[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.

                          ____________________