Providing H.Con.Res.36, Expressing ContinuedSupport of Congress for Equal Access of Military Recruiters to Instituions of Higher Education

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H. CON. RES. 36, EXPRESSING CONTINUED SUPPORT OF CONGRESS FOR EQUAL ACCESS OF MILITARY RECRUITERS TO INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION -- (House of Representatives - February 02, 2005)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday the Committee on Rules met and granted a rule for House Concurrent Resolution 36, expressing congressional support for equal access of military recruiters to institutions of higher education.

The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Armed Services. The rule also provides for one motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, this concurrent resolution is an important first step in addressing a misguided ruling by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals regarding access of military recruiters to institutions of higher education.

During this time of conflict and the global war on terror, it is more important than ever to maintain the ability to recruit quality men and women for service in our military. The primary way that recruiters are able to do this is to work through those institutions which work closely with our young men and women, schools and universities.

Military recruiters need the same access to college campuses provided to other potential employers, and students deserve the right to discuss the option of a career in the United States military with the representatives of the Armed Forces.

Mr. Speaker, some ask, why the need for this concurrent resolution? Well, the answer is succinct. This concurrent resolution grows out of an egregious decision by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals overturning the power of Congress to control the purse.

This decision simply states that Congress and the Government may not as a matter of law deny funds to universities on the basis of their denial of access to recruiters and ROTC units. This decision, couched in the language of civil rights, fails to recognize the underlying inequity behind these university policies. This decision asserts the Congress has compelled speech by these universities to the effect that they "agree" with the military's "Don't ask, don't tell" policy with respect to homosexuals in the service.

Mr. Speaker, nothing could be further than the truth.

The Solomon Amendment compelled no such thing. It simply proposed standards for the receipt of Federal funds. Setting such standards is a normal and legitimate function of the legislative branch. It is what defines the power of the purse. This is an issue that the House and Senate have revisited and affirmed in bipartisan votes in 1995, 1996, 1999, and 2002 after the enactment of the original Solomon Amendment.

Mr. Speaker, it is disappointing to note that the Reserve Officers Training Corps, or popularly known as the ROTC, has been embattled on some university and college campuses since the 1960s. This stems from what only can be described as a consistently anti-military philosophy advocated by some, and I want to say only some, college and university professors and administrators.

The new purported reasons for not allowing ROTC on campus often serves the convenient cover for these anti-military sentiments. Some educators now believe that they should be allowed to discriminate against students who wish to enter the military in order to please another group of students who object to the policies and procedures of the armed services, all the while soliciting and accepting Federal funds for their institutions. This is rank hypocrisy.
Why would an institution seek and use Federal funds, often from the Department of Defense, while denying representatives of the U.S. Armed Forces access to their campuses?

Mr. Speaker, the decision by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals is a classic case of judicial overreach and one that must be addressed. As a former university educator and the son of a career Air Force noncommissioned officer, I find this decision disturbing and insulting to those men and women who defend our freedom and to those who wish to join their ranks.

The very least we can do is put the courts on notice as to exactly where the Congress stands on this issue. For that reason, this concurrent resolution is necessary and timely. Hopefully, it will underscore the importance that the Congress places on military recruiters having access to the educational institutions that receive Federal funds.

During this time of war, we should insist that institutions who pride themselves on freedom of expression allow the defenders of that freedom, the United States military, to freely recruit the soldiers who protect our democracy. To that end, I urge support for the rule and the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I yield to myself such time as I may consume.

I would like to quickly address a couple of the concerns that my colleague raised. While I certainly respect his concerns, I would like to point out that the measure in question had been on our Web site for 4 days and was not suddenly introduced yesterday. It had easy access. Frankly, on the nature of the rule itself, it is the opinion of the majority of the committee this is simply an up or down matter. It is not something we need to amend or deal with.

Let me make one other point, if I may, Mr. Speaker, in reference to the access of the military to college campuses. The military is a rather unique institution, but nothing prohibits college campuses from denying them access. All the Solomon amendment does is says, if they do, they lose some Federal funds as a consequence.

I would think that if they felt strongly, that this was a position of conviction, they would not want funds from the Department of Defense and other institutions. They would simply have nothing to do with them.

Further, I would simply like to make one additional point. The appropriate place to protest the policy, frankly, is in the political arena. This is not a policy in the Department of Defense per se. This is a policy devised by President Clinton, has been ratified repeatedly by Congress as a political avenue to address it. We should not put that burden on recruiters in the military and subject them to difficult circumstances when they are carrying out important work for our country.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume; and in closing, I would like to say I think we have had a good and substantive debate today, but let us be clear: the concurrent resolution is really about ensuring those who defend our freedom and liberty the ability to have the same access to colleges and universities that is available for everyone else.

Mr. Speaker, often today others have placed this debate in the context of the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy. I suggest that those who would like to change that policy, that they look inward, at the political process itself. This was President Clinton's policy, and one enshrined in law that can only be changed by Congress.

If the other side of the aisle would like to make this change, they should propose it and debate it at this level. To put it in the context of the Solomon Amendment, I believe, is disingenuous and dangerous to our recruiting efforts. I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying concurrent resolution.

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

http://thomas.loc.gov