[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.''

                          ____________________