Stimulating Leadership in Cutting Expenditures Act of 2005

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

I want to speak certainly in favor of the Solomon Amendment and remind my colleagues that it does not apply to institutions of higher education that have had a longstanding practice of pacificism based on historic religious grounds, and it exempts Federal student financial assistance from termination. But what it does do is allow students to look at career opportunities in the Army. And as the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services said, there are so many legal issues involved in the military today and to go beyond that, to let people look at careers in, I would say, intelligence as much as anything, homeland security, there is a great opportunity for students to go into.

But we are also seeing so much push-back really from a crowd that is basically anti-American and anti-conservative. Indeed, there are so many prejudices against everyday middle-class values on college campuses, and serving in the military and being pro-American just seems to be one of them.

Students at Wells College, for example, were ridiculed by their professors

if they supported the war in Iraq. At the University of Missouri, a professor, a science professor, offered extra credit for students to protest a speech given by conservative activist David Horowitz. At the University of Richmond, a professor called President Bush a moron in his class. And at the University of Oregon, students were labeled ``neo-Nazi'' for expressing their opinion that Trent Lott was the victim of a double standard. And examples go on and on.

Another statistic, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education found that over 90 percent of well-known college campuses have speech codes intended to ban or punish politically incorrect, almost always conservative speech, and that campus funds are unequally distributed to left-wing groups as opposed to conservative groups by a ratio of 50 to one.

I think the judicial attack on the Solomon Amendment is just one of a series of a trend that is against, again, anything that is pro- American, pro-conservative, pro-traditional values. And so I would submit for the Record an article that was an opinion in the Wall Street Journal recently and then something on the academic bill of rights that I think also touches into this same subject.

The bill would express the continued support of Congress for the so- called ``Solomon law'' in title 10, U.S. Code, which improves DOD's ability to establish and maintain ROTC detachments and to ensure military recruiters have access to college campuses and students that is at least equal in quality and scope to that provided to other employers.

The bill would:

State Congress's resolve to achieve military personnel readiness through vigorous application of the ``Solomon law'' relating to equal access for military recruits to institutions of higher education, and express Congress's commitment to explore all options, including the use of its Constitutional power to appropriate funds, to achieve that equal access.

Express the Sense of Congress that the Executive Branch should aggressively challenge any decision impeding or prohibiting the operation of the ``Solomon law.''

Encourage the Executive Branch to follow a doctrine of non- acquiescene by not finding a judicial decision affecting one jurisdiction to be binding on other jurisdictions. The so-called ``Solomon law,'' section 983, title 10, U.S. Code, named for its original proponent Representative Gerald Solomon (R-NY), is based on the principle that if a college or university accepts federal funding it must permit military recruiters and/or ROTC access to campus and to students. Enacted first in 1994, and added to by Congress in 1996, 1999 and 2002, and 2004, the ``Solomon law'' prohibits some defense-related and other federal funding from going to colleges and universities that prevent ROTC access or military recruiting on campus.

The Solomon law: (1) does not apply to institutions of higher education that have a long-standing policy of pacifism based on historical religious grounds; and, (2) exempts federal student financial assistance from termination.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, on 29 November 2004, reversed a district court decision, which had upheld the Constitutionality of the ``Solomon law,'' by ruling that the ``Solomon law'' violated the 1st Amendment rights of free speech and association held by institutions of higher education. The Third Circuit remanded the case to the district court to enter a preliminary injunction against the enforcement of the ``Solomon law.''

The acting Solicitor General has announced his intention to petition the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari to review the decision of the Third Circuit Court. The Government also filed a motion on 14 January 2005 with the Third Circuit Court seeking to stay the Court's mandate for a preliminary injunction against the enforcement of the ``Solomon law'' until the Supreme Court decides the Government's petition. The Third Circuit granted the stay on 19 January.

H. Con. Res. 36, in expressing continued support for equal access of military recruiters to institutions of higher education, makes the following points regarding the ``Solomon law'':

Under article I, Section 8, of the Constitution, Congress exclusively has the power to raise and support armies, provide and maintain a navy, and make rules for the government and regulation of the Armed Forces.

Military recruiting on university campuses is one of the primary means by which the Armed Forces obtain highly qualified new military personnel and is an integral, effective and necessary part of overall military recruiting. Efforts by colleges and universities to restrict or prohibit military recruiter access will have the harmful effects of increasing Federal spending to achieve desired recruiting outcomes and of compromising military readiness and performance. Such harm conflicts with Federal responsibilities to provide for the Nation's defense. Any reduction in the performance by the Armed Forces amidst the present national emergency declared by the President on September 14, 2001, operates against the national interest.

The Constitution gives Congress the power to regulate spending and in that role Congress has chosen over time to appropriate funds for a variety of Government programs to be provided to institutions of higher learning. However, these funds are not an entitlement to any college or university and can be provided subject to criteria and conditions set by Congress.

The ``Solomon law'' is a legislative safeguard that links Federal funding of educational institutions to the willingness of those institutions to abide by a rule of access by military recruiters to campuses and students that is at least equal in quality and scope that is provided to any other employer.

For the last several years, a growing number of university law schools and colleges of law have treated military recruiters in ways significantly different from the recruiters of other employers. As a result, military recruiters and the persons they seek to interview have been subjected to various degrees of official and unofficial harassment or ill treatment that is designed to make military recruiting difficult, or to frustrate its objectives. The underlying reason for this differing treatment is opposition to Federal law that prohibits military service by openly gay people--the so-called ``don't ask, don't tell'' law.

Given that opposition, it is imperative that the safeguards that the ``Solomon law'' provides not only for military recruiters, but also for ROTC, be maintained. Without such safeguards, grave harm to military recruiting will result as colleges and universities move to limit or deny access to campuses and students by representatives of the Armed Forces.

Academic Bill of Rights

background

Hiring Practices for Professors

Faculty hiring is controlled by more senior members of the

faculty itself:

As Conservative faculty forced to keep political views

quiet until they achieve tenure.

Usually hire those who agree with them,

Creates a perpetual cycle.

Creates an environment where Marxists, Post-Modernists,

etc. can still dominate in academic fields even while their

views have been discredited:

Numbers of Liberal Professors vs. Conservative Professors

The overall ratio of Democrats to Republicans at the 32

schools studied was more than 10 to 1 (1397 Democrats, 134

Republicans).

Not a single department at a single one of the 32 schools

managed to achieve a reasonable parity between the two main

political parties:

In the nation at large, registered Democrats and

Republicans are roughly equal in number.

The closest any school came to parity was Northwestern

University--Democrats outnumbered registered Republicans by a

ratio of 4-1.

Other Schools:

Brown--30-1

Bowdoin, Wellesley--23-1

Swarthmore--21-1

Amherst, Bates--18-1

Columbia, Yale--14-1

Pennsylvania, Tufts, UCLA and Berkeley--12-1

Smith--11-1

Other Schools had ZERO registered Republicans:

Williams--51 Democrats, 0 Republicans

Oberlin--19 Democrats, 0 Republicans

MIT--17 Democrats, 0 Republicans

Haverford--15 Democrats, 0 Republicans

Most students probably graduate without ever having a class

taught by a professor with a conservative viewpoint.

Not Just a Faculty Problem But A Campus-Wide Bias

For example, the University of Pennsylvania, Carnegie

Melon, and Cornell could not identify a single Republican

administrator.

In the entire Ivy League, there were only 3 Republican

administrators identified.

Impact on Students

Remarks belittling conservative ideas convey that these

views are not accepted on campus--Grading based on these

ideas reinforce this perception.

One student called a ``fascist'' for inviting Oliver North

to campus.

University of Oregon--Student labeled ``neo-Nazi'' for

expressing his opinion that Trent Lott was the victim of a

double standard.

University of Richmond--Professor called President Bush a

``moron'' in the classroom.

University of Missouri in Columbia--Professor offered extra

credit to protest a speech by David Horowitz.

Students at Wells College were ridiculed by professors for

their support on Iraq war and their views on feminism.

``It didn't take long to see how liberal it was after I

came here. The professors and the education I receive is

excellent, but the professors seem to use class as a

political soapbox,''--Kristy L. Hochenberger, a student at

Wells College.

Slogan circulated by Biology professor at Wells College--

``Lobotomies for Republicans: It's not just a good idea; it's

the law!''.

Many students conceal what they actually think in order to

protect their academic standing--a reality clearly at odds

with the educational mission of the university.

Nearly all distinguished doctoral programs rely on matching

students with professors who have compatible interests.

Preferential treatment shown to those with similar liberal

ideals.

Campus Guests, Speech Police and Commencement Speakers

Campus funds are unequally distributed to leftwing student

groups as opposed to groups with conservative agendas by a

ratio close to 50:1: These student groups are many times in

charge of hiring campus speakers.

The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education found

that over 90 percent of well-known college campuses have

speech codes intended to ban and punish politically

incorrect, almost always conservative, speech.

The ratio of commencement speakers on the left and right

was 226-15, a ratio of over 15:1: Commencement speakers are

selected through committees composed of administrative staff,

faculty, and students.

Twenty-two of the thirty-two schools surveyed did not have

a single Republican or conservative commencement speaker in

the entire ten years surveyed: Six of the remaining schools

invited only one Republican or conservative each, as compared

to 38 liberals or Democrats.

Haverford, Swarthmore and UCLA, which host multiple

speakers every year, did not feature a single Republican or

conservative speaker as balanced against 54 liberals and

Democrats.

Academic Bill of Rights

Recognizes that political partisanship by professors is an

abuse of students' academic freedom.

Designed to take politics out of the university curriculum:

Does not call for more classics in curriculum,

Reading lists should provide students with dissenting

viewpoints so they may form their own opinions.

Designed to protect the right of students to ``get an

education rather than an indoctrination'':

Should not make professors afraid of what they say,

We defend professors' right to say anything and forbids

administration from punishing them for their political

opinions,

Professors should always be open to dissenting opinions.

Unequal funding of student organizations which host guest

speakers is unacceptable: Calls for pluralism in selection of

guest speakers.

Learning environment hostile to conservatives is wrong.

There is a lack of ``intellectual diversity'' within

faculties on college campuses:

University should be ``inclusive'' to all viewpoints,

Without it, free exchange of ideas are impaired.

It is not our intention to suggest that there should be

quotas based on party affiliation in the hiring process at

universities:

We support removing all politics and political affiliation

from the hiring process,

It is our purpose to point out the gross imbalance of

liberal vs. conservative professors.

While nearly all university administrations devote

extraordinary resources to defend the principle of diversity

in regard to race and gender, none can be said to have shown

interest in the diversity of ideas.

Universities have the privilege of being separate from the

society they inhabit:

Society grants faculty protection from the influence of

outside politics,

With that privilege comes a responsibility by the faculty

to also safeguard the free exchange of ideas.

Correcting this should be the goal and an integral part of

educational policy under the Academic Bill of Rights.

[From the Wall Street Journal, Feb. 2, 2005]

Wisdom of Solomon--The Disgrace of Blocking Military Recruiters From

Campus

Don't ask. Don't tell. Having no desire to crash our e-mail

server, we'll save discussion of gays in the military for

another day. Rather, today's subject is lawyers in the

military. Surely Americans of all points of view can agree

that in an age of Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib, the military can

use the best attorneys it can get.

So it's a disgrace that some of the nation's law schools,

objecting to the Pentagon's ``discrimination policies,''

refuse to permit military recruiters to make their pitch on

campus, relegating them instead to unofficial off-campus

venues. Law students pondering their first career move can be

wined and dined by fancy firms that set up recruitment tables

at campus job fairs, but they have to stroll over to the

local Day's Inn to seek out the lonely military recruiter.

To put it another way, the same liberals who object that

the military includes too many lower-class kids won't let

military recruiters near the schools that contain students

who will soon join the upper-class elite. It's almost enough

to make us contemplate restoring the draft, starting with law

school students.

Needless to say, such scholastic shenanigans don't go down

well with Congress, which in 1994 passed the Solomon

Amendment, named for the late New York Republican, Gerald

Solomon. The law requires schools that receive federal funds

to provide equal access to military recruiters. Today, the

House is scheduled to vote on a resolution brought by Alabama

Republican Mike Rogers that would restate the House's support

for the Solomon Amendment. Something similar passed the House

and Senate by overwhelming margins last year and was

incorporated into the Defense Authorization bill.

The impetus for Mr. Rogers's move is a November ruling by

the federal appeals court in Philadelphia in favor of a group

of law schools and legal scholars that had contested the

Solomon law. The 2-1 opinion found that the Solomon Amendment

violates the schools' First Amendment rights to free speech

and association. Next stop is the Supreme Court, which is

expected to take the appeal that the Justice Department plans

to bring.

There are many peculiarities to this lawsuit, starting with

the fact that the group that brought it--the Forum for

Academic and Institutional Rights--declines to release the

names of the 26 law schools and faculties that belong to its

coalition. Some of the participants (New York University and

Georgetown, for example) have outed themselves since the suit

was brought in 2003, but others steadfastly maintain their

own don't-ask-don't-tell policy.

In any event, there should be no legal question about

Congress's right to put conditions on grants of federal funds

to universities. It does this all the time--including

requirements that colleges adhere to certain civil rights and

gender standards. With a few exceptions, universities have no

trouble going along and courts have no problem letting them.

If, as is likely, the Supreme Court overturns the appeals

court decision, that will be the end of it. Almost all

universities, public and private, take millions of dollars in

federal money that would be next to impossible to give up.

That's especially true of the elite schools, both public and

private. Still, it would be nice to think that the nation's

universities would welcome the military for reasons other

than the mercenary. Patriotism, perhaps?

Mr. Speaker, this bill does not deserve to pass and I certainly will not vote for it.

That's not because I think all is well with the budget--far from it. Even before the hurricane winds and waves arrived and the levees broke, the Federal budget was already on a dangerous course marked by tidal waves of red ink and towering piles of debt. Since 2001, the budget surplus that President Clinton and a Republican Congress bequeathed President Bush had been erased and our country was now in debt to the tune of $8 trillion, or $25,000 for every American man, woman and child.

And then, as they brought death and destruction, Katrina and Rita delivered another blow to the Federal budget--and sounded a wake-up call about the fiscal and economic risks we have been running. I had hoped that the result might be recognition by both the Bush Administration and Congress that now we need to face hard reality and not continue with budget policies based on defying the laws of fiscal gravity. It's about time. But this bill--which would implement part of an overall Republican budget--goes in exactly the wrong direction.

As it comes to the floor, the bill would cut more than $50 billion over 5 years from a wide variety of programs--not because they are no longer needed and not because they are wasteful, but because the Republican leadership has decided the Americans served by these programs must sacrifice in order to help offset the cost of over $106 billion in tax cuts. And, after imposing these penalties on millions of America, the overall plan--service cuts for many Americans, tax cuts for relatively few--will not result in a balanced budget, but even bigger deficits and more delay in correcting our fiscal course.

In short, the Republican prescription for our budget problems is a toxic compound of misguided priorities and fiscal irresponsibility--in other words, more of the same mistakes as before, except worse.

And it's not like there aren't better ways to approach our budgetary problems.

For example, there is H.R. 3966, the Stimulating Leadership In Cutting Expenditures (or ``SLICE'') Act, a bill I introduced last month that is cosponsored by Members on both sides of the aisle and endorsed by the American Conservative Union, Americans for Tax Reform, Citizens Against Government Waste, Freedom Works, the Small Business Enterprise Council, and the National Taxpayers Union.

Its purpose is to promote Presidential leadership and Congressional accountability on proposals to reduce other spending in order to offset the costs of responding to the recent natural disasters.

Toward that end, it would authorize the President to identify specific items of Federal spending that he thinks should be cut and would require Congress to vote on each of those items. It would apply not only to regular appropriations, but also to the transportation bill that was passed and signed into law earlier this year. In each case, if the president proposes a cut, Congress would have to vote on it--we could not ignore the proposal, as can be done under current law--and if a majority approved the cut, it would take effect.

As our budget situation has grown worse, there has been a lot of talk about ``earmarks,'' meaning funding allocations initially proposed by Members of Congress rather than by the Administration. Some people are opposed to all earmarks--but I am not one of them. I think Members of Congress know the needs of their communities, and that Congress as a whole can and should exercise its judgment on how tax dollars are to be spent. So, I have sought earmarks for various items that have benefited Colorado and I will continue to do so. But I know--everyone knows--that some earmarks might not be approved if they were considered separately, because they would be seen as unnecessary, inappropriate, or excessive.

Dealing with that problem requires leadership and accountability. The SLICE bill would promote both, and by requiring us to focus on individual spending items it would make it possible to weigh the relative costs and benefits of each. But the Republican leadership has rejected that approach. Instead, they are insisting on bringing up this omnibus bill without allowing the House to even consider any amendments--except ones they decide they must make in order to pass it with only votes by Republican Members.

That is the wrong approach, and the bill is the wrong result--for the whole country, and particularly for Colorado and the West.

The bill is especially bad for Colorado because of some parts of it-- developed by the Resources Committee--will directly affect our State. For example, there is the part that deals with oil shale.

Oil shale has great potential as an energy source, so it's an important part of our energy policy. And it's important to the taxpayers, who own most of it. They have an interest in what return they will get for this resource. But it's particularly important for Colorado, because our State has some of the most important deposits of oil shale, and Coloradans--particularly those on the Western Slope-- will be directly affected by its development.

A new report from the Rand Corporation spells out the great benefits that can come from developing oil shale. But it also makes clear it's important for the development to happen in the right way. The report says oil shale development will have significant effects, not just on the land but also on air quality and on both the quality and quantity of our very limited water supplies. And it says what Coloradans know already--large-scale oil shale development will bring significant population growth and is likely to put stress on the ability of local communities to provide needed services.

In short, the report reminds us how much Colorado and our neighbors had at stake when Congress debated the oil shale provisions of the new Energy Policy Act that's been on the books for just over 2 months now. And while there are lots of things in that law I don't like, I think the parts dealing with oil shale are appropriate and deserve a chance to work before we rush to change them. But this legislation would tear up that part of the new law and replace it with provisions that not only would be bad public policy but would be a direct threat to Colorado.

That's why in the Resources Committee I offered an amendment that would have revised the oil shale sections in several important ways. Unfortunately, the Republican leadership of the committee opposed any changes to those sections, and my amendment was defeated.

What is the significance of that? Well, to begin with, current law says the Interior department has to consult with the Governor of Colorado and other relevant States, as well as with local governments and other interested parties, before going ahead with large-scale oil shale leasing The bill repeals that requirement for consultation. My amendment would have retained it.

Similarly, current law permits an orderly, measured program for oil shale development. But this bill would mandate a massive development program on a crash basis. It says Interior must lease a minimum of 35% of the oil shale lands in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming within just a one-year period. It's not clear if this means 35% of the three-state total or 35% of the oil-shale lands in each state. Either way, it's a requirement for a fast and massive commercial leasing program:

The Interior Department says there are about 16,000 square miles of oil shale lands in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming combined. That's more than 10 million acres, and about 72% of that is federal land. So, even if the intent is to require leasing 35% of the three-

state total, not 35% in each state, that's more than 2.5 million acres--all in one year!

Mandating leases for that much land, that fast, risks putting a big part of Northwestern Colorado on the fast track to becoming a national sacrifice zone. It's like a trip in a time machine--back to the mistaken crash-development policy of the Carter Administration. That was a mistake then and it would be a mistake now. That's why my amendment would have deleted that requirement, allowing current law to stand.

Also, current law requires the Interior Department to prepare a programmatic environmental impact statement (EIS) on oil shale, with a tight deadline for completion. That's the right thing to do. Work has started on that EIS, and Coloradans look forward to reading it. But reading something before evaluating it must be too old-fashioned for the Republican leadership, because the bill says that the EIS is ``deemed'' to be good enough--meaning that it cannot be questioned or challenged--and no further environmental analysis will be done for a full 10 years--no matter what problems the State of Colorado or anyone else may have with the EIS.

That's like giving an ``A'' grade before a student even turns in the homework--it may be good for the student's ``self-esteem,'' but it doesn't ensure careful work. And careful work on oil shale is essential because the stakes are so high for Colorado's land, water, and communities. That's why my amendment would have deleted that and allowed current law to stand.

Finally, current law tells the Interior Department to set oil-shale royalty rates that will do two things--encourage development of oil shale and also ensure a fair return to the taxpayers. But the bill would repeal this, replacing it with specific rates to be charged for the first 10 years of commercial oil shale production, and requiring that after that the rates must be adjusted according to a formula tied to certain oil prices. This is a blatant example of micro-management, with nothing to show it is fair to the taxpayers. My amendment would have deleted that that attempt at long-term political price-fixing, and replaced it with the language of the current law.

The Congressional Budget Office's report on these oil shale provisions estimates that they will not do much to raise revenue or otherwise help balance the budget. So, there is no budgetary reason to include them in this bill, while from the standpoint of what is best for Colorado and its communities there is every reason to change them in the way that my amendment would have done--and I cannot support them unless such changes are made.

And that is also the case with the parts of the bill dealing with the Mining Law of 1872.

As Westerners know all too well, that law--dating from the administration of President Ulysses S. Grant--still governs the mining of gold, silver, and other ``hardrock'' minerals on federal lands. It still allows private companies to get a patent--an ownership deed--to public lands containing valuable minerals for a mere $2.50 to $5.00 per acre, the same prices that were set in 1872, without paying the taxpayers a fee like that paid for the Federal oil, gas, or other minerals developed under more modern law. Since 1872, more than $245 billion worth of minerals have been extracted from public lands at these bargain-basement prices, and nearly as much land as in the entire state of Connecticut has been sold to the mining industry for less than $5 an acre.

Because the mining industry doesn't need patents--they can and do mine on unpatented claims and because there are so many problems associated with patenting, annually since 1994 Congress has renewed a moratorium on the patenting of mining claims. But this bill would repeal that moratorium. And while the bill would raise the price of patents, it would not require payments that reflect the value of the minerals involved. So, according to the Congressional Budget Office, this provision would raise only about $158 million over the next five years. This is not real reform--it is a continued subsidy for the ``hardrock'' mining industry. But other provisions in this part of the bill are worse.

For example, the bill would allow claim holders to patent land without proving there is a valuable mineral deposit as long if they already have a permit to mine or have reported to the SEC that there is a ``probable'' mineral reserve there. This means that claim holders can purchase public land without having to prove that they can or will construct a viable mine. And it allows the sale of ``mineral development lands''--meaning any land with a valuable mineral deposit as well as lands that were once mineralized and were previously mined-- for the purpose of ``sustainable economic development.'' According to John Leshy, who served as Solicitor of the Interior and who is an expert on the mining law, the result will be to ``put in the hands of corporations the keys to privatize millions of acres of federal land''--setting the stage for a massive fire sale of Federal lands for bargain-basement prices.

And in Colorado, a state with a long and rich mining history, the results could be dramatic. As the Denver Post has noted, ``Coloradans could unexpectedly see suburban sprawl on mountainsides they thought were protected open spaces . . . It's an invitation to condo developers, mini-mansion home builders and other speculators to snatch up federal lands that otherwise would never leave public ownership. . . . Just in Colorado, old mining patents encompass 123,000 acres. Most existing claims are next to or surrounded by national forests, parks or other public lands. Many also are near former mining towns that have become pricey resorts such as Aspen, Telluride, Breckenridge and Crested Butte. Twenty-three of Colorado's 24 ski areas are on national forests and so are vulnerable under the proposal.''

In short, as the Denver Post's editors rightly observe, these provisions ``really aren't about mining; they're about real estate speculation,'' which is why they have called on us to ``erase them from the budget reconciliation bill.''

But of course, since no amendments are permitted, we can't erase that part, or any other part of the legislation. The only choice before us is to vote yes or no on the entire bill.

And, as I said, the bill is just one part of a larger budget plan-- one that insists on pushing ahead on the same course that has led to the serious fiscal problems that now confront us--setting the stage for more top-heavy tax cuts while we are putting the costs of war and everything else the government does on the national credit card. This cannot go on forever. Sooner or later, something has to give.

So, Mr. Speaker, there is an urgent need to rethink and revise our budget policies, including both taxes and spending. But this bill reflects a refusal to do that rethinking. And for me the only viable choice is to vote no--no on the oil shale provisions, no on the mining provisions, and no on all the rest of this very unnecessary, very unbalanced, very short-sighted, and very unwise legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this resolution.

In Wisconsin, our State laws provide protections from discrimination to people that go beyond what many other States and what the Federal Government have put into law. Such protections as nondiscrimination based on age, gender, marital status, membership in the National Guard and sexual orientation are a part of Wisconsin's nondiscrimination laws. Wisconsin has chosen to provide its citizens with these greater protections because we have decided that these are in the best interests of our citizens and are good public policy.

The University of Wisconsin in Madison has a history as a leader in social justice. It adheres to State laws and has tried to apply those laws appropriately across its campus. That has included the requirement that campus organizations, departments and campus recruiters adhere to State law. Yet Federal law has intervened to block enforcement of campus policy and State law in regard to military recruiters.

The Solomon amendment was passed by a previous Congress because students, like those at the University of Wisconsin, were having success in blocking recruiters from campus if they discriminate against lesbians or gays or bisexuals in violation of State law and campus policy.

Access to and use of campus facilities to recruit students for higher educational opportunities, employment or military service should be at the discretion of the institution. Of course, public institutions should not arbitrarily discriminate against any particular recruiter. Reasonable and legitimate criteria should be evenly applied to every recruiter. The Federal Government should not use Federal funding as a weapon to force noncompliance with State law or to create special rights for military recruiters.

I believe that the court made the correct decision in invalidating the Solomon amendment. I also believe that today's resolution is unnecessary. In fact, I believe that today's debate is the wrong debate. We should be looking at ways to strengthen our military and expand our resources for winning the fight against al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations.

Mr. Speaker, when will we have the debate about the harm caused by excluding so many qualified, skilled Americans from serving in our military simply because they are gay or lesbian? When will we have a debate about the waste of resources used to discharge fully trained personnel who are serving our country honorably? When will we have the debate about how much our fight against terrorism is hurt by the discharges of Arab linguists?

The resolution before us today makes vague reference to the costs to the military in having to arrange alternative recruitment strategies to meet its goals, but it does not mention the significant cost of Don't Ask, Don't Tell to our defense budget and to our national security. Since Don't Ask, Don't Tell took effect in 1993, approximately 10,000 military personnel have been discharged. That is a huge amount of training and experience that we have lost.

In a study of discharges between 1998 and 2003, University of Santa Barbara researchers found that, of 6,273 discharges, many were in critical specialties such as 88 linguists, including many Arabic speakers, 49 WMD experts, 90 nuclear power engineers, and 150 rocket and missile specialists. To compensate for some of these discharges, the Pentagon has been calling up members of the Individual Ready Reserve. The harm to our military readiness and the cost to our security caused by Don't Ask, Don't Tell is clear. Urging the administration to try to reinstate the Solomon amendment will in no way make our country safer.

Let there be no mistake. I strongly support our men and women in uniform. I want to take this opportunity to honor the men and women in our Armed Forces who have served and continue to serve in Iraq and to the many serving our country here and around the world. Their efforts allowed the Iraqi people to vote in a free election this week. Their bravery and dedication is something all Americans should admire and honor.

Mr. Speaker, there would be no clamor for a Solomon amendment if we simply allowed all qualified Americans to serve their country in uniform. Our country would be safer, our human resources would be greater, our country would be stronger if we treated all Americans equally, regardless of their sexual orientation. It is time to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell. It will make our military stronger and our country stronger.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is ludicrous on its face.

At a time when billboards, TV ads, radio spots, neighborhood recruiting offices, and slick brochures too numerous to count, flood our consciousness, this Sense of Congress resolution asserts that recruiting on college campuses is a necessary part of military recruitment.

According to this resolution, the Pentagon cares about cost- effectiveness; but the Pentagon has lost $2.3 trillion without explanation. It's been shameful in its award of no-bid contracts to insider corporations, and now, we're told that $9 billion of Iraq money has been ``lost.''

The thrust of this resolution is that it's cost effective and patriotic for the military to recruit on college campuses. Its supporters say that military recruiters ought to have the same access as businesses and corporations. But nowhere in this resolution is the one sure way to get good quality recruits ever mentioned. It's the tried and true way that businesses and corporations employ: they pay more.

In reality, the Pentagon already has access to every 18-year-old male in our country. This resolution is totally unnecessary, unwarranted, and completely fails to make a convincing case.

I urge a ``no'' vote on this resolution.

U.S. ``Loses'' $9bn in Iraq

Washington.--The U.S. occupation authority in Iraq was

unable to keep track of nearly $9bn it transferred to

government ministries, which lacked financial controls,

security, communications and adequate staff, an inspector

general has found.

The U.S. officials relied on Iraqi audit agencies to

account for the funds but those offices were not even

functioning when the funds were transferred between October

2003 and June 2004, according to an audit by a special US

inspector general.

The findings were released on Sunday by Stuart Bowen,

special inspector general for Iraq reconstruction.

The official who led the CPA, L Paul Bremer III, submitted

a blistering, written reply to the findings, saying the

report had ``many misconceptions and inaccuracies,'' and

lacked professional judgment.

Bremer complained the report ``assumes that western-style

budgeting and accounting procedures could be immediately and

fully implemented in the midst of a war''.

The inspector general said the occupying agency disbursed

$8.8bn to Iraqi ministries ``without assurance the monies

were properly accounted for''.

U.S. officials, the report said, ``did not establish or

implement sufficient managerial, financial and contractual

controls.'' There was no way to verify that the money was

used for its intended purposes of financing humanitarian

needs, economic reconstruction, repair of facilities,

disarmament and civil administration.

Pentagon spokesperson Bryan Whitman said on Sunday the

authority was hamstrung by ``extraordinary conditions'' under

which it worked throughout it mission.

``We simply disagree with the audit's conclusion that the

CPA provided less than adequate controls,'' Whitman said.

Turning over the money ``was in keeping with the CPA's

responsibility to transfer these funds and administrative

responsibilities to the Iraqi ministries as an essential part

of restoring Iraqi governance''.

The inspector general cited an International Monetary Fund

assessment in October, 2003 on the poor state of Iraqi

government offices. The assessment found ministries suffered

from staff shortages, poor security, disruptions in

communications, damage and looting of government buildings,

and lack of financial policies.

CPA staff learned that 8,206 guards were on the payroll at

one ministry, but only 602 could be accounted for, the report

said. At another ministry, U.S. officials found 1,417 guards

on the payroll but could only confirm 642.

When staff members of the U.S. occupation government

recommended that payrolls be verified before salary payments,

CPA financial officials stated the CPA would rather overpay

salaries than risk not paying employees and inciting

violence,'' the inspector general said.

The inspector general's report rejected Bremer's criticism.

It concluded that despite the war, ``We believe the CPA

management of Iraq's national budget process and oversight of

Iraqi funds was burdened by severe inefficiencies and poor

management.''

Mr. Speaker, issues like this one--first brought to our attention with a passion and eloquence only possible in a man like Jerry Solomon--provide our democracy a valuable service: They cut through the fog of spin and force us to tell the American people exactly where we stand.

Pure and simple, this bills says our armed services--the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, Coast Guard, and National Guard--should have the same right to recruit at colleges and universities who receive federal funding as any other group.

Every year, thousands upon thousands of businesses, industries, non- profit groups, and even other colleges recruit underclassmen to sign up to become investment bankers and computer engineers or environmental lawyers or medical students.

And yet, some colleges--principally the elitist and elite colleges-- refuse to even allow military recruiters on their campuses.

Such policies are obnoxious in times of peace, but they are simply intolerable in times of war, and the equal access of our military recruiters to federally funded colleges and universities must be protected.

But that, Mr. Speaker, is the easy part.

The hard part is understanding why facilities and administrations of these colleges don't want military recruiters on their campuses.

Because, at bottom, their opposition to the presence of veterans at their schools is not about academic freedom, or civil liberties.

It's about them not liking the military, or the values our men and women in uniform represent.

It's about many of them preferring the company of people who blame the United States for 9/11--who compare the World Trade center victims to Nazis--to the company of a soldier or a sailor or an airman or a Marine.

It's about academia feeling more sympathy for terrorists than for the women and children they murder.

It's about a fundamental misconception about the purpose of a university--the professors are there for the students, Mr. Speaker, and not the other way around.

That our military makes our academia possible, and not the other way around.

Indeed, the right of tenured academics to be publicly insufferable exists only because of the sacrifices of our servicemen and women.

The least they could offer in return is a booth in the field house on career day.

Of course, men and women who have dodged bullets and held dying comrades in their arms don't take seriously people who live by the glib professional code ``publish or perish.''

But those elite campuses, who claim to educate our nation's best and brightest, who claim to train our leaders of the future: how can we possibly not allow military recruiters to have the right to talk to such students?

What profession, if any in our entire society, needs the opportunity to recruit the sharpest and broadest minds of every generation more than our armed forces?

America's armed services have molded great men from all walks of life, and when given brilliant men and women, they have produced legends.

How can we let such minds pass through our top colleges without even the chance that they might bump into a veteran recruiter who could change their life?

America in the future no doubt will need its brilliant businessmen and lawyers and poets, but what good can such genius do without brilliant admirals and generals to protect them?

Mr. Speaker, it's a shame this issue was ever forced on us at all, but the vote on this bill will help to clarify exactly what we each mean when we say we support the troops.

We'll finally see who among us really believes the military deserves more than just lip service from those of us they protect.

Votes like this, after all, remind us of one of the great blessings of American democracy: that unlike college professors, congressmen don't have tenure.