A bill to require the Secretary of Defense to reimburse members of the United States Armed Forces for certain transportation expenses incurred by the members in connection with leave under the Central Command Rest and Recuperation Leave Program before the program was expanded to include domestic travel.

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.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside.

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, on this amendment, I am being joined by Senator Lieberman and Senator Zell Miller.

It is a simple issue. I want to take a few minutes to explain it. I am hopeful we will get strong support in this body as in the House. A similar bill came up earlier in the House and it passed that body 391 to 22. The same issue passed the Commerce Committee in the Senate 14 to 0 on a recorded vote.

It is an issue of fines and decency on over-the-air broadcasts-- whether it be radio or television.

I think it is important to put my comments in context today by explaining the policy history of this issue; that is, decency on over- the-air public airwaves.

At the invention of television, our Nation established a public policy of providing citizens with free over-the-air television. It gave broadcasters wishing to provide that service with the use of valuable spectrum. Not everyone can broadcast over the Nation's public airwaves. These are airwaves owned by the public. That is why the statute requires the Federal Communications Commission to evaluate not just the ability but the character of an entity to operate.

When handing out a broadcast license, in return for a license, each broadcaster agrees not to air indecent or obscene content between the hours of 6 a.m. and 10 p.m. The broadcaster gets a valuable piece of spectrum, which is public property. The broadcaster gets the right to use that. In exchange, one of the requirements is they not broadcast indecent or obscene content between the hours of 6 a.m. and 10 p.m.

Fines and license revocations have always been the discipline tool available to the FCC to help enforce America's longstanding commitment to broadcast decency.

This is an issue about license. It is an issue about the use of public property, and some modest limitation of that.

We live in a nation where we hold the first amendment in high regard, as well we should. In an effort to maintain the free exchange of information, thoughts, and opinions, we strive to avoid government involvement in communications content.

At the same time, as a nation, we strive to project decency and justice for all. As a nation raising children, we do the same. With the turning of a tuning knob, or the click of a remote, minors all across America are presented with the content of the public airwaves.

Broadcasters have a legal and a moral duty to ensure that American taxpayers--and especially children--are not assaulted by explicit material.

For years, we have been asking and waiting for the broadcasters to police themselves in this effort. Unfortunately, instead of fulfilling the public interest duty, they have allowed the content to grow steadily worse and worse.

Meanwhile, the companies that own the broadcast stations have grown steadily larger--and not surprisingly. Some of these broadcasters' profit margins have made them immune to the FCC's current fine structure. Let me give you an example.

Today's maximum fine for an indecent broadcast is $27,500. That seems like a lot of money--and it is to some. But it isn't to others. Compare that fact to a 30-second commercial during the 2004 Super Bowl which cost advertisers an average of $2.3 million for a 30-second ad.

In the words of the FCC Commissioner, Michael Powell, these fines are peanuts to the big media conglomerates. That is why we are here to increase the fine structure for indecency and obscene broadcasts. The threat of these fines will be taken seriously and force broadcasters to protect their consumers from explicit content.

Nothing in this amendment forges any new ground in broadcast decency law. The intent is simple: To increase the fines for indecent broadcasts to mask the realities of today's media markets. This amendment would increase the maximum fines tenfold, from $27,500 to $270,000, with a maximum $3 million cap per incident per day.

Why do we need to do this? We need this amendment to end the growing volume of graphic content on free over-the-air broadcasts. Remember, broadcasters profit from exclusive and free use of the public airwaves which gives them unique access to all Americans, particularly America's youth. With that access to our country's intellectual, moral, and social development comes a set of moral and social responsibilities and obligations that are agreed to in the licensing process.

I am very disappointed by the apparent confusion the broadcasters are having between the right to do something and the right thing to do when it comes to the public airwaves.

Recently, FOX and VIACOM announced they were going to appeal the FCC Bono ruling so they can use the ``F'' word on broadcast television. This is their response in spite of the fact that the FCC overturned the original rule in response to a fierce public outcry.

This hostile response the public is getting from broadcasters is inexcusable. We see time and again media leaders defending their profit-driven

motives by airing explicit content and then falsely hiding behind their so-called first amendment rights. Broadcasters have joined the shock jocks of the country to shout down those who publicly question harmful content as an anti-first-amendment censor. In abandoning their duty to adhere to decency standards, broadcasters point to the absence of decency regulations on cable television. This is just a red herring. We are talking about public airwaves and a public right to air decent material.

The broadcasters argue they have a right to air indecent, obscene, and profane material. But that is a disgraceful abuse of the first amendment. I support the first amendment and its guarantees of free speech. It is the basis of much of the freedoms we enjoy in our great democracy. But there are limits, and particularly here, where we are dealing with a public license and the use of public property where the licensee has agreed to not broadcast indecent material.

This principle has been affirmed by the Supreme Court of the United States in the famous Pacifica case where it was upheld that the Government had the right to protect the public airwaves. This case came to the Court in the early 1970s when George Carlin's famous ``filthy words monologue'' was broadcast during the middle of the day on a New York radio station owned by Pacifica Foundation. A father driving with his son heard the broadcast and complained to the FCC. The FCC said that if those kinds of words were used again, the radio station airing them would be fined. Just like today, the broadcasters challenged the ruling and the case went all the way to the Supreme Court. The Court upheld the FCC action and added that it could continue to fine broadcasters in the future because broadcasters had to take special care not to air material that would offend or shock children.

The majority opinion stressed that of all the forms of communication, broadcasting has the most limited first amendment protection because it extends into the privacy of the home and is uniquely accessible to children.

The FCC has been too lax for too long enforcing the law on broadcasters. A recent public outcry has been a wake-up call for the FCC. The Commission told us they do not have all the tools they need for effective enforcement. That is why we are here today.

Passing this legislation will tell the broadcasters that we are serious about protecting our airwaves and we will give the FCC updated tools to get the job done. I don't know if I need to remind my colleagues that this came to the forefront at this year's Super Bowl, an event families across the country watch together. At the halftime show, the incident between Justin Timberlake and Janet Jackson set off a firestorm that had been brewing for a long period of time.

Finally people said: Look, I have had enough; I don't want to see this any more, particularly when I am watching TV with my family. That is what launched this forward.

We have been waiting for years for the broadcasters to voluntarily take care of this growing problem. They have failed. Instead, they are fighting tooth and nail for the availability to air graphic material so they can increase their profit margins.

America deserves better. That is why we need to make the consequences of broadcasting indecency punitive so the standards are no longer ignored.

I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment. Increasing the fines will help clean up our Nation's free, over-the-air television and radio by holding accountable broadcasters who use the public airwaves and individuals who use the opportunity of a live performance to gain notoriety through indecent acts.

As I noted previously, this has been considered by the Senate Commerce Committee and it has passed unanimously in that committee. It has been considered previously by the House of Representatives, which has voted 391 in favor with only 22 against increasing these fines. They actually have some teeth in today's marketplace. I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment.

I ask for the yeas and nays when we vote on this Monday. I further ask unanimous consent that when we go back to this amendment on Monday that I be recognized first to speak if there are any further amendments that are proposed to this that are to be considered on Monday.

Mr. President, I have been informed that we need colleagues on the other side to respond to yeas and nays and I will not ask for that until we do get that agreement from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, in speaking to the Burns second-degree amendment, this is an amendment that was considered in the Commerce Committee and added to the base bill at that time. What he is proposing to do makes a lot of sense. I do not see a problem with that at all, so I would be supportive of doing that.

Overall, we want to get this to move it forward. The House has moved on this action. The FCC is seeking this authority. So we really want to try to get this to move on through the process, if at all possible. We are not having further rollcall votes until Monday, so we will proceed at that time, and I will ask for a rollcall vote then.

Mr. President, I am pleased to put my full support behind an agreement made between Senators Dodd, McCain, Warner, Levin, and Hollings to attach the Assistance to Firefighters Act of 2004, as amendment No. 3309, to the pending Department of Defense Authorization bill.

Each day, we entrust our lives and the safety of our families, friends, and neighbors to the capable hands of the brave men and women in our local police departments. These individuals are willing to risk their lives and safety out of a dedication to their citizens and their commitment to public service.

We ask local firefighters to risk no less than their lives, as well, every time they respond to an emergency fire alarm, a chemical spill, or as we saw on September 11--terrorist attacks. We ask them to risk their lives responding to the nearly 2 million reports of fire that they receive on an annual basis. Every 18 seconds while responding to fires, we expect them to be willing to give their lives in exchange for the lives of our families, neighbors, and friends. One hundred firefighters lost their lives in 2002 in the line of duty, and nearly 450 lost their lives in 2001. The unyielding commitment these individuals have made to public safety surely deserves an equally strong commitment from the Federal Government.

In 2000, Congress affirmed the value of having a properly trained, equipped, and staffed fire service by passing the Firefighter Investment and Response Enhancement, FIRE, Act--legislation that Senator Dodd and I introduced, along with Congressmen Pascrell, Weldon, and many others, on the House side. In the 4 years since the FIRE Act became law, fire departments have made significant progress in terms of filling the substantial needs outlined in the National Fire Protection Association's ``needs assessment.''

To date, Congress has appropriated nearly $2 billion dollars for the FIRE Act program. Virtually every penny of

that amount has gone directly to local fire departments through FIRE grants to provide firefighter personal protective equipment, training to ensure more effective firefighting practices, breathing apparatus, new firefighting vehicles, emergency medical services supplies, fire prevention programs, and other important uses.

The direct nature of the FIRE Act grant program--funds literally go straight from the Federal Government to local fire departments--is an extremely important aspect of the law, particularly in light of the difficulties we are seeing with other homeland security grant programs getting money to flow directly to the intended recipients.

FIRE Act grants are awarded based on a competitive, peer-review process that helps ensure that the most important needs are filled first and that funding will be used in an effective manner. I am proud to note that 86 of Ohio's 88 counties have received FIRE Act funding up to this point and that the fire service in my home state is much better prepared to respond to emergencies as a result. The bottom line is this: The FIRE Act program has proven to be an extremely valuable tool for fire-based first responders.

The time has come to reauthorize this important legislation--to build upon the successes of the original FIRE Act and to refine the program where improvements can be made. Amendment No. 3309, which I am offering along with Senator Dodd, accomplishes just that.

Our amendment focuses on four central themes. First, we take steps to make the grant program more accessible for fire departments serving small, rural communities and to eliminate barriers to participation faced by departments serving heavily populated jurisdictions. Second, we codify changes made in program administration since its transfer to the recently created Department of Homeland Security. Third, the amendment increases the emphasis within the program on life-saving Emergency Medical Services and technologies. And fourth, we evaluate the program through a series of reports to help ensure that resources are targeted to the areas of greatest need. These priorities have been developed jointly with the fire service, and represent a means to strengthen the FIRE Act program for years to come.

Our amendment would help the FIRE Act program more accessible for fire departments serving the very largest and smallest jurisdictions in America. Our experience over the past four years has been that a number of features in the program make participation difficult for departments serving these populations. Career fire departments, most of which serve populations well in excess of 50,000, have been receiving only a small percentage of the total grants thus far. After consulting with the fire service organizations, fire chiefs in my home State of Ohio, and officials administering the program at the Department of Homeland Security, we have found that there are two main reasons why this has been the case.

First, matching requirements for large departments, currently fixed at 30 percent, have been particularly difficult to meet. Second, current law dictates that departments--whether they serve a large city, such as Cleveland and have numerous fire stations, or a small town, such as Cedarville, OH, and have only one station--are eligible for the exact same level of funding each year: $750,000. These two elements of the current program have caused a number of large fire departments to forgo applying for FIRE grants. With respect to smaller, often volunteer-based departments serving populations of 20,000 or less, budgets are often so limited that meeting the current match is simply not possible. Many of these departments struggle with even the most basic needs, such as having an adequate number of staff available to respond to a structure fire.

Our legislation addresses each of these problems in a simple and straightforward fashion. Specifically, the amendment would reduce matching requirements by one third for departments serving communities of 50,000, and by one half for departments serving 20,000 or fewer residents in order to encourage increased participation by these departments. The amendment also would re-structure caps on grant amounts to reflect population served, with up to $2,250,000 for departments serving one million or more, $1,500,000 for departments serving between 500,000 and one million, and $1,000,000 for departments serving fewer than 500,000 residents. Together, these two changes would go a long way toward increasing the accessibility of the program for the very largest and smallest departments in the United States.

The second major component of our legislation has to do with the transfer of the FIRE Act Administration from the Federal Emergency Management Administration, FEMA, to the Department of Homeland Security, DHS. When FEMA's functions were transferred into the DHS, the FIRE grant program, along with the U.S. Fire Administration, also were transferred to DHS. As a part of that transfer, formal administration of the FIRE grant program has been delegated to the Department to the Office of Domestic Preparedness, ODP, which oversees all DHS grant programs. While the U.S. Fire Administration--the real fire experts within the Federal Government--remains involved, we need to take steps to formalize the management of the program following the transfer to

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.

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.