[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 5]
[House]
[Pages 5620-5630]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




     ROTC AND MILITARY RECRUITER EQUAL ACCESS TO CAMPUS ACT OF 2004

  Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 580, 
I call up the bill (H.R. 3966) to amend title 10, United States Code, 
and the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to improve the ability of the 
Department of Defense to establish and maintain Senior Reserve Officers 
Training Corps units at institutions of higher education, to improve 
the ability of students to participate in Senior ROTC programs, and to 
ensure that institutions of higher education provide military 
recruiters entry to campuses and access to students that is at least 
equal in quality and scope to that provided to any other employer, and 
ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ose). Pursuant to House Resolution 580, 
the bill is considered read for amendment.
  The text of H.R. 3966 is as follows:

                               H.R. 3966

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``ROTC and Military Recruiter 
     Equal Access to Campus Act of 2004''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) The Reserve Officers Training Corps (ROTC) program is 
     the most common path for undergraduates to become United 
     States military officers.
       (2) The inclusion of both public and private undergraduate 
     institutions in the ROTC program insures a more racially, 
     ethnically, and socially diverse pool for leadership in the 
     higher ranks of the Armed Forces.
       (3) The majority of both minority officers and female 
     officers in the Armed Forces are acquired through 
     undergraduate ROTC programs.
       (4) The presence of ROTC programs on college campuses 
     benefits even those students who are not enrolled by making 
     them aware of the presence and role of the United States 
     military.
       (5) Land-grant colleges received land from the United 
     States on the condition that they offer some military 
     instruction in addition to their regular curriculum, forming 
     the basis for the Nation's tradition of college and 
     university acceptance of responsibility to contribute to the 
     Nation's readiness.
       (6) The Armed Forces face a constant challenge in 
     recruiting top-quality personnel

[[Page 5621]]

     that ROTC programs are ideally suited to meet.
       (7) Military recruiters should have access to college 
     campuses and to college students equal in quality and scope 
     to that provided all other employers.
       (8) If any college or university discriminates against ROTC 
     programs or military recruiters, then under current law that 
     college or university becomes ineligible for certain Federal 
     taxpayer support, especially funding for many military and 
     defense programs.
       (9) The personnel and programs of the Department of 
     Homeland Security and the Department of Energy are mutually 
     dependent upon a high caliber of well-educated, professional 
     leadership in the Armed Forces in order to protect the people 
     and territory of the United States.
       (10) In order to more fully promote the ability of the 
     Nation's Armed Forces to recruit on college campuses and to 
     facilitate the ability of students to participate in ROTC 
     programs on campus, the laws to prevent discrimination 
     against ROTC and military recruiters should be updated.

     SEC. 3. PROHIBITION ON PROVISION OF HOMELAND SECURITY-RELATED 
                   FUNDING TO POST-SECONDARY SCHOOLS THAT PREVENT 
                   ROTC ACCESS OR MILITARY RECRUITING ON CAMPUS.

       (a) In General.--The Homeland Security Act of 2002 (Public 
     Law 107-296; 6 U.S.C. 101 et seq.) is amended by adding at 
     the end the following new title:

                  ``TITLE XVIII--ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS

     ``SEC. 1801. PROHIBITION OF FUNDS BEING PROVIDED TO 
                   INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION THAT PREVENT 
                   ROTC ACCESS OR MILITARY RECRUITING ON CAMPUS.

       ``No funds made available for the Department may be 
     provided by contract or by grant to an institution of higher 
     education (including any subelement of such institution) 
     that, by reason of a determination by the Secretary of 
     Defense under subsection (a) or (b) of section 983 of title 
     10, United States Code, is ineligible for the receipt of a 
     contract or grant from funds specified in subsection (d) of 
     that section.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents in section 
     1(b) of such Act is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new items:

                  ``TITLE XVIII--ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS

``1801. Prohibition of funds being provided to institutions of higher 
              education that prevent ROTC access or military recruiting 
              on campus.''.

     SEC. 4. CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH ROTC ACCESS 
                   PROVISIONS.

       Subsection (a) of section 983 of title 10, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(1)'' before ``No funds'';
       (2) by striking ``prevents--'' and inserting ``prevents, 
     either (or both) of the following:'';
       (3) by striking ``(1) the'' and inserting ``(A) The'';
       (4) by striking ``; or'' and inserting a period;
       (5) by striking ``(2) a'' and inserting ``(B) A''; and
       (6) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2)(A) Not later than 180 days after the date of the 
     enactment of the ROTC and Military Recruiter Equal Access to 
     Campus Act of 2004 and annually thereafter, the Secretary of 
     Defense shall request from each institution of higher 
     education that has students participating in a Senior Reserve 
     Officer Training Corps program during the then-current 
     academic year of that institution a certification that such 
     institution, during the next academic year of the 
     institution, will--
       ``(i) permit the Secretary of each military department to 
     maintain a unit of the Senior Officer Training Corps (in 
     accordance with subsection (a)) at that institution (or any 
     subelement of that institution), should such Secretary elect 
     to maintain such a unit; and
       ``(ii) if the Secretary of the military department 
     concerned elects not to establish or maintain a unit of the 
     Senior Reserve Officer Training Corps at that institution, 
     permit a student of that institution (or any subelement of 
     that institution) to enroll in a unit of the Senior Reserve 
     Officer Training Corps at another institution of higher 
     education.
       ``(B) Any certification under subparagraph (A) shall be 
     made by the president of the institution (or equivalent 
     highest ranking administrative official) and shall be 
     submitted to the Secretary of Defense no later than 90 days 
     after receipt of the request from the Secretary.
       ``(C) In the case of any institution from which a 
     certification is requested under subparagraph (A), if the 
     Secretary of Defense does not receive a certification in 
     accordance with subparagraph (B), or if the certification 
     does not state that the university will comply with both 
     clauses (i) and (ii) of subparagraph (A) during its next 
     academic year, the Secretary shall make a determination under 
     paragraph (1) as to whether the institution has a policy or 
     practice described in that paragraph.''.

     SEC. 5. EQUAL TREATMENT OF MILITARY RECRUITERS WITH OTHER 
                   RECRUITERS.

       Subsection (b)(1) of section 983 of title 10, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking ``entry to campuses'' and inserting 
     ``access to campuses''; and
       (2) by inserting before the semicolon at the end the 
     following: ``in a manner that is at least equal in quality 
     and scope to the degree of access to campuses and to students 
     that is provided to any other employer''.

     SEC. 6. PROHIBITION OF FUNDING FOR POST-SECONDARY SCHOOLS 
                   THAT PREVENT ROTC ACCESS OR MILITARY 
                   RECRUITING.

       (a) Covered Funds.--Subsection (d) of section 983 of title 
     10, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)--
       (A) by striking ``limitation established in subsection (a) 
     applies'' and inserting ``limitations established in 
     subsections (a) and (b) apply'';
       (B) in subparagraph (B), by inserting ``for any department 
     or agency for which regular appropriations are made'' after 
     ``made available''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following new subparagraphs:
       ``(C) Any funds made available for the Department of 
     Homeland Security.
       ``(D) Any funds made available for the National Nuclear 
     Security Administration of the Department of Energy.
       ``(E) Any funds made available for the Department of 
     Transportation.
       ``(F) Any funds made available for the Central Intelligence 
     Agency.''; and
       (2) by striking paragraph (2).
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--(1) Subsection (b) of such 
     section is amended by striking ``subsection (d)(2)'' and 
     inserting ``subsection (d)(1)''.
       (2) Subsection (e) of such section is amended by inserting 
     ``, to the head of each other department and agency the funds 
     of which are subject to the determination,'' after 
     ``Secretary of Education''.

     SEC. 7. EXCLUSION OF AMOUNTS TO COVER INDIVIDUAL PAYMENTS.

       (a) Codification and Extension of Exclusion.--Subsection 
     (d) of section 983 of title 10, United States Code, as 
     amended by section 6(a), is further amended--
       (1) by striking ``The'' after ``(1)'' and inserting 
     ``Except as provided in paragraph (2), the''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(2) Any Federal funding specified in paragraph (1) that 
     is provided to an institution of higher education, or to an 
     individual, to be available solely for student financial 
     assistance, related administrative costs, or costs associated 
     with attendance, may be used for the purpose for which the 
     funding is provided.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--Subsections (a) and (b) of such 
     section are amended by striking ``(including a grant of funds 
     to be available for student aid)''.
       (c) Conforming Repeal of Codified Provision.--Section 8120 
     of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2000 (Public 
     Law 106-79; 10 U.S.C. 983 note), is repealed.

     SEC. 8. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       The amendments made by this Act shall apply with respect to 
     funds appropriated for fiscal year 2005 and thereafter.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The amendment printed in the bill is 
adopted.
  The text of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute is 
as follows:

                               H.R. 3966

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``ROTC and Military Recruiter 
     Equal Access to Campus Act of 2004''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) The Reserve Officers Training Corps (ROTC) program is 
     the most common path for undergraduates to become United 
     States military officers.
       (2) The inclusion of both public and private undergraduate 
     institutions in the ROTC program insures a more racially, 
     ethnically, and socially diverse pool for leadership in the 
     higher ranks of the Armed Forces.
       (3) The majority of both minority officers and female 
     officers in the Armed Forces are acquired through 
     undergraduate ROTC programs.
       (4) The presence of ROTC programs on college campuses 
     benefits even those students who are not enrolled by making 
     them aware of the presence and role of the United States 
     military.
       (5) Land-grant colleges received land from the United 
     States on the condition that they offer some military 
     instruction in addition to their regular curriculum, forming 
     the basis for the Nation's tradition of college and 
     university acceptance of responsibility to contribute to the 
     Nation's readiness.
       (6) The Armed Forces face a constant challenge in 
     recruiting top-quality personnel that ROTC programs are 
     ideally suited to meet.
       (7) Military recruiters should have access to college 
     campuses and to college students equal in quality and scope 
     to that provided all other employers.
       (8) If any college or university discriminates against ROTC 
     programs or military recruiters, then under current law that 
     college or university becomes ineligible for certain Federal 
     taxpayer support, especially funding for many military and 
     defense programs.

[[Page 5622]]

       (9) The personnel and programs of the Department of 
     Homeland Security and the Department of Energy are mutually 
     dependent upon a high caliber of well-educated, professional 
     leadership in the Armed Forces in order to protect the people 
     and territory of the United States.
       (10) In order to more fully promote the ability of the 
     Nation's Armed Forces to recruit on college campuses and to 
     facilitate the ability of students to participate in ROTC 
     programs on campus, the laws to prevent discrimination 
     against ROTC and military recruiters should be updated.

     SEC. 3. CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH ROTC ACCESS 
                   PROVISIONS.

       Subsection (a) of section 983 of title 10, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(1)'' before ``No funds'';
       (2) by striking ``prevents--'' and inserting ``prevents, 
     either (or both) of the following:'';
       (3) by striking ``(1) the'' and inserting ``(A) The'';
       (4) by striking ``; or'' and inserting a period;
       (5) by striking ``(2) a'' and inserting ``(B) A''; and
       (6) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2)(A) Not later than 180 days after the date of the 
     enactment of the ROTC and Military Recruiter Equal Access to 
     Campus Act of 2004 and annually thereafter, the Secretary of 
     Defense shall request from each institution of higher 
     education that has students participating in a Senior Reserve 
     Officer Training Corps program during the then-current 
     academic year of that institution a certification that such 
     institution, during the next academic year of the 
     institution, will--
       ``(i) permit the Secretary of each military department to 
     maintain a unit of the Senior Officer Training Corps (in 
     accordance with subsection (a)) at that institution (or any 
     subelement of that institution), should such Secretary elect 
     to maintain such a unit; and
       ``(ii) if the Secretary of the military department 
     concerned elects not to establish or maintain a unit of the 
     Senior Reserve Officer Training Corps at that institution, 
     permit a student of that institution (or any subelement of 
     that institution) to enroll in a unit of the Senior Reserve 
     Officer Training Corps at another institution of higher 
     education.
       ``(B) Any certification under subparagraph (A) shall be 
     made by the president of the institution (or equivalent 
     highest ranking administrative official) and shall be 
     submitted to the Secretary of Defense no later than 90 days 
     after receipt of the request from the Secretary.
       ``(C) In the case of any institution from which a 
     certification is requested under subparagraph (A), if the 
     Secretary of Defense does not receive a certification in 
     accordance with subparagraph (B), or if the certification 
     does not state that the university will comply with both 
     clauses (i) and (ii) of subparagraph (A) during its next 
     academic year, the Secretary shall make a determination under 
     paragraph (1) as to whether the institution has a policy or 
     practice described in that paragraph.''.

     SEC. 4. EQUAL TREATMENT OF MILITARY RECRUITERS WITH OTHER 
                   RECRUITERS.

       Subsection (b)(1) of section 983 of title 10, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking ``entry to campuses'' and inserting 
     ``access to campuses''; and
       (2) by inserting before the semicolon at the end the 
     following: ``in a manner that is at least equal in quality 
     and scope to the degree of access to campuses and to students 
     that is provided to any other employer''.

     SEC. 5. PROHIBITION OF FUNDING FOR POST-SECONDARY SCHOOLS 
                   THAT PREVENT ROTC ACCESS OR MILITARY 
                   RECRUITING.

       (a) Covered Funds.--Subsection (d) of section 983 of title 
     10, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)--
       (A) by striking ``limitation established in subsection (a) 
     applies'' and inserting ``limitations established in 
     subsections (a) and (b) apply'';
       (B) in subparagraph (B), by inserting ``for any department 
     or agency for which regular appropriations are made'' after 
     ``made available''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following new subparagraphs:
       ``(C) Any funds made available for the Department of 
     Homeland Security.
       ``(D) Any funds made available for the National Nuclear 
     Security Administration of the Department of Energy.
       ``(E) Any funds made available for the Department of 
     Transportation.
       ``(F) Any funds made available for the Central Intelligence 
     Agency.''; and
       (2) by striking paragraph (2).
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--(1) Subsection (b) of such 
     section is amended by striking ``subsection (d)(2)'' and 
     inserting ``subsection (d)(1)''.
       (2) Subsection (e) of such section is amended by inserting 
     ``, to the head of each other department and agency the funds 
     of which are subject to the determination,'' after 
     ``Secretary of Education''.

     SEC. 6. EXCLUSION OF AMOUNTS TO COVER INDIVIDUAL PAYMENTS.

       (a) Codification and Extension of Exclusion.--Subsection 
     (d) of section 983 of title 10, United States Code, as 
     amended by section 5(a), is further amended--
       (1) by striking ``The'' after ``(1)'' and inserting 
     ``Except as provided in paragraph (2), the''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(2) Any Federal funding specified in paragraph (1) that 
     is provided to an institution of higher education, or to an 
     individual, to be available solely for student financial 
     assistance, related administrative costs, or costs associated 
     with attendance, may be used for the purpose for which the 
     funding is provided.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--Subsections (a) and (b) of such 
     section are amended by striking ``(including a grant of funds 
     to be available for student aid)''.
       (c) Conforming Repeal of Codified Provision.--Section 8120 
     of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2000 (Public 
     Law 106-79; 10 U.S.C. 983 note), is repealed.

     SEC. 7. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       The amendments made by this Act shall apply with respect to 
     funds appropriated for fiscal year 2005 and thereafter.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Rogers) and 
the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Rogers).
  Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such times I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3966, the ROTC and Military 
Recruiter Equal Access to Campus Act of 2004. It is based on one simple 
principle: Colleges and universities that accept Federal funding should 
also be willing to permit military recruiters equal access to students 
in ROTC scholarship programs.
  Specifically, H.R. 3966 would first require colleges and universities 
to give military recruiters access to campus and to students that is 
equal to in quality and scope as that provided to any other private 
employer.
  Secondly, the bill would require an annual verification from colleges 
and universities who already support ROTC programs that they will 
continue to do so in the upcoming academic year.
  Thirdly, it will add two additional defense-related funding sources, 
the Central Intelligence Agency and the National Nuclear Security 
Administration of the Department of Energy, to the potentially 
prohibitive funding sources already specified in the law.
  And, finally, it restores the Department of Transportation to the 
list of funds that might be terminated. These were inadvertently left 
out in the 2002 change in the law.
  Mr. Speaker, I would also like to emphasize this bill does not in any 
way disturb or interfere with Federal financial student financial aid.
  This law is known as the Solomon amendment after its Congressman, 
Gerry Solomon of New York, began this as a House amendment adopted in a 
bipartisan vote in 1995.
  The following year, Congress imposed the loss of DOD funding on 
institutions of higher learning that had an anti-ROTC policy. That same 
Congress added the Departments of Education, Labor, and Health and 
Human Services to the list of potentially prohibited funding sources. 
Then the Homeland Security Act of 2002 added funding from the 
Department of Homeland Security to the list.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe that now Congress must once again revisit this 
law. Recently, barriers have been erected by some colleges and 
universities to military recruiters having access to students on 
campus, particularly in their law schools.
  But what has really created a real sense of urgency for us to act now 
is the recent court decision of Forum for Academic and Institutional 
Rights, otherwise known as FAIR, versus Donald Rumsfeld. FAIR was a 
consortium of an unknown number of anonymous law schools in this case.
  In the U.S. District Court of New Jersey in September, 2003, the 
plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction against the DOD from 
enforcing Solomon.
  In his opinion on November 5, 2003, the judge denied the motion and 
upheld the constitutionality of the Solomon amendment, but he noted 
that law schools are loathe to endorse or assist recruiting efforts of 
the United States military, and he criticized the government's 
assertion that the Solomon amendment requires colleges and universities 
to give military recruiters access to campuses and students equal to

[[Page 5623]]

that given to recruiters from other employers.

                              {time}  1630

  In response to the judge's ruling, the Secretary of Defense has asked 
the Congress to clarify the Solomon amendment to state unequivocally 
that the military should have the same equal access in scope and 
quality to that of any other civilian employee.
  H.R. 3699 will do just that. I urge support of the House.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume; 
and I rise in support of this bill, the ROTC and Military Recruiter 
Equal Access to Campus Act of 2004.
  First, I want to recognize the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Rogers) 
for his efforts to bring this measure to the floor, and we thank him 
for that. While some of my colleagues may oppose this bill, I believe 
it is important that Congress support efforts to ensure the military 
recruiters have equal access to all post-secondary institutions of 
higher learning, as well as law schools and graduate schools.
  The propensity for young Americans to volunteer for military service, 
as well as public service in general, has been declining; and we need 
to ensure that our military is a reflection of our society, which means 
that military recruiters need access to all young men and women, 
including those who attend colleges as well as universities.
  I want to take this opportunity to commend our Nation's military 
recruiters. Recruiting duty is not for the faint of heart. Recruiters 
often face long hours and demanding duty tracking down student 
contacts, meeting with prospective candidates, meeting with their 
families, traveling across the region to attend recruitment fairs and 
other related activities. To succeed, they must always be available 
wherever and whenever a prospective candidate may be. Recruiting is a 
serious, stressful, and vital job in the military; and only the best 
and brightest in these services are chosen in this capacity.
  So we need to make every effort to ensure that military recruiters 
are successful in their job because it directly affects our national 
security. Tomorrow's military will be more high-tech, more 
sophisticated, and more demanding than today's. So we need to recruit 
bright and competent and knowledgeable people. We can only do this if 
our military recruiters get fair and complete access to our college 
campuses and to its students.
  Thus, I urge my colleagues to support the bill and provide equal 
access for military recruiters.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon), a member of the Committee on 
Armed Services and a cosponsor of this bill.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. 
Rogers) for yielding time and for his great leadership in bringing this 
important bill to the floor.
  Mr. Speaker, it goes without saying that military service is the 
greatest form of duty and sacrifice that any American can have for 
their country. The brave men and women of our Armed Forces selflessly 
fight day in and day out to protect America from terror and tyranny 
from every corner of this world. Military service is more than just a 
job. It is a duty bound calling and every American should have the 
opportunity to serve their country in this way if they so choose.
  That is why it is so important to pass H.R. 3966 today. This bill 
will give military and ROTC recruiters the opportunity to have the same 
unencumbered recruitment ability as other prospective employers on 
college campuses. For too long, military recruiters have been treated 
like second-class citizens on some college campuses and have been 
subjected to undue obstacles that no other recruiters have had to 
endure.
  Some colleges and universities, for example, have required military 
recruiters to set up their recruitment tables off campus, while 
allowing other employers to recruit on campus. On other college 
campuses, ROTC recruiters were only given the option of using remote 
and inaccessible rooms for their recruitment, significantly reducing 
their ability to reach students. Shockingly, at one of the most 
prestigious colleges in this country, New York University, potential 
recruits were harassed and detained by protestors; and their pictures 
were displayed throughout the school on a poster entitled ``Face of 
Complicity.'' This is absolutely unacceptable, and that kind of 
behavior cannot happen again.
  Mr. Speaker, our Nation is involved in a global war on terror, and we 
must have the best and the brightest working on our side to win. Our 
college campuses are filled with the next Norman Schwarzkopfs and Colin 
Powells, and we must give them the chance to fulfill their full 
potential as Americans.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in passing H.R. 3966.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Woolsey).
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, today we are debating a bill which at first 
appears to be fairly straightforward. H.R. 3966 would seem to provide 
the military recruiters the same access to college and university 
campuses that other government agencies and private companies are 
receiving, but the reality is that this bill is not about equal access. 
It is about discrimination, pure and simple.
  If H.R. 3966 passes, then colleges and universities that otherwise 
adhere to strict antidiscrimination policies will be forced to allow 
organizations like ROTC to openly discriminate against gays, lesbian 
and bisexual men and women. The flawed ``Don't ask, Don't tell'' policy 
that the military has adopted allows the military to discharge any 
serviceman or servicewoman who is determined not to be straight. In no 
other field can someone be fired simply for being gay.
  H.R. 3966 is nothing short of an open and codified policy of 
intolerance, intolerance against homosexuals, for the reason of their 
sexual orientation. Until the incredibly unjust ``Don't ask, Don't 
tell'' policy is drastically altered, bills like H.R. 3966 will 
continue to allow for the open discrimination against one group of 
Americans.
  The truth is that H.R. 3966 would unfairly punish those universities 
who are bold enough to apply the same rules to military recruiters as 
they do to all other employers, employers who are recruiting on their 
campuses.
  I will vote against H.R. 3966.
  Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), a distinguished member of 
the Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the gentleman from 
Alabama (Mr. Rogers) and also my friend, the gentleman from Missouri 
(Mr. Skelton), who I have the utmost respect for, and he knows that.
  This is not an issue of homosexuality. It is not an issue that a lot 
of my left wing friends talk about, but every day they will stand up on 
this House floor and say I am for the troops. Of course, everybody is; 
but yet they vote against defense bills, they vote against intelligence 
bills, and they also vote against or for every amendment that would gut 
both military and defense.
  We have an all-voluntary force, and to allow access on to our 
campuses is a good thing. I do not know about my colleagues; but when I 
see a young man or woman walking the streets, especially around D.C. 
here, I see pride. I see pride in service and support of this country, 
and they represent the same thing on our colleges and our universities; 
but, yet, there is still those that would block that using a whole host 
of examples of why not to do it.
  This ends a form of discrimination and restriction on free exchange 
of ideas and opportunities. I cannot tell my colleagues the number of 
people that I served with, young Filipinos, earning their citizenship 
by serving on ships, young men and women in minorities that come from 
our inner cities that normally would not have a chance to achieve. Many 
of those people have learned their discipline and

[[Page 5624]]

their leadership skills from the military where they would not 
otherwise have had a chance. They would end up in a low-paying job or 
on welfare or whatever. It is a great opportunity, and we ought to let 
this opportunity have some light and have equal representation on our 
campuses.
  That is why we are standing here. That is why my friend, the 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), and most of the Members on both 
sides of this aisle are here; but yet the liberal left will fight it 
tooth, hook and nail, just like they vote against defense and they vote 
against Intel and then say we are for the troops.
  Well, there is a line. Patriotism is unchanging and a work that has 
to be taken every single day. I want to thank my friends for supporting 
this bill.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  First, let me say I thank the gentleman from California for his kind 
and generous comments, who wore the uniform so well, not only brought 
distinction to himself but to our country, and we thank him for his 
service.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts 
(Mr. Frank).
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I agree that being able to 
serve in the military is an important opportunity. I am here opposing 
this bill because I want to expand that opportunity.
  This is not a bill brought forward because the military is having 
trouble recruiting on campuses. It is brought forward to penalize those 
universities which have said, look, as a matter of principle we do not 
want you recruiting among our students if they are not all equally able 
to take advantage of the opportunity offered. Obviously, there are some 
things for which you recruit, some people are physically or otherwise 
ineligible, but universities have said we do not believe that ruling 
out gay and lesbian young people who would like to join the military is 
fair to them, and we certainly do not think you should come to our 
campus and use our facilities and discriminate in a way that we think 
is unfair among our students.
  I agree very much that we should be doing all we can to get people 
into the military. I will repeat what I said a little while ago, 
repetition being one of the privileges of our profession.
  We have fewer Arabic-speaking translators in the military today 
because of the policy which kicked out a number of people at the Army 
language school because they were discovered to be gay. These were 
people who would, if they had not been kicked out some time ago, been 
available today to do that important job of translation. I am talking 
about seven people who were learning Arabic who would today be 
available in a greatly needed theater.
  So, no, there is nothing antimilitary about people saying, look, this 
is a wonderful institution; yes, the ability to serve your country and 
its uniform is a very important one; please do not deny it to us on an 
irrelevant basis. Do not say because of the way we were born and 
because of our inherent natures we cannot participate in this.
  I cite that because I have heard all the leaders in the military from 
Colin Powell on since this has been discussed say, look, it is not that 
the gay and lesbian members of the military do a bad job. There is 
prejudice in this society. There are people who are uncomfortable in 
their presence, and we have to honor that argument as well. It is bad 
for morale.
  Of course, the Israeli Defense Force is not being able to afford the 
luxury of discrimination. They have mobilized all of their people, 
including gays and lesbian people, and no one has suggested that they 
are an ineffective fighting force or have inappropriate morale.
  So I would very much like to agree with the principle that we should 
expand opportunities for young people, that we should increase our 
ability to recruit. The way to do that is to change the policy, and we 
should not be penalizing those institutions which, as a matter of 
principle, are working for a change in that policy.
  Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King), a member of the Committee on the 
Judiciary and a cosponsor of H.R. 3966.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, initially I would like to thank the 
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Rogers) for bringing this bill before us. 
It is something I have looked at for some time, and it is something 
that I certainly support.
  It would be my endeavor to bring individual amendments to the 
appropriations process if we needed to in order to reestablish the pre-
eminence of the military on our campuses across this country.
  This is something that started back in the 1970s as part of the 
protests against the Vietnam War; and, slowly, this kind of policy that 
has been a resistant to recruitment and ROTC on our campuses across 
this country has used every tool available.
  Well, I want to announce that this is about discrimination, this 
issue is; but it is about discrimination against young men and women in 
uniform. Whenever somebody stands up in a uniform, we will find 
somebody with another agenda trying to find a way to erode the values 
that put them in that place; and so the argument was made, for example, 
the Boy Scouts would be one, and of course, all our men and women in 
uniform in the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines and the Coast Guard 
are also victims of an effort that is keeping us from recruiting good 
people because the campuses have lined up against the recruitment on 
campus.
  I look forward to the day that ROTC or any recruiter can set up a 
card table on the commons at Harvard University on the exact location 
where George Washington received his commission as commander of the 
Continental Army. I find that a real offense to the United States, not 
to have the freedom to do that and to promote it.
  A statement was made by the gentlewoman earlier that in no other 
field can a person be fired for being gay. Well, no, probably not; but 
most people in this country are at-will employees, and they can be 
fired for no reason or any reason at all.
  It is not a matter about open discrimination.

                              {time}  1645

  I would like to relate a little story, Mr. Speaker.
  State Senator Jerry Behn from Iowa asked the question, when lobbied 
by the gay lobby, answer me this: Am I heterosexual or am I homosexual? 
They looked at him for a while and they said, well, we do not know.
  That is the answer. You cannot tell. Keep it private.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus), who is also a cosponsor of this 
piece of legislation.
  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  First of all, I want to express my respect for my colleague, the 
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Rogers), for bringing this legislation to 
the floor.
  I will say this. It is a sad commentary on our time when we even have 
to have legislation like this. You would not really think in a country 
that is at war, and we are at war, with soldiers in the field, young 
men and women risking their lives every day, that such disrespect would 
be shown to them by men and women their own age.
  My son is a Marine. I cannot imagine him being assigned to a college, 
a university. He has actually left college to go in the Marines. I 
cannot imagine him coming home from the sacrifice he has made, going on 
to that college campus and seeing young men and women who, while he was 
serving in the Marines, were enjoying their college education because 
he and other young men and women sacrificed for them and served in 
their place.
  The gentlewoman, who I respect from the San Francisco Bay area, and 
the gentleman from Massachusetts, who I respect, they both said this is 
about discrimination. I think the gentleman from Iowa said it best when 
he said it

[[Page 5625]]

is about discrimination, but it is about discrimination against our 
military and those that serve in our uniform.
  Let us not involve our young men and women who are risking their 
lives every day. Let us not involve them in some policy discussion. Let 
us not endanger their lives and the lives of those who serve next to 
them in this debate.
  If law students want to debate this issue, if they want to write in 
the paper, that is one thing, but when they block military recruiters, 
as they have done, it is time for us to end this foolishness. It is our 
responsibility as a Congress. Support this legislation.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey), a distinguished member of the 
Committee on Armed Services and also a cosponsor of this legislation.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Alabama for 
yielding me this time and for bringing this bill, H.R. 3966, before us 
today.
  Mr. Speaker, I am in strong support of H.R. 3966, which would require 
that colleges and universities give military recruiters the same access 
to students as other employers.
  We as a Nation depend on the brave service of our military to protect 
our homeland, but do we honestly think that we are going to recruit the 
best and the brightest young men and women to serve if their schools 
are not even letting recruiters in the door? And that, Mr. Speaker, is 
exactly what is happening. That is why we need this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, we rely on an all-voluntary force, which means that 
students choose whether or not to serve in the military or to pursue a 
civilian career. I hope that we can all agree that for our safety and 
the safety of our children and our grandchildren we want to have the 
smartest and the most capable military possible. But, remarkably, some 
schools choose to leave military recruiters out in the cold. Mr. 
Speaker, H.R. 3966 will serve to right this terrible policy of 
excluding military recruiters from our campuses.
  Again, I commend the chairman, I commend the gentleman from Alabama 
(Mr. Rogers), and I rise in 100 percent support of it, and I hope we 
have bipartisan support and pass H.R. 3966.
  Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Cox), Chairman of the Select Committee 
on Homeland Security and an original cosponsor of H.R. 3966.
  Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the author of this legislation, 
the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Rogers), for his strong leadership 
needed at this time; and I also want to thank my friend and colleague, 
the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), for his leadership on this 
issue.
  It is very important that we move this legislation forward because it 
squarely addresses the scandal of American colleges and universities 
banishing ROTC and military recruiters from campus, while turning 
around and cashing the taxpayers' checks from the Department of Defense 
and other national security and homeland security agencies of our 
government to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars.
  My alma mater, Harvard University, which bans ROTC from campus, gets 
more money in Federal taxpayer grants than it does from tuition for 
undergraduates and graduates combined, and yet Harvard University sends 
its hard core, a very small number of hearty brave students, down the 
road to MIT where they have to do their MIT-based ROTC training because 
they cannot be on campus. They do not meet Harvard standards because 
they want to affiliate themselves with the United States military.
  The attacks on America, on the World Trade Center and on the Pentagon 
should have been a wake-up call to schools such as Harvard, which 
banished ROTC from campus 35 years ago. There is now a feeble pretext 
for this military ban on America's elite campuses. It is alleged that 
it is a protest against the Clinton administration's ``don't ask/don't 
tell policy'' for gays in the military. I find that exceptionally hard 
to believe, because no mention was made of this problem in 1969 when 
the ban was put in place.
  I was on Harvard's campus during the Vietnam War. I remember when 
South Vietnam fell to the Communists, and I saw the biggest 
demonstration that I had seen yet on Harvard's campus, with students 
out in the streets chanting, ``Ho, ho, Ho Chi Minh, the Vietcong are 
going to win.'' That is where this ban came from.
  It has been a long time since the Vietnam War, John Kerry 
notwithstanding; and it is high time that we recognize what happened to 
us on September 11, that we recognize that it was U.S. troops who were 
defending the Harvard students at Logan Airport in the hours after the 
9/11 attacks. And, of course, Boston's Logan Airport was one of the 
staging airports for the 9/11 attacks on this country.
  As our Nation wages an aggressive campaign to defeat global 
terrorism, President Kennedy's call to young people to ``ask what you 
can do for your country'' is more important than ever. America's armed 
forces are hunting down al Qaeda and other supporters of terrorism in 
Afghanistan, in Iraq, and on every continent around the globe. Never in 
recent history have we asked more from our Armed Forces, and never have 
we needed more educated leaders in our armed services.
  The best contribution Harvard could make, the best contribution Yale 
could make, the best contribution that Stamford and Columbia could make 
to sound, wise policies in our Nation's military is to permit their 
graduates to enter into leadership posts there. But even a Harvard 
alum, who is a military recruiter, cannot go on campus to do it.
  Now I have heard this is not really about the military, that this is 
a punitive measure aimed at the colleges themselves. But the military 
did not start this fight; and, in fact, look at what the universities' 
policies have accomplished over the last several decades.
  In 1964, there were 268,000 ROTC students on America's campuses. 
Today, it is down to 50,000, a decline of more than 80 percent.
  The military is being hurt by these policies, and America is being 
hurt by these policies. Today, successful recruitment of exceptional 
officers depends more heavily than ever on the Reserve Officers 
Training Corps. This past year, 70 percent of the Army's newly 
commissioned officers came from ROTC.
  As chairman of the Select Committee on Homeland Security, I have been 
deeply gratified and humbled as I have seen how many of America's best 
and brightest have been willing to volunteer in service to their 
country in the fight against terrorism, both through ROTC and through 
choosing a career in the military upon graduation. But many of these 
same schools that are banning ROTC on campus are also banning even 
military recruiters from coming to campus.
  The premise of this bill is a simple one: Colleges that discriminate 
against the United States Armed Services should not receive U.S. 
taxpayer funds related to national defense and homeland security. The 
bill will stop the current abusive practice under which schools ban 
ROTC and military recruiting but then turn around and cash enormous 
checks from the Department of Defense and the Department of Homeland 
Security. It will require they certify that they do not discriminate 
and that they will permit ROTC recruiters and ROTC training programs on 
campus.
  Today, as our Nation calls for able new leaders in the war on terror, 
it is time for our universities and our colleges in America to honor 
that call and help lead our Nation.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Rogers) for 
bringing this important legislation to the floor.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie).
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I think it is unfortunate that the 
discussion here has gone off in directions

[[Page 5626]]

about what constitutes patriotism or what constitutes the proper 
recognition of the defense of democracy, because that is how all this 
argument started.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to indicate to the Members that this issue 
deserves a full discussion and not just on the floor. We would not be 
here and there would not be a motion to recommit, which will be made 
shortly, I can assure you, if we had a full discussion about this and 
then had gone, probably where it should have gone, to the Committee on 
the Judiciary, if it needed to go at all, or a decision could have been 
made as to whether that was the proper venue.
  I, too, can have recollections about what happened during Vietnam. I 
daresay that a lot of people on the floor, Members of this Congress, 
were not involved in any of that. I know what the first amendment is 
all about, and I do not think the first amendment says that the 
Secretary of Defense gets to decide what other people get to say or do 
in this country under threat of some kind of sanction. To the degree or 
extent that someone is prevented access that they are entitled to, they 
have recourse in the courts. That is what we do in a democracy.
  I do not notice that it is our job, certainly not in the Committee on 
Armed Services, to turn over to the Secretary of Defense, any Secretary 
of Defense, the opportunity to be a prosecutor and a judge and a jury 
and a sheriff all at the same time.
  Now, the facts are, as to the origin of this argument today, that 
there apparently have been instances in which people disagreed, 
apparently in some law schools in particular, disagreed with the 
``don't ask/don't tell policy'' of the United States Armed Forces. This 
has nothing to do with what people said or did not say about the 
Vietnam War. It has nothing to do with what any particular Member's 
view of that American involvement in the Vietnam war was, let alone the 
war on terror or anything else. What it has to do is with the present 
policy, whether you agree with it or not, with the armed services.
  Now, if the Armed Services say they want equal access, what was being 
said apparently by the people at these various schools was that they 
did not have equal access to being able to join the Armed Services or 
the Department of Homeland Security, I suppose, or the CIA. Now that 
needs to be discussed, and it is not going to be discussed in 3 minutes 
or 5 minutes or 2 minutes here on the floor. It is not even going to 
come up.
  Now I could not find the proper way to make a motion to try to get 
this before the Committee on the Judiciary so we could have a 
discussion on what the proper sanctions might be, if they were needed 
at all, with respect to gaining access for the ROTC or anybody else 
that want to recruit. I am in favor of that. Those of us who oppose 
this bill are in favor of it.

                              {time}  1700

  I resent on proper grounds here in the House being categorized as 
someone who somehow wants to thwart the war on terrorism or does not 
have the correct view on the Vietnam War because I am trying to defend 
the first amendment and because I would like to see these discussions 
held in a manner and in a place and in a venue which is appropriate to 
the circumstances. We need to talk about such issues as to whether 
everybody in this country is going to be treated equally with respect 
to being able to join the military or participate in the Department of 
Homeland Security or defend our security interests through the CIA and 
whether they can be hired on the basis of their ability and what they 
have to offer rather than on what they look like or what their sexual 
orientation is or anything else. This is not the bill to do it, and it 
is certainly not the Secretary of Defense who should be doing it.
  So what I am asking here is that the Members try to exercise some 
common sense, some common legislative sense, give us an opportunity to 
take up this serious issue, which does need addressing, and address it 
in a manner that will resolve it under constitutional methodology that 
is worthy of this body.
  Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Cox).
  Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, I thank the author of the bill for yielding me 
this time.
  Just to respond to the preceding speaker, the gentleman from Hawaii, 
this is not about telling people what to think or what to say. It is 
about giving students freedom of choice. This is all about whether or 
not students have access on campus. At Harvard, the undergraduate 
council voted overwhelmingly to invite ROTC back on to campus, but the 
school has taken no action. So it is the students who are being 
shortchanged.
  As to whether this is completely unrelated to Vietnam, I will state 
that that is just wrong as a matter of fact. This ban at Harvard 
University, where I am a former member of the faculty, I am reasonably 
familiar with this, and a graduate of two schools at Harvard, in 1969 
at Harvard, the faculty voted to ban the military from campus in 
protest to the Vietnam War and that ban has been in place ever since. 
My contention is that 9/11 should serve as a wakeup call, welcome to 
the 21st century. Let us revisit this, and get it back to where it 
belongs.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. COX. I yield to the gentleman from Hawaii.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. I do not dispute that. We did not dispute it in 
committee. When the issue was raised in committee, what I said is that 
this issue does need to be resolved so that access is possible, ``Is 
this the best way to do it?'' Inasmuch as we had to make a decision on 
the spot, my contention was, and I believe many of us who are forced 
now, we are forced because the bill is on the floor under a closed 
rule, I have no choice but to try and oppose it.
  Mr. COX. I appreciate the gentleman's point, and reclaiming what 
little time I have, I will just say simply that we have students who 
are going to graduate. This has been going on for some years. 9/11 was 
a few years ago. At Yale where the school is happy to cash the ROTC 
scholarship checks, the Yale students have to travel 75 miles to the 
University of Connecticut and then 75 miles back, 150-mile round trip, 
they have to do this three times a week. It is an extraordinary burden 
to place just so that the university can make a point that joining the 
military is not what we want our students to do.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie).
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I accept everything that the gentleman 
just said. It is making my point. The reason this bill is on the floor 
is because the courts ruled that the Secretary of Defense had no basis 
for making this decision. That is the reason the bill is on the floor.
  I realize a lot of Members and their staffs are listening to this 
discussion in their offices, and they cannot be on the floor because 
they have other duties; but I am asking them to pay attention to why 
the bill is on the floor. This bill gives the Secretary of Defense the 
basis. We are creating another problem instead of solving the problem 
which is really before us, which is access for ROTC and/or military and 
other recruiters. If Harvard or any other school is preventing them 
from coming on, is there no access to the courts? You mean no law 
exists in the United States to allow people to have proper access? Of 
course it exists.
  The reason for this bill is to make the Secretary of Defense the 
arbiter of how this is going to take place, even up to the point of 
getting certification from the school that the Secretary of Defense is 
satisfied that equal access, et cetera, is going to be provided.
  My point is that we are doing this all wrong. If we really want to 
solve this issue of openness and access and discussion that needs to be 
taking place and to have the ROTC or the CIA or the Homeland Security 
Department or whoever it is have access and dialogue and discussion on 
a civilized basis as to how it should take place, that is available to 
us. This is not the way to do it. This bill merely enables the 
Secretary

[[Page 5627]]

of Defense to be judge and jury over that process, and it will generate 
a whole new slew of lawsuits that will not solve the question nor even 
address the question that is before us as to how do we achieve this 
access. I want that access.
  I think it is very unfortunate that the bill is being posited to the 
body in such a manner that those of us who oppose it seem to be in 
favor of terrorism or approving arbitrary dislocation of legitimate 
endeavors to recruit for the ROTC or anybody else. That is not true. On 
the contrary, I raised the issue in the Committee on Armed Services 
precisely on the point that I am a libertarian on the issue of free 
speech and access, and I believe everybody should engage in dialogue 
and confrontation of the issues in a positive way that gives everybody 
a chance.
  The reason the argument takes place in the first place is that people 
who are defending those who are prevented from having access to the 
armed services, apparently those who are gay or lesbian or transgender 
or whatever other category we are getting into these days, I cannot 
keep up with every permutation that apparently exists in terms of 
gender and sexual orientation, but that is not a reason to make the 
Secretary of Defense the arbiter of it. I do not think, despite his 
great wit and great perception and depth of interest in world history 
and events, that the Secretary of Defense is necessarily up on all the 
latest in transgender fashions. And so I do not think that this is a 
proper forum nor a proper venue to try and resolve this issue.
  My request, Mr. Speaker, of the body is that we give a chance for a 
motion to recommit to be made so that we can address the issue of 
access as opposed to addressing the issue which the bill moves toward 
giving a basis for the Secretary of Defense to make this decision. Let 
us not confuse the access apple with the orange of the first amendment 
of the Constitution.
  Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), chairman of the 
Committee on Armed Services.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for his 
sponsorship of this bill and also the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Cox) for doing so much work on it, but also just to comment that this 
is not just for the recruiters, that people go to institutions of 
higher education to avail themselves of thousands of choices for career 
paths. As we think about the officer corps that is performing right now 
in theater in Iraq, for example, and we look at the leadership which 
not only has fought a war and now is working an occupation but is also 
standing up governments, people who have never talked, who have never 
voted together, who have never worked things out in a peaceful fashion, 
bringing them together and standing up governments and introducing the 
idea of democracy to those who have not entertained it before, that is 
an exciting occupation. Bringing the prospects for that occupation to 
be a leader in the Armed Forces of the United States, to be what most 
American citizens feel are our finest citizens, is a great opportunity. 
This bill, the Rogers bill, will ensure that those people have that 
choice. I thank the gentleman for bringing it up.
  Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor).
  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the gentleman from 
Alabama. I rise in support of H.R. 3966. This bill is about the war on 
terror. It is about the obligation that we have to sustain a viable 
Armed Forces. It is my understanding that the judge in the FAIR case 
did not disagree with the Secretary of Defense's obligation to build up 
our Armed Forces and did not disagree that there should be equal access 
and treatment of our recruiters, but I think that the findings were 
that there was not explicit statutory direction or authorization to do 
so, and that is why we are here.
  As the gentleman from California previously stated, this is about 
abandoning the Vietnam-era rejection of the values associated with 
service in the military. I find it ironic. There is a lot of discussion 
today on the floor about these institutions of higher learning that 
enjoy such a worldwide reputation and a lot of talk about their 
enjoyment of their freedom of expression and protection of free speech, 
and at the same time what they are doing is trying to advocate a 
specific position and denying choice to our students. I commend the 
gentleman and urge the passage of this bill.
  Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson).
  Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, it is an honor for me to 
be here today with the gentleman from Alabama. I appreciate very much 
his leadership to promote the ROTC and Military Recruiter Equal Access 
to Campus Act of 2004. I have heard the comments by the distinguished 
chairman of the Committee on Armed Services, the gentleman from 
California; and I agree with him that this is about providing choices. 
It is also about providing opportunities.
  I know firsthand. I had the opportunity to experience a career of 4 
years of ROTC at Washington & Lee University in Lexington, Virginia. 
From that it led to my ability to serve in the National Guard for 31 
years. I am very grateful for what ROTC did for me. Additionally, my 
oldest son is a graduate of Francis Marion University in Florence, 
South Carolina, ROTC. He went on to law school and now is serving in 
Iraq. I am very proud of his service because of ROTC and the 
opportunities it has provided. And in 5 weeks I am looking forward to 
attending the graduation of my third son from Clemson University. He is 
in Army ROTC, as one might expect. I am just really proud of his 
service and the opportunities that he will have to serve in the 
military.
  I also am aware of opportunities for minorities in the State of South 
Carolina. A classic case is someone who is known here in Congress, 
General Abe Turner. General Turner is a graduate of South Carolina 
State University, which is one of our historically black colleges which 
is very distinguished. I was with General Turner. He is now the 
commanding general of Fort Jackson in South Carolina. These are 
opportunities that have been provided to young people to go to college 
and have the ROTC experience.
  Finally, I want to point out that particularly for law schools, I 
think it is important to have access. I served in the Judge Advocate 
General Corps for 29 years. There is no better way to get trial 
experience, to learn about the law and the laws of the United States 
than to serve in the JAG Corps. I urge that this bill be passed, that 
indeed we have access for law schools. I am just grateful for this and 
urge my colleagues to support this act for ROTC recruitment.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan), who is a member of the Committee on Armed 
Services.
  Mr. MEEHAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill was rammed through the Committee on Armed 
Services 2 weeks ago without a single hearing. Without a single 
hearing. I guess it should not be a surprise because it seems that time 
and time again the leadership has forced votes on the floor without 
holding committee hearings. We did not have a committee hearing on the 
bill with the Medicare prescription drug language that came before this 
Congress, so I guess it should not be a surprise that we did not have a 
hearing on this particular piece of legislation.
  This bill is designed to force universities to violate their own 
policies against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and 
will undermine pending lawsuits that challenge the so-called Solomon 
amendment.
  We all strongly support efforts of the United States military to 
recruit on our Nation's campuses, especially in a time of war. But the 
gentleman from Alabama would agree at the time that we debated this in 
committee, only one educational institution in the country was brought 
before us that denies access to military recruiters and that school 
received no Federal funding to begin with. Furthermore, every campus

[[Page 5628]]

on which the Department of Defense elects to have ROTC currently has an 
ROTC presence.

                              {time}  1715

  This is because universities are already forced to compromise their 
nondiscrimination policies in order to receive most of the Federal 
funding they compete to obtain under the Solomon amendment.
  So why are we introducing a bill that would broadly expand the 
prohibition on Federal funding to schools that do not allow access to 
military recruiters when only one institution, at least at the time 
that we dealt with this bill that was available, that prohibited this? 
I have serious concerns about restricting additional funding such as 
grants for homeland security, intelligence programs to universities, 
particularly when the authority to define ``equal access'' lies solely 
in the hands of the Secretary of Defense.
  This bill is a drastic solution to a problem that I do not think even 
exists. In fact, there is no crisis in military recruiting on student 
campuses or anywhere else in the country. The Defense Department has 
reported to our committee that they are exceeding all of its 
recruitment and retention goals in each of the active duty services 
since 2001 and is actively downsizing certain specialties requiring 
advanced degrees.
  In 2003, the Army surpassed its recruiting objectives for new 
contracts by 9.1 percent and new recruits by 0.4 percent, while the 
quality of new recruits have increased dramatically.
  So if we are going to pass such a drastic piece of legislation, it 
seems to me we should at least have a hearing, have an opportunity to 
debate. I thought the gentleman from Hawaii said it best in committee. 
It is like trying to deal with a little problem of a fly with a 
sledgehammer. It does not make any sense. We should send this bill back 
into the committee and have a hearing on it and discuss these issues so 
that we know what the consequences of the language in this bill are.
  Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for 
time, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  This bill attempts to correct a situation wherein a military ROTC 
recruiter seeking access would, in essence, be sent to the basement or 
to another building where corporations such as General Motors and the 
like recruiting would have the first floor and easy availability to the 
young Americans. So I do support this bill, and I intend to vote in 
favor thereof.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the ROTC Campus 
Access Act. This bill is wrong. It isn't about promoting military 
recruiting, its about punishing institutions that promote equal access 
to opportunity.
  The fact is this bill will prohibit colleges and universities from 
applying their same non-discrimination policies to the military that 
they apply to other employers. And, if they try to do so, it will bar 
them from receiving federal funding.
  Passage of this legislation is not only wrong, it's unnecessary. 
Current law already provides the federal government the ability to deny 
federal funding to colleges and universities that refuse to allow 
military recruiters or ROTC programs access to their campuses.
  This bill takes that law a step further by requiring that such access 
be equal to the access provided to other potential employers seeking to 
recruit new employees on college campuses.
  The problem with taking this extra step is that it would require many 
colleges and universities to explicitly ignore their own non-
discrimination policies or lose their federal funding.
  Many colleges and universities require employers to sign a non-
discrimination pledge before they recruit on campus. That means 
employers cannot discriminate against prospective employees on many 
bases--including sexual orientation. Yet, our Military's ``don't ask, 
don't tell'' policy is straight-forward discrimination and in direct 
conflict with college policies of this nature.
  If this bill becomes law, and a college or university attempted to 
downplay the prominence of the ROTC recruiting effort by placing them 
in a not-so-central location for their recruiting efforts, they could 
lose all federal funding. This is draconian, extreme, and wrong.
  We ought to be voting today to overturn the military's don't ask 
don't tell policy and instituting a policy that prohibits 
discrimination based on sexual orientation. But, this Congress is 
unwilling to take the right step. They're putting the wrong foot 
forward on this one.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in standing up to oppose 
discrimination and vote ``no'' on this bill.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I voted against this legislation as it 
does not seem fair to cut off federal funds to institutions that have 
policies against allowing recruiters on campus from employers that have 
an open policy of discrimination. We should not be punishing 
universities that have legitimate policy differences. As long as the 
military continues its ill-advised policy of prohibiting service by 
openly gay members (although it's interesting that, in times of war, 
gays and lesbians are considered valuable to our country and not forced 
out of the military) we should not force them to break their non-
discrimination policies for the military.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this 
measure, which shows our Nation's unwavering commitment to both higher 
education and providing a strong national defense. At no time in recent 
memory has the United States placed more responsibility on our men and 
women in uniform. We are fighting a war on terrorism on multiple 
fronts, in Afghanistan and Iraq, and it is essential, 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 
U.S.
  It is important to acknowledge that 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 the ROTC and Military Recruiter Equal Access to Campus Act, 
again we are giving choices to institutions of higher education. The 
Solomon Act, passed in 1996, grants the Secretary of Defense power to 
deny federal funding to institutions of higher learning if they 
prohibit or prevent ROTC or 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.
  As the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Isakson) and I wrote in a letter 
to colleagues last year, 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 to our Nation can provide. There is no reason to not 
allow our Nation's armed forces to make their best case to college 
students and to do so in the same fashion as many of the private sector 
employers colleges and universities seem to relish having on campus 
with equivocation.
  Denial of access and equality to ROTC chapters and military 
recruiters by colleges that receive federal funds is an insult to the 
taxpayers in our 50 states who help subsidize higher education in this 
country. Many nations have mandatory military service for their 
citizens. We don't. The very core of our system of homeland security 
and national defense depends on young men and women deciding, on their 
own volition, that they wish to serve their country. Successful 
recruitment of the best officers in our military relies heavily on the 
Reserve Officer Training Corps.
  In 2003, ROTC produced 70 percent of the newly-commissioned officers 
who entered the U.S. Army, allowing military recruiters to be barred 
from federally-funded campuses could have direct consequences for our 
national security. As the UCLAW Veterans Society said in a recent legal 
brief: ``A shortage of military lawyers would affect military 
commanders' ability to train their soldiers on the law of war,'' and 
``a lack of military lawyers could increase the likelihood of law of 
war violations soldiers and unacceptable civilian collateral damage 
during military operations.''
  This measure should not be politicized. It is straight-forward and 
benefits both our students and armed forces. H.R. 3966 does not violate 
a college's Constitutional rights to free speech or protest. Congress 
doesn't force colleges and universities to accept federal funding. If 
an institution of higher-learning wishes to bar ROTC chapters from 
forming or military recruiters from recruiting, it is free to do so--
but it should not expect that decision to be endorsed and subsidized by 
the taxpayers of the United States. This legislation reaffirms our 
commitment to that principle. I commend the

[[Page 5629]]

gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Rogers) for offering it, and I urge my 
colleagues to join me in supporting it.
  Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, the bill we are debating today, H.R. 3966, 
purports to provide military recruiters entry to college campuses, and 
access to students that is equal to what any other employer has. 
However, the military is actually seeking special access that is not 
afforded to other employers that practice discrimination based on 
sexual orientation.
  Equality was not a concern for the military in 2002 when they 
discharged 16 Arabic linguists from the Defense Language Institute in 
my district. Despite the high demand for Arab linguists, the military 
discriminated against these service members based on nothing more than 
their sexual orientation.
  Schools should not be forced to choose between federal funding and 
their commitment not to endorse discrimination. The schools' standards 
of non-discrimination should apply to any organization, be it private 
sector or public that is seeking access to a campus and its students.
  One of the Congressional findings that is incorporated in this bill 
states that ``the presence of ROTC programs on college campuses 
benefits even those students who are not enrolled by making them aware 
of the presence and role of the United States military.''
  I wonder what the benefit is to the gay and lesbian students whose 
talents and skills are utterly disregarded by the military, simply 
because of their sexual orientation.
  I encourage all of my colleagues to vote against this bill and for 
true equality.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bass). All time for debate has expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 580, the previous question is ordered on 
the bill, as amended.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


                 Motion to Recommit by Mr. Abercrombie

  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. I am, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Abercrombie moves to recommit the bill H.R. 3966 to the 
     Committee on Armed Services with instructions to report the 
     same back to the House forthwith with the following 
     amendment:
       Page 7, line 7, before the close quotes insert the 
     following: ``, determined, in the case of a law school, by 
     the Association of American Law Schools, and, in the case of 
     any other institution of higher education (or subelement 
     thereof), by the appropriate regional accrediting entity''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie) is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his 
motion.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, as was indicated by the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan), the previous speaker, I think all we would 
like to have here and the reason for recommittal motion is to have some 
hearings. As the chairman, and I do not if he is still on the floor or 
not, the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services Committee knows, I 
have the greatest respect for him and the greatest respect for the 
bipartisanship that exists on the Committee on Armed Services.
  The issue here and the only reason this bill is on the floor is that 
a court determined that the Secretary of Defense did not have a basis 
in law for being able to make some of the kinds of decisions which the 
bill in front of us allows the Secretary to make. The issue involved 
here is one of access. It is one of equal treatment. The arguments of 
whether one accepts them or do not accept them have been made that the 
armed services, I suppose by extension of the bill, the Department of 
Homeland Security, the CIA, are not allowing equal access to every 
American and at least in some instances on the basis of their sexual 
orientation. There may be other issues that are raised in that regard, 
too. That is worthy of discussion, surely. Whether or not then this 
bill constitutes a proper response to that difficulty to the degree 
that it exists is the issue.
  The reason I am asking for a vote on recommittal with instructions is 
not because I oppose or anyone else, I believe, opposes equal access 
either for recruitment purposes or other purposes of discussion and 
dialogue but rather that this bill does not address that fundamental 
issue and, in fact, will only engender a new series of lawsuits and it 
will fail to accomplish that which is really the bottom-line, 
fundamental issue here before us, which is how do we appropriately 
address the first amendment in the context of recruitment, whether it 
is for a Federal Government agency of any kind, let alone whether or 
not the Secretary of Defense should be the arbiter in that regard.
  So, Mr. Speaker, with that I am asking that the body vote to recommit 
with instructions so that we can properly address this serious issue.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Rogers) 
wish to control the time in opposition to the motion to recommit?
  Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Yes, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Rogers) is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to 
the motion to recommit.
  This motion is simply an effort to empower those who would oppose 
fair access to military recruiters to our colleges and universities 
with the authority to treat recruiters as second-class citizens.
  H.R. 3966 would ensure nothing more than fair and equal treatment of 
recruiters. This amendment would put the fox in the hen house, so to 
speak, by giving the Association of American Law Schools the authority 
to judge if the recruiter has been provided equal treatment with other 
employers. This is the very group which has fostered the attitude among 
law schools to resist compliance with the law. We, the Congress, must 
make the decision, not the people who would oppose any form of military 
presence on campus. It is up to Congress to decide the level of access 
that should be granted. We must reject this motion.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The motion to recommit was rejected.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, this 15-
minute vote on passage will be followed by two 5-minute votes on 
motions to suspend the rules considered earlier today:
  H.R. 3104, by the yeas and nays;
  H. Con. Res. 386, by the yeas and nays.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 343, 
noes 81, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 101]

                               AYES--343

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Ballance
     Ballenger
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Bell
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burr
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)

[[Page 5630]]


     Carter
     Case
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Chocola
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cole
     Collins
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley (CA)
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Hall
     Harman
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hill
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hooley (OR)
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Israel
     Issa
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kleczka
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     Marshall
     Matheson
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Menendez
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Napolitano
     Nethercutt
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Obey
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sandlin
     Saxton
     Schiff
     Schrock
     Scott (GA)
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Towns
     Turner (OH)
     Turner (TX)
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NOES--81

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Baldwin
     Becerra
     Blumenauer
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Clay
     Conyers
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (IL)
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Emanuel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hastings (FL)
     Hinchey
     Holt
     Honda
     Jackson (IL)
     Kucinich
     Lantos
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lynch
     Majette
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Rangel
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Solis
     Stark
     Thompson (CA)
     Tierney
     Velazquez
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey

                             NOT VOTING--9

     DeMint
     Gephardt
     Gutknecht
     Hulshof
     Jones (OH)
     Linder
     Rodriguez
     Tanner
     Tauzin


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bass) (during the vote). Members are 
advised there are 2 minutes remaining in this vote.

                              {time}  1748

  Messrs. HONDA, FATTAH, BLUMENAUER, HOLT, CLAY, GUTIERREZ, and RANGEL 
changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. PETRI and Mr. INSLEE changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The title of the bill was amended so as to read: ``A bill to amend 
title 10, United States Code, to improve the ability of the Department 
of Defense to establish and maintain Senior Reserve Officer Training 
Corps units at institutions of higher education, to improve the ability 
of students to participate in Senior ROTC programs, and to ensure that 
institutions of higher education provide military recruiters entry to 
campuses and access to students that is at least equal in quality and 
scope to that provided to any other employer.''.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________