment of persons who may seek to use their military training to cause harm to innocents, but we should take pause to consider the breadth of this amendment carefully.  I just want to express concern about the language of this amendment, and my concerns are shared by many in this House.  

While the amendment seeks to keep gang members and members of violent groups out of the military, the amendment by its language is much more broad.  Specifically, it confers upon the Attorney General the ability to categorize groups as hate groups, and this sounds an alarm for many of us because of the recent shocking and offensive report released by the Department of Homeland Security which labeled, arguably, a majority of Americans as "extremists."

In an unclassified report entitled "Rightwing Extremism:  Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment,"  Janet Napolitano and her agency included the following description of "extremists," and I quote:

"Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration."

I take extreme offense that the federal government - through a report issued under the authority of a Cabinet-level official - would dare to categorize people who are "dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition or abortion or immigration" as "right-wing extremists" and it begs the question of whether the Attorney General, under Mr. Hastings' Amendment, can look to the Napolitano report to decide who is an extremist, or can make the same categorization of the majority of Americans as extremists who may then be kept from joining the military, or who may be discharged.  

The desire to risk one's life on foreign soil for one's country may well be considered "extreme."  To spill blood on a foreign battlefield in the name of freedom requires extreme devotion.

This amendment could have been written in a way that is more consistent with current DOD policy, which prohibits military personnel from participating in "organizations that espouse supremacist causes; or attempt to create illegal discrimination based on race, creed, color, sex, religion, or national origin..."

The military has many laws and regulations in place to counter racism and the enlistment of racist militants.  Recruits must be thoroughly vetted, and must even explain the symbolism behind their tattoos, body markings and writings.  I understand that there is concern that the rules and regulations governing vetting of recruits are not being followed as vigilantly as they could be, and this is a legitimate cause for concern.  At the same time, this is a call for better enforcement of the laws in place, rather than a sweeping categorization of persons as "extremists," as we saw in Janet Napolitano's agency's report.

I want to state unequivocally that I believe that it is not the intent of this Congress to label pro-lifers, federalism proponents, and pro-immigration enforcement groups and their affiliates as extremists under the bill.  My colleagues on the other side of the aisle should make a strong effort to assuage these concerns and make our intentions clear.  If the intent of this amendment is to go after citizens because of their political views and moral convictions, then the amendment is unconstitutional. I hope that the sponsor of the Amendment will make clear tonight that this is not the intent.

I yield to my colleagues across the aisle for a response.