Expressing the continued support of Congress for equal access of military recruiters to institutions of higher education.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

I want to speak certainly in favor of the Solomon Amendment and remind my colleagues that it does not apply to institutions of higher education that have had a longstanding practice of pacificism based on historic religious grounds, and it exempts Federal student financial assistance from termination. But what it does do is allow students to look at career opportunities in the Army. And as the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services said, there are so many legal issues involved in the military today and to go beyond that, to let people look at careers in, I would say, intelligence as much as anything, homeland security, there is a great opportunity for students to go into.

But we are also seeing so much push-back really from a crowd that is basically anti-American and anti-conservative. Indeed, there are so many prejudices against everyday middle-class values on college campuses, and serving in the military and being pro-American just seems to be one of them.

Students at Wells College, for example, were ridiculed by their professors

if they supported the war in Iraq. At the University of Missouri, a professor, a science professor, offered extra credit for students to protest a speech given by conservative activist David Horowitz. At the University of Richmond, a professor called President Bush a moron in his class. And at the University of Oregon, students were labeled ``neo-Nazi'' for expressing their opinion that Trent Lott was the victim of a double standard. And examples go on and on.

Another statistic, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education found that over 90 percent of well-known college campuses have speech codes intended to ban or punish politically incorrect, almost always conservative speech, and that campus funds are unequally distributed to left-wing groups as opposed to conservative groups by a ratio of 50 to one.

I think the judicial attack on the Solomon Amendment is just one of a series of a trend that is against, again, anything that is pro- American, pro-conservative, pro-traditional values. And so I would submit for the Record an article that was an opinion in the Wall Street Journal recently and then something on the academic bill of rights that I think also touches into this same subject.

The bill would express the continued support of Congress for the so- called ``Solomon law'' in title 10, U.S. Code, which improves DOD's ability to establish and maintain ROTC detachments and to ensure military recruiters have access to college campuses and students that is at least equal in quality and scope to that provided to other employers.

The bill would:

State Congress's resolve to achieve military personnel readiness through vigorous application of the ``Solomon law'' relating to equal access for military recruits to institutions of higher education, and express Congress's commitment to explore all options, including the use of its Constitutional power to appropriate funds, to achieve that equal access.

Express the Sense of Congress that the Executive Branch should aggressively challenge any decision impeding or prohibiting the operation of the ``Solomon law.''

Encourage the Executive Branch to follow a doctrine of non- acquiescene by not finding a judicial decision affecting one jurisdiction to be binding on other jurisdictions. The so-called ``Solomon law,'' section 983, title 10, U.S. Code, named for its original proponent Representative Gerald Solomon (R-NY), is based on the principle that if a college or university accepts federal funding it must permit military recruiters and/or ROTC access to campus and to students. Enacted first in 1994, and added to by Congress in 1996, 1999 and 2002, and 2004, the ``Solomon law'' prohibits some defense-related and other federal funding from going to colleges and universities that prevent ROTC access or military recruiting on campus.

The Solomon law: (1) does not apply to institutions of higher education that have a long-standing policy of pacifism based on historical religious grounds; and, (2) exempts federal student financial assistance from termination.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, on 29 November 2004, reversed a district court decision, which had upheld the Constitutionality of the ``Solomon law,'' by ruling that the ``Solomon law'' violated the 1st Amendment rights of free speech and association held by institutions of higher education. The Third Circuit remanded the case to the district court to enter a preliminary injunction against the enforcement of the ``Solomon law.''

The acting Solicitor General has announced his intention to petition the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari to review the decision of the Third Circuit Court. The Government also filed a motion on 14 January 2005 with the Third Circuit Court seeking to stay the Court's mandate for a preliminary injunction against the enforcement of the ``Solomon law'' until the Supreme Court decides the Government's petition. The Third Circuit granted the stay on 19 January.

H. Con. Res. 36, in expressing continued support for equal access of military recruiters to institutions of higher education, makes the following points regarding the ``Solomon law'':

Under article I, Section 8, of the Constitution, Congress exclusively has the power to raise and support armies, provide and maintain a navy, and make rules for the government and regulation of the Armed Forces.

Military recruiting on university campuses is one of the primary means by which the Armed Forces obtain highly qualified new military personnel and is an integral, effective and necessary part of overall military recruiting. Efforts by colleges and universities to restrict or prohibit military recruiter access will have the harmful effects of increasing Federal spending to achieve desired recruiting outcomes and of compromising military readiness and performance. Such harm conflicts with Federal responsibilities to provide for the Nation's defense. Any reduction in the performance by the Armed Forces amidst the present national emergency declared by the President on September 14, 2001, operates against the national interest.

The Constitution gives Congress the power to regulate spending and in that role Congress has chosen over time to appropriate funds for a variety of Government programs to be provided to institutions of higher learning. However, these funds are not an entitlement to any college or university and can be provided subject to criteria and conditions set by Congress.

The ``Solomon law'' is a legislative safeguard that links Federal funding of educational institutions to the willingness of those institutions to abide by a rule of access by military recruiters to campuses and students that is at least equal in quality and scope that is provided to any other employer.

For the last several years, a growing number of university law schools and colleges of law have treated military recruiters in ways significantly different from the recruiters of other employers. As a result, military recruiters and the persons they seek to interview have been subjected to various degrees of official and unofficial harassment or ill treatment that is designed to make military recruiting difficult, or to frustrate its objectives. The underlying reason for this differing treatment is opposition to Federal law that prohibits military service by openly gay people--the so-called ``don't ask, don't tell'' law.

Given that opposition, it is imperative that the safeguards that the ``Solomon law'' provides not only for military recruiters, but also for ROTC, be maintained. Without such safeguards, grave harm to military recruiting will result as colleges and universities move to limit or deny access to campuses and students by representatives of the Armed Forces.

Academic Bill of Rights

background

Hiring Practices for Professors

Faculty hiring is controlled by more senior members of the

faculty itself:

As Conservative faculty forced to keep political views

quiet until they achieve tenure.

Usually hire those who agree with them,

Creates a perpetual cycle.

Creates an environment where Marxists, Post-Modernists,

etc. can still dominate in academic fields even while their

views have been discredited:

Numbers of Liberal Professors vs. Conservative Professors

The overall ratio of Democrats to Republicans at the 32

schools studied was more than 10 to 1 (1397 Democrats, 134

Republicans).

Not a single department at a single one of the 32 schools

managed to achieve a reasonable parity between the two main

political parties:

In the nation at large, registered Democrats and

Republicans are roughly equal in number.

The closest any school came to parity was Northwestern

University--Democrats outnumbered registered Republicans by a

ratio of 4-1.

Other Schools:

Brown--30-1

Bowdoin, Wellesley--23-1

Swarthmore--21-1

Amherst, Bates--18-1

Columbia, Yale--14-1

Pennsylvania, Tufts, UCLA and Berkeley--12-1

Smith--11-1

Other Schools had ZERO registered Republicans:

Williams--51 Democrats, 0 Republicans

Oberlin--19 Democrats, 0 Republicans

MIT--17 Democrats, 0 Republicans

Haverford--15 Democrats, 0 Republicans

Most students probably graduate without ever having a class

taught by a professor with a conservative viewpoint.

Not Just a Faculty Problem But A Campus-Wide Bias

For example, the University of Pennsylvania, Carnegie

Melon, and Cornell could not identify a single Republican

administrator.

In the entire Ivy League, there were only 3 Republican

administrators identified.

Impact on Students

Remarks belittling conservative ideas convey that these

views are not accepted on campus--Grading based on these

ideas reinforce this perception.

One student called a ``fascist'' for inviting Oliver North

to campus.

University of Oregon--Student labeled ``neo-Nazi'' for

expressing his opinion that Trent Lott was the victim of a

double standard.

University of Richmond--Professor called President Bush a

``moron'' in the classroom.

University of Missouri in Columbia--Professor offered extra

credit to protest a speech by David Horowitz.

Students at Wells College were ridiculed by professors for

their support on Iraq war and their views on feminism.

``It didn't take long to see how liberal it was after I

came here. The professors and the education I receive is

excellent, but the professors seem to use class as a

political soapbox,''--Kristy L. Hochenberger, a student at

Wells College.

Slogan circulated by Biology professor at Wells College--

``Lobotomies for Republicans: It's not just a good idea; it's

the law!''.

Many students conceal what they actually think in order to

protect their academic standing--a reality clearly at odds

with the educational mission of the university.

Nearly all distinguished doctoral programs rely on matching

students with professors who have compatible interests.

Preferential treatment shown to those with similar liberal

ideals.

Campus Guests, Speech Police and Commencement Speakers

Campus funds are unequally distributed to leftwing student

groups as opposed to groups with conservative agendas by a

ratio close to 50:1: These student groups are many times in

charge of hiring campus speakers.

The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education found

that over 90 percent of well-known college campuses have

speech codes intended to ban and punish politically

incorrect, almost always conservative, speech.

The ratio of commencement speakers on the left and right

was 226-15, a ratio of over 15:1: Commencement speakers are

selected through committees composed of administrative staff,

faculty, and students.

Twenty-two of the thirty-two schools surveyed did not have

a single Republican or conservative commencement speaker in

the entire ten years surveyed: Six of the remaining schools

invited only one Republican or conservative each, as compared

to 38 liberals or Democrats.

Haverford, Swarthmore and UCLA, which host multiple

speakers every year, did not feature a single Republican or

conservative speaker as balanced against 54 liberals and

Democrats.

Academic Bill of Rights

Recognizes that political partisanship by professors is an

abuse of students' academic freedom.

Designed to take politics out of the university curriculum:

Does not call for more classics in curriculum,

Reading lists should provide students with dissenting

viewpoints so they may form their own opinions.

Designed to protect the right of students to ``get an

education rather than an indoctrination'':

Should not make professors afraid of what they say,

We defend professors' right to say anything and forbids

administration from punishing them for their political

opinions,

Professors should always be open to dissenting opinions.

Unequal funding of student organizations which host guest

speakers is unacceptable: Calls for pluralism in selection of

guest speakers.

Learning environment hostile to conservatives is wrong.

There is a lack of ``intellectual diversity'' within

faculties on college campuses:

University should be ``inclusive'' to all viewpoints,

Without it, free exchange of ideas are impaired.

It is not our intention to suggest that there should be

quotas based on party affiliation in the hiring process at

universities:

We support removing all politics and political affiliation

from the hiring process,

It is our purpose to point out the gross imbalance of

liberal vs. conservative professors.

While nearly all university administrations devote

extraordinary resources to defend the principle of diversity

in regard to race and gender, none can be said to have shown

interest in the diversity of ideas.

Universities have the privilege of being separate from the

society they inhabit:

Society grants faculty protection from the influence of

outside politics,

With that privilege comes a responsibility by the faculty

to also safeguard the free exchange of ideas.

Correcting this should be the goal and an integral part of

educational policy under the Academic Bill of Rights.

[From the Wall Street Journal, Feb. 2, 2005]

Wisdom of Solomon--The Disgrace of Blocking Military Recruiters From

Campus

Don't ask. Don't tell. Having no desire to crash our e-mail

server, we'll save discussion of gays in the military for

another day. Rather, today's subject is lawyers in the

military. Surely Americans of all points of view can agree

that in an age of Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib, the military can

use the best attorneys it can get.

So it's a disgrace that some of the nation's law schools,

objecting to the Pentagon's ``discrimination policies,''

refuse to permit military recruiters to make their pitch on

campus, relegating them instead to unofficial off-campus

venues. Law students pondering their first career move can be

wined and dined by fancy firms that set up recruitment tables

at campus job fairs, but they have to stroll over to the

local Day's Inn to seek out the lonely military recruiter.

To put it another way, the same liberals who object that

the military includes too many lower-class kids won't let

military recruiters near the schools that contain students

who will soon join the upper-class elite. It's almost enough

to make us contemplate restoring the draft, starting with law

school students.

Needless to say, such scholastic shenanigans don't go down

well with Congress, which in 1994 passed the Solomon

Amendment, named for the late New York Republican, Gerald

Solomon. The law requires schools that receive federal funds

to provide equal access to military recruiters. Today, the

House is scheduled to vote on a resolution brought by Alabama

Republican Mike Rogers that would restate the House's support

for the Solomon Amendment. Something similar passed the House

and Senate by overwhelming margins last year and was

incorporated into the Defense Authorization bill.

The impetus for Mr. Rogers's move is a November ruling by

the federal appeals court in Philadelphia in favor of a group

of law schools and legal scholars that had contested the

Solomon law. The 2-1 opinion found that the Solomon Amendment

violates the schools' First Amendment rights to free speech

and association. Next stop is the Supreme Court, which is

expected to take the appeal that the Justice Department plans

to bring.

There are many peculiarities to this lawsuit, starting with

the fact that the group that brought it--the Forum for

Academic and Institutional Rights--declines to release the

names of the 26 law schools and faculties that belong to its

coalition. Some of the participants (New York University and

Georgetown, for example) have outed themselves since the suit

was brought in 2003, but others steadfastly maintain their

own don't-ask-don't-tell policy.

In any event, there should be no legal question about

Congress's right to put conditions on grants of federal funds

to universities. It does this all the time--including

requirements that colleges adhere to certain civil rights and

gender standards. With a few exceptions, universities have no

trouble going along and courts have no problem letting them.

If, as is likely, the Supreme Court overturns the appeals

court decision, that will be the end of it. Almost all

universities, public and private, take millions of dollars in

federal money that would be next to impossible to give up.

That's especially true of the elite schools, both public and

private. Still, it would be nice to think that the nation's

universities would welcome the military for reasons other

than the mercenary. Patriotism, perhaps?

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. I also want to welcome him as a new member of the Committee on Rules.

(Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. Speaker, here we are at the start of a new year and a new Congress and we are considering this bill, surprise, surprise, under a closed rule. Once again, the Republican majority has decided that thoughtful debate and the ability for Members to offer amendments if they so wish is unimportant or simply too much bother.

The underlying bill, House Concurrent Resolution 36, was introduced yesterday, has not gone to committee, let alone and be reported out of committee, and was being taken up in the Committee on Rules yesterday just about the time that most Members' planes were touching down in Washington.

So once again the majority has followed its usual practice to stifle debate, prevent amendments, and ignore normal procedure to push a bill to the House floor ahead of more important issues facing the country. Apparently, the Republican leadership could not possibly start the new year out by deciding to finally help the more than one million jobless workers who have exhausted their regular unemployment benefits without receiving additional aid.

I know the majority does not like to be reminded that we still have the largest number of exhaustees in over 3 decades, but the 109th Congress begins still facing this bitter reality and obviously still doing nothing to ease the hardships facing these workers and their families.

Clearly, the Republican majority did not feel it necessary to press the President to get his supplemental request to assist the victims in nations affected by the Asian tsunami quickly before the House, so we are not taking that measure up this week. In fact, we are not likely to act on this most urgent matter until March. But a bill exhorting the White House to ignore and overturn proceedings in the Federal courts and to press higher education institutions to ignore their own policies prohibiting discrimination, well, that is a bill that gets top billing in the House of Representatives today.

Mr. Speaker, in the United States of America discrimination is wrong. Period. But here we are right out of the gate with a bill that condones it. Let us start with a little history on this bill.

In the mid-90s, Congress passed legislation to deny Defense Department funding to colleges and universities that fail to give military recruiters access to their campuses and students. Known as the Solomon Law, that legislation was passed to respond to efforts by several colleges and universities to protest the discriminatory policies of the Pentagon against gay men and women. Over time, the law was expanded to prohibit funding a university might receive from nearly every Federal agency, including the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Transportation, and the Department of Labor.

Last year this House passed a bill that would have expanded that list to include the CIA and the National Nuclear Security Administration of the Department of Energy.

Mr. Speaker, there is an irony here. The Congress is holding hostage funds from all of these other Federal agencies to prop up discrimination by the Pentagon. Yet every one of these other Federal agencies has full access to recruitment on college campuses. Why? Because unlike the Department of Defense, no other Federal agencies have policies that encourage discrimination against gay men and women. All of them have employees on their pay rolls. All of these Federal agencies and the U.S. Government and the American people benefit from the research and development programs that take place on these campuses, some of it carried out, no doubt, by gay men and women.

So, Mr. Speaker, where does the Solomon Law stand today?

In November 2003, a U.S. district court in New Jersey upheld the constitutionality of the Solomon Law, but it also determined that the Solomon Law does not give the Pentagon any basis for asserting, as it has in regulations on implementing the Solomon Law, that universities and colleges must give military recruiters the same degree of access to campuses and students provided to other employers.

In November 2004, just this past November, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit overruled part of the New Jersey District Court's ruling and found the Solomon Law to be in violation of the Constitution. In an appeal brought by a number of schools, mainly graduate schools of law, the court ruled that colleges and universities had a first amendment right to exclude recruiters whose hiring practices discriminated against homosexuals.

The U.S. Department of Justice now plans to appeal the case to the U.S. Supreme Court, and it has asked the appeals court to hold off enforcing the nullification of the Solomon Law until the Supreme Court decides on whether to take up the case or not.

Mr. Speaker, let me point out another irony in this debate today. There is absolutely no lack of equal access for military recruiters and ROTC programs on America's college campuses. What the Pentagon receives is special access, pure and simple. To this day, any other employer, public or private, that fails to meet a school's nondiscrimination policies is banned from employee recruitment on campuses. So

the Pentagon receives special access to our colleges and universities.

The Solomon law is about giving the military a special right to discriminate in a way other employers may not.

This sense of Congress resolution once again reinforces and promotes the Pentagon's discriminatory policy and practices to the detriment of all other education institutions and Federal agencies. It further encourages the Federal Government in its pursuit to challenge court rulings that have upheld the first amendment rights of our colleges and universities in their efforts to end prejudice and discrimination.

Mr. Speaker, the final irony of this debate you will hear today are the arguments about the need of the military to recruit the best and brightest students that America has to offer.

I agree with this need, and the way to get there is for the Pentagon to end its policy of discrimination. This would end the conflict between the Pentagon and college policies against discrimination and prejudice. The Pentagon has kicked out over 26 military linguists who were fluent in Arabic or Farsi simply because they were homosexual. That is unconscionable while our military men and women are facing a deadly insurgency in Iraq and continued violence in Afghanistan.

In the past 5 years, in the Army alone, over 3,000 uniformed servicemen and women have been discharged solely because of their sexual orientation. They were munitions experts, linguists, health care workers, infantrymen, tank mechanics, radio operators and active in every field of military endeavor.

Make no mistake about it, right now gay men and women are in battle in Iraq and Afghanistan, and they have likely died in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan. They serve their Nation just as they have since the founding of the United States, bravely, patriotically and devotedly, but their superiors do not commend their service. If their sexual orientation is discovered, they are drummed out.

Mr. Speaker, there is no lack of access to for the military on America's campuses. Every university that wants an ROTC program has one. According to the Wall Street Journal, more than 52,000 college students are enrolled in ROTC programs, up from 48,000 in 2000. Many credit feelings of patriotism engendered by the September 11 attacks, and it comes as no surprise that military enlistment by college graduates has also increased since the events of September 11.

Mr. Speaker, we do not need the Solomon law. We do not need the bill before us today, and we certainly do not need to continue to insult and assault those very institutions of higher education that are leading the way to end hate and discrimination in America.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, before I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas, I just want to respond to my colleague from Oklahoma.

He mentioned that this resolution has been posted on the Web site for 3 days or 4 days. I should say to him that that is not a substitute for the committee process. That is why we have committees.

Secondly, I am glad that the gentleman believes that the bill needs no amendment, but there are 434 other Members of this House that should have the opportunity to amend this bill, if they so desire.

I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for his succinct observation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

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

(Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks, and include extraneous material.)

Mr. Speaker, I insert in the Record at this point two articles. One is an editorial from the New York Times entitled, ``The Price of Homophobia.'' Another is an Associate Press story entitled, ``Report: Number of gay linguists discharged higher than thought.''

[From the New York Times, Jan. 20, 2005]

The Price of Homophobia

Don't ask, don't tell--just scream in frustration: it turns

out that 20 of the Arabic speakers so vitally needed by the

nation have been thrown out of the military since 1998

because they were found to be gay. It is hard to imagine a

more wrongheaded rebuff of national priorities. The focus

must be on the search for Osama bin Laden and his terrorist

legions, not the closet door. The Pentagon's snooping after

potential gays trumps what every investigative agency in the

war on terror has admitted is a crucial shortage of effective

Arabic translators.

After the first World Trade Center attack, in 1993,

government agents revealed an alarming shortage of Arabic

speakers. Key notes, videotapes and a phone call pertaining

to the attack were later found in a backlog of untranslated

investigative data. The shortage continued right up to and

well beyond the 9/11 attacks. Three years after the towers

were destroyed, the F.B.I., rife with translation problems,

admitted it had an untranslated backlog of 120,000 hours of

intercepts with potential value about looming threats. At the

State Department, a study showed that only one in five of the

279 Arabic translators were fluent enough to handle the

subtleties of the language, with its many regional dialects.

The military's experience is no more encouraging, with

intelligence results muddied at times by a rush, as one

inquiry put it, to recruit Arab convenience store owners and

cabdrivers, who couldn't handle the task. The military is

right to rely more on its language schools, but it can take

several years to produce fluent graduates. The folly of using

``don't ask, don't tell'' policy against such precious

national resources amounts to comfort for the enemy. When

President Bush was asked last week by The Washington Post why

Osama bin Laden had eluded capture, he replied, ``Because

he's hiding.'' So is the Pentagon--it's hiding from reality.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

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

This Congress should be leading the way to end discrimination of any form in this country. Unfortunately, we have a resolution before us today that condones discrimination. I think it is sad we are dealing with this today. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the resolution.

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

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 59 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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.

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.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Akin).

(Mr. AKIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

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

The previous question was ordered.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I am wondering, based on that argument, in the interest of efficiency, whether we might not substitute chat rooms for the floor of the House, and if being on the Web site is a satisfactory way to bring a bill out. Maybe if we had chat rooms or instant messaging, we could probably save a lot more.

I would urge the majority, since this traditional kind of old- fashioned type of democracy does not seem to have much appeal, to go right ahead, might even save a little more money, by cutting back on what Thomas Jefferson or Abe Lincoln or one of those people might have thought was an appropriate way to conduct the business of democracy.

To begin, Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely backwards to decry this policy of excluding recruiters from using the facilities of a university. Let us be clear: no university can ban a recruiter from coming to that city or that town. No university can say that students will not talk to the recruiter.

The question is not whether the recruiters can come and advertise; it is whether they can compel the university to offer its facilities involving a policy with which they disagree. But to say that that causes a problem in getting people in the military, it is the supporters of a policy that say to able-bodied men and women, we disapprove of your sexuality, and, therefore, no matter how talented you are, no matter how patriotic you are, no matter what skills you bring, you are not allowed here.

Colin Powell, when he was chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, testified before this Congress that there was no argument that gay and lesbian men and women in the military were in any way deficient as members of the military. He made it clear. The only reason for excluding them was the prejudice of others. That was the only reason.

The argument was: if you let these people in, and he said they had been good soldiers and good airmen and good sailors, it would be disruptive. Well, one, that was 15 years ago when he said that. I think society has moved some. But, second, we have experience to the contrary.

I know there have been people critical of the Israeli Defense Forces in some respects. I think they deserve, on the whole, a lot of credit for a difficult job. In the Israeli Defense Forces, people serve who are openly gay and lesbian. So the argument that somehow allowing people who are honest about their sexuality, if they are gay or lesbian, to serve in the military makes you an ineffectual military, how do they explain the Israeli Defense Forces?

In fact, what we are again being told is that good people, able people, and we heard reference to the linguists. This has become the policy of ``Don't ask, don't tell, and by no means translate.'' You who support this policy are the ones, Mr. Speaker, who are depriving the armed services of able-bodied people. You are the ones who have driven thousands, literally thousands of perfectly capable men and women out of the military because you disapprove of what they do in their spare time. So then to claim that it is the universities trying to stand up for a principle that are weakening the military gets it absolutely backwards.

I was also saddened, I must say, by one of the previous speakers who said he wanted to express his disdain for the universities involved. We have universities here which are trying to express their disagreement with what they believe, and I agree, but what they believe to be an unfair prejudice that singles out some of their students. I understand disagreement with that, but disdain? Disdain because people in these positions feel that their students should not be unduly stigmatized and denied this opportunity?

If it is so important to have the opportunity, Mr. Speaker, should not people on the other side say, you cannot deny these young people the opportunity to serve in the military. Should you not say, you should not deny these young people the opportunity to serve in the military unless they are gay or lesbian. Because if they are gay or lesbian, you want to deny them the opportunity to serve in the military regardless of any fault.

Remember, this is one that says we just stigmatize you from the outset. There is nothing you can do, there is no degree of service you can perform, there is no sacrifice you can offer to make that will allow you to serve your country. And then we will complain because we do not have enough people to serve in the military. And, again, literally thousands have been turned away. The universities are not blocking recruitment. They cannot. They are asking for the right to stand up for principle.

And now we are told by one other speaker, well, if they do not agree with the policy, you would think they would not accept the money. Please. I would say to Members, one rule in parliamentary debate: try to avoid saying something that no one will believe. I mean, this notion that if you do not agree with a policy you should boycott the government, which is using your tax money, nobody believes that. People get taxed, and sometimes they agree and sometimes they disagree. We say to people, look, you can voice your opinion, but you cannot avoid paying the taxes.

And, by the way, it is not money from the military they are seeking. Typically, what we have here are law schools. It is law schools, as people have noted, who are doing this. So people have said, well, what about the poor people? We are not getting enough wealthy people to offset the number of poor people. Well, we are talking about lawyers who are being recruited. Frankly, the poor people are not being recruited for the Judge Advocate General's office. It just does not compute.

But what they are saying is, we are not going to allow our facilities to be used in this discriminatory way. And the law schools, by the way, are not themselves, and this is an important point, under the Clinton administration the ruling was that we would look at each element of a university separately. And if the law school said no military recruiting, that did not stop the medical school or the school of engineering from applying for Federal funds. What you now have is a policy that says if the law school says no, no other entity can get the money. So there is no connection there.

The key issue here is this: Have we not in this country come to the point where patriotic young gay men and lesbians who are prepared to serve their country will at least be given a chance? Can you not judge them on their merits? Can you not say, okay, we admire your willingness to do this. We will judge you. If it turns out you become disruptive, we will act. But this blanket denial of even the opportunity no matter how talented, no matter how diligent? You enforce that as a policy, and then you complain that we have people being turned away?

Mr. Speaker, I hope this resolution is not adopted, and I hope we will begin to reverse this blanket prejudicial policy that says to millions, millions of young American men and women, you need not apply to defend your country because we do not like some aspect about you, even if it is going to be entirely irrelevant to your service.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this resolution.

In Wisconsin, our State laws provide protections from discrimination to people that go beyond what many other States and what the Federal Government have put into law. Such protections as nondiscrimination based on age, gender, marital status, membership in the National Guard and sexual orientation are a part of Wisconsin's nondiscrimination laws. Wisconsin has chosen to provide its citizens with these greater protections because we have decided that these are in the best interests of our citizens and are good public policy.

The University of Wisconsin in Madison has a history as a leader in social justice. It adheres to State laws and has tried to apply those laws appropriately across its campus. That has included the requirement that campus organizations, departments and campus recruiters adhere to State law. Yet Federal law has intervened to block enforcement of campus policy and State law in regard to military recruiters.

The Solomon amendment was passed by a previous Congress because students, like those at the University of Wisconsin, were having success in blocking recruiters from campus if they discriminate against lesbians or gays or bisexuals in violation of State law and campus policy.

Access to and use of campus facilities to recruit students for higher educational opportunities, employment or military service should be at the discretion of the institution. Of course, public institutions should not arbitrarily discriminate against any particular recruiter. Reasonable and legitimate criteria should be evenly applied to every recruiter. The Federal Government should not use Federal funding as a weapon to force noncompliance with State law or to create special rights for military recruiters.

I believe that the court made the correct decision in invalidating the Solomon amendment. I also believe that today's resolution is unnecessary. In fact, I believe that today's debate is the wrong debate. We should be looking at ways to strengthen our military and expand our resources for winning the fight against al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations.

Mr. Speaker, when will we have the debate about the harm caused by excluding so many qualified, skilled Americans from serving in our military simply because they are gay or lesbian? When will we have a debate about the waste of resources used to discharge fully trained personnel who are serving our country honorably? When will we have the debate about how much our fight against terrorism is hurt by the discharges of Arab linguists?

The resolution before us today makes vague reference to the costs to the military in having to arrange alternative recruitment strategies to meet its goals, but it does not mention the significant cost of Don't Ask, Don't Tell to our defense budget and to our national security. Since Don't Ask, Don't Tell took effect in 1993, approximately 10,000 military personnel have been discharged. That is a huge amount of training and experience that we have lost.

In a study of discharges between 1998 and 2003, University of Santa Barbara researchers found that, of 6,273 discharges, many were in critical specialties such as 88 linguists, including many Arabic speakers, 49 WMD experts, 90 nuclear power engineers, and 150 rocket and missile specialists. To compensate for some of these discharges, the Pentagon has been calling up members of the Individual Ready Reserve. The harm to our military readiness and the cost to our security caused by Don't Ask, Don't Tell is clear. Urging the administration to try to reinstate the Solomon amendment will in no way make our country safer.

Let there be no mistake. I strongly support our men and women in uniform. I want to take this opportunity to honor the men and women in our Armed Forces who have served and continue to serve in Iraq and to the many serving our country here and around the world. Their efforts allowed the Iraqi people to vote in a free election this week. Their bravery and dedication is something all Americans should admire and honor.

Mr. Speaker, there would be no clamor for a Solomon amendment if we simply allowed all qualified Americans to serve their country in uniform. Our country would be safer, our human resources would be greater, our country would be stronger if we treated all Americans equally, regardless of their sexual orientation. It is time to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell. It will make our military stronger and our country stronger.