[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 65 (Monday, May 23, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[Congressional Record: May 23, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1995
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 431 and rule
XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union for the future consideration of the bill
(H.R. 4301).
{time} 1740
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole
House on the State of the Union for further consideration of the bill
(H.R. 4301) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 1995 for
military activities of the Department of Defense, to prescribe military
personnel strengths for fiscal year 1995, and for other purposes, with
Mr. Oberstar, Chairman pro tempore, in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. When the Committee of the Whole rose on
Friday, May 20, 1994, amendment No. 16 printed in part 1 of House
Report 103-509 offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr.
Kennedy] has been disposed of.
It is now in order to consider amendment No. 17 printed in part 1 of
House Report 103-509.
amendment offered by mr. solomon
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Solomon: At the end of title V
(page 172, after line 22), insert the following new section:
SEC. . MILITARY RECRUITING ON CAMPUS.
(a) Denial of Funds.--(1) No funds available to the
Department of Defense may be provided by grant or contract to
any educational institution that has a policy of denying, or
which effectively prevents, the Secretary of Defense from
obtaining for military recruiting purposes--
(A) entry to campuses or access to students on campuses; or
(B) access to directory information pertaining to students.
(2) Students referred to in paragraph (1) are individuals
who are 17 years of age or older.
(b) Procedures for Determination.--The Secretary of
Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of Education,
shall prescribe regulations that contain procedures for
determining if and when an educational institution has denied
or prevented access to students or information described in
subsection (a).
(c) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term
``directory information'' means, with respect to a student,
the student's name, address, telephone listing, date and
place of birth, level of education, degrees received, and the
most recent previous educational institution enrolled in by
the student.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of
Friday, May 20, 1994, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] will be
recognized for 10 minutes, and a Member opposed will be recognized for
10 minutes.
Does the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums] seek the 10 minutes
in opposition?
Mr. DELLUMS. I do, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums]
will be recognized for 10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon].
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I have a very worthy opponent on this amendment.
During the recent congressional hearings, Congress has been made
aware that military recruiters are being denied access to educational
facilities, preventing recruiters from explaining the benefits of an
honorable career in our military and the additional educational
benefits available to personnel while serving in our all-volunteer
military through the Montgomery GI bill--where they can obtain $25,000
worth of educational benefits. As a person who has five children, and I
have just finished educating them in college, let me tell you that
means a lot.
Mr. Chairman and Members, it is outrageous that military recruiters
are not allowed on certain campuses in the United States. My amendment
today would simply prevent any funds authorized in this act from going
to any institution which prevents military recruiting on their
campuses.
Mr. Chairman, as we know, a number of educational institutions across
the country, institutions that are receiving massive amounts of Federal
dollars, are denying the Department of Defense the opportunity to
recruit on their campuses. In my home State of New York, the entire
State university system consisting of 16 campuses across the State has
banned military recruiting. And since New York State lags far behind
the rest of the Nation in recruiting because of this kind of attitude,
and I am ashamed of it, this will only worsen the situation.
Mr. Chairman, this is totally hypocritical. The institutions that are
receiving grants and awards from one Federal Department are, in turn,
attempting to deny another Federal Department access to their campuses.
Mr. Chairman, recent surveys show military recruiting is down over
the past couple of years. Recruiters are already having trouble meeting
their quotas as it is. Even in a period of downsizing, we are unable to
find enough recruits to fill the current number of slots, especially
with high-caliber students.
Mr. Chairman, it may be debatable as to why this is so. But the fact
that is most important is simply this: recruiting is where readiness
begins. Recruiting is the key to an all-volunteer military, which has
been so spectacular over these years since we implemented the all-
volunteer concept.
Mr. Chairman, the 1970's are starting to happen all over again.
Because of underfunding, many of our top military officers and many
enlisted men and women are again leaving the military to find better-
paying jobs, and we are unable to attract the best of our young people.
Today over 95 percent of our personnel are high school graduates or
college graduates, 95 percent. This success is in large part due to
recruiting on school campuses, both high school and college.
But recently, recruiters have been able to enlist such promising
volunteers for our Armed Forces by going into high schools, colleges,
universities, and informing young people of the increased opportunities
that an honorable military career can provide them. The readiness of
our Armed Forces is on the wane today, Mr. Chairman. We must reverse
this slide before it snowballs.
We can begin today by telling recipients of Federal money at colleges
and universities that if you do not like the Armed Forces, if you do
not like its policies, that is fine. That is your first-amendment
rights. But do not expect Federal dollars to support your interference
with our military recruiters.
On behalf of military preparedness, ladies and gentlemen, please,
vote for this amendment. You will be glad you did.
Mr. McNULTY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SOLOMON. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from New York [Mr.
McNulty], an outstanding Member of this body.
Mr. McNULTY. As my friend and neighbor knows, I have supported his
efforts in the past in this regard. But I recently received a letter
from Joseph C. Burke, interim chancellor of the State University of New
York, outlining his concern about the possibility of losing many
millions of dollars in Federal funding and also the loss of many jobs.
I think the gentleman knows that the decision by the State University
of New York was not a decision on their part to exclude military
recruiters. They have a history of allowing military recruiters on all
of the campuses of the State University of New York. The only reason
that is not happening now is because they are under a court order as a
result of a lost lawsuit which prevents them now from having military
recruiters on campus.
So I would like to have some assurance from the gentleman that if his
amendment were successful that it would not stop the flow of funds to
the State University of New York and its various campuses and
universities across the country which are similarly situated.
Mr. SOLOMON. Well, let me just say to the gentleman that he knows I
have a copy of the letter as well.
The court decision ruled that the State University of New York would
be in violation of the Governor's executive order if it continued to
allow recruiters on campus. All the Governor has to do is to live up to
what he said he was going to do in an article which appeared in the
Albany Times-Union, which was written by Sam Verhovek of the New York
Times. The Governor's spokeswoman, Ann Crowley, said the Governor was
firmly opposed to banning military recruiters from campus. That was not
his intention in the first place, and if he modifies his executive
order, that court decision is null and void, and it will not cost them
a nickel. All the Governor has to do is rescind or modify his order and
there is no problem.
Mr. McNULTY. I would further make the point with the gentleman that
is an action the Governor can take. That is not an action the
university can force the Governor to take. The university is under a
court order right now as a result of a court action, so they are
prevented legally from allowing the recruiters on the campus.
I would not want to see them put in a position whereby we would be
asking them to break the law in order to comply with what both you and
I want them to do.
Mr. SOLOMON. But the gentleman has to understand that we cannot use
up all the time on this. In other words, that court decision was based
on the Governor's executive order. If he changes or rescinds the order
to exclude military recruiters, which was his intention, there is no
problem.
Mr. McNULTY. I understand that.
Mr. SOLOMON. If it is modified, and the Governor says his intent is
to do so, then certainly he is not going to see that SUNY loses $21
million in jobs and financial aid. I have a lot of faith, and I do not
agree with Governor Cuomo on a lot of things, but he is a man of his
word. I assume he is going to live up to it.
Mr. McNULTY. That concerns me a little bit. That means if the
gentleman's amendment is adopted and nothing else happens, that the
concerns of Chancellor Burke would be well-founded.
Mr. SOLOMON. I do not think, as I read the court decision--because it
is based on that executive order--I do not believe that they are going
to be penalized. Certainly by the time this bill reaches the
conference, I am sure that we can iron that out.
I think it will be resolved by a change in the executive order, in
which the Governor had no intention of banning recruiters, military
recruiters, from those campuses. I have to reserve, because I have
additional requests.
Mr. McNULTY. Could I ask the gentleman for his assurance in
conference he would seek to see to it that the State University of New
York and the various campuses and other campuses similarly situated
across the country which might be under court orders would not be
penalized by virtue of the enactment of his amendment?
Mr. SOLOMON. The gentleman has to understand there is existing law
already. We simply are enforcing existing law in encouraging it. I
would do everything I could to see the Governor does change his order
so that we do not have a penalty.
Mr. McNULTY. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
Let me first set the stage: The amendment offered by the gentleman
from New York [Mr. Solomon] addresses a law that was enacted in the
context of an appropriation bill in 1972 against the backdrop of a very
tumultuous era in this country and in the world, and that is when the
United States was prosecuting the war in Southeast Asia.
That amendment passed. What the gentleman seeks to do today by his
amendment goes beyond that 1972 law in two fashions. The restriction is
extended beyond the universities to include high schools and it also
removes, as I read and understand the amendment, the flexibility on the
part of the Secretary of Defense to waive the prohibition when the
Secretary of Defense perceives this to be in the national interest of
the country.
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I oppose this amendment to
cut off DOD grants and contracts to educational institutions that deny
military recruiting on campus. Let me tell you why.
We should not, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, chill or
abridge privacy, speech, or conscience by threatening a college with a
Federal funds termination because it chose for whatever reason to deny
access to military recruiters. We would not do so if the institution
refused to cooperate with any other Government recruiting or
solicitation, no other, Mr. Chairman. The decision should be with the
university, not with the Government, to decide who comes on campus to
recruit for employment.
We should not browbeat them, Mr. Chairman, into becoming involuntary
agents of Federal policy. The beauty of what our political system is
all about, Mr. Chairman, is to provide people with that kind of
freedom, that ability on the basis of conscience to take a stance that
may be contradictory to what is a Federal policy at a given time. That
is what we are promoting all over the world; it is called democracy.
Mr. Chairman, my second reason: Our granting and contracting
decisions should be reviewed independently in order to determine that
they meet the national interest. This policy prohibits the ability of
the Government to best meet it policy goals.
In addition, it would, as I said earlier, prevent the Secretary of
Defense from making any exception to this cutoff, thereby depriving the
Department of Defense access to potentially important research and
academic resources.
Although I do not agree with the current law and regulations on this
topic that bars such funding--spoke out against it in 1972 and voted
against it in 1971--they at least provide, Mr. Chairman, the
flexibility of a cutout of the prohibition that allows the Secretary of
utilize institutions when it is in the national interest to do so.
For all these reasons, Mr. Chairman, I urge that we vote against it.
Let me for a moment quote from a very articulate and eloquent letter
written by our distinguished colleague, the gentlewoman from Colorado,
who serves in this institution and serves ably as the subcommittee
chairman of the Subcommittee on Research and Technology. She states,
and I quote:
This amendment is a heavy-handed attempt to overturn last
week's New York Court of Appeals decision which held that
local school boards have the authority if they so choose to
bar discriminatory organizations, civilian or military, from
recruiting on campus. Mr. Solomon would penalize 34
institutions in New York alone and as many as 100 schools
nationwide.
The fact is it is 138 institutions nationwide.
Plus this amendment would damage the Nation's research
education efforts at some of our finest institutions, with
considerable cost, and place these educational institutions
in conflict with State and Federal laws.
That is why I agree with my colleague that for these reasons we
should oppose this amendment. And let me tell you in the remaining
seconds that I have what organizations join us in opposition:
Association of Jesuit Colleges and Universities
Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities
National Association of College and University Business
Officers
National Association for Equal Opportunity in Higher
Education
American Council on Education
American Association of Community Colleges
American Association of State Colleges and Universities
Association of American Universities
National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant
Colleges
National Association of Student Financial Aid
Administrators
Association of American Law Schools
American Bar Association
Mr. Chairman, we are very pleased and proud to be associated with all
of these organizations who stand in clear and unequivocal opposition to
this amendment, and I urge my colleagues to do so.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] has 2 minutes
remaining.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I could not help but smile a little at
that list of special interest groups that oppose this. You know, every
veterans organization--and there are hundreds of them in America in
your district and mine--support this down the line. They are going to
be awfully mad if this does not pass.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair informs the gentleman from New York [Mr.
Solomon] he has 2 minutes remaining.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DELLUMS. Would the Chair inform us, please, as to the balance of
time on both sides of the aisle?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums] has 5
minutes remaining and has the right to close; the gentleman from New
York [Mr. Solomon] has 2 minutes remaining.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, if I might enter into a colloquy, let me
state that if the gentleman does not intend to strike the last word as
he is allowed to under this rule for an additional 5 minutes, then if
the gentleman would use up 3 minutes, we would close with our 2 minutes
and then allow the gentleman to close and we would not use that
optional time.
Is that reasonable?
Mr. DELLUMS. That is reasonable, Mr. Chairman.
Let me go forward for, at this time, yielding 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Guam [Mr. Underwood].
(Mr. UNDERWOOD asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California
for yielding this time to me. I rise in strong opposition to the
amendment offered by the gentleman from New York. It is a classic case
of overkill to solve a problem that has, in effect, already been solved
for universities, and it does so in a manner which threatens the
funding of beneficial programs of universities and academic freedom.
Current appropriation statute prohibits the use of Federal funds at
institutions of higher learning that have a policy barring military
recruiters from campus, and that policy is prescribed in DOD directive.
Clearly, DOD has become lax in enforcing this statute and in
implementing its own directive, but has recently issued new guidance to
the services outlining the procedure to follow should recruiters
encounter difficulty in obtaining access to college campuses.
The Solomon amendment goes far beyond current law, however, in ways
that could prove to be very shortsighted from a broader national
defense perspective. Current law provides some flexibility to the
Secretary of Defense in the case of university-based research and
development projects which make a significant contribution to the
defense effort. The Solomon amendment would take that flexibility away.
Current law is more than adequate to deal with this issue. The
Department of Defense opposes the Solomon amendment as unnecessary,
duplicative, and potentially harmful to defense research initiatives. I
also stand in opposition as a former academic vice president at a
university, an institution with a strong ROTC program which has
graduated many fine young men and women now in uniform as officers.
Just as surely as I am proud of the quality of education they
received for which, as the institution's chief academic officer I was
responsible, I also took my responsibility to protect academic freedom
just as seriously. This amendment would threaten the exercise of
academic freedom as it is practiced in institutions of higher learning,
and it does so in a manner which could threaten research which is
valuable for defense at some of our beset, very best academic
institutions.
It represents what is really meant by the phrase ``cut off your nose
to spite your face.''
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment and any other
legislative effort to limit the freedom of universities by withholding
funds.
Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, at this time I am pleased to yield 1
minute to the gentlewoman from Washington [Mrs. Unsoeld].
{time} 1800
Mrs. UNSOELD. Mr. Chairman, I rise today as a member of the Committee
on Education and Labor to speak in opposition to the amendment offered
by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon].
Mr. Chairman, we have been through this battle before. Any Member who
opposes Federal mandates, particularly in the area of education, should
vote no. I say to my colleagues, ``If you believe in getting government
off people's backs, for goodness sake, don't impose this mandate
because, if it passes, we undermine local control of schools.''
I said this before:
Education has always been a local matter. This includes the education
of our Nation's high school and postsecondary students. To deny a
school's Federal funding because of its decision to prohibit military
recruiting on campus clearly violates this principle.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to join with, among others, the
American Council on Education, the American Bar Association, and the
Department of Defense in opposing this amendment.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from California [Mr. Pombo], one of the dynamic new Members of this
body.
(Mr. POMBO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of this
amendment. Some institutions of higher education in this country need
to be put on notice that their policies of ambivalence or hostility
towards our Nation's armed services do not go unnoticed--either by this
House or by the American people.
A growing, and misguided, sense of moral superiority is creeping into
the policies of colleges and universities in this country when it comes
to such things as military recruiting or ROTC activities on campus. On
April 22, for example, California State University at Sacramento
announced that it would phase out its ROTC programs because a vocal
minority at the university disagreed with military personnel
standards--standards based in Federal law passed in this Congress.
Examples like this should be seen for what they are--outrageous. It
is nothing less than a backhanded slap at the honor and dignity of
service in our Nation's Armed Forces; at those who have worn our
Nation's uniform before; and at this Congress which has set in law
military personnel standards.
These colleges and universities need to know that their starry-eyed
idealism comes with a price. If they are too good--or too righteous--to
treat our Nation's military with the respect it deserves; to allow ROTC
units to operate; or to afford our military the same recruiting
opportunities offered to private corporations--then they may also be
too good to receive the generous level of taxpayer dollars presently
enjoyed by many institutions of higher education in America.
For our young men training to defend the freedoms of all Americans,
and for all those who have proudly worn the uniform of this country, I
urge my colleagues to support the Solomon amendment, and send a message
over the wall of the ivory tower of higher education.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher]
(Mr. ROHRABACHER asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, those of us opposed to the draft have
a chance to prove that we are nonetheless committed to a strong
national defense.
The purpose of the military forces of the United States is to defend
our country and its vital national interests. It is disturbing,
especially in a time when we are shrinking our military from cold war
levels, that there are those who want to use the military as a vehicle
for social change. Campuses that have given in to these political
activists, who seek to use the military to achieve a domestic social
agenda, are doing a great disservice to men and women in our Armed
Forces, people who put their lives on the line for our security and
safety.
Furthermore, by denying military recruiters access to campus, the
rights of students not supportive of the activists' agenda are being
violated. If campuses insult our military personnel, if they do not
care about our Nation's security, if they blatantly violate the rights
of students who'd appreciate knowing of career opportunities in our
Armed Forces; then those campuses should not be enjoying the largess of
Department of Defense research dollars or DOD grants.
Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I will yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Harman]. It is my understanding that
the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] would then close, and then
the gentlewoman from Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder] will close for our side.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California
[Ms. Harman].
(Ms. HARMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise as a member of the Committee on
Armed Services in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman
from New York [Mr. Solomon]. I share the gentleman's goal of assisting
military recruiters, and, like him, I support a strong defense and know
that such a defense depends in substantial part on recruiting our best
and brightest. But in achieving that goal, Mr. Chairman, we should not
trample on the fundamental principles on which our society is based,
like nondiscrimination and academic freedom.
Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, the amendment being offered by the
gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] takes a meat ax approach to the
issue of recruiter access to college campuses. That is why virtually
every educational association, major university such as the University
of California, the American Bar Association, and the Department of
Defense oppose it. It is punitive and unnecessary.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the amendment
offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon].
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I yielded myself the remaining 30 seconds
just to say one more time:
You know, recruiting is where readiness begins. We depend on an all-
voluntary military, and recruiting is the key to all our voluntary
military has accomplished over the years since we did away with the
draft. Let us not interfere with that. Let us live up to our first
amendment rights, allow these recruiters to go and explain an honorable
military career to young men and women.
You know, today times are tough out there. Don't believe it's good.
Young people need these jobs. Let's be able to explain it to them.
Mr. Chairman, I urge support for my amendment, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, for purposes of closing debate on this
side of the aisle with respect to the amendment offered by the
gentleman from new York [Mr. Solomon], I yield the remaining time to
the distinguished gentlewoman from Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder].
The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder] is
recognized for 1 minute.
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the
Solomon amendment, which would prohibit the Department of Defense from
making grants to schools that bar military recruiters. I am joined by
our Nation's major universities and colleges and the Department of
Defense in opposing Solomon for five reasons:
First, contrary to what the gentleman from New York has just said
about courts upholding his previous legislative initiative with respect
to Federal funds to individuals who refuse to register with Selective
Service, this issue is very different. In fact, last Friday, in the
gentleman's own State, the State court of appeals held that school
boards have the authority to bar discriminatory organizations--civilian
or military--from recruiting on campus. The court further observed that
the military is not being singled out: Any employer who violates the
school's nondiscrimination policy is also barred from recruiting on
campus--whether it's a private corporation or the Marines.
Second, Mr. Solomon professes concern for our Nation's high schools
and the need to preserve the quality of our Nation's recruits. But his
amendment would apply to our Nation's high schools, only 2,400 of which
currently allow military recruiters on their campuses. DOD opposes the
Solomon amendment precisely because in DOD's words:
Enforcement of this amendment by DOD would require a level
of effort for which we are not staffed. There are over 15,000
accredited high schools that we know of. Tracking down
alleged offenders and determining if we had funding to take
away would again, not be worth dedicated staff effort.
Third, DOD argues this amendment is duplicative. Current law (Pub.
Law 92-436, section 606) already allows the Department of Defense to
deny funds to educational institutions that deny military recruiters
for nondiscrimination reasons.
Fourth, our Nation's great research universities and colleges, and
their substantial contributions to our defense efforts, would be
jeopardized by the Solomon amendment. I have heard from officials at
Cornell University, the University of California, California State
University, the University of Minnesota, the University of Wisconsin,
and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology [MIT] that a foolhardy
decision to deprive all DOD money to schools because of their
nondiscrimination policies would cost hundreds of millions of dollars
in lost technological research, both military-related and in defense
conversion.
MIT tells me they stand to lose $50 to $60 million if the Solomon
amendment is passed. The California State University system is
concerned about its proposal to construct a new campus on Fort Ord if
some of its campuses bar military recruiters. Would we so blithely shut
down the Nation's premier computer defense research at the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the University of California
and transfer funds to Oral Roberts University?
Fifth, over 100 schools, for a variety of reasons, exclude military
recruiters from campus--many for religious reasons. The following 24
States would lose DOD funds under the Solomon amendment: Arizona,
California, Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Iowa, Indiana, Kentucky,
Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New
Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Texas,
Vermont, West Virginia, Washington, and Wyoming.
Finally, the Solomon amendment is opposed by the following
educational associations:
Association of Jesuit Colleges and Universities;
Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities;
National Association of College and University Business Officers;
National Association for Equal Opportunity in Higher Education;
American Council on Education;
American Association of Community Colleges;
American Association of State Colleges and Universities;
Association of American Universities;
National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges;
National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators;
Association of American Law Schools; and
American Bar Association.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to listen to their constituents in
the higher education community and the Department of Defense by
defeating the Solomon amendment.
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Solomon
amendment to H.R. 4301 as reported out of the Armed Services Committee.
This amendment prohibits funding from the Department of Defense to
any educational institution which prevents military recruiting on
campuses. This measure is unfair, not only because it will cost
educational institutions millions of dollars, but, it also penalizes
many of these institutions for simply complying with State law.
This amendment must be defeated, as it threatens important research
initiatives and thousands of jobs. Our country will be sacrificing
growth and a brighter future if the Solomon amendment is adopted.
Research programs provide needed employment and are often the centers
for innovation that place the United States at the cutting edge of
technology and advancement.
It is important to remember that the denial of military recruiting on
certain campuses is based not on an antimilitary ideological stance,
but rather, on the principles of law. In my home State of New York, the
State Supreme Court ruled that campuses must prohibit access to
recruitment facilities to all employers who discriminate on the basis
of sexual orientation, including the military.
The issue of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in the
military has received a great deal of attention over the last year. It
is an issue that should be resolved appropriately at the Federal level.
However, penalizing educational institutions for obeying State laws,
does nothing to further the debate. Instead, important research, jobs,
and State sovereignty, are threatened.
It is with strong conviction that I urge the removal of the Solomon
amendment to H.R. 4301.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the Solomon amendment
which would undermine State's rights and deal a serious blow to New
York State's public universities.
This debate is not about the military's legal right to exclude
individuals based on sexual preference. We have had that debate in this
Chamber.
This debate is about whether a State university should be penalized
for attempting to comply with a court order. New York State's public
universities stand to lose $7.8 million, not because these universities
have chosen to exclude the military, but because a court has ruled a
State nondiscrimination law extends to military recruiting on campus.
This court has enjoined State universities from providing facilities to
the military for recruitment purposes. Even if these schools disagree
with the State court's ruling, they must follow it or they will be held
in civil contempt and receive substantial fines.
The amendment before us would punish universities for complying with
the court order. The amendment bars universities which do not allow the
military to recruit on campus from receiving Defense Department funds.
Loss of this funding would be a terrible blow to New York's system of
public universities which received $7.8 million in Defense Department
funds this year. Unfortunately, this amendment gives them no choice.
Public colleges and universities in New York can break the law and be
fined for contempt, or they can follow the law and be fined by this
amendment. It is a lose-lose situation for education in the State of
New York.
I urge my colleagues not to penalize public colleges and universities
for following a court order. To approve this misguided amendment would
be a terrible abuse of Federal power that would victimize our schools
and their students.
The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, all time for debate on amendment No. 17
has expired.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New
York [Mr. Solomon].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
recorded vote
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 271,
noes 126, not voting 41, as follows:
[Roll No. 191]
AYES--271
Allard
Andrews (NJ)
Andrews (TX)
Applegate
Archer
Armey
Bachus (AL)
Baesler
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barcia
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bateman
Bentley
Bereuter
Bevill
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Borski
Boucher
Brewster
Brooks
Browder
Brown (OH)
Bryant
Bunning
Burton
Buyer
Byrne
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cardin
Castle
Chapman
Clement
Clinger
Coble
Coleman
Collins (GA)
Combest
Condit
Cooper
Coppersmith
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cunningham
Danner
Darden
de la Garza
de Lugo (VI)
DeLay
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dooley
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards (TX)
Emerson
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Fazio
Fingerhut
Fowler
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Gallegly
Gallo
Gekas
Geren
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gingrich
Glickman
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Grams
Green
Greenwood
Gunderson
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hancock
Hansen
Hastert
Hayes
Hefley
Hefner
Herger
Hobson
Hochbrueckner
Hoekstra
Hoke
Holden
Hoyer
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hutto
Hyde
Inglis
Inhofe
Inslee
Istook
Jacobs
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, Sam
Kasich
Kennelly
Kildee
Kim
King
Kingston
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kreidler
Kyl
LaFalce
Lambert
Lancaster
Lantos
LaRocco
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Lehman
Levy
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (FL)
Lightfoot
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
Lloyd
Lucas
Machtley
Manzullo
Martinez
Mazzoli
McCandless
McCollum
McCrery
McCurdy
McDade
McHale
McHugh
McKeon
McMillan
McNulty
Menendez
Meyers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Minge
Molinari
Montgomery
Moorhead
Murphy
Murtha
Myers
Neal (NC)
Nussle
Orton
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Parker
Paxon
Payne (VA)
Penny
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickett
Pickle
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Quillen
Quinn
Ramstad
Ravenel
Regula
Richardson
Roberts
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roth
Roukema
Rowland
Royce
Sarpalius
Saxton
Schaefer
Schiff
Sensenbrenner
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (IA)
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Solomon
Spence
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Stump
Stupak
Swett
Talent
Tanner
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Tejeda
Thomas (CA)
Thomas (WY)
Thurman
Torkildsen
Torricelli
Traficant
Upton
Valentine
Visclosky
Volkmer
Vucanovich
Walker
Walsh
Weldon
Wilson
Wolf
Wynn
Young (AK)
Zeliff
Zimmer
NOES--126
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Andrews (ME)
Bacchus (FL)
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Beilenson
Berman
Bonior
Brown (FL)
Cantwell
Clay
Clayton
Clyburn
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Derrick
Dingell
Dixon
Durbin
Edwards (CA)
Ehlers
Engel
English
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fields (LA)
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Ford (MI)
Frank (MA)
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gonzalez
Gutierrez
Hamburg
Harman
Hastings
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hoagland
Hughes
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Klink
Kopetski
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Long
Lowey
Maloney
Mann
Manton
Markey
McCloskey
McKinney
Meehan
Meek
Mfume
Miller (CA)
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moran
Neal (MA)
Norton (DC)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Pelosi
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Reynolds
Roemer
Rostenkowski
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Schenk
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Sharp
Shepherd
Skaggs
Slaughter
Stark
Stokes
Strickland
Studds
Swift
Synar
Thompson
Thornton
Torres
Tucker
Underwood (GU)
Unsoeld
Velazquez
Vento
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Wheat
Whitten
Williams
Wise
Woolsey
Wyden
Yates
NOT VOTING--41
Barca
Barlow
Blackwell
Brown (CA)
Carr
Conyers
Coyne
Deal
Faleomavaega (AS)
Fields (TX)
Fish
Ford (TN)
Gephardt
Grandy
Horn
Houghton
Huffington
Johnson (SD)
Kleczka
Klein
Margolies-Mezvinsky
Matsui
McDermott
McInnis
Michel
Mineta
Morella
Nadler
Ortiz
Owens
Ridge
Romero-Barcelo (PR)
Rose
Sangmeister
Santorum
Slattery
Snowe
Sundquist
Towns
Washington
Young (FL)
{time} 1827
The Clerk announced the following pairs:
On this vote:
Mr. Kleczka for, with Mr. Conyers against.
Mr. Deal for, with Mr. Mineta against.
Mr. Johnson (SD) for, with Mr. Washington against.
Mr. MORAN, Ms. KAPTUR, and Messrs. TUCKER, STRICKLAND, and BERMAN
changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Messrs. KYL, DEUTSCH, HEFNER, ANDREWS of Texas, COLEMAN, and EDWARDS
of Texas changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained by traffic
coming from my district office in Rockville, MD, and therefore I missed
rollcall vote No. 191. Had I been here, I would have voted ``aye.''
{time} 1830
amendment offered by mr. dellums
Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Dellums: At the end of title X
(page 277, after line 2), insert the following new section:
SEC. 1038. ELIMINATION OF REGISTRATION REQUIREMENT UNDER
MILITARY SELECTIVE SERVICE ACT.
(a) Elimination of Registration Requirement.--Section 3 of
the Military Selective Service Act (50 U.S.C. App. 453) is
amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(c) After September 30, 1994, no person shall be required
to present himself for and submit to registration under this
section.''.
(b) Effect of Amendment on Persons Already Subject to
Registration.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall not
apply with respect to persons who, before October 1, 1994,
were required to register under section 3 of the Military
Selective Service Act (50 U.S.C. App. 453) and had not so
registered by that date or such later date as the President
considers to be appropriate.
The CHAIRMAN. Under the terms of the rule, there will be 20 minutes
of debate on the amendment.
Pursuant to the order of the House of Friday, May 20, 1994, the
gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums] will be recognized for 10
minutes, and a Member in opposition will be recognized for 10 minutes.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spence] will be
recognized for 10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums].
Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, the amendment before the body at this time
is an amendment that would repeal, and I would repeat, repeal the
requirement for Selective Service registration of 18-year-old men
effective October 1, 1994. It does not, Mr. Chairman, apply to those
who had a registration requirement prior to that date. It does not shut
down the Selective Service System. It simply and directly repeals the
requirement, Mr. Chairman, for the registration of these young 18-year-
olds.
In support of amendment, I would like to make the following comments.
The Department of Defense, Mr. Chairman, issued a report last year
based on a study that the Congress requested that said peacetime
registration could be suspended with no effect on military
mobilization.
Mr. Chairman, let me quote the Defense Department's study requested
by the Congress of the United States. It said, in part, ``Peacetime
registration could be suspended with no effect on military
mobilization, little effect on the time it would take to mobilize, and
no measurable effect on military recruitment.''
In short, Mr. Chairman, our Nation's military leaders said we do not
need the draft registration in peacetime to meet projected
contingencies. Although the President disagrees, Mr. Chairman, as we
have seen by his letter, it is for the Congress to decide whether we
would follow his lead or make our own judgment on the basis of DOD
assessment.
The Selective Service would be able to make contingency plans for a
situation that might call for a return of registration or conscription.
No significant mobilization requirement would be adversely affected by
ending peacetime registration. It is estimated that it would slow
mobilization of civilians by only 30 days, from 13 to 43.
Absent a reemerging global threat, a 30-day delay in receiving
civilian registrants for training seems acceptable to this gentleman
and many others. More than one million trained personnel are available
for mobilization under the selective reserve and partial mobilization
options available to the President. They are more than capable of
augmenting active duty force strengths to meet any contingency short of
long-term war that would exceed the bottom-up review planning scenarios
that are before us now.
The registration requirement was reestablished in 1980, in
significant part as a reaction to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.
It was intended as much to show resolve and displeasure with that
action as to be a significant complement to our mobilization strategy,
even at the height of the cold war. It made sense then as a serious
signal to the Soviets, and it sends no such signal of resolve now to
any current or prospective adversaries.
Mr. Chairman, at this moment it is an empty and unnecessary gesture.
Even former President Ronald Reagan recognized that registration should
only be used in a time of genuine national need. In a letter to Senator
Mark Hatfield dated May 1980, former President Reagan said, and I
quote:
Only in the most severe national emergency does the
government have a claim to the mandatory service of its young
people. In any other time a draft or draft registration
destroys the very values that our society is committed to
defending.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would ask that conferees on the floor, friend
and foe alike, please remove themselves from the floor.
Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, it is very frustrating to try to argue in
the context of this bill and the important issue that gets raised by
it, it is one thing for our adversaries not to listen, but it is
certainly disconcerting when our ostensible friends are not willing to
listen in the context of an important debate.
Mr. Chairman, I have always tried to respect my colleagues in this
Chamber, to give them my undivided attention, even my adversaries. I
give them the respect of my willingness to listen to them. When our
friends do not give us an opportunity to make our case on the floor of
this Chamber, it is frustrating and difficult.
What this amendment is about is whether or not we will continue to
have 18-year-old people register for the draft when there is no
ostensible reason nor need to do so, so I would like to, in some
atmosphere that gives us some reasonable opportunity to present these
arguments, to do so in an atmosphere that is conducive to dignity and
respect, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, military recruiters should be able to utilize
alternative sources to meet their needs, and increases in opportunities
for women in the services will expand the available pool of recruits,
as well as an expanded number of voluntary age young people generally
will aid recruitment.
As the DOD noted, elimination of peacetime registration will have
minimal discernible effect on overall recruiting in the armed services.
{time} 1840
Mr. Chairman, finally, this is not a budget issue, although we will
save several million dollars, $4.3 million in the 5-year plan.
It is a straight-up effort, Mr. Chairman, to revise national policy
to conform to our current mobilization requirements. These requirements
by the Department of Defense estimates sent to the President do not
support a registration requirement.
Mr. Chairman, to simply summarize, the amendment is very
straightforward. It does not abolish the Selective Service System. What
it does is stops on October 1 of this year the requirement of our
young, 18-year-old men to register for the draft. There is no need for
it. This is a peacetime in the context of a democracy. We should not
force our young people to do anything except mobilize in the national
interest when there is a serious national security issue at stake.
Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from California [Mr. Stark].
Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time and would like to associate myself with his remarks and suggest
that while it is only $4.5 million, it is symbolic. If we cannot do
away with vestigial and wasteful operations just because of nostalgia
and if nobody can make the case prospectively that we need something,
let us save the money, let us get on with education, health care and
new jobs where we need it and let us support the amendment by the
gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums] to eliminate the draft
registration.
Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to divide my 10
minutes equally between the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] and
the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Montgomery], and allow each of them
to control 5 minutes.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
South Carolina?
There was no objection.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Ladies and gentlemen, I rise in the strongest opposition to the
amendment offered by the gentleman from California which would
eliminate, no questions about it, eliminate the Selective Service
peacetime registration program.
Mr. Chairman, although I have the greatest respect for the gentleman
from California [Mr. Dellums], he really is one of the most respected
Members of this body, I have to oppose this for a number of reasons.
To begin with, his administration does not support it. I am sure the
gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Montgomery] is going to speak to that.
Bill Clinton opposes this amendment. In fact, just today the White
House announced support for continuing peacetime registration.
Second, we debated this issue at length just 6 months ago, and this
body voted overwhelmingly to keep the program, 236-194.
Mr. Chairman, if the Committee on Armed Services had held even one
hearing on this matter, they would have learned that the administration
strongly supports peacetime registration. A working group chaired by
members of the National Security Council just completed several months
of examining all the issues involving Selective Service and concluded
that peacetime registration should be kept in place. The National
Security Adviser recommended this to the President, and he agreed.
Mr. Chairman, peacetime registration is a low-cost insurance policy
in a very dangerous world today. This program is a hedge against the
unknown. What if war were to break out in Korea again or somewhere else
and we were forced to augment or activate the reserve services again? I
pray this does not happen, but my point is, we just do not know, given
the continuing tensions in the world, North Korea, Bosnia, the Persian
Gulf, Haiti, and the uncertainty in Russia. Have Members seen what is
happening there? So volatile.
Mr. Chairman, at only $4 million peacetime registration provides that
low-cost defense, manpower insurance against the unknown.
Mr. Chairman, there is a strong grassroots support for maintaining
this program. All across America, hundreds of thousands of Americans
who know have asked us to keep it in effect. Millions of Americans have
done so. They see great intrinsic value in having all young men come
forward at 18 to be counted. Even President Clinton just the other day
said that we have to keep the two together, to link peacetime
registration and society for the young people today.
Mr. Chairman, I urge Members to oppose this amendment when it comes
up in a few minutes.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MONTGOMERY. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to
the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Tanner].
(Mr. TANNER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. TANNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the
amendment.
Mr. MONTGOMERY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Dellums amendment to
eliminate the peacetime registration in the Selective Service System.
President Clinton has sent a strong letter to every Member of the
House of Representatives. I would like to quote from that letter.
The President said:
``I have decided that it is essential to our national security to
continue draft registration and the Selective Service System.''
Then the President further says:
``This is a low-cost insurance policy against our underestimating the
maximum level of threat we expect our Armed Forces to face.''
Further quoting from the letter, the President said:
``Terminating the Selective Service and draft registration now could
send the wrong signal to our potential enemies who are watching for
signs of U.S. weakness.''
Mr. Chairman, I point out that this is a strong letter from the
President of the United States. He is our Commander in Chief. He is
over the military, and he says that he needs the registration, he needs
to have the system in place. Registration is quick and easy. The
compliance rate of our young people has been 98 to 99 percent. The
young people are not complaining. The 18-year-old men are going to
register. The problem seems to be right here in Congress.
Mr. Chairman, there has been some mistake, and I want to point it
out. This is not a draft, and I support the all volunteer system, but
the Selective Service is a backup for a major conflict that might have
high casualties.
Yes, right now we can put first draftees in uniform within 13 days.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my distinguished
colleague, the gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher].
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I know it is a bit confusing when we
hear a strong letter of support for draft registration coming from
President Clinton and we hear quotes from President Reagan opposing the
peacetime draft, but that is the state of the world. The world has
changed. The cold war is over, the old rules no longer apply.
First let us state, our defenses do not depend on a draft in order to
raise the military. Our defenses in the future will depend on highly
qualified military personnel backed up by the best equipment and
technology and also backed up by a strong reserve, not backed up in a
peacetime by a draft.
Mr. Chairman, the peacetime draft is and always has been, as Ronald
Reagan stated and will state again, is inconsistent with our national
tradition. Draft registration today is a useless vestige of a rejected
and obsolete means of manning our military. It is based on one concept
alone and, that is, we cannot get our mind off conflicts of 20 years
ago.
Mr. Chairman, draft registration is a waste of limited funds. We
should be spending this money to bolster the reserves and to make sure
our people are equipped with the right kind of technology to back them
up in the fights they are going to have.
Vote for the Dellums amendment and against draft registration, this
waste of our money.
Mr. MONTGOMERY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Kennelly].
(Mrs. KENNELLY asked and was given permission to revise and extend
her remarks.)
Mrs. KENNELLY. Yes, Mr. Chairman, the problems of 20 years ago are
long gone, but that does not mean we do not have problems today.
Yes, we remain the one superpower, but as a result of that, countries
large and small look to us for support and guidance. But more
importantly we are the leader in these United States and we have solved
those challenges of military situations years ago, but right now we
have international criminality, we have international terrorism,
terrorism we cannot even guess about today.
{time} 1850
So I say we have a system in place. We have a system that works, and
we have a system that is efficient, and that is what we need to have to
face what is coming before us.
But let me speak to something. I do not often disagree with our
chairman, the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums], but he said our
young people are forced to register. As fewer and fewer members of our
society have direct military experience, but indirect military
experience, it is necessary for these young people to feel close to
their Government and patriotic.
I well remember the day, I say to the gentleman from California [Mr.
Dellums], that my son went to register. He was incredibly proud to
register, and he is in law school now, but he would be very willing to
serve.
I think we need these lists. I think they are good for the country.
Why do away with something that works?
Let us keep it, because we do not know what tomorrow will bring.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums] has 3
minutes remaining, the gentleman from New York, [Mr. Solomon] has 2\1/
2\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr.
Montgomery] has 2 minutes remaining.
It will be the position of the Chair that either the gentleman from
Mississippi or the gentleman from New York will control the closing
moments of this debate.
Mr. MONTGOMERY. Mr. Chairman, I have one more speaker, and then I
will close the debate.
Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from Texas [Mr. Pickle].
(Mr. PICKLE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. PICKLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Dellums
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to Chairman Dellums' amendment to
eliminate the Selective Service System [SSS] Peacetime Registration
Program. This amendment would remove the requirement for 18-year olds
to register with Selective Service. This would significantly impact our
armed services in the event of a national crisis. Registration is a key
part to ensuring and preserving our national security.
Although the cold war is over and the Berlin Wall has been torn down,
there still remains the continuing tensions throughout the world in
Korea, Bosnia, and the Persian Gulf. With instability in these regions,
the United States cannot afford to send out weakening signals. At the
price of $6 million, in comparison with a defense budget totaling $262
billion, this is an inexpensive insurance policy for our military.
Should the Selective Service interrupt its peacetime registration, it
would take 3 months to a year to reactivate the system of putting
draftees into uniform. With the present system, it would only take 13
days after a draft law is passed to mobilize readiness.
President Clinton and former Secretary of Defense Les Aspin have
conducted a review of the SSS and draft registration, and concluded
that it is necessary and vital to our national security interests. I
support my President and the Selective Service.
Mr. MONTGOMERY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Texas [Mr. Edwards].
Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. Mr. Chairman, if there is anything predictable
about wars, it is that no one can predict when and where they will
break out. Who in this House would have predicted just a few years ago
that America would have to send 500,000 of its citizens to fight
against Saddam Hussein in Kuwait?
Who in this House can predict with certainty where future conflicts
might occur?
The fact is nobody can do that, and that is exactly why we need to
spend a small amount of money for a selective service registration
system, in effect, a military insurance system.
It just makes common sense. If we are going to downsize our military
forces, then we need an insurance policy to help us mobilize forces in
the event of a major conflict.
This should not be a vote based on whether one is a defense dove or
hawk. In fact, for those Members who want to make even deeper defense
cuts, it makes sense to have in place a selective service registration
system in case a smaller military force cannot handle a future crisis.
I hope we never need to use the Selective Service System just as I
hope none of us ever needs to use our fire insurance on a house, but
this is an insurance policy America must have.
For these reasons, I respectfully ask Members to vote ``no'' on this
amendment.
Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Oregon [Mr. DeFazio].
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, we have just heard draft registration
described as cheap insurance against some future unnamed calamity.
Well, there is a reason it is cheap. It does not insure anything, and
it would not pay off if we ever needed it.
In March, the Pentagon said they do not need peacetime draft
registration; they do not want to use it; and they do not think it will
have any impact on mobilization. That is what the military
professionals said, not the politicians. They said peacetime
registration can be suspended with no effect on military mobilization
requirements, little effect on the time it would take to mobilize, and
no measurable effect on military recruitment, a rare moment in our
Nation's history. The Pentagon has identified and offered to eliminate
an obsolete cold war program.
Let us take advantage of that, colleagues.
We have heard that this is insurance. How does it work? A year ago
the Selective Service ran a drill to see if the system works. It did
not. In its most recent checkup, Selective Service was found 4-F, unfit
and unavailable, a 54-percent success rate. They blamed it on bad
weather. This is a symbol of our Nation's resolve, an obsolete,
moribund bureaucracy which has a 54-percent success rate because of bad
weather?
The fact is peacetime draft registration is unneeded. It does not
work. It is a waste of money.
Forget the hollow messages we are supposedly sending to our
adversaries. We should send a message to the American people: Congress
knows a pointless, out-of-date Federal program when we see one, and we
know how to kill it.
Support this amendment.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
York [Mr. Gilman], the distinguished ranking Republican on the
Committee on Foreign Affairs.
(Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment to
eliminate the registration of 18-year-olds for the Selective Service.
While our Nation has not relied upon a draft for 30 years, it is
important that, considering the instability of today's world, we
maintain the capability of a Selective Service System. The Selective
Service System requires that every male citizen register within 30 days
of his 18th birthday, thereby providing our Nation with a vast manpower
reserve.
During a time when our Nation is continuing with its cuts in defense,
including the closure of bases, elimination of important defense
programs and downsizing its personnel, I respectfully remind my
colleagues that now is not the time to eliminate our Nation's Selective
Service Program. Instead we should make certain that our Nation is
ready to proceed forward against any unforeseen threats.
President Clinton has stated that ``as we continue our military
downsizing we must remember that fewer and fewer members of our
Nation's society have any direct military experience, thus it is
imperative that we maintain the link between an all-volunteer force and
our society at large.''
Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to join in opposing this amendment
by Mr. Dellums and instead support this time tested system.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, my colleagues, I am looking at Ron Dellums. He is a man
I just greatly admire and respect, and I really am sorry to oppose his
amendment.
But, you know, the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Kennelly] was
here a few minutes ago on your side of the aisle. She talked about how
proud her son was to go and register for the draft, because it was the
law and it was his obligation as a U.S. citizen.
I had three sons. They did the same thing. You know, they represent
97 percent of all of the youth in America. And can you not be proud of
them? Ninety-seven percent of these young men have taken the
obligation, gone to the post office and registered with the draft,
because they wanted to do it for their country.
We need to be prepared. We depend on this all-volunteer military. It
is so terribly important today.
If you let 1 year go by and one group of 18-year-olds did not
register, you lose them forever. Our recruiters cannot find them to get
them back to offer them an honorable career in the military, $25,000
worth of Montgomery GI bill benefits to go to college. If you had five
kids, do you know how difficult it is to put them through college
today?
For goodness sakes, let us do what is right for the country, and
please defeat my good friend's amendment.
Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, to close debate on this side of the aisle,
I yield the remaining time to my distinguished colleague, the gentleman
from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank].
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I have rarely in this
Chamber heard arguments so little connected to the cause on which they
were theoretically being made. One speaker said nobody predicted the
war against Iraq. Probably nobody predicted it, but even rarer would be
trying to find someone who could tell us what the war in Iraq has to do
with selective service registration. In fact, the war in Iraq was over
very quickly. That illustrates why selective service registration is in
fact irrelevant.
Does anyone here think that Saddam Hussein was made more nervous by
the notion that 18-year-olds all over American had been to the post
office? Draft registration had zero connection. Draft registration is
irrelevant to today's fighting capability.
The gentleman from New York said, well, but if the 18-year-olds do
not register, we will lose a generation. What are we? In the ``Twilight
Zone''? A whole generation of 18-year-olds are going to disappear
because they did not write their name down at the post office?
If they wanted to disappear, they could do that whether they went
down to the post office or not. We have a wholly unnecessary expense,
and we also have one which, remember, perpetuates one of the most
invidious, sexually discriminatory things we have got.
The gentleman from New York said males have to register; the males
should be proud. What are the women? Chopped liver? Are the women to be
told that they are not to be proud? Do we want to reinforce that women
are irrelevant when it comes to serving their country?
What we have here is an outdated symbol that makes some people feel
better. If there are people who want to express their pride by writing
to the Government to say, ``Hello. I am 18,'' I would be in favor of
allowing them to do that. We could have a voluntary checkoff of draft
registration. But please do not argue that it has the slightest thing
to do with the defense of the United States.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Montgomery] has the
right to close debate.
Mr. MONTGOMERY. Mr. Chairman, I talked to the director of the
Selective Service System, Mr. Banister, on Friday to be sure that I had
my facts and statements correct. I talked to the Selective Service
director himself. He said if you stopped registration of 18-years-olds,
in 60 days after starting the registration back up again you could get
an 18-year-old in uniform but it would not be fair. The underprivileged
would be the ones that would be called up, as has happened in the past.
It does not make any sense to shut down the system. It is like a car
that you do not use for 2 years and then you go up and try to get it
started again. It does not work well.
The President of the United States, the Commander in Chief, says he
wants registration to continue.
The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, all time for debate has expired.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
California [Mr. Dellums].
The question was taken, and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
recorded vote
Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 125,
noes 273, not voting 40, as follows:
[Roll No. 192]
AYES--125
Andrews (ME)
Archer
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Borski
Brown (CA)
Brown (OH)
Camp
Cantwell
Cardin
Chapman
Clay
Clayton
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Coppersmith
Cox
Crane
DeFazio
DeLauro
DeLay
Dellums
Dingell
Dooley
Durbin
Edwards (CA)
English
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fazio
Filner
Ford (MI)
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Furse
Glickman
Gonzalez
Green
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hamburg
Hastings
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hoke
Inslee
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E.B.
Johnston
Kennedy
Kildee
Klug
Kreidler
Lambert
Leach
Lehman
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Long
Lowey
Maloney
Markey
McKinney
Meehan
Mfume
Miller (CA)
Miller (FL)
Minge
Mink
Mollohan
Murphy
Norton (DC)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Payne (NJ)
Pelosi
Penny
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Reynolds
Rohrabacher
Rostenkowski
Roth
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Schroeder
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sharp
Shays
Slaughter
Stark
Stokes
Strickland
Studds
Synar
Tucker
Underwood (GU)
Unsoeld
Upton
Valentine
Velazquez
Vento
Walker
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Wheat
Williams
Woolsey
Wyden
Wynn
Yates
Zimmer
NOES--273
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allard
Andrews (NJ)
Andrews (TX)
Applegate
Armey
Bacchus (FL)
Bachus (AL)
Baesler
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barca
Barcia
Bartlett
Barton
Bateman
Beilenson
Bentley
Bereuter
Berman
Bevill
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Boucher
Brewster
Brooks
Browder
Brown (FL)
Bryant
Bunning
Burton
Buyer
Byrne
Callahan
Calvert
Canady
Castle
Clement
Clyburn
Coble
Coleman
Collins (GA)
Combest
Condit
Cooper
Costello
Cramer
Crapo
Cunningham
Danner
Darden
de la Garza
de Lugo (VI)
Derrick
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dixon
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards (TX)
Ehlers
Emerson
Engel
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Fields (LA)
Fingerhut
Flake
Foglietta
Fowler
Franks (CT)
Frost
Gallegly
Gallo
Gejdenson
Gekas
Geren
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gingrich
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Grams
Greenwood
Gunderson
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hancock
Hansen
Harman
Hastert
Hayes
Hefley
Hefner
Herger
Hoagland
Hobson
Hochbrueckner
Hoekstra
Holden
Hoyer
Hughes
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hutto
Hyde
Inglis
Inhofe
Istook
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, Sam
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kennelly
Kim
King
Kingston
Klink
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kopetski
Kyl
LaFalce
Lancaster
Lantos
LaRocco
Laughlin
Lazio
Levy
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (FL)
Lightfoot
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
Lloyd
Lucas
Machtley
Mann
Manton
Manzullo
Martinez
Mazzoli
McCandless
McCloskey
McCollum
McCrery
McCurdy
McDade
McHale
McHugh
McKeon
McMillan
McNulty
Meek
Menendez
Meyers
Mica
Moakley
Molinari
Montgomery
Moorhead
Moran
Morella
Murtha
Myers
Neal (MA)
Neal (NC)
Nussle
Orton
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Parker
Pastor
Paxon
Payne (VA)
Peterson (FL)
Petri
Pickett
Pickle
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Pryce (OH)
Quillen
Quinn
Ramstad
Rangel
Ravenel
Reed
Regula
Richardson
Roberts
Roemer
Rogers
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Rowland
Sarpalius
Sawyer
Saxton
Schaefer
Schiff
Schumer
Shaw
Shepherd
Shuster
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (IA)
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Solomon
Spence
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Stump
Stupak
Swett
Swift
Talent
Tanner
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Tejeda
Thomas (CA)
Thomas (WY)
Thompson
Thornton
Thurman
Torkildsen
Torres
Torricelli
Traficant
Visclosky
Volkmer
Vucanovich
Walsh
Weldon
Whitten
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Young (AK)
Zeliff
NOT VOTING--40
Barlow
Blackwell
Carr
Clinger
Conyers
Coyne
Deal
Faleomavaega (AS)
Fields (TX)
Fish
Ford (TN)
Gephardt
Grandy
Horn
Houghton
Huffington
Johnson (SD)
Kleczka
Klein
Margolies-Mezvinsky
Matsui
McDermott
McInnis
Michel
Mineta
Nadler
Ortiz
Owens
Ridge
Romero-Barcelo (PR)
Rose
Sangmeister
Santorum
Schenk
Slattery
Snowe
Sundquist
Towns
Washington
Young (FL)
{time} 1921
The Clerk announced the following pairs:
On this vote:
Mr. Conyers for, with Mr. Deal against.
Mr. Kleczka for, with Mr. Johnson of South Dakota against.
Mr. Mineta for, with Mr. Clinger against.
Mr. GUTIERREZ changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The CHAIRMAN. If there are no further amendments, under this rule,
the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Moakley) having assumed the chair, Mr. Durbin, Chairman of the
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 4301) to
authorize appropriations for fiscal year 1995 for military activities
of the Department of Defense, to prescribe military personnel strengths
for fiscal year 1995, and for other purposes, had come to no resolution
thereon.
____________________