[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 42 (Tuesday, March 30, 2004)]
[House]
[Pages H1695-H1701]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3966, ROTC AND MILITARY RECRUITER
EQUAL ACCESS TO CAMPUS ACT OF 2004
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 580 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 580
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order without intervention of any point of order
(except those arising under the Congressional Budget Act of
1974) to consider in the House 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 Officer 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. The bill shall be considered
as read for amendment. The amendment in the nature of a
substitute recommended by the Committee on Armed Services now
printed in the bill shall be considered as adopted. The
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill,
as amended, to final passage without intervening motion
except: (1) one hour of debate on the bill, as amended,
equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Armed Services; and (2)
one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs.
Myrick) is recognized for 1 hour.
Mrs. MYRICK. 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.
On Thursday, March 25, 2004, the Committee on Rules announced that it
may meet the week of March 29 to grant a rule which could limit the
amendment process for floor consideration of H.R. 3966. The
announcement further stated that any Member wishing to offer an
amendment submit the amendment to the Committee on Rules by 1 p.m. on
Monday, March 29, 2004. No amendments were submitted to the Committee
on Rules for their consideration.
H.R. 3966 is based on a simple principle. Colleges and universities
that accept Federal funding should also be willing to provide military
recruiters the same access as other prospective employers to students
in ROTC scholarship programs.
This legislation would improve the ability of the Department of
Defense to establish and maintain ROTC detachments and ensure that
military recruiters have access to college campuses and students.
Successful recruitment for our military relies heavily on the ability
of these recruiters to have access to the students and the students to
be able to have access to the recruiter easily.
This bill also requires an annual verification of colleges and
universities who already support ROTC that they will continue to do so
in the upcoming academic year.
The Department of Defense seeks nothing more than the opportunity to
compete for students on an equal footing with other prospective
employers. At no time since World War II has our Nation's freedom and
security relied more upon our military than now as we engage in the
global war on terrorism.
Our Nation's all-volunteer armed services have been called upon to
serve, and they are performing their mission with the highest
standards. The military's ability to perform at this standard can only
be maintained with effective and uninhibited recruitment programs.
As many of my colleagues know, the Armed Forces face a constant
challenge in recruiting top-quality personnel, and I believe that ROTC
programs are ideally suited to meet those needs. To that end, I urge my
colleagues to support the rule and the underlying bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume,
and I would like to thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs.
Myrick) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, 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 is
too much of a bother.
We learned that the underlying bill, H.R. 3966, was going to be on
the floor at the end of last week when Members left Washington to
return to their districts. Most Members did not arrive back in
Washington until yesterday afternoon, which is exactly the time the
Committee on Rules was meeting to report out this closed rule. So, once
again, the majority has gone out of its way to stifle debate, prevent
amendments, and rush legislation through the House before people know
what hit them.
Mr. Speaker, one of these days, and I hope it is soon, this kind of
heavy-handed use of power is going to backfire, especially when there
is so much important work that is not being done.
At the end of the debate on this rule, I will urge a ``no'' vote on
the previous question so that the House can consider the critical issue
of unemployment insurance for the estimated 1.1 million jobless workers
who will have exhausted their regular unemployment benefits without
receiving additional aid. This is the largest number of exhaustees in
over 30 years, and this figure will only continue to grow when 80,000
more jobless workers exhaust their regular benefits and go without any
additional aid each week.
As for the underlying bill, H.R. 3966, it is my view that it should
be defeated. In 1995 and 1996, Congress passed legislation to deny
Defense Department funding to colleges and universities that failed to
give military recruiters access to their campus and students. Known as
the Solomon Law, this 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.
{time} 1500
H.R. 3966 would round out that list by expanding it to include the
CIA and the National Nuclear Security Administration at the Department
of Energy. The bill would also restate the Department of Transportation
which was inadvertently deleted 2 years ago.
Now I am grateful that this law does not apply to student financial
aid, but, unfortunately, it does apply to all other grants, including
research grants.
Last November, a U.S. District Court in New Jersey upheld the
constitutionality of the Solomon Law, but the court also determined
that the Solomon Law does not give the Pentagon any basis for
asserting, as it has in the 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.
Ironically, Mr. Speaker, the Solomon Law is not about equal access at
all
[[Page H1696]]
but about special access for the Pentagon. As the Servicemembers Legal
Defense Network states, and I quote, ``There is no lack of equal access
for military recruiters and ROTCs on America's college campuses. Any
access for an employer that fails to meet schools' nondiscrimination
policies is special access. The Solomon Amendment is about giving the
military a special right to discriminate in a way other employers may
not.''
So, Mr. Speaker, this House is being asked to use the blunt force of
legislation to expand the Solomon Law to include equal treatment and
scope for military recruiters who already have access to every campus
and every student in the land.
It is my understanding, Mr. Speaker, that the Pentagon sent a list to
the Committee on Armed Services regarding a handful of colleges and
universities that the Pentagon has predetermined do not provide them
with equal treatment and quality of access to students. Now, let me
emphasize, these are all colleges and universities that fully comply
with the existing Solomon Law. They include several of our premier
academic and research universities.
And who gets to make this determination, this judgment, as to whether
a college or university is in compliance with this new law? The
Secretary of Defense and the Pentagon. And who gets to determine and
implement the punishment? That same Secretary of Defense and the
Pentagon, with no independent or neutral arbiter and no genuine right
to appeal. So in these cases the Pentagon serves as prosecutor, judge,
jury, and appeals court. That is not how it is supposed to work in this
country, Mr. Speaker.
Until I have a better understanding as to why these colleges and
universities are on some predetermined watch list from the Pentagon
that could strip them of all their Federal funding and research grants,
I cannot support this expansion of the Solomon Law, a law which itself
is grounded in discrimination.
Now, Mr. Speaker, every Member of this House, including myself,
supports the ability of our Armed Forces to encourage the best educated
and best minds of our Nation to consider the military as a career,
especially in these perilous times. But, Mr. Speaker, the military
already has that ability. It simply does not want to accept ``yes'' as
an answer from 100 percent of our colleges and universities regarding
access to campuses and students. What the Pentagon wants is 100 percent
access on their terms and their terms alone.
It is true that the military has a problem with recruitment and
retention, a serious situation when our troops are stretched so thin
around the globe. As the resolution says, the Armed Forces face a
constant challenge in recruiting top-quality personnel. But, Mr.
Speaker, perhaps if the Pentagon truly addressed the serious issues of
discrimination against women and against gays and against minorities,
more of these top-quality personnel would be willing to serve.
Mr. Speaker, I want to conclude my opening statement by asking: Are
there not more urgent issues to consider before Congress adjourns for
spring recess? The extension of unemployment benefits genuinely is an
urgent issue, increasingly a life-and-death issue for many families,
and it seems to me like a far more important issue for this House to
consider before we recess on Friday than the bill that is before us
this morning.
As I noted earlier, at the end of this debate I will be calling for a
``no'' vote on the previous question so that this House can take up the
urgent issue of extending unemployment benefits to the 1.1 million
needy Americans whose benefits have been exhausted.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott).
(Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I want to rise today to defend the
thousands of people in the State of Washington who have no job and no
unemployment benefits. Thousands more in our State face the same dire
circumstances over the next 3 months.
The Washington State unemployment rate is the fourth worst in the
United States. The United States Department of Agriculture Household
Food Security Report ranks Washington as the fifth most hungry State in
America. The National Law and Employment project says that at least
half the people unemployed are putting off needed medical and dental
treatment because they cannot pay for it. Half the personal
bankruptcies in this country are the result of medical bills people
cannot afford to pay.
Time and time again the Democrats have asked the Republicans to show
a little compassion and extend a lifeline out to these people who are
calling out for help. Republicans and the administration have a deaf
ear. Again today we call on the Republicans and we urge the
administration to stop pretending that economic recovery is at hand.
In the month of February, there were 21,000 jobs created in the
United States. That is 400 for each State and not a single one in the
private sector. All of them were government jobs. If you call that a
recovery just around the corner, you have a different definition than I
do. If that is recovery on the horizon, so the sun is setting on the
hopes of average Americans.
No American should face alone at a time like this the problems of the
unemployed. And we can change it. We can change it. The money is there.
We do not have to raise taxes or do anything. We can change it. No
American should feel they have no place to turn and no one to turn to.
We can change that, and no American should find the country's leaders
listening but not hearing. We can change that today.
Today, we can take a real step toward economic recovery by extending
unemployment benefits. America is only as strong as its will to defend
its people at home against economic adversity. We need to speak out
loud and clear in a voice of unshakable compassion, commitment and
concern. Let us extend the unemployment benefits. We have been talking
about this since December. Thousands of people have lost their jobs.
They have quit looking. The numbers seem to be going down only because
they have quit looking because there are three people looking for every
job that is out there.
This bill is sort of directed at maybe we should keep them out there,
keep them hungry, keep them desperate, and maybe they will go in the
military. That is what this is about, perhaps.
The fact that we cannot deal with this issue suggests that the
President, who talked about compassionate conservatism, has no idea
what it is like to be without a job. If your dad can buy you a company
or your father's friends can give you a baseball team, I suppose you
really would not understand what it is like to be without a job.
I remember when my father was. He was an insurance man, lost his job,
went out and was driving a cab. I used to go down and open the cab
company at 5:30 in the morning with him. I know what it is like to see
what that does to somebody and how desperately they look. But today
they cannot find it. And the Republicans just sit there look at the
ceiling and twiddle their thumbs.
Well, the workers in this country and the unemployed in this country
are not going to twiddle their thumbs on November 2. They are going to
compassionately give Mr. Bush a one-way ticket to Crawford, Texas.
Vote against this bill.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley).
Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from
Massachusetts for yielding me this time.
Right now, Oregon has 7.7 percent unemployment, the highest in the
country. Since January, 2001, the State has lost over 50,000 jobs.
These are hard-working men and women, not statistics. They are real
people with real lives and families, and right now they are facing the
prospect of not having enough money to put food on the table or enough
money to pay for their medical bills if someone should get sick.
I have talked to people who are unemployed. They have sold their
homes trying to live off the profit. They said, I do not know what is
going to happen when this money runs out.
[[Page H1697]]
Unemployment benefits are supposed to be a safety net to get you from
one job to the next job. They do not provide 100 percent of the
person's previous salaries, but those benefits are absolutely vital for
families to make ends meet. They are not out there not going to work
because they want to. They are out there because they cannot find a
job.
I talked to one gentleman, 52 years old, daughter in high school, and
he talks about how bright his daughter is and that he would like to
send her to college. He said, I cannot even pay for my mortgage. What
am I going to do for my daughter?
Not only do these benefits provide a level of security for families,
unemployment benefits are also stimulants for the economy. For every
dollar we spend in unemployment benefits, we put $1.73 back into the
economy. That is good for business as well as people. These benefits
are not used for luxury items. They are used to pay the rent, food, and
utility bills.
The President talks about marriage promotion programs costing in the
billions of dollars, but it is a scientific fact that poverty and
homelessness directly increase the rate of divorce. Unemployment
benefits, which keep families together and keep them temporarily off
the streets until they find a new job, should be considered the best
marriage promotion program of all, yet these benefits have been ignored
by Congress and this administration.
Some have raised concerns that extending unemployment benefits would
bankrupt the system. Guess what? We have $18 billion sitting in the
unemployment trust fund. That is more than enough to continue this
program and extend the current benefits. These funds were paid into
this unemployment compensation system for the purpose of helping
dislocated workers during difficult economic times.
In short, there is not a legitimate argument towards not extending
the unemployment benefits.
Again, people talk about stimulating economy. These benefits
stimulate the economy. People say, well, we do not have enough money,
yet we have $18 billion sitting in that account for that purpose.
People talk about promoting marriage and families. Preventing financial
crisis is the number one way to keep families together.
Frankly, it is a no-brainer. I urge my colleagues to defeat the
previous question so we can extend unemployment benefits for the
thousands of suffering Oregonians and Americans.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Cox).
Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this
time. I rise in strong support of H.R. 3966, and I want to commend the
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Rogers) for his leadership and hard work on
this issue. The rule that will bring this bill to the floor is,
therefore, very important.
This bill is named the ROTC and Military Recruiter Equal Access to
Campus Act of 2004, but it might just as well as be called the Harvard
Act, because it squarely addresses the scandal of Harvard University
and other schools' banishing ROTC and military recruiters from campus
while turning around and cashing Uncle Sam's checks for billions of
dollars each year from the Department of Defense and other Federal
agencies that are fighting the global war on terror.
The attacks on America, on the World Trade Center, and on the
Pentagon should serve as a wake-up call to schools such as Harvard
which banished ROTC from campus 35 years ago.
{time} 1515
As our Nation wages an aggressive campaign to stop global terrorism,
President Kennedy's call to young people to ask what you can do for
your country is more important than ever. America's Armed Forces are
hunting down al Qaeda and other supporters of terrorism in Afghanistan,
in Iraq, and on every continent around the globe. Never in recent
history have Americans asked more of members of the Armed Forces, and
never have we had a greater need for well-educated leaders in our
military.
Today, successful recruitment of exceptional officers depends heavily
on the Reserve Officers' Training Corps. This past year, for instance,
70 percent of the Army's newly commissioned officers came from ROTC.
Through ROTC, students receive generous scholarship assistance in
return for agreeing to serve their country following graduation. As
chairman of the Select Committee on Homeland Security, I have been
gratified and humbled to see how many of the best and brightest in
America have been willing to enlist in the fight against terrorism both
through ROTC and by choosing the armed services as a career upon their
graduation. Yet I am very troubled that a number of America's most
prestigious colleges and universities, including Harvard, Yale,
Stanford and Columbia, continue to officially ban ROTC from campus.
Many of these same schools deny students the opportunity to interview
on-campus with military recruiters. These policies have been successful
in discouraging young adults from choosing a career in the military.
The legislation before us today makes several important reforms to
protect taxpayers, to protect students' freedom of choice and to
protect our armed services from discrimination. The premise of the bill
is a simple one: colleges that discriminate against the United States
armed services should not receive United States taxpayer funds related
to national defense and homeland security.
Specifically, H.R. 3966 makes three major reforms. First, it will
stop the current abusive practice under which schools ban ROTC and
military recruiting, but then turn around and cash enormous checks from
the Department of Defense, the Department of Homeland Security, and
other Federal agencies fighting the war on terror. For example, the
Homeland Security Act created several new science and technology
research programs for which colleges and universities are eligible.
This law will say that these funds should not go to schools that
discriminate against ROTC or military recruiters.
Second, this legislation will require schools that accept national
security and homeland security funds to certify that they do not
discriminate against ROTC and that they do permit on-campus ROTC
programs if requested by the Department of Defense. Current law, which
already requires schools accepting defense funds to accommodate on-
campus ROTC programs if requested by the Department of Defense, is not
enforced against elite schools such as Harvard, Yale, Stanford,
Columbia and others that have banned ROTC on campus. This bill will
change that.
Third, this legislation will ensure that schools accepting national
security and homeland security funding provide access to military
recruiters that is ``equal in quality and scope'' to the access
provided to other campus recruiters. At Harvard, even military
recruiters who are themselves Harvard graduates are not permitted to
meet students on campus like other employers. A Harvard grad that has
stained himself in the view of the faculty by participating in the U.S.
military cannot visit campus and cannot stuff mailboxes, even though
virtually every other group and every other employer is permitted to do
so.
On the Harvard campus in Memorial Church, the names of Harvard alums
who died in service to this country are inscribed on the wall and there
is this inscription by former Harvard President Lawrence Lowell:
``While a bright future beckoned, they freely gave their lives and
fondest hopes for us and our allies, that we might learn from them
courage in peace to spend our lives making a better world for others.''
Today, as our Nation calls for able new leaders in the war on terror,
will Harvard and our Nation's other elite universities step forward and
live up to that legacy? It has been a long time since 1969 and Vietnam,
John Kerry notwithstanding, when Harvard's faculty, of which I am a
former member, banished ROTC. It has been 2\1/2\ short years since our
Nation was attacked by terrorists who still make war on our Nation. It
is time for universities that accept national security and homeland
security funding to support and encourage, not undermine, this Nation's
call to service. That is the message of H.R. 3966.
I urge my colleagues to join with me in supporting this important
legislation and the rule that will bring it to the floor.
[[Page H1698]]
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I would just simply say to the gentleman that Harvard does have an
ROTC unit. One thing I suggested in my opening remarks, and I would
suggest it again, is that probably the best way to kind of put this
controversy to rest is for the military to deal with some of the
discriminatory practices that currently exist. Some of these colleges
have nondiscrimination policies that, quite frankly, conflict with some
of the blatantly discriminatory policies that we now see happening in
the Pentagon. I would simply say to the gentleman that maybe a way to
resolve this, we can also deal with some of the underlying issues that
continue to exist.
Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. McGOVERN. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. COX. It is true that there are a handful of brave students at
Harvard that are ROTC scholars, and it is true that Harvard is happy to
cash their scholarship checks; but Harvard refuses to permit the ROTC
program on campus and, therefore, the students have to go down the road
to MIT, which will accept them as the gentleman knows. As a result, the
discrimination against Harvard students is very real. Furthermore, as
the Wall Street Journal has outlined, not on their editorial page but
in news articles, there is on campus a very hostile attitude toward
students in uniform. That needs to be changed.
Mr. McGOVERN. I appreciate the gentleman's answer. I would also say
to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, when we talk about the
importance of people standing up to their responsibilities during this
difficult time, I hope that there will be equal passion that will be
brought to demanding that some of these Benedict Arnold companies that,
quite frankly, take U.S. tax dollars and are engaged in contracts
involving the reconstruction of Iraq and they do not pay U.S. taxes, I
hope that there will be some accountability there.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr.
Cardin).
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Massachusetts for
yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I do not object to this rule; but I do strongly object
to congressional inaction on an issue of daily importance to millions
of Americans, that is, the extension of unemployment benefits for
workers who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own. Federal
Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said earlier this month, ``I think
considering the possibility of extending unemployment benefits is not a
bad idea in times like this.''
Congress allowed the temporary extended unemployment compensation
program to expire at the end of last year despite a tremendous need for
these extended benefits. Many of us have been trying to extend the
program ever since, but the Republican leadership in Congress has
continually blocked those attempts. This obstructionism has occurred
even though majorities in both the House and the Senate have voted to
extend unemployment benefits. This obstructionism has gone on despite
the fact that the average duration of unemployment has reached its
highest level in over 20 years. This obstructionism continues even
after we have heard our economy had a zero private sector growth in
jobs last month. This obstructionism blocks action even as more than 1
million Americans have run out of unemployment benefits without finding
work in just the last 3 months. And this obstructionism continues even
after the Secretary of the Treasury indicated the President is finally
willing to say he would sign an unemployment extension bill if it is
sent to his desk.
Mr. Speaker, enough is enough. Congress needs to act to help the
unemployed as it has during every other time when jobs were scarce. If
the previous question is defeated on this rule, the next order of
business before the House will be the consideration of an unemployment
extension. More specifically, the House would debate a 6-month
extension of the expired temporary extended unemployment compensation
program. This extension would help nearly 3 million jobless workers pay
their mortgages, put food on the table, and deal with these very
difficult economic times.
I, therefore, strongly urge my colleagues to defeat the previous
question so that we can provide the necessary assistance to those who
are unemployed and cannot find employment.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Mica).
Mr. MICA. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I had not planned to come to the floor and debate this
resolution. This resolution actually deals with 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 learning. That is the subject of this particular
measure. This is the rule, or the resolution, by which we consider that
particular bill.
The other side of the aisle, unfortunately, is using this as an
opportunity to bash our side of the aisle and also the administration.
They are also using it as a vehicle to try to attach a nongermane
amendment dealing with extension of unemployment benefits. It may well
be necessary to do that, but let me say that I have heard some of the
comments that have been made. I disagree with those comments. I come
from the business sector. If we want to see jobs created and
opportunities for people, we do not want to leave one option and that
is extended unemployment benefits. I know the other side is well
intended here. But if the other side is truly well intended, they need
to take some time and look at pending legislation and proposals that
would create jobs. Maybe some on the other side have not had enough
familiarity with what a businessperson goes through today. Litigation,
taxation, and government regulation are job suppressers in this
economy. I challenge the other side, instead of offering a handout or
an extended unemployment check, to offer a job and pass some of the
legislation that is pending.
If you are going into business today, you take a great chance. I am
glad I am out of the business world, because you are sued at every
turn. If you want to see why jobs are going overseas, it is because of
litigation. We do not even produce in this country anymore a ladder.
There are no ladders produced in the United States because people would
be sued to where they cannot afford to produce or manufacture in the
United States, so they take those jobs and opportunity overseas.
If you are compassionate about people, do not give them just one
option. They want a good-paying job, and they want to be able to
compete in a global market. Try to go open a business, and I challenge
Members of Congress to get back in business. Some of them should return
to the private sector and see what it is like. I am so pleased that my
wife and I, we are approaching April 15, that we do not have to fill
out the mounds of forms and tax returns and comply with all the
regulations. And health care, give some options in health care. Talk to
a small businessperson. That is where jobs are in this country. Jobs
are with small business in this country. They create more than all the
big corporations. But you ask a small businessperson if he is going to
expand jobs and he will say, it is very difficult. His taxes are high.
In fact, taxes on business in the United States are the highest in
almost any nation in the world. So would you go overseas, or would you
create jobs here in the United States? You cannot afford to have health
care.
I challenge the Members. Look at your pay stubs. There is $2,700
going out for health care. That is our part of the equation. The total
cost is $9,000, $10,000 a person. How would a small businessperson deal
with that for health insurance for themselves or to create jobs? So
here we have presented today, they are taking time from another piece
of legislation, one option, a handout, a check which people may need,
that is true, but they want a good-paying job.
{time} 1530
So stop blocking legislation like Head Start that will give our young
people some quality in a very expensive program to our neediest
students who go on to become failures in our
[[Page H1699]]
schools and in our system. Stop blocking job-training programs and
initiatives by the President, because everyone is not going to college,
community colleges, where we need to train people for changing jobs in
technology opportunities that we are missing and helping small
business, not hurting small business to create jobs so we can have
people working in the future. So I urge the passage of the rule.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I do want to talk about the
pending legislation, so I do not have time to comment on all the odd
things that the previous speaker talked about, but a couple must be
mentioned.
This assertion that we in the minority are blocking legislation has
to be one of the most bizarre misrepresentations of the actual
situation I have ever heard. We have no control over the agenda. We are
not blocking anything. I wish we could block some of the stuff that has
happened.
But this challenge to us to stop blocking Head Start, I have looked
all over. I could not find Head Start laying anywhere here. We have not
hidden it under our chairs. We are not blocking Head Start.
Job training, stop blocking job training. Job training is not being
held hostage in the Democratic cloakroom. All of the scheduling is up
to the majority.
So this arm-waving about stop blocking things when the majority is
entirely in control does not make a great deal of sense.
I, on the other hand, did appreciate the honesty of the gentleman
when he sneeringly referred to unemployment compensation as a handout.
He said, if people are in business, they understand that that is not
the way to go.
I had thought Secretary Snow, the Secretary of Treasury appointed by
the President, former head of CSX, had some business experience. I was
pleased last week when he supported the extension of unemployment
benefits. Yes, we should do more about job creation, but there are
people who are not going to get those jobs over the next few months who
have been on extended unemployment. The refusal to extend unemployment
compensation, and it is not the administration we are criticizing here,
it is the majority in this House, because they are the ones who will
not do it, over the objection of us, the refusal to extend unemployment
compensation causes real injury to working families. And then when the
gentleman says that is just a handout, he literally adds insult to
injury.
But now I want to talk about this pending legislation. It is not
aimed at providing more people for the military. There is not an
argument that they do not have enough people in the Officers Club.
There is not an argument that there are not enough ROTCs around to
service the military. That is not this legislation's purpose.
This legislation is to punish those institutions which have said, as
a matter of principle, we do not want them recruiting on their campus
unless everybody is eligible. We do not want them restricting on
irrelevant grounds people because of their race or their religion or
their gender or their sexual orientation.
As long as the military says that gay and lesbian people are not
suitable to serve, although, as we have seen now, during wartime they
stopped throwing people out quite as much because it turns out gay and
lesbian military people, as we know, are quite capable of doing the job
and when they are needed, they are kept on. But the purpose of this is
to penalize those principled institutions that say we dislike this
discrimination.
Indeed, this legislation helps restrict the number of people who join
the military. We have a shortage of people who speak Arabic working for
the United States in the military and elsewhere. About 1\1/2\ or 2
years ago, seven members of the military who were doing very well
learning Arabic were kicked out because they were discovered to be gay
or lesbian.
So with your policy of ``don't ask, don't tell and, by God, don't
translate'' because somehow they will undermine the security of this
country, you are restricting the entry into the military of qualified
people. And this legislation does not expand the pool of people. It is
in the service of a policy that unduly and unwisely and unnecessarily
restricts the access, and it does it in a punitive way.
It could be changed. For example, it says, well, wait a minute, if we
are going to take money for national security, then they cannot stand
up for their principle of nondiscrimination. When did the Department of
Transportation get involved there? I am all for public transportation.
I had not thought it was a matter of national security.
This legislation also says, the gentleman from California alluded to,
a situation where students at Harvard have to go to MIT, and he said
that is inappropriate. On Page 6 of the bill, it says that if the
Secretary of the Military Department refuses to allow an ROTC in a
particular school, he can authorize or she can authorize those students
to go elsewhere. Why is that compromise not good enough for the school?
This bill calls for the use of a system the gentleman from California
said was discriminatory.
I want to just repeat the main point, because no one really believes
and the military has not said, oh, we are being so hindered by these
recruitment restrictions that we cannot get enough people. This is to
penalize those institutions that are just standing up particularly for
the principle of nondiscrimination and particularly for the principle
that qualified members of their university communities ought not to be
discriminated against and punishing them to reinforce an unfair policy
hurts the military. It does not help it.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Levin).
(Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, we are asking that the previous question be
defeated and that we be allowed to bring up unemployment compensation
to extend it; and here is the reason:
I am glad we are debating this because the gentleman from Florida, by
his discussion, has exposed exactly what is the thinking of the
majority in this House.
Last Friday, I met a fellow, 55, an electrician, working for more
than 30 years. He told me he was going to take his retirement, his
pension, from the Electrical Workers Union. He was going to do so even
though he lost a level of benefits. And I said why?
He said, because I have only 2 weeks of unemployment compensation
left and if I do not take early retirement, I am going to lose my
house.
And you on the majority side call unemployment compensation a
handout? It is part of the employment structure of this country because
with employment sometimes comes unemployment.
And you say get a job? You in the majority, who have been in the
majority in this city, in the Senate, and occupying the White House,
under whose dominion three million jobs have been lost, tell this
fellow, and there are hundreds of thousands of men and women like him,
get a job? That is an insult to the working people of this country.
So we are bringing this up because you will not bring this bill up
for a straight ``yes'' or ``no'' vote. If you brought it up, you know
we would carry our position.
The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) has mentioned it was
said by Mr. Snow, the Secretary, that the President would sign an
extension when there are $18, $19 billion in funds set-aside for this
purpose. We do not want a President to passively say he will sign it.
We want some leadership from the President of the United States for the
millions of people who are unemployed and the hundreds of thousands of
people who exhaust their benefits every month. Defeat the previous
question.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I will urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question; and
if the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to the
rule which will provide that, immediately after the House passes H.R.
3966, it will take up legislation to extend Federal unemployment
benefits to the end of September of this year.
Mr. Speaker, last week during testimony before the House Committee on
[[Page H1700]]
Financial Services, the Secretary of the Treasury said the President
would sign legislation to extend Federal unemployment if it reached his
desk. The bill that I will attempt to make in order would give the
President that opportunity. It is a simple extension of the current
program through September 30, nothing more, nothing less. If the
President is willing to sign this badly needed bill, then we should get
it to him immediately; and if we defeat the previous question, we can
get the process started right away.
From late December through the end of March, an estimated 1.1 million
jobless workers will have exhausted their regular unemployment benefits
without receiving additional aid. This is the largest number of
exhaustees in over 30 years. This figure will continue to grow, with
80,000 more jobless workers exhausting their regular benefits and going
without any additional aid each week. Despite this, the Republican
leadership in this House refuses to extend this program.
Mr. Speaker, today's unemployment numbers are devastating. With no
private sector jobs created last month and only 21,000 jobs created
overall, all of them public sector or government jobs, unemployed
Americans today are facing insurmountable odds. Today, 8.2 million
Americans are unemployed, and 3 million private sector jobs have been
lost since President Bush took office. On top of the millions of
unemployed, there are 4.4 million people who are working part time,
which is an increase of 33 percent since the beginning of this
administration. The average length of unemployment hovers at the
highest level in almost 20 years; and, worst of all, Mr. Speaker, there
is no relief in sight. Yet this Congress cannot seem to find a will or
the time to extend unemployment benefits to those workers who have
exhausted their benefits but still cannot find work.
What are their families supposed to do, Mr. Speaker? Where will the
money come from to pay the rent or the mortgage, to buy medicine, food,
or gas for the car? Does this House simply not care about these
families and their children?
Mr. Speaker, the extension of unemployment benefits is an urgent
issue for many families; and it seems to me like a far more important
issue for this House to consider than the bill that we are considering
right at this point. Let me be very clear that a ``no'' vote on the
previous question will not stop consideration of H.R. 3966. But a
``no'' vote will allow the House to vote on legislation to help provide
some much-needed relief to our Nation's unemployed workers, many of
whom have not had a paycheck for months. However, a ``yes'' vote on the
previous question will prevent the House from passing this desperately
needed extension of Federal unemployment benefits to our jobless
workers.
Mr. Speaker, let us show the American people that we get it, that we
understand what the real problems are facing the people of this country
and that this House deliberates on issues that really matter, that make
a difference to people's lives.
So vote ``no'' on the previous question and vote to extend
unemployment benefits.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I would just like to note, Mr. Speaker, that Albania is a country
that is a NATO aspirant and Albania's Prime Minister Fatos Nano is
visiting Washington today.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the
previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Aderholt). The question is on ordering
the previous question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair will reduce to 5 minutes
the minimum time for electronic voting, if ordered, on the question of
adoption of the resolution.
These votes will be followed by 5-minute votes on House Resolution
558 and S. 2057 under suspension of the rules.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 223,
nays 202, not voting 8, as follows:
[Roll No. 98]
YEAS--223
Aderholt
Akin
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Burr
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole
Collins
Cox
Crane
Crenshaw
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Emerson
English
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Goode
Goodlatte
Goss
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Houghton
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
McCotter
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Turner (OH)
Upton
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--202
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Ballance
Becerra
Bell
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Case
Chandler
Clay
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley (CA)
Doyle
Edwards
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson, E. B.
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Kleczka
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lynch
Majette
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Sandlin
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sherman
[[Page H1701]]
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Turner (TX)
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOT VOTING--8
Culberson
DeMint
Gephardt
Hulshof
Jones (OH)
Serrano
Tanner
Tauzin
{time} 1608
Mr. MURTHA and Mr. RUPPERSBERGER changed their vote from ``yea'' to
``nay.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Aderholt). The question is on the
resolution.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________