[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 5]
[House]
[Pages 5613-5619]
[From the U.S. 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 but about special access for the Pentagon. As the Servicemembers 
Legal

[[Page 5614]]

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. 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

[[Page 5615]]

trying to live off the profit. They said, I do not know what is going 
to happen when this money runs out.
  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

[[Page 5616]]

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.
  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

[[Page 5617]]

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 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. 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

[[Page 5618]]

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 
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

[[Page 5619]]


     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
     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.

                          ____________________