Relating to the free election in Iraq held on January 30, 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, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution. I first want to commend the bipartisan leadership of this body for bringing this resolution to the floor.

Mr. Speaker, the votes are still being counted in Iraq, but it is already clear that democracy has won. The people of Iraq have cast their ballots in favor of freedom, including the right to choose their own leaders and their own fate.

We should not be surprised. We have seen people choose freedom over tyranny repeatedly during the past 15 years in country after country. But Iraqis voted in unprecedented circumstances, literally risking life and limb merely to exercise the privilege that most of us take for granted and many of us do not even exercise. Their courage inspires us, reinvigorating our own love for democracy and testifying to the power of freedom's call.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to have been a fly on the wall of those in power throughout the Arab world who watched the televised spectacle of Iraqis freely choosing their own leaders. We do not know yet who will lead the new Iraqi government, but we know that that government will be the sole representative of democracy in the halls of the Arab league. And we know that increasing numbers of Arab citizens in other Arab countries are already asking why their governments, with very limited exceptions, are chosen and perpetuated only at gunpoint.

The evident success of the election should boost the self-confidence of all concerned. Iraqis themselves organized the campaign and election. They monitored the vote, they secured the polling places, and now they are counting the ballots.

U.S. forces wisely situated themselves beyond the horizon of the polling places, but no one should lose sight of the fact that it was American and coalition soldiers who made this day possible because of their performance on

election day and for many days and weeks before.

Mr. Speaker, we must pay special tribute today to the bravery shown by our fighting men and women, to the commitment shown by our civilian personnel in Iraq and to the dedication and sacrifice shown by their families. I am proud that this resolution does just that.

We also acknowledge with respect those who have been wounded in the prosecution of this war, and we remember with the deepest sadness those who made the ultimate sacrifice.

Not the least of the gratifying developments on Sunday was the excellent manner in which the Iraqi armed forces acquitted themselves. We need to pay special tribute to General David Petraeus for his extraordinary work in training Iraq's military forces.

Mr. Speaker, I believe Sunday's election is an important milestone in the democratic development not only of Iraq but the entire Middle East. But it is also another battle won in the fight against the antidemocratic terrorists who opposed the election and continue their pernicious struggle. The impressive voter turnout, perhaps most impressive in the Sunni areas where antidemocratic intimidation was the most intense, is the surest sign that Iraqis as a whole are embracing the legitimacy of their new government and their new security forces.

But we must be realistic, Mr. Speaker. Democracy entails far more than a day at the polls. The major challenges are still ahead for Iraq. Can Iraqis ensure that all segments of their nation have the opportunity to be heard? Will they produce a fair and workable constitution leading to a durable democracy? Will they learn the art of compromise that will be essential to their success? Will they be moderate or will they dig in their heels on the difficult issues such as the role of religion or the disposition of the contested city of Kirkuk?

Building democracy in the Middle East will require immense patience. It surely is a multigenerational project. Even building democracy in just one nation, especially one with a complicated society such as Iraq's, is a long-term challenge. But for today, Mr. Speaker, let us recognize that the Iraqi people have just taken a first but vitally important step towards meeting that challenge, and let us affirm that they merit the admiration of all free peoples across the globe. And last, but hardly least, let us take pride in America's enormous contribution towards true Iraqi self-determination.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi); but before turning the microphone over to her, let me just say she has devoted her life to expanding the arena of freedom and democracy throughout the globe, and we are proud to have her represent us as our leader in this body.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).

(Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased and proud to yield the balance of our time to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the democratic whip, who has been a leader in the field of expanding the arena of freedom globally.

Mr. Speaker, before yielding back our time, may I just remind all of my colleagues and all of the American people that we have been debating three important policy resolutions with a degree of bipartisan unity that should fill us with pride and joy in the recognition of the fact that, despite all the commentary of deep divisions in this body, we stood together, Republicans and Democrats, supporting the same resolutions and the same policies.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding me this time.

I just want to say the comments by the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) are well taken; and it is because of his work, and particularly his work to hold us together and work together on these issues, that that kind of bipartisan support for these resolution happens. So I commend the gentleman and thank him very much for his work and his willingness to work with us.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess) who came to the floor because he just returned from Iraq a couple of weeks ago and he has some very important things to say.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I appreciate the gentleman from Texas entering the Prime Minister of Iraq's remarks into the Record. I think it is very appropriate to do at this time, particularly on this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, the central point of this resolution is the central point of America's foreign policy: that mankind is made more secure when tyranny is replaced by democracy. That is the story of the American revolution against the old world, Western Europe's liberation from Nazism, Eastern Europe and Central America's liberation from communism and despotism, and the Middle East's liberation from terrorism. The victory of human freedom over human oppression, of good over evil, Mr. Speaker, is why we are here.

Last Sunday morning, the people of Iraq showed the world that humanity's will to freedom knows no borders. When I first saw the news Sunday and saw an image of a woman in Najaf exiting her polling place alive and well with tears streaming down her proud, smiling face, I thought to myself, now, this, this is what Operation Iraqi Freedom was all about. But I was wrong. Sunday's election, Sunday's miracle of democracy, was about more than that.

I thought about the image of the elderly man in a wheelchair in Basra who, in his long years, saw revolution and war, tyranny and terror and, finally, with a joy only possible in a man who had known such pain, cast the first ballot of his life.

I thought of the image of the little girl with a ribbon in her hair, holding her mother's hand as hundreds of women in traditional hijab dress waited in line. Now, this little girl was not quite sure what was happening, only that the women knew it was important.

I thought of the image of the voters in Baghdad who ducked for cover as their polling place came under fire, yet whose lines never broke. There were bullets and bombs and mortar shells, yet their lines never broke.

These voters in Baghdad, not soldiers, but shopkeepers and homemakers, knew when they left for the polls in the morning that they might not come home. They knew that they were targeted, that their spouses would be, could be widowed and their children orphaned. Yet the lines never broke. A humble defiance of evil.

And that is when it hit me, Mr. Speaker. Just as on Sunday all free men and women were Iraqis and on Sunday the Iraqis were all free men and women. Sunday's elections are not just why we invaded Iraq. They were why we stormed Omaha Beach and took the Normandy cliffs. They are why we held Little Round Top and braved Valley Forge.

The lines that formed in Iraq on Sunday stretch not only around the world but back in time to the moment when 13 British colonies declared their independence. For the first time, at that moment, a nation declared itself endowed with an inalienable right to liberty, and in 228 years since, no nation, no nation, no people ever offered a chance at freedom refused it.

Against all odds and it seemed at times even against all hope, the Iraqi people, over 8 million of them, all marked by death by the terrorists, woke up Sunday morning and got into line.

Some people still do not get it. They still do not understand Concord and Lexington or Gettysburg or Bastogne or the Cold War, or even Flight 93.

They do not understand why those lines in Iraq never broke or that every man and woman who ever lived, fought, or died for freedom was standing in that line with them. They still do not know why we fight.

Last weekend that Iraqi woman in the photograph knew. After a lifetime of oppression she voted in humble defiance of evil, and then she broke down crying. And in those tears she is shedding along with the anguish of how many friends and children lost and how many wars and prisons are the hopes and dreams of all God's children who still yearn to be free.

Sunday's elections in Iraq were not an accomplishment; they were a miracle, a miracle made possible by the resilience of a liberated Iraq, the mercy of a loving God, and the moral courage of this Nation under God to stare evil in the face and make the devil blink. Eight million brave Iraqis struck terrorism a lethal blow on Sunday, replacing tyranny with democracy, and in doing so they made America and the world safer, for which it is altogether fitting and proper that we commend and thank them.

Despite the continued threat represented by terrorists and terrorism and despite the threat of disgraceful partisan rhetoric coming from many on the other side, Sunday's miracle in Iraq shows that the dead who died to free that nation have not died in vain and that even in the darkest recesses of violent oppression, all who would live in peace and liberty have yet reason to hope.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I thank him for always standing first and foremost for human rights here and around the world. I am not surprised that he would come forward with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) with this well- deserved and important resolution.

Mr. Speaker, there is nothing more gratifying to the American people than seeing people vote, and especially people vote for the first time. I feel what is happening in Iraq with great and moving nostalgia because it reminds me of the first African Americans who voted after the Civil War. It reminds me that this is the 40th anniversary of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and what it meant for people in Alabama and Georgia to come to the polls for the first time. There is unanimous applause for the people of Iraq who risked their lives to come to the polls. They did not just vote. Many of them knew they were risking life and limb to vote.

They know, however, and we know where the risk was greatest, and that risk was greatest on the Armed Forces of the United States and their allies who made this right possible.

Mr. Speaker, I come forward to say that no people in our country more appreciate that vote on January 30 than the people in the District of Columbia. In the District of Columbia, lives were lost for the vote in Iraq. But these residents are the progeny of 2 centuries of District residents who have gone to war without a vote. Three of these young men who were on the frontlines in Iraq came to the House as the House opened and asked for the same vote for their families and for the residents of the District of Columbia as their service has given to the people of Iraq. They asked to start with the Committee of the Whole where we had the right to vote but the right was taken from us when the majority changed.

Listen to one of the young men: ``Two of my friends and I earlier this month asked for the return of the House vote of the Committee of the Whole our city won during the 103rd Congress . . . Think of what American leaders and citizens would say if one party were to nullify the legitimate vote of another party after the elections in Iraq.''

They asked to see the Speaker; the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), leader of the Democrats. She saw him. The Speaker and a member of his staff were unable to see him. Senator Lieberman and I have reintroduced the No Taxation Without Representation Act.

Let me leave you with the words, finally, of one of these young men.

``I was prepared in Iraq for whatever came, including service in a border breach squad charged with clearing mines and anything else that got in the way to prepare the first troops to cross the border. That was my duty and I would do it again. However, our country also has an important obligation to those who serve and to other citizens. One of the most important obligations is to ensure every citizen that his representative will have a chance to vote before that citizen goes to war for his country.''

The third young man: ``My father served in the 101st Airborne in Vietnam and I am proud to follow him by serving my country in the same manner. I want equal treatment at home. I want the same voting representation in the House and Senate as other soldiers and as the Iraqi people have in their elections this month.''

Out of the mouths of young residents of the District of Columbia who are on the frontline. I will insert their statements and a statement concerning their service from the Washington Post in the Record.

Statement of Emory Kosh

First, my thanks to Congresswoman Norton and Senator

Lieberman for re-introducing the No Taxation Without

Representation Act. I also want to thank Mr. Shallal for his

moving words addressed to men and women like me who served in

Iraq and to D.C. residents. During the year I spent in Iraq,

I met and spoke with many Iraqi citizens, but Mr. Shallal is

the first Iraqi American I have met. His words have special

meaning to me and I thank him.

When I watch television and see people in Iraq and here in

the United States preparing

to vote in the Iraq elections for voting representation, I

think of my time in their country. I am proud that I had some

role in the voting rights Iraqis will get there on Sunday.

For that reason, I deeply appreciate that Mr. Shallal has

come not only to thank us, but to join us in the fight for

the same voting representation here in the Nation's capital.

Two of my friends and I earlier this month asked for the

return of the House vote in the Committee of the Whole our

city won during the 103rd Congress that was taken from us

when control of the Congress changed hands. Think of what

American leaders and citizens would say if one party were to

nullify the legitimate vote of another party after the

elections in Iraq. Our vote in the Committee of the Whole

represented the first step toward the goal of D.C. residents

as expressed in the No Taxation Without Representation Act.

We didn't intend to stop there when we asked that this first

step be taken, and we won't stop now. We will work with the

Congresswoman, the Senator, Mr. Shallal and our fellow

citizens until the full voting rights we fought for in Iraq

are also available here in our hometown.

Mr. Speaker, last week I missed two important votes relating to elections in the troubled Middle East. H. Res. 56 commends the Palestinian people for the free election held on January 9, 2005, and H. Res. 60 relates to the election held in Iraq on January 30, 2005. I rise today to say that I would have voted ``yes'' on both H. Res. 56 and H. Res. 60.

On Sunday, January 30, millions of Iraqis voted in a free election for the first time in their lives. Many walked great distances and nearly all risked their lives to exercise this new right. Though I opposed the war, the election that took place in Iraq is something to be celebrated. In addition to commending the people of Iraq, I would like to commend our men and women in the armed services. Without their hard work and bravery in developing and executing a complex security plan, this most successful election would not have been possible.

Now that the people of Iraq have had a free election, we need to put our efforts into helping them find ways to defeat the insurgency, involve all religious and ethnic persuasions in the political process and ensure that the rights of minorities are protected as they continue to draft a Constitution.

In addition, it is important that the United States look toward developing an exit strategy. In reality, this should have been done before we initiated military operations. We need to continue to train and equip Iraqi security forces. In order to properly do this, we need to have an accurate assessment of the capabilities of those forces now.

The free election in Iraq was an achievement that cannot be understated. That said, we have a vested interest in a secure and democratic Iraq and while the election was an important milestone, we need to look ahead to a time when our work over there is done and our troops can come home.

Now, turning to the recent elections in the Palestinian Territories. I would like to commend Dr. Mahmoud Abbas on his election as the second President of the Palestinian Authority and the Palestinian people for making their voices heard. The elections on January 9 were conducted under difficult circumstances, including ongoing violence and a limited ability for candidates to campaign. Despite these challenges, an amazing 70 percent of registered voters turned out, according to Dr. Hana Nasir, head of the Palestinian Central Election Commission. The Palestinian people, political organizations, and presidential candidates all deserve praise for this significant step forward. Moreover, although voters in East Jerusalem experienced difficulties, elsewhere in the West Bank and Gaza Israel facilitated the election process. For this Israel also deserves commendation.

International observers--including some of our colleagues here--state that the elections were free and fair. Allow me to share a few key observations of the International Observer Delegation organized by the National Democratic Institute and the Carter Center.

The election was contested vigorously and administered

fairly. Election day was orderly and generally peaceful.

The process, organized in just 60 days in accordance with

the Palestinian Basic Law and under difficult circumstances

of the ongoing conflict and occupation, represents a step

forward for Palestinian democracy.

Seven presidential candidates competed in the election,

presenting Palestinians with a choice among distinct points

of view. . . . This is a tribute to the seriousness of the

political competitors and to the Palestinian people's desire

to respect political pluralism.

Following the death of Yasser Arafat, many predicted that the Palestinian Authority would crumble into complete chaos. In fact, Palestinian institutions proved more resilient, and the Palestinian people showed greater determination for peace and self-determination than many expected. Consequently, the transition of power from President Arafat to President Abbas stands as a model for the region to emulate.

Mr. Speaker, the Palestinian elections of January 9 were clearly a proud day for Palestinians and a very positive step forward in the effort to broaden the reach peaceful, civil interaction. It is a clear mandate for President Abbas to pursue his agenda of peaceful negotiations with Israel in order to establish a viable, sovereign, and independent Palestinian state. It is now incumbent on the United States and Israel to support President Abbas in his effort to consolidate power, to generate political and economic benefits for the Palestinian people, and to engage seriously in the negotiation of a peace settlement. The recipe for a final agreement has been apparent to most of us for some time. Now all the ingredients appear to be assembled. Those interested in creating peace have no reason or excuse not to move forward.