[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 9 (Wednesday, February 2, 2005)]
[House]
[Pages H317-H325]
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
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of today,
proceedings will now resume on House Concurrent Resolution 36,
expressing the continued support of Congress for equal access of
military recruiters to institutions of higher education.
The Clerk read the title of the concurrent resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. When proceedings were postponed earlier
today, 52\1/2\ minutes remained in debate. The gentleman from Minnesota
(Mr. Kline) has 27 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from North
Carolina (Mr. Butterfield) has 25\1/2\ minutes remaining.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kline).
Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Alabama (Mr. Rogers), the sponsor of this concurrent resolution and a
member of the Committee on Armed Services.
Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of
H. Con. Res. 36. This resolution expresses the continued support of
Congress for the so-called Solomon Law, a critical piece of legislation
originally passed in 1994 which has helped ensure that military
recruiters have equal access on our Nation's campuses.
We are debating this resolution today only because of a recent court
decision that wrongfully struck down the Solomon Law. In November of
last year, a closely divided U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruled
that the Solomon Law violates first amendment rights to free speech and
association.
The court sided with the plaintiff arguing that ``the Solomon
Amendment requires law schools to express a message that is
incompatible with their educational objectives, and no compelling
governmental interest has been shown to deny this freedom.''
Mr. Speaker, I cannot disagree more with this assessment. In our
post-9/11 world, our Nation's military deserves, at least the same
access to institutions of higher education that any other major
employer might enjoy. This is certainly a modest and I believe a
reasonable request, especially if the college or university accepts
Federal funds.
This is not about infringing free speech; it is about ensuring our
military has access to our Nation's best and brightest at a time when
we face enormous challenges abroad. This resolution expresses the
continued support of Congress for the Solomon Law and would help ensure
that military recruiters continue to have access to college campuses
and students that is at least equal in quality and scope as that
provided to any other employer.
This resolution would reaffirm the commitment of Congress to explore
all options, including the use of its constitutional power to
appropriate funds to achieve that equal access. In adopting this
resolution, we would also be urging the executive branch to
aggressively challenge any decision impeding or prohibiting the
operation of the Solomon Law. Also, we would be encouraging the
executive branch to follow a doctrine of nonacquiescence by not finding
a judicial decision affecting one jurisdiction to be binding on any
other jurisdiction.
Mr. Speaker, as we debate this resolution, it is important for us to
remember that the Solomon Law and its legislative updates were not
designed as one-size-fits-all mandates from Washington. In fact, the
law is very flexible, and it fits the needs of nearly every public-
funded institution in the country. For example, the Solomon Law does
not apply to colleges or universities that have a long-standing policy
of pacifism based on historical religious grounds, nor does it affect
any Federal student aid or financial assistance.
Of course, as those of us who are here debating this issue are aware,
this is not the first challenge to this law. Prior to the November
circuit court decision, on repeated occasions lower courts have
consistently upheld the constitutionality of the Solomon Law, arguing
that it does not infringe on any institution's right to free speech or
association.
[[Page H318]]
While this recent court decision is unfortunate, it is not the end to
the Solomon Law. A bipartisan vote here today in support of this
legislation will help send a clear message to our courts that our
military recruiters deserve equal access on all of our campuses. I
thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) for his ongoing
efforts on this issue, and I thank the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr.
Kline) for managing this legislation.
Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman
from California (Ms. Woolsey).
(Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, first I thank the gentleman from North
Carolina (Mr. Butterfield) for yielding me this time to speak, time to
speak in opposition to H. Con. Res. 36.
Mr. Speaker, last November a Federal court said the Federal
Government cannot take away a university's funding simply because the
school refuses to exempt the U.S. military from its policy, meaning the
university's policy, and that on-campus recruiters not discriminate on
the basis of sexual orientation.
Today we are debating a resolution in support of the Solomon
amendment. If this House of Representatives votes to support that
resolution, we will be putting the Congress on record as supporting
absolute senseless discrimination.
The resolution says it is about equal access for military recruiters
at institutions of higher education. But, in reality, it is about
allowing the military to avoid the consequences of discrimination, the
same consequences that any other employer would have to face if it
discriminated.
Many say, and you heard it today, that our national security requires
the military to engage in this discrimination, but the facts just do
not support it. The court said that the Government failed to produce,
and I quote, ``a shred of evidence'' that the Solomon amendment helps
military recruiting, and even suggested that the hostility that the
amendment causes may hurt recruiting.
It was reported in last month that since 1998, the military has
discharged 20 fluent Arabic speakers and six fluent Farsi speakers
under its ``Don't ask, don't tell'' policy. These are students that the
military claims to be desperate to recruit.
No, Mr. Speaker, this resolution is not about military recruiting or
national security. Plain and simple, it is about punishing universities
for exercising their first amendment right to oppose discrimination
against gays and lesbians; and I encourage my colleagues, stand up for
the Constitution, oppose this resolution.
Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Conaway), a member of the Committee on Armed Services.
(Mr. CONAWAY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the amendment today
out of a bit of a sense of confusion as to why we really need to
revisit this issue one more time. It is odd that in a Nation at war
that institutions of higher learning would take steps to limit the Army
and the Navy, the Marine Corps, Coast Guard and other services' access
to their students. I wonder what they are afraid of as to why they
would take this particular position.
They pride themselves on having the brightest in America at their
universities, particularly the ones in question. As an aside, I was at
a university in January, excuse me, in November, at freshman
orientation and saw a couple of co-eds walking across campus that
obviously have impaired reading skills because they were both smoking.
Nevertheless, I wonder what they are afraid of. Why are they afraid
of the message of serving one's country, of doing one's duty. We can
argue that the Federal Government should or should not be in a lot of
different areas, but clearly national defense and raising an army is a
mission of our Founding Fathers that none of us would argue with.
I guess the point I would like to make is that if these colleges and
universities feel so strongly that their students should not
participate in our military, then let us do it with honor and
voluntarily turn back the Federal funding that supports many of the
programs that they support through their universities.
{time} 1330
I would call on them and if they are really serious about limiting
this, they are afraid of what our recruiters might say, that our
recruiters might ask their young men and women to serve their country,
to place their lives on the line, as many of the men and women who
today serve our country in those Armed Forces are doing every day in
Iraq and Afghanistan and other places around the world that we do not
necessarily know about, but nevertheless they are serving, why they are
afraid of this message? Why they do not think their students should
have access to that?
I rise in support of this resolution and would ask those universities
that feel strongly about this to voluntarily send back all the Federal
funding that they are currently getting and allow us to use those
dollars in universities that are a little more in line with the issues
that we are talking about today.
Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentlewoman
from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin).
Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this
resolution.
In Wisconsin, our State laws provide protections from discrimination
to people that go beyond what many other States and what the Federal
Government have put into law. Such protections as nondiscrimination
based on age, gender, marital status, membership in the National Guard
and sexual orientation are a part of Wisconsin's nondiscrimination
laws. Wisconsin has chosen to provide its citizens with these greater
protections because we have decided that these are in the best
interests of our citizens and are good public policy.
The University of Wisconsin in Madison has a history as a leader in
social justice. It adheres to State laws and has tried to apply those
laws appropriately across its campus. That has included the requirement
that campus organizations, departments and campus recruiters adhere to
State law. Yet Federal law has intervened to block enforcement of
campus policy and State law in regard to military recruiters.
The Solomon amendment was passed by a previous Congress because
students, like those at the University of Wisconsin, were having
success in blocking recruiters from campus if they discriminate against
lesbians or gays or bisexuals in violation of State law and campus
policy.
Access to and use of campus facilities to recruit students for higher
educational opportunities, employment or military service should be at
the discretion of the institution. Of course, public institutions
should not arbitrarily discriminate against any particular recruiter.
Reasonable and legitimate criteria should be evenly applied to every
recruiter. The Federal Government should not use Federal funding as a
weapon to force noncompliance with State law or to create special
rights for military recruiters.
I believe that the court made the correct decision in invalidating
the Solomon amendment. I also believe that today's resolution is
unnecessary. In fact, I believe that today's debate is the wrong
debate. We should be looking at ways to strengthen our military and
expand our resources for winning the fight against al Qaeda and other
terrorist organizations.
Mr. Speaker, when will we have the debate about the harm caused by
excluding so many qualified, skilled Americans from serving in our
military simply because they are gay or lesbian? When will we have a
debate about the waste of resources used to discharge fully trained
personnel who are serving our country honorably? When will we have the
debate about how much our fight against terrorism is hurt by the
discharges of Arab linguists?
The resolution before us today makes vague reference to the costs to
the military in having to arrange alternative recruitment strategies to
meet its goals, but it does not mention the significant cost of Don't
Ask, Don't Tell to our defense budget and to our national security.
Since Don't Ask, Don't Tell took effect in 1993, approximately 10,000
military personnel have been discharged. That is a huge amount of
training and experience that we have lost.
[[Page H319]]
In a study of discharges between 1998 and 2003, University of Santa
Barbara researchers found that, of 6,273 discharges, many were in
critical specialties such as 88 linguists, including many Arabic
speakers, 49 WMD experts, 90 nuclear power engineers, and 150 rocket
and missile specialists. To compensate for some of these discharges,
the Pentagon has been calling up members of the Individual Ready
Reserve. The harm to our military readiness and the cost to our
security caused by Don't Ask, Don't Tell is clear. Urging the
administration to try to reinstate the Solomon amendment will in no way
make our country safer.
Let there be no mistake. I strongly support our men and women in
uniform. I want to take this opportunity to honor the men and women in
our Armed Forces who have served and continue to serve in Iraq and to
the many serving our country here and around the world. Their efforts
allowed the Iraqi people to vote in a free election this week. Their
bravery and dedication is something all Americans should admire and
honor.
Mr. Speaker, there would be no clamor for a Solomon amendment if we
simply allowed all qualified Americans to serve their country in
uniform. Our country would be safer, our human resources would be
greater, our country would be stronger if we treated all Americans
equally, regardless of their sexual orientation. It is time to repeal
Don't Ask, Don't Tell. It will make our military stronger and our
country stronger.
Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to yield 4 minutes
to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller), my colleague on the
Committee on Armed Services.
Mr. MILLER of Florida. I thank my good friend for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of equal campus access for our
military recruiters.
Recently, a group calling itself Freedom For Academic and
Institutional Rights, FAIR, has decided that they disagree with what
our military stands for; and, because of this, they have decided that
the military no longer deserves access to our Nation's institutions of
higher learning. They claim that granting military recruiters equal
access to campuses would promote only a pro-military viewpoint and a
pro-military recruiting message.
This is simply not true. The government is not asking campuses across
America to endorse the war on terror, the President's policy or
anything to do with the military. All we are asking for is that the
military be afforded the exact same access as other organizations to
the student body. That is it. That is all. Those who argue that giving
equal access somehow constitutes an endorsement of the military are
just plain wrong. Does giving equal access to other groups mean that
each institution agrees with every idea that that organization may
have? Of course not. I really think it is ridiculous to argue that
point, but FAIR is arguing just that.
It is in everyone's interest to ensure that young people receive
information, including military options, so they can make informed
choices about their future after they finish their education. Just
because a school disagrees with a career in the military, does that
give them the right to deny information about that particular career to
someone who might want to sign up? Is it right to deny access because
you disagree with what someone says? How is that in keeping with the
first amendment to the Constitution?
The position that FAIR and others have taken is nothing more than
thinly veiled hypocrisy. They are masking their obvious hatred of our
Nation's military by hiding behind the first amendment. I think it is
wrong. I am not going to sit idly by while this so-called FAIR group
trashes our military.
The Constitution in article 1, section 8, states that Congress shall
have the power to raise and support armies, provide and maintain a navy
and make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval
forces. It does not say that activist judges and institutions of higher
education have the right to prevent Congress from going about its duty
to raise and support the Armed Forces of these United States.
Were the members of the FAIR not aware that we were at war and that a
state of national emergency has existed in this country since September
11 of 2001? I am sure they are happy to enjoy the rights afforded to
them by the first amendment, but who allows them those rights? Perhaps
they should reread the old Poem to a Soldier:
``It is the soldier, not the reporter, who has given us freedom of
the press.
``It is the soldier, not the poet, who has given us freedom of
speech.
``It is the soldier, not the campus organizer, who gives us freedom
to demonstrate.
``It is the soldier who salutes the flag, who serves beneath the flag
and whose coffin is draped by the flag who allows the protester to burn
the flag.''
I urge all my colleagues to support this resolution to ensure that
the military of these United States continues to have equal access to
our Nation's finest young men and women.
Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Farr).
Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution. It
may seem peculiar, but, frankly, I think that the military does not
need this resolution. It is not broken out there. They are having the
ability to recruit. Even despite the negative news from Iraq, the
recruitment numbers are up for all the services.
What this resolution does is sort of breaks this feeling in America
that democracy allows divergence of opinion and that the people that
own the real estate should have a voice in who can visit that real
estate. We do not have any nationally owned universities, yet this
resolution requires equal access for all military recruiters at
institutions of higher education. I think we are getting into a really
slippery area here because you are going to create within those
campuses huge debates that students are going to say, we don't like
this stuff being jammed down our throats. We and the faculty and the
trustees of a university ought to be able to decide who can visit our
campus, as they do in all other things.
For example, here in Washington, D.C., Catholic University does not
allow pro-abortionist recruiters to come and talk on the campus, and
here you are going to require, regardless of what the issue should be,
that military recruiters have to be allowed on campus. I think it is a
very slippery slope. I do not think we need to go there, because the
recruitment numbers are not down. I think the military has historically
stood on its own feet to do very well in recruiting without getting
Congress involved mandating that they have to be on campuses. I think
you are going to have a negative reaction.
I would urge Congress very carefully to think about this and to vote
``no'' until we get a better thought on how we want to mandate
democracy in this country.
Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney).
(Mr. SWEENEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SWEENEY. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I am proud to stand here in support of this resolution,
a very important resolution introduced by the gentleman from Alabama
(Mr. Rogers).
I think we are at a critical period of time in this Nation's history,
and it comes a couple of days after one of the more significant, what
you would call victories or symbols of what the American military
presence is about and what its results are. That is, that we pride
ourselves in having the best educated, the best trained, the best
quality of people serving in all sorts of branches, in all sorts of
jobs in the United States military; and at a time when the world needs
this the most from us, it is very important that we maintain that
quality.
I heard the prior speaker talk about the fact that this may be a
dangerous place and there are all sorts of other political ideas that
may be at play where you could put a recruiter on a campus or not. What
I would simply say is that that is not the same argument as here. This
is an argument of fairness and equity. It is an argument that says that
just because somebody's political philosophy is counter to the idea
that we want to have a strong
[[Page H320]]
military presence in this Nation, those school administrators, who I
think are way off the board in terms of their left-wing views and their
antimilitary approach, ought not to be able to ban college military
recruiters from doing their job because it is in the national interest
that we do it. It is really in the world's interest.
So I am here to support this resolution and say that what the Third
Circuit did last November again represents the judiciary trying to
legislate where it ought not to do it. My predecessor, Gerry Solomon,
first introduced this amendment many years back. It was that amendment
that has been struck down. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote in
favor of this resolution and recognizing that what we do for the
private sector in allowing them to put recruiters in law schools or on
any college campus ought to be the same that we do for something so
important and so critical as the recruitment of the best and the
brightest into our military forces. I urge all of my colleagues to
strongly support this resolution.
{time} 1345
Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Boehner), the chairman of the Committee on Education and the
Workforce.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, let me thank my colleague for yielding me
this time.
Mr. Speaker, today I rise in strong support of this resolution, which
shows our Nation's unwavering commitment to both higher education and
providing a strong national defense. At no time in recent memory has
our country placed more responsibility on the shoulders of our men and
women in uniform. We are fighting a war on terrorism on multiple
fronts, in Afghanistan and Iraq. And it is essential that if we are to
be victorious in defending our freedom and protecting our homeland that
we promote military service as an option to college students across the
United States.
When this Congress passed and President Bush signed into law the No
Child Left Behind Act, the bill made it easier for military recruiters
to inform America's high school students about their options to serve
their country, while also giving parents a choice about whether or not
they want their sons and daughters to be contacted individually by
military recruiters.
Now in this resolution we are reiterating the choices given to
institutions of higher education. The Solomon Act, originally passed in
1995, grants the Secretary of Defense power to deny Federal funding to
institutions of higher learning if they prohibit military recruitment
on campus. This law recognizes the importance of having a capable,
educated and well-prepared military, one that is ready to defend
American liberties such as freedom of speech and higher education.
If we deny Armed Forces recruiters the opportunity to actively
recruit in schools, we not only disrespect the sacrifices of military
men and women who have made our freedom possible; we also rob our
students of the valuable opportunities that military service can be to
our Nation and what they can help provide. There is no reason not to
allow the Nation's armed services to make their best case to college
students and to do so in the same manner as private sector employers
that colleges and universities seem to relish having on campus.
Denial of access and equality to military recruiters by colleges that
receive Federal funds is an insult to the taxpayers who help subsidize
higher education in this country. Many nations have mandatory military
service for their citizens. We do not. The very core of our system of
homeland security and national defense depends on young men and women
deciding that they wish to serve our country.
Successful recruitment of the best officers in our military relies
heavily on our military recruiters' access to the best and the
brightest. And it seems a bit disingenuous for the elite institutions
of higher education, such as Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Georgetown, and
New York University, to condemn the lack of the wealthy and privileged
in the ranks of our military while these schools deny their students
the option of even hearing about a career in our United States
military.
This resolution should not be politicized. It is a straightforward
reaffirmation of our Armed Forces and our students. Congress does not
force colleges and universities to accept Federal funding. If an
institution of higher learning wishes to bar military recruiters from
recruiting, it is free to do so. But Federal funding is not an
entitlement and such institutions should not expect that decision to be
endorsed and subsidized by the taxpayers of the United States. The
resolution reaffirms our commitment to that principle.
And I want to commend the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) and
I also want to thank the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kline) for
bringing this resolution to the floor and urge my colleagues to support
it.
Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Hunter), the distinguished chairman of the House
Committee on Armed Services.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time and for the distinguished way in which he has conducted the debate
and also the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Rogers) for sponsoring this
resolution.
Mr. Speaker, let us make this clear. This is not about some social
issue. The real impetus for this barring of the American military from
our college campuses is because of the left-wing core of administrators
and professors who do not like this country. And we could substitute
another protest issue for them in this thing and it would not make a
bit of difference.
These are the same people who in many cases had protests in favor of
the Viet Cong during the Vietnam War. Many of them protested our
involvement in El Salvador, protested our bringing democracy to
Nicaragua, protested our participation in the first Desert Storm in the
early 1990s, and in this recent bringing of freedom to Iraq. They
protested all those things. They hate all things military.
And the interesting aspect of this debate is that these same left-
wing professors and administrators profess to let young people make up
their own minds. Free thinking is theoretically their trademark. Let us
have some free thinking. Let us allow the military to be on the
campuses. Let us allow the students to have access to their
information, and let us let them make up their own minds. There is no
draft here. This is a volunteer military. They do not have to join the
military. But the idea that the left-wing professors and administrators
have to protect the students from that very military that the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Miller) so eloquently described as the protectors of
all of our freedoms including their freedoms to have academic freedoms,
to protest and to speak freely, the idea that these students have to be
shielded from the guarantors of our freedoms is nonsense.
Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Kingston).
(Mr. KINGSTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks, and include extraneous material.)
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
I want to speak certainly in favor of the Solomon Amendment and
remind my colleagues that it does not apply to institutions of higher
education that have had a longstanding practice of pacificism based on
historic religious grounds, and it exempts Federal student financial
assistance from termination. But what it does do is allow students to
look at career opportunities in the Army. And as the chairman of the
Committee on Armed Services said, there are so many legal issues
involved in the military today and to go beyond that, to let people
look at careers in, I would say, intelligence as much as anything,
homeland security, there is a great opportunity for students to go
into.
But we are also seeing so much push-back really from a crowd that is
basically anti-American and anti-conservative. Indeed, there are so
many prejudices against everyday middle-class values on college
campuses, and serving in the military and being pro-American just seems
to be one of them.
Students at Wells College, for example, were ridiculed by their
professors
[[Page H321]]
if they supported the war in Iraq. At the University of Missouri, a
professor, a science professor, offered extra credit for students to
protest a speech given by conservative activist David Horowitz. At the
University of Richmond, a professor called President Bush a moron in
his class. And at the University of Oregon, students were labeled
``neo-Nazi'' for expressing their opinion that Trent Lott was the
victim of a double standard. And examples go on and on.
Another statistic, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education
found that over 90 percent of well-known college campuses have speech
codes intended to ban or punish politically incorrect, almost always
conservative speech, and that campus funds are unequally distributed to
left-wing groups as opposed to conservative groups by a ratio of 50 to
one.
I think the judicial attack on the Solomon Amendment is just one of a
series of a trend that is against, again, anything that is pro-
American, pro-conservative, pro-traditional values. And so I would
submit for the Record an article that was an opinion in the Wall Street
Journal recently and then something on the academic bill of rights that
I think also touches into this same subject.
The bill would express the continued support of Congress for the so-
called ``Solomon law'' in title 10, U.S. Code, which improves DOD's
ability to establish and maintain ROTC detachments and to ensure
military recruiters have access to college campuses and students that
is at least equal in quality and scope to that provided to other
employers.
The bill would:
State Congress's resolve to achieve military personnel readiness
through vigorous application of the ``Solomon law'' relating to equal
access for military recruits to institutions of higher education, and
express Congress's commitment to explore all options, including the use
of its Constitutional power to appropriate funds, to achieve that equal
access.
Express the Sense of Congress that the Executive Branch should
aggressively challenge any decision impeding or prohibiting the
operation of the ``Solomon law.''
Encourage the Executive Branch to follow a doctrine of non-
acquiescene by not finding a judicial decision affecting one
jurisdiction to be binding on other jurisdictions. The so-called
``Solomon law,'' section 983, title 10, U.S. Code, named for its
original proponent Representative Gerald Solomon (R-NY), is based on
the principle that if a college or university accepts federal funding
it must permit military recruiters and/or ROTC access to campus and to
students. Enacted first in 1994, and added to by Congress in 1996, 1999
and 2002, and 2004, the ``Solomon law'' prohibits some defense-related
and other federal funding from going to colleges and universities that
prevent ROTC access or military recruiting on campus.
The Solomon law: (1) does not apply to institutions of higher
education that have a long-standing policy of pacifism based on
historical religious grounds; and, (2) exempts federal student
financial assistance from termination.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, on 29 November 2004,
reversed a district court decision, which had upheld the
Constitutionality of the ``Solomon law,'' by ruling that the ``Solomon
law'' violated the 1st Amendment rights of free speech and association
held by institutions of higher education. The Third Circuit remanded
the case to the district court to enter a preliminary injunction
against the enforcement of the ``Solomon law.''
The acting Solicitor General has announced his intention to petition
the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari to review the decision of
the Third Circuit Court. The Government also filed a motion on 14
January 2005 with the Third Circuit Court seeking to stay the Court's
mandate for a preliminary injunction against the enforcement of the
``Solomon law'' until the Supreme Court decides the Government's
petition. The Third Circuit granted the stay on 19 January.
H. Con. Res. 36, in expressing continued support for equal access of
military recruiters to institutions of higher education, makes the
following points regarding the ``Solomon law'':
Under article I, Section 8, of the Constitution, Congress exclusively
has the power to raise and support armies, provide and maintain a navy,
and make rules for the government and regulation of the Armed Forces.
Military recruiting on 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 recruiting. Efforts by colleges and universities to restrict
or prohibit military recruiter access will have the harmful effects of
increasing Federal spending to achieve desired recruiting outcomes and
of compromising military readiness and performance. Such harm conflicts
with Federal responsibilities to provide for the Nation's defense. Any
reduction in the performance by the Armed Forces amidst the present
national emergency declared by the President on September 14, 2001,
operates against the national interest.
The Constitution gives Congress the power to regulate spending and in
that role Congress has chosen over time to appropriate funds for a
variety of Government programs to be provided to institutions of higher
learning. However, these funds are not an entitlement to any college or
university and can be provided subject to criteria and conditions set
by Congress.
The ``Solomon law'' is a legislative safeguard that links 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 to any other employer.
For the last several years, a growing number of university law
schools and colleges of law have treated military recruiters in ways
significantly different from the recruiters of other employers. As a
result, military recruiters and the persons they seek to interview have
been subjected to various degrees of official and unofficial harassment
or ill treatment that is designed to make military recruiting
difficult, or to frustrate its objectives. The underlying reason for
this differing treatment is opposition to Federal law that prohibits
military service by openly gay people--the so-called ``don't ask, don't
tell'' law.
Given that opposition, it is imperative that the safeguards that the
``Solomon law'' provides not only for military recruiters, but also for
ROTC, be maintained. Without such safeguards, grave harm to military
recruiting will result as colleges and universities move to limit or
deny access to campuses and students by representatives of the Armed
Forces.
Academic Bill of Rights
background
Hiring Practices for Professors
Faculty hiring is controlled by more senior members of the
faculty itself:
As Conservative faculty forced to keep political views
quiet until they achieve tenure.
Usually hire those who agree with them,
Creates a perpetual cycle.
Creates an environment where Marxists, Post-Modernists,
etc. can still dominate in academic fields even while their
views have been discredited:
Numbers of Liberal Professors vs. Conservative Professors
The overall ratio of Democrats to Republicans at the 32
schools studied was more than 10 to 1 (1397 Democrats, 134
Republicans).
Not a single department at a single one of the 32 schools
managed to achieve a reasonable parity between the two main
political parties:
In the nation at large, registered Democrats and
Republicans are roughly equal in number.
The closest any school came to parity was Northwestern
University--Democrats outnumbered registered Republicans by a
ratio of 4-1.
Other Schools:
Brown--30-1
Bowdoin, Wellesley--23-1
Swarthmore--21-1
Amherst, Bates--18-1
Columbia, Yale--14-1
Pennsylvania, Tufts, UCLA and Berkeley--12-1
Smith--11-1
Other Schools had ZERO registered Republicans:
Williams--51 Democrats, 0 Republicans
Oberlin--19 Democrats, 0 Republicans
MIT--17 Democrats, 0 Republicans
Haverford--15 Democrats, 0 Republicans
Most students probably graduate without ever having a class
taught by a professor with a conservative viewpoint.
Not Just a Faculty Problem But A Campus-Wide Bias
For example, the University of Pennsylvania, Carnegie
Melon, and Cornell could not identify a single Republican
administrator.
In the entire Ivy League, there were only 3 Republican
administrators identified.
Impact on Students
Remarks belittling conservative ideas convey that these
views are not accepted on campus--Grading based on these
ideas reinforce this perception.
One student called a ``fascist'' for inviting Oliver North
to campus.
University of Oregon--Student labeled ``neo-Nazi'' for
expressing his opinion that Trent Lott was the victim of a
double standard.
University of Richmond--Professor called President Bush a
``moron'' in the classroom.
University of Missouri in Columbia--Professor offered extra
credit to protest a speech by David Horowitz.
Students at Wells College were ridiculed by professors for
their support on Iraq war and their views on feminism.
``It didn't take long to see how liberal it was after I
came here. The professors and the education I receive is
excellent, but the professors seem to use class as a
political soapbox,''--Kristy L. Hochenberger, a student at
Wells College.
Slogan circulated by Biology professor at Wells College--
``Lobotomies for Republicans: It's not just a good idea; it's
the law!''.
[[Page H322]]
Many students conceal what they actually think in order to
protect their academic standing--a reality clearly at odds
with the educational mission of the university.
Nearly all distinguished doctoral programs rely on matching
students with professors who have compatible interests.
Preferential treatment shown to those with similar liberal
ideals.
Campus Guests, Speech Police and Commencement Speakers
Campus funds are unequally distributed to leftwing student
groups as opposed to groups with conservative agendas by a
ratio close to 50:1: These student groups are many times in
charge of hiring campus speakers.
The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education found
that over 90 percent of well-known college campuses have
speech codes intended to ban and punish politically
incorrect, almost always conservative, speech.
The ratio of commencement speakers on the left and right
was 226-15, a ratio of over 15:1: Commencement speakers are
selected through committees composed of administrative staff,
faculty, and students.
Twenty-two of the thirty-two schools surveyed did not have
a single Republican or conservative commencement speaker in
the entire ten years surveyed: Six of the remaining schools
invited only one Republican or conservative each, as compared
to 38 liberals or Democrats.
Haverford, Swarthmore and UCLA, which host multiple
speakers every year, did not feature a single Republican or
conservative speaker as balanced against 54 liberals and
Democrats.
Academic Bill of Rights
Recognizes that political partisanship by professors is an
abuse of students' academic freedom.
Designed to take politics out of the university curriculum:
Does not call for more classics in curriculum,
Reading lists should provide students with dissenting
viewpoints so they may form their own opinions.
Designed to protect the right of students to ``get an
education rather than an indoctrination'':
Should not make professors afraid of what they say,
We defend professors' right to say anything and forbids
administration from punishing them for their political
opinions,
Professors should always be open to dissenting opinions.
Unequal funding of student organizations which host guest
speakers is unacceptable: Calls for pluralism in selection of
guest speakers.
Learning environment hostile to conservatives is wrong.
There is a lack of ``intellectual diversity'' within
faculties on college campuses:
University should be ``inclusive'' to all viewpoints,
Without it, free exchange of ideas are impaired.
It is not our intention to suggest that there should be
quotas based on party affiliation in the hiring process at
universities:
We support removing all politics and political affiliation
from the hiring process,
It is our purpose to point out the gross imbalance of
liberal vs. conservative professors.
While nearly all university administrations devote
extraordinary resources to defend the principle of diversity
in regard to race and gender, none can be said to have shown
interest in the diversity of ideas.
Universities have the privilege of being separate from the
society they inhabit:
Society grants faculty protection from the influence of
outside politics,
With that privilege comes a responsibility by the faculty
to also safeguard the free exchange of ideas.
Correcting this should be the goal and an integral part of
educational policy under the Academic Bill of Rights.
[From the Wall Street Journal, Feb. 2, 2005]
Wisdom of Solomon--The Disgrace of Blocking Military Recruiters From
Campus
Don't ask. Don't tell. Having no desire to crash our e-mail
server, we'll save discussion of gays in the military for
another day. Rather, today's subject is lawyers in the
military. Surely Americans of all points of view can agree
that in an age of Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib, the military can
use the best attorneys it can get.
So it's a disgrace that some of the nation's law schools,
objecting to the Pentagon's ``discrimination policies,''
refuse to permit military recruiters to make their pitch on
campus, relegating them instead to unofficial off-campus
venues. Law students pondering their first career move can be
wined and dined by fancy firms that set up recruitment tables
at campus job fairs, but they have to stroll over to the
local Day's Inn to seek out the lonely military recruiter.
To put it another way, the same liberals who object that
the military includes too many lower-class kids won't let
military recruiters near the schools that contain students
who will soon join the upper-class elite. It's almost enough
to make us contemplate restoring the draft, starting with law
school students.
Needless to say, such scholastic shenanigans don't go down
well with Congress, which in 1994 passed the Solomon
Amendment, named for the late New York Republican, Gerald
Solomon. The law requires schools that receive federal funds
to provide equal access to military recruiters. Today, the
House is scheduled to vote on a resolution brought by Alabama
Republican Mike Rogers that would restate the House's support
for the Solomon Amendment. Something similar passed the House
and Senate by overwhelming margins last year and was
incorporated into the Defense Authorization bill.
The impetus for Mr. Rogers's move is a November ruling by
the federal appeals court in Philadelphia in favor of a group
of law schools and legal scholars that had contested the
Solomon law. The 2-1 opinion found that the Solomon Amendment
violates the schools' First Amendment rights to free speech
and association. Next stop is the Supreme Court, which is
expected to take the appeal that the Justice Department plans
to bring.
There are many peculiarities to this lawsuit, starting with
the fact that the group that brought it--the Forum for
Academic and Institutional Rights--declines to release the
names of the 26 law schools and faculties that belong to its
coalition. Some of the participants (New York University and
Georgetown, for example) have outed themselves since the suit
was brought in 2003, but others steadfastly maintain their
own don't-ask-don't-tell policy.
In any event, there should be no legal question about
Congress's right to put conditions on grants of federal funds
to universities. It does this all the time--including
requirements that colleges adhere to certain civil rights and
gender standards. With a few exceptions, universities have no
trouble going along and courts have no problem letting them.
If, as is likely, the Supreme Court overturns the appeals
court decision, that will be the end of it. Almost all
universities, public and private, take millions of dollars in
federal money that would be next to impossible to give up.
That's especially true of the elite schools, both public and
private. Still, it would be nice to think that the nation's
universities would welcome the military for reasons other
than the mercenary. Patriotism, perhaps?
Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer), chairman of the Committee on
Veterans' Affairs.
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in full support of this resolution and
urge my colleagues to support its passage. Asking the administration to
appeal the third circuit is the right thing to do. What is happening on
some college campuses is deja vu for those of us who attended colleges
in the 1960s and the 1970s. Back then too many college administrators
lacked the courage to resist pressure from then what were called left-
wing student groups and other professors to ban military recruiters
from their campuses. As a result, students who sought military careers
were denied equal access to careers of their choice and our schools
became the centers for a wide range of nonsense courses.
The student protestors of the 1960s and 1970s and those of like mind
are now the administrators and professors of colleges and universities
all over the country. Clearly, they have neither changed their politics
nor loathing for the American military. Even at a time when our
servicemen and -women are encouraged to defeat the forces of tyranny
and terror, they remain the same.
In denying military recruiters equal access to campuses such as
Harvard Law School, college administrators violate the most basic
principles of the right to associate and free speech they so profess is
precious. Despite large numbers of conservative students attending
their institutions, these liberals preach tolerance; however, these
liberal administrators and professors have now become the most
intolerant people I know.
The following quote is from a student typical of the attitude of many
of these ivory bastions: ``The day my political science department
hires a Republican and I am allowed to sit in a class without a number
of snickers, jeers, and/or dirty looks when President Bush's name is
even mentioned is the day I will admit there is progress on today's
campus.''
Mr. Speaker, Congress did not ask for special access for military
recruiters. We are asking for just equal access to groups such as those
seeking support for such liberal causes as abortion rights, frivolous
lawsuits, same-sex marriage, elimination of the right to private
property, gun control, Orwellian Big Government. Mr. Speaker, once
again activist judges have clearly overstepped their authority, and it
is time for the administration to stand and say that the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit was wrong in their ruling and please seek
an appeal.
[[Page H323]]
Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I do not accept the suggestion that the academic
community is un-American and not in support of our military. My friends
in the academic community, and I have many in North Carolina who are
part of the academic community, they are good Americans and they
support our military completely. I sincerely believe that these
individuals have a genuine difference of legal opinion that must be
resolved by our Supreme Court, and that is why I am supporting this
resolution. We need a determination by our Supreme Court of this
matter.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
In closing, I would just say that we have heard some discussion today
about policies of the United States Armed Forces for a long time. Since
its inception, there have been special policies applied to our
military, the ability to impose nonjudicial punishment, the ability to
restrict entry by those who are too tall or too short, the ability to
order its members away from home and into combat and into harm's way.
But the discussion today is not about those policies and should not be
about those policies. The discussion today is about keeping our
military, keeping our Armed Forces, the best trained, the best led, the
best equipped in the world; and that means we need the ability to
recruit the best and the brightest. This is about insisting that our
military recruiters have equal access to America's universities and
colleges.
I urge all of my colleagues to support this resolution.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, issues like this one--first brought to our
attention with a passion and eloquence only possible in a man like
Jerry Solomon--provide our democracy a valuable service: They cut
through the fog of spin and force us to tell the American people
exactly where we stand.
Pure and simple, this bills says our armed services--the Army, Navy,
Air Force, Marines, Coast Guard, and National Guard--should have the
same right to recruit at colleges and universities who receive federal
funding as any other group.
Every year, thousands upon thousands of businesses, industries, non-
profit groups, and even other colleges recruit underclassmen to sign up
to become investment bankers and computer engineers or environmental
lawyers or medical students.
And yet, some colleges--principally the elitist and elite colleges--
refuse to even allow military recruiters on their campuses.
Such policies are obnoxious in times of peace, but they are simply
intolerable in times of war, and the equal access of our military
recruiters to federally funded colleges and universities must be
protected.
But that, Mr. Speaker, is the easy part.
The hard part is understanding why facilities and administrations of
these colleges don't want military recruiters on their campuses.
Because, at bottom, their opposition to the presence of veterans at
their schools is not about academic freedom, or civil liberties.
It's about them not liking the military, or the values our men and
women in uniform represent.
It's about many of them preferring the company of people who blame
the United States for 9/11--who compare the World Trade center victims
to Nazis--to the company of a soldier or a sailor or an airman or a
Marine.
It's about academia feeling more sympathy for terrorists than for the
women and children they murder.
It's about a fundamental misconception about the purpose of a
university--the professors are there for the students, Mr. Speaker, and
not the other way around.
That our military makes our academia possible, and not the other way
around.
Indeed, the right of tenured academics to be publicly insufferable
exists only because of the sacrifices of our servicemen and women.
The least they could offer in return is a booth in the field house on
career day.
Of course, men and women who have dodged bullets and held dying
comrades in their arms don't take seriously people who live by the glib
professional code ``publish or perish.''
But those elite campuses, who claim to educate our nation's best and
brightest, who claim to train our leaders of the future: how can we
possibly not allow military recruiters to have the right to talk to
such students?
What profession, if any in our entire society, needs the opportunity
to recruit the sharpest and broadest minds of every generation more
than our armed forces?
America's armed services have molded great men from all walks of
life, and when given brilliant men and women, they have produced
legends.
How can we let such minds pass through our top colleges without even
the chance that they might bump into a veteran recruiter who could
change their life?
America in the future no doubt will need its brilliant businessmen
and lawyers and poets, but what good can such genius do without
brilliant admirals and generals to protect them?
Mr. Speaker, it's a shame this issue was ever forced on us at all,
but the vote on this bill will help to clarify exactly what we each
mean when we say we support the troops.
We'll finally see who among us really believes the military deserves
more than just lip service from those of us they protect.
Votes like this, after all, remind us of one of the great blessings
of American democracy: that unlike college professors, congressmen
don't have tenure.
Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Speaker, this bill is ludicrous on its face.
At a time when billboards, TV ads, radio spots, neighborhood
recruiting offices, and slick brochures too numerous to count, flood
our consciousness, this Sense of Congress resolution asserts that
recruiting on college campuses is a necessary part of military
recruitment.
According to this resolution, the Pentagon cares about cost-
effectiveness; but the Pentagon has lost $2.3 trillion without
explanation. It's been shameful in its award of no-bid contracts to
insider corporations, and now, we're told that $9 billion of Iraq money
has been ``lost.''
The thrust of this resolution is that it's cost effective and
patriotic for the military to recruit on college campuses. Its
supporters say that military recruiters ought to have the same access
as businesses and corporations. But nowhere in this resolution is the
one sure way to get good quality recruits ever mentioned. It's the
tried and true way that businesses and corporations employ: they pay
more.
In reality, the Pentagon already has access to every 18-year-old male
in our country. This resolution is totally unnecessary, unwarranted,
and completely fails to make a convincing case.
I urge a ``no'' vote on this resolution.
U.S. ``Loses'' $9bn in Iraq
Washington.--The U.S. occupation authority in Iraq was
unable to keep track of nearly $9bn it transferred to
government ministries, which lacked financial controls,
security, communications and adequate staff, an inspector
general has found.
The U.S. officials relied on Iraqi audit agencies to
account for the funds but those offices were not even
functioning when the funds were transferred between October
2003 and June 2004, according to an audit by a special US
inspector general.
The findings were released on Sunday by Stuart Bowen,
special inspector general for Iraq reconstruction.
The official who led the CPA, L Paul Bremer III, submitted
a blistering, written reply to the findings, saying the
report had ``many misconceptions and inaccuracies,'' and
lacked professional judgment.
Bremer complained the report ``assumes that western-style
budgeting and accounting procedures could be immediately and
fully implemented in the midst of a war''.
The inspector general said the occupying agency disbursed
$8.8bn to Iraqi ministries ``without assurance the monies
were properly accounted for''.
U.S. officials, the report said, ``did not establish or
implement sufficient managerial, financial and contractual
controls.'' There was no way to verify that the money was
used for its intended purposes of financing humanitarian
needs, economic reconstruction, repair of facilities,
disarmament and civil administration.
Pentagon spokesperson Bryan Whitman said on Sunday the
authority was hamstrung by ``extraordinary conditions'' under
which it worked throughout it mission.
``We simply disagree with the audit's conclusion that the
CPA provided less than adequate controls,'' Whitman said.
Turning over the money ``was in keeping with the CPA's
responsibility to transfer these funds and administrative
responsibilities to the Iraqi ministries as an essential part
of restoring Iraqi governance''.
The inspector general cited an International Monetary Fund
assessment in October, 2003 on the poor state of Iraqi
government offices. The assessment found ministries suffered
from staff shortages, poor security, disruptions in
communications, damage and looting of government buildings,
and lack of financial policies.
CPA staff learned that 8,206 guards were on the payroll at
one ministry, but only 602 could be accounted for, the report
said. At another ministry, U.S. officials found 1,417 guards
on the payroll but could only confirm 642.
When staff members of the U.S. occupation government
recommended that payrolls be verified before salary payments,
CPA financial officials stated the CPA would rather overpay
salaries than risk not paying employees and inciting
violence,'' the inspector general said.
[[Page H324]]
The inspector general's report rejected Bremer's criticism.
It concluded that despite the war, ``We believe the CPA
management of Iraq's national budget process and oversight of
Iraqi funds was burdened by severe inefficiencies and poor
management.''
____
Oh, No--Pentagon Loses $2.3 Trillion
(By Uri Dowbenko)
February 17, 2002.--The Pentagon is still the home of the
highest grossing fraud on Planet Earth--fraud so lucrative
that even the September 11 incident would not disturb the
insider-criminals.
According to a CBS News story, the U.S. Department of
Defense cannot account for $2.3 trillion of taxpayer money.
[For that story, go to: <http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/
01/29/eveningnews/printable325985.shtml>]
On September 10, 2001, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld
promised change, but the next day the World Trade Center was
destroyed. Shortly thereafter, the new phony war on terrorism
was inaugurated. It was another great reason for more
military fraud, which would exceed all previous projections
and expectations. Rumsfeld's promises of ``reform'' were
quickly forgotten.
Today, despite the fact that Congress has not declared war
against any enemy, Bush Administration rhetoric has produced
a new ``war on terrorism,'' which has gobbled up more than $1
billion to date.
In fact, it could be said that the September 11 Incident
was like the proverbial manna from heaven for beleaguered
defense contractors.
George W. Bush has promoted this new war fraud by asking
Congress for a fresh $48 billion in new ``defense'' spending.
And in the Pentagon, large-scale military fraud continues
apace.
Rumsfeld himself has said that ``according to some
estimates, we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions.''
This amount of $2.3 trillion amounts to $8,000 for every
man, woman and child in America.
Instead of blaming Pentagon accountants, however, the
American people should understand that privately held firms,
which have federal contracts for so-called accounting and
computer systems (which coincidentally never seem to work)
are the real culprits. The liability for government fraud
begins and ends with these private contractors. These
``Beltway Bandits'' with insider government connections are
the most blatant unindicted white-collar criminals to date.
Public money is most likely siphoned out through companies
like DynCorp, AMS, and Lockheed Martin, which control the
bookkeeping for federal agencies, where fraud is rampant,
unchecked and very lucrative for corporate and government
insiders.
The fraud is so egregious, in fact, that the sovereignty of
the nation itself can be questioned when bogus accounting
systems can mask the revenue streams and expenditures of
federal agencies to such an extent.
Government? What government? Like parasites which have
overwhelmed the host, corrupt private contractors who control
federal accounting and computer systems (as well as their
bureaucratic cohorts in crime) have decimated U.S. Government
agencies into a state resembling bankruptcy.
The usual suspects are a literal handful of federal
contracting firms with lucrative insider deals that have
become outrageously brazen in their schemes of fraud.
The amount of taxpayer monies they have stolen is mind-
boggling.
Consider these facts:
1. The Department of Defense (DoD) ``lost'' $1.1 trillion
in Fiscal Year 2000 and $2.3 trillion in Fiscal Year 1999.
2. The racketeers in the Pentagon refuse to publish audited
financial statements, yet are asking for more taxpayer money
to fund fraudulent missile systems and other sweetheart deals
for their pals in the infamous Military-industrial-Medical
Complex.
3. The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
``lost'' $59 billion in Fiscal Year 1999 and refuses to
disclose what it ``lost'' in Fiscal Year 2000.
4. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has arranged contract
kickbacks to its commissioner Charles O. Rossotti through so-
called ``ethical waivers'' on his stock held in American
Management Services (AMS), a federal contracting firm he
founded and which currently holds contracts with many federal
agencies including the IRS.
5. Former Pentagon insider Herbert S. ``Pug'' Winokur is a
kingpin in failed energy giant Enron (he's on the board of
directors), as well as Harvard University, whose Highfields
Capital shorted Enron stock while it was a major shareholder,
as well as the notorious DynCorp, which rakes in asset
forfeiture funds in the United States, has lucrative
mercenary contracts in Colombia in the bogus War on Drugs,
and whose other mercenary personnel are alleged to
participate in the prostitution of teenage girls as part of
its ``peacekeeping'' mission in Bosnia.
Yikes. So what are we going to do?
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of our Armed
Forces and in support of this nation's continued efforts to give it the
additional strength and stability it needs to keep our men and women
safe. The members of this House have joined their constituents in
mourning the loss of life and injuries sustained in the course of
America's war and subsequent occupation of Iraq for two years.
Since the beginning of the Iraq war in March 2003, 1,423 members of
the U.S. military have died, which includes 1,084 as a result of
hostile action and 333 of non-hostile causes. Furthermore, my District
of Houston has experienced two deaths already since January; six deaths
in 2004; five in 2003; and numerous injuries over the course of the
nation's engagement.
No doubt, Mr. Speaker, I fully support the Armed Services. In the
spirit of achieving the goal of attracting the best and brightest
candidates for service, I join my colleague from California in
advocating this legislation. However, we must support our troops in
accordance with the U.S. Constitution and with respect for civil rights
and fundamental freedoms that are the rubric of this nation.
When the House debated H.R. 3966, which would allow for the denial of
federal funds for educational institutions unless military recruiters
are provided access to the campuses of these institutions, I voted
``yes'' on passage of the measure with the understanding that no
Constitutional contravention would result from its implementation.
The resolution that is before the House today, however, is
controversial because the final disposition of underlying federal
jurisprudence could play a major role clarifying the way we apply
Constitutional principles to an act of Congress. The holding in Forum
for Academic and Institutional Rights v. Rumsfeld tells us that we must
be very careful in the way we regulate society so as not to violate
fundamental rights. (390 F.3d 219 (3rd Cir. 2004)).
So, Mr. Speaker, I do support the intent of this legislation because
I honor the men and women who serve in our Armed Services and who
sacrifice their lives for us. However, I also support the upholding of
the United States Constitution and the respect for jurisprudence, and I
believe it seriously damages our commitment to the three branches of
government to encourage the interference with judicial decisions before
a final rendering of a final review by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor today in strong opposition
to H. Con. Res. 36.
It is a standard practice for institutions of higher learning to
include a non-discrimination policy as part of their mission. These
policies affirm that they do not tolerate discrimination on any number
of issues: race, sex, religion, age, disability, social class, and
sexual orientation. These non-discrimination policies were created so
that all people in our country have the opportunity to be an equal and
respected member of higher education communities.
Unfortunately the military has established a discriminatory policy,
Don't Ask Don't Tell. This policy unfairly excludes homosexuals from
military service on the basis of their sexual orientation alone. For
example, numerous military linguists who are critically needed in the
Global War on Terrorism have been discharged under Don't Ask Don't
Tell. Supporters of H. Con. Res. 36 say that denying military
recruiters access to college campuses is a national security threat,
but they are completely missing the big picture. The real national
security threat is the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy that forces our
military to discharge gay servicemen and servicewomen regardless of
their job performance.
I strongly believe that the non-discrimination policies of colleges
and universities should be respected and I urge my colleagues to vote
against this resolution.
Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
{time} 1400
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). All time for debate has
expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 59, the concurrent resolution is
considered read and the previous question is ordered on the concurrent
resolution and on the preamble.
The question is on the concurrent resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, this 15-
minute vote on agreeing to House concurrent resolution 36 will be
followed by 5-minute votes on the motion to suspend the rules and agree
to House Resolution 56; the motion to suspend the rules and agree to
House Resolution 57; and agreeing to House Resolution 60.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 327,
nays 84, not voting 22, as follows:
[[Page H325]]
[Roll No. 16]
YEAS--327
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Andrews
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Bean
Beauprez
Berkley
Berry
Biggert
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carter
Case
Castle
Chabot
Chandler
Chocola
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crenshaw
Cubin
Cuellar
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
DeLay
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Dicks
Doggett
Doolittle
Doyle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hall
Harman
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth
Higgins
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Hooley
Hostettler
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Istook
Jefferson
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lowey
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marshall
Matheson
McCarthy
McCaul (TX)
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Melancon
Menendez
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Moore (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Napolitano
Neugebauer
Ney
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Ortiz
Osborne
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Salazar
Sanchez, Loretta
Saxton
Schiff
Schwartz (PA)
Schwarz (MI)
Scott (GA)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Sodrel
Souder
Stearns
Strickland
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Udall (CO)
Upton
Van Hollen
Visclosky
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--84
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Baldwin
Becerra
Berman
Blumenauer
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Capuano
Clay
Conyers
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (IL)
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Emanuel
Engel
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Green, Al
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hastings (FL)
Hinchey
Holt
Honda
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson, E. B.
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kucinich
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren, Zoe
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
McDermott
McGovern
McKinney
Meehan
Meeks (NY)
Michaud
Miller, George
Mollohan
Nadler
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Rahall
Rangel
Roybal-Allard
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanders
Schakowsky
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Solis
Stark
Thompson (CA)
Tierney
Velazquez
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
NOT VOTING--22
Bilirakis
Brown, Corrine
Carson
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dingell
Eshoo
Ford
Green, Gene
Hyde
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Northup
Obey
Rothman
Royce
Rush
Smith (NJ)
Spratt
Stupak
Towns
Udall (NM)
Weldon (PA)
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus) (during the vote). Members are
advised that there are 2 minutes remaining in this vote.
{time} 1424
Mr. RAHALL, Mr. MEEKS of New York, Mr. ABERCROMBIE and Mr. MEEHAN
changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. DICKS and Mr. HAYES changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated against:
Ms. CARSON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 16, my card
didn't register while I was on the floor. Had I been present, I would
have voted ``no.''
Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 16, had I been
present, I would have voted ``no.''
____________________