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.

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.

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.

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. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Miller).

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this legislation. This legislation, Mr. Speaker, represents a small, but important, change to existing law to help ease in one small way the suffering of U.S. citizens whose relatives have made the ultimate sacrifice on behalf of our Nation.

Mr. Speaker, we are at war. Hundreds of thousands of Americans from both our regular forces and from the National Guard and Reserves have been deployed in Afghanistan, Iraq, and other countries around the globe. Our forces have been subject to more stress than any time since the Vietnam War when the United States had the draft.

The men and women who have performed so magnificently for their country deserve all the support we can give them, and their families deserve every possible relief we can give them as well.

The legislation before us today affords those families some relief at a time of unimaginable loss.

Many members of our Armed Forces have developed ties and families abroad, and a few of them are being buried at private cemeteries in foreign lands after making the ultimate sacrifice. At present, our law requires grieving parents, grandparents, and other relatives to pay nearly $100 in first-time passport fees when all they want to do is to attend their family member's final honor. For a large family these costs can add up and for no good reason.

The legislation before us remedies this problem. It authorizes the Department of State to waive the passport fees in this situation, just as the Department is currently allowed to do when the family member is being buried in a U.S. military cemetery. It also extends the waiver to allow grandparents to be eligible for it.

Mr. Speaker, this is a problem that affects relatively few people. Indeed, the Congressional Budget Office has concluded that it would have no significant impact on the Federal budget; but when it does happen, it can be a godsend to those who have lost so much.

I commend my dear friend, the Senate sponsor of this legislation, Senator Joe Biden of Delaware, for introducing this humanitarian measure; and I urge all of my colleagues to join me in supporting it.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey, Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of our men and women bravely serving in the Armed Forces--past, present, and future. As they fight the forces of terrorism around the globe we must seek to honor their sacrifices made to preserve our freedoms.

As we remember them on March 26, National Support the Troops Day, it is only fitting that we participate in a moment of silence to reflect on their service. Those currently serving in our Armed Forces are protecting liberty that was established by the Founding Fathers and has been preserved by our Nation's veterans. Soldiers, sailors, and airmen daily risk their lives fighting those who wish to enslave mankind to religious extremism, oppression, and tyranny.

Today I also rise in support of S. 1184, an effort to properly honor those whose loved ones have fallen in combat. It is the least we can do to waive passport fees for those who must travel overseas in order to visit the resting place of their relatives who have given the full measure of service. From the beaches of France to deserts of Africa, American soldiers have given their lives and been interred on foreign soil.

We are ever grateful for their sacrifice and this is but a small way we can now support their relatives.

Finally, recognizing that our military is dependent on a robust recruiting operation, I give my full support for H. Con. Res. 354. To preserve an all volunteer military service, it is essential that recruiters be granted access to the best and brightest American students. Service in the military is an honorable position and without our Armed Services, we would not have the academic freedoms that have made our Nation so advanced in culture and science.

I recently had the pleasure of recognizing New Jersey's Fifth District nominees to the U.S. Service Academies. Not all students have that honor, but all students should have the option of learning more about this noble profession from qualified Armed Forces recruiters.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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, 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.

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.

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.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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.

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.