Members could have different views about the underlying question, and that is whether universities should be able to exclude military recruiters. It is not a new issue to be considered on this floor. We have voted on this many, many times. Some universities have taken the position that they don't want military recruiters on their campus because the military is not an equal opportunity employer based on the ``don't ask, don't tell'' policy. I happen to think that universities that take this position are right. But that is not the reason I oppose this motion to recommit. I oppose it because I have heard the arguments made by my colleagues many, many, times that we shouldn't exclude somebody from competing from a contract on extraneous bases. Why should we exclude a university from being able to compete in a government contract when they might be the ones who can save the lives of our troops? After all, the bioshield program has given money, Federal dollars to universities to try to develop ways to get us vaccines that will stop the impact of anthrax or smallpox. Are we going to say that a university that develops such a vaccine will not be able to compete for a contract to sell that vaccine because they don't want recruiters on their campus because they object to the don't ask, don't tell policy? That doesn't make any sense. People ought to be able to compete for contracts based on what they can do if they are selected to perform that contract.
Henry Waxman: “Members could have different views about the underlying question, and that is whether universities should be able to…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the exclusion of military recruiters from university campuses during a floor debate.
Share
More from Henry Waxman
So what we are seeing is something that sounds good from a party that has no credibility to say that they are for more science information. What they would do is limit what EPA would be able to use to determine, based on the science, what…
Mr. Chairman, too much dirty politics is waged with dark money, the secrecy is protected by no privilege, and a little sunlight would be very healthy for American democracy.
I think of how Henry Waxman showed America the true face of the tobacco industry, exposing decades of deceit.
The reason I qualified it is because I see no reason to oppose the amendment. It is not objectionable. But it doesn't actually fix the bill's four problems. Subsection 3(b) of the bill gives new sources amnesty from compliance with a new…





