Welcoming the accession of Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), and for other purposes.

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.

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 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.

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. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley).

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.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

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. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

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. 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.

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.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 558) welcoming the accession of Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), and for other purposes, as amended.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H. Res. 558, as amended.

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

Madam Speaker, this Member is extremely pleased to offer this resolution welcoming the accession to NATO membership of seven Central European democracies: Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia.

Yesterday, these seven nations became America's newest allies when their prime ministers presented Secretary of State Powell with their instruments of accession. Secretary Powell recalled their struggle for freedom and promised that ``by joining NATO's bond of collective security, Article 5 and all, you will remain free.''

Later, President Bush yesterday publicly welcomed their leaders to the alliance on the south lawn of the White House. In his remarks, the President noted, ``The countries we welcome today were friends before they were allies, and they were allies in action before becoming allies by treaty.''

The decision to admit former communist nations from Central and Eastern Europe, Madam Speaker, into the Atlantic Alliance, is one of the great successes of American and Alliance foreign policy since the end of the Cold War. It is a bipartisan success promoted by Republicans and Democrats in the Congress and by both the Clinton and Bush administrations. It is also a success in which the House of Representatives has played an important role.

Since 1994, the House has repeatedly declared its support for NATO enlargement and the fundamental role of NATO in transatlantic security. We recognize that throughout its history NATO has succeeded not only in keeping its MEMBERS free, but in extending that freedom to new lands that have long yearned for freedom's blessings.

Already, the three nations that joined NATO in 1999, Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic, have been contributing to the Alliance and its operations in Bosnian and Herzegovina, Kosovo and Afghanistan. Furthermore, Poland has been a major contributor to Operation Iraqi Freedom and currently commands a multinational force in south central Iraq.

The current round of enlargement, the fifth in NATO's history, will further erase the dividing lines across Europe that were drawn at Yalta and will further extend the zone of peace and security in the North Atlantic region.

Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia are already contributing to the Alliance, with each of these new allies contributing to one or more of NATO's ongoing operations. In addition, six of them have forces on the ground in Iraq.

That is far from their only contribution. Last year as president of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, this Member traveled to all seven of these countries; and after those visits, this Member is confident that they and their membership will reinvigorate the Alliance. In fact, the new vigor is already being felt.

Because the citizens of these new MEMBER countries have recent memories of living under oppressive dictatorships, they are especially committed to NATO and its collective defense guarantee.

Having fought so long and hard to gain their freedom, they know how precious freedom is and how fundamentally important the defense of freedom remains. They have pledged that they are ready to defend their freedom and ours, and we are very fortunate to be able to call them our allies.

In addition to noting the accomplishments of the incoming NATO members and welcoming their accession to the Alliance, this resolution also reaffirms the support of the House for the process of NATO enlargement and for keeping NATO's doors open.

Finally, this resolution expresses our support for the remaining candidates for NATO membership, at this point, Albania, Croatia, and Macedonia.

To ensure that the enlargement process continues after the accession of the seven new members, the resolution recommends that the leaders of the NATO nations at this summer's Istanbul Summit ``should agree to review the enlargement process, including the applications of Albania, Croatia and Macedonia, at a summit meeting to be held no later than 2007.''

This language is consistent with the language of the relevant communique from the 1999 Washington Summit at which Alliance leaders welcomed Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic to NATO membership. That communique called for a summit meeting to review the enlargement process to be held ``no later than 2002,'' that is, 3 years after that summit.

Scheduling a 2007 enlargement summit would also establish a 5-year cycle for NATO enlargement. Three nations

received invitations in 1997 at Madrid, and seven nations were invited in 2002 in Prague. This Member believes that this is a reasonable timetable, one that gives NATO time to incorporate the seven new members, while absolutely ensuring that the three remaining candidates are not forgotten and that they have met the necessary requirements to be full-fledged partners in NATO.

Madam Speaker, yesterday was a historic day for America's seven newest allies as they joined the most successful Alliance in history and thereby secured the freedom that they had fought so hard to gain. This Member urges his colleagues to vote for this resolution in order to welcome these countries to NATO and to ensure that NATO's door remains open to Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia, and probably to countries to follow.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume for a brief set of comments, and I want to thank the gentleman for his outstanding statement and for his generous remarks directed toward this Member.

I would say to the gentleman with respect to Iraq and with respect to Afghanistan, the two subjects that the gentleman addressed towards the remaining part of his time, I certainly am in absolute agreement. The gentleman will recall, of course, that the House and the Senate have both expressed their view that NATO should take a larger role in Iraq and that, in fact, we should call upon the resources of the United Nations where appropriate. I am sure the gentleman is concerned about the lack of resources from NATO countries being directed towards Afghanistan at this critical time.

Madam Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield time shortly to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus), who is a graduate of the U.S. Military Academy and who had the experience of being an infantry officer in a combat unit stationed on the Czechoslovakian border before, in fact, the Wall came down and before we moved to now admit, some 3 or 4 years ago, the Czech Republic to NATO. The gentleman has taken an outstanding interest and involvement in the NATO Parliamentary Assembly as a rapporteur or co-rapporteur on a number of important reports for the Defense and Security committee and, I might also say, he has a special interest in our Baltic neighbors who are, by actions yesterday, joining NATO.

Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus).

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

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) for her kind

remarks and knowledgeable comments. I thank my colleague from California (Mr. Lantos) again for his continued interest and leadership in this subject area.

Madam Speaker, I urge all Members to support this resolution. I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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.

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.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

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.

Madam Speaker, it is a wonderful day. Actually, the great day was yesterday, and it is an honor to be here on the floor with the gentleman from Nebraska (Chairman Bereuter) and the gentleman from California (Ranking Member Lantos), who have become great friends in this battle. It is a battle that I have really been fortunate to join, really at the closing of it. It is an important step forward to President Bush's goal and others within the administration's goal of a Europe whole, free, and at peace.

It was great at the ceremonies yesterday when, on the lawn, on the east lawn, not only was the current administration there, but representatives of previous administrations: the Honorable Jean Kirkpatrick was there, the Honorable Madeleine Albright was there, Sandy Berger was there. So it really shows that NATO enlargement is really something that has lasted the test of time.

At a time in our country where there seems to be great divisiveness, one unifying aspect is NATO enlargement. I am proud to be a Member of the House where I think all enlargements, actually, the momentum has always started, I think from the Madrid enlargement to even this most recent round. I think the other body gets a lot of credit because of their votes, but we do not want to shy away or take a second seat to anybody in our position and our push for NATO enlargement.

I have enjoyed the relationship with the American citizens who still have a great respect and honor for their ethnic heritage and their home countries. These American citizens, who have fought in our wars and have given their lives for freedom and democracy, really ask their government to do a simple thing and help return that type of stability, peace, and freedom to their home countries, the countries of their birth, the countries of their forefathers. NATO does that.

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization brings a collective self- defense mission to again address that area of a Europe whole and free, so it is just a very important and exciting day. So I appreciate the resolution, because we should be part of the celebratory aspect and make sure that we are on record saying a job well done.

There is still much work to go before us, as both the gentleman from Nebraska (Chairman Bereuter) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) have mentioned. But we are going to be much stronger as a united world, united under basic principles of freedom and democracy and the rule of law when we address totalitarian regimes than we would be to continue to have a fractured environment in Europe.

We know what these new entrants are already doing. Actually, they have come through the membership action plan, which was not an easy task. When we have these democracies move from a centralized market economy to a free market economy, that creates a lot of stress on the way that the government used to provide services. These governments had to decide whether they needed to move aggressively with large parts of their dollars to transform themselves to be prepared to enter NATO. That is not easy, when you are changing from a system where the government is providing for all of the basic needs and now you are taking money away to increase the ability for self-defense. So they need to be applauded. They have gone through the process of reform in the military, in the economy, the rule of law; and the membership action plan really helped do that.

Now they have also come to the forefront in the war on international terrorism. I know a lot of folks understand that it is important what they have given after September 11, their involvement in Afghanistan and for many their involvement in Iraq; and it is not a small task to ask these new emerging democracies to send their sons and daughters overseas for a cause of freedom, peace, and security in the world.

So this is really appropriate that we do this. Bulgaria is focused on engineers and mine-sweepers; Romania on unmanned aerial vehicles and mountain troops; Slovakia, nuclear, biological, and chemical defense units; Slovenia, mountain warfare troops; Estonia, military divers and mine countermeasures; Latvia, explosive ordnance disposal; and Lithuania, Bulgaria, Latvia, Slovakia, and Slovenia will provide special operations forces.

So they are going to be additive to NATO. But where they are really going to be more additive, actually a multiplier, is really their heart and soul. These countries still have the scars of totalitarian regimes. They still hurt as they look at what has occurred to their countries over the decades. They bring an understanding of the cause for freedom and democracy. That is a message that sometimes those of us who have experienced and benefited from democratic governance for many years, we sort of take for granted and forget. Not after September 11, of course. But they are reenergizing NATO. They are bringing their commitment, their heart and soul.

I wholly applaud, really, the international community, the United States for our leadership, and really the membership countries for saying, this is the right thing to do at the right time. The world will be stronger and more at peace because of the most historical organization in the history of the world that has kept the peace for over 50 years, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. I am honored to have the chance to be on the floor to recognize them. I look forward to their added power as we move forward in this very dangerous and difficult time in this world.

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.