[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 2]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 1557-1558]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




   INTRODUCTORY REMARKS FOR THE FAIRNESS FOR MILITARY RECRUITERS ACT

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. DUNCAN HUNTER

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                      Thursday, February 10, 2011

  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, today, I am introducing the Fairness for 
Military Recruiters Act, legislation to ensure that America's military 
recruiters are not denied or unfairly restricted access to high school 
campuses. Most students on the verge of completing high school 
undoubtedly think about the future. For some, immediately entering 
college is an option. Others choose to follow a different path, 
including taking full advantage of the benefits and educational 
opportunities offered through military service.
  The intent of the Fairness for Military Recruiters Act is 
straightforward. The legislation simply reaffirms and strengthens 
existing federal law, enacted in 2002 under the No Child Left Behind, 
NCLB, Act, providing military recruiters the same access to high school 
campuses and basic student contact information that is provided to 
other institutions of higher education.
  Before the enactment of NCLB, it was reported that nearly 2,000 high 
schools across the country either banned military recruiters from 
campuses or restricted access to student directories. In the years 
since the implementation of NCLB, despite early opposition from several 
school boards and administrators, most schools ultimately altered their 
policies and allowed some form of recruiter access.
  Under current law, any high school that receives federal education 
funding must provide military recruiters access to its campus and 
student directory--the same access provided to colleges and 
universities. Schools are also required to notify parents and students 
of their right to ``opt-out,'' which occurs when a parent or student 18 
years of age requests not to be contacted by a military recruiter.
  This is a balanced approach to ensuring that students are familiar 
with the multitude of education and career opportunities offered by any 
one of the military service branches. Military service promotes 
discipline and a strong work-ethic. Young Americans should not be 
discouraged from serving their country or, at the very least, 
considering the benefits of serving in the armed forces with the 
assistance of a military recruiter.
  The American military is an all-volunteer force. Without patriotic 
and talented young Americans continuing to step forward, end-strength 
won't be the only thing adversely affected. So will American security.
  Despite the necessity to recruit qualified candidates for the armed 
forces, there are some school administrators and activist groups who 
vehemently oppose the idea of military recruiters in high schools. 
There are reported instances of groups, known as ``counter-
recruiters,'' attending parent-teacher conferences and distributing 
opt-out forms. In one case last year, the New York Civil Liberties 
Union sent volunteers to stand outside 24 high schools, in the interest 
of discouraging students from interacting with military recruiters.
  Others take a different approach. Amy Hagopian, a professor of Global 
Health at the University of Washington, who is equally committed to 
ending recruitment in high schools, wrote an article for the American 
Journal of Public Health that compares military recruiters with child 
sex predators. She alleges that military recruiter behavior is 
``disturbingly similar to predatory grooming.''
  What an insult to anyone who has ever worn a uniform in defense of 
our nation, especially those who have made the ultimate sacrifice in 
defense of freedom. The ultimate goal of Hagopian--who was behind the 
first successful effort to close the door on military recruiters in 
high schools--and others who share the same viewpoint is nothing less 
than a complete, across-the-board prohibition against military 
recruiters.
  Meanwhile, some school administrators have creatively interpreted 
notification and consent requirements in the interest of limiting 
campus visits or access to student contact information. There are 
numerous examples of this occurring, but a recent decision by the San 
Diego Unified School District, which incorporates several high schools 
in my congressional district, restricts all recruiters--military and 
private--to only two visits a year and needlessly complicates 
recruiter-student interaction.
  This decision is in fact consistent with federal law since military 
recruiters are provided the exact same access as private recruiters. 
But most private recruiters interface with students far less regularly 
than military recruiters. Often time, private recruiter interactions 
are limited to college or career fairs, instead relying on other forms 
of advertising and outreach. Military recruiters on the other hand have 
a steadier presence in high schools and, while it is absolutely 
necessary that these recruiters follow school guidelines and not 
interfere with individual learning, decisions like this, whether 
intended or not, are a significant step toward shutting the door on our 
military.
  When it comes to ``opting-out,'' students and parents should make 
that decision on their own, without undue influence from activists and 
administrators with anti-military bias. Families that recognize and 
honor the commitment of our military to defending freedom should not be 
represented by the small minority of those who actively seek to 
marginalize or even denigrate the armed forces.
  The legislation I am introducing protects the rights of parents and 
students to opt-out while also maintaining military recruiter access to 
high school campuses and directories. Schools would still be obligated 
to notify parents and students of their options, ensuring there is a 
mechanism in place that prevents contact information from being 
released.
  The alternative suggested by some of my colleagues, in anticipation 
of the upcoming reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary 
Education Act, is to create an opt-in process. In other words, military 
recruiters would be denied access to student information unless a 
parent sends in a release authorization form. They question whether the 
recruitment provision violates a student's right to privacy, even 
though it's consistent with federal law and court-tested privacy 
rights. An analysis by the Congressional Research Service

[[Page 1558]]

acknowledges this fact, noting that, unlike medical records, the basic 
information available to recruiters is no different than information 
``typically found in a phone book.''
  The Fairness for Military Recruiters Act specifically prohibits the 
implementation of an opt-in process and clarifies the notification and 
consent requirement by placing the personal information and career 
interests of students firmly in the control of parents.
  Mr. Speaker, our national security hinges on brave Americans coming 
forward to volunteer for military service. Restricting recruiter access 
to high schools would not only reduce the quality and effectiveness of 
the military, but also constrain the ability of students to consider 
military career and education opportunities.

                          ____________________