Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 580, I call up the bill (H.R. 3966) to amend title 10, United States Code, and the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to improve the ability of the Department of Defense to establish and maintain Senior…
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 580, I call up the bill (H.R. 3966) to amend title 10, United States Code, and the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to improve the ability of the Department of Defense to establish and maintain Senior Reserve Officers Training Corps units at institutions of higher education, to improve the ability of students to participate in Senior ROTC programs, and to ensure that institutions of higher education provide military recruiters entry to campuses and access to students that is at least equal in quality and scope to that provided to any other employer, and ask for its immediate consideration.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such times I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3966, the ROTC and Military Recruiter Equal Access to Campus Act of 2004. It is based on one simple principle: Colleges and universities that accept Federal funding should also be willing to permit military recruiters equal access to students in ROTC scholarship programs.
Specifically, H.R. 3966 would first require colleges and universities to give military recruiters access to campus and to students that is equal to in quality and scope as that provided to any other private employer.
Secondly, the bill would require an annual verification from colleges and universities who already support ROTC programs that they will continue to do so in the upcoming academic year.
Thirdly, it will add two additional defense-related funding sources, the Central Intelligence Agency and the National Nuclear Security Administration of the Department of Energy, to the potentially prohibitive funding sources already specified in the law.
And, finally, it restores the Department of Transportation to the list of funds that might be terminated. These were inadvertently left out in the 2002 change in the law.
Mr. Speaker, I would also like to emphasize this bill does not in any way disturb or interfere with Federal financial student financial aid.
This law is known as the Solomon amendment after its Congressman, Gerry Solomon of New York, began this as a House amendment adopted in a bipartisan vote in 1995.
The following year, Congress imposed the loss of DOD funding on institutions of higher learning that had an anti-ROTC policy. That same Congress added the Departments of Education, Labor, and Health and Human Services to the list of potentially prohibited funding sources. Then the Homeland Security Act of 2002 added funding from the Department of Homeland Security to the list.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that now Congress must once again revisit this law. Recently, barriers have been erected by some colleges and universities to military recruiters having access to students on campus, particularly in their law schools.
But what has really created a real sense of urgency for us to act now is the recent court decision of Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights, otherwise known as FAIR, versus Donald Rumsfeld. FAIR was a consortium of an unknown number of anonymous law schools in this case.
In the U.S. District Court of New Jersey in September, 2003, the plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction against the DOD from enforcing Solomon.
In his opinion on November 5, 2003, the judge denied the motion and upheld the constitutionality of the Solomon amendment, but he noted that law schools are loathe to endorse or assist recruiting efforts of the United States military, and he criticized the government's assertion that the Solomon amendment requires colleges and universities to give military recruiters access to campuses and students equal to that given to recruiters from other employers.
In response to the judge's ruling, the Secretary of Defense has asked the Congress to clarify the Solomon amendment to state unequivocally that the military should have the same equal access in scope and quality to that of any other civilian employee.
H.R. 3699 will do just that. I urge support of the House.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon), a member of the Committee on Armed Services and a cosponsor of this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), a distinguished member of the Committee on Appropriations.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary and a cosponsor of H.R. 3966.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus), who is also a cosponsor of this piece of legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey), a distinguished member of the Committee on Armed Services and also a cosponsor of this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox), Chairman of the Select Committee on Homeland Security and an original cosponsor of H.R. 3966.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox).
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), chairman of the Committee on Armed Services.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor).
(Mr. CANTOR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson).
Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Yes, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the motion to recommit.
This motion is simply an effort to empower those who would oppose fair access to military recruiters to our colleges and universities with the authority to treat recruiters as second-class citizens.
H.R. 3966 would ensure nothing more than fair and equal treatment of recruiters. This amendment would put the fox in the hen house, so to speak, by giving the Association of American Law Schools the authority to judge if the recruiter has been provided equal treatment with other employers. This is the very group which has fostered the attitude among law schools to resist compliance with the law. We, the Congress, must make the decision, not the people who would oppose any form of military presence on campus. It is up to Congress to decide the level of access that should be granted. We must reject this motion.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.