[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.

                          ____________________