To provide for the establishment of separate campaign medals to be awarded to members of the uniformed services who participate in Operation Enduring Freedom and to members of the uniformed services who participate in Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is unfortunate that the discussion here has gone off in directions about what constitutes patriotism or what constitutes the proper recognition of the defense of democracy, because that is how all this argument started.

Mr. Speaker, I want to indicate to the Members that this issue deserves a full discussion and not just on the floor. We would not be here and there would not be a motion to recommit, which will be made shortly, I can assure you, if we had a full discussion about this and then had gone, probably where it should have gone, to the Committee on the Judiciary, if it needed to go at all, or a decision could have been made as to whether that was the proper venue.

I, too, can have recollections about what happened during Vietnam. I daresay that a lot of people on the floor, Members of this Congress, were not involved in any of that. I know what the first amendment is all about, and I do not think the first amendment says that the Secretary of Defense gets to decide what other people get to say or do in this country under threat of some kind of sanction. To the degree or extent that someone is prevented access that they are entitled to, they have recourse in the courts. That is what we do in a democracy.

I do not notice that it is our job, certainly not in the Committee on Armed Services, to turn over to the Secretary of Defense, any Secretary of Defense, the opportunity to be a prosecutor and a judge and a jury and a sheriff all at the same time.

Now, the facts are, as to the origin of this argument today, that there apparently have been instances in which people disagreed, apparently in some law schools in particular, disagreed with the ``don't ask/don't tell policy'' of the United States Armed Forces. This has nothing to do with what people said or did not say about the Vietnam War. It has nothing to do with what any particular Member's view of that American involvement in the Vietnam war was, let alone the war on terror or anything else. What it has to do is with the present policy, whether you agree with it or not, with the armed services.

Now, if the Armed Services say they want equal access, what was being said apparently by the people at these various schools was that they did not have equal access to being able to join the Armed Services or the Department of Homeland Security, I suppose, or the CIA. Now that needs to be discussed, and it is not going to be discussed in 3 minutes or 5 minutes or 2 minutes here on the floor. It is not even going to come up.

Now I could not find the proper way to make a motion to try to get this before the Committee on the Judiciary so we could have a discussion on what the proper sanctions might be, if they were needed at all, with respect to gaining access for the ROTC or anybody else that want to recruit. I am in favor of that. Those of us who oppose this bill are in favor of it.

I resent on proper grounds here in the House being categorized as someone who somehow wants to thwart the war on terrorism or does not have the correct view on the Vietnam War because I am trying to defend the first amendment and because I would like to see these discussions held in a manner and in a place and in a venue which is appropriate to the circumstances. We need to talk about such issues as to whether everybody in this country is going to be treated equally with respect to being able to join the military

or participate in the Department of Homeland Security or defend our security interests through the CIA and whether they can be hired on the basis of their ability and what they have to offer rather than on what they look like or what their sexual orientation is or anything else. This is not the bill to do it, and it is certainly not the Secretary of Defense who should be doing it.

So what I am asking here is that the Members try to exercise some common sense, some common legislative sense, give us an opportunity to take up this serious issue, which does need addressing, and address it in a manner that will resolve it under constitutional methodology that is worthy of this body.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

I do not dispute that. We did not dispute it in committee. When the issue was raised in committee, what I said is that this issue does need to be resolved so that access is possible, ``Is this the best way to do it?'' Inasmuch as we had to make a decision on the spot, my contention was, and I believe many of us who are forced now, we are forced because the bill is on the floor under a closed rule, I have no choice but to try and oppose it.

Mr. Speaker, I accept everything that the gentleman just said. It is making my point. The reason this bill is on the floor is because the courts ruled that the Secretary of Defense had no basis for making this decision. That is the reason the bill is on the floor.

I realize a lot of Members and their staffs are listening to this discussion in their offices, and they cannot be on the floor because they have other duties; but I am asking them to pay attention to why the bill is on the floor. This bill gives the Secretary of Defense the basis. We are creating another problem instead of solving the problem which is really before us, which is access for ROTC and/or military and other recruiters. If Harvard or any other school is preventing them from coming on, is there no access to the courts? You mean no law exists in the United States to allow people to have proper access? Of course it exists.

The reason for this bill is to make the Secretary of Defense the arbiter of how this is going to take place, even up to the point of getting certification from the school that the Secretary of Defense is satisfied that equal access, et cetera, is going to be provided.

My point is that we are doing this all wrong. If we really want to solve this issue of openness and access and discussion that needs to be taking place and to have the ROTC or the CIA or the Homeland Security Department or whoever it is have access and dialogue and discussion on a civilized basis as to how it should take place, that is available to us. This is not the way to do it. This bill merely enables the Secretary of Defense to be judge and jury over that process, and it will generate a whole new slew of lawsuits that will not solve the question nor even address the question that is before us as to how do we achieve this access. I want that access.

I think it is very unfortunate that the bill is being posited to the body in such a manner that those of us who oppose it seem to be in favor of terrorism or approving arbitrary dislocation of legitimate endeavors to recruit for the ROTC or anybody else. That is not true. On the contrary, I raised the issue in the Committee on Armed Services precisely on the point that I am a libertarian on the issue of free speech and access, and I believe everybody should engage in dialogue and confrontation of the issues in a positive way that gives everybody a chance.

The reason the argument takes place in the first place is that people who are defending those who are prevented from having access to the armed services, apparently those who are gay or lesbian or transgender or whatever other category we are getting into these days, I cannot keep up with every permutation that apparently exists in terms of gender and sexual orientation, but that is not a reason to make the Secretary of Defense the arbiter of it. I do not think, despite his great wit and great perception and depth of interest in world history and events, that the Secretary of Defense is necessarily up on all the latest in transgender fashions. And so I do not think that this is a proper forum nor a proper venue to try and resolve this issue.

My request, Mr. Speaker, of the body is that we give a chance for a motion to recommit to be made so that we can address the issue of access as opposed to addressing the issue which the bill moves toward giving a basis for the Secretary of Defense to make this decision. Let us not confuse the access apple with the orange of the first amendment of the Constitution.

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

I am, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, as was indicated by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan), the previous speaker, I think all we would like to have here and the reason for recommittal motion is to have some hearings. As the chairman, and I do not if he is still on the floor or not, the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services Committee knows, I have the greatest respect for him and the greatest respect for the bipartisanship that exists on the Committee on Armed Services.

The issue here and the only reason this bill is on the floor is that a court determined that the Secretary of Defense did not have a basis in law for being able to make some of the kinds of decisions which the bill in front of us allows the Secretary to make. The issue involved here is one of access. It is one of equal treatment. The arguments of whether one accepts them or do not accept them have been made that the armed services, I suppose by extension of the bill, the Department of Homeland Security, the CIA, are not allowing equal access to every American and at least in some instances on the basis of their sexual orientation. There may be other issues that are raised in that regard, too. That is worthy of discussion, surely. Whether or not then this bill constitutes a proper response to that difficulty to the degree that it exists is the issue.

The reason I am asking for a vote on recommittal with instructions is not

because I oppose or anyone else, I believe, opposes equal access either for recruitment purposes or other purposes of discussion and dialogue but rather that this bill does not address that fundamental issue and, in fact, will only engender a new series of lawsuits and it will fail to accomplish that which is really the bottom-line, fundamental issue here before us, which is how do we appropriately address the first amendment in the context of recruitment, whether it is for a Federal Government agency of any kind, let alone whether or not the Secretary of Defense should be the arbiter in that regard.

So, Mr. Speaker, with that I am asking that the body vote to recommit with instructions so that we can properly address this serious issue.

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. President, I rise to express my strong hope that we can get agreement today to move ahead

with H.R. 3104 and pass that legislation before we adjourn this week. This is legislation which has passed the House unanimously and has come over to the Senate. In my opinion, this should now pass the Senate and go to the President for signature. This is legislation that would honor those service men and women in Iraq and in Afghanistan who have served their country there or continue to serve there.

Obviously, over the last couple of weeks the reputation of our military has been stained by the horrific events at Abu Ghraib prison and every level of our military has been affected by the actions of the few who have been identified. I think all of us are looking to see the extent of the problem. All of us are anxious to ensure the problem does not continue in the future.

At this point, it is important to recognize and honor the thousands of fighting men and women who serve this Nation every day with commitment, courage, integrity, and professionalism both in Iraq and in Afghanistan.

That is the purpose of the legislation I am urging us to bring up and to pass today. We have a Senate version of this same bill that has been introduced. It has 24 cosponsors. I have introduced this legislation with Senators Lugar and Lott, Landrieu, Inhofe, Gregg, Johnson, Rockefeller, Pryor, Reid, Daschle, Lincoln, Boxer, Durbin, Biden, Akaka, Edwards, Kerry, Clinton, Bayh, Feingold, Nelson, Conrad, Kennedy, Stabenow, and Dole. So this is a broadly supported piece of legislation on both sides of the political aisle.

I particularly want to thank the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Senator Warner, for his support of this important measure.

This has been a dangerous and a brutal period for our troops in Iraq in particular, but also in Afghanistan. There have been nearly 3,000 Americans injured in these 2 conflicts in recent months. More than a year after the initial Iraq invasion, the administration has announced plans to maintain a force of at least 135,000 troops in Iraq through next year, through 2005.

We will have many debates as we proceed with the Defense authorization bill next week and then later with the Defense appropriations bill, on the right level of funding, on how quickly to proceed with funding. President Bush has recently asked for another $25 billion to be included in the defense budget for the operations in Iraq and I know there will be discussion about whether that is the appropriate amount. But clearly the liberation of Iraq is turning out to be the most significant military occupation and reconstruction effort this country has engaged in since World War II. We must not underestimate the importance of the work that is involved here. I think it is important that we recognize those whose lives are on the line to accomplish this very difficult task.

Let me talk a minute about what is at stake in this legislation. The Defense Department has decided in their view what is appropriate is to award to the brave men and women who are serving in those two conflicts the Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal and no other medal. This is despite the fact the Global War on Terrorism Medal is meant for any individual who served overseas during this war on terror and may have come within a few hundred miles of a combat zone. The dangers of serving in Iraq and in Afghanistan are far greater. Therefore, along with my colleagues, I propose to correct what I considered a mistake by authorizing that we issue the Iraq and Afghanistan Liberation Medals in addition to the Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal.

When the President was defending Secretary Rumsfeld earlier this week, he noted Secretary Rumsfeld was involved in leading the military in ``two wars.'' If the President is willing to acknowledge the fact we are engaged in two wars, then his decision about how to award medals should be consistent with that. The policy we are currently following, that the Pentagon is currently following, is not consistent with that.

While some of us in this body have not shared the administration's view on the wisdom of going to war in Iraq, we are united when it comes to supporting our troops. These young men and women from Active Duty, from National Guard, and from Reserves are all volunteers. They exemplify the very essence of what it means to be a patriot. We believe what they are doing in Iraq and what they are doing in Afghanistan today differs from military expeditionary activity such as peacekeeping operations or enforcement of no-fly zones.

They continue to serve even though they do not know when they will return home to their family, to their friends. They continue to serve despite the constant threat which they face to their own lives and the tremendous hardship many of them face.

There is a difference between an expeditionary medal and a campaign medal and it is a well-recognized difference that goes back throughout our military history. We only need to look at an excerpt from U.S. Army Qualifications for the Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal and the Kosovo Campaign Medal. In order to receive the Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal, you did not need to go to war; you only needed to be ``placed in such a position that in the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, hostile action by foreign Armed Forces was imminent even though it does not materialize.''

However, to earn the Kosovo Campaign Medal, the standard was higher. A military member was required to:

Be engaged in actual combat or duty that is equally

hazardous as combat duty, during the Operation with armed

opposition, regardless of time in the Area of Engagement. Or

while participating in the Operation regardless of time [the

service member] is wounded or injured or requires medical

evacuation from the Area of Engagement.

Many within the military agree there is a difference. According to the Army Times, and let me quote their statement, they say:

Campaign medals help to establish immediate rapport with

individuals checking into a unit.

An expeditionary medal like the Global War on Terrorism Medal does not necessarily denote the individual with that medal has ever been involved in combat. A campaign medal is designed to recognize military personnel who have risked their lives in combat.

Campaign medals matter. Let me give another quotation here.

When a marine shows up at a new duty station, commanders

look first at his decorations and physical fitness score, the

first to see where he has been, the second to see if he can

hang [tough]. They know what you have done and how serious

you are. . . . If you are a good marine, people are going to

award you when it comes time. . . .

That is the statement of a sergeant, as quoted in the Army Times.

In my view it is time we agreed with the rank and file in the military, recognize the sacrifice of our young men and women who are fighting to assist in Iraq, including great Americans such as Army SP Joseph Hudson from my home State, from Alamogordo, NM, who was held as a prisoner of war. The Nation was captivated as we watched Specialist Hudson several months ago being interrogated by the enemy. Asked to divulge his military occupation, Specialist Hudson stared defiantly into the camera and said, ``I follow orders.''

Those of us whose sons and daughters were united in worrying about Specialist Hudson's family--and the entire Nation rejoiced when he was liberated--that same circumstance has played out with regard to many other men and women who have served and are continuing to serve our Nation in those conflicts.

We have also asked a great deal from the Reserve and National Guard forces in our States. The reconstruction of Iraq would not be possible without the commitment and sacrifice of the 170,000 guard and reservists currently on active duty.

In my view it is absolutely essential we go ahead and act on this legislation. I know there may be some who say this legislation has been incorporated, or the same provisions have been incorporated in the Defense authorization bill which will be considered on the Senate floor next week, and therefore we need not take action today. The problem with dealing with it on the Defense authorization bill as part of the Defense authorization bill is all of us who have been around the Senate know that bill will not get to the President's desk for signature until late this summer or maybe fall. What I am urging is we take the bill the House has passed unanimously, without a dissenting vote, we pass that same legislation,

and send it to the President for signature, so these two campaign medals, one for Iraq and one for Afghanistan, can begin to be awarded to these brave men and women.

I hope we can get the needed clearance on the Republican side. All Democratic Senators have agreed to this course of action so we can bring up this legislation and pass it.

I am informed there is objection at this point; at least clearance has not been achieved. I hope that can be remedied and we can act on this bill before we leave town this week.

I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I yield myself 6 minutes off of the time on this side, and then the remaining 4 minutes will be reserved for the Senator from Arkansas who is in the Chamber to speak. I know Senator Warner intends to speak as well.

First, I thank the majority leader, the Democratic leader, Senator Warner, and Senator Levin for their leadership in bringing this legislation to the Senate floor today for a vote.

H.R. 3104 is a bill to honor our service men and women in Iraq and Afghanistan with campaign medals that recognize--appropriately recognize, in my view--their service and their sacrifice.

A few days from now we will all honor those who have given their lives in defense of this great Nation. That is, of course, Memorial Day. This year it takes on special meaning since we clearly are engaged in two wars in which we have suffered many losses. Many fathers and mothers, sons and daughters will spend this Memorial Day not with family and friends but instead in Afghanistan or in Iraq. It is for them and their families that I believe we need to pass this legislation.

Over the last 2 weeks, we have been flooded with horrific images of Iraqi prisoners mistreated at the hands of a few soldiers. This set of incidents has cast a dark shadow over the honorable and courageous service of over 2 million men and women in uniform. Today, we have an opportunity to send a strong, unequivocal message of support for our brave young men and women who have served and continue to serve both in Iraq and in Afghanistan.

H.R. 3104 will provide the special recognition to these soldiers that, in my view, is long overdue.

The administration made a decision to award a generic global war on terrorism expeditionary medal to all of the men and women who have served in

those two theaters of war. In my view, that is an effort to essentially practice a one-size-fits-all solution. I think it missed the mark. I think we can do better. This legislation will do better.

A campaign medal, such as is contemplated in this legislation, is different from an expeditionary medal. We can look back into the history of campaign medals and expeditionary medals awarded by our Department of Defense in previous campaigns and see that the campaign medals are reserved for those engaged in actual combat, or duty that is equally hazardous as combat duty, during the operation with armed opposition. That is what our men and women are facing today both in Iraq and Afghanistan. Clearly, service in those two locations warrants the authorization of campaign medals.

I am very pleased to see many of my colleagues have chosen to cosponsor the Senate version of this bill. This bill now has 24 cosponsors, including Senators Lugar, Lott, Landrieu, Inhofe, Gregg, Johnson, Rockefeller, Pryor, Reid, Daschle, Lincoln, Boxer, Durbin, Biden, Akaka, Edwards, Kerry, Clinton, Bayh, Feingold, Nelson, Conrad, Kennedy, Stabenow, Dole, and Byrd. And, of course, I wish to thank the chairman and the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee again for their important leadership in getting this legislation enacted.

Also, I wish to acknowledge the very hard work and good work that was done by Representative Vic Snyder, who was the sponsor of this measure in the House.

This measure we are going to vote on is identical to the bill we introduced in the Senate, and Representative Snyder deserves great credit for his hard work in getting it enacted there.

Mr. President, I am informed there is some additional time. I have been informed we do not expect to start the vote until about 11:30 a.m.

Let me continue for another minute and say that after a particularly dangerous and brutal April, America now mourns the deaths of nearly 800 service men and women in Iraq, as well as 119 in Afghanistan. There have been nearly 3,000 Americans injured in those campaigns.

More than a year after the initial Iraqi invasion, the administration has announced plans to maintain a force of at least 135,000 troops in Iraq through 2005. Despite the assurances we would be able to handle this with an $87 billion supplement through this fiscal year, we now see that is not going to be possible. This is a significant military occupation. It is a significant reconstruction effort. In fact, it is the most significant we have ventured into since World War II. We must not underestimate the importance of the sacrifice these men and women are making.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed another 2 minutes.

Mr. President, I concur with that assessment, and ask the additional time between now and 11:30 a.m. be split equally between the two sides.

Mr. President, I will conclude. This legislation and the establishment of these campaign medals will also serve to honor those who will not return home from these conflicts, including those who have fallen from my home State of New Mexico: Army SP James Prittle from Carlsbad, NM; Air Force Special Operations pilot, CPT Tamara Archuleta from Albuquerque, NM, a single mother whose helicopter crashed in Afghanistan; Marine PFC Christopher Ramos of Albuquerque, NM; and Marine Cpl Aaron Austin of Lovington, NM.

These heroes gave their lives for this Nation. This medal will honor that sacrifice as well. The great men and women of our military forces are doing their jobs every day in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is appropriate that we honor them with an award that truly stands for their heroic service. The Iraq and Afghanistan campaign medals will do that.

As I indicated before, I will now yield time to my colleague from Arkansas, and he can take as much time as he would like of that which remains on our side.

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

Mr. President, how much time remains?

Mr. President, let me take another minute to conclude the discussion. Again, I thank Senator Warner particularly for his leadership in getting this bill up for a vote today, and, of course, Senator Pryor, who was here a few minutes ago to speak; I appreciate his efforts. Of course, the majority leader and Senator Daschle on the Democratic side have both participated in helping do this.

This is an important step for us to take, to honor the brave men and women who are serving our country in distant locations. I have had a similar experience to the one Senator Warner described, talking to service men and women who have returned--in the case of my State, from Afghanistan, the ones I spoke to, 2 weeks ago. They are very proud of what they have done. They have great reason to be proud of what they have done. This awarding of these campaign medals will help us to recognize that.

Let me also indicate my appreciation to David Montotya of my staff for the consistent work he has done trying to move this legislation ahead, both last year and again this year. I think the dedicated efforts of our staffs often go unrecognized. He deserves credit. Trudy Vincent, my staff legislative director, also deserves credit.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the author of this legislation, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Rogers), for his strong leadership needed at this time; and I also want to thank my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), for his leadership on this issue.

It is very important that we move this legislation forward because it squarely addresses the scandal of American colleges and universities banishing ROTC and military recruiters from campus, while turning around

and cashing the taxpayers' checks from the Department of Defense and other national security and homeland security agencies of our government to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars.

My alma mater, Harvard University, which bans ROTC from campus, gets more money in Federal taxpayer grants than it does from tuition for undergraduates and graduates combined, and yet Harvard University sends its hard core, a very small number of hearty brave students, down the road to MIT where they have to do their MIT-based ROTC training because they cannot be on campus. They do not meet Harvard standards because they want to affiliate themselves with the United States military.

The attacks on America, on the World Trade Center and on the Pentagon should have been a wake-up call to schools such as Harvard, which banished ROTC from campus 35 years ago. There is now a feeble pretext for this military ban on America's elite campuses. It is alleged that it is a protest against the Clinton administration's ``don't ask/don't tell policy'' for gays in the military. I find that exceptionally hard to believe, because no mention was made of this problem in 1969 when the ban was put in place.

I was on Harvard's campus during the Vietnam War. I remember when South Vietnam fell to the Communists, and I saw the biggest demonstration that I had seen yet on Harvard's campus, with students out in the streets chanting, ``Ho, ho, Ho Chi Minh, the Vietcong are going to win.'' That is where this ban came from.

It has been a long time since the Vietnam War, John Kerry notwithstanding; and it is high time that we recognize what happened to us on September 11, that we recognize that it was U.S. troops who were defending the Harvard students at Logan Airport in the hours after the 9/11 attacks. And, of course, Boston's Logan Airport was one of the staging airports for the 9/11 attacks on this country.

As our Nation wages an aggressive campaign to defeat 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 we asked more from our Armed Forces, and never have we needed more educated leaders in our armed services.

The best contribution Harvard could make, the best contribution Yale could make, the best contribution that Stamford and Columbia could make to sound, wise policies in our Nation's military is to permit their graduates to enter into leadership posts there. But even a Harvard alum, who is a military recruiter, cannot go on campus to do it.

Now I have heard this is not really about the military, that this is a punitive measure aimed at the colleges themselves. But the military did not start this fight; and, in fact, look at what the universities' policies have accomplished over the last several decades.

In 1964, there were 268,000 ROTC students on America's campuses. Today, it is down to 50,000, a decline of more than 80 percent.

The military is being hurt by these policies, and America is being hurt by these policies. Today, successful recruitment of exceptional officers depends more heavily than ever on the Reserve Officers Training Corps. This past year, 70 percent of the Army's newly commissioned officers came from ROTC.

As chairman of the Select Committee on Homeland Security, I have been deeply gratified and humbled as I have seen how many of America's best and brightest have been willing to volunteer in service to their country in the fight against terrorism, both through ROTC and through choosing a career in the military upon graduation. But many of these same schools that are banning ROTC on campus are also banning even military recruiters from coming to campus.

The premise of this bill is a simple one: Colleges that discriminate against the United States Armed Services should not receive U.S. taxpayer funds related to national defense and homeland security. The bill 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 and the Department of Homeland Security. It will require they certify that they do not discriminate and that they will permit ROTC recruiters and ROTC training programs on campus.

Today, as our Nation calls for able new leaders in the war on terror, it is time for our universities and our colleges in America to honor that call and help lead our Nation.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Rogers) for bringing this important legislation to the floor.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the author of the bill for yielding me this time.

Just to respond to the preceding speaker, the gentleman from Hawaii, this is not about telling people what to think or what to say. It is about giving students freedom of choice. This is all about whether or not students have access on campus. At Harvard, the undergraduate council voted overwhelmingly to invite ROTC back on to campus, but the school has taken no action. So it is the students who are being shortchanged.

As to whether this is completely unrelated to Vietnam, I will state that that is just wrong as a matter of fact. This ban at Harvard University, where I am a former member of the faculty, I am reasonably familiar with this, and a graduate of two schools at Harvard, in 1969 at Harvard, the faculty voted to ban the military from campus in protest to the Vietnam War and that ban has been in place ever since. My contention is that 9/11 should serve as a wakeup call, welcome to the 21st century. Let us revisit this, and get it back to where it belongs.

I yield to the gentleman from Hawaii.

I appreciate the gentleman's point, and reclaiming what little time I have, I will just say simply that we have students who are going to graduate. This has been going on for some years. 9/11 was a few years ago. At Yale where the school is happy to cash the ROTC scholarship checks, the Yale students have to travel 75 miles to the University of Connecticut and then 75 miles back, 150-mile round trip, they have to do this three times a week. It is an extraordinary burden to place just so that the university can make a point that joining the military is not what we want our students to do.

Mr. President, I rise today with my colleagues, Senators Inhofe, Landrieu, Lugar, and Lott, to introduce a bill to honor our service men and women in Iraq and Afghanistan who have served and continue to serve their country by working for a free, independent, and stable Iraq and a new Afghanistan. These missions have been difficult and the cost has been high; nearly 600 Americans have been killed and almost 3,000 Americans have been injured in Iraq, while more than 500 Americans have been injured and more than 100 U.S. service men and women have been lost in Afghanistan.

More than a year after the initial invasion, nearly 110,000 troops are still stationed in Iraq, working to build a new, stable beacon of freedom in the region. My fellow Senators, the liberation of Iraq is turning out to be the most significant military occupation and reconstruction effort since the end of World War II. We cannot understate the importance of the work being done there today.

The administration's focus on Iraq leaves the mission in Afghanistan incomplete. Despite constant progress there, the fighting is still not over. Recent assassinations of government officials, car bombings, and the lingering presence of terrorist forces and former Taliban fighters force thousands of our troops to stay in-country.

For there courageous efforts, the Department of Defense has decided to award our brave young men and women with the Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal, GWOT, and no other medal. This is despite the fact the GWOT medal is meant for any individual who has served overseas during the war on terror and may have come within a few hundred miles of a combat zone. The dangers of serving in Iraq and Afghanistan are greater; therefore, along with my colleagues, Senators Lott, Landrieu, Inhofe, and Lugar, I propose to correct this mistake by passing legislation authorizing the Iraq and Afghanistan Liberation Medals in addition to the Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal.

While some of us in this body have not shared the administration's view on this war, we are united when it comes to supporting our troops. These young men and women from Active Duty, National Guard, and Reserves are all volunteers and exemplify the very essence of what it means to be a patriot. We believe that what they are doing in Iraq and Afghanistan today differs from military expeditionary activities such as peacekeeping operations or no-fly-zone enforcement.

They continue to serve, even though they do not know when they will return home to family and friends. They continue to serve despite the constant threat to their lives and the tremendous hardships they face.

There is a difference between an expeditionary medal and a campaign medal. We only need to look at an excerpt from U.S. Army Qualifications for the Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal and Kosovo Campaign Medal. In order to receive the Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal, you don't need to go to war. You only need to be ``placed in such a position that in the opinion of the Joint Chief of Staff, hostile action by foreign armed forces was imminent even though it does not materialize.''

To earn the Kosovo Campaign Medal, the standard is higher. A military member must:

Be engaged in actual combat, or duty that is equally hazardous as combat duty, during the Operation with armed opposition regardless of time in the Area of Engagement. Or while participating in the Operation, regardless of time, [the service member] is wounded or injured and required medical evacuation from the Area of Engagement.

Many within the military agree that there is a difference. According to the Army Times, ``Campaign medals help establish an immediate rapport with individuals checking into a unit.'' An expeditionary medal like the GWOT does not necessarily denote combat. A campaign medal is designed to recognize military personnel who have risked their lives in combat.

Campaign medals matter. ``When a Marine shows up at a new duty station, commanders look first at his decorations and his physical fitness score--the first to see where he's been, the second to see if he can hang. They show what you've done and how serious you are,'' said GySgt James Cuneo. ``If you're a good Marine, people are going to award you when it comes time. . . .''

My fellow colleagues, it is time. We must recognize the sacrifice of our young men and women who liberated Iraq, including great Americans like Army SPC Joseph Hudson from Alamogordo, NM, who was held as a prisoner of war. The Nation was captivated as we watched Specialist Hudson being interrogated by the enemy. Asked to divulge his military occupation, Specialist Hudson stared defiantly into the camera and said, ``I follow orders.'' Those of us with sons and daughters were united in worry with Specialist Hudson's family. The entire Nation rejoiced when he was liberated.

We have also asked much from our Reserve and National Guard Forces.

The reconstruction of Iraq would not be possible without the commitment and sacrifice of the 170,000 guardsmen and reservists currently on active duty.

My colleagues, Senators Lott, Landrieu, Inhofe, Lugar, and I are committed to honoring our over 200,000 heroes who liberated Iraq and Afghanistan. We believe that current administration policy does a disservice to our fighting men and women. Therefore we propose, in addition to the GWOT medal, new decorations that characterize the real missions in Iraq and Afghanistan, two that are distinctive and honor their sacrifice, the Iraq and Afghanistan Liberation Medals.

What we do today is not without precedent; Congress has been responsible for recognizing the sacrifice and courage of our military forces throughout history. Congress has had a significant and historically central role in authorizing military decoration. Our Nation's highest military decorations were authorized by Congress, including: the Medal of Honor, the Air Force Cross, the Navy Cross, the Army's Distinctive Service Cross, the Silver Star, and the Distinguished Flying Cross.

We have also authorized campaign and liberation medals similar to what we hope to accomplish with this legislation. A partial list includes the Spanish War Service Medal, the Army Occupation of Germany Medal, the World War II Victory Medal, the Berlin Airlift Medal, the Korean Service Medal, and the Prisoner of War Medal.

The list goes on and on. The great men and women of our military forces are doing their jobs every day in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is time to do our job and honor them with an award that truly stands for their heroic service, the Iraq and Afghanistan Liberation Medals.

I ask unanimous consent that an article from the Army Times and the text of the bill be printed in the Record.