[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 3]
[House]
[Pages 3459-3462]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




EXPRESSING SUPPORT OF CONGRESS REGARDING ACCESS OF MILITARY RECRUITERS 
                  TO INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION

  Mrs. DRAKE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the 
concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 354) expressing the continued 
support of Congress for requiring an institution of higher education to 
provide military recruiters with access to the institution's campus and 
students at least equal in quality and scope to that which is provided 
to any other employer in order to be eligible for the receipt of 
certain Federal funds.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                            H. Con. Res. 354

       Whereas on March 6, 2006, the Supreme Court ruled 8-0 in 
     favor of the Government in the case of Rumsfeld v. Forum for 
     Academic and Institutional Rights, Inc., upholding the 
     authority of Congress to withhold Federal funds from an 
     institution of higher education that prevents military 
     recruiters from gaining access to the institution's campus 
     and students in a manner that is at least equal in quality 
     and scope to that which is provided to any other employer;
       Whereas this important decision comes at a time when the 
     Nation finds itself at war and reaffirms the constitutional 
     obligation of the Government to provide for the defense of 
     the Nation;
       Whereas the decision recognizes the authority of Congress 
     under section 8 of article I of the Constitution to raise and 
     support armies, provide and maintain a navy, and make rules 
     for the government and regulation of the land and naval 
     forces;
       Whereas the national security interests of the United 
     States are best served by a high level of military personnel 
     readiness;
       Whereas the ability of the Armed Forces to recruit the best 
     possible candidates from the widest available pool of talent 
     is of paramount importance to national security;
       Whereas institutions of higher education are an important 
     source of recruits for the Armed Forces;
       Whereas an institution of higher education that prevents 
     military recruiters from gaining access to the institution's 
     campus or students in a manner that is at least equal in 
     quality and scope to that which is provided to any other 
     employer does a disservice to those students who desire the 
     opportunity to serve in the Armed Forces; and
       Whereas section 983 of title 10, United States Code, 
     requires institutions of higher education to provide such 
     equal access to military recruiters in order to be eligible 
     for the receipt of certain Federal funds: Now, therefore, be 
     it
       Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 
     concurring), That Congress expresses continued support for 
     requiring an institution of higher education to provide 
     military recruiters with access to the institution's campus 
     and students at least equal in quality and scope to that 
     which is provided to any other employer in order to be 
     eligible for the receipt of certain Federal funds.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from 
Virginia (Mrs. Drake) and the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. 
Butterfield) each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Virginia.


                             General Leave

  Mrs. DRAKE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks 
on the resolution under consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Virginia?
  There was no objection.
  Mrs. DRAKE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, on March 6, 2006, the Supreme Court of the United 
States, in unanimously deciding in favor of the government's position 
in the case Rumsfeld v. the Forum for Academic and Institutional 
Rights, Inc., sent an emphatic rebuke to those who would view 
opposition to military recruiting as a form of protest.
  The military recruiting process within our colleges and universities 
is an important pillar of our national security that we can ill afford 
to cavalierly cast aside because of a policy disagreement.
  The Supreme Court's decision upheld the Solomon Amendment named for 
the late U.S. Representative, Gerald Solomon, and strongly supported 
from its inception in 1994 by our colleague, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Pombo).
  Mr. Solomon's and Mr. Pombo's initial objective was simple. No 
institution may deny access to recruiters, to students and student 
information, or student access to Reserve Officer Training Corps, or 
ROTC programs, without forfeiting their Federal grants and other 
funding.
  Under a number of modifications over the years, the language ruled on 
by the court requires access to military recruiters that is at least 
equal in quality and scope to the access provided to any other 
employer.
  While the law initially put only Department of Defense funding at 
risk, the current law, upheld by the court's ruling, would allow the 
funding from eight agencies to be withheld, including the Department of 
Homeland Security, the Department of Transportation, the Department of 
Energy, the Department of Education, and the Department of Health and 
Human Services.
  The group, representing a number of law schools and professors, had 
persuaded the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in 
Philadelphia that the Solomon Amendment violated the Unconstitutional 
Conditions Doctrine, because it forced a law school to choose between 
surrendering first amendment rights of speech and association and 
losing Federal funding for its university.
  At the center of the debate was the objection of certain 
organizations to the Department of Defense policy that denies military 
service to open homosexuals. The Supreme Court decision discredited the 
case by clarifying that the Solomon Amendment regulated conduct and not 
speech, and that it was clear that the policy on homosexuals was a 
government statement and not the policy of the law schools.
  The decision also noted that the Solomon Amendment presented no risk 
to the freedom of association of the law schools since there was no 
capability for recruiters to become part of an institution and actively 
hijack the public perception of the institution's views.
  Mr. Speaker, House Concurrent Resolution 354, offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo), is a celebration of a wise and 
just decision by our Supreme Court and a strong statement of 
Congressional support for the Solomon Amendment.
  The Solomon Amendment expresses the inherent wisdom of its author and 
the finest traditions of our Nation. In Mr. Solomon's view, barring 
military recruiters was an intrusion on Federal prerogatives, a slap in 
the face to our Nation's military personnel, and an impediment to a 
sound national security policy.
  Mr. Speaker, the Solomon Amendment really does work to protect the 
future of our Nation. Today, there are only three small law schools 
that have chosen to deny recruiters access to campuses and student 
information. They simply do not require Federal funding to survive, and 
they have chosen to protest the Department of Defense policy on 
homosexuals in the military as is their right.
  But for the overwhelming majority of colleges and universities, the 
worthy messages of patriotism and service to Nation are being heard by 
America's youth and they are stepping forward to confront our enemies 
in this long war against terror.
  Mr. Speaker, I commend Mr. Pombo for introducing this resolution. It 
is imperative that everyone in our Nation understand the importance of 
military recruiting and the unequivocal committee support of the 
Congress for the Solomon Amendment.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support House Concurrent 
Resolution 354.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume. I rise in support of House Concurrent Resolution 354, which 
expresses Congress' continued support to require institutions of higher 
education to provide military recruiters the same access to students as 
they provide to other employers.
  I am pleased to join with the gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. Drake) 
in support of this measure. I would also like to recognize the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo) for bringing this measure forward 
today.

[[Page 3460]]

  Mr. Speaker, on March 6, 2006 just a few days ago, the United States 
Supreme Court affirmed the statutory provision that requires 
institutions of higher education to provide access to students at least 
equal in quality and equal in scope to those that are provided to other 
employers in order to be eligible for receipt of Federal funds.
  The statutory provision, commonly referred to as the Solomon 
Amendment, was first enacted in 1994, and has subsequently been amended 
over the past several years. However, the basic underlying premise of 
the provision is that a college or university that denies military 
recruiters access equal to other recruiters would lose their Federal 
funds.
  The Supreme Court found that the Solomon Amendment does not violate 
the first amendment, and that Congress can require law schools to 
provide equal access to military recruiters without violating the 
school's freedom of speech or association as schools are free to not 
accept Federal funding.
  We are a Nation at war, and military recruiters need to be able to 
recruit individuals from all walks of life, from the high school 
graduate, to the person completing their doctorate and all of those in 
between, whether they are undergraduates in liberal arts, whether they 
are law school students or medical professionals completing their 
residency.
  The military, in many ways, is just a microcosm of our society as a 
whole. And Congress has a responsibility to ensure that all Americans, 
all Americans are afforded the knowledge and the opportunity to serve 
their Nation if they choose to do so.
  Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote for this 
resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. DRAKE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the 
gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Miller).
  Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, in this House, we are 
continually voting for increased funding for institutions of higher 
learning in our Nation, and it is certainly right and it is proper that 
we do so, because our future depends or our young people being able to 
receive the education that they so rightly deserve.
  But what has been troubling in recent years has been attempts by many 
of these same institutions that receive Federal funding to restrict or 
to bar military recruiters from their campuses in violation of the law.
  Recently, Mr. Speaker, the Supreme Court voted in an 8-0 decision to 
uphold the requirement that military recruiters be given access to 
students like any other perspective employer, or that institution could 
lose their Federal funding. This policy is very, very important to the 
future of our military, of our freedom, and of our democracy.
  The young men and women on our college campuses should not be denied 
the great opportunities available to them, to so many of them in the 
United States military, just because some college administrator may not 
agree with our national policy.
  We have freedom in our Nation, but that freedom is not free. And 
there are many young people in our Nation's colleges, in our Nation's 
universities who are willing to pay the price of service and of 
sacrifice in order to protect the freedom of every one of their fellow 
Americans.
  Mr. Speaker, this resolution restates the policy and sends a very 
clear message to our Nation's colleges and to our Nation's 
universities. We as a Nation want to support their mission to educate 
our young people. They must allow equal access to our military 
recruiters to give those students a chance to see if serving their 
country is perhaps the right career move for them or the right personal 
choice for them.
  Mr. Speaker, not one person in this Nation is drafted into military 
service. We have an all-volunteer military. It makes us strong and it 
keeps us free. Free people make free decisions. Let us let our young 
people continue to make theirs an informed decision.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.
  Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for the 
recognition to speak so that I can make my remarks with the proper 
perspective.
  My father, Frank Kucinich, was a World War II Marine Corps veteran.

                              {time}  1515

  My brother Frank Kucinich, Jr., was a Vietnam veteran in the Marines. 
My brother Gary Kucinich was a Marine Corps veteran, 1968 to 1972. My 
sister Beth Ann Kucinich served in the United States Army. I would have 
served as well except that I was not able to get in as I have a heart 
murmur.
  We have a tradition of service in my family. My nephew Gary Kucinich, 
my brother Gary's son, is in Iraq right now. But having said all that, 
I want to say that while I believe it is honorable to serve our country 
and we should praise those who do serve, I rise in strong opposition to 
H. Con. Res. 354 and in support of the necessity and importance of 
nondiscrimination policies.
  The military's misguided Don't Ask, Don't Tell ban on lesbian, gay 
and bisexual servicemembers is clearly not compatible with university 
policies that prohibit campus recruiting by employers who discriminate 
on the basis of sexual orientation.
  There is no lack of ``equal'' access for any employer that seeks to 
recruit on America's college campuses, assuming those employers do not 
discriminate. But granting access to an employer, whether military, 
private sector or otherwise, that fails to meet a school's 
nondiscrimination policy is not equal access, but special access. It is 
a unique right to discriminate, granted only to the military.
  This Congress should be leading the way in the fight against 
discrimination, not supporting policies that allow the military to 
sidestep nondiscrimination policies. We should ensure that all men and 
women who wish to serve in the Armed Forces are allowed to do so by 
repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell.
  Requiring schools to suspend their nondiscrimination policies for 
military recruiters and their openly discriminatory policies is a step 
backwards. Rather than condone and supporting these discriminatory 
policies, this Congress should work diligently to eliminate the need 
for nondiscrimination policies. I urge my colleagues to take the lead 
in the fight against discrimination. I urge my colleagues to vote 
against this bill.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in very strong support of H. Con. 
Res. 354. As chairman of the Education and the Workforce Committee and 
a member of the Armed Services Committee, this measure touches on two 
issues very near and dear to my heart: higher education and our 
national security.
  Just over a week ago, the U.S. Supreme Court announced a unanimous 
decision to protect the rights of military recruiters seeking access to 
colleges and universities that accept Federal funding. I applaud the 
Supreme Court's decision, which embodies the same spirit as many of our 
own legislative efforts here in Congress.
  Since its enactment in 1996, the Solomon amendment has found many 
allies on the Education and the Workforce and the Armed Services 
Committees, as well as throughout the entire House. Our consistent 
message has been this: Whether in a time of war or a time of peace, if 
colleges and universities are willing to accept taxpayer dollars to 
operate, they also must be willing to accept those who recruit the men 
and women who defend our Nation--and our freedom.
  At no time in recent memory has our Nation placed more responsibility 
upon the shoulders of our men and women in uniform. We're fighting a 
war unlike any we have ever fought before and doing so on multiple 
fronts. As we struggle to preserve our very way of life, it is 
essential that we promote military service as an option for college 
students across the country. Indeed, if we are going to find success in 
defending our freedom and protecting our homeland, then our military 
recruiters must have access to our Nation's best and brightest 
students. And that access is what the Solomon amendment, last week's 
unanimous Supreme Court decision, and our ongoing efforts here in 
Congress continue to protect.
  Mr. Speaker, this Congress has established a record of action on 
national security issues, from supporting our military to providing for 
a

[[Page 3461]]

strong national defense to fighting and winning the war on terror. We 
remain committed to standing behind our troops and defending our Nation 
from every threat, and this resolution is a reflection of that fact. I 
urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this measure.
  Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition today to H. Con. Res. 
354.
  Last year, students at the University of California at Santa Cruz in 
my district organized a demonstration protesting the Department of 
Defense's ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' policy and the presence of military 
recruiters to campus. How did DOD respond? They sent someone to spy on 
the protest and deemed the participants, students exercising their 
constitutional rights, a ``credible threat''! .
  Our country was founded on the principle that its citizens have the 
authority to disagree with their government. As Edward R. Murrow said, 
``We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty.'' Unwarranted domestic 
spying is the kind of extreme DOD reaction that concerns me if military 
recruiters are allowed unfettered access to campuses across the Nation.
  The Republican leadership may be eager to endorse the recent Supreme 
Court decision requiring higher education institutions to provide 
access to a Government agency that practices blatant discriminatory 
practices, but my constituents and I are not.
  Conditional Federal funding may be constitutional, but discrimination 
in all practices should not be.
  Congress should be working to encourage civil rights and non-
discriminatory practices, not endorsing a decision that forces 
universities to disregard their own values and the constitutional 
rights of their students. Equating equal opportunity employers with a 
Government agency that abides by the discriminatory ``Don't ask, don't 
tell'' policy is unreasonable and unjust.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on this resolution.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H. Con. Res. 
354 because the military should not discriminate based on sexual 
orientation. Colleges and universities should be able to deny access to 
military recruiters without losing Federal funds.
  In 1948, President Harry S. Truman courageously integrated the Armed 
Forces, signing Executive Order 9981 when many in his party opposed 
racial equality. As a result, the military has since served as an 
example for private and public organizations alike, encouraging racial 
equality and opportunity in hiring and promotion.
  In contrast, President Bush promotes divisive prejudices and his 
friends in Congress are here today promoting a backward agenda. This 
resolution declares support for a court decision that prevents 
institutions of higher education from promoting higher understanding.
  President Truman demonstrated great courage by racially integrating 
the military. President Bush and his Republican cronies show great 
cowardice in failing to advance additional civil rights today. If they 
were in power in 1948, I doubt they would have acted then either.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this resolution and allow universities 
to continue to promote racial, religious, gender--and sexual--equality.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, my support for this resolution is 
reluctant because, while I believe that allowing military recruiters 
equal access to institutions of higher education is beneficial to both 
the military and the students, I am also strongly opposed to policies 
that discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, such ``Don't Ask, 
Don't Tell.'' This policy has deprived the military of over 10,000 
highly trained soldiers during a time of war and continues to cost the 
government millions of dollars in wasted training and enforcement 
costs. If we want to bridge the divide between the military and 
universities, we should, instead of passing resolutions like H. Con. 
Res. 354, pass H.R. 1059, the ``Military Readiness Enhancement Act,'' 
which, by repealing ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell,'' would end the dispute 
over equal access for military recruiters. At the end of the day, our 
security is best served by giving all qualified Americans the freedom 
to serve our country.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise to raise and voice my 
concern on this resolution to express support for conditioning an 
institution of higher education's receipt of certain Federal funds on 
its actions to provide military recruiters with the same access to its 
campus and students as it provides to any other employer.
  I am very proud of our military and of the courage and bravery of our 
military personnel. I believe in the importance of outreach, and of the 
ability of employers to utilize the resources of our colleges and 
universities. I know that the talent found at our institutions of 
higher education across the country is important to the success of our 
defenses, and that every month many of our best and brightest make the 
decision to defend our homeland.
  I would like to caution my colleagues, however, and remind them that 
this is not a military issue. We value a higher education because of 
the learned abilities to think critically, to comprehend complex 
problems and issues, to analyze research and information, to evaluate 
the choices at hand, and to gain enough wisdom to arrive at a solution. 
I am hesitant to condition Federal funding for these institutions on a 
situation which may be their way to express a point of view and to 
disagree with the status quo.
  To be able to freely oppose the politics of any administration is a 
right given to us in our own Constitution. To be able to express these 
opinions is, again, a right given to us in our own Constitution. 
Likewise, the dignity of a military career is inherent and desirable. 
However, I have concerns about resolutions such as this that seem to 
limit the ability of one party without a perceived benefit for another.
  I urge my colleagues to consider this matter carefully, and to join 
me in celebrating both our Armed Forces and our institutions of higher 
education.
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, today the House will be voting on 
legislation to affirm the ability of military recruiters to access 
college campuses. As a member of the House Armed Services Committee, I 
support our military's efforts to recruit some of our most promising 
young men and women and believe that service in our nation's armed 
forces is an honorable career choice. However, I question why we are 
considering this measure, especially as the Supreme Court unanimously 
upheld Congress's position a short while ago. If Congress's authority 
has not been challenged, why are we reiterating it?
  As we have heard, a lawsuit arose when a group of colleges challenged 
the Congressional requirement that military recruiters be granted 
access to schools that receive federal funding. The schools argued that 
the U.S. military's policy of excluding gays and lesbians from serving 
openly violated their non-discrimination requirement for prospective 
employers on campus, and that the recruiters' presence would be 
interpreted as the schools' official endorsement of the military's 
position. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, noting that 
colleges and universities still maintained their right to express their 
opposition to the military's policies as they saw fit. The resolution 
of today reaffirms the very Congressional power that the Court just 
upheld.
  Unfortunately, Congress is debating the wrong issue. Instead of 
celebrating a minor legal victory, we should be discussing how to end 
the discriminatory ``Don't Ask/Don't Tell'' policy that inspired the 
opposition from the colleges and which threatens our military readiness 
to this day. Since the policy's enactment in 1993, Don't Ask/Don't Tell 
has resulted in the discharge of nearly 10,000 service members, many of 
whom had language proficiency or other skills essential to the Global 
War on Terror. Over the past ten years, Don't Ask/Don't Tell has cost 
the U.S. military hundreds of millions of dollars--funds that could 
have gone toward obtaining additional armored vehicles and investing in 
other vital force protection initiatives.
  Don't Ask/Don't Tell, originally conceived as a compromise, has 
outlived its utility and now actually harms our military readiness and 
its ability to perform certain essential functions. Qualified and 
dedicated servicemembers should not be discharged based on their sexual 
orientation, especially at a time when our National Guard and Reserves 
are serving repeated deployments. For these reasons, I am an original 
cosponsor of H.R. 1059, the Military Readiness Enhancement Act, which 
would replace Don't Ask/Don't Tell with a policy that would not allow 
discrimination or discharges based on sexual orientation.
  Those who oppose repeal of Don't Ask/Don't Tell conveniently ignore 
that gay men and women already serve in the military--many with great 
distinction--despite the fact that they must hide their identities from 
those whose lives they have sworn to defend. They also ignore the fact 
that some of our closest allies in the Global War on Terrorism permit 
open service by gay men and women, and our forces regularly serve 
alongside theirs without incident. They also ignore numerous polls 
indicating that a strong majority of Americans support repeal. Our 
military's purpose is to protect the United States, and it must recruit 
the most qualified people in order to succeed. Repeal of Don't Ask/
Don't Tell is consistent with that goal.

  I will support H. Con. Res. 354 today because I believe we should be 
encouraging our nation's finest young men and women--no matter who they 
are or where they go to school--to join the strongest, smartest and 
most capable military in the world. However,

[[Page 3462]]

such an effort is incomplete without also repealing Don't Ask/Don't 
Tell. I encourage all of my colleagues to cosponsor H.R. 1059 to ensure 
that all who are willing and able to serve may do so.
  Mrs. DRAKE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, 
and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mrs. DRAKE. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). The question is on the motion 
offered by the gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. Drake) that the House 
suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution, H. Con. Res. 
354.
  The question was taken.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds of 
those present have voted in the affirmative.
  Mrs. DRAKE. 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 and the 
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this question will 
be postponed.

                          ____________________