[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 9 (Wednesday, February 2, 2005)]
[House]
[Pages H315-H317]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
EXPRESSING CONTINUED SUPPORT OF CONGRESS FOR EQUAL ACCESS OF MILITARY
RECRUITERS TO INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION
Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 59, I call up
the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 36) expressing the continued
support of Congress for equal access of military recruiters to
institutions of higher education, and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the concurrent resolution.
The text of House Concurrent Resolution 36 is as follows:
H. Con. Res. 36
Whereas section 8 of article I of the Constitution commits
exclusively to Congress the powers to raise and support
armies, provide and maintain a Navy, and make rules for the
government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
Whereas the Nation's security interests demand high levels
of military personnel readiness, which in turn demand cost-
effective military recruitment programs;
Whereas military recruiting on the Nation's university
campuses is one of the primary means by which the Armed
Forces obtain highly qualified new military personnel and is
an integral, effective, and necessary part of overall
military recruitment;
Whereas a lack of cooperation by institutions of higher
education with the legitimate pursuit of the Federal military
recruiting function carries with it the harmful effect of
increasing Federal spending to achieve the required outcome,
while at the same time compromising military personnel
readiness and performance, which in turn conflicts with
Federal responsibilities to provide for the Nation's defense;
Whereas military recruiting will be significantly harmed if
military recruiters are denied access to campuses and
students that is at least equal in quality and scope to the
access provided to any other employer;
Whereas on-campus recruiting and ready access to students
are key components of recruiting highly qualified new
employees for any enterprise and are recognized as such by
[[Page H316]]
both institutions of higher education and employers and
requiring the Armed Forces to rely exclusively on alternative
recruiting methods would adversely affect the ability of the
Armed Forces to attract the most qualified applicants;
Whereas any reduction in performance by the Armed Forces
amidst the present national emergency declared by the
President on September 14, 2001, operates against the
national interest;
Whereas the Congress has chosen over time to appropriate
funds for a variety of Government programs to be provided to
institutions of higher learning, but those taxpayer funds are
not an entitlement to any college or university and can be
provided subject to conditions and criteria placed on those
funds by Congress.
Whereas acceptance of Federal funding carries with it an
expectation of support and respect for the laws of the
Nation, including section 983 of title 10, United States
Code, relating to the support of military recruiting and
Reserve Officers Training Corps functions by certain
educational institutions;
Whereas Congress has acted to legislatively craft a
safeguard for military recruiting in section 983 of title 10,
United States Code, by linking Federal funding of educational
institutions to the willingness of those institutions to
abide by a rule of access by military recruiters to campuses
and students that is at least equal in quality and scope that
is provided by any other employer;
Whereas the Government suffers irreparable injury any time
it is prevented by a court from effectuating statutes enacted
by Congress, the representatives of its people, and any
obstruction against enforcement of section 983 of title 10 of
the United States Code will not only divest the Department of
Defense of a legislatively crafted recruiting safeguard but
also will inflict grave harm on the Nation's military
readiness and the military's ability to recruit sufficient
numbers of high-quality personnel; and
Whereas the consequences specified in section 983 of title
10, United States Code, relating to a denial of certain
Federal funding for failure to offer support of military
recruiting and Reserve Officers Training Corps functions, are
instrumental to the achievement of military performance in
satisfaction of the national interest and the Constitutional
duties of the Congress: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate
concurring), That --
(1) Congress remains committed to the achievement of
military personnel readiness through vigorous application of
the requirements set forth in section 983 of title 10, United
States Code, relating to equal access for military recruiters
at institutions of higher education, and will explore all
options necessary to maintain this commitment, including the
powers vested in it under article I, section 9, of the
Constitution;
(2) it is the sense of Congress that the executive branch
should aggressively continue to pursue measures to challenge
any decision impeding or prohibiting the operation of section
983 of title 10, United States Code; and
(3) Congress encourages the executive branch to follow the
doctrine of non-acquiescence and not find a decision
affecting one jurisdiction to be binding on other
jurisdictions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 59, the
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kline) and the gentleman from North
Carolina (Mr. Butterfield) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kline).
Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, while the men and women of our Armed Forces serve
bravely throughout the world, the ability of our U.S. military to
recruit highly qualified candidates is being put in jeopardy. As was
stated so eloquently by the late Representative Gerald Solomon, barring
military recruiters is an intrusion on Federal prerogatives, a slap in
the face to our Nation's fine military personnel, and an impediment to
sound national security policy.
The legislation bearing his name, the Solomon Amendment, formerly
protected the ability of the U.S. military to reach the most highly
qualified candidates by denying Federal funding, denying Federal
funding to colleges which refused to permit on-campus recruiting by the
U.S. military. However, on November 29 of last year, the Third Circuit
Court of Appeals in Philadelphia overturned this legislation, enabling
universities to receive Federal funding despite barring military
recruiters from campus.
This decision threatens to severely damage the ability of the
military to recruit the highly qualified candidates necessary during a
time of war. Harvard Law School and now Yale Law School have already
implemented the unjust policy of denying the military access to their
campuses for recruiting purposes. Without the threat of lost funding,
sadly, many other schools are expected to follow suit. The Department
of Defense intends to appeal this ruling, but in the interim the
military risks losing access to a vital source of highly qualified
recruits. Our desire is to ensure this does not happen.
Under Article I, section 8 of the United States Constitution,
Congress has the exclusive power to raise and support armies, provide
and maintain a Navy, and make the rules for the Government and
regulation of the Armed Forces. Congress has not only the right but the
responsibility to use its power to protect the ability of our U.S.
military to recruit the best and the brightest young men and women. We
cannot be silent while this ability is put in jeopardy.
The citizens of the United States, all citizens of the United States,
and I would argue the world, benefit from the protection of the most
highly qualified and well-trained military in the world, and I am
hopeful our actions today will put an end to the injustice of banning
recruiters and will restore the ability of the U.S. military to serve
its citizens most effectively.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1315
Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this resolution. The 103rd
Congress determined that Federal funding should be denied to
institutions of higher learning that prohibit military representatives
from having student access while permitting access to other employers.
The Solomon Amendment was passed by this body in 1994 after vigorous
debate by a vote of 271 to 126. The amendment was simple, ``You cannot
receive Federal funds for your institution if you impair the military
from recruiting on your campus, yet allow other employers access to the
students.''
It is essential that our military be prepared to defend our country.
Cost-effective recruiting is the key to an all-volunteer Army. Many of
our institutions recognize Congress's intention and immediately
complied with the intent and spirit of the Solomon Amendment. Other
institutions have taken offense to the amendment by insisting that this
measure offends the first amendment's provision that Congress shall
make no law abridging the freedom of speech.
The question of whether the Solomon Amendment violates the first
amendment is now being litigated in our courts. The District Court for
the District of New Jersey denied a request for injunctive relief which
permitted this law to stand. The district court was of the opinion that
the plaintiffs were not likely to prove a first amendment infringement.
On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in a 2 to 1
decision reversed the district court and concluded that the plaintiffs
demonstrated a likelihood of success on their contention that the first
amendment claim had merit and directed the district court to enter a
preliminary injunction which has the effect of permitting these
universities to deny access to military recruiters.
Mr. Speaker, I was a trial judge in my home State of North Carolina
for 13 years and a State supreme court justice for 2 years. I can tell
Members there is a presumption in our law to favor congressional
enactments that are intended to support our military. There is a high
burden on a plaintiff to overcome this presumption. No court has ever
declared unconstitutional on first amendment grounds any congressional
statute designed to support the military.
If this law in any way offends the first amendment, the courts are
then required to balance the interests that are involved and determine
whether the violation trumps the articles relating to the spending
power and support of the military.
I need not remind my colleagues of the perilous times the American
people now face. Like never before, this Congress must ensure that we
have the best military on the planet and this includes having unimpeded
access to our colleges and universities for the purpose of recruiting.
It seems illogical to me that an institution desires Federal
resources but wants to restrict access to military recruiters.
Acceptance of Federal funding carries with it an expectation of support
and respect for the laws of this
[[Page H317]]
Nation. I therefore join with the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kline)
in support of this resolution and urge its adoption. This matter needs
to be put to rest. It is imperative that the executive branch take this
matter to the U.S. Supreme Court to urge the court to give deference to
the Congress and uphold this statute. This resolution makes it clear
that the Congress intends to continue to support our military by
ensuring equal access for military recruiters on college campuses, and
it should be the sense of this Congress that we want judicial review of
this matter by our highest court.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). Pursuant to the order of the
House of today, further proceedings on this concurrent resolution will
be postponed.
____________________