[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 9 (Wednesday, February 2, 2005)]
[House]
[Pages H310-H315]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H. CON. RES. 36, EXPRESSING CONTINUED
SUPPORT OF CONGRESS FOR EQUAL ACCESS OF MILITARY RECRUITERS TO
INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION
Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on
Rules, I call up House Resolution 59 and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 59
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order to consider in the House the concurrent
resolution (H. Con. Res. 36) expressing the continued support
of Congress for equal access of military recruiters to
institutions of higher education. The concurrent resolution
shall be considered as read. The previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the concurrent resolution and
preamble to final adoption without intervening motion or
demand for division of the question except: (1) one hour of
debate on the concurrent resolution equally divided and
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Armed Services; and (2) one motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole) is
recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I
yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the
purpose of debate only.
Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday the Committee on Rules met and granted a rule
for House Concurrent Resolution 36, expressing congressional support
for equal access of military recruiters to institutions of higher
education.
The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate equally divided and
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee
on Armed Services. The rule also provides for one motion to recommit.
Mr. Speaker, this concurrent resolution is an important first step in
addressing a misguided ruling by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals
regarding access of military recruiters to institutions of higher
education.
During this time of conflict and the global war on terror, it is more
important than ever to maintain the ability to recruit quality men and
women for service in our military. The primary way that recruiters are
able to do this is to work through those institutions which work
closely with our young men and women, schools and universities.
Military recruiters need the same access to college campuses provided
to other potential employers, and students deserve the right to discuss
the option of a career in the United States military with the
representatives of the Armed Forces.
Mr. Speaker, some ask, why the need for this concurrent resolution?
Well, the answer is succinct. This concurrent resolution grows out of
an egregious decision by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals overturning
the power of Congress to control the purse.
This decision simply states that Congress and the Government may not
as a matter of law deny funds to universities on the basis of their
denial of access to recruiters and ROTC units. This decision, couched
in the language of civil rights, fails to recognize the underlying
inequity behind these university policies. This decision asserts the
[[Page H311]]
Congress has compelled speech by these universities to the effect that
they ``agree'' with the military's ``Don't ask, don't tell'' policy
with respect to homosexuals in the service.
Mr. Speaker, nothing could be further than the truth.
The Solomon Amendment compelled no such thing. It simply proposed
standards for the receipt of Federal funds. Setting such standards is a
normal and legitimate function of the legislative branch. It is what
defines the power of the purse. This is an issue that the House and
Senate have revisited and affirmed in bipartisan votes in 1995, 1996,
1999, and 2002 after the enactment of the original Solomon Amendment.
Mr. Speaker, it is disappointing to note that the Reserve Officers
Training Corps, or popularly known as the ROTC, has been embattled on
some university and college campuses since the 1960s. This stems from
what only can be described as a consistently anti-military philosophy
advocated by some, and I want to say only some, college and university
professors and administrators.
The new purported reasons for not allowing ROTC on campus often
serves the convenient cover for these anti-military sentiments. Some
educators now believe that they should be allowed to discriminate
against students who wish to enter the military in order to please
another group of students who object to the policies and procedures of
the armed services, all the while soliciting and accepting Federal
funds for their institutions. This is rank hypocrisy.
Why would an institution seek and use Federal funds, often from the
Department of Defense, while denying representatives of the U.S. Armed
Forces access to their campuses?
Mr. Speaker, the decision by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals is a
classic case of judicial overreach and one that must be addressed. As a
former university educator and the son of a career Air Force
noncommissioned officer, I find this decision disturbing and insulting
to those men and women who defend our freedom and to those who wish to
join their ranks.
The very least we can do is put the courts on notice as to exactly
where the Congress stands on this issue. For that reason, this
concurrent resolution is necessary and timely. Hopefully, it will
underscore the importance that the Congress places on military
recruiters having access to the educational institutions that receive
Federal funds.
During this time of war, we should insist that institutions who pride
themselves on freedom of expression allow the defenders of that
freedom, the United States military, to freely recruit the soldiers who
protect our democracy. To that end, I urge support for the rule and the
underlying bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from
Oklahoma (Mr. Cole) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. I also
want to welcome him as a new member of the Committee on Rules.
(Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, here we are at the start of a new year and a new
Congress and we are considering this bill, surprise, surprise, under a
closed rule. Once again, the Republican majority has decided that
thoughtful debate and the ability for Members to offer amendments if
they so wish is unimportant or simply too much bother.
The underlying bill, House Concurrent Resolution 36, was introduced
yesterday, has not gone to committee, let alone and be reported out of
committee, and was being taken up in the Committee on Rules yesterday
just about the time that most Members' planes were touching down in
Washington.
So once again the majority has followed its usual practice to stifle
debate, prevent amendments, and ignore normal procedure to push a bill
to the House floor ahead of more important issues facing the country.
Apparently, the Republican leadership could not possibly start the new
year out by deciding to finally help the more than one million jobless
workers who have exhausted their regular unemployment benefits without
receiving additional aid.
I know the majority does not like to be reminded that we still have
the largest number of exhaustees in over 3 decades, but the 109th
Congress begins still facing this bitter reality and obviously still
doing nothing to ease the hardships facing these workers and their
families.
Clearly, the Republican majority did not feel it necessary to press
the President to get his supplemental request to assist the victims in
nations affected by the Asian tsunami quickly before the House, so we
are not taking that measure up this week. In fact, we are not likely to
act on this most urgent matter until March. But a bill exhorting the
White House to ignore and overturn proceedings in the Federal courts
and to press higher education institutions to ignore their own policies
prohibiting discrimination, well, that is a bill that gets top billing
in the House of Representatives today.
Mr. Speaker, in the United States of America discrimination is wrong.
Period. But here we are right out of the gate with a bill that condones
it. Let us start with a little history on this bill.
In the mid-90s, Congress passed legislation to deny Defense
Department funding to colleges and universities that fail to give
military recruiters access to their campuses and students. Known as the
Solomon Law, that legislation was passed to respond to efforts by
several colleges and universities to protest the discriminatory
policies of the Pentagon against gay men and women. Over time, the law
was expanded to prohibit funding a university might receive from nearly
every Federal agency, including the Department of Health and Human
Services, the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of
Transportation, and the Department of Labor.
Last year this House passed a bill that would have expanded that list
to include the CIA and the National Nuclear Security Administration of
the Department of Energy.
Mr. Speaker, there is an irony here. The Congress is holding hostage
funds from all of these other Federal agencies to prop up
discrimination by the Pentagon. Yet every one of these other Federal
agencies has full access to recruitment on college campuses. Why?
Because unlike the Department of Defense, no other Federal agencies
have policies that encourage discrimination against gay men and women.
All of them have employees on their pay rolls. All of these Federal
agencies and the U.S. Government and the American people benefit from
the research and development programs that take place on these
campuses, some of it carried out, no doubt, by gay men and women.
So, Mr. Speaker, where does the Solomon Law stand today?
In November 2003, a U.S. district court in New Jersey upheld the
constitutionality of the Solomon Law, but it also determined that the
Solomon Law does not give the Pentagon any basis for asserting, as it
has in regulations on implementing the Solomon Law, that universities
and colleges must give military recruiters the same degree of access to
campuses and students provided to other employers.
In November 2004, just this past November, the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit overruled part of the New Jersey District Court's
ruling and found the Solomon Law to be in violation of the
Constitution. In an appeal brought by a number of schools, mainly
graduate schools of law, the court ruled that colleges and universities
had a first amendment right to exclude recruiters whose hiring
practices discriminated against homosexuals.
The U.S. Department of Justice now plans to appeal the case to the
U.S. Supreme Court, and it has asked the appeals court to hold off
enforcing the nullification of the Solomon Law until the Supreme Court
decides on whether to take up the case or not.
Mr. Speaker, let me point out another irony in this debate today.
There is absolutely no lack of equal access for military recruiters and
ROTC programs on America's college campuses. What the Pentagon receives
is special access, pure and simple. To this day, any other employer,
public or private, that fails to meet a school's nondiscrimination
policies is banned from employee recruitment on campuses. So
[[Page H312]]
the Pentagon receives special access to our colleges and universities.
The Solomon law is about giving the military a special right to
discriminate in a way other employers may not.
This sense of Congress resolution once again reinforces and promotes
the Pentagon's discriminatory policy and practices to the detriment of
all other education institutions and Federal agencies. It further
encourages the Federal Government in its pursuit to challenge court
rulings that have upheld the first amendment rights of our colleges and
universities in their efforts to end prejudice and discrimination.
Mr. Speaker, the final irony of this debate you will hear today are
the arguments about the need of the military to recruit the best and
brightest students that America has to offer.
{time} 1245
I agree with this need, and the way to get there is for the Pentagon
to end its policy of discrimination. This would end the conflict
between the Pentagon and college policies against discrimination and
prejudice. The Pentagon has kicked out over 26 military linguists who
were fluent in Arabic or Farsi simply because they were homosexual.
That is unconscionable while our military men and women are facing a
deadly insurgency in Iraq and continued violence in Afghanistan.
In the past 5 years, in the Army alone, over 3,000 uniformed
servicemen and women have been discharged solely because of their
sexual orientation. They were munitions experts, linguists, health care
workers, infantrymen, tank mechanics, radio operators and active in
every field of military endeavor.
Make no mistake about it, right now gay men and women are in battle
in Iraq and Afghanistan, and they have likely died in combat in Iraq
and Afghanistan. They serve their Nation just as they have since the
founding of the United States, bravely, patriotically and devotedly,
but their superiors do not commend their service. If their sexual
orientation is discovered, they are drummed out.
Mr. Speaker, there is no lack of access to for the military on
America's campuses. Every university that wants an ROTC program has
one. According to the Wall Street Journal, more than 52,000 college
students are enrolled in ROTC programs, up from 48,000 in 2000. Many
credit feelings of patriotism engendered by the September 11 attacks,
and it comes as no surprise that military enlistment by college
graduates has also increased since the events of September 11.
Mr. Speaker, we do not need the Solomon law. We do not need the bill
before us today, and we certainly do not need to continue to insult and
assault those very institutions of higher education that are leading
the way to end hate and discrimination in America.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I yield to myself such time as I
may consume.
I would like to quickly address a couple of the concerns that my
colleague raised. While I certainly respect his concerns, I would like
to point out that the measure in question had been on our Web site for
4 days and was not suddenly introduced yesterday. It had easy access.
Frankly, on the nature of the rule itself, it is the opinion of the
majority of the committee this is simply an up or down matter. It is
not something we need to amend or deal with.
Let me make one other point, if I may, Mr. Speaker, in reference to
the access of the military to college campuses. The military is a
rather unique institution, but nothing prohibits college campuses from
denying them access. All the Solomon amendment does is says, if they
do, they lose some Federal funds as a consequence.
I would think that if they felt strongly, that this was a position of
conviction, they would not want funds from the Department of Defense
and other institutions. They would simply have nothing to do with them.
Further, I would simply like to make one additional point. The
appropriate place to protest the policy, frankly, is in the political
arena. This is not a policy in the Department of Defense per se. This
is a policy devised by President Clinton, has been ratified repeatedly
by Congress as a political avenue to address it. We should not put that
burden on recruiters in the military and subject them to difficult
circumstances when they are carrying out important work for our
country.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr.
Akin).
(Mr. AKIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. AKIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Con. Res. 36.
Once again, activist judges threaten our authority, first of all, to
direct Federal fund spending; and, second of all, they attempt to
create law.
We have required here in Congress at universities that receive
Federal dollars to extend access to military recruiters equal to other
outside groups. But in the name of free speech and association, some
schools seek to deny their students access to recruiters and ROTC,
obviously afraid that their students would maybe even make a wrong
choice.
It is ironic that an institution whose sole function, whole reason
for being, is based on the free exchange of ideas, would then boycott
the Armed Forces, the very people who actively protect their academic
freedom.
It is further ironic that those who are often noted for concern that
low-income Americans are serving in disproportionate numbers in the
Armed Forces would block many of their students born with a silver
spoon access to ROTC.
My own son currently serves in Iraq. He graduated near the top of his
class from the U.S. Naval Academy; and, last Sunday, he had the
satisfaction of witnessing the birth of freedom in a land where for 50
years freedom has been an exotic concept.
By passing H. Con. Res. 36, we reassert our support for freedom and
our disdain for those liberal, elite institutions that seek to sensor
choices for their wealthy clientele.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, before I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas, I just
want to respond to my colleague from Oklahoma.
He mentioned that this resolution has been posted on the Web site for
3 days or 4 days. I should say to him that that is not a substitute for
the committee process. That is why we have committees.
Secondly, I am glad that the gentleman believes that the bill needs
no amendment, but there are 434 other Members of this House that should
have the opportunity to amend this bill, if they so desire.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. McGOVERN. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I am wondering, based on
that argument, in the interest of efficiency, whether we might not
substitute chat rooms for the floor of the House, and if being on the
Web site is a satisfactory way to bring a bill out. Maybe if we had
chat rooms or instant messaging, we could probably save a lot more.
I would urge the majority, since this traditional kind of old-
fashioned type of democracy does not seem to have much appeal, to go
right ahead, might even save a little more money, by cutting back on
what Thomas Jefferson or Abe Lincoln or one of those people might have
thought was an appropriate way to conduct the business of democracy.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts
for his succinct observation.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms.
Jackson-Lee).
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague very much
for the time.
There certainly is no lack of understanding and appreciation for the
United States military, particularly in the backdrop of free elections
in Iraq this past Sunday. So, Mr. Speaker, this is not a debate, if you
will, about the value of the military or, in fact, the necessity of
giving them a far reach in their recruitment efforts in America.
Far be it from me, coming from the State of Texas, that might be one
of the States that has sent the largest numbers of its sons and
daughters to
[[Page H313]]
the Iraq War and Afghanistan. Having just sent 3,000 National Guard and
Reservists troops about a month ago from their families over to Iraq
and Afghanistan, we know full well the importance of the military but,
more importantly, the sacrifice that our men and women make in the
United States in serving in the military.
I also am reminded that, until President Truman integrated the Armed
Forces, African Americans were told, do not ask and do not apply.
So this is not a question of whether or not we allow these
individuals to accept Federal funds. I would take issue with my
colleague to suggest just do not take Federal funds if they are not
interested.
I am disappointed that this is a closed rule, because there are
important issues here, and the issues are that universities should not
be forced to compromise their nondiscrimination policies. The military
has been set aside as one of the most uniquely integrated and
nondiscriminatory sections of our government. Just because we have do
not ask and do not tell does not mean that it is right, and if Congress
is really concerned about losing the best and the brightest, it should
stop, if you will, discriminating against those because of their sexual
orientation for any other reason.
I am disappointed that in 2005 it was reported that between 1998 and
2004 the military discharged 20 Arabic and six Farsi language speakers
under the do-not-ask-and-do-not-tell policy. It is not without great
admiration for our late colleague, Congressman Solomon, that I rise to
just ask my colleagues, why do we close a rule when we can make this a
better legislative initiative?
We needed to give the opportunity for the full discussion on
discrimination. Do my colleagues believe that Americans would rise in
support of discrimination? Do my colleagues realize that when we
debated the 9/11 tragedy it was a gay American on one of our airplanes
that engaged with others to be able to detour that airplane from the
very site that I stand, to be able to save lives and to save the
Capitol of the United States of America?
It seems in 2005, in the shadow of reauthorization of the Voters
Rights Act of 1965, that we might not now recognize that we can do
better.
I am glad that ROTC programs are still on our campuses. In fact, we
know that there are more than 52,000 now enrolled in ROTC programs, up
from 48,000 in 2000. That means 52,000 of our students.
This past year 70 percent of the Army's newly commissioned armies
came from ROTC. In fact, the Defense Department has reported meeting
all of its recruitment and retention goals in the past several years
and is, in fact, actively downsizing certain specialties. But, in the
backdrop of that, we also know that we need more troops, particularly
if we are going to be part of a peacekeeping effort, not a running-the-
government effort in Iraq.
So I would say, Mr. Speaker, the reason why I rise with great
concerns about a closed rule and ask my colleagues to consider where we
are going with this Solomon amendment is that we can do better and that
there is some merit, great merit, to asking the military to recruit
everywhere and to allow universities of free thought to be able to
maintain their nondiscriminatory rules and regulations.
We can do better together, and I do not know why we discriminate
against any American who wants to serve their country.
Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks, and include extraneous material.)
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I insert in the Record at this point two
articles. One is an editorial from the New York Times entitled, ``The
Price of Homophobia.'' Another is an Associate Press story entitled,
``Report: Number of gay linguists discharged higher than thought.''
[From the New York Times, Jan. 20, 2005]
The Price of Homophobia
Don't ask, don't tell--just scream in frustration: it turns
out that 20 of the Arabic speakers so vitally needed by the
nation have been thrown out of the military since 1998
because they were found to be gay. It is hard to imagine a
more wrongheaded rebuff of national priorities. The focus
must be on the search for Osama bin Laden and his terrorist
legions, not the closet door. The Pentagon's snooping after
potential gays trumps what every investigative agency in the
war on terror has admitted is a crucial shortage of effective
Arabic translators.
After the first World Trade Center attack, in 1993,
government agents revealed an alarming shortage of Arabic
speakers. Key notes, videotapes and a phone call pertaining
to the attack were later found in a backlog of untranslated
investigative data. The shortage continued right up to and
well beyond the 9/11 attacks. Three years after the towers
were destroyed, the F.B.I., rife with translation problems,
admitted it had an untranslated backlog of 120,000 hours of
intercepts with potential value about looming threats. At the
State Department, a study showed that only one in five of the
279 Arabic translators were fluent enough to handle the
subtleties of the language, with its many regional dialects.
The military's experience is no more encouraging, with
intelligence results muddied at times by a rush, as one
inquiry put it, to recruit Arab convenience store owners and
cabdrivers, who couldn't handle the task. The military is
right to rely more on its language schools, but it can take
several years to produce fluent graduates. The folly of using
``don't ask, don't tell'' policy against such precious
national resources amounts to comfort for the enemy. When
President Bush was asked last week by The Washington Post why
Osama bin Laden had eluded capture, he replied, ``Because
he's hiding.'' So is the Pentagon--it's hiding from reality.
____
[From Associated Press, January 13, 2005]
Report: Number of Gay Linguists Discharged Higher Than Thought
(By Kim Curtis)
San Francisco (AP)--The number of Arabic linguists
discharged from the military for violating its ``don't ask,
don't tell'' policy was nearly three times as high as
previously reported, according to records obtained by an
advocacy group.
Between 1998 and 2004, the military discharged 20 Arabic
and six Farsi speakers, according to Department of Defense
data obtained by the Center for the Study of Sexual
Minorities in the Military under a Freedom of Information Act
request.
The military previously confirmed that seven translators
who specialized in Arabic had been discharged because they
were gay. The updated numbers were first reported by The New
Republic magazine.
Aaron Belkin, the center's director, said he wants the
public to see the real costs of ``don't ask, don't tell.''
``We had a language problem after 9/11 and we still have a
language problem,'' Belkin said Wednesday.
The military's ``don't ask, don't tell'' policy allows gays
and lesbians to serve in the military as long as they keep
their sexual orientation private and do not engage in
homosexual acts.
But Belkin and other advocates say such a policy endangers
national security at a time U.S. intelligence agencies and
the military say they don't have enough Arabic speakers.
``The military is placing homophobia ahead of national
security,'' said Steve Ralls, spokesman for the
Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, a nonprofit group which
advocates for the rights of gay military members. ``It's
appalling that in the weeks leading up to 9/11 messages were
coming in waiting to be translated . . . and at the same time
they were firing people who could've done that job.''
But others, like Elaine Donnelly of the Center for Military
Readiness, a conservative advocacy group that opposes gays
serving in the military, said the discharged linguists never
should have been accepted at the elite Defense Language
Institute in Monterey in the first place.
``Resources unfortunately were used to train young people
who were not eligible to be in the military,'' she said. ``We
need to recruit people who are eligible to serve.''
In the fiscal year ended Oct. 31, 2004, 543 Arabic
linguists and 166 Farsi linguists graduated from their 63-
week courses, according to a DLI spokesman. That was up from
377 and 139, respectively, in the previous year, reflecting
the military's increased need for translators in Iraq.
Experts have identified the shortage of Arabic linguists as
contributing to the government's failure to predict the Sept.
11 attacks. The independent Sept. 11 commission made similar
conclusions. The government ``lacked sufficient translators
proficient in Arabic and other key languages'' to adequately
prepare itself against future strikes, the report said.
``It used to be this was seen as a gay rights issue, but
now it's clearly a national security issue,'' said Nathaniel
Frank, a senior research fellow at the Center for Study of
Sexual Minorities in the Military at the University of
California, Santa Barbara.
Ian Finkenbinder, a U.S. Army Arabic linguist who graduated
from the Defense Language Institute in 2002, was discharged
from the military last month after announcing to his
superiors that he's gay. Finkenbinder, who said his close
friends in the Army already knew he was gay, served eight
months in Iraq and was about to return for a second tour when
he made the revelation official.
``I looked at myself and said, `Are you willing to go to
war with an institution that won't recognize that you have
the right to live as you want to,' '' said Finkenbinder, 22,
who now lives in Baltimore, Md. ``It just got to be tiresome
to deal with that--to constantly have such a significant part
of your life under scrutiny.''
[[Page H314]]
Finkenbinder said his commander was upset to let him go
because his Arabic proficiency was at the highest possible
for a nonnative speaker.
The Servicemembers Legal Defense Network last month sued
the government on behalf of 12 gay former military members
seeking reinstatement. They're seeking to overturn ``don't
ask, don't tell'' alleging it violates their constitutional
rights.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Nadler).
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, this resolution would have us believe that a
grave threat is presented to the security of this Nation by the policy
of some institutions of higher learning to bar military recruiters from
their campus because of the discrimination against gay and lesbian
people by the military. But that, Mr. Speaker, is not the threat to our
national security.
The threat to our national security is the policy of the military to
refuse to use the talents and the abilities of gay people in defending
our country.
One of the biggest problems we have in Iraq now is the shortage of
people who know how to translate intelligence documents written in
Arabic and Farsi, and yet they are dismissing linguists who can
translate these documents for our use to save the lives of our troops
because they are gay. This is insanity.
Our troops are paying with their lives because of the bigotry that
this Congress has mandated on the military, number one.
Even that is not the real issue presented by this resolution. The
real issue presented by this resolution has to do with free speech and
association.
Private universities, private institutions have chosen to say, as
part of their free speech, that they do not want on their campus
recruiters from any organization, the military, any private company,
anybody else, that discriminates against gay people and lesbian people;
that engages in an unacceptable, to them, form of discrimination. It is
not a question, as this resolution says, of equal access to military
recruiters. All people, recruiters from all institutions that
discriminate are barred from these campuses.
We should not have passed the bill that we did, but we passed a bill
to say that, if they do that, if a private institution bars military
recruiters and other recruiters on an equal basis, we will withhold
Federal funds.
The Third Circuit Court of Appeals says that is a violation of the
first amendment. This resolution says who cares what the courts say. We
do not care about the first amendment. We do not care about the courts.
We know better.
We encourage the executive branch to follow the doctrine of non-
acquiescence and not find a decision affecting one jurisdiction to be
binding on another jurisdiction.
That is not the way we ought to legislate. This decision was decided
by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. The executive branch is going to
appeal to the United States Supreme Court. Let it appeal. Let us see
what the Supreme Court says, if they accept the case.
The courts have to defend our liberties. It is the province of the
courts, not of the Congress, to declare what the Constitution means.
{time} 1300
Our liberties, the Bill of Rights, are protected from the majority.
You never have to protect the majority from itself. You have to protect
unpopular minorities. That is why we have a Bill of Rights and that is
why we have the courts to enforce them. For Congress to come in and say
the court is wrong and the executive should not enforce the order of
the court is to show a disdain for the rule of law and a disdain for
the spirit of liberty for which we are fighting in Iraq and for which
our Armed Forces exists in the first place.
This resolution ought to be defeated on its merits.
Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to
the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time, and today I rise in strong support of the Solomon Amendment and
as a proud cosponsor of the resolution that is before us.
For the last several years, a growing number of law schools have
subjected military recruiters to various degrees of harassment designed
to make military recruiting difficult and to frustrate their
objectives. Military recruiting on university campuses is one of the
primary means by which the Armed Forces retains highly qualified new
military personnel; and it is an integral, effective, and necessary
part of overall military recruiting.
The Constitution gives Congress the power to attach reasonable
stipulations to those who accept Federal dollars. The Solomon Law
simply ensures that the military has fair access to recruited
institutions of higher learning that willingly accept this Federal
funding.
Mr. Speaker, every year, without fail, the military comes under a
great deal of criticism for hiring too many low-income, disadvantaged
young adults. However, I find it remarkably ironic that these
institutions are obstructing a more balanced recruiting effort that
includes a patriotic commitment from all sectors of society.
Furthermore, the point has to be made that the soldiers, sailors,
airmen, and Marines that are being treated like second-class citizens
at these universities are also the same brave men and women that are
providing the freedom these schools enjoy.
Mr. Speaker, efforts by these universities to restrict military
recruiter access can only have the harmful effect of increasing Federal
spending to achieve mandated end-strength goals and ultimately
compromising the readiness and performance of our military.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I strongly support this resolution. I
sincerely hope there will be a strong bipartisan effort of support, and
I commend my good friends from Minnesota and Alabama for their
leadership on this issue.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. To begin, Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely
backwards to decry this policy of excluding recruiters from using the
facilities of a university. Let us be clear: no university can ban a
recruiter from coming to that city or that town. No university can say
that students will not talk to the recruiter.
The question is not whether the recruiters can come and advertise; it
is whether they can compel the university to offer its facilities
involving a policy with which they disagree. But to say that that
causes a problem in getting people in the military, it is the
supporters of a policy that say to able-bodied men and women, we
disapprove of your sexuality, and, therefore, no matter how talented
you are, no matter how patriotic you are, no matter what skills you
bring, you are not allowed here.
Colin Powell, when he was chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
testified before this Congress that there was no argument that gay and
lesbian men and women in the military were in any way deficient as
members of the military. He made it clear. The only reason for
excluding them was the prejudice of others. That was the only reason.
The argument was: if you let these people in, and he said they had
been good soldiers and good airmen and good sailors, it would be
disruptive. Well, one, that was 15 years ago when he said that. I think
society has moved some. But, second, we have experience to the
contrary.
I know there have been people critical of the Israeli Defense Forces
in some respects. I think they deserve, on the whole, a lot of credit
for a difficult job. In the Israeli Defense Forces, people serve who
are openly gay and lesbian. So the argument that somehow allowing
people who are honest about their sexuality, if they are gay or
lesbian, to serve in the military makes you an ineffectual military,
how do they explain the Israeli Defense Forces?
In fact, what we are again being told is that good people, able
people, and we heard reference to the linguists. This has become the
policy of ``Don't ask, don't tell, and by no means translate.'' You who
support this policy are the ones, Mr. Speaker, who are depriving the
armed services of able-bodied people. You are the ones who have driven
thousands, literally thousands of perfectly capable men and women out
of the military because you disapprove of what they do in their spare
time. So then to claim that it is the universities trying to stand up
for a principle that are weakening the military gets it absolutely
backwards.
[[Page H315]]
I was also saddened, I must say, by one of the previous speakers who
said he wanted to express his disdain for the universities involved. We
have universities here which are trying to express their disagreement
with what they believe, and I agree, but what they believe to be an
unfair prejudice that singles out some of their students. I understand
disagreement with that, but disdain? Disdain because people in these
positions feel that their students should not be unduly stigmatized and
denied this opportunity?
If it is so important to have the opportunity, Mr. Speaker, should
not people on the other side say, you cannot deny these young people
the opportunity to serve in the military. Should you not say, you
should not deny these young people the opportunity to serve in the
military unless they are gay or lesbian. Because if they are gay or
lesbian, you want to deny them the opportunity to serve in the military
regardless of any fault.
Remember, this is one that says we just stigmatize you from the
outset. There is nothing you can do, there is no degree of service you
can perform, there is no sacrifice you can offer to make that will
allow you to serve your country. And then we will complain because we
do not have enough people to serve in the military. And, again,
literally thousands have been turned away. The universities are not
blocking recruitment. They cannot. They are asking for the right to
stand up for principle.
And now we are told by one other speaker, well, if they do not agree
with the policy, you would think they would not accept the money.
Please. I would say to Members, one rule in parliamentary debate: try
to avoid saying something that no one will believe. I mean, this notion
that if you do not agree with a policy you should boycott the
government, which is using your tax money, nobody believes that. People
get taxed, and sometimes they agree and sometimes they disagree. We say
to people, look, you can voice your opinion, but you cannot avoid
paying the taxes.
And, by the way, it is not money from the military they are seeking.
Typically, what we have here are law schools. It is law schools, as
people have noted, who are doing this. So people have said, well, what
about the poor people? We are not getting enough wealthy people to
offset the number of poor people. Well, we are talking about lawyers
who are being recruited. Frankly, the poor people are not being
recruited for the Judge Advocate General's office. It just does not
compute.
But what they are saying is, we are not going to allow our facilities
to be used in this discriminatory way. And the law schools, by the way,
are not themselves, and this is an important point, under the Clinton
administration the ruling was that we would look at each element of a
university separately. And if the law school said no military
recruiting, that did not stop the medical school or the school of
engineering from applying for Federal funds. What you now have is a
policy that says if the law school says no, no other entity can get the
money. So there is no connection there.
The key issue here is this: Have we not in this country come to the
point where patriotic young gay men and lesbians who are prepared to
serve their country will at least be given a chance? Can you not judge
them on their merits? Can you not say, okay, we admire your willingness
to do this. We will judge you. If it turns out you become disruptive,
we will act. But this blanket denial of even the opportunity no matter
how talented, no matter how diligent? You enforce that as a policy, and
then you complain that we have people being turned away?
Mr. Speaker, I hope this resolution is not adopted, and I hope we
will begin to reverse this blanket prejudicial policy that says to
millions, millions of young American men and women, you need not apply
to defend your country because we do not like some aspect about you,
even if it is going to be entirely irrelevant to your service.
Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume
in closing.
This Congress should be leading the way to end discrimination of any
form in this country. Unfortunately, we have a resolution before us
today that condones discrimination. I think it is sad we are dealing
with this today. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume; and in closing, I would like to say I think we have had a good
and substantive debate today, but let us be clear: the concurrent
resolution is really about ensuring those who defend our freedom and
liberty the ability to have the same access to colleges and
universities that is available for everyone else.
Mr. Speaker, often today others have placed this debate in the
context of the ``Don't ask, don't tell'' policy. I suggest that those
who would like to change that policy, that they look inward, at the
political process itself. This was President Clinton's policy, and one
enshrined in law that can only be changed by Congress.
If the other side of the aisle would like to make this change, they
should propose it and debate it at this level. To put it in the context
of the Solomon Amendment, I believe, is disingenuous and dangerous to
our recruiting efforts. I urge my colleagues to support this rule and
the underlying concurrent resolution.
Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my
time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________