Congressional Record, Volume 150 Issue 42 (Tuesday, March 30, 2004)

[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 42 (Tuesday, March 30, 2004)]
[House]
[Pages H1702-H1712]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

ROTC AND MILITARY RECRUITER EQUAL ACCESS TO CAMPUS ACT OF 2004

Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 580,
I call up the bill (H.R. 3966) to amend title 10, United States Code,
and the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to improve the ability of the
Department of Defense to establish and maintain Senior Reserve Officers
Training Corps units at institutions of higher education, to improve
the ability of students to participate in Senior ROTC programs, and to
ensure that institutions of higher education provide military
recruiters entry to campuses and access to students that is at least
equal in quality and scope to that provided to any other employer, and
ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ose). Pursuant to House Resolution 580,
the bill is considered read for amendment.
The text of H.R. 3966 is as follows:

H.R. 3966

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``ROTC and Military Recruiter
Equal Access to Campus Act of 2004''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress makes the following findings:
(1) The Reserve Officers Training Corps (ROTC) program is
the most common path for undergraduates to become United
States military officers.
(2) The inclusion of both public and private undergraduate
institutions in the ROTC program insures a more racially,
ethnically, and socially diverse pool for leadership in the
higher ranks of the Armed Forces.
(3) The majority of both minority officers and female
officers in the Armed Forces are acquired through
undergraduate ROTC programs.
(4) The presence of ROTC programs on college campuses
benefits even those students who are not enrolled by making
them aware of the presence and role of the United States
military.
(5) Land-grant colleges received land from the United
States on the condition that they offer some military
instruction in addition to their regular curriculum, forming
the basis for the Nation's tradition of college and
university acceptance of responsibility to contribute to the
Nation's readiness.
(6) The Armed Forces face a constant challenge in
recruiting top-quality personnel that ROTC programs are
ideally suited to meet.
(7) Military recruiters should have access to college
campuses and to college students equal in quality and scope
to that provided all other employers.
(8) If any college or university discriminates against ROTC
programs or military recruiters, then under current law that
college or university becomes ineligible for certain Federal
taxpayer support, especially funding for many military and
defense programs.
(9) The personnel and programs of the Department of
Homeland Security and the Department of Energy are mutually
dependent upon a high caliber of well-educated, professional
leadership in the Armed Forces in order to protect the people
and territory of the United States.
(10) In order to more fully promote the ability of the
Nation's Armed Forces to recruit on college campuses and to
facilitate the ability of students to participate in ROTC
programs on campus, the laws to prevent discrimination
against ROTC and military recruiters should be updated.

SEC. 3. PROHIBITION ON PROVISION OF HOMELAND SECURITY-RELATED
FUNDING TO POST-SECONDARY SCHOOLS THAT PREVENT
ROTC ACCESS OR MILITARY RECRUITING ON CAMPUS.

(a) In General.--The Homeland Security Act of 2002 (Public
Law 107-296; 6 U.S.C. 101 et seq.) is amended by adding at
the end the following new title:

``TITLE XVIII--ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS

``SEC. 1801. PROHIBITION OF FUNDS BEING PROVIDED TO
INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION THAT PREVENT
ROTC ACCESS OR MILITARY RECRUITING ON CAMPUS.

``No funds made available for the Department may be
provided by contract or by grant to an institution of higher
education (including any subelement of such institution)
that, by reason of a determination by the Secretary of
Defense under subsection (a) or (b) of section 983 of title
10, United States Code, is ineligible for the receipt of a
contract or grant from funds specified in subsection (d) of
that section.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents in section
1(b) of such Act is amended by adding at the end the
following new items:

[[Page H1703]]

``TITLE XVIII--ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS

``1801. Prohibition of funds being provided to institutions of higher
education that prevent ROTC access or military recruiting
on campus.''.

SEC. 4. CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH ROTC ACCESS
PROVISIONS.

Subsection (a) of section 983 of title 10, United States
Code, is amended--
(1) by inserting ``(1)'' before ``No funds'';
(2) by striking ``prevents--'' and inserting ``prevents,
either (or both) of the following:'';
(3) by striking ``(1) the'' and inserting ``(A) The'';
(4) by striking ``; or'' and inserting a period;
(5) by striking ``(2) a'' and inserting ``(B) A''; and
(6) by adding at the end the following:
``(2)(A) Not later than 180 days after the date of the
enactment of the ROTC and Military Recruiter Equal Access to
Campus Act of 2004 and annually thereafter, the Secretary of
Defense shall request from each institution of higher
education that has students participating in a Senior Reserve
Officer Training Corps program during the then-current
academic year of that institution a certification that such
institution, during the next academic year of the
institution, will--
``(i) permit the Secretary of each military department to
maintain a unit of the Senior Officer Training Corps (in
accordance with subsection (a)) at that institution (or any
subelement of that institution), should such Secretary elect
to maintain such a unit; and
``(ii) if the Secretary of the military department
concerned elects not to establish or maintain a unit of the
Senior Reserve Officer Training Corps at that institution,
permit a student of that institution (or any subelement of
that institution) to enroll in a unit of the Senior Reserve
Officer Training Corps at another institution of higher
education.
``(B) Any certification under subparagraph (A) shall be
made by the president of the institution (or equivalent
highest ranking administrative official) and shall be
submitted to the Secretary of Defense no later than 90 days
after receipt of the request from the Secretary.
``(C) In the case of any institution from which a
certification is requested under subparagraph (A), if the
Secretary of Defense does not receive a certification in
accordance with subparagraph (B), or if the certification
does not state that the university will comply with both
clauses (i) and (ii) of subparagraph (A) during its next
academic year, the Secretary shall make a determination under
paragraph (1) as to whether the institution has a policy or
practice described in that paragraph.''.

SEC. 5. EQUAL TREATMENT OF MILITARY RECRUITERS WITH OTHER
RECRUITERS.

Subsection (b)(1) of section 983 of title 10, United States
Code, is amended--
(1) by striking ``entry to campuses'' and inserting
``access to campuses''; and
(2) by inserting before the semicolon at the end the
following: ``in a manner that is at least equal in quality
and scope to the degree of access to campuses and to students
that is provided to any other employer''.

SEC. 6. PROHIBITION OF FUNDING FOR POST-SECONDARY SCHOOLS
THAT PREVENT ROTC ACCESS OR MILITARY
RECRUITING.

(a) Covered Funds.--Subsection (d) of section 983 of title
10, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)--
(A) by striking ``limitation established in subsection (a)
applies'' and inserting ``limitations established in
subsections (a) and (b) apply'';
(B) in subparagraph (B), by inserting ``for any department
or agency for which regular appropriations are made'' after
``made available''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following new subparagraphs:
``(C) Any funds made available for the Department of
Homeland Security.
``(D) Any funds made available for the National Nuclear
Security Administration of the Department of Energy.
``(E) Any funds made available for the Department of
Transportation.
``(F) Any funds made available for the Central Intelligence
Agency.''; and
(2) by striking paragraph (2).
(b) Conforming Amendments.--(1) Subsection (b) of such
section is amended by striking ``subsection (d)(2)'' and
inserting ``subsection (d)(1)''.
(2) Subsection (e) of such section is amended by inserting
``, to the head of each other department and agency the funds
of which are subject to the determination,'' after
``Secretary of Education''.

SEC. 7. EXCLUSION OF AMOUNTS TO COVER INDIVIDUAL PAYMENTS.

(a) Codification and Extension of Exclusion.--Subsection
(d) of section 983 of title 10, United States Code, as
amended by section 6(a), is further amended--
(1) by striking ``The'' after ``(1)'' and inserting
``Except as provided in paragraph (2), the''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(2) Any Federal funding specified in paragraph (1) that
is provided to an institution of higher education, or to an
individual, to be available solely for student financial
assistance, related administrative costs, or costs associated
with attendance, may be used for the purpose for which the
funding is provided.''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--Subsections (a) and (b) of such
section are amended by striking ``(including a grant of funds
to be available for student aid)''.
(c) Conforming Repeal of Codified Provision.--Section 8120
of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2000 (Public
Law 106-79; 10 U.S.C. 983 note), is repealed.

SEC. 8. EFFECTIVE DATE.

The amendments made by this Act shall apply with respect to
funds appropriated for fiscal year 2005 and thereafter.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The amendment printed in the bill is
adopted.
The text of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute is
as follows:

H.R. 3966

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``ROTC and Military Recruiter
Equal Access to Campus Act of 2004''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

SEC. 3. CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH ROTC ACCESS
PROVISIONS.

Subsection (a) of section 983 of title 10, United States
Code, is amended--
(1) by inserting ``(1)'' before ``No funds'';
(2) by striking ``prevents--'' and inserting ``prevents,
either (or both) of the following:'';
(3) by striking ``(1) the'' and inserting ``(A) The'';
(4) by striking ``; or'' and inserting a period;
(5) by striking ``(2) a'' and inserting ``(B) A''; and
(6) by adding at the end the following:
``(2)(A) Not later than 180 days after the date of the
enactment of the ROTC and Military Recruiter Equal Access to
Campus Act of 2004 and annually thereafter, the Secretary of
Defense shall request from each institution of higher
education that has students participating in a Senior
Reserve Officer Training Corps program during the then-
current academic year of that institution a certification
that such institution, during the next academic year of
the institution, will--
``(i) permit the Secretary of each military department to
maintain a unit of the Senior Officer Training Corps (in
accordance with subsection (a)) at that institution (or any
subelement of that institution), should such Secretary elect
to maintain such a unit; and
``(ii) if the Secretary of the military department
concerned elects not to establish or maintain a unit of the
Senior Reserve Officer Training Corps at that institution,
permit a student of that institution (or any subelement of
that institution) to enroll in a unit of the Senior Reserve
Officer Training Corps at another institution of higher
education.
``(B) Any certification under subparagraph (A) shall be
made by the president of the institution (or equivalent
highest ranking administrative official) and shall be
submitted to the Secretary of Defense no later than 90 days
after receipt of the request from the Secretary.
``(C) In the case of any institution from which a
certification is requested under subparagraph (A), if the
Secretary of Defense does not receive a certification in
accordance with subparagraph (B), or if the certification
does not state that the university will comply with both
clauses (i) and

[[Page H1704]]

(ii) of subparagraph (A) during its next academic year, the
Secretary shall make a determination under paragraph (1) as
to whether the institution has a policy or practice described
in that paragraph.''.

SEC. 4. EQUAL TREATMENT OF MILITARY RECRUITERS WITH OTHER
RECRUITERS.

SEC. 5. PROHIBITION OF FUNDING FOR POST-SECONDARY SCHOOLS
THAT PREVENT ROTC ACCESS OR MILITARY
RECRUITING.

SEC. 6. EXCLUSION OF AMOUNTS TO COVER INDIVIDUAL PAYMENTS.

(a) Codification and Extension of Exclusion.--Subsection
(d) of section 983 of title 10, United States Code, as
amended by section 5(a), is further amended--
(1) by striking ``The'' after ``(1)'' and inserting
``Except as provided in paragraph (2), the''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(2) Any Federal funding specified in paragraph (1) that
is provided to an institution of higher education, or to an
individual, to be available solely for student financial
assistance, related administrative costs, or costs associated
with attendance, may be used for the purpose for which the
funding is provided.''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--Subsections (a) and (b) of such
section are amended by striking ``(including a grant of funds
to be available for student aid)''.
(c) Conforming Repeal of Codified Provision.--Section 8120
of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2000 (Public
Law 106-79; 10 U.S.C. 983 note), is repealed.

SEC. 7. EFFECTIVE DATE.

The amendments made by this Act shall apply with respect to
funds appropriated for fiscal year 2005 and thereafter.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Rogers) and
the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Rogers).
Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such times I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3966, the ROTC and Military
Recruiter Equal Access to Campus Act of 2004. It is based on one simple
principle: Colleges and universities that accept Federal funding should
also be willing to permit military recruiters equal access to students
in ROTC scholarship programs.
Specifically, H.R. 3966 would first require colleges and universities
to give military recruiters access to campus and to students that is
equal to in quality and scope as that provided to any other private
employer.
Secondly, the bill would require an annual verification from colleges
and universities who already support ROTC programs that they will
continue to do so in the upcoming academic year.
Thirdly, it will add two additional defense-related funding sources,
the Central Intelligence Agency and the National Nuclear Security
Administration of the Department of Energy, to the potentially
prohibitive funding sources already specified in the law.
And, finally, it restores the Department of Transportation to the
list of funds that might be terminated. These were inadvertently left
out in the 2002 change in the law.
Mr. Speaker, I would also like to emphasize this bill does not in any
way disturb or interfere with Federal financial student financial aid.
This law is known as the Solomon amendment after its Congressman,
Gerry Solomon of New York, began this as a House amendment adopted in a
bipartisan vote in 1995.
The following year, Congress imposed the loss of DOD funding on
institutions of higher learning that had an anti-ROTC policy. That same
Congress added the Departments of Education, Labor, and Health and
Human Services to the list of potentially prohibited funding sources.
Then the Homeland Security Act of 2002 added funding from the
Department of Homeland Security to the list.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that now Congress must once again revisit this
law. Recently, barriers have been erected by some colleges and
universities to military recruiters having access to students on
campus, particularly in their law schools.
But what has really created a real sense of urgency for us to act now
is the recent court decision of Forum for Academic and Institutional
Rights, otherwise known as FAIR, versus Donald Rumsfeld. FAIR was a
consortium of an unknown number of anonymous law schools in this case.
In the U.S. District Court of New Jersey in September, 2003, the
plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction against the DOD from
enforcing Solomon.
In his opinion on November 5, 2003, the judge denied the motion and
upheld the constitutionality of the Solomon amendment, but he noted
that law schools are loathe to endorse or assist recruiting efforts of
the United States military, and he criticized the government's
assertion that the Solomon amendment requires colleges and universities
to give military recruiters access to campuses and students equal to
that given to recruiters from other employers.

{time} 1630

In response to the judge's ruling, the Secretary of Defense has asked
the Congress to clarify the Solomon amendment to state unequivocally
that the military should have the same equal access in scope and
quality to that of any other civilian employee.
H.R. 3699 will do just that. I urge support of the House.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume;
and I rise in support of this bill, the ROTC and Military Recruiter
Equal Access to Campus Act of 2004.
First, I want to recognize the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Rogers)
for his efforts to bring this measure to the floor, and we thank him
for that. While some of my colleagues may oppose this bill, I believe
it is important that Congress support efforts to ensure the military
recruiters have equal access to all post-secondary institutions of
higher learning, as well as law schools and graduate schools.
The propensity for young Americans to volunteer for military service,
as well as public service in general, has been declining; and we need
to ensure that our military is a reflection of our society, which means
that military recruiters need access to all young men and women,
including those who attend colleges as well as universities.
I want to take this opportunity to commend our Nation's military
recruiters. Recruiting duty is not for the faint of heart. Recruiters
often face long hours and demanding duty tracking down student
contacts, meeting with prospective candidates, meeting with their
families, traveling across the region to attend recruitment fairs and
other related activities. To succeed, they must always be available
wherever and whenever a prospective candidate may be. Recruiting is a
serious, stressful, and vital job in the military; and only the best
and brightest in these services are chosen in this capacity.
So we need to make every effort to ensure that military recruiters
are successful in their job because it directly affects our national
security. Tomorrow's military will be more high-tech, more
sophisticated, and more demanding than today's. So we need to recruit
bright and competent and knowledgeable people. We can only do this if
our military recruiters get fair and complete access to our college
campuses and to its students.

[[Page H1705]]

Thus, I urge my colleagues to support the bill and provide equal
access for military recruiters.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon), a member of the Committee on
Armed Services and a cosponsor of this bill.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Alabama (Mr.
Rogers) for yielding time and for his great leadership in bringing this
important bill to the floor.
Mr. Speaker, it goes without saying that military service is the
greatest form of duty and sacrifice that any American can have for
their country. The brave men and women of our Armed Forces selflessly
fight day in and day out to protect America from terror and tyranny
from every corner of this world. Military service is more than just a
job. It is a duty bound calling and every American should have the
opportunity to serve their country in this way if they so choose.
That is why it is so important to pass H.R. 3966 today. This bill
will give military and ROTC recruiters the opportunity to have the same
unencumbered recruitment ability as other prospective employers on
college campuses. For too long, military recruiters have been treated
like second-class citizens on some college campuses and have been
subjected to undue obstacles that no other recruiters have had to
endure.
Some colleges and universities, for example, have required military
recruiters to set up their recruitment tables off campus, while
allowing other employers to recruit on campus. On other college
campuses, ROTC recruiters were only given the option of using remote
and inaccessible rooms for their recruitment, significantly reducing
their ability to reach students. Shockingly, at one of the most
prestigious colleges in this country, New York University, potential
recruits were harassed and detained by protestors; and their pictures
were displayed throughout the school on a poster entitled ``Face of
Complicity.'' This is absolutely unacceptable, and that kind of
behavior cannot happen again.
Mr. Speaker, our Nation is involved in a global war on terror, and we
must have the best and the brightest working on our side to win. Our
college campuses are filled with the next Norman Schwarzkopfs and Colin
Powells, and we must give them the chance to fulfill their full
potential as Americans.
I urge my colleagues to join me in passing H.R. 3966.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Woolsey).
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, today we are debating a bill which at first
appears to be fairly straightforward. H.R. 3966 would seem to provide
the military recruiters the same access to college and university
campuses that other government agencies and private companies are
receiving, but the reality is that this bill is not about equal access.
It is about discrimination, pure and simple.
If H.R. 3966 passes, then colleges and universities that otherwise
adhere to strict antidiscrimination policies will be forced to allow
organizations like ROTC to openly discriminate against gays, lesbian
and bisexual men and women. The flawed ``Don't ask, Don't tell'' policy
that the military has adopted allows the military to discharge any
serviceman or servicewoman who is determined not to be straight. In no
other field can someone be fired simply for being gay.
H.R. 3966 is nothing short of an open and codified policy of
intolerance, intolerance against homosexuals, for the reason of their
sexual orientation. Until the incredibly unjust ``Don't ask, Don't
tell'' policy is drastically altered, bills like H.R. 3966 will
continue to allow for the open discrimination against one group of
Americans.
The truth is that H.R. 3966 would unfairly punish those universities
who are bold enough to apply the same rules to military recruiters as
they do to all other employers, employers who are recruiting on their
campuses.
I will vote against H.R. 3966.
Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), a distinguished member of
the Committee on Appropriations.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the gentleman from
Alabama (Mr. Rogers) and also my friend, the gentleman from Missouri
(Mr. Skelton), who I have the utmost respect for, and he knows that.
This is not an issue of homosexuality. It is not an issue that a lot
of my left wing friends talk about, but every day they will stand up on
this House floor and say I am for the troops. Of course, everybody is;
but yet they vote against defense bills, they vote against intelligence
bills, and they also vote against or for every amendment that would gut
both military and defense.
We have an all-voluntary force, and to allow access on to our
campuses is a good thing. I do not know about my colleagues; but when I
see a young man or woman walking the streets, especially around D.C.
here, I see pride. I see pride in service and support of this country,
and they represent the same thing on our colleges and our universities;
but, yet, there is still those that would block that using a whole host
of examples of why not to do it.
This ends a form of discrimination and restriction on free exchange
of ideas and opportunities. I cannot tell my colleagues the number of
people that I served with, young Filipinos, earning their citizenship
by serving on ships, young men and women in minorities that come from
our inner cities that normally would not have a chance to achieve. Many
of those people have learned their discipline and their leadership
skills from the military where they would not otherwise have had a
chance. They would end up in a low-paying job or on welfare or
whatever. It is a great opportunity, and we ought to let this
opportunity have some light and have equal representation on our
campuses.
That is why we are standing here. That is why my friend, the
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), and most of the Members on both
sides of this aisle are here; but yet the liberal left will fight it
tooth, hook and nail, just like they vote against defense and they vote
against Intel and then say we are for the troops.
Well, there is a line. Patriotism is unchanging and a work that has
to be taken every single day. I want to thank my friends for supporting
this bill.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
First, let me say I thank the gentleman from California for his kind
and generous comments, who wore the uniform so well, not only brought
distinction to himself but to our country, and we thank him for his
service.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts
(Mr. Frank).
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I agree that being able to
serve in the military is an important opportunity. I am here opposing
this bill because I want to expand that opportunity.
This is not a bill brought forward because the military is having
trouble recruiting on campuses. It is brought forward to penalize those
universities which have said, look, as a matter of principle we do not
want you recruiting among our students if they are not all equally able
to take advantage of the opportunity offered. Obviously, there are some
things for which you recruit, some people are physically or otherwise
ineligible, but universities have said we do not believe that ruling
out gay and lesbian young people who would like to join the military is
fair to them, and we certainly do not think you should come to our
campus and use our facilities and discriminate in a way that we think
is unfair among our students.
I agree very much that we should be doing all we can to get people
into the military. I will repeat what I said a little while ago,
repetition being one of the privileges of our profession.
We have fewer Arabic-speaking translators in the military today
because of the policy which kicked out a number of people at the Army
language school because they were discovered to be gay. These were
people who would, if they had not been kicked out some time ago, been
available today to do that important job of translation. I am talking
about seven people who were learning Arabic who would today be
available in a greatly needed theater.

[[Page H1706]]

So, no, there is nothing antimilitary about people saying, look, this
is a wonderful institution; yes, the ability to serve your country and
its uniform is a very important one; please do not deny it to us on an
irrelevant basis. Do not say because of the way we were born and
because of our inherent natures we cannot participate in this.
I cite that because I have heard all the leaders in the military from
Colin Powell on since this has been discussed say, look, it is not that
the gay and lesbian members of the military do a bad job. There is
prejudice in this society. There are people who are uncomfortable in
their presence, and we have to honor that argument as well. It is bad
for morale.
Of course, the Israeli Defense Force is not being able to afford the
luxury of discrimination. They have mobilized all of their people,
including gays and lesbian people, and no one has suggested that they
are an ineffective fighting force or have inappropriate morale.
So I would very much like to agree with the principle that we should
expand opportunities for young people, that we should increase our
ability to recruit. The way to do that is to change the policy, and we
should not be penalizing those institutions which, as a matter of
principle, are working for a change in that policy.
Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King), a member of the Committee on the
Judiciary and a cosponsor of H.R. 3966.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, initially I would like to thank the
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Rogers) for bringing this bill before us.
It is something I have looked at for some time, and it is something
that I certainly support.
It would be my endeavor to bring individual amendments to the
appropriations process if we needed to in order to reestablish the pre-
eminence of the military on our campuses across this country.
This is something that started back in the 1970s as part of the
protests against the Vietnam War; and, slowly, this kind of policy that
has been a resistant to recruitment and ROTC on our campuses across
this country has used every tool available.
Well, I want to announce that this is about discrimination, this
issue is; but it is about discrimination against young men and women in
uniform. Whenever somebody stands up in a uniform, we will find
somebody with another agenda trying to find a way to erode the values
that put them in that place; and so the argument was made, for example,
the Boy Scouts would be one, and of course, all our men and women in
uniform in the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines and the Coast Guard
are also victims of an effort that is keeping us from recruiting good
people because the campuses have lined up against the recruitment on
campus.
I look forward to the day that ROTC or any recruiter can set up a
card table on the commons at Harvard University on the exact location
where George Washington received his commission as commander of the
Continental Army. I find that a real offense to the United States, not
to have the freedom to do that and to promote it.
A statement was made by the gentlewoman earlier that in no other
field can a person be fired for being gay. Well, no, probably not; but
most people in this country are at-will employees, and they can be
fired for no reason or any reason at all.
It is not a matter about open discrimination.

{time} 1645

I would like to relate a little story, Mr. Speaker.
State Senator Jerry Behn from Iowa asked the question, when lobbied
by the gay lobby, answer me this: Am I heterosexual or am I homosexual?
They looked at him for a while and they said, well, we do not know.
That is the answer. You cannot tell. Keep it private.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus), who is also a cosponsor of this
piece of legislation.
Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
First of all, I want to express my respect for my colleague, the
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Rogers), for bringing this legislation to
the floor.
I will say this. It is a sad commentary on our time when we even have
to have legislation like this. You would not really think in a country
that is at war, and we are at war, with soldiers in the field, young
men and women risking their lives every day, that such disrespect would
be shown to them by men and women their own age.
My son is a Marine. I cannot imagine him being assigned to a college,
a university. He has actually left college to go in the Marines. I
cannot imagine him coming home from the sacrifice he has made, going on
to that college campus and seeing young men and women who, while he was
serving in the Marines, were enjoying their college education because
he and other young men and women sacrificed for them and served in
their place.
The gentlewoman, who I respect from the San Francisco Bay area, and
the gentleman from Massachusetts, who I respect, they both said this is
about discrimination. I think the gentleman from Iowa said it best when
he said it is about discrimination, but it is about discrimination
against our military and those that serve in our uniform.
Let us not involve our young men and women who are risking their
lives every day. Let us not involve them in some policy discussion. Let
us not endanger their lives and the lives of those who serve next to
them in this debate.
If law students want to debate this issue, if they want to write in
the paper, that is one thing, but when they block military recruiters,
as they have done, it is time for us to end this foolishness. It is our
responsibility as a Congress. Support this legislation.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey), a distinguished member of the
Committee on Armed Services and also a cosponsor of this legislation.
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Alabama for
yielding me this time and for bringing this bill, H.R. 3966, before us
today.
Mr. Speaker, I am in strong support of H.R. 3966, which would require
that colleges and universities give military recruiters the same access
to students as other employers.
We as a Nation depend on the brave service of our military to protect
our homeland, but do we honestly think that we are going to recruit the
best and the brightest young men and women to serve if their schools
are not even letting recruiters in the door? And that, Mr. Speaker, is
exactly what is happening. That is why we need this bill.
Mr. Speaker, we rely on an all-voluntary force, which means that
students choose whether or not to serve in the military or to pursue a
civilian career. I hope that we can all agree that for our safety and
the safety of our children and our grandchildren we want to have the
smartest and the most capable military possible. But, remarkably, some
schools choose to leave military recruiters out in the cold. Mr.
Speaker, H.R. 3966 will serve to right this terrible policy of
excluding military recruiters from our campuses.
Again, I commend the chairman, I commend the gentleman from Alabama
(Mr. Rogers), and I rise in 100 percent support of it, and I hope we
have bipartisan support and pass H.R. 3966.
Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Cox), Chairman of the Select Committee
on Homeland Security and an original cosponsor of H.R. 3966.
Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the author of this legislation,
the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Rogers), for his strong leadership
needed at this time; and I also want to thank my friend and colleague,
the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), for his leadership on this
issue.
It is very important that we move this legislation forward because it
squarely addresses the scandal of American colleges and universities
banishing ROTC and military recruiters from campus, while turning
around

[[Page H1707]]

and cashing the taxpayers' checks from the Department of Defense and
other national security and homeland security agencies of our
government to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars.
My alma mater, Harvard University, which bans ROTC from campus, gets
more money in Federal taxpayer grants than it does from tuition for
undergraduates and graduates combined, and yet Harvard University sends
its hard core, a very small number of hearty brave students, down the
road to MIT where they have to do their MIT-based ROTC training because
they cannot be on campus. They do not meet Harvard standards because
they want to affiliate themselves with the United States military.
The attacks on America, on the World Trade Center and on the Pentagon
should have been a wake-up call to schools such as Harvard, which
banished ROTC from campus 35 years ago. There is now a feeble pretext
for this military ban on America's elite campuses. It is alleged that
it is a protest against the Clinton administration's ``don't ask/don't
tell policy'' for gays in the military. I find that exceptionally hard
to believe, because no mention was made of this problem in 1969 when
the ban was put in place.
I was on Harvard's campus during the Vietnam War. I remember when
South Vietnam fell to the Communists, and I saw the biggest
demonstration that I had seen yet on Harvard's campus, with students
out in the streets chanting, ``Ho, ho, Ho Chi Minh, the Vietcong are
going to win.'' That is where this ban came from.
It has been a long time since the Vietnam War, John Kerry
notwithstanding; and it is high time that we recognize what happened to
us on September 11, that we recognize that it was U.S. troops who were
defending the Harvard students at Logan Airport in the hours after the
9/11 attacks. And, of course, Boston's Logan Airport was one of the
staging airports for the 9/11 attacks on this country.
As our Nation wages an aggressive campaign to defeat global
terrorism, President Kennedy's call to young people to ``ask what you
can do for your country'' is more important than ever. America's armed
forces are hunting down al Qaeda and other supporters of terrorism in
Afghanistan, in Iraq, and on every continent around the globe. Never in
recent history have we asked more from our Armed Forces, and never have
we needed more educated leaders in our armed services.
The best contribution Harvard could make, the best contribution Yale
could make, the best contribution that Stamford and Columbia could make
to sound, wise policies in our Nation's military is to permit their
graduates to enter into leadership posts there. But even a Harvard
alum, who is a military recruiter, cannot go on campus to do it.
Now I have heard this is not really about the military, that this is
a punitive measure aimed at the colleges themselves. But the military
did not start this fight; and, in fact, look at what the universities'
policies have accomplished over the last several decades.
In 1964, there were 268,000 ROTC students on America's campuses.
Today, it is down to 50,000, a decline of more than 80 percent.
The military is being hurt by these policies, and America is being
hurt by these policies. Today, successful recruitment of exceptional
officers depends more heavily than ever on the Reserve Officers
Training Corps. This past year, 70 percent of the Army's newly
commissioned officers came from ROTC.
As chairman of the Select Committee on Homeland Security, I have been
deeply gratified and humbled as I have seen how many of America's best
and brightest have been willing to volunteer in service to their
country in the fight against terrorism, both through ROTC and through
choosing a career in the military upon graduation. But many of these
same schools that are banning ROTC on campus are also banning even
military recruiters from coming to campus.
The premise of this bill is a simple one: Colleges that discriminate
against the United States Armed Services should not receive U.S.
taxpayer funds related to national defense and homeland security. The
bill will stop the current abusive practice under which schools ban
ROTC and military recruiting but then turn around and cash enormous
checks from the Department of Defense and the Department of Homeland
Security. It will require they certify that they do not discriminate
and that they will permit ROTC recruiters and ROTC training programs on
campus.
Today, as our Nation calls for able new leaders in the war on terror,
it is time for our universities and our colleges in America to honor
that call and help lead our Nation.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Rogers) for
bringing this important legislation to the floor.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie).
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I think it is unfortunate that the
discussion here has gone off in directions about what constitutes
patriotism or what constitutes the proper recognition of the defense of
democracy, because that is how all this argument started.
Mr. Speaker, I want to indicate to the Members that this issue
deserves a full discussion and not just on the floor. We would not be
here and there would not be a motion to recommit, which will be made
shortly, I can assure you, if we had a full discussion about this and
then had gone, probably where it should have gone, to the Committee on
the Judiciary, if it needed to go at all, or a decision could have been
made as to whether that was the proper venue.
I, too, can have recollections about what happened during Vietnam. I
daresay that a lot of people on the floor, Members of this Congress,
were not involved in any of that. I know what the first amendment is
all about, and I do not think the first amendment says that the
Secretary of Defense gets to decide what other people get to say or do
in this country under threat of some kind of sanction. To the degree or
extent that someone is prevented access that they are entitled to, they
have recourse in the courts. That is what we do in a democracy.
I do not notice that it is our job, certainly not in the Committee on
Armed Services, to turn over to the Secretary of Defense, any Secretary
of Defense, the opportunity to be a prosecutor and a judge and a jury
and a sheriff all at the same time.
Now, the facts are, as to the origin of this argument today, that
there apparently have been instances in which people disagreed,
apparently in some law schools in particular, disagreed with the
``don't ask/don't tell policy'' of the United States Armed Forces. This
has nothing to do with what people said or did not say about the
Vietnam War. It has nothing to do with what any particular Member's
view of that American involvement in the Vietnam war was, let alone the
war on terror or anything else. What it has to do is with the present
policy, whether you agree with it or not, with the armed services.
Now, if the Armed Services say they want equal access, what was being
said apparently by the people at these various schools was that they
did not have equal access to being able to join the Armed Services or
the Department of Homeland Security, I suppose, or the CIA. Now that
needs to be discussed, and it is not going to be discussed in 3 minutes
or 5 minutes or 2 minutes here on the floor. It is not even going to
come up.
Now I could not find the proper way to make a motion to try to get
this before the Committee on the Judiciary so we could have a
discussion on what the proper sanctions might be, if they were needed
at all, with respect to gaining access for the ROTC or anybody else
that want to recruit. I am in favor of that. Those of us who oppose
this bill are in favor of it.

{time} 1700

I resent on proper grounds here in the House being categorized as
someone who somehow wants to thwart the war on terrorism or does not
have the correct view on the Vietnam War because I am trying to defend
the first amendment and because I would like to see these discussions
held in a manner and in a place and in a venue which is appropriate to
the circumstances. We need to talk about such issues as to whether
everybody in this country is going to be treated equally with respect
to being able to join the military

[[Page H1708]]

or participate in the Department of Homeland Security or defend our
security interests through the CIA and whether they can be hired on the
basis of their ability and what they have to offer rather than on what
they look like or what their sexual orientation is or anything else.
This is not the bill to do it, and it is certainly not the Secretary of
Defense who should be doing it.
So what I am asking here is that the Members try to exercise some
common sense, some common legislative sense, give us an opportunity to
take up this serious issue, which does need addressing, and address it
in a manner that will resolve it under constitutional methodology that
is worthy of this body.
Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Cox).
Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, I thank the author of the bill for yielding me
this time.
Just to respond to the preceding speaker, the gentleman from Hawaii,
this is not about telling people what to think or what to say. It is
about giving students freedom of choice. This is all about whether or
not students have access on campus. At Harvard, the undergraduate
council voted overwhelmingly to invite ROTC back on to campus, but the
school has taken no action. So it is the students who are being
shortchanged.
As to whether this is completely unrelated to Vietnam, I will state
that that is just wrong as a matter of fact. This ban at Harvard
University, where I am a former member of the faculty, I am reasonably
familiar with this, and a graduate of two schools at Harvard, in 1969
at Harvard, the faculty voted to ban the military from campus in
protest to the Vietnam War and that ban has been in place ever since.
My contention is that 9/11 should serve as a wakeup call, welcome to
the 21st century. Let us revisit this, and get it back to where it
belongs.
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. COX. I yield to the gentleman from Hawaii.
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. I do not dispute that. We did not dispute it in
committee. When the issue was raised in committee, what I said is that
this issue does need to be resolved so that access is possible, ``Is
this the best way to do it?'' Inasmuch as we had to make a decision on
the spot, my contention was, and I believe many of us who are forced
now, we are forced because the bill is on the floor under a closed
rule, I have no choice but to try and oppose it.
Mr. COX. I appreciate the gentleman's point, and reclaiming what
little time I have, I will just say simply that we have students who
are going to graduate. This has been going on for some years. 9/11 was
a few years ago. At Yale where the school is happy to cash the ROTC
scholarship checks, the Yale students have to travel 75 miles to the
University of Connecticut and then 75 miles back, 150-mile round trip,
they have to do this three times a week. It is an extraordinary burden
to place just so that the university can make a point that joining the
military is not what we want our students to do.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie).
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I accept everything that the gentleman
just said. It is making my point. The reason this bill is on the floor
is because the courts ruled that the Secretary of Defense had no basis
for making this decision. That is the reason the bill is on the floor.
I realize a lot of Members and their staffs are listening to this
discussion in their offices, and they cannot be on the floor because
they have other duties; but I am asking them to pay attention to why
the bill is on the floor. This bill gives the Secretary of Defense the
basis. We are creating another problem instead of solving the problem
which is really before us, which is access for ROTC and/or military and
other recruiters. If Harvard or any other school is preventing them
from coming on, is there no access to the courts? You mean no law
exists in the United States to allow people to have proper access? Of
course it exists.
The reason for this bill is to make the Secretary of Defense the
arbiter of how this is going to take place, even up to the point of
getting certification from the school that the Secretary of Defense is
satisfied that equal access, et cetera, is going to be provided.
My point is that we are doing this all wrong. If we really want to
solve this issue of openness and access and discussion that needs to be
taking place and to have the ROTC or the CIA or the Homeland Security
Department or whoever it is have access and dialogue and discussion on
a civilized basis as to how it should take place, that is available to
us. This is not the way to do it. This bill merely enables the
Secretary of Defense to be judge and jury over that process, and it
will generate a whole new slew of lawsuits that will not solve the
question nor even address the question that is before us as to how do
we achieve this access. I want that access.
I think it is very unfortunate that the bill is being posited to the
body in such a manner that those of us who oppose it seem to be in
favor of terrorism or approving arbitrary dislocation of legitimate
endeavors to recruit for the ROTC or anybody else. That is not true. On
the contrary, I raised the issue in the Committee on Armed Services
precisely on the point that I am a libertarian on the issue of free
speech and access, and I believe everybody should engage in dialogue
and confrontation of the issues in a positive way that gives everybody
a chance.
The reason the argument takes place in the first place is that people
who are defending those who are prevented from having access to the
armed services, apparently those who are gay or lesbian or transgender
or whatever other category we are getting into these days, I cannot
keep up with every permutation that apparently exists in terms of
gender and sexual orientation, but that is not a reason to make the
Secretary of Defense the arbiter of it. I do not think, despite his
great wit and great perception and depth of interest in world history
and events, that the Secretary of Defense is necessarily up on all the
latest in transgender fashions. And so I do not think that this is a
proper forum nor a proper venue to try and resolve this issue.
My request, Mr. Speaker, of the body is that we give a chance for a
motion to recommit to be made so that we can address the issue of
access as opposed to addressing the issue which the bill moves toward
giving a basis for the Secretary of Defense to make this decision. Let
us not confuse the access apple with the orange of the first amendment
of the Constitution.
Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), chairman of the
Committee on Armed Services.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for his
sponsorship of this bill and also the gentleman from California (Mr.
Cox) for doing so much work on it, but also just to comment that this
is not just for the recruiters, that people go to institutions of
higher education to avail themselves of thousands of choices for career
paths. As we think about the officer corps that is performing right now
in theater in Iraq, for example, and we look at the leadership which
not only has fought a war and now is working an occupation but is also
standing up governments, people who have never talked, who have never
voted together, who have never worked things out in a peaceful fashion,
bringing them together and standing up governments and introducing the
idea of democracy to those who have not entertained it before, that is
an exciting occupation. Bringing the prospects for that occupation to
be a leader in the Armed Forces of the United States, to be what most
American citizens feel are our finest citizens, is a great opportunity.
This bill, the Rogers bill, will ensure that those people have that
choice. I thank the gentleman for bringing it up.
Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor).
(Mr. CANTOR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the gentleman from
Alabama. I rise in support of H.R. 3966. This bill is about the war on
terror. It is about the obligation that we have to sustain a viable
Armed Forces. It is my understanding that the judge in the

[[Page H1709]]

FAIR case did not disagree with the Secretary of Defense's obligation
to build up our Armed Forces and did not disagree that there should be
equal access and treatment of our recruiters, but I think that the
findings were that there was not explicit statutory direction or
authorization to do so, and that is why we are here.
As the gentleman from California previously stated, this is about
abandoning the Vietnam-era rejection of the values associated with
service in the military. I find it ironic. There is a lot of discussion
today on the floor about these institutions of higher learning that
enjoy such a worldwide reputation and a lot of talk about their
enjoyment of their freedom of expression and protection of free speech,
and at the same time what they are doing is trying to advocate a
specific position and denying choice to our students. I commend the
gentleman and urge the passage of this bill.
Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson).
Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, it is an honor for me to
be here today with the gentleman from Alabama. I appreciate very much
his leadership to promote the ROTC and Military Recruiter Equal Access
to Campus Act of 2004. I have heard the comments by the distinguished
chairman of the Committee on Armed Services, the gentleman from
California; and I agree with him that this is about providing choices.
It is also about providing opportunities.
I know firsthand. I had the opportunity to experience a career of 4
years of ROTC at Washington & Lee University in Lexington, Virginia.
From that it led to my ability to serve in the National Guard for 31
years. I am very grateful for what ROTC did for me. Additionally, my
oldest son is a graduate of Francis Marion University in Florence,
South Carolina, ROTC. He went on to law school and now is serving in
Iraq. I am very proud of his service because of ROTC and the
opportunities it has provided. And in 5 weeks I am looking forward to
attending the graduation of my third son from Clemson University. He is
in Army ROTC, as one might expect. I am just really proud of his
service and the opportunities that he will have to serve in the
military.
I also am aware of opportunities for minorities in the State of South
Carolina. A classic case is someone who is known here in Congress,
General Abe Turner. General Turner is a graduate of South Carolina
State University, which is one of our historically black colleges which
is very distinguished. I was with General Turner. He is now the
commanding general of Fort Jackson in South Carolina. These are
opportunities that have been provided to young people to go to college
and have the ROTC experience.
Finally, I want to point out that particularly for law schools, I
think it is important to have access. I served in the Judge Advocate
General Corps for 29 years. There is no better way to get trial
experience, to learn about the law and the laws of the United States
than to serve in the JAG Corps. I urge that this bill be passed, that
indeed we have access for law schools. I am just grateful for this and
urge my colleagues to support this act for ROTC recruitment.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan), who is a member of the Committee on Armed
Services.
Mr. MEEHAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, this bill was rammed through the Committee on Armed
Services 2 weeks ago without a single hearing. Without a single
hearing. I guess it should not be a surprise because it seems that time
and time again the leadership has forced votes on the floor without
holding committee hearings. We did not have a committee hearing on the
bill with the Medicare prescription drug language that came before this
Congress, so I guess it should not be a surprise that we did not have a
hearing on this particular piece of legislation.
This bill is designed to force universities to violate their own
policies against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and
will undermine pending lawsuits that challenge the so-called Solomon
amendment.
We all strongly support efforts of the United States military to
recruit on our Nation's campuses, especially in a time of war. But the
gentleman from Alabama would agree at the time that we debated this in
committee, only one educational institution in the country was brought
before us that denies access to military recruiters and that school
received no Federal funding to begin with. Furthermore, every campus on
which the Department of Defense elects to have ROTC currently has an
ROTC presence.

{time} 1715

This is because universities are already forced to compromise their
nondiscrimination policies in order to receive most of the Federal
funding they compete to obtain under the Solomon amendment.
So why are we introducing a bill that would broadly expand the
prohibition on Federal funding to schools that do not allow access to
military recruiters when only one institution, at least at the time
that we dealt with this bill that was available, that prohibited this?
I have serious concerns about restricting additional funding such as
grants for homeland security, intelligence programs to universities,
particularly when the authority to define ``equal access'' lies solely
in the hands of the Secretary of Defense.
This bill is a drastic solution to a problem that I do not think even
exists. In fact, there is no crisis in military recruiting on student
campuses or anywhere else in the country. The Defense Department has
reported to our committee that they are exceeding all of its
recruitment and retention goals in each of the active duty services
since 2001 and is actively downsizing certain specialties requiring
advanced degrees.
In 2003, the Army surpassed its recruiting objectives for new
contracts by 9.1 percent and new recruits by 0.4 percent, while the
quality of new recruits have increased dramatically.
So if we are going to pass such a drastic piece of legislation, it
seems to me we should at least have a hearing, have an opportunity to
debate. I thought the gentleman from Hawaii said it best in committee.
It is like trying to deal with a little problem of a fly with a
sledgehammer. It does not make any sense. We should send this bill back
into the committee and have a hearing on it and discuss these issues so
that we know what the consequences of the language in this bill are.
Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for
time, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
This bill attempts to correct a situation wherein a military ROTC
recruiter seeking access would, in essence, be sent to the basement or
to another building where corporations such as General Motors and the
like recruiting would have the first floor and easy availability to the
young Americans. So I do support this bill, and I intend to vote in
favor thereof.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the ROTC Campus
Access Act. This bill is wrong. It isn't about promoting military
recruiting, its about punishing institutions that promote equal access
to opportunity.
The fact is this bill will prohibit colleges and universities from
applying their same non-discrimination policies to the military that
they apply to other employers. And, if they try to do so, it will bar
them from receiving federal funding.
Passage of this legislation is not only wrong, it's unnecessary.
Current law already provides the federal government the ability to deny
federal funding to colleges and universities that refuse to allow
military recruiters or ROTC programs access to their campuses.
This bill takes that law a step further by requiring that such access
be equal to the access provided to other potential employers seeking to
recruit new employees on college campuses.
The problem with taking this extra step is that it would require many
colleges and universities to explicitly ignore their own non-
discrimination policies or lose their federal funding.
Many colleges and universities require employers to sign a non-
discrimination pledge before they recruit on campus. That means
employers cannot discriminate against prospective employees on many
bases--including sexual orientation. Yet, our Military's ``don't ask,
don't tell'' policy is straight-forward discrimination and in direct
conflict with college policies of this nature.
If this bill becomes law, and a college or university attempted to
downplay the

[[Page H1710]]

prominence of the ROTC recruiting effort by placing them in a not-so-
central location for their recruiting efforts, they could lose all
federal funding. This is draconian, extreme, and wrong.
We ought to be voting today to overturn the military's don't ask
don't tell policy and instituting a policy that prohibits
discrimination based on sexual orientation. But, this Congress is
unwilling to take the right step. They're putting the wrong foot
forward on this one.
I urge my colleagues to join me in standing up to oppose
discrimination and vote ``no'' on this bill.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I voted against this legislation as it
does not seem fair to cut off federal funds to institutions that have
policies against allowing recruiters on campus from employers that have
an open policy of discrimination. We should not be punishing
universities that have legitimate policy differences. As long as the
military continues its ill-advised policy of prohibiting service by
openly gay members (although it's interesting that, in times of war,
gays and lesbians are considered valuable to our country and not forced
out of the military) we should not force them to break their non-
discrimination policies for the military.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this
measure, which shows our Nation's unwavering commitment to both higher
education and providing a strong national defense. At no time in recent
memory has the United States placed more responsibility on our men and
women in uniform. We are fighting a war on terrorism on multiple
fronts, in Afghanistan and Iraq, and it is essential, if we are to be
victorious in defending our freedom and protecting our homeland, that
we promote military service as an option to college students across the
U.S.
It is important to acknowledge that when this Congress passed, and
President Bush signed into law, the No Child Left Behind Act, the bill
made it easier for military recruiters to inform America's high school
students about their options to serve their country, while also giving
parents a choice about whether or not they want their sons and
daughters to be contacted individually by military recruiters.
Now, in the ROTC and Military Recruiter Equal Access to Campus Act,
again we are giving choices to institutions of higher education. The
Solomon Act, passed in 1996, grants the Secretary of Defense power to
deny federal funding to institutions of higher learning if they
prohibit or prevent ROTC or military recruitment on campus. This law
recognizes the importance of having a capable, educated and well-
prepared military--one that is ready to defend American liberties such
as freedom of speech and higher education.
As the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Isakson) and I wrote in a letter
to colleagues last year, if we deny armed forces recruiters the
opportunity to actively recruit in schools, we not only disrespect the
sacrifices of military men and women who have made our freedom
possible--we also rob our students of the valuable opportunities that
military service to our Nation can provide. There is no reason to not
allow our Nation's armed forces to make their best case to college
students and to do so in the same fashion as many of the private sector
employers colleges and universities seem to relish having on campus
with equivocation.

Denial of access and equality to ROTC chapters and military
recruiters by colleges that receive federal funds is an insult to the
taxpayers in our 50 states who help subsidize higher education in this
country. Many nations have mandatory military service for their
citizens. We don't. The very core of our system of homeland security
and national defense depends on young men and women deciding, on their
own volition, that they wish to serve their country. Successful
recruitment of the best officers in our military relies heavily on the
Reserve Officer Training Corps.
In 2003, ROTC produced 70 percent of the newly-commissioned officers
who entered the U.S. Army, allowing military recruiters to be barred
from federally-funded campuses could have direct consequences for our
national security. As the UCLAW Veterans Society said in a recent legal
brief: ``A shortage of military lawyers would affect military
commanders' ability to train their soldiers on the law of war,'' and
``a lack of military lawyers could increase the likelihood of law of
war violations soldiers and unacceptable civilian collateral damage
during military operations.''
This measure should not be politicized. It is straight-forward and
benefits both our students and armed forces. H.R. 3966 does not violate
a college's Constitutional rights to free speech or protest. Congress
doesn't force colleges and universities to accept federal funding. If
an institution of higher-learning wishes to bar ROTC chapters from
forming or military recruiters from recruiting, it is free to do so--
but it should not expect that decision to be endorsed and subsidized by
the taxpayers of the United States. This legislation reaffirms our
commitment to that principle. I commend the gentleman from Alabama (Mr.
Rogers) for offering it, and I urge my colleagues to join me in
supporting it.
Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, the bill we are debating today, H.R. 3966,
purports to provide military recruiters entry to college campuses, and
access to students that is equal to what any other employer has.
However, the military is actually seeking special access that is not
afforded to other employers that practice discrimination based on
sexual orientation.
Equality was not a concern for the military in 2002 when they
discharged 16 Arabic linguists from the Defense Language Institute in
my district. Despite the high demand for Arab linguists, the military
discriminated against these service members based on nothing more than
their sexual orientation.
Schools should not be forced to choose between federal funding and
their commitment not to endorse discrimination. The schools' standards
of non-discrimination should apply to any organization, be it private
sector or public that is seeking access to a campus and its students.
One of the Congressional findings that is incorporated in this bill
states that ``the presence of ROTC programs on college campuses
benefits even those students who are not enrolled by making them aware
of the presence and role of the United States military.''
I wonder what the benefit is to the gay and lesbian students whose
talents and skills are utterly disregarded by the military, simply
because of their sexual orientation.
I encourage all of my colleagues to vote against this bill and for
true equality.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my
time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bass). All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 580, the previous question is ordered on
the bill, as amended.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.

Motion to Recommit by Mr. Abercrombie

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. I am, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Abercrombie moves to recommit the bill H.R. 3966 to the
Committee on Armed Services with instructions to report the
same back to the House forthwith with the following
amendment:
Page 7, line 7, before the close quotes insert the
following: ``, determined, in the case of a law school, by
the Association of American Law Schools, and, in the case of
any other institution of higher education (or subelement
thereof), by the appropriate regional accrediting entity''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie) is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his
motion.
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, as was indicated by the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan), the previous speaker, I think all we would
like to have here and the reason for recommittal motion is to have some
hearings. As the chairman, and I do not if he is still on the floor or
not, the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services Committee knows, I
have the greatest respect for him and the greatest respect for the
bipartisanship that exists on the Committee on Armed Services.
The issue here and the only reason this bill is on the floor is that
a court determined that the Secretary of Defense did not have a basis
in law for being able to make some of the kinds of decisions which the
bill in front of us allows the Secretary to make. The issue involved
here is one of access. It is one of equal treatment. The arguments of
whether one accepts them or do not accept them have been made that the
armed services, I suppose by extension of the bill, the Department of
Homeland Security, the CIA, are not allowing equal access to every
American and at least in some instances on the basis of their sexual
orientation. There may be other issues that are raised in that regard,
too. That is worthy of discussion, surely. Whether or not then this
bill constitutes a proper response to that difficulty to the degree
that it exists is the issue.
The reason I am asking for a vote on recommittal with instructions is
not

[[Page H1711]]

because I oppose or anyone else, I believe, opposes equal access either
for recruitment purposes or other purposes of discussion and dialogue
but rather that this bill does not address that fundamental issue and,
in fact, will only engender a new series of lawsuits and it will fail
to accomplish that which is really the bottom-line, fundamental issue
here before us, which is how do we appropriately address the first
amendment in the context of recruitment, whether it is for a Federal
Government agency of any kind, let alone whether or not the Secretary
of Defense should be the arbiter in that regard.
So, Mr. Speaker, with that I am asking that the body vote to recommit
with instructions so that we can properly address this serious issue.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Rogers)
wish to control the time in opposition to the motion to recommit?
Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Yes, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Rogers) is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to
the motion to recommit.
This motion is simply an effort to empower those who would oppose
fair access to military recruiters to our colleges and universities
with the authority to treat recruiters as second-class citizens.
H.R. 3966 would ensure nothing more than fair and equal treatment of
recruiters. This amendment would put the fox in the hen house, so to
speak, by giving the Association of American Law Schools the authority
to judge if the recruiter has been provided equal treatment with other
employers. This is the very group which has fostered the attitude among
law schools to resist compliance with the law. We, the Congress, must
make the decision, not the people who would oppose any form of military
presence on campus. It is up to Congress to decide the level of access
that should be granted. We must reject this motion.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The motion to recommit was rejected.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.

Recorded Vote

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, this 15-
minute vote on passage will be followed by two 5-minute votes on
motions to suspend the rules considered earlier today:
H.R. 3104, by the yeas and nays;
H. Con. Res. 386, by the yeas and nays.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 343,
noes 81, not voting 9, as follows:

[Roll No. 101]

AYES--343

Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Ballance
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Bell
Bereuter
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Burr
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Carter
Case
Castle
Chabot
Chandler
Chocola
Clyburn
Coble
Cole
Collins
Cooper
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
DeLay
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley (CA)
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Emerson
Engel
English
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Granger
Graves
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Hall
Harman
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hill
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Hooley (OR)
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hunter
Hyde
Inslee
Isakson
Israel
Issa
Istook
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kleczka
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
Marshall
Matheson
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCotter
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
McNulty
Menendez
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Napolitano
Nethercutt
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Obey
Ortiz
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Royce
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Sanchez, Loretta
Sandlin
Saxton
Schiff
Schrock
Scott (GA)
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Souder
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Towns
Turner (OH)
Turner (TX)
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Visclosky
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Waxman
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOES--81

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Baldwin
Becerra
Blumenauer
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Capuano
Clay
Conyers
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (IL)
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Emanuel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hastings (FL)
Hinchey
Holt
Honda
Jackson (IL)
Kucinich
Lantos
Larson (CT)
Lee
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Lynch
Majette
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McDermott
McGovern
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Nadler
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Rangel
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanders
Schakowsky
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Solis
Stark
Thompson (CA)
Tierney
Velazquez
Waters
Watson
Watt
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey

NOT VOTING--9

DeMint
Gephardt
Gutknecht
Hulshof
Jones (OH)
Linder
Rodriguez
Tanner
Tauzin

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bass) (during the vote). Members are
advised there are 2 minutes remaining in this vote.

{time} 1748

Messrs. HONDA, FATTAH, BLUMENAUER, HOLT, CLAY, GUTIERREZ, and RANGEL
changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. PETRI and Mr. INSLEE changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The title of the bill was amended so as to read: ``A bill to amend
title 10, United States Code, to improve the ability of the Department
of Defense to establish and maintain Senior Reserve Officer Training
Corps units at institutions of higher education, to improve the ability
of students to participate in

[[Page H1712]]

Senior ROTC programs, and to ensure that institutions of higher
education provide military recruiters entry to campuses and access to
students that is at least equal in quality and scope to that provided
to any other employer.''.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

____________________